lodgebarn

For me DNFs should be kept with pride and part of my history. No matter how hard I try they are normally about 6% of finds. I would track DNFs I wanted to find with a bookmark list.

Appreciate this quick response to our concerns, thanks!

What's more, according to the logic that forbids logging a second find, you shouldn't even be able to log a DNF on a cache you previously found. You would think so. Either write note or NM if you check on one you have found but not DNF.

This would not preserve anonymity which the geocache email does for those that wish it. My second problem with that approach is my default email client is not my caching email. As long as the user email is still visible for those that allow it we can still probably send direct emails anyway. Until we see the real form this is speculation.

I doubt deletion is really an option. A visit can't be purged that easily.

Message does work. I've been sending and receiving via MC since it started and everything works fine. Nothing has frozen and don't know what "flaky" refers to. As far as I can see there's nothing to fix. For me it mostly works but notifications have been quite flaky. There is one GIANT difference between email and MC. Email allows me to filter messages and delete them. MC goes on forever and expands to fill the available space. I wish to be able to delete old rubbish else I just have shed loads of clutter. I agree that email gradually will be superseded by messaging but very shortsighted just to get rid of it right now.

I am OK with the new design but it does seem untested. Just had a look around and there seem to be more than a few links not working even to the forum for extra help on the email page. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=8. Also some of the manufacturers links are invalid now e.g. Microsoft, Web-DE. I think it is hard trying to keep up with these types of changes. On the souvenirs page I click on one of the types and the cursor just stays at the top of the screen whereas it should surely navigate down the page.

So this change incorporating duplicate prevention, thereby destroying some old caches as collateral damage, results in DNFs recorded as finds. Nice one!

I have just seen a cache where someone posted a Find followed by DNF saying sorry I clicked the wrong option first time. Maybe they assumed that the DNF would supersede the find? I reckon the new logging system makes this more likely to happen.

Let's wait and see. It's only been about a week, and I wouldn't expect any sort of daily or even weekly releases. I'm not hoping for more releases. I'm hoping for it to be pulled down. It has become clear that this is Beta testing. And we didn't sign up to be beta testers. The original page should be reverted to being the default, and move this version into a test area, where it won't cause anymore frustration for the users who never chose to be part of this failing experiment. Then the Devs can continue to bang on it if they choose, until it actually manages to work they way users want it to. But it seems pretty obvious that the smarter thing to do is to step back to the beginning and ask themselves "Why do we still think this is a Good Thing to do when our community clearly disagrees?" Answer that question first, then share your answer with the community. Then start over. This is not even beta testing, just alpha really. Who were the product owners may I ask who decided that removing functionality was really a good idea.They seem very out of touch if that is the case, and if done with eyes open then the long term plan must be to dumb down everything. Time to back it all out and start again.

I care just lost the will to live I am afraid. We cache despite the owners who seem to care little about long standing members.

Sorry, but blaming this on "old code" doesn't hold water. Code is written to create features. Features can be recreated with different, newer, better code. What has been delivered is different and missing features. For some unimaginable reason you have chosen to completely change a set of features that worked well, in the name of "fixing old code". Come on. Admit to yourselves that this didn't work. Pull this feature. Put it back the way it was, LISTEN to your USERS! Then come back and try it again. In my job, when changes are made, existing functionality is maintained in almost all cases. You seem to have the opposite philosophy so it shouldn't be a great surprise when people get very unhappy.

It would be helpful to have a Post button under the text as well to avoid the pesky scrolling for a simple log.

With the recent dodgy web site "upgrade" is it time to remove this proposed new feature and keep us old folks happy?

I think it quite likely that this was not considered at all until after the discussions started.

Many companies make changes without every explaining "why". When Apple stopped putting a floppy drive in computers, the world went nuts. Apple never solicited public opinion as to whether it was a good idea or not. The just did it. I don't remember them ever explaining "why". A lot of other companies explained the "why". And in the end.... the world moved on. Nice, so Groundspeak is purely a commercial company and it is just fine and dandy to behave like Apple who are renowned for their lack of compatibility and support for older devices. I have no problem with changes, most things do. However some of us like a few things to stay where they are, giving pleasure to many, especially where there has been no good reason supplied. What is next, get rid of puzzles because they are too hard? Multis because too few new players can be bothered with them and might be confused?

