Archived+Locked

[+escomag]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

 

if you don't care for this subject can keep your mouth shut so your dentures don't slip too

 

oooh bristly!

[GOF and Bacall]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

 

If you are referring to the word "dadgum" that wasn't a slip of my dentures, it was the nanny software Groundspeak uses sanitizing my post. I had let a word not appropriate for a "family friendly" forum slip through my self filtering. I bet even you can guess what word it was.

 

A yes, that was the reason. I don't hear dadgum used often. Hmmmm makes we want to fill a post full of 'naughty bits' just to see what comes back

 

I suspect that intentionally testing the boundaries of the nanny filter will get you into hot water. Particularly if you stumble on something the filter doesn't catch.

[+Harry Dolphin]

For possibly the first time in recorded history, I agree with KitFox! (Red mark on calendar page..)

For the meantime, I'll take jholly's explanation as plausible.

It's good that someone brought the discussion here. That Total Dissatisfaction website is incredibly annoying, and for many of us, worthless. Like watching kindergartners coloring with large crayons.

Important stuff should be mentioned on the forum, not some other website.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

Your dentures slipped while you posted

If you are referring to the word "dadgum" that wasn't a slip of my dentures, it was the nanny software Groundspeak uses sanitizing my post. I had let a word not appropriate for a "family friendly" forum slip through my self filtering. I bet even you can guess what word it was.

A yes, that was the reason. I don't hear dadgum used often. Hmmmm makes we want to fill a post full of 'naughty bits' just to see what comes back

I suspect that intentionally testing the boundaries of the nanny filter will get you into hot water. Particularly if you stumble on something the filter doesn't catch.

Good advice.

[GOF and Bacall]

It appears that at the least the locationless caches are back to being veiwable.

 

Thanks Groundspeak.

[+escomag]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

 

If you are referring to the word "dadgum" that wasn't a slip of my dentures, it was the nanny software Groundspeak uses sanitizing my post. I had let a word not appropriate for a "family friendly" forum slip through my self filtering. I bet even you can guess what word it was.

 

A yes, that was the reason. I don't hear dadgum used often. Hmmmm makes we want to fill a post full of 'naughty bits' just to see what comes back

 

I suspect that intentionally testing the boundaries of the nanny filter will get you into hot water. Particularly if you stumble on something the filter doesn't catch.

making me want to and doing are two very different things. You should see what I 'want to do' to the guy who cuts me off in Traffic.

Back on topic, I will miss being able to look at archived caches

[+Too Tall John]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

No, I have to disagree. This is a good decision, for both Groundspeak and the geocaching community even though the community doesn't realize it yet.

That sounds a bit Orwellian. GS knows what's good for us so we should just accept it?

Not Orwellian. I didn't say that "GS knows what's good for us". I said "I think it was a good decision for the community".

No, that isn't what you said at all.

[+sseegars]

Again, what the is going on? I can still see everything about several older caches that I found that are archived and locked one of them being an APE cache!

[GOF and Bacall]

Again, what the is going on? I can still see everything about several older caches that I found that are archived and locked one of them being an APE cache!

 

Any caches that had been archived and LOCKed could not be viewed. It appears that this has been reversed.

[+t4e]

 

A yes, that was the reason. I don't hear dadgum used often. Hmmmm makes we want to fill a post full of 'naughty bits' just to see what comes back

 

i tested it, they are not censored

 

try it, make a reply and hit "preview"

Edited September 3, 2010 by t4e

[knowschad]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

Your dentures slipped while you posted

If you are referring to the word "dadgum" that wasn't a slip of my dentures, it was the nanny software Groundspeak uses sanitizing my post. I had let a word not appropriate for a "family friendly" forum slip through my self filtering. I bet even you can guess what word it was.

A yes, that was the reason. I don't hear dadgum used often. Hmmmm makes we want to fill a post full of 'naughty bits' just to see what comes back

I suspect that intentionally testing the boundaries of the nanny filter will get you into hot water. Particularly if you stumble on something the filter doesn't catch.

Good advice.

Can we haz a nanny sandbox plz? Edited September 3, 2010 by knowschad

[+cache_test_dummies]

Again, what the is going on? I can still see everything about several older caches that I found that are archived and locked one of them being an APE cache!

 

Any caches that had been archived and LOCKed could not be viewed. It appears that this has been reversed.

And they all lived happily ever after.

 

The End.

[+Castle Mischief]

The forums and the GetSat site have been under attack lately, but perhaps you did not notice. It seems they got that under control. Perhaps the latest broadside in the attack was cache pages. Perhaps the draconian measures of archive+locked = unpublished was to put a quick halt to that attack. I'm sure this was something Jeremy really did not want to do or something he was doing just for the piss-off factor. I fully expect that he will not, nor should he, discuss the reasons for the action. And I'm sure the action was taken to stem further damage. I doubt it has anything to do with the bomb incident in Canada.

 

This actually makes a ton of sense. I'm willing to wait it out and see what develops.

