Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Geocaching HQ

Release Notes (Website: Difficulty/Terrain grid) - November 9, 2020

Recommended Posts

Release Notes (Website: Difficulty/Terrain grid) - November 9, 2020

 

With today’s release, we are adding a feature for Premium members to search for Difficulty and Terrain combinations to fill their D/T grid.

 

From the Statistics page, click the button below the D/T grid to start the search. If you have not filled your grid yet, the search results will show you all caches with a D/T combination you have not previously found (these show as “0” in your D/T grid). If you have already filled your grid, your search results will show all caches with the D/T combination of the lowest number in your grid. 

 

In this case, the search results show all D/T combinations with a “0” in the D/T grid:

 

25OQqHtPmExPPMTVr1sYBTQc5benTD0YOOWOnM0_


Here is an example of a filled grid. The search results in this case will show all D/T combinations with a “2” in the D/T grid:

 

wsuTWSldkCwPCE2sg6sNMzLy1xY8GdxMZvfOERtT


You can now also click on each grid to display caches with that D/T combination that you haven’t found.

 

The initial search will display caches around your home coordinates. You can then further filter, for example to show caches in another location, or of a specific cache type.

 

November 11 update: From the search results, you can now also map results including D/T combinations on the search map.

 

Nicole (nykkole) is watching this thread to answer questions whenever possible.
 
Any posts in this thread should relate to features in this release. Comments unrelated to the release may be removed. Please direct unrelated comments to other appropriate threads. Thanks!

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

There is a bug in the stats, where in the title it shows that I've found 81 out of 81 possible combinations, when I clearly didn't (screen below).

 

 

obraz.png.ab2f79694a0fdf8ba937da0b9ae4ff7d.png

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, sernikk said:

There is a bug in the stats, where in the title it shows that I've found 81 out of 81 possible combinations, when I clearly didn't (screen below).

Interestng, my stats don't show my completion #'s?

image.png.3750ef278fd05d4de79fe3e44f84e5e6.png

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Interestng, my stats don't show my completion #'s?

 

 

Yeah sorry, I just realised that a 3rd part addon was the issue. Nevermind ;)

 

But it would be nice when the stats would show that in the first place like on project-gc.

Edited by sernikk

Share this post


Link to post

Ahhh, OK.  I do like being able to click on one single combination and seeing how many nearby caches satisfy that square of the grid!

Edited by CAVinoGal
Typo corrections
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

This update is kind of a shame in my opinion, I must admit.  

I have found that (within the past few years especially) difficulty and terrain ratings are being used more and more by owners as cache statistics (for qualifying for challenges, D/T grid looping, etc), rather than being used as useful information (which is their intended purpose, I hope). 

 

For example, here's a 4.5* difficulty, 5* terrain cache that is literally a park and grab:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8B8ZD_prairie-country-roads-5

 

Promoting D/T looping and allowing for quick searching of missing D/T holes will only amplify the frequency of this problem.

It also undermines the effort put in by those who 'earn' their high difficulty and high terrain finds.

Yes, I know it's all relative and the D/T ratings will never be perfect, but I'd rather HQ promote accurate cache descriptions.  I think this update does the opposite.

 

As for functionality, searching for missing D/T combinations by clicking on a number should exclude caches I own.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

Yes, I know it's all relative and the D/T ratings will never be perfect, but I'd rather HQ promote accurate cache descriptions.

I agree, but I also think reviewers play a bit of a role. If the think the DT is way out of whack, they may recommend changing the details.  I think accuracy in cache descriptons is something everyone, at every level, should encourage - even if you enjoy DT grid hunting for challenges.  Promote geocacher integrity; but also promote the fun of the hunt :)

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I agree, but I also think reviewers play a bit of a role. If the think the DT is way out of whack, they may recommend changing the details.  I think accuracy in cache descriptons is something everyone, at every level, should encourage - even if you enjoy DT grid hunting for challenges.  Promote geocacher integrity; but also promote the fun of the hunt :)

Sadly accurate D/T isn't part of the reviewing process even if they are clearly bogus....

 

Also why Groundspeak spend time implementing this feature that is already available on Project-Gc ?

 

PLEASE SPEND YOUR TIME ON ADVENTURES LABS UPGRADES 

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I agree, but I also think reviewers play a bit of a role. If the think the DT is way out of whack, they may recommend changing the details.  I think accuracy in cache descriptons is something everyone, at every level, should encourage - even if you enjoy DT grid hunting for challenges.  Promote geocacher integrity; but also promote the fun of the hunt :)

Sadly accurate D/T isn't part of the reviewing process even if they are clearly bogus....

