Html Tags Not Allowed?

[Fledermaus]

Within one of my caches I used the HSPACE="#" command, in order to add horizontal separation of an image from the adjacent text. The command seems to be ignored by GC.COM, which butts the text right up to the edge of the image. That doesn't seem to be the right way to do things.

 

I haven't tried the VSPACE command yet, but I would suspect that the same thing would happen vertically.

 

I also noticed that the MouseOver function doesn't see be be permitted either. I tried to use it, where the placement of the mouse pointer over an image would cause the image to shift to another.

 

What other functions, other than SCRIPT and/or JAVA, are not allowed on GC.COM? Lots of neat things can be done with those functions, but I suspect that there might be some issue regarding viruses and hackers.

 

A copy of this was sent to Moun10Bike, but I hope that others within the GC.COM might have some answers, or anyone else for that matter, who has tried various functions and failed.

[+Markwell]

IIRC, only a limited number of HTML commands ARE accepted.

 

One option to give vertical space would be to put a couple <br> tags inbetween the text and the image. I know THOSE are allowed.

[+Hemlock]

A work-around would be to add a white border to the image itself.

[Fledermaus]

More functions that don't work!

 

1. Why does the GC.COM system change .GIF files to .JPG files anyway? What's the point?

 

2. During the conversion process a GIF file, with a Transparent Background, defaults to White, thus making it useless, especially when placed on top of a Non-White background of a Table.

 

3. Animated GIF files become useless too, even more so when they have a Transparent Background, unless you already have them on the system before whatever changes took place, or "Hyperlink" to another webpage or website, hopefully your own.

[+Markwell]

Back in days of yore...

 

Geocaching.com used to allow users to upload ANY file to the cache page through the upload image link. I had uploaded for my caches TXT, JPG, ZIP, GIF, GPX, LOC, DOC, and HTML . The only downside for me (and many other users) was that they all had to be less than 100K. There were NUMEROUS questions on the forum about how to get a 4MB JPG picture down to 100K fior uploading.

 

Some time in 2003, Groundspeak implimented a compression software for JPGs that made it so that you can upload ANY size of photo, and it would reduced to store in a smaller size on their network. Unfortunately, that resizing only works with JPG files. So uploading DOC, HTML and LOC files was cancelled flat out.

 

And now, any other type of image file that is uploaded is translated into JPG when it's fed through the image upload.

 

Not saying all of this is what I would prefer - just what is happened and how I remember things.

 

*IIRC= If I Recall Correctly

[+The Leprechauns]

Animated GIF files become useless too....

Some folks think this is a bug? I call it a feature.

[+Marky]

More functions that don't work!

 

1. Why does the GC.COM system change .GIF files to .JPG files anyway? What's the point?

 

Your best solution is to host your images on your own site and reference them in the HTML of your cache page.

 

--Marky

[Fledermaus]

Another command that doesn't work: ROWSPAN

 

I wonder if they deleted COLSPAN as well?

 

What harm do these commands cause to the system? None That I can figure out.

 

Don't bother trying to have a large central image with smaller images surrounding it. I tried and everything got screwed up.

 

Does anyone in the GC.COM system really care or listen to things like this?

 

I wonder if I should just create my cache pages elsewhere and just create a link from GC.COM to an offsite location?

 

=====================================================

OOOPPPSSS!!!

CORRECTION:

The ROWSPAN command does work, if I type it correctly. I hate typos!!!

=====================================================

Try the following, if you dare to go against the tradionalists who like everthing in B&W, which is boring as HEck! Believe it or not, I'm not trying to win an award. I like lots of stuff on my Vanilla Icecream.

 

<table width="600" align="center" bgcolor="#000000" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">

<tr>

<td><img src="dock-1.jpg" width="110" height="75" border="1" alt="image-1." /></td>

<td rowspan="3"><img src="gun-1.jpg" width="372" height="230" border="2" alt="image-0." /></td>

<td><img src="road-1.jpg" width="110" height="75" border="1" alt="image-2." /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><img src="dock-2.jpg" width="110" height="75" border="1" alt="image-3." /></td>

<td><img src="road-2.jpg" width="110" height="75" border="1" alt="image-4." /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><img src="dock-3.jpg" width="110" height="75" border="1" alt="image-5." /></td>

<td><img src="road-3.jpg" width="110" height="75" border="1" alt="image-6." /></td>

</tr>

</table>

 

<table width="600" align="center" bgcolor="#000000" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">

<tr>

<td>

<img src="dedicate.jpg" width="144" height="90" border="1" alt="image-7." />

<img src="picnic.jpg" width="144" height="90" border="1" alt="image-8." />

<img src="pathway.jpg" width="144" height="90" border="1" alt="image-9." />

<img src="dense.jpg" width="144" height="90" border="1" alt="image-10." />

</td>

</tr>

</table>

=====================================================

 

Having read a few of the foregoing comments, consider this:

 

I am one of the few, apparently, that hasn't gone paperless. To furthor show how backward or archaic I am, I don't even have a PDA and don't plan on buying one in the near future, that should be obvious some of you.

