Jump to content

The San Diego Thread

Night Hunter

By Night Hunter
in West and Southwest

Followers 94

Recommended Posts

jahoadi and john

+jahoadi and john

Posted
Posted
...6 of those DNFs are the same cache...

Hmmm...This raises controversial questions about DNFs...

  • Should you be able to log multiple frownies on a cache that you didn't find? Doesn't the act of not finding it include the totality of all failed attempts to search for a cache?
  • Should you be allowed to log a frownie on a cache that turns out to missing? If the cache wasn't there to find, then can you really claim that you didn't find it?
  • On a multicache, should you be able to log a frownie for each WP that you didn't find? (Those that argue against, claim that a 5-star cache is much easier to DNF than a 1-star and yet you still only get one frownie. Why should multicaches be treated differently?
  • What if you were there when the cache was placed? If you didn't find the cache at that point, is this a FTDNF or were you merely a beta-DNF?
  • Do you have to not sign the log book in order to claim a DNF?

And the most controversial of all...

  • Should you be able to log a "Did not attend" for every event cache that you didn't find at an event? (Of course, the mere fact that there is no such thing as a "Did Not Attend" log type makes this doubly controversial...)

:D:D

I was thinking that since those guys have beaten most of us in finds at least they can't claim what is rightfully ours: all the caches that they found that we didn't find yet or a DNFY! DNFYs are inversely proportional to finds. A high number of these mean that these people have a lot more fun to look forward to in the future! :D However, I looked and there is no DNFY log! :D That's a bummer because many of us sucking hind __ could've been high on the list for one darn thing in this game! :D

 

 

:D Pat, my dear-geo-friend...there is something you are very high on the list for in this darn game and no-one can come close: Forum posts!!!! You rule! :D:D

Link to comment
gratefuldad116

+gratefuldad116

Posted
Posted

 

Soooooooooooooooo, who has more than 354 DNF'S ?????????????? :D:D

 

Are tennis shoes considered 'stylish shoes' ?

 

Splashette :D

383 DNFs - count 'em and weep. :D

 

 

We only have 165 DNFs, but we only have 1/3 of your cache finds, so our RODNFs (rate of DNFs) make you look like eagle-eyes! :D

 

This really needs to be expressed as a ratio of finds per dnf, in which case Jahoadi and John don't come close to measuring up to my spectacular rate of dnfs.

 

J&J -7500 finds/ 600dnf = 12.5 finds per dnf. Not Bad!

 

Me 936 finds/ 143 dnf = 6.54 finds per dnf = dnf King!

Link to comment
Chuy!

+Chuy!

Posted
Posted
...6 of those DNFs are the same cache...

Hmmm...This raises controversial questions about DNFs...

  • Should you be able to log multiple frownies on a cache that you didn't find? Doesn't the act of not finding it include the totality of all failed attempts to search for a cache?
  • Should you be allowed to log a frownie on a cache that turns out to missing? If the cache wasn't there to find, then can you really claim that you didn't find it?
  • On a multicache, should you be able to log a frownie for each WP that you didn't find? (Those that argue against, claim that a 5-star cache is much easier to DNF than a 1-star and yet you still only get one frownie. Why should multicaches be treated differently?
  • What if you were there when the cache was placed? If you didn't find the cache at that point, is this a FTDNF or were you merely a beta-DNF?
  • Do you have to not sign the log book in order to claim a DNF?

And the most controversial of all...

  • Should you be able to log a "Did not attend" for every event cache that you didn't find at an event? (Of course, the mere fact that there is no such thing as a "Did Not Attend" log type makes this doubly controversial...)

:P:P

What about lifeline calls. My DNF count would be quite a bit higher if not for the handy dandy cell phone. Should we post a DNF, then a find? :P

 

And what about when we decide to drop temp cache containers. Some may think it's unselfish to do that, but I do it purely for selfish reasons - the smiley! Duh! :P:P

 

Big cats at Kit Carson Park? Maybe they were working on Snakes and Ladders. :P

Link to comment
HelBob Duo

+HelBob Duo

Posted
Posted
...6 of those DNFs are the same cache...

