Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RocketMan

[last edit: 9/13/2002 7:19:54 AM PST] - Suggestion

Recommended Posts

It would be nice if the "[last edit: .....]" line did not get generated for the first 12 or 24 hours of originally making a log entry in a cache. I know that there is a very short time (8-9 minutes) where you can go back and edit a log without the "[last edit: .....]" line showing up, but in my experience, that is not long enough.

 

Most people like to go back and tweak their logs a few times shortly after they post them and I don’t think there is any value added in knowing that they did. Check out my recent cache (Rocket Man's 9/11 Cache) that I placed. Everyone who has entered a log has an edit line. That is because they all wanted to go back and make final tweaks to their log entries.

 

If someone comes back a week later and makes an edit, it is nice to know about it, but I don't want to know about the expected "initial" edits.

 

Just My Suggestion - Thanks - Rocket Man

Share this post


Link to post

I would have benefited greatly if that feature was available during my posting of my PaterQuest logs.

 

I had to post each one in order to get the LID so that I could link them all together, so when I went in to edit them and add the LID's to each log, the little [edited] line came up on each of my logs.

 

And here I'd worked many, many hours on those logs, only to have a little black mark on the bottom that I can't get rid of.

 

I think it would be safe to have a 24-hour period of free editing on the logs.

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

Cut the message and then delete it. Paste it to your word processor for editing and spell check or whatever then copy it again. Create a new log and paste it back. You created a new message so no edit line present.

 

Hmm, just tried it and it doesn't work on the forum. Oh well, it does work on the cache pages.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

Share this post


Link to post

Why even have the edit show on a cache log?

 

It seems of no value to other log readers, and as long as the edit is emailed to the cache owner, who else needs to know?

 

I'm talking cache logs only, not forum posts...

 

There's 3 kinds of people in this world, those that can count and those that can't.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

Cut the message and then delete it. Paste it to your word processor for editing and spell check or whatever then copy it again. Create a new log and paste it back. You created a new message so no edit line present.


This fix works.. and is something I hadn't thought of, but there's one minor flaw.

 

Each time you do that, everyone that is watching the cache gets a notice when you resubmit your corrected log.

 

Also, this wouldn't work for my PaterQuest logs, which contain links directly to the succeeding logs. If I deleted a log and reposted it, the LID would be different and my link would no longer work.

 

It's a good idea, though...

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

I to like to link logs when I do marathon geocaching (like today, for example). What I do is post last to first, so that I can link them together without editing them. Of course, this assumes that you can wait until all the caches you want to link together are ready to log, which might not be the case.

 

--Marky

(p.s. any edits that show up are for other reasons)

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that the "last edit..." only shows up if someone has read the post between the time you wrote it and the time you changed it. This would seem reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:

I believe that the "last edit..." only shows up if someone has read the post between the time you wrote it and the time you changed it. This would seem reasonable.


 

that's reasonable as long as it doesn't count your reads. I always have to read my logs on a page to find out the link to my post. I wonder if there is a better way to do this other than looking at View Source.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

I wonder if there is a better way to do this other than looking at View Source.


 

There sure is an easier way to obtain your LID! Go to your log on the cache page, and in the line that says "You can [edit], [delete] or [encrypt] this log entry", just roll your mouse pointer over the word "edit" and the LID shows up at the end of the hyperlink displayed in the bar at the bottom of your browser.

 

Recently, I linked 20 logs forwards and backwards in order to document The Leprechauns Labor Day Cache-a-thon. But I intentionally did NOT go back and edit each log to link to the individual LID. Too much extra fuss and that darn edit line shows up at the bottom. The end result turns out to be a very poor imitation of the PaterQuest logs (but then again, so are all other logs...)

 

So SHOULD I have linked to the specific LID for my log entry? I can always go back and edit....

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

A computer without Microsoft software is like a dog without a brick tied to its neck.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:

So SHOULD I have linked to the specific LID for my log entry? I can always go back and edit....


Thanks for the info on the *easy* way to find LIDs! icon_smile.gif As far as using them, I figure, if the logs are meant to be read in sequence, using the LIDs is a good idea, because at some point down the line, getting to your log will require a 'view all logs' which would make it a lot of work to read in sequence.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:

So SHOULD I have linked to the specific LID for my log entry? I can always go back and edit....


Thanks for the info on the *easy* way to find LIDs! icon_smile.gif As far as using them, I figure, if the logs are meant to be read in sequence, using the LIDs is a good idea, because at some point down the line, getting to your log will require a 'view all logs' which would make it a lot of work to read in sequence.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...