Bulk cache submission (for a series)

[+criffree]

I just finished setting out a series of 30 caches with a buddy. We'd like the description between mine and his to be as similar as possible. Apart from creating the first one and copy/pasting the rest, is there a way to submit an entire series?

 

I was wondering if there was a GSAK script that could take the details from the database and use it to submit individual caches to geocaching.com. If so, I could create the major details in GSAK, export it to my buddy, we could run the script on the caches and they'd be the same.

 

Am I just dreaming or is this something someone has already accomplished? I searched the GSAK forums, with no luck. Maybe this is something gc.com frowns upon? (guessing). Just looking for ways to make the cache creation as quick and as high a quality as I can.

 

Other ideas? Thanks in Advance.

[GOF and Bacall]

Lord above I hope not! Does everything in this pastime need to be copy and paste? If you can take the time to hide caches take the time to make each one, including the cache page, an experience of its own. They can still all mesh and work together.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Not trying to be crude, rude, or anything of the sort, but I have to agree with GOF & Bacall.

 

If you want individual caches, why in the world would you want them to read (mostly) the same? Just to waste space?

 

Oh well, to each his own...

[+narcissa]

Is there a way to submit "needs archived" logs in bulk?

[+Taoiseach]

Is there a way to submit "needs archived" logs in bulk?

 

+1

[jholly]

I just finished setting out a series of 30 caches with a buddy. We'd like the description between mine and his to be as similar as possible. Apart from creating the first one and copy/pasting the rest, is there a way to submit an entire series?

 

I was wondering if there was a GSAK script that could take the details from the database and use it to submit individual caches to geocaching.com. If so, I could create the major details in GSAK, export it to my buddy, we could run the script on the caches and they'd be the same.

 

Am I just dreaming or is this something someone has already accomplished? I searched the GSAK forums, with no luck. Maybe this is something gc.com frowns upon? (guessing). Just looking for ways to make the cache creation as quick and as high a quality as I can.

 

Other ideas? Thanks in Advance.

 

You might talk to NGA (Nevada Geocaching Association), they have some experience in putting a few caches all at the same time.

[+criffree]

Not trying to be crude, rude, or anything of the sort, but I have to agree with GOF & Bacall.

 

If you want individual caches, why in the world would you want them to read (mostly) the same? Just to waste space?

 

I understand the comments, and perhaps I've not been entirely clear. Don't get hung up on the common description (thats religion). They won't be exactly the same. I've built a series, and need to name them in a particular way. They are along a path. Instead of a 30 part multi, I wanted to do 30 caches. In this case, the reward will not be my witty prose in the cache page, but instead the journey for multiple smileys.

 

But no matter. Take the cookie cutter concept out, and pretend I'm writing different chapters in the GSAK (or any database app of choice) cache description.

 

I can also see a need for this as someone might want to post their cache's in a similar format. Personal template of sorts.

[GOF and Bacall]

Not sure what the religion comment is about but I don't see any advantage to a bulk submission. You either need to work on each individual cache or they are cookie cutter caches. There are plenty of the latter without automating the process. It really doesn't need to be about the numbers.

[+Isonzo Karst]

A GSAK macro to open a bunch of cache submit pages, bulk paste, and bulk click the "yes I have read and understood the listing guidelines" and the "yes..understood.....term of use" buttons - that would be terms of use violation. Having you manually check those two buttons each time a listing is created or edited, is part of the contract you create with the website. The place where you state that you understand the terms. I can't image that they'd ever want to let that happen via macro.

 

You certainly can create a template, and share that with your buddy. Copy and paste it into 30 cache submit forms. Disable them as you create them. UNCHECK "this cache is currently active". Then fiddle with them until the whole group is ready, matching write up, or write up templates, and then activate the group at once.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Isonzo Karst

[+criffree]

Not sure what the religion comment is about but I don't see any advantage to a bulk submission. You either need to work on each individual cache or they are cookie cutter caches. There are plenty of the latter without automating the process. It really doesn't need to be about the numbers.

 

I get it. You don't like it. Noted.

But I can assure you that there are good reasons to want this, not withstanding any preconceived notions you may have on the subject. That said, I see your point on how it could be abused.

 

But this thread is not about "should" we... Its "Can this be done".

 

To give you an example, what if you had a very complex puzzle setup, and wanted to make sure all the right parts are in the correct cache page descriptions. Leaving the details to a manual process, as opposed to an organized automated approach just seems prone to error.

