Jump to content

cezanne

Members
  • Posts

    6753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cezanne

  1. quote:Originally posted by Jeremy:Please provide a link so I can see an example. Here it is: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59813 (look at the list of items at the bottom of the cache description). The same issue arises for all my other caches except one where I did not use a table. Cezanne
  2. I am wondering why both horizontal and vertical lines in simple tables are not displayed any longer. The html code of my caches seems still to be the same (I checked the table part). The lines have disappeared in all my caches where tables are used. My tables are neither a security risk nor have any tags be removed. I do not understand at all what is going on. Until now I was happy that at least at gc.com cache descriptions done in html have essentially the same look at the site than in my browser (I am using only a very restricted set of commands, no colours etc). Cezanne
  3. Hi, I friend of mine could not access the gc.com website starting from this morning. It seems that the gc firewall was blocking the IP number although neither my friend nor her husband have ever tried to use the gc.com site for anything else than it is designed for (they are not offering any kind of service, are not downloading any sort of data or whatever). I recommended them to contact gc.com, but in any case, I'd like to know whether other people had similar experiences, or whether someone can explain why such annoying things can happen. Is there any way to contact gc.com in such a case that is quicker than writing to the contact address from where one usually gets a reply only after a week? Regards+thanks in advance Cezanne
  4. quote:I don't mind variations. Your original posting made me think otherwise. It was you who asked how it can happen that some caches are rejected while other comparable ones are approved. I provided you with one of the reasons. I do not reply to your other question as I believe that it will lead this thread into a wrong direction. (Just as a comment: I never claimed that someone is approving a cache the description of which he does not understand at all - doing that would be pretty much crazy.) Cezanne
  5. quote:Originally posted by Fobrokel:Yes, all my cache descriptions are bi-lingual. I consider it necessary with respect to the worldwide geocaching actions. I guess that you did misunderstand me. I also regard an English cache description as very important, and all my caches do have one. (I even start with the English version, and kind of translate it then into German.) I also log in English, but got kind of flamed for doing that in Germany. quote:Never heard of "tactical submissions" using just German cache descriptions (but I don't read the forums quite often). This did not happen in a Groundspeak forum. It is not a secret that quite a number of cachers in Germany are not happy with the process of cache approval and in particular do not feel able to argue in English about their caches. quote:Contrary to your opinion, I'd suggest to make English descriptions mandatory, because a cache description even in poor English would be helpful to ALL cachers than none in English. Language barriers, namely English, are disappearing, and I believe there are very few people not having at least a friend or relative with some English knowledge, who could len a helping hand. Let me rephrase my opinion differently. Personally, I have a strong preference for English. I travel a lot, and also make short time visits to countries the languages of which I do not speak at all. For that reason, I am even glad to encounter English logs (to be precise, it helps me if there exists at least one log in English - I do not mind if there are also logs in other languages). I was recently in Denmark and appreciated a lot that all caches I did there, except one had an English description. Unfortunately, the situation in Germany differs considerably from the situation in Scandinavia or the Netherlands. In the Eastern part of Germany, there are quite some cachers who have never studied English at school. Moreover, English is hardly present on TV in Germany. There are many cachers who even have troubles in reading English. Writing English is even much harder for them. quote:The basic problem, at least in my perception, is not language, but the regulatory inconsistenca. I do not agree as there are a large number of caches in Germany which clearly violate the rules, but this went unrecognized due to language issues. It is also interesting to note that in certain regions of Germany caches which would be classified as micros nearly everywhere else are classified as regular caches. Cezanne.
