Jump to content

locationless caches will they be back soon?


themagician
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

You don't like them, then don't do them. I don't like 4-5* terrain caches because I physically can't do them. But I don't try to take away your right to have them. Isn't there room enough in this sport for all of us to have fun?

 

That moss-covered bucket I hailed as a treasure,

For often at noon, when I returned from the field,

I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure.

 

Samuel Woodworth The Old Oaken Bucket

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:

Hopefully never.


The problem with your plan is Jeremy would lose credibility. When the moratorium was placed, it was promised that they would be back.

 

Plus, locationless caches are not even in the same part of the site as other caches. If you don't like them, don't click the magic button that makes you see them.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:

quote:
Originally posted by themagician:

Does anyone have any idea when we will again be able to post new locationless caches?


 

Hopefully never.


I think it is interesting that of your seven finds, five are virtuals, but for some reason you have a problem with locationless caches.

 

I personally wouldn't mind seeing them have their own count, like benchmarks do, but I do find them fun. I wouldn't want them to go away. I would like to see them improved (which is what I'm hoping for when the latest and greatest changes are unleashed upon us).

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to comment

A good locationless cache can involve more planning and effort than many quick 1/1 caches that I've found.

 

I enjoy them--at least many of them. If I don't--an American flag or a barber pole, for example, I don't do it. I really don't see what the big deal is. I would rather keep them in the same league as regular caches--not split off like benchmarks--but I guess that decision has already been made. I'm afraid that creating their own department will slow down their visits.

Link to comment

They'll be back. With limited staff to complete the new site quickly (and with limited bugs in a release) we're spending longer than initially planned. Our priorities at the moment are:

 

1. Speed up the existing site to support double growth over the last few months. Right now I'm working to improve the speed of the nearest cache page (the most resource-heavy)

2. Completely replace the map server.

3. Introduce Geocaching.com Gen 2, which is more feature-rich and fast, incorporating many of the recommendations made over the past 2 years to improve the web site.

4. Mystery projects for Premium Members.

 

Some of these projects are going on concurrently, and some (like locationless caches) are backburnered until the more important items are completed.

 

I find locationless caches of monumental importance and have a lot of ideas on how to make them more fun and manageable. Trust me that we will not abandon them, but we need more time to get these projects listed above so we have a healthy base to complete the locationless cache features.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeoCraig:

I really don't see what the big deal is. I would rather keep them in the same league as regular caches--not split off like benchmarks--but I guess that decision has already been made. I'm afraid that creating their own department will slow down their visits.


 

I think it could actually increase the visits. When they do finally get their own section (I assume it will be like the benchmarks area) they will get noticed more IMO. Currently, you pretty much have to notice the link at the top of a search...

And then there are the people that already know about them, but do not seek/log them because they think locationless are 'cheating'.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:

You don't like them, then don't do them. I don't like 4-5* terrain caches because I physically can't do them. But I don't try to take away your right to have them. Isn't there room enough in this sport for all of us to have fun?

 

That moss-covered bucket I hailed as a treasure,

For often at noon, when I returned from the field,

I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure.

 

Samuel Woodworth The Old Oaken Bucket


 

I couldn't agree more. I don't do locationless caches myself but I don't see why they can't be part of sport. I've never understood why so many people are so vocal (and sometimes hostile) about cache types they don't like. It's easy enough to filter them out and ignore them. Where's the harm?

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly B Good:

I couldn't agree more. I don't do locationless caches myself but I don't see why they can't be part of sport. I've never understood why so many people are so vocal (and sometimes hostile) about cache types they don't like. It's easy enough to filter them out and ignore them. Where's the harm?


 

The harm is in the numbers. The locationless cache counts as a regular find. With many locationless caches a particular find can be logged only once. Some can be logged mulitple times by the same person. Say you're looking for massive widgets. There is only one in a hundred mile radius. But, an earlier cacher has already logged it. Well, you've just been robbed of a find. That's cool, stratch that one off.

