Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Harry Dolphin

Strange reviewer note

Recommended Posts

My sister replaced a cache recently.  checked the coords and hint.  Next finder posted "The comment on the owner maintenance log was helpful as a hint. Posted coordinates were 85 to 100 feet off for me."  The reviewer disabled it with the comment "Your cache appears to be in need of something. It's hard to know what, but the cache is either hard to find or may need some help. Either it's missing or the coordinates are a bit off. Since I can't tell what is wrong or if there is anything wrong, I'm temporarily disabling the cache page to give you the opportunity to check on the physical cache and take whatever action is necessary."  She double checked it, and the coords were good.  That seems very strange to me.  One cacher claiming the coords were off, and it gets disabled???

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

That's the new normal. The irrational goal of making sure no one ever has a problem finding any cache has led reviewers to taking action without so much as a second opinion. The funny part is how earnest the note is that something very serious is obviously wrong, but then the note goes on to say the reviewer has no idea whatsoever what's actually wrong. How obvious is that?

 

I wish complaining would do any good, but GS and the reviewers have been going further and further in this direction. So far, all a CO has to do is reenable the cache and post yet another OM log to reiterate that the cache is fine, so hopefully that's all your sister needs to do. Until the next time...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I often write, along with others, that the coordinates are off. Only twice have I seen the reviewer pick up on this, but then this needed the coordinates to be more than 150 metres out. Another thing that I wished the reviewer would pick up on; one star terrain caches that aren't; sometimes way off one star terrain. This is cruel to physically disabled people.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I often write, along with others, that the coordinates are off. Only twice have I seen the reviewer pick up on this, but then this needed the coordinates to be more than 150 metres out. Another thing that I wished the reviewer would pick up on; one star terrain caches that aren't; sometimes way off one star terrain. This is cruel to physically disabled people.

How do you expect the Reviewer to "pick up on" these issues?

 -- Do you mean that the Reviewer should know about these things when the cache is submitted for publication?

 -- Or do you mean the Reviewer should scan through logs on the cache page to see that cachers are commenting about such issues?

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, noncentric said:

How do you expect the Reviewer to "pick up on" these issues?

 -- Do you mean that the Reviewer should know about these things when the cache is submitted for publication?

 -- Or do you mean the Reviewer should scan through logs on the cache page to see that cachers are commenting about such issues?

NM logs are a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

NM logs are a clue.

NM logs are not for reviewer attention. That's the job of NA logs.Unless it gets pinged by the CHS of course.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

NM logs are a clue.

NM logs don't send alerts to the Reviewers like the NA logs do.  They would have to go looking for them with a PQ or GSAK query.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Okay thanks for that reply. I didn't know that. I thought NM would alert the reviewer. It seems a NA will be needed in future, when finders keep mentioning the coordinates are out. I would be unlikely to do a NA if I am the only one to mention the coordinates.

However, I have been surprised a couple of times after I did a NM for such things as a wet log, that the reviewer stepped in straight away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My thought is that reviewers have been given the goahead to be more proactive if they wish - not that they've been told to do so. That gives them the flexibility to decide for their community if they think it's a good idea. We see that a lot - there are many caches that don't get proactive attention, and there are many that do (which we might think don't need it). To me that indicates it's individual reviewer judgment and the increased rate seems to imply they're more bold about stepping in now than before. It happens a lot in my area. And usually when I see it, I've never thought it really 'crossed the line' as it were, as in I can understand how the reviewer would have made the call to take the unprompted action (even though it may have ruffled some community feathers).  That may not be the case in other regions where reviewer actions may be much more assertive and assuming.  *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I often write, along with others, that the coordinates are off. Only twice have I seen the reviewer pick up on this, but then this needed the coordinates to be more than 150 metres out. Another thing that I wished the reviewer would pick up on; one star terrain caches that aren't; sometimes way off one star terrain. This is cruel to physically disabled people.

Why do you care if the reviewer picks up on it? The CO's the one that can easily fix these things. Talk to him, not to the cops.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

One cacher claiming the coords were off, and it gets disabled???

 

Easy explanation: the last finder contacted the reviewer and asked to check the cache status.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, dprovan said:

Why do you care if the reviewer picks up on it? The CO's the one that can easily fix these things. Talk to him, not to the cops.