  6. quote:Originally posted by cezanne: quote:Originally posted by Fobrokel:This is NOT to complain about my new virt being archived, but to encourage the approvers to apply the tightened approval rules consistently. I support the "back to the roots" issue. But if they correctly reject a new cache, the rules should apply to ALL new caches of the same kind. Fobrokel I am not an approver, but as I know the situation in Germany reasonably well, I'd like to ask you a question. I guess that you did offer an English version of your cache description, didn't you? I noticed that in Germany there are quite a number of caches which are described only in German and which most likely would not have been approved if they had included an English version as well. It seems that I am not the only one who made that observation. I even came across postings in German geocaching forums that encouraged the cachers to offer only German descriptions since this might help in the approval process. To avoid misunderstandings, let me add that I am not at all in favour of making an English version compulsory as there are quite a number of cachers who do not speak English or whose knowledge of English is too poor. The choice of the offered languages should, however, not be influenced by the cache approval process. Part of the reason for the inconsistencies which certainly exist in Germany is the fact that there are no cache approvers who are native speakers of German. Cezanne
  7. quote:Originally posted by Fobrokel:This is NOT to complain about my new virt being archived, but to encourage the approvers to apply the tightened approval rules consistently. I support the "back to the roots" issue. But if they correctly reject a new cache, the rules should apply to ALL new caches of the same kind. Fobrokel I am not an approver, but as I know the situation in Germany reasonably well, I'd like to ask you a question. I guess that you did offer an English version of your cache description. I noticed that in Germany there are quite a number of caches which are described only in German and which most likely would not have been approved if they had included an English version as well. It seems that I am not the only one who made that observation. I even came across postings in German geocaching forums that encouraged the cachers to offer only German descriptions since this might help in the approval process. To avoid misunderstandings, let me add that I am not at all in favour of making an English version compulsory as there are quite a number of cachers who do not speak English or whose knowledge of English is too poor. The choice of the offered languages should, however, not be influenced by the cache approval process. Part of the reason for the inconsistencies which certainly exist in Germany is the fact that there are no cache approvers who are native speakers of German. Cezanne
  8. quote:Originally posted by bigeddy:..... there are many ways the quality of traditional caches can be addressed during approval: That's only true as far as more or less formal aspects are regarded. Most of the bad caches I came across are not that easily recognizable, in particular not for an approver who very often even comes from a different country. quote:Area is not restricted. Not so easy to check, but a typical example of an issue which is mainly relevant in countries like the US. quote:Rating fits the description and location. Container is appropriate to the area. How will it ever be possible for an approver to decide this? One needs to know an area quite well to be able to do what you are asking for. quote:Special requirements are clearly noted. How should an approver check this at the time of approval? quote:Adequate grammar and spelling indicate attention to detail. HTML code is used properly. Most cachers I know do not use html code. Many cachers offer their cache descriptions in foreign languages. Most English cache descriptions outside the English speaking countries contain mistakes, however, there is no correlation at all to the quality of the caches. This remains even true if restricted to cache descriptions written in the native language of the cache owner. There is another problem with your suggestion: There are many countries for which there are no approvers who are native speakers of the language of those countries. Often it is not even easy for the approvers to fully understand the descriptions written in foreign languages, but it will certainly be impossible for most of them to spot spelling mistakes or subtle grammar mistakes. (In languages like German and French, for example, it is not uncommon to find spelling or grammar mistakes even in quality newspapers.) quote: The approvers are, by and large, doing a good job but the approval system could be easier to use and more consistent. I agree that the approval process suffers at the moment from quite a number of inconsistencies. I do not believe, however, that such a system would be easy to create. Moreover, I feel that the more rules one introduces, the more difficult it will become to take into account the differences between different countries and caching regions. Already now tools like the rating system and some of the rules used in the approval process are trimmed to the situation in Northern America which differs in some aspects quite considerably from Europe, Africa or whatever .... Cezanne.
  9. quote:Originally posted by ~erik~:As a cache approver, though, it's much easier to recognize the hallmarks of a lame virt when reviewing a submitted cache than recognize a lame physical cache. I fully agree. quote:If you'll look at some of the virts that were posted a year or two ago before the guidelines were tightened up I think you'll also be able to spot the lame ones without leaving the comfort of your home. That's certainly true for the majority of them. The point I tried to made is, however, that often the cache description of physical caches does not contain sufficient information for judging whether or not a reasonable level of effort has been invested by the hider. In my opinion the approvers do a very good job. My comment was not meant to critize their work. The problem is just that they only have the cache description, and they are not clairvoyant . As the newbie caches are regarded, I do not feel that the majority of the bad caches I came across had been hidden by beginners.
