Jump to content

Negative attributes


-CJ-

Recommended Posts

scenic-no.gif

 

Scenic view. Disappointing view.

 

climbing-no.gif

 

Difficult climbing. Not that difficult.

 

AbandonedBuilding-no.gif

 

Abandoned structure. Somebody lives there.

 

touristOK-no.gif

 

Tourist friendly. Tourist unfriendly.

 

frontyard-no.gif

 

Front yard. Back yard.

 

On the other hand, I will be happy if anyone could explain me why this attribute

 

public-yes.gif

 

is the only one in the "Facilities" section which has no negative variant? There are

 

food-no.gif

 

and

 

phone-no.gif

 

and even

 

picnic-no.gif

 

attributes. Is picnic table more important facility then public transportation?

Edited by -CJ-
Link to comment

I've not used any of those.

 

Quite a few of the negative attributes seem unnecessary. Some make a lot of sense, like not-24 hour accessible, not stroller accessible, etc.

But the ones you mentioned don't seem very useful.

 

There are challenge caches which count total attributes, so some people add a attribute like "no picnic table nearby" just for that reason.

 

On my latest cache I used "no tree climbing required" - which could be put on any cache not in a tree. The reason I put this one on this specific cache is it was a sort of a clone of some other caches in the area which DID require tree-climbing.

 

And yes it is odd there is an attribute for "no picnic tables".. but not one for "no public transportation".

Link to comment

Then there is the question of whether or not cachers pay much attention to attributes. I suspect most don't except in rare cases. Personally I can't recall the last time or if ever that I looked at them.

 

I pay more attention to the attributes than to the cache description. I use them extensively when creating a PQ and almost always use these negative attributes: tree climbing-no; needs maintenance-no; night cache-no; dangerous area-no; difficult climb-no; swimming-no

Link to comment

I pay more attention to the attributes than to the cache description. I use them extensively when creating a PQ and almost always use these negative attributes: tree climbing-no; needs maintenance-no; night cache-no; dangerous area-no; difficult climb-no; swimming-no

 

Edited as what I said before was wrong...

 

You can query both positive and negative attributes.

 

What I assume is most common to query if you don't want a tree climb is to exclude caches with the tree climbing attribute.

 

But if you want to be really sure there is no tree climbing, you could include ONLY caches with the "no tree climbing" attribute. But that will be far fewer caches.

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

 

You can't query for caches with the "no tree climbing" attribute set.

 

Actually I think you can, if in the "Attributes to include" section you double click the tree you get the tree with the red line through, so I am assuming it will search for aches with the "no tree climbing" attribute set, though I haven't tested it.

 

Edit to add, I've just tried it and it seems to do exactly that, it has found a lot of caches with the "no tree climbing" attribute set.

Edited by MartyBartfast
Link to comment

 

Actually I think you can, if in the "Attributes to include" section you double click the tree you get the tree with the red line through, so I am assuming it will search for aches with the "no tree climbing" attribute set, though I haven't tested it.

 

Edit to add, I've just tried it and it seems to do exactly that, it has found a lot of caches with the "no tree climbing" attribute set.

 

You are right, thanks!

Link to comment

I paid attention to the most mysterious ones in this thread.

 

Some among those who have listed are not that mysterious.

 

E.g. a cache close to a private residence, but not inside might have the not front yard attribute (back yard is of course not the opposite).

The same is true for no abandoned structure.

 

Not tourist friendly might be a good idea for caches at locations that might attract tourists but are very time consuming and/or require knowledge about the area to complete them.

 

No difficult climb might be set if searchers might have the idea to climb around.

 

No scenic view might make sense e.g. for caches at a mountain summit where the trees destroy the view and this is not expected in advance by the cachers. I would set the attribute e.g. at a summit called Schiffal in my area if I happened to have a cache there.

 

Of course the positive variants of those attributes will occur more often, but there are examples where the negative ones make sense and it does not cost anything in addition to have them.

 

Some cachers use the attributes only to filter out caches - for that purpose not in front yard might not make much sense as most caches are not in front yards while the icon will not be set.

Some cachers make use of the attributes however also to guide their search at GZ. So e.g. lots of cachers interpret the snowflake attribute in the way that the cache cannot be hidden at ground level.

