Jump to content

RuffRidr

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RuffRidr

  1. So we wouldn't be able to map out all of our finds on a map? Useful, but not as useful as I'd like to see it. Just curious, why not the whole coordinates? As a sidenote, its not a huge deal. I've already went through all of my finds that are archived, and downloaded the .gpx from the archived cache page, then imported them into GSAK. --RuffRidr
  2. RuffRidr

    Log Uploads?

    I agree, I've long since wanted this feature as well. A lot of times when I go geocaching, it is a long trip home. It would be sweet to be able to type out my logs on the way home, and then just click 'Upload'. I think this might have come up before in one of the GSAK threads. I'll have to go back and see what was said about it. --RuffRidr
  3. Yeah, then Groundspeak's lawyers might actually have someone with deep pockets to sue for putting up dots on a map with cache page titles at specific coordinates and they wouldn't have to try to intimidate Ed. LOL! Seriously, if Google has spidered GC.com I wonder why caches aren't showing up. If they do, will gc.com take any action? --RuffRidr
  4. Oh my God! What a resource hog that page is! Not only is it requesting info off of the gc.com site everytime I look at that page, it also makes a request for each image!! And that's not including refreshes. Lord, if more people get ahold of this it will bring the servers to their knees. Oh, and do I have to be subjected to all of these stats on this gc.com page? Their numbers are making me feel inferior. What if somebody looks at this page and decides to compare them to mine?? I don't want that to happen. Oh the humanity.... We need to take drastic measures. Jeremy, can you have the server that this page is residing on blocked? You'd better block the whole domain, just to be sure. --RuffRidr
  5. The new maps are pretty nice. I do see some things missing that I thought they'd have, however. The State Forest areas here are not showing up, for instance. A bunch of the smaller lakes that are on almost every other mapping service aren't showing up. Really nice for a beta, tho. --RuffRidr
  6. My opinion was either solicited, or I was being misrepresented. You choose. I definitely wasn't soliciting your opinion. If you're being misrepresented, it was by your own post a couple posts previous to mine. I can't help that. --RuffRidr
  7. The man asked for my opinion. That is what he received. If you're meaning me, I don't think I've ever asked for your opinion. --RuffRidr
  8. This has been rehashed in the stats threads hundreds of times. I think we have come to the conclusion at least one of those times that an opt-in system would be the way to go. --RuffRidr
  9. Ahhh, yes that would be a great idea. Has this arguement gone full circle? What do you mean by 'full circle'. In my opinion, GC.com has done a very good job of operating under this mindset. The reason I joined this arguement, and I'm sure others as well, is because of the Buxley's situation and just the attitude in general towards third party sites that try to augment the features here at GC.com, not compete. You're saying gc.com should resolve the issues of the users or let 3rd parties resolve them. Isn't that what we've been clamoring for? --RuffRidr
  10. Ditto that here as well , with the exceptions of the "regulars" that chose not to participate . It seemed to be a very calm week , with little or no angst at all ! I also noticed that all of the questions , were also answered without us. Lesson learned : The forums will be just fine with or without " The Regulars" Star Ditto, ditto. There were a couple threads going that I know certain regulars would have came in and let their opinion be known. It was kinda nice to hear from some others for a change, even if they were echoing similair sentiments. --RuffRidr
  11. Ahhh, yes that would be a great idea. Has this arguement gone full circle? --RuffRidr
  12. Unfortunately, no. There is a large segment of users out there who would like to see this, whether on this site or a 3rd party site. There used to be such a site, but it has long been closed. Do a quick search of this forum for geocaching stats and you will see that this arguement has come up several times before. There is a very vocal group of people on here that are totally against stats in any form. --RuffRidr
  13. I don't think of my listing caches on here as "paying" gc.com in any sort of way. If anything, we are all doing them a favor by listing them on here. Without the caches this wouldn't be much of a site. Their servers, bandwidth, salaries, vespas, and whatnot are being paid for by membership fees and merchandising, not caches. I feel that this is an important distinction, because while I am glad that gc.com is doing this service and I enjoy listing caches on here, I feel that I have the "right" to pull my caches at any time and move them to another listing service. If I had "paid" for the service with my cache listings, that wouldn't be an option. --RuffRidr
