Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
H to the Bizzle!

Few New Changes

Recommended Posts

The site did their updates and FF1.0.7 isn't compatible with their programming now. They feel we are the problem and want us to upgrade to their standards?

 

Funny how FF1.0.7 was good enough until now.

 

We don't really need to spend the $30 for premium membership if they feel it is our problem and WE need to fix OUR system.

 

 

John

Suppose you have an English dictionary (let's call it version 1.07), that you've used faithfully to check your spelling against, without issue. Then one day, your writing a letter and you look up the word "quandry" and you use it, only to be told later that the word is actually spelled "quandary". Your dictionary is clearly "broken", so the dictionary company gladly provides you with a new dictionary "version 1.5" that fixes the error. The dictionary was clearly in the wrong, having not complied with the standards of the English language, right?

 

How is the Firefox issue any different. GC.com is complying with style sheet coding standards, trying to provide it's users with an improved browsing experience. Until now, they were simply not using some of the codes in this standard, but now they are. Problem is, Firefox 1.07 was not complying with the established standards and needed to be fixed, so Firefox did so, with version 1.5.

 

GC.com is using the standards to their fullest. Your browser is not.

So, are you going to get Oxford to change the English language, or get yourself a new dictionary and move on? :drama:

Edited by Kirok

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see the distance between caches put back on the TB page. It really takes something away from having a TB if you can't easily see how far it's traveling.

Share this post


Link to post
All I know is that I had a lot more problems with 1.5 than I ever did with 1.0.7 - so I down-graded and have been happy ever since.

Ditto here, too.

Share this post


Link to post
The site did their updates and FF1.0.7 isn't compatible with their programming now. They feel we are the problem and want us to upgrade to their standards?

 

Funny how FF1.0.7 was good enough until now.

 

We don't really need to spend the $30 for premium membership if they feel it is our problem and WE need to fix OUR system.

 

 

John

Suppose you have an English dictionary (let's call it version 1.07), that you've used faithfully to check your spelling against, without issue. Then one day, your writing a letter and you look up the word "quandry" and you use it, only to be told later that the word is actually spelled "quandary". Your dictionary is clearly "broken", so the dictionary company gladly provides you with a new dictionary "version 1.5" that fixes the error. The dictionary was clearly in the wrong, having not complied with the standards of the English language, right?

 

How is the Firefox issue any different. GC.com is complying with style sheet coding standards, trying to provide it's users with an improved browsing experience. Until now, they were simply not using some of the codes in this standard, but now they are. Problem is, Firefox 1.07 was not complying with the established standards and needed to be fixed, so Firefox did so, with version 1.5.

 

GC.com is using the standards to their fullest. Your browser is not.

So, are you going to get Oxford to change the English language, or get yourself a new dictionary and move on? :blink:

 

I'll stick with Webster's American English Dictionary. :drama:

 

A different set of standards does not make either one wrong, just different.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to see the distance between caches put back on the TB page. It really takes something away from having a TB if you can't easily see how far it's traveling.

I see the mileage is back now. Nice. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Hooray, I now see the tabs in Netscape on my Mac. Life is good, and so are those who were working on this.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
I've only looked at it in Safari, and I think the new style sheet is forcing rather small text.

Most but not all listing pages showing small text in description with FF 1.5.

 

©¿©¬

tiny text with mine using IE 6.0.2

Share this post


Link to post
Hooray, I now see the tabs in Netscape on my Mac. Life is good, and so are those who were working on this.

 

Thanks

I see them now in Mozilla too. Thanx for the fix. :drama:

Share this post


Link to post

Aack! The text in the main body of all the pages in the geocaching site are horribly small! I'm young, but it's bothering me. :blink::blink: This seems to have happened today, because yesterday it was fine.

 

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. :drama:

 

edit:clarification

Edited by Ambrosia

Share this post


Link to post
:drama: How funny, when I look at loggs on caches, some of the text is the normal size, and some of it is the smaller size. Kinda wierd.

Share this post


Link to post

I've been watching this thread since it started, and I have to say that I amazed at how fast things are being fixed as they are being brought up... If there was a Thumbs Up icon, I would put five of them here :blink:

 

I really do like the new changes, and everything is working for me now (Netscape 7.1 - thanks for giving me my tabs back!) . The only things that bug me (and they are really very minor) are:

 

- In the Log Your Visit choices, I wish the Archiving choice said 'Needs to be Archived' or 'Needs Archiving'. 'Needs Archived' just doesn't sound right.

