thebruce0

I believe you're agreeing that they don't have to, only that they do. The question is whether the apps should push people to the website to get what they're missing, or whether the app can be improved to provide that information to the user. (or, whatever solution is employed to make the beginning cacher's experience better on the whole). And just a point of clarification: In some cases. In other cases the URL doesn't change. The URL doesn't need to change - the browser identity is sent with the url request, so the website can decide whether to just display the mobile site AS the url you request, or to redirect the mobile browser to a different, mobile template. Point being "website", in the context you're referring to, is effectively viewing a web page knowing you're in a web browser, of any kind. Because an "app" can still display a website in a mobile form, and the user may never know it. Effectively: websites aren't dead; they're just a dynamic method for delivering content. This means that if the Intro App were to improve the beginner user experience, it simply needs to provide the "missing"/desired content to the user in some manner - whether as a web page, in-app or bumped externally, or as part of the app UI in some way. Even so, I stand by my point above that it's not just about the 'intro app' user experience. That's treating a symptom instead of the core problem. It's really primarily a data thing - that all users tools accessing cache data should have the ability to provide a more specialized introductory experience. I'm with others in that encouraging Groundspeak to pour too much effort into their Intro App likely won't be as effective as other strategies. It could address the default find log issue, which is directly due to the intro app, but it doesn't directly address the problem many have with the general lack of knowledge of beginner cachers.

Chiming in with some more thoughts & tips... Yep. Can of worms. #1 and 3 - easily rectified. #2 - see below. Most would buy a protective case for the phone, whether for durability or water protection. Personally, I take super care of my phone. Because it's not just a gps device. It's an all in one. Accidents can happen, sure, but you take care of every device to the degree you feel it is worth taking care. "Dropping" my phone isn't a concern, because I don't think of it as something I can drop Nonetheless, I personally run a greater risk because I don't put out the $ on protective casing. Battery? External pack. You can get a AA pack for cheap these days (~$20) for most any smartphone brand, then you can share the same handful of batteries you would have were you to carry around your handheld. Depending on how much you use your phone or keep it doing things in the background while caching, let alone keeping gps reception on the entire time (as handheld owners are wont to do), battery will deplete faster, yes. A handful of rechargeables makes that a non-issue. My habit: if battery is of concern, I keep GPS reception off (Geosphere allows this) until I need to locate myself on the map (eg, hiking a few km on trails? No need for GPS until nearing destination; save battery) Oops, GSAK is an app (let alone requiring a computer to get caches) (and GSAK is free nag-ware, but you can buy it for full support and features- and it benefits even smartphone users who want to keep their database on the PC instead of device) I was about to respond to the 'never never', but realized you're right, when I read it the right way Yeah, I wouldn't recommend buying a smartphone if ONLY using it for geocaching. It's a very powerful device that has many benefits, and is well worth it when those are factored into its purchase. But for caching only, it can be expensive and fragile, by comparison. For the same price you can get a better geocaching(GPS)-specialized device. Bzzzt. Nope, not guaranteed. Perfectly feasible to enjoy caching with a smartphone only. Handheld isn't a requirement. But upgrading to premium membership is definitely a hard step to deny! Context: I'm now 4 1/2 years caching, and only ever with an iPhone - from 3GS to 4S and now a 5S. Working towards 4000 finds, placed and own caches, and cached in most every rural/remote environment (eg, forest, wilderness, desert, GPS over open water) - not just urban city. ...well, I haven't scuba cached with an iPhone BTW, you can cache using only wifi when available, if you learn tricks of map pre-caching. Technically, you don't need a data plan to actually perform the act of geocaching with a smartphone if it has real GPS reception (which I believe all recent brands now do). But it's certainly more optimal to have a data plan In short, my typical blurb summary on this can of worms: * It's not the device you use, it's how you use it. * High-end handhelds mis-used can be just as bad as low-end smartphones used well (or even high-end smartphones used badly, of course). * High-end smartphones now perform as well as, or in many cases better than, higher than average handhelds. * The best handheld should always outperform any smartphone in GPS accuracy and speed - that is, after all, their sole purpose of existence. * Avoid caching with any less-than-average smartphone. Definitely do not place caches with such (you'll avoid drama, and it'll just be easier) * Myth: "Smartphones" are not good for geocaching. * Lie: You can't cache in non-urban environments with a smartphone. * Insult: Smartphone cachers are idiots and the downfall of geocaching. * Vague/uninformed: "Handheld" battery life/durability/accuracy/price is better than "Smartphones" (please be more specific!) Best combination for caching: Mid to high-end GPSr + decent smartphone. Perfectly feasible for caching anywhere: High end smartphone Cachers no one likes: I found 2 caches! I wanna place a cache! *reads gps* 5 seconds later *publish*. ~ First posted log: "Coords are 50m out! " -- is this person a smartphone or handheld cacher? Could be either (actually either of the CO and finder could be either ) ie: Using a handheld GPSr is no excuse to be lazy in cache placement. It might make it easier, but every owner has the responsibility of doing their best to ensure accurate coordinates. Finding a cache: Having a GPS device accuracy above ~20-30 feet especially in difficult environments is ultimately irrelevant. You can't necessarily trust that the coordinates themselves from the CO are accurate - for whatever reason (from GPS brand to caching habits to current environment reception). Geosense is the winner near gz. (unless you're fortunate to be finding a cache that is indeed highly accurate with an informative listing, hopefully more often than not). As hinted above, you may often find in groups of cachers that when near gz everyone is spread out trying to pin down an accurate coordinate as they bounce around --- instead of looking for the cache! My recommendations for purchase: * Cheap and Geocaching only? --> Avg handheld GPSr * Cheap and multi-purpose? --> Cheap handheld + avg smartphone. * Geocaching only? --> Good handheld. * Multi-purpose? --> Good smartphone, optionally + Good handheld * All-out everything? --> Good smartphone, Good handheld, all the bells and whistles * Already have a smartphone, want to go geocaching? --> Upgrade to a Good smartphone. Else if you don't already have a Good smartphone, buy a cheap handheld (at least). ~ "Good smartphone" - pretty much any iPhone/Android model within the past year or two; BB? not so sure) ~ "Avg smartphone" - one, maybe two generations back, but no more (these are generally much cheaper than new models, with sufficient/decent GPS capabilities) Have a smartphone? * Take care of it * Buy a AA battery pack, buy a protective case Ok I think that's it. again. (PS: this subject is very common in the forums; a search or two and you should find many handheld/smartphone debate threads and informative helpful threads )