Again, it all depends on how feasible the grandfathering is and what exactly is being grandfathered. In this case, a major technical change is occurring API-wide. Grandfathering this old functionality is more work than merely allowing a rule that's examined during a human judgement call, and GS have apparently deemed that it's not feasible to build in the exception. It turns out there is a moratorium on blankies, due to the difficulties experienced by the moderators in assessing the eligibility of potential blankie recipients. Geocaching HQ and the Forum Moderators are currently revisiting the standards for the issuance of blankies to worthy forum posters. Watch for a User Insights Forum survey. That will be followed by secret internal debate: should the sizes of the blankies be adjusted? Will there be color choices? Should we offer the "Classic Blankie" for $9.99, or instead have a model for delivering free blankies that only have around 10% of the warming factor of the Classic Blankie? The results should be available in June. (I did not say which year, just "June.") Make sure you record that internal debate and release it to the general public so we can decide if it really happened, was actually worthwhile and a legitimate effort to examine the "supposed" blankie problem from all sides, otherwise you've demonstrated you are an evil company that doesn't listen to its customers! Make sure also to footnote all references to community feedback so we can verify that certain voices have been heard and it's not just a generalized note of community concern that misses any important details. We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard, and that you're not out to destroy our beloved pastime! Sad, this was a major change affecting fine old caches. Moreover it was communicated first to API partners not to ordinary folk. I find that quite reprehensible.

That would be my definition of "dismissed out of hand": they are being treated as if they have no value yet we know nothing about the deliberations behind that decision. The possibility that there's a darned good reason that we just weren't told about doesn't make it more palatable. I would think it most likely that, at least initially, they were not considered at all.

I myself don't feel the need to get annoyed about that as I've not seen it happen. Well recently I almost got nabbed by a mobile camera doing about 58 (limit 50) on an empty A515, Sunday Morning a few weeks back at 0700. Saved by an oncoming flash when I proved I was just about awake.

Because guidelines Y and Z are broken no attempt should be made to enforce guideline X? Is that the logic we're going with here? A fair point and of course the subjective items are not enforceable at all. I just think that you don't just call a halt to something that has been working quite happily for 15 years just because modern technology has created a perceived problem. Guidelines are allowed to have exceptions.

For example, you could point to feature requests that mention duplicate logs in some way, such as: Unintentional double logs Find count number increases with duplicate log entries Enhancement request: Delete duplicate log if <1 minute Restore the number of distinct caches to stats SUGGESTION: Prevent duplicate finds of same cache for 24 hours. I don't think any of those request the complete banning of double logging, they are primarily seeking to address the problem that the various apps sometimes double log unintentionally (within < 1 minue or 24 hours). So it seems to me that the problem that needs fixing is within the apps, now I realise GS has no control over the coding of 3rd party apps so it's not within their capability to fix the apps, but I would have hoped that the fix would have been coded into the API to prevent apps multi logging, but leave the website alone so that if someone knowingly and intentionally wants to double log then they could do so. Of course this discussion is now pointless, it's something that could have happened at the design/planning stage of this fix, but it's far too late now. It seems to me the fix they've gone for is over the top, though that might have been done to minimise the coding effort required, or to allow them to get the fix out quicker, whichever it is I think it's unfortunate that some grand old caches have been caught in the crossfire . Hopefully the folks who have made the decision to proceed with the change will feel a little contrite one day. Old caches are destroyed and unhappiness created all in the name of stopping duplicate logs. Well guys how about those who log a cache when they haven't found it or throw down another cache with no owner permission, this is just fine is it? No I am sure it isn't but not so easy to stop. I see the two types of issue a bit like speed cameras vs dangerous driving. It is easy to fine someone doing 34 in a 30 zone late at night with nobody around. But how about someone driving fast around a blind bend or going across three lanes of traffic because they have missed their junction. Much more dangerous but they rarely get caught. In this particular case I feel strongly some element of history should be valued and not dismissed out of hand as it clearly has been.

+1 Well said and exactly what I feel myself. Value history rather than sweep it away.

+1 It would be crazy of Groundspeak to use time on coding support for breaking the rules on 0,000679903‰ of the active caches in the world. But ok to spend time changing what has been working happily for 15 years.

Yes indeed, and hows about adding that you must log physically and return the same cache container in position to make the power trails behave the same as all other caches please.

Couldn't have put it better myself. A sad day brought on in part by "solving" a problem caused by modern technology. This cache also often takes folk into the great outdoors where they wouldn't normally visit. Surely that is something Groundspeak should be proud of rather than destroying. Please think again.