Jump to content

JPreto

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JPreto

  1. Tried looking at your profile using both, Explorer 10 and latest version of Chrome. They both show your DNF text to be a tad bit below the found and trackable texts. Yup, "Terrain" in your case you should try this code: <div class='stat' style='position:relative; top:-229px; left:408px; height:0px;'> | <img style="vertical-align:sub" src='/images/icons/32/dnf.png' alt='' height="15" width="15" /> 376 DNF Logs </div> The problem is only TOP position that should be -229px for him... This depends on the size of the picture you use! I do a lot of browsing through my phone and the codes used placed the dnf count over the location section - as it does with yours and other people who are using this code (mudfrog, terratin). So I deleted it until I have time to work further with it or find a profile where the display is cleaner. I am probably one of the few who will ever look at my profile - and even one of the fewer who are likely to look at it through a phone - but because I do, it got in the way for me and that was enough. The problem is the "responsiveness" of the general Groundspeak page... It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to make some coding that will work both in "normal" browsers and "mobile" browsers. Check back if you can solve this problem! Thanks!
  2. Tried looking at your profile using both, Explorer 10 and latest version of Chrome. They both show your DNF text to be a tad bit below the found and trackable texts. Yup, "Terrain" in your case you should try this code: <div class='stat' style='position:relative; top:-229px; left:408px; height:0px;'> | <img style="vertical-align:sub" src='/images/icons/32/dnf.png' alt='' height="15" width="15" /> 376 DNF Logs </div> The problem is only TOP position that should be -229px for him... This depends on the size of the picture you use!
  3. Please quote your authority for the proposition that a "Needs Maintenance" log creates an obligation for the reviewer to take action. Where did Geocaching HQ say this? I may have missed a memo. This issue has already been talked here in this forum many times, this is basically the difference between a "cooperative reviewer" and a "rules-enforcer reviewer". As more and more people join the game, the amount of people that don´t respect the simple rules/guidelines of the game also grow, and from what I recall, last time I saw the guidelines it clearly said that: and also As far as I know the option of disabling a cache listing is only available for the CO, a reviewer or a Lackey and I also think that one of the reviewer roles, and also all geocachers, is to "keep the listings accurate", right? If a geocacher cannot Disable a cache owned by another person, nor can he post a Needs Disable (not existing log option) the only person that can do this is a reviewer or a Lackey. And again I say what I said before: and by using the verb "should" (like GS likes so much to use this terminology) I am telling that he should, not that he is forced to do it, because in that case I would use the verb "must".
  4. Funny story!!!! Mental note: "This is one of the reasons why you always take photos of the cache spot in several angles. Check!"
  5. I always talk with Park Guards or Police Officers if I see one nearby before trying to search the cache. This way I can avoid situations like this one that was not very pleasing: http://coord.info/GLDDV9PZ Sometimes the Park Guards helped me searching for the cache. I always think that informing the authorities helps the game and protects the cache because if they see anyone searching in the place where the cache is they understand it is a game and not someone placing a bomb or hiding drugs.
  6. CACHE COP, CACHE COP!!!! What you´re gonna do, what you´re gonna do when they come for you... Cache cop!!! I am a cache cop myself, even tho most geocachers don´t agree with what you are doing I think it should be something that all geocachers should do, which is: "Trying to keep the listing accurate!" What is recommended by Groundspeak (GS) is that you post a note or a Needs Maintenance note on the cache. If it is "under maintenance" for a long period of time (GS talks about 4 weeks but can be more) and it should be disabled by a reviewer. If nothing works and you think that the cache should be archived and no longer be part of the listing feel free to post a "Needs Archive" and explain the reasons for that. If a "Needs Archive" log is posted the reviewers will be alerted by it, all other types of posts do not alert reviewers. Just a warning, don´t except to have many support by acting like this, most geocachers don´t like Need Archive or Needs Maintenance logs. Just read topics like this one: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=324829 Cheers and happy caching!
  7. In my opinion it depends on: 1) Cache placement - if it´s hard to get or not 2) Type of the cache - it´s different to post a DNF in a Nano than a 10 gallon container 3) Who posts the DNF - if it is a new player or an experienced one 4) The content of the post - if the log says that he was on the right place maybe only one DNF is needed But above all, as a cache owner, I would say that if you are not sure about the conditions of the cache, by the posts (being DNF or even FOUND IT), it is your responsibility to check it and make the listings accurate to the present situation. This is the main goal of the game, after finding caches, of course!