 

- I don't care for the quotes under the profile picture being 'boxed in'. I think it looked a lot nicer when the quote kind of free-floated under the picture. And I wish I could center the words! :drama:

 

- I know it's been mentioned before, but I can't wait for the cool-pop-up-version of the decrypt feature on the hints to on the Print Friendly pages...

 

Again - thanks for the the new changes!

Share this post


Link to post

wow, just watched teh text size decrease to like 8 from 14 and its even to small for my young eyes. I see im not teh only one.

Share this post


Link to post

The text on the cache pages is "normal" for me right now using Opera 8.5, but there are so many different font sizes on the Main page right now, I'm getting a headache trying to look at it. :blink:

 

I wonder what is going on? :drama:

Share this post


Link to post
The text on the cache pages is "normal" for me right now using Opera 8.5, but there are so many different font sizes on the Main page right now, I'm getting a headache trying to look at it. :blink:

 

I wonder what is going on? :drama:

It was cleared up in the small text thread. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

 

A different set of standards does not make either one wrong, just different.

Sorry, but I think you missed the point. There IS only one standard for CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) which all browsers should render the same way. Just like the dictionary companies, they all must publish the same spelling for the same words (and don't go all "country specific" on me now, this is simply an example)

 

Firefox had a bug in version 1.07 that caused it to render incorrectly the CSS standard codes GC.com and many other sites are using. They fixed it in 1.5

 

If you choose to stand your ground, that's your choice. Asking GC.com to change back because you refuse to fix YOUR problem... :drama:

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to see the distance between caches put back on the TB page.  It really takes something away from having a TB if you can't easily see how far it's traveling.

I see the mileage is back now. Nice. Thanks

It's not on the TB pages we've looked at - which is a shame as we like to see how many miles we've added to a TB when we drop them off.

Share this post


Link to post

 

A different set of standards does not make either one wrong, just different.

Sorry, but I think you missed the point. There IS only one standard for CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) which all browsers should render the same way. Just like the dictionary companies, they all must publish the same spelling for the same words (and don't go all "country specific" on me now, this is simply an example)

 

Firefox had a bug in version 1.07 that caused it to render incorrectly the CSS standard codes GC.com and many other sites are using. They fixed it in 1.5

 

If you choose to stand your ground, that's your choice. Asking GC.com to change back because you refuse to fix YOUR problem... :(

Well, they did something, because our old version now works! We already said thanks for the solve - whatever they did - it now works and we did NOT have to upgrade to the quirky new 1.5.

 

Shirley~

Share this post


Link to post

I have a question about a new feature; but I probably won't be able to to check back for afew hours, as I am headed out caching...

 

When I DL PQ's now, in the unzipped folder there are two files. One is the normal PQ file. The other is the PQ file with an additional "- wpts" after the PQ #. What is that file?

Share this post


Link to post

 

A different set of standards does not make either one wrong, just different.

Sorry, but I think you missed the point. There IS only one standard for CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) which all browsers should render the same way. Just like the dictionary companies, they all must publish the same spelling for the same words (and don't go all "country specific" on me now, this is simply an example)

 

Firefox had a bug in version 1.07 that caused it to render incorrectly the CSS standard codes GC.com and many other sites are using. They fixed it in 1.5

 

If you choose to stand your ground, that's your choice. Asking GC.com to change back because you refuse to fix YOUR problem... :P

 

Just like the dictionary analogy, just because the current accepted spelling is different from the 1940 version, it doesn't make the original 1940 spelling wrong, only archaic and less used - different. :(

 

Since our browser had been working with no problems prior to the GC updates, it became their responsibility to verify that their webpages functioned as before the changes.

 

Is not the requirement of webmasters to setup webpages to "Work" with all browsers that are currently in use? If GC is trying to reach as many people as possible for their site, requiring people to "Update" their computers to be able to access the GC site will cause people to find another site to use that doesn't make those demands of its customers.

 

If my browser is working for all the other sites we visit, then I see no reason to go through the hassle of Debugging an upgrade for just 1 site! :P

 

If GC perceives this as being our problem (which they obviously did NOT) then they run the risk of losing many of their customers, which they have not done, because they accept the responsibility to make sure their site is available to as many people as possible!

 

Just different!

 

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
When I DL PQ's now, in the unzipped folder there are two files. One is the normal PQ file. The other is the PQ file with an additional "- wpts" after the PQ #. What is that file?