 

Yes, I do have a pet dinosaur and it's a Pentium 1/233Mhz and it works online nicely. Maybe I'll learn some day, but right now I.D.G.A.S.!

 

As for skipping caches that are graphic intensive and don't work on your PDA, be my guest, for all you are doing is cutting your own throat! Someday, when your PDA grows up and becomes a real computer, it might support them. In the mean time, make the best of what you have!

 

I grow weary "banging my head against some dadgum buggers wall".

 

FINI/30/73s/NNNN/ENDIT

Edited July 14, 2004 by Fledermaus

[thorin]

It's just a cache page not a work of art.

 

Paste your images together and be done with it.

 

People don't visit cache pages to "ew and ah" over them. They go there for details, co-ordinates, and maybe check a few log entries.

 

You're over complicating things for yourself (and likely others as well).

 

BTW COLSPAN and ROWSPAN are likely not used because they can mess up page alignment, scaling etc for low res viewers.

 

Thorin

Edited July 14, 2004 by thorin

[+The Leprechauns]

What Thorin said. Please, keep it simple.

 

#1 reason for me to skip a cache when looking at my pocket queries on my PDA: it references information that is not on the GC.com site, and thus not downloaded with my GPX files.

 

#2 reason for me to skip a cache when looking at my pocket queries on my PDA: it contains images and html that either makes my software choke, or clutters up the tiny screen, making it hard for me to find the essential information I need in the field.

[CoyoteRed]

Here's another vote for keeping the data to the essentials only.

 

But if you insist, a single cell table with the padding you need should get you going. You can't adjust spacing vertically and horizontally independently, but is better than nothing.

 

Just remember, getting cutsie on the cache page only makes it ugly on a PDA.

 

Hope this helps.

[+New England n00b]

I haven't seen to many cutesy cache pages yet myself, but frankly, even on a normal desktop PC, less clutter is better. I prefer a monolithic scheme (in this case gc.com) rather than lotsa flash that distracts from the important stuff - the text. Words are your best visualizing tool. IMHO, of course...

 

 

 

>verbose

Maximum verbosity

>go trail

OK

>get lost

OK

>Love it

OK

[+Marky]

Oh, and by the way, all those pages that people put background images on by including nested body tags, they mess up royally when I try to view them on my phone's browser. I would prefer that the body tag be one of the illegal tags (since it is in fact illegal HTML, even though most browsers deal with them).

 

--Marky

Edited July 14, 2004 by Marky

[Fledermaus]

Is this cache page too glitzy for you guys that want it in plain B&W text?

 

Fahrenheit-451! @ KRL-CB

 

I expect to get some static about the FONT and/or the image at the top of the page, but I really don't care. This world would be a sad place if colors went away.

 

I was over visiting a friend a little while ago and mentioned some of the comments regarding my most recent post. He only had one bit of advice.

 

"Your first mistake was going onto the forums to begin with."

 

I can see some wisdom in that statement and I may spend less time here, of what little there has been in the past, listening to people gripe about this and that. There are some people out there that seem to have nothing netter to do than to gripe about something. This goes for the real world as well. From time to time, say something nice and be helpful, rather that criticize.

 

My motto at the bottom of this post says it all!

[CoyoteRed]

Sorry I tried to help.

[+CrimsonWrath]

Everyone has their own style. Except that Fledermaus' pages wear out my color printer, a lot of what he's doing is fine. As soon as the code that is being used employs features that are not availble to all browsers, then I'll start complaining.

 

For now, I just hope the flapping animated bat background goes away...

[+welch]

"Your first mistake was going onto the forums to begin with."

 

I can see some wisdom in that statement and I may spend less time here, of what little there has been in the past, listening to people gripe about this and that. There are some people out there that seem to have nothing netter to do than to gripe about something. This goes for the real world as well. From time to time, say something nice and be helpful, rather that criticize.

yea , theres a lot of griping in the forums. It seems about every thread either started out that way or ends up that way.

 

Nice cache, lots of action on that page. At first I thought it would be something about Guy Mountag .

[Fledermaus]

I wonder if CrimsonWrath is just being nice because he lives close by and that I know where his caches are, except for two of them, one of which is a real puzzler, that drive me crazy!

 

As far as the BatFlap Background is concerned, it's being used for all of my cache now, past and present.

 

Instead of building a bird house, build a bat house, but I promise not to come and visit. BTW, Type "O+" is my favorite.

 

Do you remember the C64 computer? That's about where PDAs are right now. At least when I'm done with a cache, I can start a campfire and get warm from the glow of burning cache pages. However, color pages don't burn better or create more heat than B&W pages.