 

It's up to the reviewer. I didn't say the reviewer had to, but they play a role as well. Everyone can help encourage accuracy in ratings.  Some reviewers do, especially if there's clearly an issue (eg, cache description implies difficult bouldering and cave diving but the terrain is rated 1.5 with no attributes) but others don't.

 

Cache owners: Please rate accurately.

Community: Log finds with thoughts if you think a rating is way off

Reviewers: Make recommendations if you think a rating is way off

HQ: Continue to encourage cache owners to rate listings to their subjectively accurate rating 

:P

All of these are strategies we can all use as part of the global community, and none pre-empt encouraging the fun of filling a DT grid statistically.

 

Accurate ratings are subjective - both on a personal and regional level. It can't be mandated to specific ratings, but really owners can only be encouraged to not be intentionally inaccurate. 

Edited by thebruce0
minor typo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

It looks like "Fill in your grid" doesn't work (it leads to an error 500 page) in my particular case:

  • French language.
  • URL called is/was  https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&m=1-4,1-4.5,1.5-4,2-4.5,2.5-4.5,3-3.5,3.5-4.5,3.5-5,4-3,4-4,4-5,4.5-4,4.5-5&f=2
  • Below is a screenshot of my grid before I click on the green button.
  • Deactivating Scripts didn't help.

 

2073829945_Screenshot_2020-11-09GetthefreeOfficialGeocachingappandjointheworldslargesttreasurehunt.png.4f27f156db3778121adbc87c0fe3db04.png

 

Clicking on individual cells works, though.

Edited by Tungstène
Trying to be accurate :-)
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Tungstène said:

It looks like it doesn't work (I get an error 500) in my particular case:

  •  

 

Thanks for reporting this. We are looking into the issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, nykkole said:

 

Thanks for reporting this. We are looking into the issue.

 

For your information: when I switch site language to English, it does work.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

Yes, I know it's all relative and the D/T ratings will never be perfect, but I'd rather HQ promote accurate cache descriptions.  I think this update does the opposite.

On the flip side, if a cache owner is debating (for example) between D3 and D3.5, and between T1.5 and T2, then the relative rarity of various D-T combinations might influence that decision. If 3.5/2 caches are relatively rare, then an owner who wants lots of grid-filling traffic might choose that. And if 3/1.5 caches are relatively common, then an owner who does NOT want lots of grid-filling traffic might choose that.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, nykkole said:

 

Thanks for reporting this. We are looking into the issue.

 

I'm happy to report that the bug is now fixed. :grin:

Please let us know if you see anything else amiss.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, nykkole said:

Please let us know if you see anything else amiss.

 

As I had mentioned in my post, searching for missing D/T combinations by clicking on a number should exclude caches I own. Search results show all my owned caches along with unfound caches. Caches I own are not useful for me to complete my D/T grid. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, brendan714 said:

This update is kind of a shame in my opinion, I must admit.  

I agree.

Disappointing to see what GS considers an improvement worth of putting resources at just for the sake of making it easier to follow statistical determinated behavior.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, project gc does the same, but that's beside the point. I don't care about these stats, I'm sure others find them useful.

 

One thing: If I search I don't see in the results which loop I'm searching. I suppose this is only the first missing loop. A simple header stating this might be useful.

Otherwise good to see that this works with filters. (and an earthcache with missing loop combination is 90km away :laughing:)

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Hynz said:

I agree.

Disappointing to see what GS considers an improvement worth of putting resources at just for the sake of making it easier to follow statistical determinated behavior.

 

I don't think we know the team structure of gs. Maybe they have a website dev team, a game progression dev team, an app-based game dev team, etc.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Hynz said:

I agree.

Disappointing to see what GS considers an improvement worth of putting resources at just for the sake of making it easier to follow statistical determinated behavior.

 

Of course there is project-gc where everyone can check their stats and most "advanced" players do.

But I don't really see the problem in including more statistics on the geocaching site. Stats are fun!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah this is a functional value-add that has no downside other than "I don't like seeing that."  But, there will always be critics :laughing:

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, sernikk said:

There is a bug in the stats, where in the title it shows that I've found 81 out of 81 possible combinations, when I clearly didn't (screen below).

 

Yes, it is an issue for the GClh, we work on it, it will be corrected in next version.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's up to the reviewer. I didn't say the reviewer had to, but they play a role as well. Everyone can help encourage accuracy in ratings.

