Nylimb

I agree with most of the complaints that other people have made, and I have one more to add: The text that I type in the new log page is grey (RGB 74,74,74), which makes it hard for my old eyes to read. In the old log page, it was black (RGB 0,0,0), which is easier to read. Contrast is good; black text on a white background is best. I've noticed similar greyness elsewhere on the site, and in some places it's even worse: In the Send Email to a User page, it's an even lighter grey (RGB 126,125,122), so I always have to compose my messages in TextEdit and then copy and paste them to gc.com.

Before the change to Markdown, URLs that weren't indicated by HTML or BBCode showed up as "(visit link)" and were clickable. Can you please modify the conversion tool so that it changes such URLs to the appropriate Markdown?

I just marked one of my geocoins as missing. That created a log of type "Mark Missing" which said "The owner has set this Trackable as missing.". Then I tried to edit the log to thank the cache owner for letting me know that the coin was missing. When I tried to submit the edited log, I got an error message saying "You can't use this log type when there is no waypoint available.". Can someone explain what that means? Is it supposed to be impossible to edit a "Mark Missing" log? If so, why doesn't the error message say that instead of mentioning a waypoint?

That's helpful, but, as Cachologen mentioned, we also need a way to identify which logs need to be changed. I've written about 9600 logs. Probably fewer than 1000 of those will require editing, but I really don't want to look through all 9600 to determine which ones do.

No, I don't have a smartphone. I'm using Safari version 4.1.3 on an iMac with OS X 10.4.11. When I started this thread I was housesitting for some friends and using Safari version 5.1.10 on their iMac with OS X 10.6.8. I got the same error message there. I've also tried Firefox 16.0.1 (on my friends' computer) and Firefox 3.6.28 (on mine). The error message is different in Firefox, as shown in my first post, but I can't log in using that either.

I still can't log in. Ranger Fox, have you heard anything about this from your Groundspeak contacts?

All I see there are a plus sign on the left, to add a bookmark for the current page, and a circular arrow on the right, to refresh the page. Thanks. You might also mention that I have the same problem logging into Waymarking.com. (I just hope whatever changed at Wherigo.com and Waymarking.com doesn't happen to geocaching.com!) Meanwhile, a friend with a newer computer downloaded and emailed a few local Wherigo cartridges to me. There are some others that I'd like to try, but I'm reluctant to impose upon him any further.

I don't know how to do that. I tried opening Preferences in Safari and looking at the Security section. The only things that seemed like they might be relevant were "Fraudulent sites: Warn when visiting a fraudulent website" and "Ask before sending a non-secure form from a secure website". I tried turning those off, but I still got the error. Changing things in the Firefox Preferences didn't work either.

Recently I've been unable to log in to Wherigo.com, so I can't download any cartridges for the area that I'm currently visiting. I had no trouble doing so last year, using the same computer and browsers, but now I get error messages. Specifically, I'm using an iMac running OS X 10.6.8, and using Safari version 5.1.10. From a Wherigo cartridge page, like Psychedelic Tree, I click on the "Sign In" link in the upper right corner. I get this error message: Safari can't open the page. Safari can't open the page "http://www.Wherigo.com/login/default.aspx? ReturnUrl=/cartridge/details.aspx?CGUID=3b77932f-4dd4-4c01-b86f- 1fc2ebba864c" because Safari can't establish a secure connection to the server "www.Wherigo.com". I've also tried using Firefox 16.0.1. That gives me this error message: Secure Connection Failed An error occurred during a connection to www.Wherigo.com. Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s). (Error code: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap) The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem. Alternatively, use the command found in the help menu to report this broken site. Can someone explain why I'm getting errors now but everything worked fine last year? Is there some way that I can download this cartridge and others?

The notification email contains a link to the sender's profile, so we can reply by clicking on the "Send Email" link there. Of course, if the sender is Unverified that won't work. So for people like me whose browsers are too old to access the MC, things are essentially back to the way they were before the MC was created. Definitely an improvement over what we've had for the last month or so.

Seems to me it would be even more user friendly to just include an email link right there, instead of saying go someplace else and use that email link. I could have put a normal mail-to: link but that would have forced people to include their email address in the message. I don't know how to include a link to the GC.com e-mail system, so I just pointed it out to them. The link that you need looks something like this: <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/email/?guid=3773dc9c-79ad-4338-8089-c91500001d6c">Send Email</a> The "3773...1d6c" is a UUID (universally unique identifier) that's different for every cacher. (The one shown above is mine, with a few digits changed to avoid accidents.) There are several ways to find your own UUID (or someone else's), depending on what browser you're using. In mine, I can right-click on the "Send Email" link on someone's profile page and choose "Copy Link". If that doesn't work for you, you can view the HTML source of the profile page (however that's done in your browser) and scan for "Click to E-Mail User". Once you find your own UUID, you can put the link on any of your web pages, whether they're at gc.com or not.