 

Well, then there's the one where you can log all of the historical signs. But wait, you've just joined the sport and an earlier cacher has already found all of them in your area and thus inflated his find count by 450 finds! Only thing, he's only found 15 physical caches. To a outsider looking in, he would look like a much more experienced cacher than he really is.

 

You know how many locationlesses we've tried to do only to discover it's already been logged? Talking about frustration!

 

In short, there really is nothing wrong with a locationless cache, per se. Thing is, including them into the find count is inherently flawed and biased very much towards cachers who have been into the sport for a while. Heck, even locationless caches themselves are biased towards people who have been around for a while. Once, your area is exhausted, that location is useless to you. Imagine how many of today's locationless caches can even be done in a couple of years.

 

Until there is a change in the way queries are handled for locationlesses so ALL of the logs can be downloaded into your PDA, there is no way you will be able to tell a particular location has already been logged. Until then you'd just have to treat each locationless as not found and hope it hasn't been logged.

 

That's way I think locationless caches don't belong in with the regular caches.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cholo:

Settle down and relax, this is way too much animosity over nothing. icon_rolleyes.gif


 

I guess the emphasis could indicate heightened emotion, but is was only to indicate what I said was my opinion only.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeoCraig:

I'm afraid that creating their own department will slow down their visits.


I think I will be more likely to pursue them once they're in a separate section. I imagine the new section will be better tailored to support them -- easier browsing, easier to check if a particular location has already been logged.

 

It's just too unorganized in the current format for people with only a casual interest in them to try them. You do the search, click on the first couple, determine you have no way to log any of the first several in the list, decide it's stupid, and never look back. Some people like them, some don't. A new section isn't likely to turn off people who like them, so it can only increase the number of people who are doing locationless.

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to it.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SE7EN:

The harm is in the numbers. The locationless cache counts as a regular find. With many locationless caches a particular find can be logged only once. Some can be logged mulitple times by the same person. Say you're looking for massive widgets. There is only one in a hundred mile radius. But, an earlier cacher has already logged it. Well, you've just been robbed of a find. That's cool, stratch that one off.


I agree that Locationless should be count seperately, but what is a "regular" cache? (Tranditional, Multi, Virtual, Hybrid, Event, CITO, Webcam, Surprize) icon_wink.gif My reasoning for thinking locationless should be tallied different, is that with all other caches, There IS a known point. Locationless, on the other hand, have no given starting/ending/whatever point, your just looking for something. Only when you've found item X do you need a GPS or map.(Not that LCs can't be fun to do!!) True, LCs can usaually only be logged once fore any given spot, but the same is true for Moving and Temporary caches (what this has anything to do with anything I don't quite know...). No prizes are given to those with the most finds, so why should I be concerned if someone else got to the 'first to find only' cache? And counting LCs differently, doesn't change this...

Btw- wouldn't 'robbed' imply that "that find" was intended for you? icon_confused.gif

 

quote:
Well, then there's the one where you can log all of the historical signs. But wait, you've just joined the sport and an earlier cacher has already found all of them in your area and thus inflated his find count by 450 finds! Only thing, he's only found 15 physical caches. To a outsider looking in, he would look like a much more experienced cacher than he really is.

And again counting LCs differently, doesn't change this... Besides maybe this other cacher thinks your inflating your count with physicals icon_biggrin.gif. And all those non-cachers need to know who most experienced is, why?? icon_confused.gificon_confused.gif

 

quote:
You know how many locationlesses we've tried to do only to discover it's already been logged? Talking about frustration!

LOL! If you've found one thats already been logged, just post it anyways. Course, you probly won't be allowed to claim it as a find, but the real count matters only to its owner IMO.

