Nylimb

Recently I've noticed a minor bug that occurs when I log a benchmark: After submitting my log, I'm taken to a page that displays what I typed. It has a link near the top which should take me back to the benchmark page, but doesn't. For example, I just submitted a log for LV0650. The URL for the link back to the benchmark page is: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp...757%20A%20TIDAL When I click on the link I get this error message: Has anyone else had this problem? I'm using Internet Explorer 5.1.7 on an iMac.

I'm not sure if that comment was directed at me. If it was, could you please explain it? I didn't make a request; I made a suggestion and an offer to help. I don't understand why you would object to that.

Fine, I'll drop it. I've made my suggestion, and it's either been silently rejected or silently added to a list somewhere. It's not very satisfying, but it's about what I expected. At least now I know why Dave Ulmer isn't mentioned; thanks jon & miki.

In that case, how about changing the history page to say that the first cache was hidden by someone who doesn't wish to be named? Then people won't assume that you decided to leave him out based on some animosity between the two of you. Of course, if Ulmer no longer wishes to be anonymous, then you can just put his name there. I think that either change would improve the page. If you'd like me to, I'd be happy to contact Ulmer and see if he has a preference.

Saying someone placed a cache outside Portland is not biased. It's just replacing a name for a pronoun. Of course it's biased. The history page mentions three people who were involved: the hider of the first cache, the finder of the first cache, and the website developer. The latter two are named, the first is just called 'someone'. Replacing one person's name by a pronoun while naming the other two is biased. Furthermore, anyone who reads that page and notices the omission will have to look elsewhere to find out the facts. And the first place that shows up in a web search for 'geocaching history' is the page that was quoted at the beginning of this thread. So if you really object to bias in that page, then why force people to go looking for it?

I already answered this question. However, since the dedication of the plaque at the first geocache, we have considered re-adding his name to the history page. The book we wrote contains the entire history as well as Dave Ulmer's name and Matt Stum's name (who initiall suggested geocaching as the new name). I don't see an answer to my question there. You explained that he was banned from the forums. But leaving his name out of the history page seems like an example of 'creating your own biased history', which you quite rightly criticized.

Jeremy, I'm glad to see that you're giving direct answers to some of the questions that I've wondered about for a long time. One more, please: Why isn't Dave Ulmer mentioned in Geocaching - A Brief (!) History? It says that 'a container of goodies was hidden by a someone' and that 'Mike Teague was the first to find the container', but there's no mention of Ulmer being the inventor of the sport and the first cache hider.

When a cache is less than a week old, it's shown in the list of nearby caches along with a NEW icon. But that's based on the date when the cache was hidden, not when it first showed up on the list. So if there was a delay in getting a cache approved, it may not keep the NEW icon for long, or may never have it at all. For example, Hoppin' mad about Davis showed up on the list today, July 19. But it was hidden on July 10, so it doesn't have the NEW icon. For the same reason, some caches never show up in the weekly notification of new caches near one's home coordinates. Would it be possible to change this, so that the date when a cache is approved is used instead of the date when it's hidden?

It depends on where you click on the map to identify the caches. If I click on the vertical part of the plus sign at the center of the map, the direction isn't shown. If I click one pixel to the left or right, it is shown. Perhaps the bug occurs whenever a cache is exactly north or south of the search center. (P.S.: Jeremy, I see that you posted the same conclusion while I was composing this message. Thanks.)

Go to this page: Benchmark JT1978. Then click on the link to nearby geocaches. The third cache listed is Fugettaboutit; it's 2.1 miles away, but the direction to the cache is missing. The same thing happens in reverse: If you click on the nearest benchmarks link from Fugettaboutit, the direction to JT1978 is not shown. In case this turns out to be browser-dependent, I'm using Internet Explorer 5.0 on an iMac.

Thanks, everyone, for the information. I'm sorry, I meant to say that a few weeks ago, but got busy and forgot.

My reasons may not seem important to you, but they are to me. Calling me a liar is inappropriate. You know...it is really funny...that the people who complain the most...do not pay their way. They sit back & enjoy everything, take what they want & leave a 'Where's George $' here & there or a Mc Toy (example only), I hope you're not suggesting that I'm in that category. I'm not. I won't take something from a cache if I don't have something of equal or greater value to trade for it. Likewise. I've often made repairs to damaged caches that I've found. And I too try to make the caches I hide interesting and challenging. Based on people's logs for them, I think I've succeeded. He said 'BSing' rather than 'lying'. Different word, same meaning. Yes, this is important to me. You've made a public accusation against me which I know to be false. I suppose you really believe what you said, but I don't understand why. So I'll ask: Why do you think that my stated reasons for not being a member are not my real reasons?

My reasons may not seem important to you, but they are to me. Calling me a liar is inappropriate.

Spoken like a true overprivileged Davisite... I'm confused. Could you please explain why you think I'm overprivileged? (I sure don't feel that way.) And what does living in Davis have to do with it?

