Jump to content

What is wrong with this cache page?

Theseus

By Theseus
in Website

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Theseus

+Theseus

Posted
Posted

I DNF'd this cache a few weeks ago. Now when I click on the listing it the page says that an error ocurrred (correct), then is says you cannot view this cache listing until it has been published (which happened a while ago), then it says "you are not logged in" (incorrect), then it says "greyed out links are only available to Premium Members" (which I am).

 

Very peculiar.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)
Last time this happened to me, the cache was 'delisted'. Some problem with not meeting the guidelines. I guess they do it this way so that those of us who have found it do not lose the smiley, but it is no longer availabe to be found, and has, in fact been delisted.
The site was down and is back up. This one has been delisted. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Theseus

+Theseus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hmm, I don't know that I've ever seen a delisted cache before. Still odd that it tells me that I must be logged in and a premium member, both of which I am (as noted). Also, I guess delisted is different enough from archived that it gets wiped out forever. Also a new to me phenomenon.

Link to comment
Isonzo Karst

+Isonzo Karst

Posted
Posted

The cache was retracted. You should be able to see your log, but not the cache. Had you found it, your find count would not change. I have 2 finds on retracted caches - that's how that worked for me. Perhaps the issue, whatever it is, will get worked out and the cache can be re-published.

 

Here's a log of mine on a retracted cache, I think you'll be able to see the log but not the cache - it was retracted (I doubt over the coord accuracy issue) Found it log

Link to comment
Kalkendotters

+Kalkendotters

Posted
Posted

The cache was retracted. You should be able to see your log, but not the cache. Had you found it, your find count would not change. I have 2 finds on retracted caches - that's how that worked for me. Perhaps the issue, whatever it is, will get worked out and the cache can be re-published.

 

Here's a log of mine on a retracted cache, I think you'll be able to see the log but not the cache - it was retracted (I doubt over the coord accuracy issue) Found it log

Can't see the log:

View a Cache Log

You cannot see logs for unpublished listings.

 

You can probably only see your own logs on unpublished caches...

Link to comment
Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted

I agree . . .

 

It is like this message on an Archived cache:

 

Cache Issues:

  • This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.
  • This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.

B)

 

Most of the time a cache that has been Archived is not also "temporarily unavailable." B)

Link to comment
Theseus

+Theseus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So I guess the real question here is why does the page give a mixed bag of random and inaccurate messages. What is so wrong with "This cache has been delisted" or something like that? B)

 

Agreed.

 

Also, I goofed in my original post - I found this cache. I can view my log but not the cache page.

Link to comment
Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted

An archived cache is also a disabled cache. Restoring the cache as active would be a two-step process -- an unarchive log followed by an enable log.

 

This cache was retracted due to a listing guidelines issue. Nothing to see here, just a routine issue.

Link to comment
FireRef

+FireRef

Posted
Posted

An archived cache is also a disabled cache. Restoring the cache as active would be a two-step process -- an unarchive log followed by an enable log.

 

This cache was retracted due to a listing guidelines issue. Nothing to see here, just a routine issue.

 

So what is the difference between just Archiving a cache that doesn't meet the guidelines, which seems to happen regularly after a cache has been out for a while (something is discovered the owner wasn't up front about, change in circumstances, etc...), and delisting/retracting it? Why not just Archive it so everything is visible?

Link to comment
Theseus

+Theseus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm curious . . . B) Since you found the cache, can you guess why it was "delisted." Did it violate the guidelines in some way?

 

I have no idea. It was close to a private residence but clearly still within park boundaries (probably by 100 yards, i.e. not even close). Other than that I have no idea. Very curious.

 

I also agree that I don't understand the difference in reasons for delisting versus archiving. The former seems to wipe out all trace of the cache while the latter retains all logs and cache description for posterity.

Link to comment
welch

+welch

Posted
Posted

I agree . . .

 

It is like this message on an Archived cache:

 

Cache Issues:

  • This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.
  • This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.

:lol:

 

Most of the time a cache that has been Archived is not also "temporarily unavailable." :D

Yea 'temporarily' is amusing in that context. But to me having it the other way would be ever more weird... the cache was archived but still active/enabled :D .

Link to comment
FireRef

+FireRef

Posted
Posted

I agree . . .

 

It is like this message on an Archived cache:

 

Cache Issues:

  • This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.
  • This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.

:lol:

 

Most of the time a cache that has been Archived is not also "temporarily unavailable." :D

Yea 'temporarily' is amusing in that context. But to me having it the other way would be ever more weird... the cache was archived but still active/enabled :D .

 

They should just be able to say "Archived" - end of story - it's not active, because it's Archived... kind of like having a 3 position switch - enabled, disabled, archived. Not 2 2 position switches - enabled/disabled. unarchived/archived.

Link to comment
mini cacher

+mini cacher

Posted
Posted

It probably has to do with programming.

doesn't everything? :laughing: more specifically it would have to do with the logic in the programming. one should be able to notice the two independent states and only display the message for the most relevant. but on the grand scheme of things, stupid little quirks like this are not as important. they only point out either the odd thought process that must go on behind the scenes or a lack of attention to detail... I hope it is the former... :o
Link to comment
Isonzo Karst

+Isonzo Karst

Posted
Posted
stupid little quirks like this are not as important. they only point out either the odd thought process that must go on behind the scenes or a lack of attention to detail...

 

I don't think it's a "little quirk". The cache is both archived and disabled. If it is unarchived, it still NEEDS to be disabled (typically) until the cache owner edits the page, or does whatever needs doing. If that turns out to be nothing, once it's unarchived, the cache owner can just hit the enable link.

Link to comment
FireRef

+FireRef

Posted
Posted
An archived cache is also a disabled cache.
No, "archived" and "disabled" are independent attributes. Here's an example of a cache that's archived but not disabled.

That example is from *before* the current programming was put into effect.

 

So what would be the point of being active but archived? Its a contradiction in terms.

Link to comment
mini cacher

+mini cacher

Posted
Posted
stupid little quirks like this are not as important. they only point out either the odd thought process that must go on behind the scenes or a lack of attention to detail...

 

I don't think it's a "little quirk". The cache is both archived and disabled. If it is unarchived, it still NEEDS to be disabled (typically) until the cache owner edits the page, or does whatever needs doing. If that turns out to be nothing, once it's unarchived, the cache owner can just hit the enable link.

the quirk is that you really don't need both those messages since being "archived" pretty much means that it is also "disabled". Having both messages, IMO, is odd. If the cache gets unarchived, but is still "disabled" then the message would change accordingly. On top of that, the second message says "temporarily unavailable" which seems a bit odd when you think that "archived" usually means a bit more than "temporarily". But it really is not that big of a deal.
Link to comment
welch

+welch

Posted
Posted

I agree . . .

 

It is like this message on an Archived cache:

 

Cache Issues:

  • This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.
  • This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.

:P

 

Most of the time a cache that has been Archived is not also "temporarily unavailable." :D

Yea 'temporarily' is amusing in that context. But to me having it the other way would be ever more weird... the cache was archived but still active/enabled :D .

 

They should just be able to say "Archived" - end of story - it's not active, because it's Archived... kind of like having a 3 position switch - enabled, disabled, archived. Not 2 2 position switches - enabled/disabled. unarchived/archived.

It makes sense to you and me that if a cache is archived, then it doesn't matter if its disabled or enabled. But I think the 'when archived, its also disabled' thing was added so "computer" thinking stuff would understand when a cache gets archived it was in effect also disabled.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...