 

quote:
In short, there really is nothing wrong with a locationless cache, per se. Thing is, including them into the find count is inherently flawed and biased very much towards cachers who have been into the sport for a while. Heck, even locationless caches themselves are biased towards people who have been around for a while. Once, your area is exhausted, that location is useless to you.
What you say is true, but all of caching is itself bias toward those with the most free time. If I have to work on the garage next weekend will everyone stop hunting themselves?? Please?icon_razz.gif
Imagine how many of today's locationless caches can even be done in a couple of years.

I think every one of the LC will still be 'doable', they just can't be new finds... Takes some of the fun out it icon_frown.gif, but the upside is it will be easier to find a (insert a topic of a locationless).

 

quote:
Until there is a change in the way queries are handled for locationlesses so ALL of the logs can be downloaded into your PDA, there is no way you will be able to tell a particular location has already been logged. Until then you'd just have to treat each locationless as not found and hope it hasn't been logged.

Yep.

Unfortuantly, not all locationless caches have a table or similar like the new ones were required to. I guess thats part of 'doing' locationless caches.

 

quote:
That's way __I__ think locationless caches don't belong in with the regular caches.

I do agree that locationless should be counted differently, but I don't agree with your reasons. Most of them either are not strictly related to locationless, and/or won't be corrected by counting different.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

I think it is interesting that of your seven finds, five are virtuals, but for some reason you have a problem with locationless caches.


 

The idea behind this game is for somebody to find a location and list the coordinates so the rest of us can go there and find the item of interest. People do list the coordinates for their locationless finds, but there is little incentive for anyone else to visit the site because they can't log it. Even if there is nothing else that would fulfill the cache requirements for hundreds of miles.

 

That's why I think virtuals are okay and locationless caches are bogus. It's a flawed concept.

 

My impression is that locationless caches are logged primarily to pad find counts, and there's a whole lot of cheating going on.

 

[This message was edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox on June 09, 2003 at 07:43 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SE7EN:

The harm is in the numbers. The locationless cache counts as a regular find. <snip> But wait, you've just joined the sport and an earlier cacher has already found all of them in your area and thus inflated his find count by 450 finds! Only thing, he's only found 15 physical caches. To a outsider looking in, he would look like a much more experienced cacher than he really is.


 

That analogy doesn't make sense. If you've logged 15 physical caches, you've had to go find 15 different "things". If you've logged 15 virtual caches, you've had to go find 15 different "things". If you've logged 15 micro caches, you've had to go find 15 different "things". If you've logged 15 5/5 caches, you've had to go find 15 different "things". If you've logged 15 locationless caches, you've had to go find 15 different "things". The "thing" is whatever the cacher who got his cache approved has listed on his cache page.

 

If you have 450 finds, you've found 450 caches. It's that simple.

 

quote:
Originally posted by SE7EN:

In short, there really is nothing wrong with a locationless cache, per se. Thing is, including them into the find count is inherently flawed and biased very much towards cachers who have been into the sport for a while. Heck, even locationless caches themselves are biased towards people who have been around for a while.


 

Actually, from a numbers standpoint (which is your initial gripe) the find count is inherently flawed and biased very much towards cachers who work first shift, have kids with ballgames all day Saturday, go to church on Sunday, and live in rural areas where the cache concentrations are low.

 

Unemployed, single cachers who live in metropolitan areas have much higher find counts. icon_wink.gif

 

I like all caches. I like benchmarks. I'll log anything I can find. Don't do away with any of them.

 

---

 

Friends don't let friends attempt to persuade them to be biased toward any particular type of cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:

My impression is that locationless caches are logged primarily to pad find counts, and there's a whole lot of cheating going on.


 

So, those of us who have looked at an approved cache page on geocaching.com and have found the particular "thing" that is described, photographed it, taken coordinates, and done everything else to satisfy the the requirements as specified...

 

... are CHEATERS?

 

You sir, are incorrect. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

---

 

Friends don't let friends attempt to persuade them to be biased toward any particular type of cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by kd4adc:

If you have 450 finds, you've found 450 caches. It's that simple.