  14. An email to your approver will clear things up a lot quicker than posting it here. Maxcacher is also the approver for our area. He's pretty reasonable and easy to deal with, just fill him in on the whole situation. --Ruffridr
  15. Markwell, I love your idea from that thread. Great implementation, also a good way not to hurt anyone's feelings. --RuffRidr
  16. I think there is. I outlined one method here. Sure, you don't get pretty maps, but you can immediately see any new caches in your area and how close they are to your home coords. Bret I had never seen that method before. Hmm, it does look promising. I guess now I'll have to turn my rantings to some other subject. Now about those "Friends Lists" we were promised.... Just kidding. --RuffRidr
  17. That's fine, most of us have done so. The problem is in some cases, the tools or methods provided by Groundspeak do not work as well. For instance, as I said before I would check Buxley's every morning. I have the Arkansas page bookmarked. It was very easy to tell from that page if there were any new caches in my immediate area. Is there a comparable way to do it on Geocaching.com? I have found several methods that come close. I can get a list of all the new caches in my area, but that doesn't narrow it down to my immediate area. I can have the cache notification turned on, but that only comes once a week. I can look at Geocaching.com's maps and do a bunch of zooming out and then still not really be able to tell because their icons are cluttered. I can go the pocket query route and use my own maps, but that is about a dozen steps, and the pocket queries don't always come in a timely fashion. I agree with this statement. Everyone knows that you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Its just that when things like this are brought up in this forum, they seem to fall on deaf ears. How many times has "New Cache Notification" came up on here? A lot. I seem to remember it being said that it would be "implemented soon" months and months ago. It seems like the only way to get attention sometimes is to post to controversial threads like this. The only reason that so much speculation goes on, is because we are completely out of the loop. Take the whole Buxley's mess, for instance. With many months gone by since this started, and several since we heard anything, you can see why we thought it was just swept under the rug. An small update here and there would kill speculation before it even started. --RuffRidr
  18. I agree. Doing this in the beginning perhaps would have been a good idea for gc.com. However, now so many State organizations have been made, that the discussion is better off residing there. A seperate forum here, would be redundant. --RuffRidr
  19. Depends on what you think is a lame cache. If I thought a lame cache was a Micro with a terrain rating of 1 or less, then ya Pocket Queries would help a bunch. But if I did that I would be missing out on some great hides down here. No matter how the pocket queries are twisted and filtered, you're either gonna get some lame caches, or you're going to get rid of some non-lame caches. To me the only way to fix this would be to implement some sort of rating system. I hesitate to even bring it up, because I know how well that has gone over on these forums before. But I think until we do, we are going to be cursed with a bunch of lame caches. --RuffRidr
  20. I used Buxley's on a regular basis. I liked it because it easily showed the new caches in the area (marked in blue). It was easy to see if there was new caches in the area. I suppose I can still do that with my own maps, and some pocket queries, but it certainly isn't easier. The ideal situation would be if Geocaching.com came up with a replacement for Skydiver's cache notification. --RuffRidr
  21. I guess I missed that filter on my Pocket Queries. How do they solve all? --RuffRidr
  22. This is my take on it as well. They have done a very good job with the site. They should be commended for it. The greatness is part of what has help this sport boom. On the other hand, their monopolistic behavior sickens me. Why do they crush 3rd party sites and then offer no viable alternative? Buxley's was one. Skydiver's cache notification was another. I can't remember the name of it anymore, but there used to be a great stats site out there. Why not work with these people instead of against them. Sharing and openness is the whole spirit of the game. I'll continue to use this site for now as it is currently the best in almost all aspects. It has the greatest number of caches and its a place I know where people would look to find my caches. However, because of some of the previous actions listed above, I have absolutely no loyalty to this site. I'm just waiting for something better to come along. --RuffRidr
×
×
  • Create New...