Link to comment

scenic-no.gif

 

Scenic view. Disappointing view.

 

To me simply a hint that there is no scenic view to be expected.

 

Useful where people otherwise tend to write 'magnificent riddle, well composed, marvellous stages, interesting hike, but very disappointing that there is no view at the final location. Thumbs down.'

 

climbing-no.gif

 

Difficult climbing. Not that difficult.

 

Yes indeed. I've seen it used exact for this, e.g. indicating there is some climbing involved, only a few meters up a rock to the entrance of a cave at grade I-II (UIAA grading system) without climbing equipment, but some skills are necessary and the use of hands.

 

 

frontyard-no.gif

 

Front yard. Back yard.

 

On the other hand, I will be happy if anyone could explain me why this attribute

 

The emphasis is on private of 'Front Yard(Private Residence)'

 

Not seen yet, but I wish people would use this to show the cache IS NOT on private property when they are not able to provide coordinates and description text that clarify exact this. Too much caches on private front yards without announcing this anywhere for my taste.

Link to comment

I have used the "Not Difficult Climb" on some caches that are near a ledge/cliff/steep incline to indicate to searchers "No, you don't need to go over the edge to find the cache."

 

In terms of using attributes as a seeker? I often will run a PQ that excludes any cache where the "No Dogs Allowed" attribute is set.

Link to comment

In the UK, out of around 175,000 active caches, there are 43 caches with the attribute "not recommended for tourists"

 

Intrigued by those.

 

As some of you ;) might notice, the thread is not that serious - I'm not doing a research on philosophical meaning of attributes in geocaching. The idea is that some attributes can be quite clear (like "no dogs" - yes, I usually pay attention to this one) and some depend on the imagination of the CO. (cezanne will probably disagree with me at this point :) ). I myself (as a seeker) use attributes when I choose geocaches for my next trip (whether I run PQs or select them manually) so I can hardly find myself in the situation when I come somewhere, discover an abandoned building and check the attribute to understand if I should search inside or outside its walls. Most probably this will be already clear from other details which I used to pay attention first: GPS coordinates, hints, previous logs and spoilers. However, I agree that different COs may have different approaches so finding examples of "tourist unfriendly" caches - I hope - will broaden my horizons :)

Edited by -CJ-
Link to comment

 

As some of you ;) might notice, the thread is not that serious

 

It would have been helpful if you had that mentioned that right away.

 

I myself (as a seeker) use attributes when I choose geocaches for my next trip (whether I run PQs or select them manually) so I can hardly find myself in the situation when I come somewhere, discover an abandoned building and check the attribute to understand if I should search inside or outside its walls. Most probably this will be already clear from other details which I used to pay attention first: GPS coordinates, hints, previous logs and spoilers.

 

There are not only traditionals around. When having computed coordinates for the final of a cache, I might often check the attributes and see if my candidate matches with the provided information.

 

Somehow it seems to be that you mainly have traditionals in mind. For some other caches types some of the attributes you mentioned, included not recommended for tourists seem to make more sense.

In such cases you do not know the coordinates in advance. Solving a complicated puzzle if you would like to enjoy a scenic view could be avoided if such a cache has the no scenic view attribute.

 

There are some nice, but really involved Wherigos which I never ever would recommend to tourists while there are Wherigos which specifically have been designed for tourists.

 

As the "no difficult climbing" attribute is regarded, I have 44 finds with that attribute and I guess there exist hundreds of caches in my caching area with that attribute. Of course it also depends on the region.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The negative attributes I've used are pretty straight-forward:

wheelchair-no.gifnight-no.gifavailable-no.gifdogs-no.gif

 

And around here, the "No Snowmobiles" attribute is used as a joke:

snowmobiles-no.gif

 

But here are a few thoughts on some of the other negative attributes you've mentioned...

 

scenic-no.gif

Scenic view.

I've seen this used for puzzle caches that take you to parking lots or newspaper stands or similar "lame" final locations.

 

AbandonedBuilding-no.gif

Abandoned structure.

This could be used to indicate that the cache is NOT in the nearby abandoned structure. But if it's important to steer people away from the structure, then I'd hope the warning was also in the description. Or better yet, move the cache away from the structure.