Does it really have an in-app browser? Or does it just invoke the default browser installed on your device and send it the required URL? True, my bad. Didn't follow through on that link nonetheless, the website is connected within the app (not like it doesn't exist) *shrug*

Another idea: Incorporate a beginner-friendly point system. Just like favorite points, though likely much less used. When someone logs a find, they can choose to add such a point if they feel the cache is beginner friendly. 1) This puts the task on the local community instead of choosing reviewers or creating another tier of volunteers for the task 2) Like favorite points, potential abuse would be unavoidable, but at least the Good players would eventually weed out the Bad players 3) Being more localized, "beginner" to one region may not be the same "beginner" to another - but this is a good thing. Most likely someone using it would be primarily localized anyway, so they wouldn't know the difference. The rating becomes beginner friendly relative to that region 4) If included in the API, an app can decide on a sufficient 'threshold' for showing beginner friendly caches. Loose could mean showing anything with 2 or more points. Tighten it up to show only the 'cream of the crop' with a certain distance. eg, show me the top 10 beginner rated caches within a 10km radius. 5) The CO could easily opt their cache out of the beginner point system if they don't want it to be available to beginners at all (much like the PMO feature to be exclusive to paying members) 6) Perhaps COs could have the added ability to override/reduce (not increase) the current point rating on their cache if they don't want it to draw as much attention, yet still be available for beginners. (though that's taking the system to the extreme, imo - but the flexibility is there) 7) Cachers can entirely ignore that point system if they don't care about adding those points to caches they find. Adding points does nothing for them or their profile, it's more a 'good samaritan' type of thing, thinking about newcomers. Heck, casual cachers could use that point rating in gauging difficulty on top of the D rating. 8) Sure, some places might get loads of LPCs with beginner points, but as this thread has shown - YMMV about that. To combat it, give points to more non-LPC caches if you think they're better for beginners. 9) Even more restrictive - only allow premium members to give beginner points to caches. Groundspeak already has a swath invested community paying to play the game; if the PMs want to promote a 'better' game, they can promote the caches they feel set the pace in their community for "good" caching. The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of beginner-friendly points...