Seems to me it would be even more user friendly to just include an email link right there, instead of saying go someplace else and use that email link. That's a good idea, and I'll probably do that for all of my caches if Groundspeak doesn't fix the problem soon. But it would be better if Groundspeak would fix it, by letting cache owners choose whether or not to have "Message this owner" links on all of our cache and trackable pages. If Groundspeak wants people to be able to contact cache owners directly from a cache page instead of going to our profile pages, then they should let us choose whether we want the "Message this owner" link or an "Email this owner" link instead. And of course if email notifications of MC messages included the message content, as has been suggested many times, then this wouldn't be such an issue; we could treat incoming MC messages just like incoming emails.

For those of you who can access MC messages, that's true. For me, it depends on why the PM fails. If the failure is caused by a temporary problem at Groundspeak, then the sender can try again, with either PM or MC, and I'll probably get the second message. But if there's something wrong with my email account, then neither another PM nor an MC message will reach me. I might eventually notice some sort of alert on a gc.com page saying that there's a message, but I won't know who sent it or what it's about. So the MC doesn't make it easier for anyone to contact me; it makes it slightly harder. Do you live in a cave? If even with an "old browser", at you do get a "Message Icon", you already know people tried to contact you -- the fact that you also didn't get the email notification that there was an MC message posted means you already receive limited communications from Groundspeak. Supposing you are getting the email notification, you might be able to then PM the cacher, explain the conditions in your cave, request the message be forwarded to PM, and see how that goes. You don't even need to answer immediately, the point is that you do answer. Use a new browser (check nearby caves for new browsers) and read the message, and then ask the cacher to use PM. But if the reason they used MC is because they can't contact you on PM, that avenue still won't work. When receiving an App "Message", that's a good point to request that the cacher get "verified" so they can use PM rather than MC. If a cacher finds your Earthcache (as an example) and posts the answers on MC, the cacher may get his log reinstated if you delete it "due to no answers" (your browser "being too old to read the post")and if the finder disputes the deletion. The MC message is there, email PM can be completely broken and yet GS can tell that the answer was in fact posted, so there's no CO insisting that, say, "things over here are too old for Geocaching". Typically when PM email evaporates, it's due to the cacher's own email whitelist or blacklist or server issues unbeknownst to him, but MC works even with even a GS server problem. And suppose MC itself is bad today, the sender can see if the message worked or not, and repost later if it failed. With PM site issues, communication may be harder using PM than MC. Cachers routinely must switch to another platform to use various site features, and they abide. If MC were a real thing (let's suppose it is for this discussion), it would work in a wide range of systems when fully rolled out. It would have to work at least as well as the rest of the site does in an "old web browser". Yes, and of course it would need to be fast and reliable. That is, it must be better than most site features including PM. Which also could use some work. I can't figure out what your point is, and I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you. For me, the MC in its present form is worse than useless, since I can't just ignore it if someone tries to contact me using it. If Groundspeak fixes it so that the email notification includes the message content, then it'll be fine: I'll continue to use email to send messages, and I'll treat incoming MC messages just like incoming emails.

It sure would be nice if they'd spend more time fixing things than breaking them. Uh, you're putting red "XXXs" on things. Yes, I'm trying to fix what Groundspeak broke. Before the introduction of the MC, people had no trouble contacting me through the email link in my profile. Now they may try to use the MC, and I won't see their message, just a notification that they sent something to me. I get enough spam already, without posting my email address where anyone can see it. When someone uses PM to contact me, my reply includes my address. It's an email link in the sense that PM messages are sent to my email. For those of you who can access MC messages, that's true. For me, it depends on why the PM fails. If the failure is caused by a temporary problem at Groundspeak, then the sender can try again, with either PM or MC, and I'll probably get the second message. But if there's something wrong with my email account, then neither another PM nor an MC message will reach me. I might eventually notice some sort of alert on a gc.com page saying that there's a message, but I won't know who sent it or what it's about. So the MC doesn't make it easier for anyone to contact me; it makes it slightly harder. I hope that the red X's and the note on my profile page will fix that, but it would be better if I could opt out of having the MC links on all of my pages. Alternatively, if the email notifications of MC messages included their content, that would work fine for me too.

It sure would be nice if they'd spend more time fixing things than breaking them. I was afraid of that. I've tried to figure out a way to position them so they'll work in any browser, but so far I haven't succeeded. (My knowledge of HTML is rudimentary.)