 

touristOK-no.gif

Tourist friendly.

Some of my Favorites are caches that take a while, and that I wouldn't recommend to tourists unless they're willing to invest several hours of their precious vacation time working on a cache.

 

frontyard-no.gif

Front Yard(Private Residence).

As has been mentioned already, this could be useful for a cache in a small neighborhood park, to indicate that the cache is in the park, not in the front yard of the adjacent private property.

Link to comment

I usualy try to set some randome attributes that I think are funny (and true) at the time. I often end up with "no horses" or "no camp fire" for caches in the city. Silly things like that that no one was wondering about in the first place.

 

My husband uses "no camp fire" on all of his caches because it's funny.

Link to comment

scenic-no.gif

 

Scenic view. Disappointing view.

 

"It may look like a cool area on the map, but don't get your hopes up."

 

climbing-no.gif

 

Difficult climbing. Not that difficult.

 

"Yes, there's a cliff nearby that the coordinates may indicate you have to ascend, but it's totally not necessary (in case the low terrain rating didn't already make it clear)."

 

AbandonedBuilding-no.gif

 

Abandoned structure. Somebody lives there.

 

"Squatters, dude. That burned-out structure is actually a crack den."

 

touristOK-no.gif

 

Tourist friendly. Tourist unfriendly.

 

"While you may be tempted to search for this one during your five hour layover in our fair city, please be advised that this is not the cache you should search for if you are hoping to have a favorable impression."

 

frontyard-no.gif

 

Front yard. Back yard.

 

"You may think it's stuck in the tree in my neighbor's garden, but it's actually on the sign at the sidewalk."

 

On the other hand, I will be happy if anyone could explain me why this attribute

 

public-yes.gif

 

is the only one in the "Facilities" section which has no negative variant?

 

Odd, yes...but I suppose in many cities public transportation to the cache location is not an expectation, therefore a negative attribute may not be seen as all that necessary.

Link to comment

I usualy try to set some randome attributes that I think are funny (and true) at the time. I often end up with "no horses" or "no camp fire" for caches in the city. Silly things like that that no one was wondering about in the first place.

 

My husband uses "no camp fire" on all of his caches because it's funny.

I used "no camp fires" and "no horses" on an event once... at a frozen yogurt place in town. :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

As some of you ;) might notice, the thread is not that serious

 

It would have been helpful if you had that mentioned that right away.

 

 

It would have been equally helpful if you had asked - instead of embarking on yet another labourious post which despite their inordinate forensic detail still leave me wondering what the point was - other than the desire to contradict everyone else :rolleyes:

Link to comment

It would have been equally helpful if you had asked

 

I could not have asked as when I offered situations where the mentioned negative attributes make sense for me I was 100% certain that the question was a serious one and serious answers were expected. The OP did not contain smileys or other signs that could have been used as indication that at least part of the question was intended in a humourous manner.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It would have been equally helpful if you had asked

 

I could not have asked as when I offered situations where the mentioned negative attributes make sense for me I was 100% certain that the question was a serious one and serious answers were expected. The OP did not contain smileys or other signs that could have been used as indication that at least part of the question was intended in a humourous manner.

 

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

Next you'll be demanding that all posters provide a brief initial précis of the post, an indicator of their state of mind and the underlying motivtion behind their post before embarking on the post itself - for your convenience!

 

The alternative captions provided in the OP were clearly tongue-in-cheek humour. Perhaps if you spend a few minutes reading through them again you'll be able to recognise the humour in future - although if I'm honest I highly doubt it :rolleyes:

 

Please note that I've added smileys in this post to save you further confusion :D

Link to comment

It would have been equally helpful if you had asked

 

I could not have asked as when I offered situations where the mentioned negative attributes make sense for me I was 100% certain that the question was a serious one and serious answers were expected. The OP did not contain smileys or other signs that could have been used as indication that at least part of the question was intended in a humourous manner.

 

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

Next you'll be demanding that all posters provide a brief initial précis of the post, an indicator of their state of mind and the underlying motivtion behind their post before embarking on the post itself - for your convenience!