As mentioned above, the "website" isn't required to gain that knowledge - the app just needs to provide it properly. I agree that it's possible someone could download the app, and think it's another one of location-based games, register for an account, and start grabbing a few. Find and log all within the app, no need for the "website". Then perhaps drop the app if they didn't enjoy the experience. 1) placing an app still requires more research and steps to know what to do and how. I'd be very surprised if someone didn't visit the website somewhere in the process of doing so. 2) necessary faqs, guidelines, and UI features to 'teach' properly can easily be incorporated into the app experience. 3) doing so would require more time and effort on Groundspeak's part if they felt it worth it. Yet other 3rd party apps (which may also introduce people to geocaching) won't gain the benefits of the "intro app" adjustments. Once again I promote the idea of creating (or utilizing) a property of caches that somehow provide the listing with some sort of beginner-friendly rating, something that other apps can also see and use if they wish. Groundspeak's Intro App can be adjusted so the experience is more friendly to beginners, but ultimately the cache listings should ideally provide some way to know what caches are considered 'beginner' so it can be passed down through the API. Also, can't get past this; just bugs me HP scrapes their news.. but no need for a website? Scraping is reading the website as is and extracting the info you want for reuse how you see fit. Scraping the website necessarily requires the website (and is a controversial practice, to say the least) I think what you intended to say was that HP provides an alternate source or method for reading news in a mobile app. Websites can also provide an alternate mobile-friendly view for a web page when it detects you're using a mobile browser, without having the render the full 'desktop' view first. (that is, visit whatever.com on your phone and you see a mobile website - same url). There are many ways around web content display... So, what do you mean by "website"? Many apps actually even embed a browser that displays a mobile-friendly web page as if it were the app itself, via a url. Is that the website? Or is that the app? For the record, the GC app does have an in-app browser. You can view any listing on geocaching.com. Though that's about the extent to which it goes, from what I can tell. (I prefer Geosphere, for many reasons.) ---- tl;dr? A) Intro App user interface should be a little more informative and user friendly for beginners (as well as provide a greater website 'presence') Cache listings should include some indicator of beginner friendliness (how this is done - that, IMO, should be the subject of this thread) C) Smartphones and apps should stop being dumped on, generally speaking

You know, this could be the making of a good puzzle... Use a coordinate system to locate orbital positions... or identify 'arcs' of an orbital route... draw out shapes, letters, numbers - if the person can depict the math being explained... like skywriting, only orbit-writing haha

There'd need to be other adjustments for GPS calculation as the ISS demonstrates - its orbit isn't uniform, as relative to earth's surface it shifts slightly each orbit... At least, that's if you're converting its orbital location to Earth-localized GPS coordinates

Letterbox hybrid. Posted coords at favorite space organization. Multiple trailhead waypoints at the front doors of various places in different countries to begin a journey of education & training and/or private funding in order to make your way into space to locate the posted Final Location waypoint (which has no coordinates entered, only instructions on how to get there per the cache listing). (and the ISS will of course remain a gradfathered 'Traditional' exception )

Another point about focusing on Groundspeak's app for INTRO caches is that there are numerous geocaching apps out there. There is zero guarantee that the first gc app someone will use will be the "proper" introductory app. IF anything is done to address the issue, it can't be solely on the app experience. IF there was a property of certain caches that separates them from others as beginner-friendly, then at least other app developers would have the option to enable, however they see fit, a beginner mode to find only those caches.

heh, I was thinking the exact same thing. By checking that, you're saying that you're allowing it be chosen as an intro cache by whoever makes that judgement call (reviewer or otherwise). Doesn't immediately make it one, but shows that you're a) not against it being one and you think it's appropriate to be considered as one. Griefers could check that box anyway for really hard ones, but it would still have to get past whoever is tasked with choosing 'beginner' caches. Perhaps, along with the checkbox, provide a text box to allow the CO to describe why they feel it should be considered a beginner-friendly cache. That would filter it down even more. Now the ease of selection could vary from region to region... southern Ontario has a lot of people who would gladly make some quality beginner caches, and the reviewers are very respectable here. Don't know how this process would work in other areas of the world though.

Getting gold stars for getting souvenirs - now there's a feature everyone would want!

