Jump to content

caches placed in 1901!


Recommended Posts

It's a documented bug with the Edit Cache Listing page.

Under some circumstance the date resets back to 1901 all by itself.

 

Not exactly the end of the world, but it does mean that particular cache (I've seen several examples recently) won't be included in any PQs.

Link to post
Jaz666 wrote:

It's a documented bug with the Edit Cache Listing page.

Under some circumstance the date resets back to 1901 all by itself.

 

Not exactly the end of the world, but it does mean that particular cache (I've seen several examples recently) won't be included in any PQs.

Ah, right, thanks for that - mystery solved...!

Link to post
It's a documented bug with the Edit Cache Listing page.

Under some circumstance the date resets back to 1901 all by itself.

 

Not exactly the end of the world, but it does mean that particular cache (I've seen several examples recently) won't be included in any PQs.

Bug??? not really, it is just poor implimentation of the web page, it appears to allow you to put in any date you wish; many other sites would prevent this kind of issue.
Link to post

They're now showing as placed in March and April this year... Either that was some glitch in the system, or someone was playing SBs and a reviewer's spotted it! Or, as careygang said, someone was cracking under the strain, lol...! :)

 

 

 

......and so, BillD and the Careygang I hope you will retract a somewhat erroneous statement impugning the effectiveness of a certain party :):):D:D:D:D:D:D

Link to post

They're now showing as placed in March and April this year... Either that was some glitch in the system, or someone was playing SBs and a reviewer's spotted it! Or, as careygang said, someone was cracking under the strain, lol...! :D

 

 

 

......and so, BillD and the Careygang I hope you will retract a somewhat erroneous statement impugning the effectiveness of a certain party :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

:D:D:):):)

Link to post

They're now showing as placed in March and April this year... Either that was some glitch in the system, or someone was playing SBs and a reviewer's spotted it! Or, as careygang said, someone was cracking under the strain, lol...! :huh:

 

 

 

......and so, BillD and the Careygang I hope you will retract a somewhat erroneous statement impugning the effectiveness of a certain party B):huh::o:):)B):D:)

 

Merely seeking to illustrate the excellent work that was done under considerable pressure :) But yes, clearly explained as being the fault of the website, so our illustrious reviewer was perfect after al! :D:D

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...