 

So, my goal, as I'm sure yours, is to make sure that the cache description is of highest quality as possible. And by providing a consistent, repeatable mechanism to do this, seems like a good idea!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Not sure what the religion comment is about but I don't see any advantage to a bulk submission. You either need to work on each individual cache or they are cookie cutter caches. There are plenty of the latter without automating the process. It really doesn't need to be about the numbers.

 

I get it. You don't like it. Noted.

But I can assure you that there are good reasons to want this, not withstanding any preconceived notions you may have on the subject. That said, I see your point on how it could be abused.

 

But this thread is not about "should" we... Its "Can this be done".

 

 

Interesting. In a thread I just read prior to this one about placing caches on school grounds someone wrote "Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done". I don't think that this really applies in this case but I I found it ironic.

 

I am surprised that this thread has progressed this far without the definitive answer being provided and that is; contact your local reviewer, the them know what you want to do. I'm guessing that it doesn't really matter if they're submitted in bulk or not as long as they're all published at the same time. The only person that can do that is the reviewer. With 30 caches being submitted there is a cache that one or more may have issues that your reviewer may want to address before they can be published. If you're doing a series you'll want to make sure all of them are viable before any of them are published.

[+narcissa]

 

But this thread is not about "should" we... Its "Can this be done".

 

 

And to that I say, "I hope not."

[+Taoiseach]

Not sure what the religion comment is about but I don't see any advantage to a bulk submission. You either need to work on each individual cache or they are cookie cutter caches. There are plenty of the latter without automating the process. It really doesn't need to be about the numbers.

 

I get it. You don't like it. Noted.

But I can assure you that there are good reasons to want this, not withstanding any preconceived notions you may have on the subject. That said, I see your point on how it could be abused.

 

But this thread is not about "should" we... Its "Can this be done".

 

To give you an example, what if you had a very complex puzzle setup, and wanted to make sure all the right parts are in the correct cache page descriptions. Leaving the details to a manual process, as opposed to an organized automated approach just seems prone to error.

 

So, my goal, as I'm sure yours, is to make sure that the cache description is of highest quality as possible. And by providing a consistent, repeatable mechanism to do this, seems like a good idea!

 

It probably can be done, but as has been mentioned, you'll still have to check the 'yes I have read and understood the listing guidelines' and the 'yes I have read and understood the terms of use' buttons manually, or else it will be a terms of use violation.

 

Really now, do we need to facilitate the numbers crowd this much? I'm never in favour of doing anything that would encourage the placement of cookie cutter caches, power trails, or anything else that saturates an entire area with lame repetitive nonsense

[GOF and Bacall]

Not sure what the religion comment is about but I don't see any advantage to a bulk submission. You either need to work on each individual cache or they are cookie cutter caches. There are plenty of the latter without automating the process. It really doesn't need to be about the numbers.

 

I get it. You don't like it. Noted.

But I can assure you that there are good reasons to want this, not withstanding any preconceived notions you may have on the subject. That said, I see your point on how it could be abused.

 

But this thread is not about "should" we... Its "Can this be done".

 

To give you an example, what if you had a very complex puzzle setup, and wanted to make sure all the right parts are in the correct cache page descriptions. Leaving the details to a manual process, as opposed to an organized automated approach just seems prone to error.

 

So, my goal, as I'm sure yours, is to make sure that the cache description is of highest quality as possible. And by providing a consistent, repeatable mechanism to do this, seems like a good idea!

 

I am sure that it can be done. It just needs one of the artistic programmers to put the effort into it. Should it be done is the more important question.

 

I'd rather take the time to work on each page and make it right. I've built multi cache puzzles. It wasn't difficult to organize the clues and submit each cache individually.

[+palmetto]

The OP is asking about a means to create multiple listings, other than manually clicking the "new listing" box and then manually filling in the forms, and manually checking the 3 buttons (yes, I have read..guidelines, yes I have read TOU, and submit).

 

There is no such means that I'm aware of, and if were invented, I'd guess it could only function as a TOU violation.

 

But that's the question being asked, not the value of a series, or how to get them published at once.

That's the easy part, a reviewer note asking that they all go out together will get that done - especially if the caches are submitted at least 10 days in advance of whatever publication date the CO would like.

[+Chrysalides]

There's an extension for Firefox called iMacro. Depending on how you make use of it, it could be just prefilling parts of the form for you, or it could be a TOU violation (esp. if you have it click "Submit" for you). At its simplest, it would merely pre-fill part of the form for you, and can be helpful in preventing mistakes and inconsistencies.

