Jump to content

Difficulty and Terrain


zoltig

Recommended Posts

I have made a discovery of sorts.

I thought that my DIFFICULTY/TERRAIN rating average was a bit low at D1.67/T1.96

 

In my opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) this is a more telling stat of your caching performance than an actual find count.

 

If your difficulty rating and terrain rating go up, you would seem to be inclined to accept a more challenging style of cache.

 

I thought my terrain rating was a bit on the low side. Not really true. I looked at the statistics of some (actually quite a few who are willing to share their stats) of our more energetic geocachers and found that they are right in the ballpark or even a tad lower. Is the D/T average a type of pulse or blood pressure analogy? The more geocaches you find does not mean the pulse will change. In fact, it could go down. Finding fewer caches with a more aggressive D/T rating will bring those numbers up. BTW-I do not want to use these numbers to browbeat others.

 

I plan to challenge myself by caching the more aggressive geocaches. In reality that is what I typically like to do anyway. I would like to get both numbers above 2. The downfall to that is that I have to be careful that the cache that I am seeking is really a competitive rating. In other words, some geocachers are intentionally over rating their caches and in reality, the actual cache is way under the rating. Think “Liars” caches or a “medicated” cache that the rating just makes you feel good. I am not going to go find a 5/5 cache that is rated incorrectly just to help my stats.

 

The D/T rating does not sort out micros, small or regular so to make an argument that micros are not caches goes by the way side. You could find a power trail of 1/1 or 1.5/1.5 of any size or type of cache and you have really changed nothing except your find count. If that is what you are aiming for, so be it. It will just make it harder to change those numbers in the future.

 

What is your D/T rating?

Are there caches in your area, rated honestly, that will promote a stronger geocaching heartbeat?

PQ’s will obviously help to sort out the caches by rating. I have noticed that in my area there are a few “over rated” caches. I feel that geocachers have a responsibility to correctly rate their caches as well as use the correct attribute.

 

I propose to all:

-Go for caches that will increase your D/T ratings and not just your find count.

 

-As a cache hider, please rate your caches as honestly as possible. Why abuse the system?

 

-Use the correct attributes for your cache hides or do not use them at all. Again, why abuse the system just because you can?

Sorry about the long winded post.

Link to comment

Difficulty and terrain ratings are there to inform the cacher of what kind of mess they're about to get into so that the cacher can make a judgment call on if they are able to physically get to the cache.

 

I often cache with my mom who has mobility issues she is physically not able to do a challenging terrain and as such I choose caches that she can physically get to.

 

I don't judge any cacher based on the difficulty or terrain of the caches they are seeking due to the reality that different people have different abilities and that does not mean they are any worse or less rounded of a cacher because of that.

 

Props to those who rate their caches appropriately rate their caches and don't lowball the terrain just to try to get people to them. I'd rather see people error on the side of caution and over rate something like terrain than under rate so those of us who use it to determine what we can physically do can make a good call on it.

Link to comment

Agree that many caches are not rated accurately, but it should all average out after a few hundred caches especially if you cover a wide enough geographic area that you cross into several different groups of owners. I don't really think much about the terrain and difficulty numbers unless it appears to be a really evil micro.. and then I look at the logs just to be sure. I do know my terrain average is just a bit higher than my difficulty average but that't just a reflection of how I like to cache. I'd say just make your numbers rather than letting the numbers make you.....

Link to comment

I have cached across the states and several countries and find that what is considered a 2 terrain in Illinois is very different than a 2 is Washington. So, it will always be subjective in that regard. I find that the difficulty rating seems to be more consistent across the board. The think the difficulty rating gets better as cachers get more experience and know what is difficult to find and what is not.

 

As far as the averages go, I think it has more to do with sample distribution. If you look at any given query run, a large majority will be located in upper left of the cache matrix. As you go down or to the right, the numbers drop off to the point that in many areas you cannot find caches that fill all the possible combinations.

 

So, unless you make a concerted effort to ignore the "easy" caches, your average rating will always be skewed towards the low end. This can lead to a lot fewer options and the fact you may miss some truly good caches. If you go out and grab everything that you can, you’re going to have a low average.

Link to comment

I propose to all:

-Go for caches that will increase your D/T ratings and not just your find count.