So, is it just this one incident about the watch list? (Which Jeremey already stated was unintentional and was going to be fixed, by the way.) Or are there some other things that are bothering you? I've been a member for some time and have never felt like I wasn't treated with respect. I'd be interested to hear about other cases where you've felt like you've been treated with disrespect. No, this incident is pretty minor. Last July, there were a lot of changes made to the site without any advance warning. These caused problems for many of us, as discussed in One step forward, two steps back. Eventually the problems were fixed, and, in my opinion, the site is better than it was before. Later, the cache maps were changed to show more detail. Again, an improvement, but at the same time it became impossible to pan the maps unless you were a premium member, which made them less useful than the older ones. Eventually that was changed so everyone can pan the maps, and now they're much better than they were before. See: The new maps There was also the change in the stats page, when the total number of caches found was no longer shown. Eventually, after complaints by many people, the totals returned. See: Total Stats page? As I said earlier, my objection isn't to the changes themselves. I just think things would go more smoothly if they were discussed beforehand. That way the users of the site could point out some of the problems before they occur, and not be surprised and inconvenienced when they do. I agree that gc.com is useful for the geocaching community. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything they do. For now, my disagreements are strong enough so that I choose not to send them money. I hope that can change some day.

You've logged more caches than I have on this web site. Does this make you a customer or a potential customer? Potential, since I'm not paying to use gc.com. As I said, I was planning to become a member: I didn't, and still don't, feel a need for any of the premium services, but I wanted to support the people who make geocaching possible. But then you started making changes to the website. I understand that some were necessary, and some eventually made things better, but the unannounced changes usually hurt more than they needed to. In the present case, I tried to add a cache to my watchlist and was told that I'd reached my limit. I was surprised, but it wasn't a big deal: I figured I could just delete a few that I no longer cared about and then add the new one. But that didn't work. At that point I realized that the watchlist limit had been cut in half, and I'd need to drop about 20 caches before I could add one more. It's not that I think a limit of 50 is unreasonable; I can live with that easily. It's just that the sudden and unexpected reduction was an inconvenience. If you'd announced in advance that the limit was going to change, those of us whose watchlists were larger than 50 could have reduced them at our leisure. And that's my main complaint/suggestion. If you're going to make changes that make the site less useful, I think you should explain, in advance, that you're going to do so and why. Not doing so seems disrespectful of the people who use your site. So for now, I'll support the geocaching community in the ways we all do: By hiding caches, helping to repair damaged ones that I find, answering questions from newcomers, etc. But I won't financially support gc.com unless it starts treating its users with more respect.

About a year ago I was planning to become a paying member. Then Jeremy started making some of his inconvenient and unannounced changes to the website. These annoyed me enough so that now I won't even consider paying. The drop from 100 to 50 caches on the watchlist is just one more example. I don't think it's a reasonable and sound business decision when you drive away potential customers.

The description of benchmark JT1983 says, among other things: REFERENCE MARK NUMBER 1 IS A STANDARD DISK, STAMPED G W M 62 (USGS) 1949, AS DESCRIBED IN NOTE 11A WHICH PROJECTS ABOUT 2 INCHES AND IS ABOUT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE STATION. Its descriptions of RM2 and the azimuth mark also mention NOTE 11A. Can anyone tell me what that refers to?

I'd like to see more information in the benchmark section of My Cache Page. Currently it just shows the date, the PID, and a found/not found icon. If I want to check on a benchmark that I've already looked for, it's hard to remember the PID. Could we have additional fields that show the designation and type? And maybe the distance and direction from my home coordinates?

Thanks! I hadn't noticed that feature.

Tonight I found a cache, On The Island in Sacramento, California. But when I tried to log it on the website, I couldn't find it by name or location. So I figured it must have been archived. Luckily I still had an old printout that showed the waypoint name, so I was able to get to the page and log my find. Is there any way to find an archived cache if all you know is the location or name?

vdbalamo's Just Peachy took me 2 months to find; I lost count at about 15 attempts. And it turns out that there were actually 2 copies of the cache at the time: It had been reported missing, so the owner's son had replaced it. About 4 months later, someone noticed that there were 2 of them; each one had been found by about half of the finders.

Is anyone working on the login problems? They occur frequently and are very annoying. It's as if different parts of the website are using different information about whether or not I'm logged in. Sometimes one page will tell me I'm not logged in, but others tell me I am. I've tried clearing my disk cache, with no effect. And if I try to access My Cache Page, I'm told that I'm logged in and asked to log in as someone else. I usually use iMacs, but have had problems on Windows systems too. I've tried both Netscape 7 and Internet Explorer 5; the problem occurs in both.

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:=3D means you're getting them in quoted-printable encoding and either your mail client doesn't understand it, or you're trying to read them with something besides a mail client (e.g. by telnetting to port 110, my preferred way to read mail when I'm away from home.) It's probably your mail client; look around for something that talks about quoted-printable. http://parkrrrr.com/pirate.cgi.gif I use the old unix 'mail' command. As far as I know, nothing has changed here recently that could account for this; none of my messages from other sources have been affected. So I think something's changed in the way the messages are sent. Oh well, I can live with this particular inconvenience; it's not as bad as many of the other recent changes at gc.com.

If you're viewing a cache page, you can click on the 'state map' link near the top of the page, and then click on the map a bunch of times to zoom in to a smaller region. I think this feature would be more useful if the map started out already zoomed in to the area around the cache you're viewing.