Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
headybrew

Catagories Are The Problem

Recommended Posts

These catagories are so limiting. It's not enough to say that it will be less limiting as more categories are created. There needs to be a way to search all caches by keywords. Not just exact keyword phrases in the title, as on geocaching.com, but a ranked search based on all keywords you type, limited by location, etc.

 

Categories are the biggest detriment to the growth of this site.

 

I'm very sad to see the variety dissappear from geocaching.com, and to see it not be replaced by Waymarking.com, because of this silly categories idea.

 

I'm going to try terracaching.com instead.

 

-heady brew.

Share this post


Link to post

Please keep in mind that the site is still in Beta, and new and more advanced search functionality will be in place as early as the next release.

 

 

I'm going to try terracaching.com instead.

 

-heady brew.

 

Don't forget to write!

Share this post


Link to post

How are categories any more limiting than locationless cache objectives? One of my own categories is "Weird Stories Locations" which can and does encompass everything from hauntings to ufo sitings to strange roadside objects and bizarre mysteries.

 

I can't imagine one locationless cache that would allow for that kind of variety.

 

Please keep in mind that the site is still in Beta, and new and more advanced search functionality will be in place as early as the next release.

 

Excellent point. I occasionally get the opportunity to beta test software for people and enjoy the feeling of "pioneering" the new applications as well as setting the course for future development.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post
How are categories any more limiting than locationless cache objectives? One of my own categories is "Weird Stories Locations" which can and does encompass everything from hauntings to ufo sitings to strange roadside objects and bizarre mysteries.

...

As the main, and currently only method of "searching" for waymarks, they are problematic.

It's fine to have categories, if they intrigue you.

 

But:

not being able to see all nearby waymarks on one search page really stinks.

 

not being able to post a new waymark unless it fits an existing category really really stinks.

 

not being able to search via keywords really-and-a-half stinks. That's (1.5 stinks)

 

I see no mention that after the beta phase is over, categories will be less of a problem.

 

and, perhaps on a different subject...

not being able to see waymarks and caches on the same listing as it used to be at

gc.com REALLY REALLY REALLY stinks. that's a 3.0 on the stink scale.

 

It seems like I have to follow two different sites and pay two different membership fees for what appears to be less quality.

 

BTW: I work closely with software developers and am thoroughly familiar with what the word beta means. It would be a big mistake to assume that categories are just a beta phase thing. They seem to be here to stay. With any luck they might become a secondary feature, rather than the main organizational thrust. But it doesn't look like there's any sentiment toward that.

 

If I have missed that in the many forum posts, than I appologize. I will still participate in GC.com, though I miss very much the virtual caches that have dissappeared from my search lists. I will watch to see what happens on Waymarking.com, but I'm not too thrilled with it right now.

 

-headybrew

Share this post


Link to post
It seems like I have to follow two different sites and pay two different membership fees for what appears to be less quality.

You don't have to pay two different membership fees.

 

It would be a big mistake to assume that categories are just a beta phase thing. They seem to be here to stay.

Categories are here to stay. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.

 

I will still participate in GC.com, though I miss very much the virtual caches that have dissappeared from my search lists.

Virtual caches are still available on GC.com. Locationless caches are no longer listed.

Share this post


Link to post
not being able to see all nearby waymarks on one search page really stinks.

Like this?

 

not being able to post a new waymark unless it fits an existing category really really stinks.

 

True. The idea is to come up with new categories, create them and have others contribute.

 

not being able to search via keywords really-and-a-half stinks.  That's (1.5 stinks)

 

You need to provide more information. A keyword for what exactly?

 

I see no mention that after the beta phase is over, categories will be less of a problem.

 

What problem are you referring to?

 

and, perhaps on a different subject...

not being able to see waymarks and caches on the same listing as it used to be at

gc.com REALLY REALLY REALLY stinks. that's a 3.0 on the stink scale.

 

Check under the "Find..." area on every cache page.

 

It seems like I have to follow two different sites and pay two different membership fees for what appears to be less quality.

 

You don't even pay for geocaching. To be complaining about paying at all is kinda silly, ain't it? Besides it is a Groundspeak Premium Membership, not a Geocaching membership, It covers all the sites. And quite a bargain I might add.

 

BTW: I work closely with software developers and am thoroughly familiar with what the word beta means. It would be a big mistake to assume that categories are just a beta phase thing. They seem to be here to stay.  With any luck they might become a secondary feature, rather than the main organizational thrust.  But it doesn't look like there's any sentiment toward that.

