Jump to content

Release notes 09/03/08


OpinioNate

Recommended Posts

Has there been any progress with the problem of the advertisement window on the top left of the page, that is preventing use of the nearby links?

 

John

Sounds like something your ISP, or some hidden ad-ware is inserting.

 

How many screen shots do I need to post to show the difference between Firefox browser and IE7 before you understand that things worked just fine until the "Update" in July?

Based on your screenshots and information you posted in the 7/23/08 thread, the "problem" is a result of your use of a very large minimum font size (20) together with the change in July by Groundspeak making the word "Advertisement" text (it had been an image previously). Now this word is forced to display in Font Size 20 in your browser, and it thus spreads out over other things on the page.

 

Groundspeak should be able to correct this, but if they don't get around to it, all you need to do is lower the minimum font size in your browser until it does not overlap.

 

Then why does it work in IE 7 with the same size font?

 

If I was 20 again and had excellent eyesight that would be a viable option, but if I want to see what is on the screen using Firefox.....

 

 

John

Link to post

The e-mail system's been that way for quite some time. It's a much better way of doing things.

 

Look down a ways past the "from" line to the "reply to" line. (You may have to select the "show all headers" option in your e-mail program.) Unless the sender has chosen not to disclose their e-mail address, you can reply to their direct personal e-mail address shown in the "reply to" line.

Link to post

Has there been any progress with the problem of the advertisement window on the top left of the page, that is preventing use of the nearby links?

 

John

Sounds like something your ISP, or some hidden ad-ware is inserting.

 

How many screen shots do I need to post to show the difference between Firefox browser and IE7 before you understand that things worked just fine until the "Update" in July?

Based on your screenshots and information you posted in the 7/23/08 thread, the "problem" is a result of your use of a very large minimum font size (20) together with the change in July by Groundspeak making the word "Advertisement" text (it had been an image previously). Now this word is forced to display in Font Size 20 in your browser, and it thus spreads out over other things on the page.

 

Groundspeak should be able to correct this, but if they don't get around to it, all you need to do is lower the minimum font size in your browser until it does not overlap.

 

Then why does it work in IE 7 with the same size font?

 

If I was 20 again and had excellent eyesight that would be a viable option, but if I want to see what is on the screen using Firefox.....

 

I don't know. If you have the minimum font and the font (e.g., Arial) set the same in each browser, then it must be something about the way IE displays pages.

 

I know what you mean about eyesight (I keep my min font size on 14). Another option is to change the pixel depth of your monitor, and then lower the min font size, but this will give you less "real estate" on your desktop.

 

I was in a hotel last weekend using a pay-for-internet kiosk running Windows, and the Geocaching.com pages looked quite strange compared to how I usually see them.

 

Cheers

Link to post

The e-mail system's been that way for quite some time. It's a much better way of doing things.

 

Look down a ways past the "from" line to the "reply to" line. (You may have to select the "show all headers" option in your e-mail program.) Unless the sender has chosen not to disclose their e-mail address, you can reply to their direct personal e-mail address shown in the "reply to" line.

 

Thanks Keystone! While I'm not sure I agree with your opinion that this is a much better way of doing things I appreciate your prompt reply and was able to at least find a way to reply to the peeps who are contacting me. I suppose it's not that big a deal to most peoples, but I like to reply to the cachers who find my EarthCaches and this new function is making what used to be a one step process into a three step process. Prolly I'll just quit thanking cachers for visiting my EarthCaches.

Link to post

Based on your screenshots and information you posted in the 7/23/08 thread, the "problem" is a result of your use of a very large minimum font size (20) together with the change in July by Groundspeak making the word "Advertisement" text (it had been an image previously). Now this word is forced to display in Font Size 20 in your browser, and it thus spreads out over other things on the page.

 

Websites that depend on font sizes are broken.

 

Period.

 

Yes, I know that Microsoft screwed up fonts in Windows, and that it's not really the fault of the Web developer, but given that reality, it is pretty important that websites be designed to look good for a wide range of font sizes.

 

FWIW, I find the cache pages basically unreadable on any screen with decent resolution unless I crank the minimum font size up to 18.

Link to post

every time i try ang log on geocaching .com an runtime error page comes up?whats going on?

For the last week or so, I have had a problem with geocaching.com either not loading at all or running very, very, very, very slowly. I spent 30 minutes once just to open and display 3 caches. And sometimes it just comes up with the 'page cannot be displayed" error when I try to log on. My other apps and internet searches run o.k.

I am running XP with IE6.

Any suggestions or information?

Link to post

The e-mail system's been that way for quite some time. It's a much better way of doing things.