Hmmm...This raises controversial questions about DNFs...

  • Should you be able to log multiple frownies on a cache that you didn't find? Doesn't the act of not finding it include the totality of all failed attempts to search for a cache?
  • Should you be allowed to log a frownie on a cache that turns out to missing? If the cache wasn't there to find, then can you really claim that you didn't find it?
  • On a multicache, should you be able to log a frownie for each WP that you didn't find? (Those that argue against, claim that a 5-star cache is much easier to DNF than a 1-star and yet you still only get one frownie. Why should multicaches be treated differently?
  • What if you were there when the cache was placed? If you didn't find the cache at that point, is this a FTDNF or were you merely a beta-DNF?
  • Do you have to not sign the log book in order to claim a DNF?

And the most controversial of all...

  • Should you be able to log a "Did not attend" for every event cache that you didn't find at an event? (Of course, the mere fact that there is no such thing as a "Did Not Attend" log type makes this doubly controversial...)

:D:D

What about lifeline calls. My DNF count would be quite a bit higher if not for the handy dandy cell phone. Should we post a DNF, then a find? :D

 

And what about when we decide to drop temp cache containers. Some may think it's unselfish to do that, but I do it purely for selfish reasons - the smiley! Duh! :D:o

 

Big cats at Kit Carson Park? Maybe they were working on Snakes and Ladders. :D :D

 

S&L. Hmmmm. Lets see.... How many frownies do we have for just that one cache??!?! :D;):D:):D

Link to comment
Rubiks06

+Rubiks06

Posted
Posted

Warning: We just got a call from San Pasqual High School telling us that two large mountain lions were spotted in Kit Carson park today.

 

I did not see them but i was in the northern part of MTRP yesterday and found some very large tracks. One was almost 4" wide. The other much smaller but surely a cat. Be careful out there.

Link to comment
GRNZOOM

+GRNZOOM

Posted
Posted

Warning: We just got a call from San Pasqual High School telling us that two large mountain lions were spotted in Kit Carson park today.

 

I did not see them but i was in the northern part of MTRP yesterday and found some very large tracks. One was almost 4" wide. The other much smaller but surely a cat. Be careful out there.

 

 

The mountain lions were down graded to bob cats today.

 

There arn't enough deer and other large animals to support mountin lions in KC Park. Plenty of rabbits for bob cats tho.

 

Nick

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)
The mountain lions were down graded to bob cats today.

 

There arn't enough deer and other large animals to support mountin lions in KC Park. Plenty of rabbits for bob cats tho.

 

Nick

There are people to "support" them... :D Anyhow, that's good news! :D Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
The Fat Cats

+The Fat Cats

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know "Bruce and Jeremy" aka "Cheesehead"? Their Adobe Falls (GC2CE9) cache may soon be archived if they don't respond to the administrator very soon. Forced adoptions are no longer being allowed, so if there's anyway to contact them, we need to do it soon.

 

We have replaced the container for them, and will publish Adobe Falls II if indeed this one is archived, but we'd much prefer to see the original cache page remain.

 

Any ideas on how to contact these folks are welcome!

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
Does anyone know "Bruce and Jeremy" aka "Cheesehead"? Their Adobe Falls (GC2CE9) cache may soon be archived if they don't respond to the administrator very soon. Forced adoptions are no longer being allowed, so if there's anyway to contact them, we need to do it soon.

 

We have replaced the container for them, and will publish Adobe Falls II if indeed this one is archived, but we'd much prefer to see the original cache page remain.

 

Any ideas on how to contact these folks are welcome!

Sorry but I can't help you. It looks like TPTB are trying to purge caches that no longer have active owners. I guess there are a lot of them. They recommend having a link on the new cache page to view the history of the predecessor.
Link to comment
rjbloom & co

+rjbloom & co

Posted
Posted
Does anyone know "Bruce and Jeremy" aka "Cheesehead"? Their Adobe Falls (GC2CE9) cache may soon be archived if they don't respond to the administrator very soon. Forced adoptions are no longer being allowed, so if there's anyway to contact them, we need to do it soon.

 

We have replaced the container for them, and will publish Adobe Falls II if indeed this one is archived, but we'd much prefer to see the original cache page remain.