 

From Keystone back in April - "If Reviewers are expected to take action when an inaccurate D/T rating or cache size is brought to our attention, this will require changes to the guidance given to the Reviewers by Geocaching HQ" - this is specifically post-publication

 

and

 

"Rather, the clear guidance is that reviewers are not the D/T police.  Even pre-publication, in the narrow use case of T1 caches, our obligation is to question the hider if they use the wheelchair accessible attribute with a T rating greater than 1 star, or if they fail to use that attribute with a T rating of 1 star.  The cache owner is asked to correct whichever is wrong - the rating or the attribute.  This is by no means a "guarantee" that the reviewer agrees the cache is wheelchair accessible."

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Geocaching HQ said:

Release Notes (Website: Difficulty/Terrain grid) - November 9, 2020

With today’s release, we are adding a feature for Premium members to search for Difficulty and Terrain combinations to fill their D/T grid.

 -snip - 

Any posts in this thread should relate to features in this release. 

 

The other 2/3rds, much more interested in "stats" (but not playing right now...) would find this very convenient.   :)

This is simple even for dyslexic old farts, so if I feel like something different, it's less clicks than picking them in search.   Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah this is a functional value-add that has no downside other than "I don't like seeing that."  But, there will always be critics :laughing:

I agree. I do consider the grid from time to time and have done this manually, so I think it's a cool feature that I'll use a couple times a year. I just don't remember anyone asking for it, and I don't think anyone would care if it weren't there. It makes me wonder if there aren't better things to do.

 

(I have to admit, I see myself in this developer: I regularly come up with cool ideas and implement them even though I'm likely the only person that will ever use them.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:
20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's up to the reviewer. I didn't say the reviewer had to, but they play a role as well. Everyone can help encourage accuracy in ratings.

 

From Keystone back in April - "If Reviewers are expected to take action when an inaccurate D/T rating or cache size is brought to our attention, this will require changes to the guidance given to the Reviewers by Geocaching HQ" - this is specifically post-publication

 

and

 

"Rather, the clear guidance is that reviewers are not the D/T police.  Even pre-publication, in the narrow use case of T1 caches, our obligation is to question the hider if they use the wheelchair accessible attribute with a T rating greater than 1 star, or if they fail to use that attribute with a T rating of 1 star.  The cache owner is asked to correct whichever is wrong - the rating or the attribute.  This is by no means a "guarantee" that the reviewer agrees the cache is wheelchair accessible."

 

Yeah, exactly what I was saying.

They aren't expected to "take action". But they can absolutely recommend. And they have. That's my only point. They're not restricted from encouraging cache owners to provide accurate properties if something seems amiss. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

They're not restricted from encouraging cache owners to provide accurate properties if something seems amiss. 

 

Based on what I see Keystone saying in the second quote, it only appears that's the case for 1 T caches and only as it pertains to the selection of the wheelchair attribute (but rated as something other than 1 T) or a 1 T rating without the wheelchair attribute selected.  That's a procedural issue, not a correct or incorrect terrain rating.  I don't think you can make the leap that reviewers can make those types of calls, even for 1 T caches.  Keystone even points out that they can't "guarantee" that they believe it's truly a 1 T cache, despite the fact that the CO has selected both the 1T designation as well as the wheelchair attribute. It appears they ONLY have the ability to verify that both the 1 T AND wheelchair attribute are selected in order to be publishable, not whether or not it's truly a 1 T cache that is wheelchair accessible.

 

Example.  A new CO submits a cache and selects the wheelchair attribute but doesn't select 1 T, instead selecting 1.5 T because it's 6 feet up and not accessible for someone sitting in a wheelchair.  The reviewer, per Keystone, is only allowed to ask whether or not the cache should be rated a 1 T due to the wheelchair attribute selection by the CO OR tell the CO to remove the wheelchair attribute selection for a 1.5 T cache.  The reviewer appears not to be allowed to weigh in on their opinions about which option the CO should take, only that the "...cache owner is asked to correct whichever is wrong - the rating or the attribute."  The fact that a reviewer can't "guarantee" that the cache in question is truly wheelchair accessible only furthers my belief that they're prevented from questioning potential D/T issues for all other cache ratings, even though they may be obvious.  It's an "if this, then that", not an "if this, then is it really that?"  If the 1 T issue is purely procedural for publication and not a verification that a wheelchair cache is truly wheelchair accessible, then I don't see how they can interject themselves into a D/T pre-publication issue for any other cache submission.  

