brendan714

Major bug: Say I do a search for caches within 100 km of home. Any time I go back into the filters and change anything, it automatically resets the location to worldwide (even though when I run the search, it still says 100 km from home in the location / distance from location boxes). The search/filters need to remember that I set it to within 100 km of home. It also seems to sometimes reset found status back to "not found by me" and owner status to "caches I don't own" in a similar way after I selected other options.

I am confused why the default search includes no cache types, no cache sizes, no difficulties and no terrains? I would expect the exact opposite: include everything by default and let me decide what to remove. I am more likely to want to search everything than nothing.

You're right, thanks. But that still makes no sense. Why wouldn't "Sort By: Found Date" show MY most recent finds? I really don't care when a cache I already found was found by somebody else...

Yes, I agree, there seems to be a bug when you map your most recent finds. The map defaults to show "Sort By: Distance (Far - Near)" rather that defaulting to "Sort By: Found date (New - Old)". Even if I select "Sort By: Found date (New - Old)", the map pops up caches that I found back in 2014, and neglects to show some caches I found last year. That makes no sense. Must be another bug.

I was on my mobile device trying to look at my recent finds and some recent finds by one of my friends. Not only does the new list/search remove a ton of useful functionality, but it looks really bad on mobile too... Check out the screenshots below to see what I mean - overflow characters in the title and CO name are pushed onto a new line. Also, when I click the map button to map my finds, it takes me to a zoomed out map of the entire world that doesn't show any geocaches. Another bug? I would kind of expect it to map my last 1000 finds...

I was trying to use the new search on my phone to look up my recently found caches. I gave it an honest try. I went in to do a couple simple searches. WOW it feels like 3 steps backwards from the old search! First and most importantly: Having only one parameter viewable at a time is extremely inefficient and results in a significant loss in functionality. Let's say I want to find the terrain rating of several caches I found a couple weeks ago. First I click on my link to All Geocache Finds. Now I scroll down (scroll, scroll, scroll) to find the cache from a couple weeks ago. But it's only showing the found date so now I have to click terrain. Click the 3 dots. Click terrain. Now I'm back up at the top again! Scroll, scroll, scroll back down. Finally found it! Now how about the difficulty? Sigh... Click the 3 dots. Click difficulty. Back at the top. Scroll, scroll, scroll. Now when did I find that cache again? Double sigh... A simple task that used to take me seconds now is a huge chore. Here's a sample screenshot that shows JUST terrain on my phone: Also, where's the GC code? How come the GC code is missing on the mobile version, but not on the desktop version? I do, however, like that in the mobile version it does not say "Traditional", "Mystery", etc next to the cache icon. Next, I was surprised that while some caches take up only 2 lines (for both the title and the cache owner), some caches take up a whopping 5 lines! There's also an additional line added to tell me the cache is PREMIUM (6 lines of text are wasted in the screenshot below to tell me the various caches are premium). Talk about inefficient! It doesn't look very good at all, either! On the old search page, the columns were long enough such that the title and cache owner would ALWAYS fit on 2 lines. Next, I think there's a bug: my found date just disappears after some point? And finally, something a little strange, but when I'm at the top of the page, some caches show as 3 lines. But when I scroll down and the title rows freeze to the top, suddenly some of the caches switch to being 4 lines. It almost makes me sad to see how inefficient and buggy this new system is compared to the old search. As a tool with the intended use to be searches of recently found and owned caches, I just don't think the functionality is there.

I am not a software developer, but, similar to Geocaching HQ, I am in an industry in which I provide a service to my clients. In general, when I plan to do something new, I first go and ask my client what they want me to do. My client then tells me their highest priority item. I then work on this, and after I make some progress, I provide a "working copy" to my client for review and ask "what do you think about what I've done here so far?" There are ALWAYS some changes that come out of this preliminary review. But we are both happy because the client knows they will get exactly what they want, and I am happy because I know I am making my client happy. Then I can finish my product and know that everybody is aligned. What boggles my mind is that, instead of the above, the strategy here appears to be: 1) Release a large unwanted change to your entire clientele; 2) Receive immediate negative feedback on several valid technical points; 3) Your clients now have to live with an inferior product, while you 4) Frantically fix one or two (but not all) of these problems, leaving a flawed product, before soon moving on to the next project. Given a website update like this that seems to have received an overwhelming negative response, I have to wonder why there isn't a small volunteer team of experienced geocachers (not too many, maybe 20-30?) who could test the update and provide comments BEFORE it goes live to everybody? Doing this kind of review early on before going in too deep can save a LOT of re-work (re-work = $$$). Although I'm sure an internal software review does occur, I would argue (based on my observations on this particular update, and, to be honest, with most others) that the development team alone does not have sufficient geocaching experience to understand the functionality expected by an experienced geocacher. As an experienced geocacher myself, I would happily volunteer some of my time to beta test some of the future website updates before they go live. To qualify myself, my constructive comments on this thread seem to be well received by my peers. My virtual door is open.