 

The alternative captions provided in the OP were clearly tongue-in-cheek humour. Perhaps if you spend a few minutes reading through them again you'll be able to recognise the humour in future - although if I'm honest I highly doubt it :rolleyes:

 

Please note that I've added smileys in this post to save you further confusion :D

 

1338475007001.gif

Link to comment

I've posted this previously but wanted to share it here.

 

Negative attributes can be quite useful in "telling a story" -- whether for a cache or otherwise. Me, I use them as part of my strategy for making a good impression on hot female geocachers. Here's an example:

 

I <3 Your Attributes

 

Hey, you're cute -- you meet my basic pocket query filter!

dogs-no.gif

 

I was hoping we could get together.

teamwork-yes.gif

 

Want to come to my place?

frontyard-yes.gif

 

This would not be a quickie.

parkngrab-no.gif

 

Me love you long time!

nightcache-yes.gif

 

But let's be sure to be careful of unintended consequences.

stroller-no.gif

Link to comment

The alternative captions provided in the OP were clearly tongue-in-cheek humour. Perhaps if you spend a few minutes reading through them again you'll be able to recognise the humour in future - although if I'm honest I highly doubt it :rolleyes:

While it may be clear to you, it may not be clear to someone from a different culture or whose primary language isn't English. Anyway, injecting a bit of seriousness into this discussion isn't a crime, nor is cezanne the only culprit. I see at least one prolific and well-respected forum poster from the Bay Area who also posted seriously.

Link to comment
it may not be clear to someone from a different culture or whose primary language isn't English

 

While it's all clear with my language I'm now thinking about what exactly culture I belong to :) Our next thread should be about whether we need negative smiley signs for the forum.

 

Well, getting back to the original post. It's not purely about some specific small icons themselves of course but rather about how they are interpreted by cachers. Being a CO myself I have always limited the number of attributes to a minimum leaving only those which I considered to be clear and helpful (like "no dogs allowed"). When an attribute is interpreted like "I suppose that your visit to my city could be pretty short so I doubt that you will like this particular cache which will probably require more of your time that you expect" I won't use this attribute - at least because it may have different meanings for different people. If there's anything obviously important to pay attention to in such situation I would highlight this in my description. Add more unclear attributes to a page and use some of them as a joke and I (most probably) won't take your other attributes seriously.

 

PQs were mentioned several times; I could also ask about who has ever used attributes like this one AbandonedBuilding-no.gif in a pocket query but I suppose we will get an academic explanation about how this attribute may be used :)

Edited by -CJ-
Link to comment

And after all, the lack of "no public transportation" looks really strange. I certainly don't mind attributes like "no picnic tables" to exist on this website - I suppose I will never use such attributes but they make no harm. With "no public transportation" it may be different.

 

in many cities public transportation to the cache location is not an expectation, therefore a negative attribute may not be seen as all that necessary

 

This reason could be applied to many attributes, you know.

 

In my country public transportation is important in many cases. For example, many caches are visited by foreigners who come to Moscow for business and typically have little time. They rarely leave the centre of the city unless they know that they can access this or that cache easily by metro. In my view, this attribute should be more clearly explained in the guidelines however.

Link to comment

Being a CO myself I have always limited the number of attributes to a minimum leaving only those which I considered to be clear and helpful (like "no dogs allowed").

 

So does this mean that you are not using attributes like the snow flake attribute and the kid face attribute (I intentionally use a pictorial description and not the wording used in the attribute selection list)? There have been heavy debates what these attributes mean and there is not the slightest consensus.

 

When an attribute is interpreted like "I suppose that your visit to my city could be pretty short so I doubt that you will like this particular cache which will probably require more of your time that you expect" I won't use this attribute - at least because it may have different meanings for different people.

 

I would not say that "not recommended for tourists" is really different from "not recommended for kids".

There is always a judgement call to some extent.

 

Of course I provide detailled information in the cache text as well, but this would not keep me from using attributes that make sense for me in a certain case based on the description text.

 

I still think that my point that you apparently focus mainly on traditionals where the final location is known and also no secret plays an important role. Look at the distribution of your finds and the distribution of NiraD's finds, my finds and AnnaMoritz's find to mention three cachers who answered seriously.

