Creating multiple cache pages

[+God of Caching]

So myself and 2 others cachers were discussing this as a possible suggestion to GS.

 

As a team, we recently created a series of caches that number 63 total. Rather than create 63 individual cache pages it would be GREAT if one could create 1 single cache page and have the option/ability to create a copy the page 62 more times. Maybe have a box to select "Copy current cache page" and then enter the number of copies of that page in another box?

 

This would greatly help with powertrails and caches series...

 

Granted...you'd still have to change up the coords, but that is minor tweeking compared to all the things that need to publish a series or powertrail...

 

Thoughts???

[+a1elec]

use copy and paste once the first one is created

 

My thoughts only

[+The A-Team]

My personal opinion:

I'd rather not see such a function because that would enable (encourage?) those cachers who place a bunch of identical caches in a row for no other reason than to place a bunch of identical caches in a row.

 

If the only thing different about each cache is the coordinates, then I'd say you need to put more thought and effort into the caches you're hiding. Think about why you're bringing people to each spot.

 

My .02

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Mmmmmm...Powertrails

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Heh, that didn't take long

 

Copy/paste.

[+SwineFlew]

Powertrails of cache pages. Do we need that as well?

[knowschad]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Hey, I've got a great idea! Make each cache unique, and each cache page unique!

Edited September 12, 2012 by knowschad

[+SwineFlew]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Hey, I've got a great idea! Make each cache unique, and each cache page unique!

1,139 cachers like them and it got 443 of fav as well

[+JL_HSTRE]

Groundspeak allows powertrails; lets not make them any easier to create than they already are.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Joshism

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Hey, I've got a great idea! Make each cache unique, and each cache page unique!

1,139 cachers like them and it got 443 of fav as well

Not a good example, that one is atypical for the series and quite different.

[+SwineFlew]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Hey, I've got a great idea! Make each cache unique, and each cache page unique!

1,139 cachers like them and it got 443 of fav as well

Not a good example, that one is atypical for the series and quite different.

I understand that, but having a system setup will make it alot easier for people to setup powertrails.

 

Theres something similar for your PQ setup. Like that. Everything is set and just have to change the numbers and coordinates and you are ready to go.

 

I am going to ask you to stop stalking me around on the forums. Thank you for understanding. You seem to be attacking me on every post I make tonight. You been warned or further action will be taken.

Edited September 12, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Hey, I've got a great idea! Make each cache unique, and each cache page unique!

1,139 cachers like them and it got 443 of fav as well

Not a good example, that one is atypical for the series and quite different.

I understand that, but having a system setup will make it alot easier for people to setup powertrails.

 

Theres something similar for your PQ setup. Like that. Everything is set and just have to change the numbers and coordinates and you are ready to go.

 

I am going to ask you to stop stalking me around on the forums. Thank you for understanding. You seem to be attacking me on every post I make tonight. You been warned or further action will be taken.

I assure you, I know how it works (and doesn't).

 

I also assure you that there is no stalking nor attacking involved. You seem compelled to post a lot, other people are allowed to post their opinions on the same topics, I do believe.

 

I'll go piss my pants in fear of your threat now.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Only if they also provide a feature to filter power-trail caches out of PQs somehow. Then I won't care.

[jholly]

Only if they also provide a feature to filter power-trail caches out of PQs somehow. Then I won't care.

The ignore list has no limits.

[+SwineFlew]

Only if they also provide a feature to filter power-trail caches out of PQs somehow. Then I won't care.

The ignore list has no limits.

Alot of clicking for sure. Would be nice to have a feature to block all caches by so so cache owner.

[+the4dirtydogs]

So myself and 2 others cachers were discussing this as a possible suggestion to GS.

 

As a team, we recently created a series of caches that number 63 total. Rather than create 63 individual cache pages it would be GREAT if one could create 1 single cache page and have the option/ability to create a copy the page 62 more times. Maybe have a box to select "Copy current cache page" and then enter the number of copies of that page in another box?

 

This would greatly help with powertrails and caches series...