 

-As a cache hider, please rate your caches as honestly as possible. Why abuse the system?

 

-Use the correct attributes for your cache hides or do not use them at all. Again, why abuse the system just because you can?

Sorry about the long winded post.

 

I agree with #2 & #3. But #1... Why? What if I like easy caches? What if I have mobility issues? Not every one enjoys long hikes through rugged terrain so why should I do it just to better my D/T rating? To me its about enjoyment. I do enjoy the tougher terrain. I do enjoy canoing. I do enjoy some difficult puzzles. If doing those types of caches increases my D/T so be it. Striving for a metric is just that. While I certainly will be doing harder caches this year, it won't be to increase my D/T ratings. I will be doing those types of caches because I like them and I have become good enough to actually find some of them.

Link to comment

I propose to all: Go for caches that will increase your D/T ratings and not just your find count.

That might be a fine personal goal, but you shouldn't expect all others to share your preferences. I enjoy long hikes, but I'm not going to ignore enjoyable caches with 1.5 terrain ratings.

 

I am not going to go find a 5/5 cache that is rated incorrectly just to help my stats.

I don't do this either, but I also don't skip fun 5/5 caches that are overrated. If I did, then I'd miss out on some nice challenge caches, boat caches, etc. It would be great if all caches were rated perfectly, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Link to comment

Well, I knew what responses I would see for this thread as soon as I realized that the original post contained an opinion.

 

So, I'll be the first one to actually answer your question.

 

My D/T rating is: 1.625 / 1.543

 

I'll also add that I search out caches that happen to be near to me. Really, that's the #1 determining factor of whether I'll tackle a cache or not. My favorite caches have been quite diverse in their D/T ratings, so I don't see any reason to change my caching style. Of course, to each his/her own! :)

Link to comment

My average has been going up and up, since I've gotten so tired of crappy hides. I only been seeking out D/T of 3 or higher for a while now. However, with the new favorites feature, it allows me to theoretically seek out the better lower rated caches. My average will ultimately level out are even go lower now. I just went on a small trip and bookmarked many lower starred caches. I found many that had favorites, I read the descriptions and added the interesting sounding ones to my list. H

Link to comment

I seek out caches that interest me regardless of terrain or difficulty.

 

I tend towards higher terrain caches, as I'd rather my challenge come from the terrain than the difficulty. I'm not particularly into "evil" hides. I'd rather hike 2 miles over difficult terrain to find a cache in 10 seconds than spend 2 hours looking for an "evil" hide in the local park.

 

Though I prefer difficult terrain I'm more than happy finding a cache with a 1 star terrain/difficulty rating at an interesting historic site, nice view or other area of interest.

 

As far as the T/D ratings, they tend to be subjective (even though they shouldn't be). I've found 4 star terrain caches hidden 50 feet from a parking lot.

 

Terrain ratings also seem to vary by region. In my area terrain ratings tend to be low compared to what I've encountered in other regions. What I usually see rated as 2 stars here is often 3 or 3.5 in other areas. If I encounter 4 star terrain locally I know I'm in for a serious challenge. In other areas that I've cached, 4 star terrain means some undergrowth, a little hill and and a few streams to jump over.

 

In the end the important thing is to seek the caches you enjoy without worrying about statistics.

 

But since you asked:

 

D-1.95

T-2.13

Link to comment

It's fine to use difficulty/terrain to challenge yourself to do harder caches. I do that. But the challenge is only for me; I don't use it to compare with others.

 

I have found that higher-D/T caches tend to be more interesting than lower-D/T caches. That is natural, as caches that require a hike or solving a puzzle tend to be more interesting than park-n-grabs. But that doesn't mean a particular high-D/T cache is guaranteed to be better than a particular low-D/T cache. And now that we have favorites, it's easier to pick out the good caches of all ratings.

Link to comment

Thank you all for your responses. Even you GOF ;):P

 

Several people have noted the first bold statement and after re-reading it I can see why. The phrasing of the statement really wasn't meant to be that way. I guess it was meant to be more in conjunction with your find count. I am sorry I really at this time don't yet know the right phrasing that comes across well in forums.

 

It is interesting to hear other perspectives on the my original posting.

For examples different areas of the country are setting their terrain ratings locally. Good point.