 

My reply was not thought to be an academic one and I could provide you with a relatively long list of caches for which attributes like "not recommended for tourists" and "no scenic view" fit very well and where I would use them. My intent has been far from starting an academic discussion and far from simply contradicting.

 

It happens to me sometimes that visitors to my area ask me about recommendations for caches to be visited. I often tell them that I do not recommend certain caches of mine to them and give them very concrete reasons for that. Of course they are still free to visit the caches and that also applies if a tourist decides to visit a cache with the attribute "not recommended for tourists".

One also can give a cache with the snowflake attribute a chance despite there is snow around.

 

If there's anything obviously important to pay attention to in such situation I would highlight this in my description. Add more unclear attributes to a page and use some of them as a joke and I (most probably) won't take your other attributes seriously.

 

I never ever used an attribute as joke, believe me.

 

Tell me why someone should use the >10km hike attribute if one can also mention the length in the description. We would then need no attributes at all. For me "recommended for tourists" comes along with the option for "not recommended for tourists" and the middle way of not choosing either of them (probably most common). The reasons for a cache to be not well suitable for tourists are not more complex and unclear than those for a cache to be no well suitable for children.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The alternative captions provided in the OP were clearly tongue-in-cheek humour. Perhaps if you spend a few minutes reading through them again you'll be able to recognise the humour in future - although if I'm honest I highly doubt it :rolleyes:

While it may be clear to you, it may not be clear to someone from a different culture or whose primary language isn't English. Anyway, injecting a bit of seriousness into this discussion isn't a crime, nor is cezanne the only culprit. I see at least one prolific and well-respected forum poster from the Bay Area who also posted seriously.

 

Of course - the inherent humour was probably just too subtle for someone with sufficient grasp of the English language to construct almost six thousand posts here - many of them delving into topic areas in almost microscopic levels of detail.

 

Or maybe it was something lost in translation from the Russian? <_<

 

A bit of seriousness? Oh I expect we'll end up with more than just a bit.

Link to comment

Well inspired by this thread, I put the "no picnic tables nearby" negative attribute on all my caches which don't have picnic tables nearby. Just for fun.

 

Two of my caches DO have picnic tables nearby, and they already have the positive "picnic tables nearby" set.

 

For the ones with "no picnic tables nearby" set, it is accurate. So it can be taken seriously, though the reason I set it was just for the fun of it.

Link to comment

BTW, the attribute pages (here and here) haven't been localised yet. So, it really may be difficult for a person who doesn't know the language to interpret a small icon when its meaning isn't obvious.

 

Even among those who do understand the language, many either ignore the textual description intentionally or they are not aware of it. Some cachers favour the text and some the pictures and not always this matches with each other.

 

There are cachers in my area for example that insist that the bicycle icon should stand for "recommended for bicycles" and not for "bicycles allowed". I've come across NM logs for caches with the bicycle attributed where bicycles are allowed but reaching the hideout with biking shoes might be hard.

I have also come across a negative >10 km hike icon used in the case of a cache where the owner wants to restrict his cache to cachers coming by MTB and wants to keep hikers away.

(This is not a joke.)

 

One problem with the icons is that they mean different things (it could be about recommendations or absolute properties like forbidden/not forbidden etc). It always depends a lot on what a cacher would like to use an icon for. (E.g. it makes a difference to filter for caches which are recommendable bike tours and to filter for caches where bicycles are allowed.)

 

There are lots of cultural and regional differences when it comes to caching in general and usage of attributes specifically. Our caching backgrounds and experiences are very, very different from each other which certainly makes misunderstandings easier. That English is not our native language is secondary here I guess.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It always depends a lot on what a cacher would like to use an icon for. (E.g. it makes a difference to filter for caches which are recommendable bike tours and to filter for caches where bicycles are allowed.)

 

They could just use them within the prescribed framework - which seems to follow a very simple, unambiguous binary pattern - yes/no, allowed/not allowed, required/not required, present/not present.

 

Although of course that would probably result in a much shorter thread.

Link to comment

It always depends a lot on what a cacher would like to use an icon for. (E.g. it makes a difference to filter for caches which are recommendable bike tours and to filter for caches where bicycles are allowed.)