  8. Hahahahhaha!!!! I live in Brazil and Geocache in Brazil... Here we have around 2000 caches, the reviewers are Portuguese, live 8.000km away and have 2-4h difference. Put yourself in line!!!!!
  9. I had to tweek mine... this was the code for me: <div class='stat' style='position:relative; top:-219px; left:394px; height:0px;'> | <img style="vertical-align:sub" src='/images/icons/32/dnf.png' alt='' height="15" width="15" /> 376 DNF Logs </div> Cheers!
  10. There is sometimes more to the story than you can read on the cache page. If the reviewer has stepped in and disabled it, it will eventually get caught up in a periodic sweep and get archived. But sometimes there are reasons to keep them disabled longer than you might like that are only known to the reviewer and cache owner. Right, even of the CO is long gone form the game!
  11. Your local reviewers will most likely look at these caches the next time they sweep the country looking for, well, caches disabled for more than X weeks. Maintenance requests are originated towards the cache owners. Some geocachers don't consider them critical. Some geocachers ignore them. Some geocachers filter all the automated messages coming from Geocaching.com. Have you tried contacting each and every owner of these caches? Offer a hand? No, the local reviewers only know about the caches for which you post SBA logs. All the other caches, unless specifically pointed out, do not raise any kind of "alarm". Ohhh... this is getting great, now one of the reviewers apears!!!!! Maybe I there are different guidelines in Brazil but the ones I read are here: All the caches I have pointed out are over 12 weeks, some over 24 weeks... And I sent you and email last week with the list and I didn´t even got an answer. Right?! I forgot, the word "may" is there... so you can do whatever you want! Great job then, thanks for keeping the listings accurate! And by the way... "Offer a hand?!?!" to other geocachers that don´t maintain their own caches, criticize me for posting NM and steal my caches... yeahhh sure!!!!
  12. Considering that all these caches were disabled by the reviewers, what do you mean by saying that they "did nothing"? Ohhh the prodigal Forum Moderator has returned!!!! All geocachers can read that the last log (the one that disable the cache) was made by a reviewer and I specifically split all the caches into 2 groups: "Needs Maintenance for 3 months" and "Disable for 3 Months" meaning that nothing was done by the reviewers in 3 months. But if you really want the truth and spare the clicks on each lin for other forum reads here it goes: http://coord.info/GC29A1K - May 27th 2014, Disabled by owner after 2 DNFs... Nothing done by the reviewers after that date. http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F - Feb 7th 2014, NM request... July 15th 2014, Disable by reviewer... Nothing done by the reviewers after that date. http://coord.info/GC3HKN3 - Jun 8th 2014, NA request... June 24th 2014, Disable by reviewer... Nothing done by the reviewers after that date. http://coord.info/GC1ET3H - http://coord.info/GC3E81P http://coord.info/GC2243F http://coord.info/GC3FWFV http://coord.info/GC1FTNY http://coord.info/GC1HCAT http://coord.info/GC3YKMX I´m not going to continue but you cann see that most caches have problems for over 6 months and still not archived!!!! Great call Mr. "Rui de Almeida" you really made your point here...
  13. Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken. It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture. It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination. Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going. I agree. Reviewers and finders that help keep their area clean of junk, abandoned caches promote the quality of the game. Yes I agree with that! However, why the negativity towards a NA outweigh the quality of the game? Why a good amount of people are so fast to call other "cache cop" when they are doing their job? It seems that only a few will do the "dirty job" when we all agree to post NA or NM logs when we first signed up GC.com. No... Cache cop is bad, very bad for the game!!!! But, as I told in many other topics, being a Cache Cop is a duty of all geocachers... Simple!
  14. Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken. It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture. It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination. Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going. Maybe, just maybe, one of the reasons that are so few geocachers in Brazil is exactly this: "Many new geocachers are quickly frustrated by trying to find a cache and it isn´t even there because old geocachers don´t do the proper maintenance work and reviewers leave their listings enabled even knowing the problem with the cache!"