And this is likely the solution Groundspeak is hoping the majority of its users opt for ;P But hey, no harm in discussing other possible imperfect patchwork solutions

If it consumes processor cycles / disk time - it's a system burden. Might be a small burden - I don't know - but a burden it is. Even a small additional burden on a system which we are frequently told is groaning under the weight is a burden too many - the straw that breaks the camel's back effectively. The system apparently has insufficient resources to provide a reasonably useful search function - as discussed here - so I for one wouldn't be voting for throwing unavailable resource at an issue that isn't going to deliver any useful benefit. Indeed. Though my parallel was with the running of My Finds pocket queries, which are allowed only every few days. Given that the style of feature is doable, ultimately it's a matter of priority. Is the ability to periodically run validation checks on users' souvenirs worth having, worth the small amount of extra strain on the system. (and by burden, I meant past a certain operating 'line' - of course it would be extra stress on the system periodically, as is any function people execute on the website, but would it be a burden? ymmv, as mentioned above , it's relative; we have no stats for how much stress the system would take with a weekly (eg) souvenir check - complex searches that people can execute at any time through the entire database of caches would understandably be a far greater stress on the system) Enh, that practically defeats the purpose of the souvenir tab. At worst, someone could easily then just copy the text into their public profile tab. Then the whole point is moot anyway, since they can add whatever they want, but there's no way to know if it's true or not. There'd be no value in souvenirs really at all. A personal gold star no one else can see? You could tell your friends you just earned a souvenir; so, how would they know or trust you were telling the truth? There'd be zero value in them except to yourself. Not really something most people would end up caring about. Apart from anyone's opinions about the souvenir system in general, I doubt that Groundspeak would give any priority to that profile feature in that case; they'd go the way of the dodo. The reason they're popular as they are is because they can be shown to people within your profile. The problem is fundamental in that they're granted automatically on completing a pre-designed algorithmic check. To do an active inverse of that algorithm is too much work. So 'cheating' is easy. But there's inherently the desire to share them as achievements. The only solution (with zero added stress to the system) really is for each of us not to care if someone else's are legitimate or not. Heck if you're suspicious, you could ask the user to tell the story of how they got the souvenir - therein lies its value, no? As a web app developer, I can understand Groundspeak's position on the souvenir system - I can't think of a way to make them feasible and accurate on a system so wide as geocaching.com, not without adding, to some degree, to the stress of the system - whether it be periodic manual checks of your own souvenir collection, or automated regular checks of all profiles and souvenirs in the system. It's a matter of priority. And likely, right now, the system does what it's supposed to do, and any value on them is given by the profile owners, so it seems to be that the drawbacks of tightening up the souvenir system don't outweigh the 'negatives' inherent in the system... not just yet at least.

Thus my extended comment about eventually making it an automated periodic run on GC profiles, such as weekly, or less. The system can go through as souvenir and the profiles that have them, and double check that they're still valid. In the background, no one notices it's running, it's periodic and only select profile so that it's not a system burden. Souvenirs aren't checked 'live' (like when deleting a log), so someone who 'cheats' may only have that pleasure for say up to a week. Anyway, already mentioned that earlier... Yeah, in a thread like this ideas can get lost. It's more like a place to bounce ideas around before actually making a separate feature request thread

I think a big barrier to entry, in some regions, could be a witch-hunting type of community. God forbid some new cacher in the area start doing something that's considered wrong, mistaken or even cheating - social media can erupt in anger at the newbie who should know better. I've seen it first hand (from the side line) and it's not pretty. Encouraging these people to settle down and - as mentioned earlier - be more of a welcoming, training, teaching type of community, ended up being better than just ranting to the social media world (and who knows if this person was watching as a friend of a friend? who knows what their mental state even is, if seeing that level of hatred could do more harm indirectly, or behind their backs?). A couple of people contacted the person (relatively nicely from what I hear) and the person apologized for pre-dating finds and looks like they'll play more appropriately in the future; hopefully not so afraid of the rage of the local community that they never attend any events or make friends in the community. So I say yes, as community we do have a responsibility to help new players and hobbyists learn the methods and etiquette and rules especially. We can either blacklist people who don't know any better, ignore people we don't like and just move along, or you know, be nice and friendly and helpful and encourage people to become more welcome members of the community. /rant Just had to get that in this thread On the latest topic, the idea of "Intro" flagged caches is an interesting one. Does it have to be a different type of cache though? Why not a special attribute, perhaps that only reviewers could add, following the process mentioned above?

Sure, I'm not in disagreement about that. I just figured, you know, instead of shrugging and closing down ideas, add something to the conversation There are many areas of geocaching that aren't worth tightening up, let alone easily implemented. All I provided were suggestions, ideas, regardless of opinions over their 'worth'. Just ideas, that obviously don't solve every issue. Will they happen? Unlikely... amongst buckets of great suggestions posted elsewhere to the forums for other features and fixes and whatnot. Just ideas, man, ideas.

