Auotmatic box checking

[+Arndtwe]

Ok, so heres the deal. I am a premium member, I have agreed to all the stuff that have to. I am not going to say anything but "I agree" so why do I have to re-check thses boxes EVERY time I want to edit my cache page? It is a puzzle cache that I am working on and it uses lots of HTML, so as you can imagine, I have to do a lot of editing. Is there a way to "automatically" check these boxes and I am just missing it? If not, I vote for this to become a new feature to the website for at least PM's but preferably everyone.

[+KoosKoos]

Have to agree...I'd like to see those boxes NOT required unless I've also checked the box that it's ready for a reviewer. It does get annoying if you're tweaking a cache page and have to keep checking them over and over again.

[+Lil Devil]

Here is a Greasemonkey script that will check those boxes for you, as well as a whole bunch of other little "fixes" to the geocaching.com website.

 

If you don't know what Greasemonkey is, go to that link then click on the "Instructions" link on the right.

[+KoosKoos]

Here is a Greasemonkey script that will check those boxes for you, as well as a whole bunch of other little "fixes" to the geocaching.com website.

 

If you don't know what Greasemonkey is, go to that link then click on the "Instructions" link on the right.

 

Thanks Lil Devil...Greasemonkey is a good first fix for the issue!

[+MountainRacer]

Hey, that's pretty helpful, thanks! I wonder if there's a thread for Geocaching-themed Greasemonkey scripts, Firefox addons, etc.

[+Arndtwe]

Here is a Greasemonkey script that will check those boxes for you, as well as a whole bunch of other little "fixes" to the geocaching.com website.

 

If you don't know what Greasemonkey is, go to that link then click on the "Instructions" link on the right.

Oooo, THANK YOU. I love Greasemonkey and was wondering if there was a script to fix this. Thanks again!

[+sbell111]

I think that people should have to consciously affirm that the guidelines are met. The alternative is that people would be required to uncheck the boxes if their caches didn't meet the guidelines. What are the chances?

[+Arndtwe]

I think that people should have to consciously affirm that the guidelines are met. The alternative is that people would be required to uncheck the boxes if their caches didn't meet the guidelines. What are the chances?

That's a good point. Look at Kooskoos post "I'd like to see those boxes NOT required unless I've also checked the box that it's ready for a reviewer." This is how it should work. That way you only have to check the box if the cache is going in for review. Why would you need to agree and undeerstand the guidelines if the cache is being published? Am I wrong?

[+SeventhSon]

They could be placed underneath the "active" box and gray (inactive) until you check that box to send it in for review. Once you check the box saying it is active, they become active and need to be checked. I agree there is no reason to say you read the guidelines every time you edit a page you are working on.

[+Arndtwe]

I am now changing this thread to a voting thread.If you agree that these boxes be removed from the "edit listing" page, but still want the boxes there for when they get sent into review then vote yes.

 

YES

[crawil]

Yes.

[+sbell111]

Sure

[+Prime Suspect]

If people are required to check the boxes only some of the time, instead of every time, the number of people who will forget to do it when they really need to will skyrocket. People will be sitting around for days, wondering why their cache isn't getting reviewed.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+SeventhSon]

If people are required to check the boxes only some of the time, instead of every time, the number of people who will forget to do it when they really need to will skyrocket. People will be sitting around for days, wondering why their cache isn't getting reviewed.

 

If you don't check the boxes now, it gives you an error. Under the new suggestion, when you click the box that makes it active and sends it in for review, the boxes would become active, and if you didn't check them, you would get the same error page you get now.

[knowschad]

Ok, so heres the deal. I am a premium member, I have agreed to all the stuff that have to. I am not going to say anything but "I agree" so why do I have to re-check thses boxes EVERY time I want to edit my cache page? It is a puzzle cache that I am working on and it uses lots of HTML, so as you can imagine, I have to do a lot of editing. Is there a way to "automatically" check these boxes and I am just missing it? If not, I vote for this to become a new feature to the website for at least PM's but preferably everyone.

AMEN to that!!! And I don't want to have to use a specfic brower so that I can use a specific greasy monkey to do what I never should have had to do in the first place. Great suggestion!

 

OK, OK... because of what Prime Suspect said, let's only make it neccessary to check them once in a session. But as long as I'm still editing the same cache page, why should I need to ask once again if I agree?

why should I need to ask once again if I agree? why should I need to ask once again if I agree? why should I need to ask once again if I agree? why should I need to ask once again if I agree? why should I need to ask once again if I agree? why should I need to ask once again if I agree?

Edited May 6, 2008 by knowschad

[+Prime Suspect]

If people are required to check the boxes only some of the time, instead of every time, the number of people who will forget to do it when they really need to will skyrocket. People will be sitting around for days, wondering why their cache isn't getting reviewed.

