That would be a huge amount of work for the webmasters... but another thing is that I do not want to post to the list every single time I find a box... and if I think something is missing, I just contact the person who planted it and ask if they know.
-C

>I'm reluctant to suggest this since it would create extra work for
>the wonderful webmasters but would it be useful to add a status
>column to the clues page? It would list the last known find, a note
>that it is possibly missing, confirmed missing, etc.

The Webmaster(s) must be swamped as it is with all the new boxes being
placed. Not to mention the adds, changes, deletes that happen all the time.
I'm sure they'd like to be out doing some letterboxing themselves as well!

Seems like breaking the country up into 4 or 5 regions, and having a contact
within each region to filter/clean up new box postings and manage
adds/deletes/changes to boxes in their geographic region would relieve some
of the load from the Webmaster(s). I suggested this in an e-mail to
him/her/them but never received a reply ( I know they're swamped!).


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Possible website enhancement


> That would be a huge amount of work for the webmasters... but another
thing is that I do not want to post to the list every single time I find a
box... and if I think something is missing, I just contact the person who
planted it and ask if they know.
> -C
>
> >I'm reluctant to suggest this since it would create extra work for
> >the wonderful webmasters but would it be useful to add a status
> >column to the clues page? It would list the last known find, a note
> >that it is possibly missing, confirmed missing, etc.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe: mailto:letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> List info, archives, etc: http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

In theory, this is a nice idea, but in reality it is not practical. I
am not one of the Webmasters, but I know that this additional work
would be extremely time consuming for them.

Let's not forget that the entire LBNA web site is a labor of love
created by letterboxers with families, jobs, and the desire to get away
from the computer and be outdoors, just like all the rest of us. And
while I'm writing, I want to say again (I've said it before but it
bears repeating), A BIG THANKS to our Webmasters for giving so freely
of their time and talents to this wonderful hobby.

Bonnie
in perfect-summer-day Massachusetts
P12 F26


--- In letterbox-usa@y..., "bcostley" wrote:
> I'm reluctant to suggest this since it would create extra work for
> the wonderful webmasters but would it be useful to add a status
> column to the clues page? It would list the last known find, a note
> that it is possibly missing, confirmed missing, etc.

Arlen et al,

I have read all the postings on this thread with interest, and thank posters
for their kind comments. I'm sure I speak for all the webmasters in this. We
are glad of this kind of open discussion. These are issues that have come up
before over the past four years, but it is useful to rehash them and, hear
new opinions, and maybe come to new conclusions.

The problem of exponential growth has been a major concern all along, even
when there were only a few dozen boxes. Knowing that growth threatened to
overwhelm us two years ago, we shifted the organization of the website to
the current tabular form. Previously it was map-based, and we had different
layers of maps that showed the precise location of every box (well, pretty
close.)

Even now that it is much easier for us to manage, it still will eventually
become unworkable. A database system that is self-regulating, such as
Jeremy's elegant geocaching site, is one way to go. But as someone
mentioned, reentering several thousand clues is not something anyone wants
to do. We would have to leave it up to individuals to enter their own boxes,
and many boxes would be left out, I believe. Maybe that's okay.

Some people have voiced concerns about an open system that might permit
others to modify the clues to their own boxes. I don't know if the
geocaching site has password protection to keep Jill from altering Jack's
clues, or putting in comments that the box is lost (when that may not be the
case.)

That leads into the question of keeping track of a box's status. It would be
great to have a database for that, in which people could post the dates they
found the box or didn't find the box, and the kind of shape it was in, etc.
There have been good arguments in the past in favor putting status notes on
the clue pages only if the owner requests them.

A separate database or page or simply a talk list would be a way of doing
this. I don't think this is something we webmasters can do, but someone else
could start a status talk list: very simple reporting, consistent formatting
in the subject line to make archive searches work. The sort of list you
probably wouldn't want to have messages downloaded, but just go to when you
wanted to hunt for a box.

That's just one thought that occured to me while writing this. There may be
reasons it wouldn't work, or other ways tha are preferable.

Finally, as to dividing the country up into regions, Arlen, we have pretty
much done that. A year ago we had five people updating clues, and that
seemed to be fine. But Ruthann Zaroff, who was doing the Great Lakes region,
dropped out, and Mitch Klink, who was doing most of the western half of the
country, had to stop updating as well. So the remaining three of us are
covering those regions in something of a piecemeal fashion.