 

Again for compare and contrast, I was surprised that my terrain rating, while I considered it low, wasn't really. I did notice that some people have several 5/5 finds on their stats. When I looked at what the caches really are, I noticed that they were not an honest rating. This was stated in the cache logs.

 

I do also enjoy a good geocache at a historic location or similar no matter what the rating.

 

BlueDeuce

 

Posted Today, 08:29 PM

I hope upping your stats is a personal goal. Personally I'd like to find more caches that are a good 1 or 2 mile hike along an established trail with some nice scenery. The D/T rating typically doesn't give me that sort of information.

I would hope a D/T would give you exactly that type of info. Well not exactly but enough info to help you draw a conclusion. Especially if it is conjunction with the right attributes.

 

Again, everybody it bringing valuable insight into thread. Also I would like to point out that I don't want the D/T we talk about to intimidate. Totally not my intention.

Link to comment

It really is a matter of what's important to you. Some people like a physical or mental challenge and some just want to get outside. Fortunately geocaching provides a lot of variety and people can do what they like.

 

I enjoy learning and trying new things. I also enjoy hiking. So I usually go for geocaches that have an interesting puzzle or a unique container and/or are in a park with nice trails. I have one caching friend who likes quick grabs, and a couple of other friends who like extreme terrains.

 

If you want to really get into the D/T numbers game, go to http://www.mygeocachingprofile.com/cacherrankings.aspx You can sort on Average Difficulty, Average Terrain, and a bunch of other things. This is the web site that Groundspeak acquired for the new Statistics feature. You will need to upload your myfinds pocket query to update the cacher rankings. Be warned, if you get into this a couple of things will happen. You'll be tempted to bypass otherwise worthy geocaches that would lower your average. And you'll be irked when someone moves ahead of you in the list.

Edited by Mom-n-Andy
Link to comment

As a personal goal, yes, I want to increase my D/T average. It tells me that I am improving myself physically (terrain) and mentally (difficulty as in puzzles).

Do I still get lower rated caches? Sure, though I really don't like LPCs. I'd rather do a nice walk in a park or woods. Walking in the woods clears my mind of worries and helps my heart pump better. It just so happens too that they are usually a higher rating.

Link to comment

Terrain ratings assume the lowest (easiest) approach method. For me, geocaching is typically an extension of my true sport, bicycling. I will often map a route to pick up a cache or two during a 25-30 mile training ride. Usually these are T 1.5-2 as I am not going on a serious bushwhack in spandex shorts in tick country wearing cleats. In addition, we are history buffs and many of the virtuals on the east coast are low terrain. Some of this gets balanced by the paddle-to caches that we've gotten into now that we are kayakers and the mountain biking/"bikewhacking" caches we do in the off season. In the end, the terrain rating of slightly above 1.9 for my physical cache finds bears little resemblance to the physical effort it took to find them so the statistic doesn't mean much to me.

With regard to the terrain ratings in different regions: yes, they vary, and sometimes quite a bit. My impression from traveling quite a bit is that a hike with 2,500' elevation gain can have an easier terrain rating if there are lots of mountains around than in an area that's relatively flat. Local expectations seem to count for a lot.

Link to comment
I propose to all:

-Go for caches that will increase your D/T ratings and not just your find count.

 

Why on earth would you care?

I go for caches that look like fun. I assume others do the same.

I don't think the OP does care, per se. It's just a challenge, not a command. As for stats haters, sometimes stats are just interesting to read and digest. It's not about who's a better cacher, it's just interesting to read. Like football stats, I don't care who is a better team, I just enjoy the variety of the stats.

Link to comment
I propose to all:

-Go for caches that will increase your D/T ratings and not just your find count.

 

Why on earth would you care?

I go for caches that look like fun. I assume others do the same.

I don't think the OP does care, per se. It's just a challenge, not a command. As for stats haters, sometimes stats are just interesting to read and digest. It's not about who's a better cacher, it's just interesting to read. Like football stats, I don't care who is a better team, I just enjoy the variety of the stats.

Thank you TV. That is my intent with that line. As I mentioned above, sometimes the message received is not the message truly sent, and on forums, it can be hard to distinguish.