Ok, well my point was more directed towards the suggestion of having deleted logs trigger a re-check of related souvenirs (ie, that if an owner deletes an invalid log, or a user posts and deletes just to get the souvenir) - and why (as per Groundspeak's comment) it would be ridiculously hard to do (ie stressing on the system). I didn't have a solution for that (having the system do it automatically when someone else deletes a user's log), but rather that the closest solution that would be feasible is to have an optional souvenir checker function you can run on your own profile. Heck, by extension, depending on how improved the 'servers' get over the short term, that profile-souvenir-checker feature could become an automated weekly execution for all users. Or roll weekly throughout the week over all users. Then there's no way a user could have a souvenir they didn't legitimately earn, for more than a week. In short, my point was that doing the souvenir validation live with algorithms potentially for any and all geocaching website functions would be an extreme addition. But having the feature start out as a manual execution allowed periodically for our own profiles, to even eventually become an automated profile check periodically per all users, is to my mind a much more viable solution.

I know... I didn't say it did... But what do you mean by "trivial"? Unimportant? or Easy? Simple to remove? I very much disagree with the latter. And, your reply feels like you're really bothered by this, counter to your previous comment which implies 'who cares':

I've been thinking about this for a while now while watching this thread. Best idea I could come up with is to store the algorithm for each souvenir as an optional check that a user can run periodically (like the My Finds PQ). Wherein, say I do delete a log for an event and want to keep an accurate list of souvenirs. I could go to this page, and re-check that particular souvenir. If it's still valid, it'll stay, otherwise it'll get removed. Same could then be applied to souvenirs given for caching in certain regions, or finding caches on certain dates - whatever the 'grant' algorithm, a periodic check allowed to run manually would be about the only way I could see it working out. Benefits 'honest' users, and changes nothing for users who don't care. Presumably it would barely tax the system at all (definitely no more than the ability to run a personal Finds PQ every few days) - could even only be provided as an option for Premium members.

There are also websites that will generate special 'badges' and achievement recognitions if you provide them your list of finds, so that you can show off these 'awards' in your public profile. Our profile statistics page was recently added, but it's really just a fraction of what a lot of cachers like to display in their public profile. Some regions even have special sets of badges for local accomplishments (like completing significant series of caches and whatnot). I'd say check the profiles of some of your friends and what out what they've got on display. Usually there are links to the source, the website/application that generated the display. I could see someone referring to one of those personal profile awards, the way you described it.

The problem with requiring a time is that there are many, many people who don't post logs immediately, whether by choice or capability. It would be a headache to have to deal with corrections or requests after the fact, for those people who want the souvenir. Did they really attend the event or not? Better would have been to, at least internally at Groundspeak, flag approved themed events, so having an attended log at one of these recognized events during the approval period would grant you the souvenir. Maybe... maybe... also allow the COs to verify log book signing as evidence of attendance -- only because of the souvenir reward. I know that can open up the floor for more drama, but both of these limitations would certainly both encourage people to actually attend an event, and discourage/make it harder for people to 'cheat' just to get the souvenir (where 'cheating' really just means that some people might feel geocaching is cheapened by the actions of a few, since there's ultimately no real 'cheating' in this pastime). IMO, for special events - that is where souvenirs are granted, for example - provide two added features: 1) Official list of approved events that grant the souvenir 2) Event guideline exception allowing log book verification as a CO right (just as with physical caches) #1 is more work on Groundspeak's part, but it makes sense given they've opted to do the work in providing the souvenir itself. #2 may cause more drama, but we've seen that drama was caused regardless - but at least this is a step in the right direction - to the intent of geocaching, and of these events /my2p

Well, the problem is there can't really be any disputing whether you actually "legitimately attended the event" or not, especially now that a log book isn't required. Technically, you can log an Attended on any event worldwide that took place on the needed date, thematically related or not, and you get the souvenir. You can delete the log if you want, or let the CO, but you keep the souvenir.

Ok... It might be the content of the custom text. I tried again with straight-forward plain text, and it worked. I tried my original attempt text and it failed. I remove characters until it worked, and it only worked once there was no "@" in the text.

I like the idea of disabling the event once it passes.

Well I learned this week that there is a region in the world that re-uses an event listing for repeated events throughout the year by adjusting the date and so people don't have to keep posting Will Attends and Attendeds. The issue was that he didn't want to continue to receive announcements for past events after he posted an Attended log to it. ...that's a whole other problem. But, perhaps that one example for why they removed that 4 week period? *shrug* If so I think that's dumb (I personally don't think event listings are intended to be used more than once just because the "Placed Date" can be adjusted)