 

Granted...you'd still have to change up the coords, but that is minor tweeking compared to all the things that need to publish a series or powertrail...

 

Thoughts???

I really doubt that you will ever see a "copy current cache page" you can use the copy/paste method. I hope you have a lot of people finding your new series. 63 caches is a pretty good series to put out there, hope you had fun placing them.

[jholly]

Only if they also provide a feature to filter power-trail caches out of PQs somehow. Then I won't care.

The ignore list has no limits.

Alot of clicking for sure. Would be nice to have a feature to block all caches by so so cache owner.

Little to no clicking with GSAK.

[+SwineFlew]

Only if they also provide a feature to filter power-trail caches out of PQs somehow. Then I won't care.

The ignore list has no limits.

Alot of clicking for sure. Would be nice to have a feature to block all caches by so so cache owner.

Little to no clicking with GSAK.

Yes and I agree with you and think GSAK is a very powerful tool, but please keep in mind that not everybody understand how GSAK works.

[+RobDJr]

Why does it seem that so many are in such a rush to degrade the quality of the game?

 

TFTC and blank logs, cookie cutter caches, power trails, cut and paste cache pages, why?

 

Is there some nefarious plot to suck every last drop of fun out of the game?

[+L0ne.R]

Only if they also provide a feature to filter power-trail caches out of PQs somehow. Then I won't care.

The ignore list has no limits.

Alot of clicking for sure. Would be nice to have a feature to block all caches by so so cache owner.

Little to no clicking with GSAK.

Yes and I agree with you and think GSAK is a very powerful tool, but please keep in mind that not everybody understand how GSAK works.

 

Me for instance.

 

It's like Photoshop - an excellent tool but complicated. I needed to take a couple of hands-on classes from an expert before I got the basics down. Haven't got to the point that I could use or create a photoshop macro. GSAK seems to rely on macros to do the filtering most of us want.

[+Mike & Jess]

So myself and 2 others cachers were discussing this as a possible suggestion to GS.

 

As a team, we recently created a series of caches that number 63 total. Rather than create 63 individual cache pages it would be GREAT if one could create 1 single cache page and have the option/ability to create a copy the page 62 more times. Maybe have a box to select "Copy current cache page" and then enter the number of copies of that page in another box?

 

This would greatly help with powertrails and caches series...

 

Granted...you'd still have to change up the coords, but that is minor tweeking compared to all the things that need to publish a series or powertrail...

 

Thoughts???

We did something similar about 2 years ago. There was about 5 of us that placed the caches in Sudbury to create the Northern Ontario Geocachers initials (NOG).

Some of the cache page was copy & paste in order to make it known they where part of a set (41 caches). We did however place them as seporately (not the whole group at each cache) so that each cache as a slightly different flavor based on the cacher that hid them.

This allowed the caches to be slightly different and provide finders a veriaty while hunting.

The results looked like this;

GC map:

NOG logo

 

Why does it seem that so many are in such a rush to degrade the quality of the game?

 

TFTC and blank logs, cookie cutter caches, power trails, cut and paste cache pages, why?

 

Is there some nefarious plot to suck every last drop of fun out of the game?

I share the same opinion. The worst for me is the "" logs. Cacher was too lazy to even type and simply hit a smiley face.

 

Keeping someone inline with the OP topic, I will be disappointed if they totally remove the older hide submission pages and go with the newer one only. When I go out with the boys hiding caches, having to click through a dozen pages would be a pain if I'm logging 2+ hides. The older top down (one page for cache info, one page for attributes) is a lot easier and quicker. If they moved the attributes to the cache info page (in the older format), it would make life easier and possibly find more (senior) cachers using the attributes a bit more.

[+Don_J]

 

Keeping someone inline with the OP topic, I will be disappointed if they totally remove the older hide submission pages and go with the newer one only. When I go out with the boys hiding caches, having to click through a dozen pages would be a pain if I'm logging 2+ hides. The older top down (one page for cache info, one page for attributes) is a lot easier and quicker. If they moved the attributes to the cache info page (in the older format), it would make life easier and possibly find more (senior) cachers using the attributes a bit more.