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

As to this particular new ability, I'm not sure how many people were clamoring for it.  It's nice but I'm not sure how much I'll use it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure what you're attempting to contradict - my point is that reviewers can encourage accurate ratings and properties. Can they not?  They are not mandated to, and not doing so isn't against their role as a reviewer. They can. And they have. I have seen it. If they are required not to, that's different. I have also seen reviewers 'switch' to geocacher mode to say things not attributable to their reviewership. It can happen. It has happened.

 

The overarching point once again: We can all continue to encourage accurate properties for geocache listings, it's not merely on the shoulder of HQ in their advertising and promotions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I'm not sure what you're attempting to contradict - my point is that reviewers can encourage accurate ratings and properties. Can they not?  They are not mandated to, and not doing so isn't against their role as a reviewer. They can. And they have. I have seen it. If they are required not to, that's different. I have also seen reviewers 'switch' to geocacher mode to say things not attributable to their reviewership. It can happen. It has happened.

 

I don't think they can for individual caches that are submitted for publication, based on Keystone's reply from a different thread.  I think they're limited, per GS guidance, to procedural issues, not subjective issues like D/T ratings.  Of course they can encourage the COs in their respective areas to attempt to rate their caches as accurately as possible in a general sense but I don't believe they're able to make those types of suggestions on individual caches that are submitted for publication.  If they can't guarantee that a 1 T cache is truly wheelchair accessible based on their personal experiences and beliefs as a reviewer, then the extended implication is that they can't request a CO to change the D/T rating for any other cache, even if they believe it to be faulty or incorrect.

 

I don't necessarily think that's a good thing but I think it makes a reviewer's job much easier because they wouldn't even need to consider that as a determinant for publication.

 

 

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Of course they can encourage the COs in their respective areas attempt to rate their caches as accurately as possible in a general sense but I don't believe they're able to make those types of suggestions on individual caches that are submitted for publication

 

They have, and they can. Guaranteeing a T1 cache is truly wheelchair accessible isn't the same as suggesting that something seems wildly inaccurate and misleading, nor that they can suggest in other capacities. As they have. 

 

24 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I don't necessarily think that's a good thing but I think it makes a reviewer's job much easier because they wouldn't even need to consider that as a determinant for publication.

 

And they don't need to. But they can, if they choose.

And, if they can't, if they are disallowed to (which isn't what Keystone said, "If Reviewers are expected to take action..."), then reviewers who have done so in whatever capacity in the past have broken their own guidelines.

Ya can't change my position on this ;) which I'll repeat: "We can all [including reviewers] continue to encourage accurate properties for geocache listings, it's not merely on the shoulders of HQ in their advertising and promotions."

And reviewers have made suggestions on recommendations during a cache listing review process; not often, but they have.  If they are disallowed to do that, then either it's not been made clear [publicly], or in the past that rule has been broken, or it's a new rule, or reviewers can indeed take off their reviewer hat and use other means to encourage accuracy, or reviewers are dogs.

 

ETA: so-as not to extend the thread - 

Here's my understanding in a nutshell: There is no rule that reviewers cannot choose to recommend a more accurate rating as long the CO still has final word on subjective accuracy they choose to publish. Certain aspects are required (but might get missed, tho that's not the point). But I think if reviewers were disallowed to make any sort of subjective recommendation, we'd have liar caches out the wazoo as people took advantage of intentionally misleading people with false properties (which is different than unintentionally inaccurate). Reviewers are not required/expected to make subjective recommendations, but they're not restricted from doing so.

 

Anyway, all of this is a side topic to the release notes, so yay for being able to click and do immediate searches for desirable DTs! ;)


 

Edited by thebruce0
eta

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And they don't need to. But they can, if they choose.

And, if they can't, if they are disallowed to (which isn't what Keystone said, "If Reviewers are expected to take action..."), then reviewers who have done so in whatever capacity in the past have broken their own guidelines.

 

Any reviewers care to chime in?  @Keystone?

 

It's obvious they can't post-publication.  What about pre-publication?

Share this post


Link to post

A Reviewer's jurisdiction over D/T ratings accuracy would make a good subject for a Geocaching Topics forum thread.  It is off-topic to the current Release Notes. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2020 at 6:58 AM, brendan714 said:

This update is kind of a shame in my opinion, I must admit.  

I have found that (within the past few years especially) difficulty and terrain ratings are being used more and more by owners as cache statistics (for qualifying for challenges, D/T grid looping, etc), rather than being used as useful information (which is their intended purpose, I hope). 