 

Unfortunately I don't know what you mean here. Please explain.

 

If I have missed that in the many forum posts, than I appologize.  I will still participate in GC.com, though I miss very much the virtual caches that have dissappeared from my search lists.

 

The virtuals are still listed.

Share this post


Link to post
not being able to see all nearby waymarks on one search page really stinks.

you can. try searching using origin, rather than postal code, maybe? or, maybe no one has listed any locally. if this is the case, try going out and listing some of your own waymarks.

 

not being able to search via keywords really-and-a-half stinks.  That's (1.5 stinks)

yeah, what? i go to the directory link and do a keyword search for "phone," for example, and i get four hits. maybe you're searching for something that doesn't exist yet? in fact, the search seems to be pretty broad. i put in the word "head" and got 9 hits. what keyword did you try?

 

Check under the "Find..." area on every cache page.

sweet! hadn't noticed that. thanks!

 

It seems like I have to follow two different sites and pay two different membership fees for what appears to be less quality.

yep, two different sites, one membership fee if you want ALL the features, or just free if you decide not to pay. pretty sweet deal, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Like this?

 

Where is the link to do that kind of search?

not being able to post a new waymark unless it fits an existing category really really stinks.

True. The idea is to come up with new categories, create them and have others contribute.

That's precisely the idea that I think is so limiting. It seems like an artificial impositon. There's nothing wrong with categorizing them for easy filtering by category. But requiring a category for each type of waymark before it can be created is annoying.

and, perhaps on a different subject...

not being able to see waymarks and caches on the same listing as it used to be at

gc.com REALLY REALLY REALLY stinks. that's a 3.0 on the stink scale.

Check under the "Find..." area on every cache page.

That's nifty in it's own right, but not at all the same as seeing them in the same search listing. This is simply inconvenient. Why not offer a seperate page that lists both waymarks and caches on one list for those of us who'd prefer it?

It seems like I have to follow two different sites and pay two different membership fees for what appears to be less quality.

You don't even pay for geocaching. To be complaining about paying at all is kinda silly, ain't it? Besides it is a Groundspeak Premium Membership, not a Geocaching membership, It covers all the sites. And quite a bargain I might add.

Good. I misunderstood about only one membership being necessary. But the part is still very valid about why I would sign up for one when I see the quality of service suddenly going down just when I was getting interested.

BTW: I work closely with software developers and am thoroughly familiar with what the word beta means. It would be a big mistake to assume that categories are just a beta phase thing. They seem to be here to stay.  With any luck they might become a secondary feature, rather than the main organizational thrust.  But it doesn't look like there's any sentiment toward that.

Unfortunately I don't know what you mean here. Please explain.

I mean only that "beta" seems to be the reason for everything when discussing these issues in forums. But the emphasis on categories above all other means of organizing/searching does not seem to be something that has anything to do with this site being beta.

If I have missed that in the many forum posts, than I appologize.  I will still participate in GC.com, though I miss very much the virtual caches that have dissappeared from my search lists.

The virtuals are still listed.

 

Only the grandfatherd ones.

 

Look, I'm not trying to be persnickety here. I'm sorry if I sounded confrontational in my original post. frustration with suddenly discovering that I couldn't place the virtual that I was about to attempt. So I looked on Waymarking.com and thought I could do it there. But guess what? Under the current rules, I can't. Not without paying up (fair enough I suppose) and then creating a category and getting it approved first, then having it on a new site that can't be searched very well or having it seen along with the cache listings on GC, which is, I think, where they belong...

 

I'm just telling you how this is all perceived by one person, (me). And probably by some others. You can discount that if you want, but you might want to consider it constructive input. The issues I have mentioned are the reasons that I'm more excited about some other sources of non-traditional caches, even if there are not as many at the moment.

 

For example, You may post links in the forum to show me that I'm completely wrong on one type of search that apparently can be done, but that's not the same as making those searches as obviously and readily available on the site as they are in GC.com. You may be better off to make those links more apparent on the site, rather than simply trying to counter the arguments of those who are unhappy and dismissing them. That's what constructive criticism is all about.

 

making the unhappy people happy is what makes the unhappy people pay for premium memberships.

 

thanks for your time, and for this forum to have said my piece.