There is a serious issue with white space in this new update. As a result, the pages now have significantly less efficiency and functionality. I did some side-by-side screenshots. ON MY COMPUTER 1) I am able to see almost 15 caches in my screen view with the old search VS only 9 caches in the new search 2) In the new search I am missing pieces of information such as the maintenance wrench and trackable icons, as well as the "found by me" date. 3) The new search is significantly wider, causing my eyes to run back and forth across the entire screen. 4) I can easily select and copy text (cache name, GC code, cache owner) in the old search, whereas that is not possible in the new search. The result on the desktop version is a loss of efficiency and functionality: ------------------------- ON MY PHONE: 1) I go from seeing 20 caches on the old search to only seeing 9 on the new. 2) Although I can see all useful cache information on my phone on the old search, I can ONLY see distance on the new!! (the 3 dots button allow me to select the ONE parameter I want to see) The result and side-by-side comparison is almost laughably bad to see the loss of features and information in the new search!

My comments, some of which have been mentioned above: 1) Found caches should be sorted from most recent find to oldest, instead of closest to furthest 2) Owned caches should be sorted from most recently placed to oldest, instead of closest to furthest 3) "Date Found By Me" is missing. This is nice to know when you are looking at your friend's finds. 4) There is a big bug when you sort by "Found On" - the top few rows are all in order, but as I scroll down the date order is all messed up. 5) If I want to browse far back into my found history, I have to keep scrolling and scrolling down. And if I have to re-load the page for any reason, I am stuck back up at the top again. Note that in my opinion these items should not be "possible future improvements" - they are essential features (that exist in the old search) that should be done now to make this a useful and efficient tool. It makes no sense to sort closest by default. My 3 closest finds are caches I found 8, 8 and 9 years ago, respectively, and all are now archived. Why should I default to that when I click to see my finds or the finds of my friends? In my opinion there is also way too much white space which means more scrolling to get the same amount of information as what the old search had. As a paying customer, it's frustrating to get "updates" that are a step backwards in many regards.

Same issue here.

I have been a GPSr user since geo-birth. I use my phone occasionally (sometimes to look at photos in the field), but I much prefer to use my GPSr to geocache. That said, I bet that I have never read the description on the vast majority of traditional caches that I have found. Typically, my search for a traditional goes as follows: 1) Find traditional on GPSr and load it up. 2) Get to GZ and look for the cache. If I find the cache, great, I'm done, move on to the next. 3) Read hint after a minute or two if I can't find it. If I find the cache, great, I'm done, move on to the next. 4) Read through the past 5 logs if the hint doesn't make sense or another minute or two passes. If I find the cache or the logs suggest the cache is missing, great, I'm done, move on to the next. 5) If none of the above works and I still can't find the cache, I might read through the description hoping for another clue. When I go to log, I do so on my computer and I very rarely open up the full cache page and read through the description - usually I find the cache on the map, click it, then click log visit. For a standard traditional cache, I usually never go in to read the description. I would, however, say that I ALWAYS read the description first for a mystery or multi cache - that way I know whether or not I will be wasting my time by going to GZ. So that would be my suggestion to you: use mystery or multi caches instead of traditionals. Mystery is probably better than multi. Incorporate an easy little Mark Twain puzzle and you've succeeded in getting me to read through the cache description. Whether or not I quote Mark Twain in my log or even read the description of your traditional geocache at all would depend on: a) Whether the cache was an excellent, high quality hide that offered something unique, or b) Whether you are a CO that I personally know or otherwise respect.