Because most COs don't make any correction. The cases I am referring to, people have been saying the coordinates, etc are wrong for months, possible years. Putting this in the log is talking to the CO, because COs, if they care, would be reading the logs.

Tell me why you think one more mention of the coordinates are out will make any difference to a CO who had already ignored a dozen same comments from other loggers.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Because most COs don't make any correction.

 

Hmm, there's a few scenarios that come to mind here:

  • Some locations just have poor GPS reception. On a cache I did yesterday, my GPSr (an Oregon 700) initially said pretty much zero at the spot where I found the cache, but by the time I'd signed the log it was saying it was ten metres away. I stood there for a bit, watching it as it started making a ten metre radius circle around the cache. A couple of the previous finders had mentioned dodgy coordinates, but really what's a CO meant to do in a location like that? One of my own hides is in a deep gully with a very limited view of the sky and getting anything better than 15 to 20 metres of accuracy is just wishful thinking. If a reviewer were to disable that because someone complained about the coordinates I think I'd just archive it.
  • Some caching devices do oddball things occasionally. I rarely use my phone for caching, but just about every time I have it's done something odd, either not updating as I walk or deciding it's going to use cell tower triangulation rather than GPS and putting me 50 to 100 metres off where I know I am (this seems to happen a bit in inner city streets with lots of tall buildings on either side). On my most recent hide (GC831AR), the first two finders, both using phones, reckoned it was about five metres off so I went back out there with two GPSrs (the Oregon and my old 62S) and stood directly above the hiding place, watching each one. Not only did they both average its location right where I'd originally put it, but when I walked to the other rock formation where those two cachers had been searching, both units showed the distance to the cache at about five metres in the right direction. The location has a good view of the sky without too much tree cover, so I'm really scratching my head a bit on that one.
  • Some (especially newbie) COs mightn't have figured out how to post an Update Coordinates log and instead think that using the corrected coordinates pencil tool is doing it.
  • And yes, there are some COs who just don't care. But most???

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

And yes, there are some COs who just don't care. But most??? 

That's my experience.

If finders keep mentioning a similar distance that the coordinates are out; they're out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Hmm, there's a few scenarios that come to mind here:

 

You forget one scenario where coordinates are intentionally off to make a cache harder to find or to get is published because correct coordinates are too near another cache. In this case the CO may not be willing to correct the situtation even recommended repeatedly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

You forget one scenario where coordinates are intentionally off to make a cache harder to find or to get is published because correct coordinates are too near another cache. In this case the CO may not be willing to correct the situtation even recommended repeatedly.

Like this one:GC3708T The hint says, " GPS accuracy slightly out (deliberartely), just for the challenge " When I didn't find it, I don't remember the hint saying slightly out; I suspect that's a more recent addition. I searched 20 metres either side and left annoyed.

I don't know why this is allowed. It has been this way since 2011. Plenty of time for a reviewer to step in.

 

Another I know of had coordinates 150 metres out, because of conflict with a neighbouring cache. And they expected people to find it 😲!!! People didn't.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't know why this is allowed. It has been this way since 2011. Plenty of time for a reviewer to step in. 

 

Reviewers are not monitoring caches. You have to report the cache to a reviewer or HQ.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I searched 20 metres either side and left annoyed.

Not annoyed enough to post an NA I guess.  Keep trying.  Sounds like the majority of Users in the area are really having fun with it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Touchstone said:

Not annoyed enough to post an NA I guess.  Keep trying.  Sounds like the majority of Users in the area are really having fun with it.

That example was in another country and several years ago. I was less experienced then. Most people who find it would not be locals, but tourists, either from the same country or another. I am also hesitant to log something like this when a foreigner. However, if I had found it I likely would have published the correct coordinates.  I only walked up one side and down the other side of the wall (from memory), as I wasn't going to spend any more time on this, because is it 6 metres it's out or 20 or more? -

Fine, maybe the people are enjoying trying to find a cache in a gabion wall with two sides and the top from memory to check, with incorrect coordinates, but no-one I have mentioned this to has expressed pleasure at the thought. I have taken almost an hour to find a micro in a gabion wall with good coordinates with another person helping in the search. The example I mentioned I was by myself, so double the potential search time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Too funny!  Even a mention of a throwdown in the early years of the Listing.  I wonder how many containers are at the location now :D

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Like this one:GC3708T The hint says, " GPS accuracy slightly out (deliberartely), just for the challenge " When I didn't find it, I don't remember the hint saying slightly out; I suspect that's a more recent addition. I searched 20 metres either side and left annoyed.