 

Uh, no. Just because you've stumbled across an artesian well and remembered it's a locationless doesn't mean you've hunted it. Doesn't mean you've even fired up your GPS except to get it in the pic. The only skills needed are to be able to read the coordinates off the unit and take a picture. Locationless caches are not hunted like any other cache, therefor they shouldn't be counted in with them.

 

Someone who has hunted only 15 caches would still be considered a newbie around here and that was the reason I said it that way. The numbers, though, show he is an veryexperienced cacher, which he is not--I wouldn't be calling 15 real chaches found experienced.

 

quote:

Actually, from a numbers standpoint (which is your initial gripe) the find count is inherently flawed and biased very much towards cachers who work first shift, have kids with ballgames all day Saturday, go to church on Sunday, and live in rural areas where the cache concentrations are low.

 

Unemployed, single cachers who live in metropolitan areas have much higher find counts. icon_wink.gif


 

You might want to clarify this concept. If you're meaning each number has more merit because you're buzy, I don't see it. A few drive-bys count the same as a few 5/5s, both of which could be done by busy parents. Yet the merit of each count is vastly different.

 

If you're meaning the numbers are biased because of concentration or free time, then I would think you mean "biased against."

 

Eh, whatever. You can make your statement mean anything you want.

 

But neither free time nor concentration have anything to do with the ability of racking up locationless count more than the time you started trying to find them. Any particular spot, once logged, is now useless to the rest of the geocaching community as it pertains to find counts. Most are once logged, that's it. Now, because most things created as a locationless are limited, like drive-in theaters, there are a finite number of cachers who can log it. That's the flaw.

 

quote:
I like all caches. I like benchmarks. I'll log anything I can find. Don't do away with any of them.

 

Never said I wanted to do away with them. I said the locationless counts shouldn't be in with the regular cache counts.

 

For Welch, I mean physical caches and true virts. I don't think CITO and other event types should be in the count either.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SE7EN:

Eh, whatever. You can make your statement mean anything you want.


 

Yes, just like you or anyone else can.

 

I keep forgetting that discussing things here are pretty much useless.

 

There's plenty of room here for all types of geocaches whether they are perceived real or not by some. I'll keep stumbling across as many of every type as I'm able.

 

---

 

Friends don't let friends attempt to persuade them to be biased toward any particular type of cache.

Link to comment

Um...not to rain on anyone's parade, but I like to geocache to get out and find stuff and do more than sit around staring at the TV all weekend, etc, etc. It's something fun to do and puts my GPS to use when I'm not hiking or road-tripping.

 

I have 41 finds, of which, none are locationless. If you have 1 or 4001, I couldn't care less. I'm not sure it's a real "competition" for most people, so whether the locationless caches are counted the same as physical caches won't matter much to them.

 

In fact, even if they were in different categories, then the cacher in NE Montana would still have the same problem if he wants to be as competitive as a guy in downtown Boston.

 

Instead, my personal current goal is to get the 25 closest caches to my house (I almost had it...but they added more around me!). When I get that, I'll probably aim for the closest 50...and so on. I'll also get any of them near me when I go on vacation...because it's fun to see what different places I'll get them from (next up...Stony Brook, NY...then Dresden, Germany!)

 

I just thought I'd add a little different perspective because it really started to sound like 'locationless suck...they pump up scores'...'no they don't, they're real too!'...

 

And I think in the long run, I'm guessing a lot of people think like I do: I don't care how many the guy next to me claims to have, so long as I've found the ones I went out searching for.

 

Good luck on the hunt.

Link to comment

I want locationless to exist but to be separate. It's a different game. It takes a different set of skills. If it was just "I found 15 'things'", then we would be logging benchmarks, letterboxes, scavenger hunts, road rallies, treasure dives, hide-n-seek games, and "where the hell are my car keys" here, too.

