"edit" archived caches

4k · July 24, 2009

I have no desire to edit an archived cache, but...

I would like to copy some of the html and image locations from one of my archived events. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it visible but yet not able to make changes? (I have an event that will be near identical to its predecessor.)

I know there are other ways to get this information. I just don't understand why the edit button isn't just grayed out instead of making the page hidden.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Knight2000

July 24, 2009

I have no desire to edit an archived cache, but...

I would like to copy some of the html and image locations from one of my archived events. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it visible but yet not able to make changes? (I have an event that will be near identical to its predecessor.)

I know there are other ways to get this information. I just don't understand why the edit button isn't just grayed out instead of making the page hidden.

I guess since there's no need to edit an archived item they've shut it off that way. If you're wanting the contents of the short and long description though you can right click the page and click View Source, scroll down and you'll see what to copy and where

1k · July 24, 2009

I know there are other ways to get this information. I just don't understand why the edit button isn't just grayed out instead of making the page hidden.

I agree. I also have a need at times to copy content from an archived cache, but not being able to access the edit page is a nuisance. Having access to that page and disabling the edit/save button would be much much preferred.

4k · July 24, 2009

I know there are other ways to get this information. I just don't understand why the edit button isn't just grayed out instead of making the page hidden.

I agree. I also have a need at times to copy content from an archived cache, but not being able to access the edit page is a nuisance. Having access to that page and disabling the edit/save button would be much much preferred.

Does anyone else feel this way?

I know that you can view the html and pictures another way. But, at least for me, just being able to view the the page would be easier.

What would it hurt?

Groundspeak- are you listening? (Of course they are. That's why this forum is here. )

July 24, 2009

I know there are other ways to get this information. I just don't understand why the edit button isn't just grayed out instead of making the page hidden.

I agree. I also have a need at times to copy content from an archived cache, but not being able to access the edit page is a nuisance. Having access to that page and disabling the edit/save button would be much much preferred.

Does anyone else feel this way?

I know that you can view the html and pictures another way. But, at least for me, just being able to view the the page would be easier.

What would it hurt?

Groundspeak- are you listening? (Of course they are. That's why this forum is here. )

I know why it hurts (becasue some users with archived caches went and "vandalized" their cahce pages with stuff--protest, html code, etc...)

But I agree, I too would like to be able to collect the html code and use it on another page.

I would even like to edit the heml code on an archived cache to include photos on the actual cache page for events (for example). I have in the past placed the image files uploaded by people who attened the event and then created a scrap book sumamry of the event after it is archived. I enjoyed that but no more.

4k · July 24, 2009

I know why it hurts (becasue some users with archived caches went and "vandalized" their cahce pages with stuff--protest, html code, etc...)

But if you could view it and not edit it, then that would serve the purpose and no one could do that. Just grey out the button!

3.2k · July 25, 2009

I know why it hurts (becasue some users with archived caches went and "vandalized" their cahce pages with stuff--protest, html code, etc...)

But if you could view it and not edit it, then that would serve the purpose and no one could do that. Just grey out the button!

You can. Firefox hit ctrl-u. If your stuck with IE, Page > View Source.

7.2k · July 25, 2009

weathernowcast hit the nail on the head. I don't see this changing due to abuse in the past.

baloo&bd offer the perfect solutions. You are seeing the exact same thing.

1k · July 27, 2009

I know why it hurts (becasue some users with archived caches went and "vandalized" their cahce pages with stuff--protest, html code, etc...)

But if you could view it and not edit it, then that would serve the purpose and no one could do that. Just grey out the button!

You can. Firefox hit ctrl-u. If your stuck with IE, Page > View Source.

The OP already has to do just that and this is currently the only way to get the information. But sifting through the tons of lines of site code just to find "LongDescription" is a bit of a pain. There isn't a desire to edit the archived cache page. Just looking for a cleaner way to view the cache page contents such as would be found on the cache edit page.

9.2k · July 27, 2009

The OP already has to do just that and this is currently the only way to get the information. But sifting through the tons of lines of site code just to find "LongDescription" is a bit of a pain.

Or you can just use the Find function on the source display page. :blink:

1.1k · July 28, 2009

The OP already has to do just that and this is currently the only way to get the information. But sifting through the tons of lines of site code just to find "LongDescription" is a bit of a pain.

Or you can just use the Find function on the source display page.

So, what your saying is... "there is no need to improve the functionality of this website because there is a less convenient, more annoying way to do what your suggesting"?

Ah-ha.

3.2k · July 28, 2009

The OP already has to do just that and this is currently the only way to get the information. But sifting through the tons of lines of site code just to find "LongDescription" is a bit of a pain.

Or you can just use the Find function on the source display page.

So, what your saying is... "there is no need to improve the functionality of this website because there is a less convenient, more annoying way to do what your suggesting"?

Ah-ha.