 

Just back from an event and cache find. Yes I had fun. I hope everybody has fun caching. I got a 2/2 cache that in my opinion was rated correctly or near enough.

Link to comment

I'm at 1.88/1.75. I enjoy long hikes. But I also enjoy cache and dashes. Oh, well. My caching companion does not enjoy long, steep or rocky hikes, but will do them on occasion. His ratio is 1.82/1.63. Believe me, I still have not heard the end of the 1000' climb up Mount Tammany for the last cache we needed for the North Jersey Checkpoint Challenge! "Endless, Rocky Climb"

Sometimes I cache with my sister 1.66/1.58. And she did the 1/5 Virtual caches that took us three days to hike to! (She was peak bagging then...)

I will admit to working at clearing some of the tougher hikes from my Ten-Mile List when I cache alone.

But those numbers are meaningless to me. I'm in it for the fun, as well as for the challenge.

Link to comment

Thanks for the clarification Zoltig. I guess I interpreted your post in a way you did not intend. At any rate, I also enjoy harder caches. Today I finished off a 4/2.5, 4.5/3, 4/3 and two 3/4. Also in there was a 1/2.5. Most of these were more difficult due to the snow. The terrain was easier due to the swamp(s) being frozen. My d/t is 1.82/1.93. Both of my numbers climbed 0.01 today. Looking at the numbers, I trudged through snow, climbed a tree today. While in the tree I used a stick to beat/pry the frozen cache out. 0.01 hardly makes it worth it. Good thing I had a blast doing it. LOL! :D

Link to comment

Thanks for the clarification Zoltig. I guess I interpreted your post in a way you did not intend. At any rate, I also enjoy harder caches. Today I finished off a 4/2.5, 4.5/3, 4/3 and two 3/4. Also in there was a 1/2.5. Most of these were more difficult due to the snow. The terrain was easier due to the swamp(s) being frozen. My d/t is 1.82/1.93. Both of my numbers climbed 0.01 today. Looking at the numbers, I trudged through snow, climbed a tree today. While in the tree I used a stick to beat/pry the frozen cache out. 0.01 hardly makes it worth it. Good thing I had a blast doing it. LOL! :D

 

Sounds like someone was in Nature View today.

Link to comment

I do like to look for harder caches. And I like to look at the stats. Like the OP, I was surprised (disappointed) that my average D/T ratings seem low (mine are 1.88 D/ 1.95 T).

 

But as others have said, I will look for the caches I want to find. If that means 20 Difficulty 1.5 caches on a 6 mile walk (which is what I did last weekend), that’s fine, even if it means my average goes down. (It was a lovely walk). Or if it means doing a single 5/5 cache as I did the weekend before, that’s fine too.

Link to comment

I hadn't thought about the D/T stats.

I'm having fun by trying to make a ripple effect on the map - working on all the caches closest to me and moving outwards, like a dog marking it's territory. Problem though is that I find the rural caches more rewarding.

 

- So many Caches, so little time...

Link to comment

I tend to believe that lots of people don't change the default 1.5/1.5

 

Or, for older caches, the default 1/1. T1 is now only apropos for wheelchair accessible caches, but I bet maybe 20% of the 1,000+ T1 caches we've found actually are.

 

It also depends on the region. The flatter a place is, or the less hiking that is available, the higher the terrain rating gets.

 

Example of under-rating: I one hiked for 3 hours or so up and down steep trails for a multicache in the Taunus Mountains. Elevation change was a couple hundred meters, the hike was a few kilometers long. Terrain rating was a 2.5, I'd put it at 3.5, maybe a 4.

 

Conversely, example of over-rating. We found a few caches around an area in central Alabama, called a mountain but really just hills. The lowest terrain rating was a 2.5 (which was maybe 200' from road), others were rated 4 to 4.5. Total elevation change was under 200', none were more than a mile from the car.

 

In the grand scheme of things, I guess it balances out.

Link to comment

I think all the stats are ridiculous. It doesn't matter who has the higher find count or the bigger D/T averages or the most hides. Did you have fun? Good. End of story.

 

I think all stats are wonderful. But having a cacher (the OP) suggest I should work on one stat over another, that is what's ridiculous.