 

Any ideas on how to contact these folks are welcome!

Sorry but I can't help you. It looks like TPTB are trying to purge caches that no longer have active owners. I guess there are a lot of them. They recommend having a link on the new cache page to view the history of the predecessor.

 

No forced adoptions? I hadn't heard that, but I found the thread:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...5&hl=forced

 

Having read most of it, skimmed some of it, I still don't get why Groundspeak felt they had to make the change. I adopted a cache by forced adoption because the cache was way off in the coords and the owner was MIA. Seemed like a reasonable policy.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
Does anyone know "Bruce and Jeremy" aka "Cheesehead"? Their Adobe Falls (GC2CE9) cache may soon be archived if they don't respond to the administrator very soon. Forced adoptions are no longer being allowed, so if there's anyway to contact them, we need to do it soon.

 

We have replaced the container for them, and will publish Adobe Falls II if indeed this one is archived, but we'd much prefer to see the original cache page remain.

 

Any ideas on how to contact these folks are welcome!

Sorry but I can't help you. It looks like TPTB are trying to purge caches that no longer have active owners. I guess there are a lot of them. They recommend having a link on the new cache page to view the history of the predecessor.

 

No forced adoptions? I hadn't heard that, but I found the thread:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...5&hl=forced

 

Having read most of it, skimmed some of it, I still don't get why Groundspeak felt they had to make the change. I adopted a cache by forced adoption because the cache was way off in the coords and the owner was MIA. Seemed like a reasonable policy.

This post by Keystone pretty much sums up why they did it:

I have been caught in the middle of the situation where the original owner has resurfaced long after the adoption, gotten angry upon seeing that their cache listing was "stolen," and the new owner not wanting to give it back. It is a difficult situation and one which I do not care to repeat ever again. It made me regret my role in processing the adoption.
Some people can be real jerks to the volunteer reviewers. This change makes it harder to be a jerk to them.
Link to comment
FlagMan

+FlagMan

Posted
Posted
Does anyone know "Bruce and Jeremy" aka "Cheesehead"? Their Adobe Falls (GC2CE9) cache may soon be archived if they don't respond to the administrator very soon. Forced adoptions are no longer being allowed, so if there's anyway to contact them, we need to do it soon.

 

We have replaced the container for them, and will publish Adobe Falls II if indeed this one is archived, but we'd much prefer to see the original cache page remain.

 

Any ideas on how to contact these folks are welcome!

Sorry but I can't help you. It looks like TPTB are trying to purge caches that no longer have active owners. I guess there are a lot of them. They recommend having a link on the new cache page to view the history of the predecessor.

 

No forced adoptions? I hadn't heard that, but I found the thread:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...5&hl=forced

 

Having read most of it, skimmed some of it, I still don't get why Groundspeak felt they had to make the change. I adopted a cache by forced adoption because the cache was way off in the coords and the owner was MIA. Seemed like a reasonable policy.

This post by Keystone pretty much sums up why they did it:

I have been caught in the middle of the situation where the original owner has resurfaced long after the adoption, gotten angry upon seeing that their cache listing was "stolen," and the new owner not wanting to give it back. It is a difficult situation and one which I do not care to repeat ever again. It made me regret my role in processing the adoption.
Some people can be real jerks to the volunteer reviewers. This change makes it harder to be a jerk to them.

There are also times where a cache owner will badger an inactive player to unarchive a listing so that an adoption can take place. The inactive player will often do it just to get the "monkey off his/her back." So GC.com probably wants to discourage this from happening by disallowing unarchival of a cache when the reason is adoption.

 

The other side of things is that GC.com does not own the physical caches, so it has no right to give them away to someone else. So called "forced adoptions" are questionable from a legal standpoint.

 

So what's the problem with hiding a brand new cache with a link to the old cache? That's what I did with The Hunt For Red October...

Link to comment
Snake & Rooster

+Snake & Rooster

Posted
Posted
Article about Dan-Oh in this week's Reader as an urban explorer. Interesting read:

 

Reader Article

 

-Tony

 

:ph34r: Wow! It was really interesting, but I got all freaked out just reading it. They are NUTs!

