Jump to content

Zop

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zop

  1. I'm curious to know how it was determined that the PMO descriptor was not "used by many users". I certainly appreciated being able to identify which caches were PMO or not, by having the icon be a square or circle. If there's no way to identify PMO caches on the map, then could GS at least add a toggle in the Filters pane so users can toggle on/off PMO caches. I know this can be done via Search, so I'm asking specifically in regards to the Browsing Map. As did many of us!
  2. Please do. And also please remember, many, many, of us have been caching for years using GPSr's and computers. We often find smart phone apps to be more of a hindrance than a help so we do not use them. When 'improvements' for them degrade features for everyone else, it's not really progress nor an 'improvement'. It's telling us old-timers that you just don't care. I'm sure there can be some sort of middle ground.
  3. I think this refers to my comment, and I would like to add that something is lost in translation. I have no doubt that the GC crew have the best of intentions, it's just that the result in this case is irritating. For eyes and otherwise. Groundspeak had never been known for caring about the visually handicapped. This is the modern world where youngsters rule. Or maybe: That's the modern way to do things. We need to do that too. To be modern! Shrink the fonts! Nobody uses that size anymore. Less contrast! No black Groundspeak. Please reconsider this change for the sake of change, and: It's modern. We should do it! on white. Let's use the modern dark grey on light grey. Move the tabs to the top of the page. No one uses them on the side of the page anymore. These have all made using GC.com tougher for me. I may be an extreme example. Before cataract surgery, I was 20/1200. Now, I'm at 20/30, but my eyes do not focus. My glasses are set for 24" for reading, and 48" for distance. I cannot read the top of the page without bending my head back. And that does not work with my arthritis. I complained when GS moved the tabs to the top of the page. And got no sympathy. The modern computer world discriminates agains the visually handicapped. That's the modern world. But change for the sake of change (and that's the modern world!) is seldom a good idea. Let's made the website look like the app! (Better to make the app look like the website! Nah.) This time, Groundspeak has managed to annoy 8% of the male geocachers who are color blind. Whoops! That was not a bright idea? The question is whether Groundspeak cares? Change for the sake of change. This is modern! We must do it! Personally, I think the new icons are stupid, and much more difficult to use (at least, for us visually handicapped who have been here over ten years.) Each release makes things tougher and tougher for us senior cachers with visual handicaps. Hey! It's the modern world. Who cares about us? No, you're not alone. I find it just another reason to wean myself off using the site. GSAK, Google Earth and the API's are far superior it seems.
  4. I'm not colorblind, yet I find it quite aesthetically displeasing. Very difficult to see the icons clearly on the maps. It all just bleeds together and the contrasts wash out the maps. Maybe if the icons were slightly smaller and crisper. At the moment however, it looks 'Fisher Price'
  5. Any news on progress? I haven't been able to get anywhere on the site since yesterday. Just the constant "The service is unavailable"
  6. Perhaps simply having the event auto disable after a few days would be equally as desirable? As long as they are not showing up in our PQ's or GSAK API pulls, that should work, right?
  7. Exactly - I can reply to an email message form a mountain top a whole lot easier than having to log into a web site and drill away to the correct page, thread, response etc.. and try typing into a web form. Waste of time and energy.
  8. Are you trying to infer that replying to the email will reply to the thread in the message center?
  9. Simple! Some cachers have been using it even though I don't have any "E-Mail Me" requirements. if I did, the message center would not apply in the first place as it's not email. I already have far too many places to look for messages and a public email address just for geocaching and I'm not about to log into GC.com every time I get some message. Email is tried and true, I can access it from anywhere in the world and can authenticate securely with my own mail server, I don't have to log into geocaching.com, and it is the only way I will reply to people. Not going to use it.
  10. Please provide an option to disable the new Messaging Center for those of us who do not want to use the site for social networking. I already have far too many places I have to check for messages and none of my caches require that anyone email me so it's completely wasted on me. The old method was tried and true and worked just fine for more than the 8 years I've been using it. I would like to stick with it please.
  11. Time to kick start a very old thread - Well, The Smiley has now followed me from 60, 400t 550t to 62s and now the 64s and it's always a nice icon to see on my screen while we're caching up and down the trails but now I have to ask; Has anyone tried to get their GPSr to change an icon when marked as a DNF? I would love to be able to see which ones we want to pass on because we just DNF'ed them earlier in the day. Z..