Ruthann is coming back on board for the Great Lakes region next month. Mitch
also may be finishing up the project that has kept him away.

We thank the people who have recently offered to help. We have a couple of
people in mind to ask, but we are always glad to hear offers of assistance.

I think most people are somewhat aware of who the webmasters are, but just
so everyone knows....

Jay Chamberlin, Jay Drew, and I currently do the updates, with Ruthann soon
to rejoin in this area.. We each have different states and other
responsibilities (Jay D. does the What's New page for example), but we help
each other out on request.

Susan Davis and Thom Cheney are not updating, but provide lots of good
ideas, and have been handling the PR work recently with various agencies
(state parks, NFS, etc.)

Mitch Klink has been involved in this site (or previous incarnations) longer
than anyone. The current parchment scroll/book motif of the site was his
design.

I hope some of this background info is helpful. As I said, we are glad of
all discussion that can help keep the site functioning usefully as our hobby
grows.

Tom Cooch


---- Original Message -----
From: "arlen fletcher"
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Possible website enhancement


> The Webmaster(s) must be swamped as it is with all the new boxes being
> placed. Not to mention the adds, changes, deletes that happen all the
time.
> I'm sure they'd like to be out doing some letterboxing themselves as well!
>
> Seems like breaking the country up into 4 or 5 regions, and having a
contact
> within each region to filter/clean up new box postings and manage
> adds/deletes/changes to boxes in their geographic region would relieve
some
> of the load from the Webmaster(s). I suggested this in an e-mail to
> him/her/them but never received a reply ( I know they're swamped!).
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [LbNA] Possible website enhancement
>
>
> > That would be a huge amount of work for the webmasters... but another
> thing is that I do not want to post to the list every single time I find a
> box... and if I think something is missing, I just contact the person who
> planted it and ask if they know.
> > -C
> >
> > >I'm reluctant to suggest this since it would create extra work for
> > >the wonderful webmasters but would it be useful to add a status
> > >column to the clues page? It would list the last known find, a note
> > >that it is possibly missing, confirmed missing, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> > List info, archives, etc: http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe: mailto:letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> List info, archives, etc: http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Thanks for the feedback Tom! It's nice to know how things are organized and
who's behind the scenes pulling all those levers :-)

Re: box status:
Call me simple, but I was thinking of something along the lines of a red,
yellow, or green "health" dot next to the clue that would indicate whether the
box was healthy, unknown status, or missing. That way we don't take the
mystery out of who was there last. It still requires a database, of course.

Best regards,

Arlen

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:51:42 -0400 Tom Cooch wrote:

[SNIP]
That leads into the question of keeping track of a box's status. It would be
great to have a database for that, in which people could post the dates they
found the box or didn't find the box, and the kind of shape it was in, etc.
There have been good arguments in the past in favor putting status notes on
the clue pages only if the owner requests them.

Oooo, I think I like this idea, Alren! That way if one was prone to
trying the seemingly impossible (finding a box that may or may not be
there) the fun is still available with the mystery still attached. :o)

--- In letterbox-usa@y..., wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Tom! It's nice to know how things are
organized and
> who's behind the scenes pulling all those levers :-)
>
> Re: box status:
> Call me simple, but I was thinking of something along the lines of
a red,
> yellow, or green "health" dot next to the clue that would indicate
whether the
> box was healthy, unknown status, or missing. That way we don't
take the
> mystery out of who was there last. It still requires a database,
of course.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arlen

Tom,

Thanks for the overview! I was hoping you'd chime
in and appreciate your viewpoints.

A total rewrite of the site was not exactly what
I had in mind. Frankly, I like the approach Mitch
put together on a state to state basis just fine.
Our biggest frustration now are missing boxes and
wrong clue information to get to them.

I also would be willing to volunteer some time to
help support the existing structure, and since I've
been teaching myself Dreamweaver I'm almost dangerously
qualified. ;o)

It is true, any change will take some coding time and
if someone wants to spearhead that project I certainly
believe it's a reasonable goal for the future, but not
necessarily one that can be addressed in the immediate
timeframe.

Thus, in the meantime I propose the addition of a "comment
or two" that will allow a searcher to report a believed
to be missing box and the date, and an owner to respond in kind to
either confirm or deny the claim. On the simplest of terms,
this equates to nothing more than the addition of a comment
at the top of the clue page for each box, when a box meets
the missing criteria. This process change will firmly tie the
responsibility to maintain all placed boxes with the owner, not the
webmasters or the searchers.