 

The day that they remove that old form is the day that I quit hiding caches. It's just that simple.

[+SwineFlew]

 

Keeping someone inline with the OP topic, I will be disappointed if they totally remove the older hide submission pages and go with the newer one only. When I go out with the boys hiding caches, having to click through a dozen pages would be a pain if I'm logging 2+ hides. The older top down (one page for cache info, one page for attributes) is a lot easier and quicker. If they moved the attributes to the cache info page (in the older format), it would make life easier and possibly find more (senior) cachers using the attributes a bit more.

 

The day that they remove that old form is the day that I quit hiding caches. It's just that simple.

I really want the old form back. I thought there was a loophole to go straight to the old form. Anyone here know where its? Maybe I read it wrong a while back.

[Pup Patrol]

I really want the old form back. I thought there was a loophole to go straight to the old form. Anyone here know where its? Maybe I read it wrong a while back.

 

There's a link to the old form posted on the new form.

 

The text in blue, on the new submission form, is the link to the old form. Click it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/hide/cachebasics.aspx

 

Not ready to try the new cache form? Go back to the old page.

 

 

B.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+SwineFlew]

I really want the old form back. I thought there was a loophole to go straight to the old form. Anyone here know where its? Maybe I read it wrong a while back.

 

There's a link to the old form posted on the new form.

 

The text in blue, on the new submission form, is the link to the old form. Click it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/hide/cachebasics.aspx

 

Not ready to try the new cache form? Go back to the old page.

 

 

B.

Thank you so much for the fast reply.

[+Don_J]

I really want the old form back. I thought there was a loophole to go straight to the old form. Anyone here know where its? Maybe I read it wrong a while back.

 

There's a link to the old form posted on the new form.

 

The text in blue, on the new submission form, is the link to the old form. Click it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/hide/cachebasics.aspx

 

Not ready to try the new cache form? Go back to the old page.

 

 

B.

Thank you so much for the fast reply.

 

Or, you could go straight to it: http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.aspx I like to click through as it reminds me that I have a cache that I need to attend to.

[+Lieblweb]

Make one template and copy & paste it to the others.

 

I did 105 cache series last year doing it that way.

 

The hardest part is getting the template to be exactly how you want it.

[knowschad]

Make one template and copy & paste it to the others.

 

I did 105 cache series last year doing it that way.

 

The hardest part is getting the template to be exactly how you want it.

 

Fixed it.

[+Mike & Jess]

Make one template and copy & paste it to the others.

 

I did 105 cache series last year doing it that way.

 

The hardest part is getting the template to be exactly how you want it.

 

A template should only be used as a starting point. It shouldn't be the final product for all your caching pages.

 

When I did a FTF challenge, all the caches had a basic template that outlined what the FTF challenge was all about. Each cache page did have it's own description and hints, just the look and feel was similar.

[+Planet]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Hey, I've got a great idea! Make each cache unique, and each cache page unique!

 

Uh oh. You made the dog howl.

I agree. Copy and paste please. But I would really rather see a unique page for each one. They can't all be the same? Seems boring and redundant. And people have issues with copy and paste logs. I can hear it now, if all the cache pages are the same, people won't know if they are even logging the right cache.

I am an old school cacher, and I prefer unique and interesting caches. I don't do power trails. Well, OK, I did one series on a dirt road over a mountain in Vermont and it was only ten caches. So I wouldn't call it a power trail.

[Pup Patrol]

I really want the old form back. I thought there was a loophole to go straight to the old form. Anyone here know where its? Maybe I read it wrong a while back.

 

There's a link to the old form posted on the new form.

 

The text in blue, on the new submission form, is the link to the old form. Click it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/hide/cachebasics.aspx

 

Not ready to try the new cache form? Go back to the old page.

 

 

B.

Thank you so much for the fast reply.

 

Or, you could go straight to it: http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.aspx I like to click through as it reminds me that I have a cache that I need to attend to.

 

I was trying to make the point that the new submission form has a link to the old submission form.