  10. quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat: quote: interesting ways to use the GPS, good places to visit, and quality hides that challenge, educate, delight and amuse But there is already a website for that. http://www.waypoint.org I do not agree at all. Apart from the fact that in many countries there exist hardly any waypoints of interest on that site (keep in mind geocaching is a world-wide activity), most of the listed waypoints are just objects that could be also found in guide books or are rather well known. A virtual cache that includes puzzles and tasks to be solved and that guides the cachers to places that are not that well-known, goes far beyond a listing of waypoints. quote: quote: Give me a quality virtual or a benchmark anytime. That's exactly what they are trying to do. Make sure virtuals are quality. Personally, I was sick of being brought to a spot only to find a plaque saying something like "this tree was planted in memory of Kenneth Johnston". I would have become sick of such caches either (they do not exist in my area, however), but it seems to me that this is more a question of quality and not of the fact whether a cache is virtual or not. I have seen at least as many bad physical caches as bad virtual caches. I prefer a *well-done* virtual cache by far to a film canister dropped off at 2 meters distance from a big street or to a film canister hidden under a stone in a park behind such bushes which are abused by people as public toilette area. There are many wonderful parks in urban areas with very nice spots to be visited, but with no *nice* places for putting a cache which are not too crowded. (The cache situation in Paris mentioned some postings above is a good example.) Personally, I do believe that it is not even possible that the approval process takes care of the quality of the caches (regardless of their type). It is up to the cachers themselves to put a higher value on quality.
  11. quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:Sounds like doublespeak to me. ***** I agree. In this regard it is interesting to note the different wording of the two statements that we need to check since a few days (see quotation below). It seems that they do not even expect us to *understand* the terms of use agreement. (Maybe I am too cynical.) quote:Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement. BTW: In my opinion both statements that need to be checked are problematic insofar as there are many cachers out there who are not able to understand a rather complex English text. (Some of them do not speak English at all.) Cezanne.
  12. quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:..... It says that copyright REMAINS with the original author. You are only giving a license to the site to use the material here. So what's wrong with that? Are you reading another term someplace else? Probably he is worried about this part of the terms of use quote:By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.
  13. I recommend that you repost your inquiry in the German speaking forum (it does not matter if you write English) and, if you have access to newsgroups, also in alt.rec.geocaching. I guess that all caches in and around Vienna are safe, but some of them require longer hikes, and you do not mention if you are used to longer hikes. If you write more specifically for which type of caches you are searching, the local cachers from Vienna might be able to help you. I have not yet visited one of the Viennese caches myself. Some of the shorter caches in Vienna are Squirrel's Treasure, Jubilaeumskisterl and Cordon Bleu. Perhaps have a look at one of them and then search for the closest. Many of the logs are in English and so you might be able to make a first selection. Happy caching in Austria Cezann
  14. I was not talking about formatting to the wishes of everyone. I was not asking for a font of >20 points. The old version could not have been that bad. It was used for a very long time without anyone complaining about the large font size on the list of search results. Note that I *do not* talk about the cache pages. They did not change and the standard font size used there is fine with me. I had a look at the CNN pages. Even the normal text there is displayed in a slightly larger font than the cache names on the new list of search results. The heading lines of texts are considerably larger. In my opinion, the names of caches in the list should have a similar importance than headers. BTW: Your suggestion of using a scrolling mouse requires the availability of such a mouse. At many places people have to work with the mouses which are available and cannot choose. Regards Cezanne
  15. It is definitely not true that using a modern browser solves the problem of the much too small font size. Neither Netscape 7.0 nor Mozilla (I tested three platforms, Linux, Win NT and Digital Unix) lead to a larger font than Netscape 4.7x. Despite the fact that the new version offers more options, I *by far* preferred the old version since it was better suited for shortsighted people. I am aware of the fact that I can change settings, but I am not regarding this as a feasible work-around since it has effects to all the web-pages I am going to view. I feel that the GC.com web site should not be designated only to users who either have very good eyes or are using the awful MS-IE as browser. Regards Cezanne [This message was edited by cezanne on June 20, 2003 at 07:52 AM.]
×
×
  • Create New...