[+welch]

As far as the BatFlap Background is concerned, it's being used for all of my cache now, past and present.

LOL , people on dial up must hate you.

[+CrimsonWrath]

As far as the BatFlap Background is concerned, it's being used for all of my cache now, past and present.

LOL , people on dial up must hate you.

People with eyeballs are hating it!

 

Judge for yourself:

Imagine two dozen of these guys going 'round the cache page. I think I'd need a blood transfusion just reading the cache! Seriously: I ignore it. If I want to find the cache, that is just part of the challenge!

 

I'm being "nice" 'cause I think it is freedom of expression point. PDA's are nice, but that is someone's extension of this website. Getting a page to look pretty on a PDA isn't a requirement, nor should it be... until Groundspeak comes up with their own!

 

Plus, I'm defending my local cacher! Back off you guys! I use a few HTML tricks of my own, but I generally try to keep it simple. If someone else wants to go nutz, more power to 'em. You don't like it: Go find another cache. No hard feelings.

[+The Leprechauns]

You don't like it: Go find another cache. No hard feelings.

Indeed, no hard feelings. Everyone's just offering their opinion, and geocachers can differ on this issue. But my concern is a real one: I catch a flight in 8 hours for a week in Seattle to sample the area's best caches. I'm trying to cram the info. onto my PDA as we speak. I will certainly be taking your advice.

[thorin]

"Your first mistake was going onto the forums to begin with."

 

I can see some wisdom in that statement and I may spend less time here, of what little there has been in the past, listening to people gripe about this and that. There are some people out there that seem to have nothing netter to do than to gripe about something.

Hmmm and why did you start this thread? Oh ya "to gripe about something".

This goes for the real world as well. From time to time, say something nice and be helpful, rather that criticize.

We haven't been criticizing at all, we've been suggesting that perhaps there's a more userfriendly way to go about what you're trying to accomplish. If you interpret that as criticism then your friend is right the forums aren't the place for you.

The ROWSPAN command does work, if I type it correctly.

Glad to hear you got it sorted out.

 

Happy caching!

Thorin

Edited July 15, 2004 by thorin

[+Doc-Dean]

I definately side with Fledermaus on this.

 

I really enjoy reading a cache page that is spruced up. It takes alot of time to do the html and get it right and I for one appreciate a nice looking web page. It adds to the experience. I have been known to hide clues in the background or the graphics of my web page so if you don't see it, its your loss... and if you skip my cache because of it, I don't mind. Others will come...

 

BTW I've never had a problem with my PDA using Plucker or Cachemate not being able to give me the essentials when out in the field.

[Fledermaus]

For those of you who appreciate colorful personal webpages and graphic intensive cache pages, you may want to visit one or both of these links:

 

My Webpage

 

Preview of my next cache

 

I wonder how many complaints I'll get about the furture cache page?

 

Useful suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Not so useful ones will be ignored!

 

I Love Washington and our shade of GREEN, because we have trees, trees and more trees, more than you can shake a branch at. You can keep your sandy deserts and asphault jungles. I have moss on my North side and webs between my toes!

 

Greetings to all my fellow geocachers in the Pacific Northwest State of Washington!

Edited July 26, 2004 by Fledermaus

[+Markwell]

Holy sninkies! Watch out for those POP-UP ads.

 

...and BTW - clicking on your webpage I got

A Runtime Error has occurred. Do you wish to Debug?

Line: 2

Error: Unexpected ')'

 

(and you can ignore this one):

As much as I like cute graphics and interesting additions to webpages for caches, that seems a little bit too busy for my eyes.

Edited July 26, 2004 by Markwell

[ju66l3r]

Well, you asked for it...

 

Background pattern images need to be more solid in color. While the spacing of your pictures at the top is not perfect, at least the dark green beneath them lets me view the pictures as they are intended. On both of your linked cache pages here, you've put a background behind the text that is difficult to read through (especially the one above this post that has trees that include white pixels all over the place). From a reader's point of view, yellow, green, and white on trees with white flecks everywhere is difficult on the eyes. Compared to the yellow and cyan on dark green solid background above, the cache text is very hard to read...add the moving bats everywhere around that and it's even harder to focus on the words...let alone their meaning.

 

Simpler isn't just better for PDAs or whatever, it's a good motto for publications too. Animated images are good in very limited numbers. Often a single one on an entire webpage is more than enough.

 

Finally, blinking text is widely considered to be evil. The red color should be enough to attract attention.

 

EDIT: Markwell, pop-ups? What pop-ups? Oh? You're not using Firefox or IE with Google Toolbar, are you?

Edited July 26, 2004 by ju66l3r

[+Prime Suspect]

This isn't directed to anyone in particular, but if you want to learn to design a pleasing webpage that doesn't make people run screamin in the other direction, this site is invaluable.