I don't know why this is allowed. It has been this way since 2011. Plenty of time for a reviewer to step in.

 

Another I know of had coordinates 150 metres out, because of conflict with a neighbouring cache. And they expected people to find it 😲!!! People didn't.

 

It isn't. 

It's "practically invisible" because that 4.5D traditional isn't at it's coordinates .   All those DNFs and only two NM.  No NA.

Curious why this is on the Reviewer, when no one is logging anything other than DNF ?  Thanks.  :)

I wouldn't be surprised if the CO added that hint after it was published. 

 

We used to have a CO here who was "creative" in their hides.  

Coordinates had ten or so feet on game lands property (open to cachers), when the cache was actually on property where caching was not allowed, or required a fee to place.   NM for coordinates , and some saying it's on "other" property finally did them in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

It isn't. 

It's "practically invisible" because that 4.5D traditional isn't at it's coordinates .   All those DNFs and only two NM.  No NA.

Curious why this is on the Reviewer, when no one is logging anything other than DNF ?  Thanks.  :)

I wouldn't be surprised if the CO added that hint after it was published. 

 

We used to have a CO here who was "creative" in their hides.  

Coordinates had ten or so feet on game lands property (open to cachers), when the cache was actually on property where caching was not allowed, or required a fee to place.   NM for coordinates , and some saying it's on "other" property finally did them in.

 

 

And no one has given the correct coordinates either, which they should do. If they have, the CO has deleted them. I never found it on the walk by (all the time I was prepared to spend on this), or I would have been tempted to publish them.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Tell me why you think one more mention of the coordinates are out will make any difference to a CO who had already ignored a dozen same comments from other loggers.

I said talk to the CO, not post yet another log. Your initial note made it sound to me more like you've occasionally run into COs that made a mistake, not that you were talking about COs that willfully and regularly post bad coordinates. So I suggested you focus more on fixing the CO so he doesn't keep doing that instead of focusing on getting each individual cache archived which you'll be doing the rest of your life if the CO isn't educated.

 

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Because most COs don't make any correction.

My experience is just the reverse. First, COs normally post good coordinates so it doesn't come up very often. More often than not, it's the person complaining that has the bad coordinates. Second, when there really is a problem, the COs in my area will quickly adjust the coordinates. That's why I'm suggesting you teach your COs to be more like mine.

 

14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

And no one has given the correct coordinates either, which they should do. If they have, the CO has deleted them. I never found it on the walk by (all the time I was prepared to spend on this), or I would have been tempted to publish them. 

Now if a CO is clearly making a game of posting bad coordinates, refusing to listen to reason, and deleting any logs that post the correct coordinates, then feel free to talk to the reviewer about them. GS will be interested if they insist on breaking the rules on purpose.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

My sister replaced a cache recently. 

 

Link to the cache? (if it's not top secret)

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Because most COs don't make any correction. The cases I am referring to, people have been saying the coordinates, etc are wrong for months, possible years. Putting this in the log is talking to the CO, because COs, if they care, would be reading the logs.

Tell me why you think one more mention of the coordinates are out will make any difference to a CO who had already ignored a dozen same comments from other loggers.

 

There is a cache I know of for which people had been saying for years in their Found logs that the coordinates were wrong (in someones back yard).  I wrote it as a NM log and really po-ed the CO, but it did finally get them to change the coordinates.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, dprovan said:

I said talk to the CO

I might never have met them and have no idea who they are or how to find them to talk to them. It might not even be in my country. That could be considered storking too. Besides, I consider the comments written in a log as 'talking' to the CO. It's like the old fashioned letter that 'talked' to the recipient. I read my logs and take them seriously. If the coordinates were regularly being mentioned as off I would investigate. I don't need someone to track me down and talk to me, even at events. If they waited to do that and not write what was wrong in a log, I would find that very strange and unhelpful, as I should have been told earlier. If it's only one person's comments, say the coordinates are out, that might not be enough to go on (although that is affected by how experienced they are), but after several comments, time to act and go check those coordinates.