 

If there were caches in all those spots then we'd be NUTS too! :lol:

How true. Many of us have already been down in a number of storm drains in the past. Who can forget La Cucaracha River? :blink: Though I'd probably like to try.
Link to comment
FlagMan

+FlagMan

Posted
Posted
Article about Dan-Oh in this week's Reader as an urban explorer. Interesting read:

 

Reader Article

 

-Tony

 

:blink: Wow! It was really interesting, but I got all freaked out just reading it. They are NUTs!

 

If there were caches in all those spots then we'd be NUTS too! :ph34r:

How true. Many of us have already been down in a number of storm drains in the past. Who can forget La Cucaracha River? :lol: Though I'd probably like to try.

Just wait 'til you're stupid enough to try IHO: Eric and Hill - Crazy Adventures... That's unforgettable!

Link to comment
Let's Look Over Thayer

+Let's Look Over Thayer

Posted
Posted (edited)

How true. Many of us have already been down in a number of storm drains in the past. Who can forget La Cucaracha River? :o Though I'd probably like to try.

Gee...the memory must already be fading. The name of the cache was "La Cucaracha Rio" :blink:

 

Just wait 'til you're stupid enough to try IHO: Eric and Hill - Crazy Adventures... That's unforgettable!

And it's guaranteed to restore your memory of La Cucaracha Rio! (It sure did the job for me... :o )

Edited by Let's Look Over Thayer
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
And it's guaranteed to restore your memory of La Cucaracha Rio! (It sure did the job for me... :o )

 

And why, pray tell, would I want to restore my memory of THAT CACHE ,<shudders>? :o

Dan-oh quote from that article:

 

"I don't know how many times I've climbed down an embankment full of brush and [gotten] scraped and gotten to the bottom of a canyon to find that that pipe isn't an eight- or ten-foot pipe, but it's three [feet]," he says. "For every drain that you find that's good, there [are] 20 that aren't." :blink:

Link to comment
ThePolarBear

+ThePolarBear

Posted
Posted

How true. Many of us have already been down in a number of storm drains in the past. Who can forget La Cucaracha River? :huh: Though I'd probably like to try.

Gee...the memory must already be fading. The name of the cache was "La Cucaracha Rio" :D

 

Just wait 'til you're stupid enough to try IHO: Eric and Hill - Crazy Adventures... That's unforgettable!

And it's guaranteed to restore your memory of La Cucaracha Rio! (It sure did the job for me... :D )

 

After I did La Cucaracha Rio I was hooked... :D That's when I created my tagline (Discover more of San Diego - cache underground!) and I decided I wanted to create an "urban cave" cache myself B)

Link to comment
Night Hunter

+Night Hunter

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hey everybody. I posted this on the Geocoin forum, but I thought some of you might be interested as well.

 

My first personal Geocoins are finally finished. See this thread, Post #58 for pictures and more information.

 

I am selling the Antique Silver and the Polished Nickel. The Black Nickel Glow coins will be for trades only.

 

The coins are $8.50 + $2.00 S&H. Of course, San Diego Cachers could make arrangements to meet and save on shipping.

 

Drop me an e-mail if you are interested, and look for at least one of each to be activated and released into the San Diego Area, and one or two unactivated ones to show up as FTF prizes.

Link to comment
QDman

+QDman

Posted
Posted

I'll be leaving for England in one week!

If you have a bug and/or coin that wants to go, lemme know.

Harmon, I'll take you if you'll watch the kids.

Cheers!

 

D!

 

If you find my "Book 'im, Dano" bug, DO NOT bring him back with you. :)

Link to comment
jahoadi and john

+jahoadi and john

Posted
Posted

Did someone get stuck riding the trolley today? :P

I'm checking those out too. It looks like it would be fun although I don't think the Trolley makes a good FTF vehicle.

I got 5 of those notifications since they are within my "old" work radius. You could have published them last week, Jahoadi :D

 

 

:D Sorry Snake. I was too busy stuffing a chicken last week. You could always drive to work with Rooster and ride around on the trolley all day long. :D

Link to comment
Snake & Rooster

+Snake & Rooster

Posted
Posted

Did someone get stuck riding the trolley today? :P

I'm checking those out too. It looks like it would be fun although I don't think the Trolley makes a good FTF vehicle.