 

They could just use them within the prescribed framework - which seems to follow a very simple, unambiguous binary pattern - yes/no, allowed/not allowed, required/not required, present/not present.

 

Although of course that would probably result in a much shorter thread.

 

The point I tried to make is that some use the picture and that it means to them and some use the text. I referred to the point of view of cache searchers, not cache owners selecting attributes for thiir cache. There are many cachers out there who never have hidden a cache and others who have not used attributes for their caches at all. And there are cachers who do not understand the text and just make their selection based on the pictures.

Link to comment

It always depends a lot on what a cacher would like to use an icon for. (E.g. it makes a difference to filter for caches which are recommendable bike tours and to filter for caches where bicycles are allowed.)

 

They could just use them within the prescribed framework - which seems to follow a very simple, unambiguous binary pattern - yes/no, allowed/not allowed, required/not required, present/not present.

 

Although of course that would probably result in a much shorter thread.

 

The point I tried to make is that some use the picture and that it means to them and some use the text. I referred to the point of view of cache searchers, not cache owners selecting attributes for thiir cache. There are many cachers out there who never have hidden a cache and others who have not used attributes for their caches at all. And there are cachers who do not understand the text and just make their selection based on the pictures.

 

User failings rather than system failings.

Link to comment

Take the significant hike attribute. I don't see anything unambiguous in this attribute as each cacher has their own significant. I wouldn't call anything where you need less than 2 hours a hike at all, and others call 0.5 miles a significant hike.

 

To me reading a number from a sign and do simple calculations doesn't require the field puzzle attribute at all. If you have to find out which of the provided sheets with musical notation corresponds to the song the music box at stage 8 plays for you, that may be a real puzzle for some cachers.

 

Even in local communities there is no consensus about the usage of the attributes, for example regarding Available during winter, recommended for kids, special tools.

 

The picture (with text) without the category (Condition/Equipment/Facilities/Permissions/Hazards) suggests different things to different people.

 

'Tree climbing' is in category Equipment, so some expect it to mean 'tree climbing equipment required' (although I've seen someone climb a 20m tree stem without branches equipped with two slings). To some 'No tree climbing'-Equipment might also be a cache in in 10m height, but on a tree that has branches where you climb up without equipment. Most people take it as 'you don't have to climb a tree'. If Tree climbing where in category conditions (like may require swimming, may require wading or 'difficult climbing') it would be clear that it means 'no climbing up a tree at all'.

 

GS states "Attributes communicate what to expect at a cache location." Some try to be funny, some have Challenge caches requiring certain attributes in mind and choose whatever they need for their challenges and badges, some never add attributes that should be added like 'NOT 24/7' if not stated elsewhere and some try to choose meaningfull attributes to help potential visitors see in advance whether a cache might be the right choice for them.

Edited by AnnaMoritz
Link to comment

User failings rather than system failings.

 

Yes at least to some extent, but still it leads to the situation that not all attributes are understood in the same way by everyone which was the starting point.

 

I do not think that e.g. the tourist attribute (regardless of whether the positive or the negative one) is leading to more confusions than say the

available in Winter attribute.

 

Right now there is an Advent ? cache in my area for which one needs to solve a task for each day, including a longer hike each weekend.

Even though the tasks can be done also on later days, this cache would be a prime example for a cache where I'd set the

negative tourist attribute and think that it seriously fits.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

AbandonedBuilding-no.gif

 

- It's a picture of a ruined house crossed with the red line.

 

- No translation is provided for a tooltip. Google translates this in Russian as "refused structure". Not much helpful.

 

- Back to the icon. What does it mean?

 

- Maybe it means there are no ruined houses nearby. It's a safety warning. Low chance for falling bricks or remains of window glass, pretty safe.

 

- Maybe there's a ruined house nearby but the cache is not there.

 

- Maybe there is some restricted area around a ruined house and/or a construction site. Access is denied (red line) and so my walk to the GZ may be longer.

 

- Maybe there's a structure that may look ruined but is actually inhabited so I should mind muggles and/or additional threats like being robbed. (Why, switch your imagination on :) ).

 

- Maybe it's like with "no nice view" attribute: the icon is supposed to lower expectations of those who love examining ruins. Sorry guys, nothing of this sort to explore around here.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...