Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
colin

Geocaching.com Release Notes April 24th, 2012

Recommended Posts

I don't normally post to the forums, but I'm very concerned about this "Login with Facebook" option. I personally would like this option removed. My facebook account has been hacked before, and if that happens again, then the hacker would have no trouble also hacking into my Geocaching account. Seems like this could become a security problem, since hacking seems to run rampant with Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't normally post to the forums, but I'm very concerned about this "Login with Facebook" option. I personally would like this option removed. My facebook account has been hacked before, and if that happens again, then the hacker would have no trouble also hacking into my Geocaching account. Seems like this could become a security problem, since hacking seems to run rampant with Facebook.

 

Totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?

 

Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.

 

SO not happy about this. I think I'm done with puzzle caches, then.

 

Actually, this is not a bad idea.

 

What's the harm if the reviewer knows the method and/or process to solving a puzzle.

 

I've seen a handful of puzzles that require you to visit a specific, user maintained website, or download costume programs or scripts to solve. While in general this is fine, I've also seen many of this external sites go dark and the puzzle become unsolvable. A reviewer knowing this information can be very helpful when the CO goes missing too and no one can solve the puzzle.

 

Sandy, if you can elaborated just a little more on this, I'm going to assume that the note should detail the basic "how to" and not a detailed "walk-through" on solving the puzzle.

 

So, a note stating, "This puzzle is a cipher. Players can use any on-line solver to find the final coordinates" or "This puzzle uses uniform numbers of football players, solvers can use any number of websites or a sports almanac to determine the correct uniform numbers".

A note saying something to extend, "You need to download a Flash game I wrote from 'Iwant2SPAMyoure-mailaddress.com', once you complete the game, email me the validation code at the end and I'll sent you the coordinates" probably wouldn't fly.

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if this is just a recognition of already existing conditions? Probably half the events I've attended have not had a logbook/sheet.

 

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

 

I agree, the event log was essentially the only requirement before, now that that's gone there's no way to keep anyone from logging any event cache they decide want to say they attended. Is there a reason for this?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if this is just a recognition of already existing conditions? Probably half the events I've attended have not had a logbook/sheet.

 

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

 

I agree, the event log was essentially the only requirement before, now that that's gone there's no way to keep anyone from logging any event cache they decide want to say they attended. Is there a reason for this?

Logbooks have never been a requirement except for mega events.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What's the harm if the reviewer knows the method and/or process to solving a puzzle.

 

A reviewer knowing this information can be very helpful when the CO goes missing too and no one can solve the puzzle.

 

 

1. If the Reviewer is to be informed on HOW to solve a puzzle he reviews, does that mean he won't be solving it himself and going after the cache?

 

2. You've got to be kidding me. If the CO goes missing, the cache should be archived, NOT kept going because the Reviewer has insider information. In my opinion, a Reviewer should never ever help someone solve a puzzle cache just because the system now requires us to provide the solution to him.

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post

I don't normally post to the forums, but I'm very concerned about this "Login with Facebook" option. I personally would like this option removed. My facebook account has been hacked before, and if that happens again, then the hacker would have no trouble also hacking into my Geocaching account. Seems like this could become a security problem, since hacking seems to run rampant with Facebook.

 

Totally agree.

 

If you don't link your Facebook account to your Geocaching.com account, a hacked Facebook account wouldn't be able to log in. So if you have problems getting your Facebook account hacked, don't link your account. The option isn't required to log into the web site and it is very convenient for those who want the option.

Share this post


Link to post

What's the harm if the reviewer knows the method and/or process to solving a puzzle.

 

A reviewer knowing this information can be very helpful when the CO goes missing too and no one can solve the puzzle.

 

 

1. If the Reviewer is to be informed on HOW to solve a puzzle he reviews, does that mean he won't be solving it himself and going after the cache?

 

2. You've got to be kidding me. If the CO goes missing, the cache should be archived, NOT kept going because the Reviewer has insider information. In my opinion, a Reviewer should never ever help someone solve a puzzle cache just because the system now requires us to provide the solution to him.