I got 5 of those notifications since they are within my "old" work radius. You could have published them last week, Jahoadi :D

 

 

:D Sorry Snake. I was too busy stuffing a chicken last week. You could always drive to work with Rooster and ride around on the trolley all day long. :D

 

Maybe she can take a day off and we can ride the trolley together and just grab your caches. :D
Link to comment
lulu499

+lulu499

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Link to comment
SD Rowdies

+SD Rowdies

Posted
Posted (edited)

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Hmm, don't really know but I suspect it has to do with size and/or aspect-ratio of the image you reference in the New Cache Listing form. If size and/or aspect-ratio isn't ideal perhaps the image is tiled to fill the background.

 

I'll watch to see if you get a knowledgeable answer; if not, I'll spend some time to figure out how it's done and post my finding.

 

Harmon

Edited by SD Rowdies
Link to comment
FlagMan

+FlagMan

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Hmm, don't really know but I suspect it has to do with size and/or aspect-ratio of the image you reference in the New Cache Listing form. If size and/or aspect-ratio isn't ideal perhaps the image is tiled to fill the background.

 

I'll watch to see if you get a knowledgeable answer; if not, I'll spend some time to figure out how it's done and post my finding.

 

Harmon

I'm sure this is correct, but I have no idea how to size the image correctly to make it a single image...

Link to comment
Snake & Rooster

+Snake & Rooster

Posted
Posted (edited)

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Hmm, don't really know but I suspect it has to do with size and/or aspect-ratio of the image you reference in the New Cache Listing form. If size and/or aspect-ratio isn't ideal perhaps the image is tiled to fill the background.

 

I'll watch to see if you get a knowledgeable answer; if not, I'll spend some time to figure out how it's done and post my finding.

 

Harmon

I'm sure this is correct, but I have no idea how to size the image correctly to make it a single image...

I cannot swear to this, but I think at one time you had a choice of making it tiles or a single stretched image. Some software iteration later, that disappeared. Of couse . . . I am old and forgetful, and may be completely mistaken. Edited by Snake & Rooster
Link to comment
Let's Look Over Thayer

+Let's Look Over Thayer

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Hmm, don't really know but I suspect it has to do with size and/or aspect-ratio of the image you reference in the New Cache Listing form. If size and/or aspect-ratio isn't ideal perhaps the image is tiled to fill the background.

 

I'll watch to see if you get a knowledgeable answer; if not, I'll spend some time to figure out how it's done and post my finding.

 

Harmon

I'm sure this is correct, but I have no idea how to size the image correctly to make it a single image...

I cannot swear to this, but I think at one time you had a choice of making it tiles or a single stretched image. Some software iteration later, that disappeared. Of couse . . . I am old and forgetful, and may be completely mistaken.

The Win desktop lets you do that but not HTML...

 

My recollection is that HTML just tiles whatever image you supply to fill the browser window. So, the only way that I know of to prevent tiling is to make the image larger than any reasonable browser window and it won't tile.

 

If you own the entire webpage (which you don't for cache pages) you can set up a style sheet where the background image can be set to "no-repeat".

Link to comment
SD Rowdies

+SD Rowdies

Posted
Posted (edited)

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Hmm, don't really know but I suspect it has to do with size and/or aspect-ratio of the image you reference in the New Cache Listing form. If size and/or aspect-ratio isn't ideal perhaps the image is tiled to fill the background.

 

I'll watch to see if you get a knowledgeable answer; if not, I'll spend some time to figure out how it's done and post my finding.

 

Harmon

I'm sure this is correct, but I have no idea how to size the image correctly to make it a single image...

I cannot swear to this, but I think at one time you had a choice of making it tiles or a single stretched image. Some software iteration later, that disappeared. Of couse . . . I am old and forgetful, and may be completely mistaken.

The Win desktop lets you do that but not HTML...

 

My recollection is that HTML just tiles whatever image you supply to fill the browser window. So, the only way that I know of to prevent tiling is to make the image larger than any reasonable browser window and it won't tile.