  15. Just editing the description and the hint is not against the guideline. It depends on the edit. FTF races are not part of Groundspeak's guidelines. A cache owner could also tell a friend of some cache before the cache gets published. Likewise help can be offered to some cachers and not to all for a difficult cache. This does not result in a fair race, but does not break any Groundspeak guideline. Of course an edit can result in a problem with the guidelines, but just the facts you outline do not suffice to accuse someone of having broken the guidelines. Editing after publishing is not a breach in the guidelines, I didn´t say it was... but editing something to be against the guidelines is. In this case he changed the description so people had to send him an email explaining how the cache coordinates were obtained, otherwise he would delete the find. ALR are not allowed except in Challenge or Grandfathered caches. That cache was neither case. It was so that it was the reviewer that disabled the cache, as you can see in the logs. The FTF part was mentioned just to understand the reason why he didn´t want me to be the first one to find the cache...
  16. Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands. Not time... As you can see I´ve visited at least once all these caches! There are only around 2000 active caches in Brazil and I´ve visited almost half of them! And everytime I go to a cache, can´t find it and post a DNF I put it on my watchlist... It´s simple to manage a watchlist!
  17. So should I post a NA in all these caches? Disabled for 3 months: http://coord.info/GC29A1K http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F http://coord.info/GC3HKN3 http://coord.info/GC1ET3H http://coord.info/GC3E81P http://coord.info/GC2243F http://coord.info/GC3FWFV http://coord.info/GC1FTNY http://coord.info/GC1HCAT http://coord.info/GC3YKMX Maintenance requests for 3 months: http://coord.info/GC2243F http://coord.info/GC3FD6Y http://coord.info/GC3D1V7 http://coord.info/GC3D1RP http://coord.info/GC3D1YM http://coord.info/GC3EBGK http://coord.info/GC3D0N3 http://coord.info/GC3NZ7R http://coord.info/GC184QF http://coord.info/GC1FPM3 http://coord.info/GC1FPGD http://coord.info/GC2KQ64 http://coord.info/GC2YH6X http://coord.info/GC1E7PM http://coord.info/GC3MQ3D http://coord.info/GC1GPPD http://coord.info/GC2EARV http://coord.info/GC1J1P3 http://coord.info/GC22NKY The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"
  18. Really, Groudspeak? You have not created an editlog table that stores a copy of each cache description, as it was, previous to an update? Give reviewers the power to see how the description has been changed over time. Well... same thing happened here in Brazil! Edit after publication breaching the guidelines... The CO (actually considered the most prominent geocacher in Brazil) edit both the cache description and hint so that I couldn´t get the cache, be the FTF and get the price of: a T-shirt, a 1 year premium membership and a TB. By doing this he went against the guidelines and the cache as disabled after I warned the reviewers. He then, after just a few days, enable the cache so that a new guy & wife could get the FTF and the prizes... then he disabled it again to edit the description and hints so that they follow the guidelines, it was approved and enabled again, and nobody else found it until today. http://coord.info/GC4ZGHZ Just see the logs and see the other caches of the series!
  19. Isn´t a throwdown an "unofficial" cache placed near a "offical" cache if someone thinks it is gone missing?
  20. My next cache will be a dead leaf on the floor of a tree... pick one and you have found it!!!! Just don´t forget to sign!!!! A throwdown is not a cache but a container that someone left behind!
  21. Great definition of both sides!!!! I am in the first group!!!!
  22. I think this log is self explanatory.... http://coord.info/GLDDV9PZ
  23. Yes, this is true. Back to the point at hand, however, traditional geocaches are not, and have never been, subject to any sort of additional approval criteria that requires them to be accessible by a "reasonable" number of geocachers. i.e. The space station cache and thermal vent cache are permissible as traditionals, but a challenge cache that requires you to find the space station cache and/or the thermal vent cache are likely not. Undue Restrictions? State's & Icon Dreams Challenge Ran across it today in a bookmark on one of my caches. Requires finding 14 icons in at least twelve different states. The APE Cache icon is included. CO seems to be accepting finds on Mission 9: Tunnel of Light Reclaimed. But that is a traditional! Not an APE cache. There is one APE cache left, but that is undue restrictions to have to travel to Brasil to find it, or Washington to find the fake one. I did find Crab Creek in Maryland, so if I find a Vertigo, and travel to Texas, I would be qualified. But listing it as a requirement is 'undue restrictions'. Not really... The last surviving real APE it´s only 250km from where I live! Tell me your name and I´ll sign it for you, even take photo of the log...
  24. Have you heard that geocaching.com has very nice feature called "adopt a cache"? This really seems the case of it!!!!
  25. About the 90% argument... If 90% of the people would start stealing, would you do it also? Com`on... haven´t you got better arguments?
×
×
  • Create New...