I found several caches recently by a CO whose coordinates were often out. It was not only me mentioning this, but others too. After I logged NM explaining the problem, the CO checked and did a OM, saying log and cache good. That wasn't what the NM was about, but the off coordinates. I messaged the CO and explained the problem again (politely). They said they would check this. Nothing has changed. The coordinates are still not fixed. I don't want this archived, so am not going to log a NA. Besides, I find that sort of rude if the person is at least looking after the cache and log. People are still mentioning the cache is not being found at GZ.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, NanCycle said:

 

There is a cache I know of for which people had been saying for years in their Found logs that the coordinates were wrong (in someones back yard).  I wrote it as a NM log and really po-ed the CO, but it did finally get them to change the coordinates.  

Some people can't handle criticism at all. I do wonder about how those people were brought up. I've had that happen to me. After several attempts at finding a cache and mentioning I think the cache should be checked if it was still there, this over a six month period, I finally logged a NM. I had written everything politely. The CO wrote back rudely and aggressively, saying I should have contacted them first before logging a NM. Um, er, several DNFs and mention that it is suspected the cache is missing is contacting the CO. They finally checked and the cache was missing, so in their tissy fit they archived it. Which was a shame, as it was a very good multicache. Shrugs shoulders, this CO is known for that response. They've done that to other people too. They get talked about.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

And no one has given the correct coordinates either, which they should do. If they have, the CO has deleted them. I never found it on the walk by (all the time I was prepared to spend on this), or I would have been tempted to publish them.

 

I've done that before. Bugs me when so many people in past logs mention coordinates being off but no one posts corrected coordinates (let alone the CO updating the coordinates). In those cases I add coordinates, using the feature, and in the log text. I've only done it a handful of times, but never had a complaint from the CO. I rarely go back to check on those caches, but the ones I have, iirc, were not updated (why would they be, after so many logs already saying the coordinates were off, without CO followup?).

But at least the info is now there for followup finders. I love when I see a past finder - usually a very trusted prolific cacher - add additional coordinates to their log. Even if it's not accurate either, at least gives me an idea of how much of a range to potentially search in.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I've done that before. Bugs me when so many people in past logs mention coordinates being off but no one posts corrected coordinates (let alone the CO updating the coordinates). In those cases I add coordinates, using the feature, and in the log text. I've only done it a handful of times, but never had a complaint from the CO. I rarely go back to check on those caches, but the ones I have, iirc, were not updated (why would they be, after so many logs already saying the coordinates were off, without CO followup?).

But at least the info is now there for followup finders. I love when I see a past finder - usually a very trusted prolific cacher - add additional coordinates to their log. Even if it's not accurate either, at least gives me an idea of how much of a range to potentially search in.

 

Adding coordinates to a log was a feature they removed in the new logging page. Yes, it can still be done by either opting out of that or going back and editing the log (which still uses the old logging page) but, really, how many cachers now would know to do that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I might never have met them and have no idea who they are or how to find them to talk to them.

That's what the message system is for.

 

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Besides, I consider the comments written in a log as 'talking' to the CO.

Logs are one way communications. Sending the CO a message initiates a conversation and results in a personal relation. Your stated problem is that COs aren't reacting to logs, so that's why I'm suggesting something deeper: interacting with them. Of course, I'm assuming that you'd be open to exchanging ideas, listening to their point of view, and adjusting your message based on how they react. That's a little harder the just posting logs saying the coordinates are wrong. Are you up to it?

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Adding coordinates to a log was a feature they removed in the new logging page. Yes, it can still be done by either opting out of that or going back and editing the log (which still uses the old logging page) but, really, how many cachers now would know to do that.

 

Did this feature do anything else except put the corrected coordinates bolded at the top of your log? If not, I suppose they thought it is not necessary to have this option because you can just type the coordinates there yourself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, papu66 said:

 

Did this feature do anything else except put the corrected coordinates bolded at the top of your log? If not, I suppose they thought it is not necessary to have this option because you can just type the coordinates there yourself.

 

 

 

It does it a special way where coordinates are visible only on the web site. At least, I can not see these coordinates in my mobile app :mad:

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I've done that before. Bugs me when so many people in past logs mention coordinates being off but no one posts corrected coordinates

 

I feel the same. If there is no coordinates or any information how they are off, the note is almost useless for the CO and other finders. It should be quite easy to tell that the cache was 15 meters south from the GZ. The distance is usually already visible on the GPS and a cardinal direction is easy to see from the map.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, papu66 said:

 

Did this feature do anything else except put the corrected coordinates bolded at the top of your log? If not, I suppose they thought it is not necessary to have this option because you can just type the coordinates there yourself.