Based on my coding experience, the addition of such alert messages
will certainly not take an extra abundant amount of time to how the
process already works, and will ensure all searchers will have access
to the most up to date data on whether a box is out there or not. The
addition will mean more box clue sheets will need to be updated, but I
strongly believe that is a better choice than pretending there is no
problem.

I still recommend when a box can't be located there is an email
exchange between the searcher and the owner to try and resolve, but
in the cases where the owner doesn't live in the placed box vacinity
or there is no email or resolution response from them in a timely
manner, a missing box comment will work to serve the masses and keep
this exciting hobby of ours fun for ourselves and future boxers.

Please consider my idea and lets have further discussions if you think
there is a way I can help.

Best Regards,

Mark Bendickson
Hillsboro, Oregon

The only problem with this whole concept is that boxes aren't always missing when a searcher fails to find
them. I can't tell you how many times I have gotten emails telling me a box was missing. Later, either I
have checked on them and found them in good health or someone else has emailed me telling me about
their successful hunt.
I shudder to think of all the data entry that the webmasters would have to do on a daily basis in order to
keep up with the postings about boxes found or not. I think a seperate update page where individuals
could enter their own comments without involving the webmasters would be a viable alternative.

> A total rewrite of the site was not exactly what
> I had in mind. Frankly, I like the approach Mitch
> put together on a state to state basis just fine.
> Our biggest frustration now are missing boxes and
> wrong clue information to get to them.
>

Also a part of letterboxing is not finding every box , or having to go back
and search again for it. Don

----- Original Message -----
From: funhog1
To:
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Possible website enhancement


>
> The only problem with this whole concept is that boxes aren't always
missing when a searcher fails to find
> them. I can't tell you how many times I have gotten emails telling me a
box was missing. Later, either I
> have checked on them and found them in good health or someone else has
emailed me telling me about
> their successful hunt.
> I shudder to think of all the data entry that the webmasters would have to
do on a daily basis in order to
> keep up with the postings about boxes found or not. I think a seperate
update page where individuals
> could enter their own comments without involving the webmasters would be a
viable alternative.
>
> > A total rewrite of the site was not exactly what
> > I had in mind. Frankly, I like the approach Mitch
> > put together on a state to state basis just fine.
> > Our biggest frustration now are missing boxes and
> > wrong clue information to get to them.
> >
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe: mailto:letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> List info, archives, etc: http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Don, I agree completely. I did not find the first box I ever looked
for, the beautiful Sheiling Forest stamp in New Hampshire. But I went
back a second time, and it was well worth the drive. I didn't read the
clue closely enough and pick up the hints regarding the correct trail
the first time.

When I don't find a box, I don't assume it is missing. Sometimes
people have told me one of my boxes is missing, yet when I've checked
on it, the box is there and people have been stamping in! Other times,
the box has indeed disappeared.

I think the best we can do is post status info (if we have it) on the
clue pages (for those of us who maintain our own Web pages), but I
can't imagine how the Webmasters could ever keep an accurate "status
report" for all the boxes out there.

You take your chances! That's part of the fun. Last weekend I looked
for three boxes and found one. Some are harder than others and
oftentimes the second attempt is a success.

Bonnie
P12 F27

funhog; this problem is why I said it would still be up to the
seeker to contact the owner "first" and have a dialog about
the box, before sending any missing note to the webmasters.

The problem with us all having the freedom to enter our own
comments means a significant rewrite of the existing program,
which for now we are trying to avoid. An alternative to this
that was already pointed out, is for us each to have their own
web page the site points to where we can freely edit.

mark

--- In letterbox-usa@y..., "funhog1" wrote:
>
> The only problem with this whole concept is that boxes aren't
always missing when a searcher fails to find
> them. I can't tell you how many times I have gotten emails telling
me a box was missing. Later, either I
> have checked on them and found them in good health or someone else
has emailed me telling me about
> their successful hunt.
> I shudder to think of all the data entry that the webmasters would
have to do on a daily basis in order to
> keep up with the postings about boxes found or not. I think a
seperate update page where individuals
> could enter their own comments without involving the webmasters
would be a viable alternative.
>
> > A total rewrite of the site was not exactly what
> > I had in mind. Frankly, I like the approach Mitch
> > put together on a state to state basis just fine.
> > Our biggest frustration now are missing boxes and
> > wrong clue information to get to them.
> >