It's easy for ProjectGC to tell me: of the 638 caches placed in my area in 2020, 94 are now archived. That's not bad, actually: 85% of caches placed in 2020 are still active. Anecdotally, I didn't seem to notice any significant increase or decrease in overall cache quality last year in my area.

A follow-up to my first post from 2017, here are the updated cache numbers for my hometown using the same search method: 2008 - 585 2009 - 622 2010 - 659 2011 - 608 2012 - 671 2013 - 537 2014 - 602 2015 - 867 2016 - 581 2017 - 308 2018 - 311 2019 - 327 2020 - 638 2021 - 158 (as of March 29) There's no doubt that the number of new caches significantly decreased from previous averages between 2017-2019. But WOW what a huge increase in 2020! And a healthy number of new caches so far this year too despite being only 3 months into 2021! I definitely found myself geocaching much more last year thanks to the increased number of new caches.

Yet another bogus log from another newbie cacher today. That marks 3 now in 3 weeks - this is really starting to get ridiculous! I wonder why this was never a problem in the past 5ish years some of my challenges have existed? I'm not sure what else to do other than to make bogus posted coordinates. Maybe a stupid idea, but why not hide challenge caches from newbies until they have, say, 50 or 100 finds?

He brought it up in my thread as a solution to my problem. I think I'm well within the context of this thread to share my opinion on his proposed solution! Thanks for pointing that out, it is something I've thought of and I don't necessarily disagree with you. It's just that in my experience, I find that my caches get more eyes, more people interested and hence more (legitimate) finds if they are in the city vs hidden out in the mountains. My strategy with my challenges is to challenge geocachers who wouldn't normally go visit the mountains to go. If I hide my challenges in the mountains, the only interest I get is from the regular mountain geocachers. So far I'm happy with how my strategy has paid off! I've had plenty of interest on my challenges from those who I wouldn't expect! I've even received messages from some cachers who claim some of my challenges are on their geocaching bucket lists. That puts a smile on my face and in my mind was the goal of some of these challenges - and is something I'm fairly confident I wouldn't get if I went and hid the same cache out in the backcountry.

Here you go, 2nd time this problem has happened in one week (different geocacher than 1 week ago).

This is not a good solution, in my opinion. If anybody could claim a find on any challenge cache, it would be too easy to add a challenge component to any cache that would otherwise be a simple traditional cache. Under this proposed system, a challenge cache would essentially serve the purpose of a traditional cache AND a challenge cache. So why publish a traditional cache when you could instead post a challenge and get 2-for-1? In my mind, that's a very slippery slope and not a good idea for the game.

I just went back through the history of my messages. I found 4 different cachers where my challenge caches (logs now deleted) were the last caches they ever found! I sent polite messages to each the cachers informing them of the rules and why I would be deleting their logs - and I invited them to post notes on the page. I get it - as a newbie it would be frustrating to pick up a new hobby, go out, find a bunch of caches, then later have all your finds deleted!

It starts to become frustrating as a cache owner when: a) It happens frequently (it seems to be happening more and more often for me) b) Multiple cachers in the same group log finds on many different challenges in the same day (I once had a group of 4, each with separate accounts, find 4 of my challenges in one day - suddenly that's now 16 logs that I have to go in, delete manually one-by-one, then send a message to each person) c) The cacher responds "but I found the cache, why can't I log a find?" (it wastes my time to go back and forth with some of these cachers, some of which I'm sure are just kids)

This is a pretty good suggestion, thanks! I find that if they do respond, they are upset as to why I deleted their find and confused as to why they can't log a find even though they found the cache. One person told me they won't be bothering to look for any more of my geocaches. (that's not the attitude I'm trying to promote here!) I disagree: the cache is at the posted coordinates and is there ready for them to find & sign the log. Exactly my point that this is different than most other mystery caches. It's much easier for me to explain to them: "this is a unique type of geocache with special rules called a challenge cache - you can tell because it has the special challenge cache icon." Rather than: "this geocache is a challenge, which is a special subset of a certain cache type called mystery caches. Even though it has the same icon as other mystery caches you may have already found, the rules for challenges are a little different. Unlike all other mystery caches, you have to fulfill the challenge before logging a find, even if you already found the container and signed the log". It's just so confusing the way it is! It's confusing even for me, and I know what I'm talking about! Sure it does. Reject the ability to log a find and link them to a page that explains what a challenge cache is and how it works. It would be a simple tool to explain challenge caches to those who don't already know. The volunteer time put in by cache owners should be respected by HQ - it shouldn't be my job to explain this very confusing nuance of a rule to new geocachers. It's been happening much more frequently within the past year. Who is to say that it will ever calm down?