 

Actually, I meant quit the opposite. If the path or method to solving the puzzle goes away and the CO is MIA, how do reviewers know that the cache/puzzle is no longer playable?

 

Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

 

I've seen enough stale caches that have no method of solving them, yet, the physical cache container doesn't need maintenance. What is the appropriate respond by a reviewer to a NM/SBA note. Without knowing how to solve a puzzle, the reviewer is relying on the honesty of the player that posted the NM/SBA. Until now, reviewers didn't have any method of validating the integrity of a puzzle and if there is a viable solution. As long as the details required in the reviewers note is not a hand holding walk through of the puzzle. I really don't see what the harm is and in the long run can only benefit the game. The reviewer already has the final coordinates, so who cares if they know how to actually solve the puzzle or not?

 

I don't understand your point in statement #1.

Share this post


Link to post

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?

 

Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.

I guess I need that clarified. A reviewer may decide that the puzzle can not be solved and refused to publish it. Yet accomplished puzzle solvers would find it challenging and fun but does not get the chance because in the reviewers opinion it is unpublishable. Sounds like a wow factor to me. And then we get into just how detailed does the explanation have to be? Seems like your trying to make publishing a puzzle cache a Sisyphean task.

 

I read that as basically: the reviewer needs to verify that the puzzle is solvable using the information provided. So if I tried to publish this puzzle: http://coord.info/GC225VQ I would need to say that each binary number can easily be translated by hand (or web) to a letter or base ten number.

So if my cache listing is a nice peaceful picture that happens to have the coordinates embedded in the picture using Steganography the reviewer can claim that puzzle is not solvable and won't publish it. That sucks. I can think of other ways things can be buried that is not obvious to the casual observer that would then preclude them from being published. I think we can get into an area that will become very subjective. The submitter feels that a difficulty 5 puzzle needs some effort and the reviewer feels it can't be solved or the casual inexperienced cacher can't do then it won't be published. And will appeals@geocaching.com be any better?

Share this post


Link to post

ekitt10 has it right, I think, after making that last clarification.

 

1. I would never, ever use the puzzle solution to give hints to a seeker.

 

2. If I wanted to cheat a puzzle, I would just go to the final coordinates that have been disclosed to me. In 10 years of reviewing, I've never been tempted to "cheat" a puzzle or multi. There was one time I peeked to confirm I had the solution right after doing the calculations - it was a multi at a cemetery in my far away hometown, and I was there for my mom's funeral, dressed in a suit. Forgive me that. I was short on time, and my mind wasn't good for doing math that day.

 

3. If the solution is painfully obvious ("fill out the crossword puzzle") I doubt that I'll be delaying publication to ask the owner to post an explanation. Rather, the new guideline change will help me when the solution method is not obvious, or to ferret out solution methods that don't meet the listing guidelines. Some people are sneaky!

Share this post


Link to post

Still waiting on clarification of how much detail the explanation needs to have.

Step by step instructions, or a general explanation?

Share this post


Link to post

Still waiting on clarification of how much detail the explanation needs to have.

Step by step instructions, or a general explanation?

I would start with a general walk-through (your reviewer will let you know if more detail is needed). If any guideline issues are implicated, I would address those head-on. For example, if the solution is provided by visiting a web page whose URL is derived from solving a cipher, I'd provide a link to that website and assure the reviewer that it's a public site for which no login/account is needed. Many puzzle hiders do this already, and it speeds up their reviews. The guideline is mainly there for those who don't wish to cooperate in answering questions the reviewer asks to confirm guideline compliance. "I don't have to tell you that." "Fine, I don't have to publish your cache yet." Now we have a sentence to point to, breaking that stalemate.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

Still waiting on clarification of how much detail the explanation needs to have.

Step by step instructions, or a general explanation?