 

It does require some scripting knowledge, and there is no existing script you can use so you'll have to do it from scratch.

 

I'm not sure if any other automated form fillers are available.

 

It is my opinion that pre-filling part of a form is not a TOU violation if such tools do not click on the "I have read the guidelines / TOU" boxes and click on the submit button for you. But then again, I am not a lawyer, and if I do make such a tool for myself, I would not feel any moral dilemma over using it. Neither would I talk about it here or offer the tool to anyone else over a public forum. And just to be clear, I do not have such a tool, so there's no need to ask me in a PM / email.

 

As you can see, only technical help is provided, without any unsought personal opinion

[+moose61]

In the Netherlands we add a request for a bulk release in the notes to the reviewer. All caches should be send to the approver in time to give them time to review the listings. This approach is for instance done to release caches during an event.

 

It might be different in other countries.

[GOF and Bacall]

In the Netherlands we add a request for a bulk release in the notes to the reviewer. All caches should be send to the approver in time to give them time to review the listings. This approach is for instance done to release caches during an event.

 

It might be different in other countries.

 

Nope. No different. But that isn't the question being asked.

[+StarBrand]

Nope - you gotta do them one at time. Each on its own. Might just as well take a moment to make them unique while your at it.

[+DarkZen]

Slightly off topic but against the current here, I offer my support of series caches. Not that I would put out 30 (for me 10 seems to be the max), but there are many good reasons for series. Mine are by no means "power trails". I usually work up the repeatable part in Word and write the different part right on the cache page. Here is a sampling of some of my series with more and lesser degrees of cut and paste. Not everyone dislikes them, my experience is that I get positive reviews for them as can be seen in the logs. Sometimes I link to the others in the series, sometimes not:

 

Ancient Marvels series

 

Circus series

 

Wizard of Oz series

 

Seven Dwarves series

[+Vater_Araignee]

Can it be done in gsak?

With some initial effort, yes.

It can be done with a browser with less effort.

Should it be done?

No.

A macro is not going to be any better at the cookie cutter portion than you are, just faster. Ya know Ctrl + C & Ctrl + V.

So if they all are going to be different use copy past to put in the commonalities and manually do the rest.

 

Oh yeah, a macro can not put in the differences between them unless you specifically program those differences in.

I would rather just write the differences VS programing them, much less work involved.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have no problem with series caches. They can be fun. I just don't think that automating the cache submission procedures would be a good idea.

[+DarkZen]

I have no problem with series caches. They can be fun. I just don't think that automating the cache submission procedures would be a good idea.

I honestly don't see the problem. Not that I would ever use that feature, I mean your there working on the page anyway why not just click the enable button as part of the process?

[4wheelin_fool]

I just finished setting out a series of 30 caches with a buddy. We'd like the description between mine and his to be as similar as possible. Apart from creating the first one and copy/pasting the rest, is there a way to submit an entire series?

 

I was wondering if there was a GSAK script that could take the details from the database and use it to submit individual caches to geocaching.com. If so, I could create the major details in GSAK, export it to my buddy, we could run the script on the caches and they'd be the same.

 

Am I just dreaming or is this something someone has already accomplished? I searched the GSAK forums, with no luck. Maybe this is something gc.com frowns upon? (guessing). Just looking for ways to make the cache creation as quick and as high a quality as I can.

 

Other ideas? Thanks in Advance.

 

 

Let me get this straight, copying and pasting a page 30 times would be a chore, so you are looking for an even quicker way to cut corners?

 

It doesn't sound like a real interesting series....

[+criffree]

Thanks to those with constructive answers. Its confirmed much of what I suspected. I appreciate your time and effort. It will definately require a message to our reviewer.

 

For those who's sensibilities I've offended by talking about such a subject in a message board, I apologize. I respect your opinion on the subject just as I would ask you to understand that I may have my reasons for wanting such a thing (even if I've not sufficiently explained them).

[GOF and Bacall]

Thanks to those with constructive answers. Its confirmed much of what I suspected. I appreciate your time and effort. It will definately require a message to our reviewer.

 

For those who's sensibilities I've offended by talking about such a subject in a message board, I apologize. I respect your opinion on the subject just as I would ask you to understand that I may have my reasons for wanting such a thing (even if I've not sufficiently explained them).

 

Hey, that's what forums are for. If everyone always agreed this place would be boring.