I own several challenge caches. Within the past year, I would estimate that about 8 to 10 different beginner geocachers have logged one or more of my challenge caches as "found" without completing the challenge portion. ie: they likely found the container, but clearly do not qualify for the challenge. Today I just received another such log. (I will note that all of my challenge caches are premium member only in an effort to prevent this exact issue from happening) As the owner, I am forced to delete the found log and write a lengthy email to the newbie cacher explaining what a challenge cache is and why they can't log a "found it". I am usually met with a response that suggests pure confusion. And really, it is quite confusing! Why are challenge caches the only cache type for which you can't log a "found it" log when you found the cache and signed the logbook? To make matters even more confusing, they are the same cache icon as other mystery caches where if you find the cache and sign the log, you DO legitimately get to log a "found it"! Last year, one geocacher even pushed back at me several times (stating that they found the cache and were confused why I was deleting their found log, despite my efforts to explain the process), re-logging their find each time after I deleted it twice (I eventually got help from our local reviewer). In an effort to make the rules of challenge caches easier to understand for everybody, I propose the following: 1) The ability to log a "found it" on a challenge cache should somehow be tied to a successful check on the challenge checker. I realize there is a problem here with challenges that don't have checkers (grandfathered challenges only), and there may perhaps be several technical problems regarding ties to Project GC. But this is the way it should be. 2) Since the point above could be confusing for new geocachers ("why can't I log it as found when I found it?"), challenge caches should have a note on the log page explaining that you need to complete the challenge portion when you do not yet qualify for the challenge. 3) Challenge caches should have a different cache icon than other mystery caches - they are totally different beings than all other caches types that are tossed into the "mystery" bucket. I will note that the challenge attribute is useless for solving any of these problems.

While this is an impressive achievement and I commend your effort to get it Guinness certified, I'm not sure I would have guessed what the art in the Dragon's Treasure series was representing just by looking at it on the geocaching browse map. (I must admit that the Railroad series in Idaho (1000 caches, starting with GC3FA3B) is much more aesthetically pleasing in terms of a geo-art arrangement of this scale.) But still very cool, well done! I am curious: what constitutes a geo-art by Guinness standards? Must the geocaches be placed by a single user all around the same timeframe? Do they have to have similar titles corresponding to one series? Who determines what is "art" and what isn't? Is this what you had to spend 300 hours to prove?

Nice addition, I like it. 20 finds seems a bit low, but then again it's a fair number to those who live in rural communities where caches may be few and far between. Has HQ ever considered offering a tool to help geocachers get accurate coordinates for their cache hides? That would be my #1 complaint on hides from new users - bad coordinates. Perhaps suggesting a phone app or adding a tool on the existing Geocaching app to help with coordinate averaging? "Place your phone down beside the cache, don't touch it while I'm taking measurements, and I will let you know when I have accurate coordinates for your geocache!" Although smartphones (or any GPSr, for that matter) can give awful single-point coordinates, they can also give surprisingly accurate coordinates if they are left to average for a few minutes.

As I had mentioned in my post, searching for missing D/T combinations by clicking on a number should exclude caches I own. Search results show all my owned caches along with unfound caches. Caches I own are not useful for me to complete my D/T grid.

This update is kind of a shame in my opinion, I must admit. I have found that (within the past few years especially) difficulty and terrain ratings are being used more and more by owners as cache statistics (for qualifying for challenges, D/T grid looping, etc), rather than being used as useful information (which is their intended purpose, I hope). For example, here's a 4.5* difficulty, 5* terrain cache that is literally a park and grab: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8B8ZD_prairie-country-roads-5 Promoting D/T looping and allowing for quick searching of missing D/T holes will only amplify the frequency of this problem. It also undermines the effort put in by those who 'earn' their high difficulty and high terrain finds. Yes, I know it's all relative and the D/T ratings will never be perfect, but I'd rather HQ promote accurate cache descriptions. I think this update does the opposite. As for functionality, searching for missing D/T combinations by clicking on a number should exclude caches I own.