I would start with a general walk-through (your reviewer will let you know if more detail is needed). If any guideline issues are implicated, I would address those head-on. For example, if the solution is provided by visiting a web page whose URL is derived from solving a cipher, I'd provide a link to that website and assure the reviewer that it's a public site for which no login/account is needed. Many puzzle hiders do this already, and it speeds up their reviews. The guideline is mainly there for those who don't wish to cooperate in answering questions the reviewer asks to confirm guideline compliance. "I don't have to tell you that." "Fine, I don't have to publish your cache yet." Now we have a sentence to point to, breaking that stalemate.

 

Thank you. That helps.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't normally post to the forums, but I'm very concerned about this "Login with Facebook" option. I personally would like this option removed. My facebook account has been hacked before, and if that happens again, then the hacker would have no trouble also hacking into my Geocaching account. Seems like this could become a security problem, since hacking seems to run rampant with Facebook.

 

Totally agree.

 

If you don't link your Facebook account to your Geocaching.com account, a hacked Facebook account wouldn't be able to log in. So if you have problems getting your Facebook account hacked, don't link your account. The option isn't required to log into the web site and it is very convenient for those who want the option.

 

Just wanted to say i think it's great to have the FB Connect option. Any modern site should have it. Kudos from me!

Share this post


Link to post

I also like that "warning" that shows up if you own any caches which currently have the needs maintenance attribute set.

I don't have any with the NM flag, so I didn't know this was added! It sounds good, but I'll have to wait until one of my caches has a problem before I can see it. :laughing:

 

I can help you out by posting a NM log on one of your caches...

Share this post


Link to post

So if my cache listing is a nice peaceful picture that happens to have the coordinates embedded in the picture using Steganography the reviewer can claim that puzzle is not solvable and won't publish it. That sucks. I can think of other ways things can be buried that is not obvious to the casual observer that would then preclude them from being published. I think we can get into an area that will become very subjective. The submitter feels that a difficulty 5 puzzle needs some effort and the reviewer feels it can't be solved or the casual inexperienced cacher can't do then it won't be published. And will appeals@geocaching.com be any better?

I don't want to link any caches and spoil them but I know what you are talking about. Some can be done with any photo editing software. Others need a specific program to run the picture through. Again if you say, "The coordinates are embedded in this image using steganography" that may be enough. A reviewer knows it is solvable.

The information needed to solve a this type [of] cache must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page.

 

I guess if you say this puzzle is only solvable by downloading this one piece of software not publicly available anymore, then yeah that would not (nor should not) be published (Yes I have done such a puzzle)

Share this post


Link to post
I've seen enough stale caches that have no method of solving them, yet, the physical cache container doesn't need maintenance. What is the appropriate respond by a reviewer to a NM/SBA note. Without knowing how to solve a puzzle, the reviewer is relying on the honesty of the player that posted the NM/SBA. Until now, reviewers didn't have any method of validating the integrity of a puzzle and if there is a viable solution. As long as the details required in the reviewers note is not a hand holding walk through of the puzzle. I really don't see what the harm is and in the long run can only benefit the game. The reviewer already has the final coordinates, so who cares if they know how to actually solve the puzzle or not?

 

I think one point was that if the owner is MIA and there's a problem with the cache (for whatever reason), it should be disabled and/or archived after a time.

OTOH, with a puzzle, it might a while before a cache is forcefully disabled, and if the puzzle is unsolvable, it should be disabled right away.

 

And a major point you missed in the instructions, however, was that the reviewer note containing the solution to the puzzle is deleted on publishing, so there's no reference for reviewers as to how to solve the puzzle, or that it is solvable. The only evidence is that a reviewer published it.

 

So in that context, we're back to square one.

The reviewer decides if the puzzle is solvable before publishing.

 

I take that to mean that there is sufficient information in the cache description, regardless of whether they can solve it themselves, for someone to solve the puzzle, and no component is volatile or temporary in that the puzzle could break at point randomly and uncontrollably in the future. I would hope this doesn't give reviewers the leeway to imply "Well, *I* wouldn't be able to solve it, therefore I won't publish it"

Share this post


Link to post

I see that the map generated from http://www.geocaching.com/seek/default.aspx when searching by Postal Code for 52761 now comes up centered outside town, instead of centered on the county courthouse as it used to do before the site maintenance of yesterday.