The extra GPX file contains additional waypoints for the cache - such as parking coordinates, trailhead coordinates, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

We would prefer the travel bug page to have the same option as a cache page when viewing the log history -- the ability to choose to "View them all on one page."

 

When following a bug's progress, it is more user friendly and enjoyable to be able to scroll through all the entries, rather than clicking for each subsequent page.

 

Also, the biggest drawback to the recent change is searching for specific text. If there are 20 pages for a bug, it now requires 20 individual searches, rather than performing just one if a full bug log history display were possible.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm seconding the issue with the multi-line Hint decrypt problems.

 

The javascript decrypt function that is included now seems to completely ignore line breaks that are included in the original hint. I tried to enforce a line break with the <br> tag, but the hint edit box on the 'edit listing' page seems to strip out any html tags after I hit submit ("Edit Listing" button).

 

I checked this on my end using FireFox 1.5 and IE6 (on Win2k) and the bug seems to appear in both cases.

 

Quick example is from my cache - GCRHP2, but others have shown better examples (GCT179) where the cache hint is *many many* lines. Please don't tell me that this new 'feature' is just to try to enforce people keeping their hints short. I'd prefer to have a well thought out hint, but just go trying to enforce that!

 

Can this be fixed? Please? <_<

Pretty please? :P

Share this post


Link to post

On GCT179, after selecting "decrypt", select "encrypt" again. When I try this, I see the hint, decrypted but formatted correctly. <_<

 

HH

Share this post


Link to post
On GCT179, after selecting "decrypt", select "encrypt" again. When I try this, I see the hint, decrypted but formatted correctly. :P

 

HH

I see it formatted incorrectly... thats probably what you meant to say as you probably wouldn't praise something for working properly that way <_<

Share this post


Link to post
On GCT179, after selecting "decrypt", select "encrypt" again. When I try this, I see the hint, decrypted but formatted correctly. :P

 

HH

I see it formatted incorrectly... thats probably what you meant to say as you probably wouldn't praise something for working properly that way <_<

Actually, what HH said is that is exactly the same behavior that I see when I view GCT179 in Internet Explorer (6.0). But in Firefox (1.5), the text goes back and forth between correctly formatted+encryped and smushed together+decrypted. B)

 

Thus, in Firefox, I never see the correctly formatted+decrypted.

 

Additionally, in IE it seems that the third time clicking on the button causes the page to reload so that the encrypted+correctly formatted version shows up again.

 

Very strange!

B)

Share this post


Link to post

Here's another funky Firefox 1.5 thing. When I view a list of caches, either on my account details page or in the list of found caches, archived caches are shown in red text but have a blue line running through the text. Same thing happens in Opera 8.51. However, in IE6 archived cache names appear correctly, in red text with a red line running through.

Share this post


Link to post

Minor quibble I notice in Firefox but not IE. Archived caches have a black line though them instead of a red one.

Share this post


Link to post

I use Firefox 1.5; had many of the problems that are described above. All problems went away when I cleared the FF browser's cache ("Tools"; "Options"; "Privacy", "Cache" tab, click on "Clear Cache Now" button). There is a short-cut way to do this, but do it this way because then you can be sure you didn't hit the wrong keystrokes.

 

I have had no problems with Firefox 1.5. So whatever FF bashing is going on here is stuff I am not seeing. IE, on the other hand,... don't even get me started.

Share this post


Link to post
I use Firefox 1.5; had many of the problems that are described above. All problems went away when I cleared the FF browser's cache ("Tools"; "Options"; "Privacy", "Cache" tab, click on "Clear Cache Now" button). There is a short-cut way to do this, but do it this way because then you can be sure you didn't hit the wrong keystrokes.

I tried that, archived caches are still listed as red text with a black strike through.

Share this post


Link to post

ODragon, Yeah. I see that as well. I like the FF way over the IE way. Maybe it's a feature? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
ODragon, Yeah. I see that as well. I like the FF way over the IE way. Maybe it's a feature? :D

FireFox over IE is ALWAYS a feature! ;):D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Minor quibble I notice in Firefox but not IE. Archived caches have a black line though them instead of a red one.

Same with Safari on Os X, but I kind of like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Minor quibble I notice in Firefox but not IE.  Archived caches have a black line though them instead of a red one.

I think it's because of the order of tags:

 

<strike><font color="red">cache name</font></strike>

 

vs. (correct?)

 

<font color="red"><strike>cache name</strike></font>

 

I notice the "legend" at the bottom of the lists render correctly in Firefox 1.5.0.* because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...