 

headybrew

Share this post


Link to post
I'm sorry if I sounded confrontational in my original post. frustration with suddenly discovering that I couldn't place the virtual that I was about to attempt. So I looked on Waymarking.com and thought I could do it there. But guess what? Under the current rules, I can't.

Under the previous rules the chances are you wouldn't have been able to place your virtual either. The requirement was that virtual caches had to have some unique or extrordinary quality that sets them apart, not just that you couldn't place a physical cache there. Because of this requirement 99% of virtuals submitted were turned down. Sure you could appeal on the forum but I doubt that any appeals were sucessful in the last year. Think of categories as the new version of the unique/extrordinary requirement. Your waymark must fit in one of the existing categories - if not it can't be a waymark anymore than an ordinary object could be a virtual. However, now instead of an appeal that won't be successful, you can do something. You can post a suggestion for a new category on the forum. If you get enough people who are also interested in this category then it can become a new subcategory. The exact details - how many people you need to get interested, who among the interested people own/manage the category, and so forth are still being worked out and discussed here. In the end, Waymarking will make it easier for people to create and share interesting locations. The new definition of interesting is not that the volunteer review goes "Wow" when he or she reads your description but instead that your waymark fits into a category that has some number of people who agree that the category is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm sorry if I sounded confrontational in my original post.  frustration with suddenly discovering that I couldn't place the virtual that I was about to attempt.  So I looked on Waymarking.com and thought I could do it there. But guess what? Under the current rules, I can't.

Under the previous rules the chances are you wouldn't have been able to place your virtual either. The requirement was that virtual caches had to have some unique or extrordinary quality that sets them apart, not just that you couldn't place a physical cache there. Because of this requirement 99% of virtuals submitted were turned down. Sure you could appeal on the forum but I doubt that any appeals were sucessful in the last year. Think of categories as the new version of the unique/extrordinary requirement. Your waymark must fit in one of the existing categories - if not it can't be a waymark anymore than an ordinary object could be a virtual. However, now instead of an appeal that won't be successful, you can do something. You can post a suggestion for a new category on the forum. If you get enough people who are also interested in this category then it can become a new subcategory. The exact details - how many people you need to get interested, who among the interested people own/manage the category, and so forth are still being worked out and discussed here. In the end, Waymarking will make it easier for people to create and share interesting locations. The new definition of interesting is not that the volunteer review goes "Wow" when he or she reads your description but instead that your waymark fits into a category that has some number of people who agree that the category is interesting.

Okay, fair enough.

 

When I become interested in dealing with that much hassle, I'll do my tax returns. It sounds like more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
When I become interested in dealing with that much hassle, I'll do my tax returns. It sounds like more fun.

<_<

Share this post


Link to post

My view to resolve what I see as a usability problem (that is, too many categories to specific search criteria) would be to add a required field to broadly classify the Waymarker.

 

My guess at a few such broad classifications would be:

Historical, Geological, FunFacts, sea …etc.

Adding an "adult" classification might be in order as well. This would then allow the account holder to accept or deny items in this classification.

 

I’m guessing 7 to 10 broad classifications could be conceived where the Waymarker originator would choose from. The rest of the way Waymarking is outlined would not have to change. Also, I would allow the originator to select 1 or 2 classifications.

 

If I were a history buff and visiting some location due to work travel:

Example1: a simple search on “Historical” would be exactly what I want.

Example2: but I SCUBA dive, so a search on “Historical” and “Sea” may turn up submerged wrecks or other Historical items which occurred in or near the Ocean, Lake, or river near by.

 

If I were into “Harry Potter” I would assume that would be under “FunFacts” and then use the rules outlined as is in Waymarking currently.

 

Likewise someone searching for a Waymarker could opt not to use the select broad classifications and use the rules as currently outlined in Waymarking.

 

By restricting the number of classifications to a very select few the system gains a lot more flexibility and user friendliness while maintaining both the very specific topic search while allowing the random “finds” we experience in Geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
When I become interested in dealing with that much hassle, I'll do my tax returns. It sounds like more fun.

Oh. no. Please don't go. Please. We need more of you. Really.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh. no. Please don't go. Please. We need more of you. Really.

I see from the last 2 posts that cache_venturers is trying hard to think up ways to make more users happy, and that Jeremy, our intrepid leader, is trying hard to be sarcastic and make anybody who is unhappy go away.

 

What more needs to be said?

 

headybrew

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...