Link to comment

I think it can be fun to try to maintain a high terrain rating. i know people who have made it a personal goal. After you find a lot of caches, though, it is very hard to get the average rating to move. I guess one thing you could do is try to average above 2 over a specified period of time, say a year or 100 caches or something. Don't know if GSAK could do that, but it would be easy enough to make your own spreadsheet. Maybe the creators of some of the 3rd party stats generators could incorporate this capibility into their program?

(After about 2,600 finds, I am somewhere in the same range as others who have responded. It would take a great effort to get over 2)

Link to comment

We did a cache today that was rated a WHOPPING 4.5 for terrain. That's huge in Illinois. In our 3.5 years of being members and seeking out every challenge we see, we have yet to see any terrain that even comes close to a 4.5 !This was a 12' Willow tree climb !

 

Every log gives the hide away with talking about "THE TOOL you can't carry in your pocket or THE TOOL that won't fit in the trunk of your car etc...." after 10 logs like that why not just say LADDER, LADDER, LADDER ????

 

My first question is: HOW in the world is a 12' tree climb a 4.5 terrain and if you go home to get "THE TOOL," should you really be all excited and consider the find successful ?

 

Honestly, I don't know what to say. I think 98% of caches are WAY overrated where I live.

 

True story....One particular cache owner took the terrain rating of his cache up from a 2 to a 2.5 because someone said there was a lot of bird poop around GZ !!!

Link to comment

While I like higher terrain caches, I was reminded yesterday why I will never make it a goal to improve my overall average D/T rating.

 

I chose a 3.5 Terrain cache (1.5 D) because it involved a good walk up a hill, and I like that, and need the exercise. Now, on route from where I parked to the cache was a 1.5/1.5 cache. Finding this cache would hurt my Terrain (and Difficulty) average. But I was not going to pass it by, and why should I? Yes it was an easy cache.. but it was a nice location in the countryside, and I was walking right by it. So I found it.

 

That is how I do it. I do seek out higher Terrain (and Difficulty to some extent) caches, because I like them. But I am not going to turn down other caches nearby because they hurt my stats. I like finding caches too much.

Link to comment

D- 1.93

T- 1.91

This is the first time I actually looked. I knew where, just never really cared about it.

 

I prefer the higher terrain caches, but like redsox mark, won't pass up an easier one on the way.

My other half prefers higher difficulty hides and cache runs. So by sheer numbers of "low rated" hides, our stats will remain low. That may change soon, as she's even getting a bit tired of caches placed for no other reason than "there's room".

Stats aren't that big with us. I could care less how many finds others have ( we've seen personally how some came by them) and only those that have a reason would want to see ours (just found that out recently in these forums).

- We do keep a tally of FTFs, but just for fun (and a little ribbing for a local FTF hound).

 

Like BrianSnat stated on North Jersey, caches in NE PA also tend to be underated in terrain.

These stat "numbers" are formed through a hiders interpretation of what the difficulty/terrain is to them.

I'd ask if the D/T numbers are rarely accurate, what's the point in keeping track ?

Link to comment

Andronicus.difficultystats.jpg

Mine appears a bit lower than the OP. I also love the higher terrain caches! But living is the city, most of the caches are caches of opportunity, and are typically of low terrain.

My Terrain went up over the weekend. When you have a low find cound (400) it is amazing what one cache can do for your stats.

fdcca25a-2f19-4a5b-ae42-ebd13ac910d7.jpg

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

I often try to underrate the rate if possible because there are people who will say "this was too easy of a terrain". I am located in NE Iowa and one month ago one of caches that was rated as a 3 terrain had to boost up to a 4 because it was only 5 foot from the bottom of a hill, but it was a steep hill and there is now 2 ft of snow on it. Also, the cache is hidden in prickly evergreen trees so it requires thick gloves. I often think that cache difficulty should be relaive to weather conditions, like I just explained.

Link to comment
I think it can be fun to try to maintain a high terrain rating.

I agree, but one problem I've had is that it combines poorly with some other goals. I try to keep my 'home island' clear of unfound caches as best I can, and they are overwhelmingly 1.0s and 1.5s. It would take a syssiphian effort for me to try to keep my average terrain rating higher than 1.5 in any statistically significant way.

 

Don't know if GSAK could do that

By now I've become convinced that GSAK could put a man on the moon.