On the contrary, I think what is being said are there are workarounds that are more than adequate to accomplish the task and that for something that would be used as rarely as this it is probably not going to make it very high on the priority list when there are other more pressing issues.

1.1k · July 28, 2009

So, what your saying is... "there is no need to improve the functionality of this website because there is a less convenient, more annoying way to do what your suggesting"?

Ah-ha.

On the contrary, I think what is being said are there are workarounds that are more than adequate to accomplish the task and that for something that would be used as rarely as this it is probably not going to make it very high on the priority list when there are other more pressing issues.

I don't think that's too contrary to what I said.

7.2k · July 28, 2009

Yes, it is actually.

This functionality is not going to come back. I would be one to fight against it and I am sure the entire reviewer team would also. There are reasons for locking a cache page after it is archived. It is because of past abuse. There is no reason to go to the edit page unless you are going to edit it.

This is very true.

<snip>

...there are workarounds that are more than adequate to accomplish the task and that for something that would be used as rarely as this it is probably not going to make it very high on the priority list when there are other more pressing issues.

I would rather them work on the KML file and getting the new forums up and running than stopping to get this done for a rare use for which there is an easy alternative solution already existing.

9.2k · July 28, 2009

The OP already has to do just that and this is currently the only way to get the information. But sifting through the tons of lines of site code just to find "LongDescription" is a bit of a pain.

Or you can just use the Find function on the source display page.

So, what your saying is... "there is no need to improve the functionality of this website because there is a less convenient, more annoying way to do what your suggesting"?

Ah-ha.

No, what I'm saying is that there's a not-to-difficult method to do what you want RIGHT NOW, instead of waiting around for someone else to code a solution for you. Ever hear the phrase "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness"?

Edited July 28, 2009 by Prime Suspect

4k · July 28, 2009

What I am wondering is why people are posting without reading the entire thread?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make it visible but yet not able to make changes? I just don't understand why the edit button isn't just grayed out instead of making the page hidden.

What was said is not having the ability to edit the cache page but to make the page viewable without having the ability to edit it? Just grey out the button? I am so sick of people suggesting work around. I didn't ask for one. I know there is a way.

2k · July 28, 2009

Wow! The information may not seem helpful but they are trying to help.

4k · July 28, 2009

Wow! The information may not seem helpful but they are trying to help.

I understand that but that wasn't what this thread was started for.

6.5k · July 28, 2009

I know why it hurts (becasue some users with archived caches went and "vandalized" their cahce pages with stuff--protest, html code, etc...)

But if you could view it and not edit it, then that would serve the purpose and no one could do that. Just grey out the button!

You can. Firefox hit ctrl-u. If your stuck with IE, Page > View Source.

The OP already has to do just that and this is currently the only way to get the information. But sifting through the tons of lines of site code just to find "LongDescription" is a bit of a pain. There isn't a desire to edit the archived cache page. Just looking for a cleaner way to view the cache page contents such as would be found on the cache edit page.

create a bogus listing, disable it and and leave it that way so its never published. Dump all your 'gonna reuse this later' stuff in that descrption. Some use these 'test page' for working on/building html etc then copying it back into a real cache page.

6.7k · July 28, 2009

Wow! The information may not seem helpful but they are trying to help.

I understand that but that wasn't what this thread was started for.

If you understand that they are just trying to help why the nasty remark?

1k · July 28, 2009

The OP already has to do just that and this is currently the only way to get the information. But sifting through the tons of lines of site code just to find "LongDescription" is a bit of a pain.

Or you can just use the Find function on the source display page.

So, what your saying is... "there is no need to improve the functionality of this website because there is a less convenient, more annoying way to do what your suggesting"?

Ah-ha.

On the contrary, I think what is being said are there are workarounds that are more than adequate to accomplish the task and that for something that would be used as rarely as this it is probably not going to make it very high on the priority list when there are other more pressing issues.

The workarounds are less convenient and more annoying. As for the priority list ranking, why does everybody automatically think a suggestion like this one would hit the top of the list? Do I think it deserves to be on the list? Yes. Do I really care where it falls in the priority level? No. Do I want it to jump in front of KML development and other bug issues? Of course not.

1k · July 28, 2009

Yes, it is actually.

This functionality is not going to come back. I would be one to fight against it and I am sure the entire reviewer team would also. There are reasons for locking a cache page after it is archived. It is because of past abuse. There is no reason to go to the edit page unless you are going to edit it.

Why do you keep bringing up the edit capability of the archived cache? One poster suggested that, but that was not the intent the OP suggested. The intent is to allow viewing access to the edit page just as you would any other cache, but gray out and disable the edit function of the archived cache.

9.2k · July 28, 2009

Took me all of FIVE SECONDS to Google this.