 

That also results in the listing of caches being ordered from that point.

 

Searching from my address still works right.

Edited by WB0GAG

Share this post


Link to post

And a major point you missed in the instructions, however, was that the reviewer note containing the solution to the puzzle is deleted on publishing, so there's no reference for reviewers as to how to solve the puzzle, or that it is solvable. The only evidence is that a reviewer published it.

As I understand it, reviewers have access to all reviewer notes. Remember, logs aren't ever really "deleted", but rather "archived". They still exist, they just aren't visible through the cache listing.

Share this post


Link to post

And a major point you missed in the instructions, however, was that the reviewer note containing the solution to the puzzle is deleted on publishing, so there's no reference for reviewers as to how to solve the puzzle, or that it is solvable. The only evidence is that a reviewer published it.

As I understand it, reviewers have access to all reviewer notes. Remember, logs aren't ever really "deleted", but rather "archived". They still exist, they just aren't visible through the cache listing.

 

Yes that's a given, so perhaps they need to clarify, as the fact that it explicitly says that information is deleted leads me to think that in this case they take the step of ensuring it no longer exists after publishing. If the note containing the info is simply archived like any other note, then it doesn't seem as significant a point to make (except perhaps to assuage any concern COs might have that the reviewer would make that info public on publishing :unsure:)

Share this post


Link to post

...except perhaps to assuage any concern COs might have that the reviewer would make that info public on publishing

I think this is why they've mentioned it. As far as the wording used, they say this in the Help Center article Working With the Reviewer: communication regarding reviewer notes (bolding mine):

Reviewer Notes are automatically erased when the cache is published, so that the general public does not see them.

Technically, the correct word to use would be "archived" to match the terminology used on the site, but the intention of that statement is just to reassure COs that info in reviewer notes won't be made public. That article should probably be updated to reflect the fact that these "erased" reviewer notes are still available to reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post
That article should probably be updated to reflect the fact that these "erased" reviewer notes are still available to reviewers.

Agreed with that.

Share this post


Link to post

10. New "Event Cache Logging Guidelines":

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event. Event cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an event cache.

 

This is just plain wrong.

 

According to this, any jacktard can claim an attended on any event.

 

Period.

 

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

 

'Oh, I came in through the back door and I was only there for five minutes 'cause I had to go see me mum in hospital. I guess you didn't notice I was there, but I was!'

 

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? <_< Greeting from Germany. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Our reviewers have been requiring us to tell them about the puzzle-solving method for a while now. It hasn't been a problem; for my last two, the short paragraph I wrote was sufficient.

 

And as far as I'm concerned, reviewers can all have a free find on my puzzles (though I'd appreciate them not going for the FTF :anibad:) as a thank-you present.

Share this post


Link to post
So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? <_< Greeting from Germany. :laughing:

 

Except for:

Logbooks have never been a requirement except for mega events.

 

However nothing's technically stopping you from logging attended logs on any regular event you can find anywhere in the world :anibad:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I see that the map generated from http://www.geocaching.com/seek/default.aspx when searching by Postal Code for 52761 now comes up centered outside town, instead of centered on the county courthouse as it used to do before the site maintenance of yesterday.

 

That also results in the listing of caches being ordered from that point.

 

Searching from my address still works right.

 

That really has nothing to do with the Geocaching site. When search by a Postal Code or "Address" (city, state/province, country) is performed, that information is just passed to an external geocoding service which returns lat/long coordinates for the location. A geocoding service takes a string such as a postal code, city name, or some other type of feature that might appear on a map such a park, airport, etc. and maps it to a set of lat/long coordinates. The Geocaching site just uses whatever it got back as a center point for a map or to perform a "radius" search from that location. Occasionally some of these geocoding services change their algorithm for how they determine what the lat/long value should be. For example, when all it gets is a postal code it might return coordinates for the main post office within that code. However, when you think about it, a postal code covers more than a single location, but any point within a polygon which defines the area represented by the postal code. In some cases, a geocoding service may find a "center point" within that polygon, in some cases even returned a set of lat/long coordinates that are not within the postal code boundaries.