Link to comment

I often try to underrate the rate if possible because there are people who will say "this was too easy of a terrain". I am located in NE Iowa and one month ago one of caches that was rated as a 3 terrain had to boost up to a 4 because it was only 5 foot from the bottom of a hill, but it was a steep hill and there is now 2 ft of snow on it. Also, the cache is hidden in prickly evergreen trees so it requires thick gloves. I often think that cache difficulty should be relaive to weather conditions, like I just explained.

That sounds more like a 1.5 or 2 star terrain. There are caches on the tops of mountains around here that are rated 3.5.

 

The problem with changing the rating based on weather is that it changes for everyone who found it under different weather conditions. It doesn't get locked into some sort of calander.

Link to comment

I often try to underrate the rate if possible because there are people who will say "this was too easy of a terrain". I am located in NE Iowa and one month ago one of caches that was rated as a 3 terrain had to boost up to a 4 because it was only 5 foot from the bottom of a hill, but it was a steep hill and there is now 2 ft of snow on it. Also, the cache is hidden in prickly evergreen trees so it requires thick gloves. I often think that cache difficulty should be relaive to weather conditions, like I just explained.

That sounds more like a 1.5 or 2 star terrain. There are caches on the tops of mountains around here that are rated 3.5.

 

The problem with changing the rating based on weather is that it changes for everyone who found it under different weather conditions. It doesn't get locked into some sort of calander.

 

I agree.

Not picking BeaveMeister, I believe I understand your thinking...

But looking at the cache page, I do practically the same thing twice a week just to refill my bird feeders (heading from my back door.) :)

I'd like to go after hides a little more advanced than my backyard.

If finds were rated 4 and up simply due to weather and a little bit of terrain, "stat" terrain numbers would be incredibly high for many.

Link to comment

I often try to underrate the rate if possible because there are people who will say "this was too easy of a terrain". I am located in NE Iowa and one month ago one of caches that was rated as a 3 terrain had to boost up to a 4 because it was only 5 foot from the bottom of a hill, but it was a steep hill and there is now 2 ft of snow on it. Also, the cache is hidden in prickly evergreen trees so it requires thick gloves. I often think that cache difficulty should be relaive to weather conditions, like I just explained.

 

I don't think it should change with the season, but that's why I don't take the D/T too seriously. Yesterday we went after a total of 8 caches, and only found 2. Both we had to dig considerably through the snow to get to. They were all listed between a 1/1 and a 2/2 etc. We attempted a cemetery cache where some of the snow drifts were waist high. This is definitely not something that I would consider a 1/1, but i bet its perfect as a 1/1 in the spring/summer. As with any statistic, take it with a grain of salt. We all know what we had to do to get to where we are, and no statistic is going to tell us exactly how we did that.

Link to comment

I wonder what the D/T ratings of the CACHES YOU HIDE might have to say?

 

The average of 23 active/5 archived caches listed on my account:

 

D=2.125/T=2.964

 

I'd say you are on the right track! :antenna::cool:

 

I have 147 hides, any way to check this automatically? :sunsure:

I brought it up in GSAK with "I Own" checked in PQ and just used a spreadsheet and =AVERAGE( )

Link to comment

We only use difficulty and terrain as guidelines as they are so subjective to the area and the person hiding them. For instance in Colorado we did a cache that was a 1 1/2 terrain and believe me for an asthmatic from the flatlands it was tough for me even though it did basically follow a path. It was a good ways up a mountain. Than we will do one back home with a terrain rating of 2 or 2 1/2 and we walk right in. It is perfectly flat and not all that far away and think....are you kidding me? A lot back here are judging based on the amount of bushwhacking needed I think. Some base it on whether you have to climb a tree or hop a stream. Pretty much I think all of them around here should be 1 to 1 1/2 unless you have a really good hike far into the woods and have some challenges to face getting there.

Link to comment

I happen to think most 4 and 5 star difficulty caches are waaaaaay over rated.

 

I also happen to think that most 1 and 2 star terrain caches in the Black Hills of South Dakota are waaaaay underrated.

 

Many 2001 - 2003 caches are waaaay misrated as well.

 

In the end - I find the d/t averages are just as misleading.

Link to comment

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...