 

If you don't check the boxes now, it gives you an error. Under the new suggestion, when you click the box that makes it active and sends it in for review, the boxes would become active, and if you didn't check them, you would get the same error page you get now.

You mean the same error that people don't notice?

[+benh57]

I am now changing this thread to a voting thread.If you agree that these boxes be removed from the "edit listing" page, but still want the boxes there for when they get sent into review then vote yes.

 

 

Speaking of guidelines.

 

Polls are a violation of the forum guidelines. (Really)

[+Team GeoBlast]

Here is a Greasemonkey script that will check those boxes for you, as well as a whole bunch of other little "fixes" to the geocaching.com website.

 

If you don't know what Greasemonkey is, go to that link then click on the "Instructions" link on the right.

 

Thank goodness for Greasemonkey righting all the wrongs in the web. Thanks for that one!

[+SeventhSon]

If people are required to check the boxes only some of the time, instead of every time, the number of people who will forget to do it when they really need to will skyrocket. People will be sitting around for days, wondering why their cache isn't getting reviewed.

 

If you don't check the boxes now, it gives you an error. Under the new suggestion, when you click the box that makes it active and sends it in for review, the boxes would become active, and if you didn't check them, you would get the same error page you get now.

You mean the same error that people don't notice?

 

So the change wouldn't add to those that already don't notice, but help those us that do.

[+sbell111]

I am now changing this thread to a voting thread.If you agree that these boxes be removed from the "edit listing" page, but still want the boxes there for when they get sent into review then vote yes.

 

 

Speaking of guidelines.

 

Polls are a violation of the forum guidelines. (Really)

Huh?

 

I took a (very) quick look at the forum guidelines and couldn't find that bit anywhere. I even searched them for the words 'poll' and 'survey' but still couldn't come up with anything.

 

I think that you may be confusing the fact that TPTB deactivated the forum's 'poll' feature. My understanding is that this was done for a few reasons.

 

First, people were trying to use poll results as 'proof' that changes must be made, whether the poll actually supported those changes or not. For example, I build a poll that asks for everyone to choose their favorite size cache. When micros land at the bottom, I try to use that data to argue that micros must be banned.

 

Also, many of these polls were skewed to only give the type of answer that the 'poller' is looking for. For instance: What's you favorite cache? A.) A traditional placed in a beautiful location next to a mountain stream. B.) A micro on a stinky dumpster. C.) A virt at the road kill dump. D.) A locationless at McDonalds. E.) A multi at the junk yard.

 

Finally, some people had the belief that GC.com was a democracy and were insulted if their poll didn't result in immediate change.

[+Prime Suspect]

If people are required to check the boxes only some of the time, instead of every time, the number of people who will forget to do it when they really need to will skyrocket. People will be sitting around for days, wondering why their cache isn't getting reviewed.

 

If you don't check the boxes now, it gives you an error. Under the new suggestion, when you click the box that makes it active and sends it in for review, the boxes would become active, and if you didn't check them, you would get the same error page you get now.

You mean the same error that people don't notice?

 

So the change wouldn't add to those that already don't notice, but help those us that do.

Uh, no. Read my original note.

[+SeventhSon]

If people are required to check the boxes only some of the time, instead of every time, the number of people who will forget to do it when they really need to will skyrocket. People will be sitting around for days, wondering why their cache isn't getting reviewed.

 

If you don't check the boxes now, it gives you an error. Under the new suggestion, when you click the box that makes it active and sends it in for review, the boxes would become active, and if you didn't check them, you would get the same error page you get now.

You mean the same error that people don't notice?

 

So the change wouldn't add to those that already don't notice, but help those us that do.

Uh, no. Read my original note.

 

Seeing the error page less often will not make people miss it more often.

 

You're turn

[+Prime Suspect]

You're turn

I am turn?

[+SeventhSon]

You're turn

I am turn?

 

Holy cow! I can't believe I made that mistake ... That's what I get when I'm in the forums when I'm supposed to be working

[+Prime Suspect]

You're turn

I am turn?

 

Holy cow! I can't believe I made that mistake ... That's what I get when I'm in the forums when I'm supposed to be working

Actually, that was a cheap shot on my part. Everyone make typos. But it seems like a good way to halt a back-and-forth that wasn't headed anywhere.

[+BlueDeuce]

Clicking is hard.

[+paleolith]

There's another way to avoid this which does not require a script, nor a specific browser. After you submit changes and view listing, instead of clicking "edit listing" again, use the browser "back" function (either click the arrow or in most browsers alt-leftarrow). This brings you back to the edit listing page just as it was -- with the boxes checked.

 

Edward

 

(edit: duh, you only have to "back" once, not twice, though twice also works)

Edited May 10, 2008 by paleolith