 

 

 

Yes, that's what they said at the time, but having the coordinates in bold in a fixed position at the top made them much easier to spot when scanning back through earlier logs. Just having some coordinates mingled in with the text can be easily overlooked, particularly if it's a long log, and putting them in bold requires knowing what the markdown code for bold is since they took away the text formatting bar as well.

 

For me, if I notice a bit of a discrepency in where my GPSr is pointing to what the coordinates say, I might mention in my log something like my GPSr had me some ten metres south of where I found it rather than give actual coordinates, since I have no way of knowing whether my GPSr is any more or less accurate than the one the CO used when placing the cache. About the only times I've used the add coordinates funtion was when the discrepency was quite large (many tens of metres or more). And if the cache is still readily findable from the description and hint, getting into a battle over coordinates seems like a lose-lose scenario, particularly as I'm never likely to go back to that cache again. I'll just say what I think needs saying in my log and move on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That's what the message system is for.

 

Logs are one way communications. Sending the CO a message initiates a conversation and results in a personal relation. Your stated problem is that COs aren't reacting to logs, so that's why I'm suggesting something deeper: interacting with them. Of course, I'm assuming that you'd be open to exchanging ideas, listening to their point of view, and adjusting your message based on how they react. That's a little harder the just posting logs saying the coordinates are wrong. Are you up to it?

I have a long list of messages to COs and other geocachers. Messaging often. But COs should read their logs. That's the first step. Logs should not be ignored. I have rarely found messaging to be more effective than logs. If it's a responsive CO they will take notice of logs. Non responsive COs often don't take notice of logs, nor messages.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It should be quite easy to tell that the cache was 15 meters south from the GZ.

Yes many people do that, but few actually supply the corrected coordinates. People should supply coordinates more often, than just say 15 metres out. 15 metres out...which direction? I like to supply coordinates (usually with a note saying something like, ' my Garmin preferred....', so not saying they are wrong and I am right; rather I got a different reading), and I have then had other people mentioning they used my coords to find the cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like one of mine is suddenly getting logs mentioning the coords being 25-30m off. Cache creep or has someone placed it in a "better" spot? It's my furthest cache from home, about 90min drive away and I'm stuck at home with a broken foot.Tossing up whether or not to TD it.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, colleda said:

Looks like one of mine is suddenly getting logs mentioning the coords being 25-30m off. Cache creep or has someone placed it in a "better" spot? It's my furthest cache from home, about 90min drive away and I'm stuck at home with a broken foot.Tossing up whether or not to TD it.

Decided to TD and sent a message to last finder for some detail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Adding coordinates to a log was a feature they removed in the new logging page. Yes, it can still be done by either opting out of that or going back and editing the log (which still uses the old logging page) but, really, how many cachers now would know to do that.

 

Yep, I know, and it's unfotunate they removed it.

 

5 hours ago, arisoft said:
6 hours ago, papu66 said:

Did this feature do anything else except put the corrected coordinates bolded at the top of your log? If not, I suppose they thought it is not necessary to have this option because you can just type the coordinates there yourself.

 

It does it a special way where coordinates are visible only on the web site. At least, I can not see these coordinates in my mobile app :mad:

 

Nope, it was only website. But, the information if I recall correctly was included in GPX. I think. *tests* Yep, the additional coordinate is included in the GPX file as a log_wpt value in the log data.  Other apps could make use of that how they wish. They just never updated their own mobile app to highlight the additionally provided waypoint.

 

1 hour ago, colleda said:

Looks like one of mine is suddenly getting logs mentioning the coords being 25-30m off. Cache creep or has someone placed it in a "better" spot? It's my furthest cache from home, about 90min drive away and I'm stuck at home with a broken foot.Tossing up whether or not to TD it.

 

...when you state in the listing 'gps is a little rough here' and how munch effort was taken to get accurate coordinates, yet you still get logs like "5 meters off" or "20 meters off" - clearly everyone's gps's are also bouncing.  It's good to provide additional coordinates, but understand if/when your own device isn't going to guarantee more accuracy, especially if many other people are having the same issues. :P  

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

 

Link to the cache? (if it's not top secret)

 

 

I think there's more to this story. A link to the cache listing would help. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

 

I think there's more to this story. A link to the cache listing would help. 