 

Geocache: I tell you exactly where an object is and you go and find it

 

Locationless: I ask you for an example of object and *you* tell *me* exactly where one is

 

If you're still not conviced, consider that the form for hiding a cache requires:

- coordinates

- container type (micro, normal, etc)

- cache type (multi, traditional, etc)

That's good chunk of the Hide page that is useless for locationless. Hmmm, maybe this locationless thing isn't quite the same.

 

Why limit locationless by shoehorning it into a format that doesn't suit it? Look at a benchmark page. They are very different from the cache pages because they have totally different requirements. Try thinking of a new section for locationless as finally giving the game proper treatment.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

Link to comment

I have an idea, lets pick a topic in which people are diametrically opposed and have yet another thread on it. We can argue our position until doomsday desparately trying to change others minds because we will just be crushed to know that others disagree with us on an issue that has been settled and is of no importance because it affects no one. (Insert 'if you don't like them, don't hunt them' or 'one cacher's find count affects no other cacher' position statements here.)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

I have an idea, lets pick a topic in which people are diametrically opposed and have yet another thread on it. We can argue our position until doomsday desparately trying to change others minds because we will just be crushed to know that others disagree with us on an issue that has been settled and is of no importance because it affects no one. (Insert 'if you don't like them, don't hunt them' or 'one cacher's find count affects no other cacher' position statements here.)


I owe you a beer!

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

just over a month ago I came across geocaching, and at first I thought, I can do this, fly around each day and discover several caches, until after my first two or three, and then discovered the true enjoyment of caching..

being shown a wonderful place, with fantastic views, or awe-inspiring history, by people I have not met (except GAZ and he is a pretty switched on guy), I now plan for one cache at a time, take plenty of food for family and dogs and just enjoy the location my 'geocaching friends' have led me to.

Thanks to all you unsung heroes, to hell with high counts, just make each location a special count icon_smile.gif

 

Life is just an illusion, albeit a very elaborate one.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

I have an idea, lets pick a topic in which people are diametrically opposed and have yet another thread on it. We can argue our position until doomsday desparately trying to change others minds because we will just be crushed to know that others disagree with us on an issue that has been settled and is of no importance because it affects no one. (Insert 'if you don't like them, don't hunt them' or 'one cacher's find count affects no other cacher' position statements here.)


 

I noticed this trend several months back. Never been able to understand the 'I don't want to do it, and I want to make sure no one else can, either' attitude. I don't particularly want to hunt caches in Wyoming, but I feel no need to lobby that they are eliminated. I would think that the decision would be up to the people who visit caches in Wyoming. Not really interested in trying to dissuade someone bent on controlling what people in Wyoming are doing, either.

 

Unfortunately, there has been no answer to the original question. It seems reasonable to expect a timetable for the return of features that were previously offered, but later removed, such as the map feature. Personally, I'd be happy just to get back what was available last year.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by gobucks:

Unfortunately, there has been no answer to the original question. It seems reasonable to expect a timetable for the return of features that were previously offered, but later removed, such as the map feature. Personally, I'd be happy just to get back what was available last year.


You must have missed Jeremy's post right near the top of this thread them.

They are coming back.

The website needs to grow to match the growth in geocaching. This is a great website, and I've been coming here for 2.5yrs now, and the site hasn't changed much, but the number of caches has gone from 1 within 500 miles of me, to 2000 within 100 miles. The game has grown way bigger then was ever imagined, or this website was designed to handle.

The only way for the site to be able to go back to what was available last year in it's current form is if everyone who has joined geocaching THIS year quits. Also remove any and all new caches placed since then, and password protect the website so that only people who were here last year can even view the website.

Maybe you haven't noticed the website grinding to a halt every weekend under the load, but most of us have. If the choice is to have to sacrifice something cpu intensive like your found caches on maps (something I can do just as fast and higher quality offline anyway), or lose the website totally, until the new site comes online, which would you chose?