  12. I must be blind. I see nothing to click on. Nor any trees. EDIT: Aha!! talk about burried! I have always just entered my criteria in the Search for Nearby Geocaches field on the main page, never click on the "Play" option on the tool bar and drill into the advanced search tool. Ok, so I'm there, how do we make it stick to our profile? This does help a lot but still as I mention above, in the past, I sould simply enter the search criteria in the "Search for Nearby Geocaches" field on the main geocaching.com page. Simple and quick. But now, the results page is so poorly designed that it's really not usable. Now, what used to take one click, now takes four. - I still think that a Grease Monkey script should be able to fix this. If only I had the time to learn to code it. Thanks again for your civil reply. It's appreciated.
  13. I must be blind. I see nothing to click on. Nor any trees. EDIT: Aha!! talk about burried! I have always just entered my criteria in the Search for Geocaches field on the main page, never click on the "Play" option on the tool bar and drill into the advanced search tool. Ok, so I'm there, how do we make it stick to our profile?
  14. Thanks for the link. I have tried it in the past but it doesn't search by zip code and it's a third party site. The results page IS pretty much what I'm looking for though. Using this link, the results do show 12 results with a very easy to read listing without the really ugly new icons (tiles?) and the results are identical to what one will see (ATM) when selecting the link to view other caches from a cache page. Again though, it's still limited in that you can't just type in a zip code and get a list of results like you can on geocaching.com What I'm looking for is a way to view the search results on geocaching.com in an easier to read format. Something as simple as removing the banner and the excess white space and reducing the size of the icons. The banner alone now takes up more than 25% of the screen. Add the header bar, and toolbar and you leave only 50% of the screen for search results. Now, what I have to do is either use GSAK for all my seaarches (which probably adds a bit of a load to the API server) or look up a cache in a zip code area, open it and then scroll all the way down to the link to view other caches (of thie type etc...) in order to get a reasonable display of the results.
  15. Does anyone know if there is some sort of FireFox/Chrome Greasemonkey script or plug in which will allow us to view the search results in a more logical list manner? In its current form, the search results page will only display 5 results without scrolling because of the massive banner and additional waste of space etc... In the past, with the more efficient results page, we could easily see twice the number of results and not have to look at so much wasted space. Thanks in advance for any links! Z..
  16. Working now from Server: WEB15; Build: Tucson.Main.release-20150414.Release_276
  17. BUG in nearby caches of type - Noticed this again this morning: Noted Server: WEB21; Build: Tucson.Main.release-20150414.Release_276 No amount of refreshing made any difference. Running Windows 7 x64 Pro w/IE 11, latest patches, cleared temp & cache.
  18. Bump this too as the Lacky's are completely ignoring the initial question.
  19. Bump - Let's keep this on topic please. There is another thread for complaining about the lack of functionality.
  20. Thanks for this but nowhere in the FAQ is there any mention of why the terrible formatting and excessive waste of space. Why are we long time paying customers being treated like we don't matter? I understand that the youth are glued to their pocket toys but why are we to suffer due to their fads? Please don't sacrifice what was a viable site for those of us who still use computers and GPSr's for the passing fad iphone crowd. Don't they use the app in the first place?
  21. Here are the major issues as I see it. I know you will get the tool working at some point but aesthetically, it's horrible. For this argument, I have my monitor set to 1600 X 1200 DPI on a Dell 20" Diag LCD, Internet Explorer v11, showing only address bar and menu toolbar. Total height of that is 3/4" 1) The page header (Dark Green with Geocaching logo, title and logged in user info: 1" 2) Page toolbar (lighter green bar below header):5/16" Total space dedicated to header and toolbar 1 & 5/16" Not a real problem - no change from previous site. 3) Search field element containing title, search field, Filter button and text field for # results and Map These Results: 3.5" Search field contains little to no information yet is given nearly twice the real estate as the header and toolbar combined. Can easily be reduced by 60% by eliminating wasted space and providing only the needed three rows. 4) Search results field, top row with column ids: 1/2" Search results field top row can easily be reduced by 50% 5) Search results body. Displays only 5.5 records, using 5.5" of space. 6) Icons are 9/16" high if found, 1/2" if unfound. This is a grotesque waste of space considering previous icons were 1/8" 7) Rows are now ~1/2" high to make up for the over sized icons? with a wasted full height row between records. This waste of space can easily be reduced by opting for a more reasonably sized icon, and reducing the separator row heights to no more than 1/8" or 3/16". Why not resolve this all by just adding the new features to the old search tool for us computer users and give the new look to those with tablets and phones? The technology is readily available for a dynamic website to detect the difference between browsers, devices and resolution/screen size. Geez.. I needed more coffee. Not Columns, ROWS. My bad.
×
×
  • Create New...