I can't use the new Message Center, because it's not compatible with my browsers. I can't upgrade my browsers because my computer is too old, and I can't afford to buy a new one. I hope that Groundspeak will give us an opt-out option, but for now I've added some HTML to the beginning of my profile which draws some red X's over the Message Center link, making it unclickable, and adds a note explaining the problem. In case anyone else wants to do something similar, here's what I added: <div class="mxStats" style="position:relative; top:-230px; left:0px; font-size:18px; color:red">XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX</div> <font color="red">NOTE: If you want to contact me, please do not try to use the new Message Center. My computer is too old to be able to access messages left there. Please use the email link above instead.</font><br> This probably won't work in all browsers, since the exact spacing required depends on how the browser displays the page. If anyone who knows more HMTL than I do can suggest any improvements, I'd appreciate it. (I basically copied this, with appropriate modifications, from this post: Show DNFs in profile) I've added similar code to one of my cache pages just to see if it will work. I haven't decided if I'll add it to all of them. Here's the code that I used there: <div class="mxStats" style="position:relative;top:-520px;left:95px;font-size:30px;color:red;">XXXXXXXXX</div>

you don't you just type in the city name (which is the only improvement this new search has brought but then they nerf it cause of the 30 mile/50km limit) 1 step forward and 2 steps back Redn3ck, it's obvious you don't like the new search, but please stop posting inaccurate and inflammatory content or else you will be removed from these threads. I've just reread all of Redn3ck's posts to this thread, and I've reread the Forum Guidelines. I can't see that he's violated any of the rules, so threatening to remove him seems unjustified. There's certainly no rule against posting information that turns out to be inaccurate. That happens a lot; usually someone will point out the inaccuracy and we'll all learn something new. And I don't see anything inflammatory in Redn3ck's posts. He's just expressed the frustration that he, and I, and many others, feel with the new search system. Groundspeak should listen to its users, instead of resorting to threats. Moun10Bike, I think you owe Redn3ck an apology.

Are you talking about ones like Ground Zero: Swansea? If so, here's a way that works for that one: Use the new search to look for caches near "Swansea, MA". Ignore the results and look at the URL of the search results page: https://www.geocaching.com/play/search/@41.74816,-71.18977?origin=Swansea,+MA That contains the base coords for Swansea in decimal degrees format. Convert them to "DDD MM.MMM" format using (for example) the "Other Conversions" link on any cache page. Apply the offsets specified in the Ground Zero: Swansea page, and check the result using the Geochecker link. I just did that and confirmed that I have the right coords. NOTE: The fact that I'm explaining how to use the new search to do something should not be interpreted to mean that I like the new search. I do not!

If you're viewing the webpage of a cache hidden by the user, then you can just click on the link for "other caches found by this user". Otherwise, construct a URL like this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=Nylimb Replace "Nylimb" by the name of the cacher you're interested in. If the name has any spaces in it, replace them by plus signs; e.g.: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=Angelic+Relic Other special characters in the name may have to be changed also. For example, an ampersand (&) should be replaced by "%26": http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=johnny%26cher If you want to see caches hidden by a user instead of those found by the user, change "ul=" to "u=" in the URL.

Unfortunately that does seem to be true. So here's an opportunity for Groundspeak to start a trend in the opposite direction. That doesn't seem to be the case for Groundspeak. Most of the changes that they make aren't things that users have asked for, and many of them are things that we definitely don't want. Sometimes, if there's enough outcry, they'll undo the changes. (E.g. a few years ago they removed the exact dates in cache logs, instead saying things like "about a year ago"; fortunately they undid that change fairly quickly.) Other times, even when many people object, the changes remain; the grey icons and HTML emails come to mind. (Please, please, PLEASE give us an option for text-only emails!)

No, I know Groundspeak is small. I haven't heard any comparisons like that. Then how about asking for volunteers from the geocaching community to beta-test your changes, before they go public? That way more of the bugs could be caught without causing problems for so many people. I'd certainly be willing to volunteer, and I'm sure many others would too.

With 6 million geocachers worldwide, that means that about 150 thousand of them use IE9, and could have been affected by the bugs in the most recent upgrade. I suppose that most of those cachers are no longer active, but still, there must have been tens of thousands of IE9 users who were affected. And it wasn't just IE9; the bugs also occurred in some versions of Safari and Firefox. When you make changes to the software, how much testing do you do before releasing them to the public? It seems to me that testing them in all of the commonly used versions of browsers would be a good idea, to catch the bugs before they inconvenience and anger thousands of your customers.

Thanks for fixing it. Isn't there anything you can do to prevent problems like this from occurring in the future? Like doing extensive testing, using multiple versions of multiple browsers, before you make the changes available to the public? Or making the changed version of the software and the unchanged version both available, with a link in the new version that says "If you encounter any problems with this upgrade, click here for the previous version of the software"?

If I were the only person having trouble, that would be a reasonable conclusion. But I'm not. I suspect that the Groundspeak programmers have decided to use some feature of newer browsers, which mine doesn't have. For Firefox, I tried to upgrade a few months ago and was told that I can't because my computer is too old. I can't afford to buy a new computer, and shouldn't have to just to keep using a website that was working fine until recently. (I haven't checked to see if I can upgrade Safari, because I've seen newer versions on other computers and didn't like them.)

I still see the logs at the bottom of the cache page in Firefox (MacOS). What browser are you using? I just checked again, and they appear now. Wondering if the hamsters were up to some hyjinx this AM, or if someone did not feed them? Glad to see them back. BTW - using Firefox 31.0 I'm still not seeing any logs on the cache page. I also can't see the two maps, and I can't edit the coordinates of puzzle caches. I mentioned these bugs in another thread.