 

I could have given the direct link, too, but it seemed silly to do that when I was trying to demonstrate that reading the new submission form has the answer so many people are seeking, and to make the point that the old submission form has not gone away.

 

 

B.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[knowschad]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Hey, I've got a great idea! Make each cache unique, and each cache page unique!

 

Uh oh. You made the dog howl.

 

Yes, McCaches make me howl.

[+Lieblweb]

A template should only be used as a starting point. It shouldn't be the final product for all your caching pages.

 

Isn't that what a template means??

 

For a series of 100 caches.... I AM NOT creating 100 separate pages.

 

I have a Battleship series of 100 traditional caches and 5 puzzles. I used a template and copied that for all of the traditional ones Nothing wrong with that. It's called being efficient!!

[Mr.Yuck]

Make one template and copy & paste it to the others.

 

I did 105 cache series last year doing it that way.

 

The hardest part is getting the template to be exactly how you want it.

 

Fixed it.

 

Now that is some funny stuff there, crossing out the whole post and saying fixed it.

 

I admit to doing 7 identical cache pages, and used cut and paste. But I have all kinds of excuses, it was on a different Geocaching website, and for a type of caches that don't exist here.

 

Well Lieblweb, I hope your Battleship caches are decent. But even if they're not, there would still be an endless parade of smiley seekers. Trust me, I know.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+Lieblweb]

 

Well Lieblweb, I hope your Battleship caches are decent. But even if they're not, there would still be an endless parade of smiley seekers. Trust me, I know.

 

The series was made to be easy P&G's on purpose..... easy to find, easy to maintain. There is a large group of people who maintain their own 'set' of caches for this series. And hence....the pages are all the same.

 

Setting the game up was the 'creative' aspect of it. People have been enjoying it. Most people haven't been happy unless they've finished & found the entire 105. And not just finding the HITS. It's been running since September of last year. And if you're curious...Look up the user 'Battleship Command'

Edited September 12, 2012 by Lieblweb

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Well Lieblweb, I hope your Battleship caches are decent. But even if they're not, there would still be an endless parade of smiley seekers. Trust me, I know.

 

The series was made to be easy P&G's on purpose..... easy to find, easy to maintain.

 

Seems to me that if the caches are easy to find, they'd be harder to maintain, as they'd be easier to find by muggles.

 

The idea of a bunch caches based on Battleship sounds interesting but I'm not sure why they'd necessarily be easy to find.

 

I'm also in the "don't make it any easier to create power trails camp". From what I've seen few power trail advocates seem to care that they cause an inconvenience to those that have no interest in doing the power trail. Yes, GSAK can help create an ignore list, but only after they've been identified and it's not going to stop the 63 email notifications for new caches for those that live nearby and have no interest in finding dozens if not hundreds of cut-n-paste caches that serve no other purpose than to increase the find count for those that find them.

[+SwineFlew]

 

Well Lieblweb, I hope your Battleship caches are decent. But even if they're not, there would still be an endless parade of smiley seekers. Trust me, I know.

 

The series was made to be easy P&G's on purpose..... easy to find, easy to maintain.

Seems to me that if the caches are easy to find, they'd be harder to maintain, as they'd be easier to find by muggles.

 

The idea of a bunch caches based on Battleship sounds interesting but I'm not sure why they'd necessarily be easy to find.

 

I'm also in the "don't make it any easier to create power trails camp". From what I've seen few power trail advocates seem to care that they cause an inconvenience to those that have no interest in doing the power trail. Yes, GSAK can help create an ignore list, but only after they've been identified and it's not going to stop the 63 email notifications for new caches for those that live nearby and have no interest in finding dozens if not hundreds of cut-n-paste caches that serve no other purpose than to increase the find count for those that find them.

Its more the other way around. I have see really hard caches get muggled easy. Why? My theory is that the harder the caches are, the more likely muggles will take notice and watch.

Edited September 13, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+The A-Team]

...and it's not going to stop the 63 email notifications for new caches for those that live nearby and have no interest in finding dozens if not hundreds of cut-n-paste caches that serve no other purpose than to increase the find count for those that find them.