 

If you own the entire webpage (which you don't for cache pages) you can set up a style sheet where the background image can be set to "no-repeat".

My guess exactly.

 

I checked an example cache page that features a tiled image,

three across and seven down tiled from a 448x326 source

image. That turns out to be 1344 across and 2282 down and

so 1920x2560 would be the next-largest common image size.

Not sure if the source image of the example was resized or not

before being tiled.

 

Anyway try it with the source image sized to 1920x2560 pixels.

 

Let us know how it turns out.

 

Back when I was young pictures were resized by cutting your

ex-girlfriend out of the print with a pair of scissors.

 

Harmon

Edited by SD Rowdies
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Hmm, don't really know but I suspect it has to do with size and/or aspect-ratio of the image you reference in the New Cache Listing form. If size and/or aspect-ratio isn't ideal perhaps the image is tiled to fill the background.

 

I'll watch to see if you get a knowledgeable answer; if not, I'll spend some time to figure out how it's done and post my finding.

 

Harmon

I'm sure this is correct, but I have no idea how to size the image correctly to make it a single image...

I cannot swear to this, but I think at one time you had a choice of making it tiles or a single stretched image. Some software iteration later, that disappeared. Of couse . . . I am old and forgetful, and may be completely mistaken.

The Win desktop lets you do that but not HTML...

 

My recollection is that HTML just tiles whatever image you supply to fill the browser window. So, the only way that I know of to prevent tiling is to make the image larger than any reasonable browser window and it won't tile.

 

If you own the entire webpage (which you don't for cache pages) you can set up a style sheet where the background image can be set to "no-repeat".

My guess exactly.

 

I checked an example cache page that features a tiled image,

three across and seven down tiled from a 448x326 source

image. That turns out to be 1344 across and 2282 down and so

1920x2560 would be the next-largest common image size. Not

sure if the source image was presized or not.

 

Anyway try it with the source image sized to 1920x2560 pixels.

 

Let us know how it turns out.

 

Harmon

Who's got a monitor that darn good? I'm still using a monitor with lowly 1280x1024 resolution. :laughing:

 

I think the site scales all images per this rule:

"If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized."

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
SD Rowdies

+SD Rowdies

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know how to make the background image on a cache page just one image instead of a bunch of the same image? Groundspeak didn't know and said I should ask my welll informed caching community. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Hmm, don't really know but I suspect it has to do with size and/or aspect-ratio of the image you reference in the New Cache Listing form. If size and/or aspect-ratio isn't ideal perhaps the image is tiled to fill the background.

 

I'll watch to see if you get a knowledgeable answer; if not, I'll spend some time to figure out how it's done and post my finding.

 

Harmon

I'm sure this is correct, but I have no idea how to size the image correctly to make it a single image...

I cannot swear to this, but I think at one time you had a choice of making it tiles or a single stretched image. Some software iteration later, that disappeared. Of couse . . . I am old and forgetful, and may be completely mistaken.

The Win desktop lets you do that but not HTML...

 

My recollection is that HTML just tiles whatever image you supply to fill the browser window. So, the only way that I know of to prevent tiling is to make the image larger than any reasonable browser window and it won't tile.

 

If you own the entire webpage (which you don't for cache pages) you can set up a style sheet where the background image can be set to "no-repeat".

My guess exactly.

 

I checked an example cache page that features a tiled image,

three across and seven down tiled from a 448x326 source

image. That turns out to be 1344 across and 2282 down and so

1920x2560 would be the next-largest common image size. Not

sure if the source image was presized or not.

 

Anyway try it with the source image sized to 1920x2560 pixels.

 

Let us know how it turns out.

 

Harmon

Who's got a monitor that darn good? I'm still using a monitor with lowly 1280x1024 resolution. :laughing:

 

I think the site scales all images per this rule:

"If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized."

Pat,

 

I'm guessing that the posted-image resizing to 600 pixels wide

doesn't apply to cache-page background images. Like on the

Forum one can provide a link to a large image and it doesn't

get resized like uploaded Forum images.

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...
×
Followers 94
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...