ChriBli

Me too. Not that there's ever a reason to map one's own finds (let alone someone else's), but there seems to be some limit on how many caches that are shown on the map that is different from the 1,000 limit. If I zoom in on an area, more caches start to appear. When I map my 1,000 latest finds, I get a map of the world with a dot in California and one in Mauritius. Notably none in Sweden where I have the bulk of my finds. If I start zooming in on the Stockholm area, more caches start to show up, but no matter how much I zoom I don't get the finds nearest my home. Turns out that even though I had my finds list sorted on latest first, so I should have seen my latest 1,000 finds, when I map it the sorting is far - near. So the map shows my 1,000 farthest finds. Weird.

Maybe this is the improved cross-platform experience?

So I guess someone realized that there are in fact different requirements for a hides/finds list compared to general search results. I hope this will be extended to bringing back pagination/no limit to the hides/finds lists (even if that would make them non-mappable, which is of course a useless feature anyway).

Love this change. I only ever go to the souvenir page to check if I have received one I expect to have received but don't quite remember the name of, and that's certainly a lot easier now. I just went there and saw I got the Blue Switch Day 2021 souvenir that I had forgotten about! I would never have noticed that otherwise. Thanks.

I've been trying to look up what the buzzword "cross-platform experience" means, but I didn't really get it. I'm pretty sure improving it doesn't mean messing up the experience for desktop users so it gets as bad as for mobile users though. And if I've understood the previous posts right, mobile users are not happy about the changes either.

Same here, on W10 / Chrome 90. Mapping the list of caches I've found works on the same machine.

So there's been advancements in the underlying technology beyond their control, and they want to take advantage of that. That's understandable. And that forced them to reimplement the search function, fine. But I refuse to believe that this new technology should not support things like paginated lists (the lack of which led to the catastophic limit of found/hidden lists), info column, graphic size descriptor or just reasonable information density. So instead of them arguing that the lack of any of the above features are improvements to the user experience, they just say that they couldn't be bothered to implement them again.

After some time I got a full message from the other geocacher, including that first line but with more text after it clearly separated into paragraphs. I don't know if that means he realized what happened and pasted the test into the box instead of typing it. Not even sure how one notices this as a sender, I responded and hit enter several times as I did. Maybe I sent a whole bunch of messages? It would be very appreciated with some kind of acknowledgement of this bug and whether or not it has been fixed.

I just got a message from another geocacher clearly affected by this bug. Or rather, I got an email notification that the geocacher sent me a new message with only "Hi" and my name. I can see the yellow blob on the message center icon, but if I go in there I don't see that geocacher at the top as I would expect. I scroll down many pages, and there it is, with a yellow blob on that too, but the communication there does not include the new message. Not even the first part that was apparently sent in error. I have updated several times and waited for quite some time. I find it strange that developer resources are wasted on changing the message center icon while bugs like this are allowed to remain for weeks. Or maybe it isn't considered a bug? I see no acknowledgement above.

You can actually sort the log list on "best story" or "most helpful" rather than "newest", if you want. But at least in my area, no one is using upvoting (yet) so all sort methods return the same.

You're out of luck, Johannis10. Viewing the finds of another player is a premium member thing. Apparently to prevent you from finding out the super-secret GC-codes of premium only caches.

Is it even possible? In the context of the find list, I mean. I've been looking through the filter dialog, and I can not see that one could filter on "found by me from this date to that date" which is what one would need to access more than the last 1,000 (basically doing the pagination manually, with huge pages). Of course one could filter on D/T rating, make 81 lists and then try to combine them? Is that the recommended approach? By the way, in the filter dialog (for my own finds) I have a distance of 16 km in the "distance from location" box. I can't change it, and it doesn't seem to have any effect, but it's there. Of course distance from location is seldom something you want to filter your finds on.

Yes, thank you for this. That was of course an unnecessary annoyance. Some of the other ones can probably be explained (but not justified) by implementation reasons. But the big issue remains. The inability for a user to see a list of all his finds, or someone else's. Also of course it would be totally unacceptable not to be able to see all your hides, but there are not that many geocachers that have more than 1,000 of those. And to be able to reasonably access even the latest 1,000 finds or hides, pagination need to be reinstated. At the same time, that could be augmented with variable page size and skip to page number options. Pretty, pretty please do this.

Very strange. Now it seems to have changed back again. One can't help wondering what is going on...

You are probably right. I don't think GS would undertake this if they didn't see it as an improvement. But I'm talking about the user experience. You can not justify inferior user experience with easier implementation.

That is true. The new search has been around for a long time, some people have used it and others not, and it is really not unusable when it comes to searching for caches. Just a bit less practical and pleasing to the eye. But this thread is about the links. And the new search is UTTERLY useless when it comes to producing a list of own/others finds/hides. I don't think that many of those that have been discussing and using the new search ever envisioned that it would be used to replace those lists.

That's what I mean. If you have functionality that you are happy with, but the underlying code is buggy, vulnerable and difficult to maintain, you refactor the code and try to make it appear and function the same as before. Otherwise it is reimplementing for the sake of change. And I have yet to see anyone point out something that is better with the new search.

Go to https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx, select Eartcache in the "Search for" box and "User name (found)" in the "By" box and of course the name in the box below. The resulting link is a bit complicated, I'm not sure what is what.

If I go to the (old) dashboard and click the link for "Geocaches" (not "Yours"), I get a list of "Your Geocaching Logs" and not the list of geocaches I have found as I would expect. I have to click once more on "have found" to get that. Surely this is not the way it used to be or should be?

Yes, the old "security" card. So easy to pull when you want to do unpopular changes. I still remember the first time I encountered this from GS, when they removed the coordinate conversion tool because it was "unsafe". I mean, how hard could it have been to fix that, if that was the case. I'm all for refactoring of code to improve quality and stability, but you don't have to change the functionality of it do do that. It is hardly the appearance and functionality of the classic search that has vulnerabilities.

I believe you.

The old search is still there. They just have to change back the links, talk about an easy fix. Of course that would mean admitting they were wrong.

There are two things to this. First there is searching for geocaches, with the intention of finding ones to go after. I personally don't do this much, I generally use the map (although that is not as useful nowadays), but sometimes I do. Then of course I filter out the ones I have already found, so I have no use to see my found date. It could also be useful in this case to see the distance, not from home but from some point where I'm going to go, and also to sort on that. I think this was possible also with the classic search. As I said before, I don't see a single thing that is better with the new search results, but several that are worse (the missing info column!). But then again, I could live with it. I think the reason the new search did not get significant enough pushback for it to be dropped (could that even happen?) is that the classic search was still around and you could continue to use it. But then there's the list of own and other's found and hidden caches. I didn't even realize these could be considered as "search". I do this all the time. They just HAVE to have the information they had before, and of course distance from home is useless, and of course they have to be sorted on found/hidden date! And most importantly, it must be possible to see them all, not just 1,000 of them. And when I want to see the 1,000:th find of another player that has 12,000 of them, I can not be expected to scroll down a page of 12,000 entries. There has to be pages! The old lists had their limitations, configurable page size could have been good and also the possibility to go to a page by number, but this is way, way worse.

Yes it is. Just don't change things that no one had any problems with.

This is a lifesaver! For as long as it works. Sad that such workarounds should be necessary though.