And they also block any other interesting spots along or near the road that may have been much better spots for a cache.

[+SwineFlew]

...and it's not going to stop the 63 email notifications for new caches for those that live nearby and have no interest in finding dozens if not hundreds of cut-n-paste caches that serve no other purpose than to increase the find count for those that find them.

And they also block any other interesting spots along or near the road that may have been much better spots for a cache.

Why so much hate?

 

Hate to say this...geocaching is general is a number game now a day even some of you dont play it. My theory is that GS was seeing a drop in caches that been found, so they start allowing major powertrails to boost their numbers. It looks good on paper in GS eyes.

[+cache_test_dummies]

...and it's not going to stop the 63 email notifications for new caches for those that live nearby and have no interest in finding dozens if not hundreds of cut-n-paste caches that serve no other purpose than to increase the find count for those that find them.

And they also block any other interesting spots along or near the road that may have been much better spots for a cache.

Why so much hate?

 

Hate to say this...

Why so much hate?

 

 

My theory is that GS was seeing a drop in caches that been found, so they start allowing major powertrails to boost their numbers. It looks good on paper in GS eyes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "boost their numbers" and "looks good on paper", but I've always had a difficult time accepting theories that attempt to directly tie the number of caches published to Groundspeak's bottom line.

 

Of course, I may be misinterpreting what you posted. If so, please don't hate on me.

[knowschad]

...and it's not going to stop the 63 email notifications for new caches for those that live nearby and have no interest in finding dozens if not hundreds of cut-n-paste caches that serve no other purpose than to increase the find count for those that find them.

And they also block any other interesting spots along or near the road that may have been much better spots for a cache.

Why so much hate?

 

That's not hate. That's opinion, just like the one that you stated.

[+The A-Team]

Why so much hate?

Not hate, but a personal opinion that hiders should consider why they're bringing me to this spot. If their only intention is for me to add a find to my find count, then they might need to reconsider their reasons for hiding.

 

Hate to say this...geocaching is general is a number game now a day even some of you dont play it.

Maybe in your area, but your generalization definitely doesn't apply to my region. Around here, quality is favoured far more than quantity. The closest thing we have to a powertrail is a string of 100 caches along ~100 km of logging roads with beautiful views along the way and a variety of hides.

[+jellis]

I know 2 cachers who would never turn down a powertrail and I am so lucky that they don't read the forums either or they would say YEAH make it easier to ceate more powertrails just to get more numbers.

[knowschad]

I know 2 cachers who would never turn down a powertrail and I am so lucky that they don't read the forums either or they would say YEAH make it easier to ceate more powertrails just to get more numbers.

 

I know MANY McCachers. They are wrong, though, and I am right. I said so.

[+Don_J]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "boost their numbers" and "looks good on paper", but I've always had a difficult time accepting theories that attempt to directly tie the number of caches published to Groundspeak's bottom line.

 

Of course, I may be misinterpreting what you posted. If so, please don't hate on me.

 

I have nothing to base this on but my own personal opinion, but I think that advertising makes up a good portion of their bottom line and a major selling point is how many caches are active. If I am selling the website to a potential client, I can tell them that their advertisement has a chance to end up 1.8 million different web pages. The amount of active caches has to mean something.

 

The amount of caches available to find may also be a selling point to get new people involved in caching, some of which will eventually upgrade their memberships.

[+SwineFlew]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "boost their numbers" and "looks good on paper", but I've always had a difficult time accepting theories that attempt to directly tie the number of caches published to Groundspeak's bottom line.

 

Of course, I may be misinterpreting what you posted. If so, please don't hate on me.

 

I have nothing to base this on but my own personal opinion, but I think that advertising makes up a good portion of their bottom line and a major selling point is how many caches are active. If I am selling the website to a potential client, I can tell them that their advertisement has a chance to end up 1.8 million different web pages. The amount of active caches has to mean something.

 

The amount of caches available to find may also be a selling point to get new people involved in caching, some of which will eventually upgrade their memberships.