I think the silence on the part of the OP speaks volumes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

But COs should read their logs.

Well, obviously. We're discussing possible courses of action when they don't read their logs.

 

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have rarely found messaging to be more effective than logs.

That's odd. I always find it easier to convince a friend than to convince an anonymous CO. Worst case, I get an idea of whether they have any reasons for doing what they did. Oh, well. I was just suggesting an alternative that works in my community, but it sounds like with the COs you're dealing with, you're going to be cursed with bad coordinates forever. Sorry I couldn't be more help!

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think there's more to this story. A link to the cache listing would help. 

I cannot rule out the possibility of there being more to the story, but it doesn't sound like it's likely to be revealed by looking at the listing. I hate that I've started thinking this way, but my guess is that a friend of the reviewer complained behind the scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, papu66 said:

Did this feature do anything else except put the corrected coordinates bolded at the top of your log?

As thebruce0 just mentioned, it's attached to the log in pocket queries, but I haven't heard of any devices that show it.

 

8 hours ago, papu66 said:

If not, I suppose they thought it is not necessary to have this option because you can just type the coordinates there yourself.

Well, kinda. I think it would be more accurate to say they didn't think it was necessary because most people don't post coordinates. The new log page is aimed at dumbing down the logging process, so my take is that they left that feature out because they didn't want people filing logs to worry their pretty little heads about coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I think it would be more accurate to say they didn't think it was necessary because most people don't post coordinates.

 

Yeah, and that mentality really bugs me in the development cycle. If its only existence is positive, even if a small segment of users use it, why remove it?  =/

 

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The new log page is aimed at dumbing down the logging process, so my take is that they left that feature out because they didn't want people filing logs to worry their pretty little heads about coordinates.

 

Aye, and that's why most interfaces have an "Advanced" group of options you can toggle in some manner. But here we seem to get removal of beneficial options instead. :(

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I think it would be more accurate to say they didn't think it was necessary because most people don't post coordinates.

 

Yeah, and that mentality really bugs me in the development cycle. If its only existence is positive, even if a small segment of users use it, why remove it?  =/

 

Playing devils advocate, sort of ...it's not so much about the development cycle but the project lifecycle.   A underutilized features might be removed simply so that it no longer has to be supported.   If every features on every site created by a group of developers is supported indefinitely, it limits the amount of time that the group can work on new development.   I recently had to spend about a half a day updating some code that I wrote over 10 years ago because it was still used by one site and they wanted an enhancement made to it.   There are a lot of places that don't have an development cycle that doesn't have an end-of-life stage.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Playing devils advocate, sort of ...it's not so much about the development cycle but the project lifecycle.   A underutilized features might be removed simply so that it no longer has to be supported.

 

Oh completely agreed. The question is whether this filter parameter falls into that category. I find that very hard to believe =/

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

This topic having gone totally sidewise..  "add a coordinate to this log" I speculate that it was part of the development of the Locationless type, as you were supposed to post coords with each log for the unique item qualifying you'd found, the earliest logs I find with it are from Sept 2001.  That module was already up when you clicked the Found it! log on a Locationless.

 

Later, it was central to changing the way a cache's posted coords were updated  by log entry instead of the cache's edit page, sometime early 2006.  That's a unique log type, but it uses the older "add a coordinate" code.

 

It isn't only visible on the site, I see it with gpx download to gps device - but apparently it isn't visible on a phone (like the in house checker).  I'll try to remember that, and post any waypoints in the text as well as in the "add a waypoint" field.  CO does not see it as part of the log email sent.

 

 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Oh completely agreed. The question is whether this filter parameter falls into that category. I find that very hard to believe =/

 

Especially when it's a feature that still works on the backend (as demonstrated by canned URL, such as the many the HHL posts) but they remove the front end link/option from a web form.

 

I still haven't figured out what the rationale was for removing the coordinate converter that was available on every cache page.   

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

CO does not see it as part of the log email sent.

 

Now that's interesting, I didn't know that. Perhaps it's why some COs don't respond to updated coordinates in logs.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think there's more to this story. A link to the cache listing would help. 

 

No need to reveal the reviewer.  As posted, I suspect the cacher reported it to the reviewer privately.  I helped my sister hide the cache.  The coords were good.  She went back and verified the coords.  I just found it a very strange reviewer note.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...