[+Castle Mischief]

It appears that at the least the locationless caches are back to being veiwable.

 

Thanks Groundspeak.

 

DISASTER AVERTED.

[+dfx]

The forums and the GetSat site have been under attack lately, but perhaps you did not notice. It seems they got that under control. Perhaps the latest broadside in the attack was cache pages. Perhaps the draconian measures of archive+locked = unpublished was to put a quick halt to that attack. I'm sure this was something Jeremy really did not want to do or something he was doing just for the piss-off factor. I fully expect that he will not, nor should he, discuss the reasons for the action. And I'm sure the action was taken to stem further damage. I doubt it has anything to do with the bomb incident in Canada.

 

This actually makes a ton of sense. I'm willing to wait it out and see what develops.

actually it doesn't make a lot of sense. the only way to "attack" a cache page would be to post logs, and since all those pages were locked anyway, no logs could've been posted. or well, that's how it should've been. it was still possible to post logs on (some?) locked listings, but that's really a magor bug on their side. the fix should've been to properly prevent people from posting logs on locked listings, just as it should be, and not to take those listings off completely.

 

of course this is all assuming that this really was the reason behind it all, which nobody knows.

[+t4e]

Not getting this? What is missing? I looked back at some old caches I found under my old handle, on an APE cache and I could still read everything.

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/...d_locked_caches

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not seeing the need for outrage.

Remember the repetition trail silliness? Some folks truly thrive on outrage.

I'm with you. A nice, quiet "Meh", and it's time to move on.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm not seeing the need for outrage.

Remember the repetition trail silliness? Some folks truly thrive on outrage.

I'm with you. A nice, quiet "Meh", and it's time to move on.

 

I don't know if I'd compare physical, real-world impact (of power trails) to virtual existence (of a cache page)... but I'll meet you half-way:

 

meh

[Mr.Yuck]

It appears that at the least the locationless caches are back to being veiwable.

 

Thanks Groundspeak.

 

DISASTER AVERTED.

 

Correct. I can now see the caches I have found owned by a famous banned SW Pa. member.

 

I can also see an archived and locked cache that was blown up at Wal-Mart Canada corporate HQ in Mississauga, Ontario last week. So much for that theory.

[+t4e]

 

Correct. I can now see the caches I have found owned by a famous banned SW Pa. member.

 

I can also see an archived and locked cache that was blown up at Wal-Mart Canada corporate HQ in Mississauga, Ontario last week. So much for that theory.

 

but notice the message "Cache Issues: * This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes." is now gone

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Correct. I can now see the caches I have found owned by a famous banned SW Pa. member.

 

I can also see an archived and locked cache that was blown up at Wal-Mart Canada corporate HQ in Mississauga, Ontario last week. So much for that theory.

 

but notice the message "Cache Issues: * This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes." is now gone

 

(Queue dramatic music.) What could it mean?!?! Surely some sinister plot that Jeremy has dreamed up to scare away people from his website?!?! ZOMG! It could be the Death of Caching as We Know It!©®™

 

THE HORROR

 

 

[+Semper Questio]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

No, I have to disagree. This is a good decision, for both Groundspeak and the geocaching community even though the community doesn't realize it yet.

That sounds a bit Orwellian. GS knows what's good for us so we should just accept it?

Not Orwellian. I didn't say that "GS knows what's good for us". I said "I think it was a good decision for the community".

No, that isn't what you said at all.

 

Thanks, TTJ. You just saved me a bunch of QUOTE building. Glad I checked the rest of the thread first.

[+Markwell]

Since this whole thing is no longer and issue, can this divergent thread be taken offline to those who

?

[Clan Riffster]

Agreed. Those Who Must Be Offended At All Costs need some fresh material to maintain their acceptable levels of outrage.

Could we get a nice anti-micro thread going? The current micro bash has kinda played itself out.

[Fledermaus]

Everyday I go outside and put a Letter or two into my mail Box.

And, I think I have found the ultimate solution to all my GC/GS pains.

However, it's over on another website and it's link is forbidden over here.

/\/(°w°)\/\

Edited September 16, 2010 by Fledermaus

[Fledermaus]

Is it now common practice for reviewers to "lock" caches, after they have been reviewed and/or approved?

 

Furthermore, do the cache pages remain "locked" after they have been published, thus preventing changes?

[GOF and Bacall]

Is it now common practice for reviewers to "lock" caches, after they have been reviewed and/or approved?

 

Furthermore, do the cache pages remain "locked" after they have been published, thus preventing changes?

 

Why don't you take a few minutes to read what is being discussed and then we'll talk.

[Andronicus]

After you *claim* you were there anyway. I can't see any evidence you were there at all.

 

I wonder how this will affect challenge caches where you have to provide proof.

 

You can prove you visited it as your log is still publicly accessible. Proving what the terrain, difficulty, size, etc is not possible.

How do these appear in your "my finds" PQ? Is the cache info in there?