 

In other to get the most accurate center point you should try to provide specific input (a full address) or if you're looking for a list of cache close to where you live, enter in your home location (it doesn't have to be exact) coordinates and use that for your searches.

Share this post


Link to post

I love geocaching, I love the product that Ground Speak has produced. I have not posted on the forums for sometime now because, simply said - it has not brought out the best side of me. That said, I do not like how Ground Speak continues to try to distance themselves from liability using the mantra: "we are just a listing service." The latest: " Updated text about cache owner liability. Linked to disclaimer with regards to location and container." is just a further attempt to distance GS from liability.

 

I place caches in very exciting, albeit dangerous areas. I give proper warnings - I do not provide the means of getting to the cache, Ground Speak does this. How does that remove GS from any liability equation? GS provides means to get information to my caches for seekers without my warning even showning up. This concerns me. We are in this together, I feel that GS should stand with me on this not distance itself.

 

Any one else hear what I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?

 

Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.

I guess I need that clarified. A reviewer may decide that the puzzle can not be solved and refused to publish it. Yet accomplished puzzle solvers would find it challenging and fun but does not get the chance because in the reviewers opinion it is unpublishable. Sounds like a wow factor to me. And then we get into just how detailed does the explanation have to be? Seems like your trying to make publishing a puzzle cache a Sisyphean task.

 

I read that as basically: the reviewer needs to verify that the puzzle is solvable using the information provided. So if I tried to publish this puzzle: http://coord.info/GC225VQ I would need to say that each binary number can easily be translated by hand (or web) to a letter or base ten number.

 

I guess I could never be a reviewer. I can't solve most of our areas puzzles even after they have been explained to me. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

10. New "Event Cache Logging Guidelines":

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event. Event cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an event cache.

 

This is just plain wrong.

 

According to this, any jacktard can claim an attended on any event.

 

Period.

 

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

 

'Oh, I came in through the back door and I was only there for five minutes 'cause I had to go see me mum in hospital. I guess you didn't notice I was there, but I was!'

 

I agree, the event log was essentially the only requirement before, now that that's gone there's no way to keep anyone from logging any event cache they decide want to say they attended. Is there a reason for this?

 

It was never a requirement. I have attended 50 events and have probably only signed 10 log books, because there was none present at the other 40. It seems that this has always been a regional thing.

 

Around here, we go to events to meet people and have fun, not to audit their activities.

Share this post


Link to post

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

 

'Oh, I came in through the back door and I was only there for five minutes 'cause I had to go see me mum in hospital. I guess you didn't notice I was there, but I was!'

 

AZ: If there was a logbook and that person walked in signed it and left (all in under 1 minute) what would change. You were either there or you weren't. There has never been a time requirement for events. I've not seen anyone who fake logs events (unless you count the people who log them 30 times).

 

Most of the meetings I've been to had no log books. Most that did the logbook was either a way to get some info so you could be part of the local organization email list or the logbook fit the event theme.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't normally post to the forums, but I'm very concerned about this "Login with Facebook" option. I personally would like this option removed. My facebook account has been hacked before, and if that happens again, then the hacker would have no trouble also hacking into my Geocaching account. Seems like this could become a security problem, since hacking seems to run rampant with Facebook.

 

Totally agree.

 

If you don't link your Facebook account to your Geocaching.com account, a hacked Facebook account wouldn't be able to log in. So if you have problems getting your Facebook account hacked, don't link your account. The option isn't required to log into the web site and it is very convenient for those who want the option.

 

Yep, you still have to initially suppy your Geocaching.com password.

 

So, now that I have linked it and since changed my mind, how do I unlink it? I'm not a Facebook guru, so please type slowly.

Share this post


Link to post

So, now that I have linked it and since changed my mind, how do I unlink it? I'm not a Facebook guru, so please type slowly.