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

You must have missed Jeremy's post right near the top of this thread them.

They are coming back.

The website needs to grow to match the growth in geocaching. This is a great website, and I've been coming here for 2.5yrs now, and the site hasn't changed much, but the number of caches has gone from 1 within 500 miles of me, to 2000 within 100 miles. The game has grown way bigger then was ever imagined, or this website was designed to handle.

The only way for the site to be able to go back to what was available last year in it's current form is if everyone who has joined geocaching THIS year quits. Also remove any and all new caches placed since then, and password protect the website so that only people who were here last year can even view the website.

Maybe you haven't noticed the website grinding to a halt every weekend under the load, but most of us have. If the choice is to have to sacrifice something cpu intensive like your found caches on maps (something I can do just as fast and higher quality offline anyway), or lose the website totally, until the new site comes online, which would you chose?

 


 

No, I read his post.

You've misread my post. The question is 'when', not 'if'. I'm just stating my preference to get the old features back before new 'mystery' features are added.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by gobucks:

No, I read his post.

You've misread my post. The question is 'when', not 'if'. I'm just stating my preference to get the old features back before new 'mystery' features are added.


Ahhh... you missed the stuff between the lines I guess. I thought the "when" part was VERY specific.

They will be back when they are done being recoded.

If you want an actual date, thats crazy. We're not talking about ordering a pizza here. When you are creating something that has never existed before, how can you know how long it's gonna take? It's obviously taking long then planned, but I'm pretty sure they aren't just working slow to p*ss people off. When the new site is up, I'm sure you'll know it (there will be at least 8 different threads posted here telling us, in case we never actually look at the website).

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Ahhh... you missed the stuff between the lines I guess. I thought the "when" part was VERY specific.

_They will be back when they are done being recoded._

If you want an actual date, thats crazy. We're not talking about ordering a pizza here. When you are creating something that has never existed before, how can you know how long it's gonna take? It's obviously taking long then planned, but I'm pretty sure they aren't just working slow to p*ss people off. When the new site is up, I'm sure you'll know it (there will be at least 8 different threads posted here telling us, in case we never actually look at the website).

 


 

I don't have any problem reading between the lines. Something that was scheduled to be done by last month isn't even one the top four priority list. Maybe it is crazy to expect some type of timeframe. Must have gotten the idea from someone who said it would be done by May.

 

I'll let this go now, as any kind of rational discussion has deteriorated to flaming and name calling.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by gobucks:

I don't have any problem reading between the lines. Something that was scheduled to be done by last month isn't even one the top four priority list. Maybe it is crazy to expect some type of timeframe. Must have gotten the idea from someone who said it would be done by May.

 

I'll let this go now, as any kind of rational discussion has deteriorated to flaming and name calling.


And it was also scheduled to be done by Feb. As you can see, you CAN'T schedule something like that, so all we can do is wait until it's done, and make our own maps locally in the mean time.

I see the maps are #2 on the priority list (and jeremy has stated elsewhere that part of #1 is very close to completion, maybe by this weekend). If locationless caches are your bag, there's still something like 300 of them to search out while waiting for the new site.

I don't see any of the flaming or name calling you mention, I think this thread has deteriorated quite nicely without them. icon_smile.gif

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

I think maybe a lot of people should put their units down and spend some time thinking about something else for a day or two. The concepts of "harm" and "locationless" really don't overlap in the real world...

 

Charlie

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

Link to comment

quote:
I'm guessing a lot of people think like I do: I don't care how many the guy next to me claims to have, so long as I've found the ones I went out searching for.

 

Good luck on the hunt.


 

I agree. I know I'm never gonna catch up with some of those cachers in my area. No matter. I'm discovering loads of lovely locations I would never have visitied before, and getting out of the house when before I may not have done. Thank you all for a great new hobby/obsession! (Hang on, if the location is important, then locationless caches are...have I contradicted myself?!)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...