Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChriBli

  1. So Groundspeak uses IE for their website testing? That would explain a lot...
  2. Is this really the intended layout? I thought there was something wrong. Is the checkmark really supposed to cover the text, and the box to extend to the window edge and beyond? Strange...
  3. One could also use the "Map Compare" tool in Project-GC, I just tried it and it works fine with graham&linda. The downside is that it only compares two user's finds at a time.
  4. There is definitely something funny with specifically the ampersand, I just tried a username with space in it as well as the OP's username with apostrophes and they both work.
  5. Me too, Firefox 86.0.1 on Win10, https://coord.info/GC7EPCP.
  6. That doesn't explain why it doesn't work. These names are grandfathered, not disallowed. Everything should work for those already created. Actually I don't understand the benefits of grandfathering something that you will have to support perpetually anyway. Or could the idea be to gradually remove support for special characters until people just give up and change their usernames?
  7. You wouldn't be using an old or unusual web browser, would you? I've been living with this problem on an old Firefox version ever since the "search map code refactor" last fall. There was some thread about it that dealed also with a bunch of other issues, but it was clear that this was happening also to Safari users. https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/359138-release-notes-website-progressive-release-search-map-code-refactor-october-26-2020/ It was said that the issue was looked into, but then the thread was just closed without resolution (to my issue at least).
  8. This is the problem these days when no one seems to do anything themselves, instead there are long chains of licensing and third-party SW. But Geocaching HQ is a paying customer to Invision. Maybe they should be nagging in Invision's forum every time they change their product for the worse?
  9. Not entirely true. Clicking the plus sign adds that cache to a list, you have to select which one every time. But you can instead check all the caches you want added to a list and add them all at once, selecting list only once. The marginal benefit of having the plus sign is that it saves you one click if you want to add just one cache to a list.
  10. OK, I wasn't sure how it used to be. Couldn't remember seeing "Watch (0)" before. But it is still possible to add your own caches to your watchlist, and I am quite certain I couldn't do that before. Just as the OP says.
  11. That's right, good catch. That I can live with, though.
  12. Number of watchers seems to be back, both on own and other's caches. I can still watch my own cache though (increasing the watch count by one), and I can see that some caches have zero watchers which should not be possible if the CO is always watching.
  13. I live just north of Stockholm, Sweden, been caching since 2013 and will have 4000 finds in a couple of days. My cache centroid is 113 km south of my home, but that's due to vacation caching at lower latitudes. Otherwise I suspect it would be somewhere along the line from home to work. I cache at a very steady rate of 40 finds per month. Last month 79 new caches were placed within 50 km of my home, and I still have over 8,000 unfound inside that radius. So for the time being, local cache depletion is not one of my problems.
  14. Through some experimenting I found that the mobile interface is chosen as soon as the activity section is 948 pixels wide or less. The annoying scrollbar appears already at 965. I get 966 pixels with my 1600 pixel screen! So the answer to the question is that you need at least 1600 pixels. You have to buy a wider device.
  15. The screen size appears to be 1260 pixels. That it can not be reproduced on 1080p (1920 pixels wide?) is no mystery. I have a 1600 pixel screen, I see the desktop version. If I on the other hand have the DevTools panel on the right edge of the screen instead of at the bottom, I get the mobile version. Then I also have the almost-full scrollbar at the bottom. I guess the question is, how wide a screen do you need to get the desktop interface?
  16. So travel_pilot was just an example. Even though it is pretty clear to me that this is a bot, I can not be absolutely certain that it isn't some human logging actual finds, not necessarily on the correct date, and definitely using some kind of auto-generation of log texts. And that I think is the simple explanation to why HQ wouldn't ban such an account, they couldn't possibly spend the amount of time that so far has gone into investigating this single account (without conclusive result) into every account that is reported by someone.
  17. About that. When I do that, the list starts out nicely with one row per entry. After a while however, it apparently encounters a cache name that is a bit longer, and then it turns into this: For some reason it doesn't break the long cache name, it breaks the date of ALL entries in the list. Yeah, I know the list produced by the old search also had two lines per entry, but it contained a lot more info and it didn't break the date. The most serious problems are of course still that you can't do this for another player's finds, that the list takes literally minutes to load even for my humble find count and that browsing it using the scroll bar is virtually impossible during this time, and that finding out what I logged on a specific date four years ago is painful to say the least, and that I can't even think of a way to figure out what my find #1234 was.
  18. I think the difference between a search interface and a browse interface may not be obvious to everyone. I think most people just want to be able to see a list, ordered by their own found date, of all their (and other's) found caches. Yeah, and hidden as well, although that is usually far less. As I have also pointed out before, searching for caches to go after and listing of found caches ARE to very different use cases. I didn't expect both use cases to be handled by the same search interface. I didn't even consider listing my found caches a search. I mean, does listing my found caches involve searching through all the world's caches for the ones that my account has found? I would have imagined that there was a already a list tied to my account of the caches I found, in the correct order. Even so, there should be nothing preventing presenting these two very different searches differently. And if it has to be the same, then it was better before! Even for the use case of finding caches to go after, very few people seem to prefer the new search. But I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that nykkole's last post means that this has been understood now, and that the old search will stay available for the time being.
  19. I think nykkole's latest post shows that Groundspeak has heard our pleas, realized that the new search is unsuitable for listing found/hidden caches (hopefully not just own, but also others) and that there may be some other constructive feedback here as well. So why don't we all just sit back and wait to hear from them again. The old search will remain until then.
  20. Wait.. What? In my basic member days, PMO caches were not visible on the browse map. I know that I was sometimes able to exploit a glitch where the browse map seemed to not know who I was and therefore showed everything (all marked as unfound) and I would be able to find the odd PMO cache by looking at the map. Getting actual coordinates was a no-no. Has this changed? Don't get me wrong, I'm all against silly restrictions for basic members, but if it was one restriction that actually made some sense it was to be able to withhold even approximate coordinates of high-value caches from potentially malicious muggles with a free account.
  21. Perhaps the PMO caches should not appear at all in a basic member search? No, wait... then they wouldn't be able to see what they are missing out on.
  22. There is no logic behind this except that GS may think it helps to convince basic members to go premium. There is however a lot in this update that could have the opposite effect.
  23. You can see archived caches in find lists and hide lists (yours/other's). See picture. But if you remove "you have found", then "active and archived" disappears as well. You can not apply that filter to a general search. I'm pretty sure this was the way it was before too, althogh I think I saw someone reporting that it was briefly possible to filter for archived with the new search. For some reason I can not understand Groundspeak don't want us to search for archived caches. You can search for a word or part of a word in the cache name though, see the other picture. That's a search for all caches in Uppsala, Sweden that I have not found with "fågel" in the name. Not sure if it was ever possible to search for words in the description, I have never done that.
  • Create New...