 

1. Go here: https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy

2. Edit Settings of Apps and Websites

3. Remove geocaching.com

4. ...

5. Profit!

 

Done! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

 

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? <_< Greeting from Germany. :laughing:

 

If you didn't attend, no. Let me point out the appropriate sentence in the guidelines:

 

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

 

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

 

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

 

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

 

Thanks.

 

Greetings from Seattle.

Share this post


Link to post

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

 

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

 

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

 

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

The concern raised though is that what's the proof a cacher attended the event? What power does the CO have to determine if a person who logs an "Attended" actually attended, if not by log book?

Of course there's the argument, who cares? But obviously there are people who do :) I know the rule wasn't there before, so the point is moot for regular events, but for mega events having the log book signed was the method of verification, not just "don't lie"

 

Just saying... issue doesn't bother me, but I think the concern raised was legitimate. Without evidence, how is anyone to say that someone didn't show up, when they may have for only a few minutes or wasn't seen by anyone who remembers?

In short, how can anyone actually determine objectively if someone is lying or not when posting an Attended log? (apart from the above example of attending an event taking place in another distant country while they're sitting at home :) )

Share this post


Link to post

10. New "Event Cache Logging Guidelines":

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event. Event cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an event cache.

 

This is just plain wrong.

 

According to this, any jacktard can claim an attended on any event.

 

Period.

 

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

 

'Oh, I came in through the back door and I was only there for five minutes 'cause I had to go see me mum in hospital. I guess you didn't notice I was there, but I was!'

 

I agree, the event log was essentially the only requirement before, now that that's gone there's no way to keep anyone from logging any event cache they decide want to say they attended. Is there a reason for this?

There has never been a sign-the-logbook requirement to log an event cache. This is not a change, rather a clarification.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to admit, out of all the changes I didn't expect "events and logbooks" to be the one raising a fuss. Frankly, around here, seeing a logbook at an event was a very rare sight until recently. The first time someone attended one of my events and asked me where the logbook was I have them a very :blink: look.

Share this post


Link to post

With few exceptions most events I have been to did not have a clearly visible logbook. Mega events I can understand. Some events try for Mega and unless they can produce a 500 signature logbook they don't get the brass ring. So wanbe Megas will have a logbook, the M&G at the local pizza parlor probably will not and mostly the event sponsor won't raise issues.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not seen anything written about modification to the forum with the latest update. Immediately after it was completed, however, my corporate antivirus software began blocking access to the forum claiming:

 

"The transferred file contains a virus and was therefore blocked

 

URL: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/

Media Type: text/html

Virus Name: MGW:Heuristic.BehavesLike.JS.Suspicious.A"

 

Anyone else having forum access problems since the update?

Share this post


Link to post

With few exceptions most events I have been to did not have a clearly visible logbook. Mega events I can understand. Some events try for Mega and unless they can produce a 500 signature logbook they don't get the brass ring. So wanbe Megas will have a logbook, the M&G at the local pizza parlor probably will not and mostly the event sponsor won't raise issues.

And I don't remember ever going to an event that didn't have a log book. Well, maybe one, but I really don't remember.

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW, most of the events I've attended have had logs of some sort. A recent CITO event used a CITO trash bag as the log. Geocachers who throw events relatively often usually have a log book that they reuse. The signatures for each event use only a few pages, and the log book becomes a history of past events.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't know if this is the correct thread to raise technical issues related to the new release?

 

Since the update I've found it impossible to login to geocaching.com from my Android smartphone - I can click on the text fields and enter text - well,type it at least - but nothing appears in the text fields at all and then a warning exclamation point comes up and a message about required fields :(

Share this post


Link to post

I have another question about "Geocaches are never buried. If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted."

This was also changed. From "showel" to "one". So from now on you are not required to dig a little hole near a tree with your hands to hida a cache. In that case about 80% of caches around here can be archived.