 

For example, here's a 4.5* difficulty, 5* terrain cache that is literally a park and grab:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8B8ZD_prairie-country-roads-5

 

Promoting D/T looping and allowing for quick searching of missing D/T holes will only amplify the frequency of this problem.

It also undermines the effort put in by those who 'earn' their high difficulty and high terrain finds.

Yes, I know it's all relative and the D/T ratings will never be perfect, but I'd rather HQ promote accurate cache descriptions.  I think this update does the opposite.

 

As for functionality, searching for missing D/T combinations by clicking on a number should exclude caches I own.

Some caches are impossible to give accurate Terrain ratings.  I am hoping to go for a cache which is 5Km along a very steep very rutted 4WD track.  If you have a serious 4WD it is a P&G, T1.5.  If you don't, it is a 10km round trip serious hike along very rough terrain with 400m altitude gain, not continuous, lots of ups and downs.  Probably a T4.5 on foot.

 

Fortunately, my son-in-law has a very serious 4WD.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

Some caches are impossible to give accurate Terrain ratings.  I am hoping to go for a cache which is 5Km along a very steep very rutted 4WD track.  If you have a serious 4WD it is a P&G, T1.5.  If you don't, it is a 10km round trip serious hike along very rough terrain with 400m altitude gain, not continuous, lots of ups and downs.  Probably a T4.5 on foot.

Does a multi-day hike change from T4.5 to T1.5 when someone uses a helicopter to bypass the hike? Why should a multi-day hike change from T4.5 to T1.5 when someone uses a "serious 4WD" to bypass the hike?

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, niraD said:

Does a multi-day hike change from T4.5 to T1.5 when someone uses a helicopter to bypass the hike? Why should a multi-day hike change from T4.5 to T1.5 when someone uses a "serious 4WD" to bypass the hike?

Or does a drive-by P&G become a T4.5 because someone chooses to hike in from the opposite side of the county?  

 

This cache is beside a designated fire trail, used by firies to get into the bush.  It is open to the public during summer months and can be accessed by 4WD, by trail bike or by hiking.  If you drive the trail it is a P&G.  If you choose to hike it is T4.5.  My question is which is the "true" terrain.  Looking at the  recent logs, more than half drove there, some drove half-way and some hiked in.  Nobody is suggesting using a helicopter (which would probably make it t5).  There are different ways to access the cache and the terrain ratings are clearly different depending on which option you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

Or does a drive-by P&G become a T4.5 because someone chooses to hike in from the opposite side of the county?

 

Terrain is generally evaluated based on the most reasonable trailhead. So if a normal vehicle can access a parking lot a short distance from the cache, then it's still a T1.5 even if I choose to paddle from the other side of the lake.

 

40 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

This cache is beside a designated fire trail, used by firies to get into the bush.  It is open to the public during summer months and can be accessed by 4WD, by trail bike or by hiking.  If you drive the trail it is a P&G.  If you choose to hike it is T4.5.  My question is which is the "true" terrain.

I would base the terrain rating on the most reasonable trailhead, not counting special equipment. If a normal vehicle cannot use the fire trail, then it is not a P&G.

 

FWIW, I've seen geocaches listed as T5 (special equipment required) because they were in 4x4 parks where you needed a 4x4 vehicle to enter the park. Pedestrians and cyclists were not allowed in. People with 4x4 wannabe vehicles were not allowed in.

Share this post


Link to post

Today we released a small addition to this feature.

From the search results, you can now also map results including D/T combinations on the search map.

 

Location of Map These Geocaches button
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

As clicking the "Fill Your Grid" button results in a search like:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&nfb[0]=MartyBartfast&f=2&utr=false&m=5-2,5-3.5,5-4

 

It's clearly possible to do searches for multiple DT combinations now, is there any prospect of the search interface being updated to allow individual combinations to be selected, rather than being restricted to using the current sliding bars? I think that would be a great addition to the search interface.

 

(FWIW, yes I know we can just use the above URL to construct our own specific searches)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a bug in german language ?

 

Switching to english it works ... back to german there will be no button under the 81 matrix ... an no badge on the right side ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Will there be a possibility to use this feature in a pocket query? 

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/20/2020 at 11:25 PM, LueKai said:

Will there be a possibility to use this feature in a pocket query? 

PQs do not support multiple sets of different D/T combinations.

Workaround:

Put all 1000 possible caches from the resulting search page to a BM list. PQ that list

Edited by HHL
typo
  • Helpful 1

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 7

×
×
  • Create New...