 

Look down a ways past the "from" line to the "reply to" line. (You may have to select the "show all headers" option in your e-mail program.) Unless the sender has chosen not to disclose their e-mail address, you can reply to their direct personal e-mail address shown in the "reply to" line.

 

Thanks Keystone! While I'm not sure I agree with your opinion that this is a much better way of doing things I appreciate your prompt reply and was able to at least find a way to reply to the peeps who are contacting me. I suppose it's not that big a deal to most peoples, but I like to reply to the cachers who find my EarthCaches and this new function is making what used to be a one step process into a three step process. Prolly I'll just quit thanking cachers for visiting my EarthCaches.

 

My understanding of the reasoning behind doing things this way is that some spam filters catch messages where the from: field does not match the address of the sender. That is, the email is obviously coming from a geocaching.com server, but has a gmail.com address listed as the sender. Therefore, the from: field has been "forged" which some spam filters do not like. Using reply-to: is the technically correct thing to do in this case, since the email really was sent from geocaching.com, and not by your email server.

 

I'm surprised that it takes three steps to send a reply email... most email clients are supposed to use the reply-to: address before the from: address when you hit the reply button. I've been doing it that way with multiple email clients/operating systems (and through webmail occasionally) since the system was changed and haven't had any problems with the wrong return address being used.

Link to post

this new function is making what used to be a one step process into a three step process.

It shouldn't be a three-step process; it's still just one step, unless the original sender has deliberately blocked his email address from being included.

 

Although the "from:" line does say "noreply @ geocaching.com", the "reply to:" line will be the other cacher's email address (unless they specified that it not be sent). So you should be able to just do a "reply" as you could before.

Link to post

I have a feature request...not sure if this is the place to put it but I know your watching this thread so heck this is as good a place as any.

 

The "Map it" Feature that shows up on the top of the page...sometimes....

 

I would like to see that feature on the state pages like so...

 

List of all events and caches in RI

 

The reason I would like this is for selfish reasons... I like to visit alot of events....instead of clicking on each event to see where it will be held...I can save myself some clicks and simply click on the "Map it" link and it will show me where the up coming events are.

 

Thanks for the consideration and keep up the great work!

 

I have a PQ that just finds events. I can then map them in the preview and with a little click see the date. I go from one to one until I want to see more details then select.

 

I sure wish peple woudl archive old event or the system would do such after, maybe a month after the date of the event. Would clean up my map a bit.

Link to post

Not sure if this is where I talk about this or not. Since the update to the page the caches in my zip code -86040 are all messed up. I used to get about 6 or so pages of caches. Now I get one page and the closest cache is over 16 miles away.

I think the problem here is that zipcode 86060 covers such a large area of the state. Here's the map page gc.com generates. You can see that the geographic center (or whatever it's using) is out in the mountains, some 16 or so miles away from page.

An alternative would be to use the link on the right-hand side of your account page, "Search for nearest caches from my home coordinates". You can update your home coordinates more precisely.

Edited by Corey
Link to post

I suppose it's not that big a deal to most peoples, but I like to reply to the cachers who find my EarthCaches and this new function is making what used to be a one step process into a three step process.

 

Three step process?

 

When you are reading an email, don't you just click [reply] and it populates the [to] field with the address in the [reply to] field? The [sender] field has not had an address for just about forever.

Now if the people who sent you an email un-clicked [i want to send my email address along with this message.] then you have to go through the three step process, and that's ALWAYS been the case for that situation. But I expect that people finding your Earth caches wouldn't do that, if they did that to me I'd probably not allow their FIND just out of spite, if I were a jerk (don't say it!).

Link to post

I suppose it's not that big a deal to most peoples, but I like to reply to the cachers who find my EarthCaches and this new function is making what used to be a one step process into a three step process.

 

Three step process?

 

When you are reading an email, don't you just click [reply] and it populates the [to] field with the address in the [reply to] field? The [sender] field has not had an address for just about forever.

Now if the people who sent you an email un-clicked [i want to send my email address along with this message.] then you have to go through the three step process, and that's ALWAYS been the case for that situation. But I expect that people finding your Earth caches wouldn't do that, if they did that to me I'd probably not allow their FIND just out of spite, if I were a jerk (don't say it !).

:(:laughing:

Link to post

:) I saw a question a while ago, but have not seen the answer and it appears not to have been fixed yet - is this then the correct place to ask the question?

 

When I try to get a PDF printout of a cache page, which has the clue decrypted when it opens the PDF the clue is still encrypted! on all three options of PDF and it also happens whe you try to Simple print with no logs??

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...