Share this post


Link to post

I love geocaching, I love the product that Ground Speak has produced. I have not posted on the forums for sometime now because, simply said - it has not brought out the best side of me. That said, I do not like how Ground Speak continues to try to distance themselves from liability using the mantra: "we are just a listing service." The latest: " Updated text about cache owner liability. Linked to disclaimer with regards to location and container." is just a further attempt to distance GS from liability.

 

I place caches in very exciting, albeit dangerous areas. I give proper warnings - I do not provide the means of getting to the cache, Ground Speak does this. How does that remove GS from any liability equation? GS provides means to get information to my caches for seekers without my warning even showing up. This concerns me. We are in this together, I feel that GS should stand with me on this not distance itself.

 

Any one else hear what I am saying.

 

Well do ya punk? oppps wrong movie.... :P To me this is a serious issue that sure seems like it is being swept under a rug. Especially considering what I have highlighted here with bold from my original post.

 

I am not trying to be a trouble maker, to me this can develop into a serious issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Since Geowoodstock will (hopefully B)) be a Mega Event, and there are logging requirements for that type of event, you would not be able to log it. But let your geo-conscience be your guide......

 

 

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? <_< Greeting from Germany. :laughing:

 

If you didn't attend, no. Let me point out the appropriate sentence in the guidelines:

 

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

 

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

 

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

 

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

 

Thanks.

 

Greetings from Seattle.

Share this post


Link to post

I love geocaching, I love the product that Ground Speak has produced. I have not posted on the forums for sometime now because, simply said - it has not brought out the best side of me. That said, I do not like how Ground Speak continues to try to distance themselves from liability using the mantra: "we are just a listing service." The latest: " Updated text about cache owner liability. Linked to disclaimer with regards to location and container." is just a further attempt to distance GS from liability.

 

I place caches in very exciting, albeit dangerous areas. I give proper warnings - I do not provide the means of getting to the cache, Ground Speak does this. How does that remove GS from any liability equation? GS provides means to get information to my caches for seekers without my warning even showing up. This concerns me. We are in this together, I feel that GS should stand with me on this not distance itself.

 

Any one else hear what I am saying.

 

Well do ya punk? oppps wrong movie.... :P To me this is a serious issue that sure seems like it is being swept under a rug. Especially considering what I have highlighted here with bold from my original post.

 

I am not trying to be a trouble maker, to me this can develop into a serious issue.

I'm not understanding what you're complaining about. How are they providing means that skip your warnings?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Just saying... issue doesn't bother me, but I think the concern raised was legitimate. Without evidence, how is anyone to say that someone didn't show up, when they may have for only a few minutes or wasn't seen by anyone who remembers?

In short, how can anyone actually determine objectively if someone is lying or not when posting an Attended log? (apart from the above example of attending an event taking place in another distant country while they're sitting at home :) )

 

The solution to this issue is really simple. Remove the "Attended" option for the "Type of Log" for Event caches. Yes, that would mean you would not get your find count incremented by one but if someone is showing up for an event just so that they can posted an Attended log and get "credit" for attending, they're missing the whole point about gecaching events.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't know if this is the correct thread to raise technical issues related to the new release?

 

Since the update I've found it impossible to login to geocaching.com from my Android smartphone - I can click on the text fields and enter text - well,type it at least - but nothing appears in the text fields at all and then a warning exclamation point comes up and a message about required fields :(

 

Just saw this and tried on my Motorola Bionic. Same issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post

4. The icons for the Difficulty rating aren't very good. They strongly imply that the route taken to a cache is a major factor in the difficulty rating, which it usually is not. To be honest, I'm not sure what would be better, but I can see these icons leading to a lot of mis-rated caches.

We had many, many, many discussions about these, too. In the end, though, no one could come up with a better design. I'd love to see something better than these and will let the geniuses out there in the community suggest improvements!

Not everything can be iconified. Some subjects just have too many elements to them to boil them down to one tiny image. I'd just have a pointer that moves along the slider, and gray dots on the 9 stops. As the slider moves, a short paragraph in a box above the slider would change, with the text indicating the attributes of that particular Difficulty level. As to the text used, the ClayJar descriptions are a good starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...