 

Thats pretty much what I was trying to come up with. The more cache pages is out there, the more hits or linked to their website. The more, the better. All they care is numbers.(its a business, duh) They want to good to bankers and investors and this is the bottom line. So if GS starts seeing a flat line of the total of active caches, they try to come up new ways to keep it climbing. In Oregon, there is an avg about 10 to 15 caches being archived daily. Should be higher if the reviewers do more sweeps but reviewers arent doing that anymore because I got a feeling that GS told their reviewers to back off so their total of active caches keep climbing. Its all my opinions and you can disagree with me.

 

Yes, I believe that there is a good share of active caches out there are MIA.

 

Need to add, since I got the whole state on my database and I know how many caches in my state are being archived.

Edited September 13, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+Don_J]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "boost their numbers" and "looks good on paper", but I've always had a difficult time accepting theories that attempt to directly tie the number of caches published to Groundspeak's bottom line.

 

Of course, I may be misinterpreting what you posted. If so, please don't hate on me.

 

I have nothing to base this on but my own personal opinion, but I think that advertising makes up a good portion of their bottom line and a major selling point is how many caches are active. If I am selling the website to a potential client, I can tell them that their advertisement has a chance to end up 1.8 million different web pages. The amount of active caches has to mean something.

 

The amount of caches available to find may also be a selling point to get new people involved in caching, some of which will eventually upgrade their memberships.

 

Thats pretty much what I was trying to come up with. The more cache pages is out there, the more hits or linked to their website. The more, the better. All they care is numbers.(its a business, duh) They want to good to bankers and investors and this is the bottom line. So if GS starts seeing a flat line of the total of active caches, they try to come up new ways to keep it climbing. In Oregon, there is an avg about 10 to 15 caches being archived daily. Should be higher if the reviewers do more sweeps but reviewers arent doing that anymore because I got a feeling that GS told their reviewers to back off so their total of active caches keep climbing. Its all my opinions and you can disagree with me.

 

Yes, I believe that there is a good share of active caches out there are MIA.

 

Need to add, since I got the whole state on my database and I know how many caches in my state are being archived.

 

I'm not sure about all that. Now that we have three reviewers in Southern California, I'm seeing the opposite with a lot of long disabled caches getting archived by the reviewers. I think that they do what they have time to do, with their primary purpose to be to review new caches and respond to Needs Archived reports.

[Keystone]

The topic is "creating multiple cache pages." Let's stay on that topic. Focus on tips for efficiency, rather than "it's a bad idea to create multiple cache pages." Thanks!

[+Mike & Jess]

A template should only be used as a starting point. It shouldn't be the final product for all your caching pages.

 

Isn't that what a template means??

 

For a series of 100 caches.... I AM NOT creating 100 separate pages.

 

I have a Battleship series of 100 traditional caches and 5 puzzles. I used a template and copied that for all of the traditional ones Nothing wrong with that. It's called being efficient!!

I should have said the template should be the shell of your GC cache page, not the entire contents.

 

As for being efficient.... You're one of those "" type log guys aren't you.

 

Cookie cutter GC pages, toss and log caches aren't my thing. For the example I gave, we spent the extra effort to make each look slightly unique so it didn't contain the perception of being a thoughtless hide. Not saying your is, but when I see caches (or logs) that are cookie cutter or just a smilie face, I get the impresson no effort or thought was put into it.

That is just my $0.02.

[+Lieblweb]

 

I should have said the template should be the shell of your GC cache page, not the entire contents.

 

As for being efficient.... You're one of those "" type log guys aren't you.

 

Cookie cutter GC pages, toss and log caches aren't my thing. For the example I gave, we spent the extra effort to make each look slightly unique so it didn't contain the perception of being a thoughtless hide. Not saying your is, but when I see caches (or logs) that are cookie cutter or just a smilie face, I get the impresson no effort or thought was put into it.

That is just my $0.02.

 

You have no idea.......

 

Of the 25 caches I own, both under Battleship Command and my own username....I have 65+ favorite points.

 

Yeah...my caches are thoughtless, cookie cutter, boring, that I whipped together and nobody enjoys them.