Took me another FIVE SECONDS to extract the HTML:

<div style="text-align: justify;">An event to celebrate our
upcoming geocaching series in historic Rogues' Hollow!<br>
<br>
Where: Rogues' Hollow Historic Park & Chippewa Nature Preserve
in Doylestown, OH<br>
Date: Saturday June 20, 2009<br>
Time: <strong>5:30pm</strong> - 11pm (New earlier time!)<br>
What to bring: Lawn chairs, snacks, drinks, and an adventurous
attitude!<br>
<br>
Come enjoy snacks, S'mores, Doylestown caches, and fun! The Rogues'
Hollow Historical Society museum at the Chidester Mill will be open
and a tour will be given at 7:30pm. Campfire to follow. Come
celebrate our educational cache series with the participation of
the Rogues' Hollow Historical Society! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">We have changed the start time a
bit. This way the regular caches can be enjoyed during daylight
when you can really see the beauty and history of the area. We will
have some sort of temporary caches or similar so those who want can
experience some night caching Rogues' Hollow style! Come and go as
you please! Feel free to come early and explore this secluded
nature preserve!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br>
Updates:<br>
5/19 - Night caching will be permitted for this event. It is super
dark down in the Hollow!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">6/9 - Change of start time from
7pm to 5:30. </div>
<br>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img style="width: 550px; height: 366px;" src="http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9993/mill222.jpg"></div>

7.2k · July 28, 2009

Why do you keep bringing up the edit capability of the archived cache? One poster suggested that, but that was not the intent the OP suggested. The intent is to allow viewing access to the edit page just as you would any other cache, but gray out and disable the edit function of the archived cache.

Sure, make that happen. It is such an easy work around that it just isn't a big deal in the big picture. Since you bring up the OP, he is the one being insistent that it happen, to the point of making it sound like it should happen now now now.

What I am wondering is why people are posting without reading the entire thread?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make it visible but yet not able to make changes? I just don't understand why the edit button isn't just grayed out instead of making the page hidden.

What was said is not having the ability to edit the cache page but to make the page viewable without having the ability to edit it? Just grey out the button? I am so sick of people suggesting work around. I didn't ask for one. I know there is a way.

Wow! The information may not seem helpful but they are trying to help.

I understand that but that wasn't what this thread was started for.

Yeah, sure, I bet there is a way to code that. "If page equals archived remove button, etc." Somebody has to write it, then it has to be tested. Then you have to be sure it doesn't impact other parts of the site. It takes time and energy and manpower. So Knight2000, can you have some patience and wait for this to happen after other more important things are dealt with?

Put this *WAY* down the list in my opinion. The request has been made. A way to deal with it in the mean time has been demonstrated. So this topic can now fall off the page, yes?

July 29, 2009

The ultimate solution is, never type directly on the cache listing page. If your description is more than a couple of sentences, write it in a text file and save it, then paste it into the cache page when you are ready. Editing is a heck of a lot easier in a text editor than in a browser, and you'll always have a copy. Computer crash? Do backups, though in this case you can consider the page on gc.com to be an inconvenient backup of last resort.

Edward

3.2k · July 29, 2009

Yes, it is actually.

This functionality is not going to come back. I would be one to fight against it and I am sure the entire reviewer team would also. There are reasons for locking a cache page after it is archived. It is because of past abuse. There is no reason to go to the edit page unless you are going to edit it.

Why do you keep bringing up the edit capability of the archived cache? One poster suggested that, but that was not the intent the OP suggested. The intent is to allow viewing access to the edit page just as you would any other cache, but gray out and disable the edit function of the archived cache.

Since you asked, because it is specifically what the OP asked for. From the original post;

I would like to copy some of the html and image locations from one of my archived events. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it visible but yet not able to make changes? (I have an event that will be near identical to its predecessor.)

In fact, it was the comment that they wanted "to copy some of the html and image locations from one of my archived events" that prompted very concise answers early on in post #2, 7, 10.

Edited July 29, 2009 by baloo&bd

6.8k · July 29, 2009

There is no reason to go to the edit page unless you are going to edit it.

It depends to what the word "it" refers to. There are situations where it would be meaningful to allow the addition of new information to an archived cache while keeping the text of the cache description and all other important data fields associated with the cache unchanged. Consider for example the state/province field for caches that are located in countries for which the division into states/provinces has become implemented at quite a late stage. Being allowed to add the province (not to change the country! - this again could be abused) for archived caches would make sense while not inviting for abuse.

Cezanne

4k · July 29, 2009

So Knight2000, can you have some patience and wait for this to happen after other more important things are dealt with?

Put this *WAY* down the list in my opinion. The request has been made. A way to deal with it in the mean time has been demonstrated. So this topic can now fall off the page, yes?

Sure I have the patience. I never suggested that it be done now. And I also agree that it would be at the very bottom of the list.

It is still something that some would appreciate while everyone else can ignore it.

"edit" archived caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment