Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Enchanted Shadow

A Plead For Pq Limit Consolidation

Recommended Posts

It has been requested numerous times by various users that the PQ limits be increased. While I wholeheartedly agree with these users that it would **really** be nice if the PQ limits were increased, this message is not about that.

 

What I would like is to consolidate the limits, in the interest of eliminating the nightmare that some users have to go through.

 

Short Summary:

 

1. Currently, users are limited to a maximum of 5 PQs per day and 500 results per PQ.

 

2. I would request that the 500 results per PQ limit be eliminated, and be replaced simply with 2500 results per day.

 

The reason for this is that for users who are trying to (for example) get a radius search in a dense area, it's an absolute NIGHTMARE to manage how to pull this off with the current limits (and let's not even get into what it takes to re-work everything if ONE of those PQs grows above 500). If you simply changed the limits to a max of 2500 results per day, than that would greatly simplify things for the more complicated multiple-PQ setups.

 

If you're concerned about the performance issues of additional PQs per day, regardless of the number of results, than simply change the limits to 2500 results per day **AND** no more than 5 PQs per day.

 

Jeremy, unless and until you increase the PQ limits in general (which I would still LOVE to see happen), would this at least be an acceptable compromise to make life easier for people using multiple-PQ sets?

Share this post


Link to post

I do it by date and the only fear that I have after that is the PQ will shrink rather than grow. The only PQ that ends up growing then, is the current hides PQ until it reaches 500, then I start a new PQ to be the current caches query.

 

Either way you look at it, you will always have a PQ that's going to grow and soon enough 2500 won't be enough.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I do it by date and the only fear that I have after that is the PQ will shrink rather than grow. The only PQ that ends up growing then, is the current hides PQ until it reaches 500, then I start a new PQ to be the current caches query.

 

Either way you look at it, you will always have a PQ that's going to grow and soon enough 2500 won't be enough.

 

 

Oh, absolutely, which is why I am completely in favor of increasing the limits in general.

 

However, in order to get a 100 mile radius around a dense area, I currently need 15 PQs to make it work. And two of those just max'd out, which means it's going to take 17 after I've spent three hours re-sorting everything out.

 

It would be much simpler if I could consolidate fifteen PQs into three, don't you think? :)

Share this post


Link to post

Agree with the sentiment, but most people will simply type in 2500 as their max caches... much more server load. 500 is ample a maximum for each PQ, and those who are REALLY bothered will get 2500 anyway..not just everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I do it by date and the only fear that I have after that is the PQ will shrink rather than grow. The only PQ that ends up growing then, is the current hides PQ until it reaches 500, then I start a new PQ to be the current caches query.

 

Either way you look at it, you will always have a PQ that's going to grow and soon enough 2500 won't be enough.

 

 

Oh, absolutely, which is why I am completely in favor of increasing the limits in general.

 

However, in order to get a 100 mile radius around a dense area, I currently need 15 PQs to make it work. And two of those just max'd out, which means it's going to take 17 after I've spent three hours re-sorting everything out.

 

It would be much simpler if I could consolidate fifteen PQs into three, don't you think? :)

 

Sounds like you are not dividing up by placed date...if you were (as TotemLake mentioned) only the PQ for the most recent hides could ever max out.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Agree with the sentiment, but most people will simply type in 2500 as their max caches... much more server load. 500 is ample a maximum for each PQ, and those who are REALLY bothered will get 2500 anyway..not just everyone.

 

 

That may be true. However, that doesn't change the fact that as a business, Groundspeak needs to cater to the needs of its customers. Now, I could see your argument holding sway if we were talking about one of the services being offered to non-paying users. But this particular service is only supplied to *paying* customers.

 

And I am not the only paying customer who uses multiple-PQ sets. Personally, I think it's horrific, what I have to go through in order to create and maintain large multi-PQ sets. I was not exaggerating before when I said that every time I have to redo a set because one of the component PQs max'd out, it takes me *hours*.

 

As a paying customer, I don't think I should have to do that. And rather than dragging out the regular argument that PQ limits should be removed or increased significantly, I thought I would try for a compromise, and ask for a restructuring of the *current* limits.

 

While you might be correct that it *may* lead to *some* additional load, I think that it's more than fair given what some users have to go through to dance around the current limitations.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sounds like you are not dividing up by placed date...if you were (as TotemLake mentioned) only the PQ for the most recent hides could ever max out.

 

 

Hmm. That may work as a temporary measure, I have to try it out. Right now, my multi-PQ sets are divided up by Difficulty and Terrain combinations. It's possible that doing it by date may at least reduce the extreme headache I have now.

 

That being said, I think it would still be easier to manage three PQs as opposed to fifteen. :)

Share this post


Link to post

While in theory it sounds good, I don't think it would be a very good idea. As has been stated previously, the load on servers would be increased quite a bit, as most users would just put in 2500 as number of caches to retrieve and leave it at that.

 

You still haven't made it clear why it takes you hours to resplice up all of the data. The only query that should need changing is the most recent one, and the creation of the new one.

 

How are you spliting up the queries? We may be paying members, but not all paying members would agree that the extra server load is worth the extra convenience for the few (I for one don't think its worth it).

 

Here is a stupid aside... Why do you need so many caches, up to date all the time? Are you likely to be traveling 100 miles, to actually need all those caches? Or is it just a 'I like to have a big database' thing. If you don't regularly travel within that 100 mile radius, why do you need all the most up to date cache information all the time?

 

I'm planning a trip to a fairly cache dense area in the next couple of weeks, what I did was download all the caches I could with one pocket query around my hotel. That got me a fair ol' distance out from the hotel, far more caches than I stand the remotest chance of picking up during my trip.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sounds like you are not dividing up by placed date...if you were (as TotemLake mentioned) only the PQ for the most recent hides could ever max out.

 

 

Hmm. That may work as a temporary measure, I have to try it out. Right now, my multi-PQ sets are divided up by Difficulty and Terrain combinations. It's possible that doing it by date may at least reduce the extreme headache I have now.

 

That being said, I think it would still be easier to manage three PQs as opposed to fifteen. :)

 

Ack! yep parsing it up by date will really make things a lot less of a hassle.

Share this post


Link to post

 

While in theory it sounds good, I don't think it would be a very good idea. As has been stated previously, the load on servers would be increased quite a bit, as most users would just put in 2500 as number of caches to retrieve and leave it at that.

 

You still haven't made it clear why it takes you hours to resplice up all of the data. The only query that should need changing is the most recent one, and the creation of the new one.

 

How are you spliting up the queries? We may be paying members, but not all paying members would agree that the extra server load is worth the extra convenience for the few (I for one don't think its worth it).

 

 

 

As I said earlier, I have it currently split up by Difficulty/Terrain combinations. I acknowledged the possibility that changing to a date-based system might help alleviate the work, but I have to try it before I know for certain.

 

 

 

Here is a stupid aside... Why do you need so many caches, up to date all the time? Are you likely to be traveling 100 miles, to actually need all those caches? Or is it just a 'I like to have a big database' thing. If you don't regularly travel within that 100 mile radius, why do you need all the most up to date cache information all the time?

 

I'm planning a trip to a fairly cache dense area in the next couple of weeks, what I did was download all the caches I could with one pocket query around my hotel. That got me a fair ol' distance out from the hotel, far more caches than I stand the remotest chance of picking up during my trip.

 

 

<sigh> Please don't take this the wrong way, and please don't take my response as overly defensive, but I seem to get in this argument every time I discuss my PQ useage.

 

Let me try to summarize the final set of items that every argument ends up distilling down to:

 

1. Not everyone Geocaches in the same way, and not everyone uses PQs in the same way.

 

2. Just because someone does it differently does not mean that it is wrong.

 

3. People have every right to cache in a manner different than you ("you" meaning generically, not you specifically).

 

 

Now, that being said, I'll give you *some* of the specifics that apply to me:

 

1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

 

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

 

3. I often do not have internet access when I travel.

 

In light of those items, I need a fairly comprehensive database available to me on my own system/laptop/gps. And given how often caches can change, or be archived, or be muggled, as well as how often one particular finder's log will make the difference between finding a cache or not, I make it standard procedure for my database to always be up to date.

 

I hope that helps you to understand why I do what I do, and I hope this thread doesn't become another nightmare of users screaming "but *I* don't need that many caches downloaded, so there's no possible reason that anyone *else* would!"

 

Again, please don't take this personally, it's just not a new experience for me. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Actually ... how about this idea:

 

1. Maximum of 5 (or some reasonable number) PQ's per day.

 

2. All PQ's must be limited by one of two alternative restrictions of either a maximum number of caches returned (i.e. 500) -OR- a maximum search radius (i.e. 50 miles). Perhaps the latter has some reasonable upper limit much greater than the first option on the number returned (like maybe 5000) just so the XML from the PQ doesn't get too big to be delivered by email.

 

This would allow those in cache dense areas to get everything within a reasonable distance of their target caching areas by using the mileage limitation and would allows those in cache light areas to get a fixed number of caches even though some may be quite distant.

 

I know if I had the mileage option, it would allow me to reduce my number of PQ's since I wouldn't have to have seperate ones for "found" vs "not found" caches (plus having over 500 finds myself, I now have two queries for that to divide up that query by type).

 

In general, when I'm going somewhere, I want everything within a certain radius of where I'm going.

Edited by Lasagna

Share this post


Link to post

I parse it by date placed and let it hit the whole state. Then I just keep watch on the most current file until it maxes out at 500. If I miss that, I also have caches placed within the last week. I do all this by State rather than by a radius.

 

As you can tell by numbers, I'm not about a lot of finds, but I do go after caches when the opportunity arises. So it is nice to have the info on hand and parsed out at a moment's notice with the third party software and peripherals.

Share this post


Link to post

There's no plans to adjust the way Pocket Queries are handled at this time. Instead we have been concentrating on applications that get you access in real time data via a mobile phone. As TotemLake has indicated you can get the information you need today by being creative with how your pocket queries are generated.

Share this post


Link to post

 

While in theory it sounds good, I don't think it would be a very good idea. As has been stated previously, the load on servers would be increased quite a bit, as most users would just put in 2500 as number of caches to retrieve and leave it at that.

 

You still haven't made it clear why it takes you hours to resplice up all of the data. The only query that should need changing is the most recent one, and the creation of the new one.

 

How are you spliting up the queries? We may be paying members, but not all paying members would agree that the extra server load is worth the extra convenience for the few (I for one don't think its worth it).

 

 

 

As I said earlier, I have it currently split up by Difficulty/Terrain combinations. I acknowledged the possibility that changing to a date-based system might help alleviate the work, but I have to try it before I know for certain.

 

Yeah, your reply came while I was typing mine. (I tend to take a long time while replying). As per my next message, yep date based should really help. I've done it myself a couple of times when I needed all the caches in Alberta. The hardest part was finding the exact cutoff date to get as close as possible to 500 caches.

 

 

Here is a stupid aside... Why do you need so many caches, up to date all the time? Are you likely to be traveling 100 miles, to actually need all those caches? Or is it just a 'I like to have a big database' thing. If you don't regularly travel within that 100 mile radius, why do you need all the most up to date cache information all the time?

 

I'm planning a trip to a fairly cache dense area in the next couple of weeks, what I did was download all the caches I could with one pocket query around my hotel. That got me a fair ol' distance out from the hotel, far more caches than I stand the remotest chance of picking up during my trip.

 

 

<sigh> Please don't take this the wrong way, and please don't take my response as overly defensive, but I seem to get in this argument every time I discuss my PQ useage.

 

What I was trying to find out, if is you just wanted a big offline database (which most people who use this many pocket queries turn out to do), or if you actually used the data in such a way that would really require you to have this database. (this is why it was phrased as a question, not a statement).

 

Let me try to summarize the final set of items that every argument ends up distilling down to:

 

1. Not everyone Geocaches in the same way, and not everyone uses PQs in the same way.

 

2. Just because someone does it differently does not mean that it is wrong.

 

But it may put an inordinate load on the server, which may be a detriment to other cachers. Sure, just you doing it doesn't, but multiply by 100000 or so, and the problem escalates.

 

3. People have every right to cache in a manner different than you ("you" meaning generically, not you specifically).

 

Not if the way you want to cache messes up the way I cache you don't. I'm not saying you can't maintain a large offline database, I'm just saying that the proposed way of changing the system might/would have negative effects on my way and many other peoples way of using pocket queries.

 

Now, that being said, I'll give you *some* of the specifics that apply to me:

 

1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

 

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

 

Sounds like you *might* have a need beyond just 'I want a big offline database', which is what most of these arguments boil down to. But I was wondering, how much warning do you typically have? An hour? That is more than enough time to generate a fresh pocket query of an area of interest.

 

I hope that helps you to understand why I do what I do, and I hope this thread doesn't become another nightmare of users screaming "but *I* don't need that many caches downloaded, so there's no possible reason that anyone *else* would!"

 

Never said there aren't legitimate reasons for wanting/needing many caches downloaded (for example, a long distance truck driver who enjoys the a cache while on a break somewhere. Even with a known destination, and a known route, they could easily have to download a *huge* number of caches very regularly to have to keep their needed database up to date.

 

Again, please don't take this personally, it's just not a new experience for me. :wub:

 

Nope not taking it personally, just trying to offer alternative possibilities, and hopefully demonstrating how your proposed solution to the problem is likely to raise more problems for other people. (I for one would probably set the value to 2500, well just because I could, it would be nice to have that many caches downloaded, it *might* be useful, but with the current solution, I can't be bothered, and this is a good thing)

Share this post


Link to post

There's no plans to adjust the way Pocket Queries are handled at this time. Instead we have been concentrating on applications that get you access in real time data via a mobile phone. As TotemLake has indicated you can get the information you need today by being creative with how your pocket queries are generated.

 

I suspect you can talk to cingular, verizon, etc... they'll probably pay you money to help people use up their bandwidth. They charge amazing rates for data access, I think if you could convience them you're about it increase demand they'd shell out some cash to ya or something.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a stupid aside... Why do you need so many caches, up to date all the time? Are you likely to be traveling 100 miles, to actually need all those caches? Or is it just a 'I like to have a big database' thing. If you don't regularly travel within that 100 mile radius, why do you need all the most up to date cache information all the time?

 

Can we please stop with such comments. The only ppl who NEED cache data is Jeremy and the staff of Groundspeak because they make there livings using it. For the rest of us caching is our hobby, we don't need it but like having it. If it makes someone happy having the data for the caches in there home territory why not.

Share this post


Link to post

There's no plans to adjust the way Pocket Queries are handled at this time. Instead we have been concentrating on applications that get you access in real time data via a mobile phone. As TotemLake has indicated you can get the information you need today by being creative with how your pocket queries are generated.

 

Certainly a slimmed down GC access to the data real time will be helpful (and I already do this with my PPC phone in the field for caches where I need more info than I can get loaded from my GSAK download such as the additional logs), but there are a few concerns that I see:

 

1. Search speed and cache location (GC is not the best at organizing how caches in my area are found). When searching by name (as is often the case), there is no way of limiting the search area so that I only see stuff that's a potential match NEARBY my home location. If I search for some cache with the name "white" for example in the title, I'll get things from all over the country. GSAK at least lets me download only local data (or filter it). So, I would see that as a feature that would be needed for the mobile aspect. The problem is finding an exact match for a cache name can often be difficult (particularly remember exact spelling or punctuation).

 

2. Coverage. Quite a number of caches are deep in the woods or along trails where Cell Signals don't reach. Some way of caching the data locally on the device will always be needed so you don't find yourself at the cache GZ with no way to pull the writeup because you don't have any bars on your GPRS connection.

 

3. Download speed. Looking stuff up today is quite painful compared to the "double click" and read it of the offline browser tools. This will likely be your biggest challenge.

 

I'm thinking some combination of an online/offline toolset that lets you get a query set locally loaded onto your phone (for quick and offline access) with the ability to quickly find stuff you don't have offline via GC and the ability to log from the field, etc. would be interesting indeed. Some kind of "Cachemate" like tool thats a local PPC application that interfaces with the backend GC database to extract (and cache locally as accessed or "pretagged") to the unit and then renders on demand would be really really cool.

Edited by Lasagna

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect you can talk to cingular, verizon, etc... they'll probably pay you money to help people use up their bandwidth. They charge amazing rates for data access, I think if you could convience them you're about it increase demand they'd shell out some cash to ya or something.

 

Weird. I'm seeing the exact opposite of most carriers. More often than not they are providing unlimited bandwidth deals and are moving away from transaction fees.

 

Bonus Mobile, for example, is like $.10 a day and only charges you if you use the service that day.

Share this post


Link to post

I am completely bewildered by the way some of the users (customers) think that they deserve to have PQs and other features work exactly like they want.

Have you ever tried to go to McDonalds and ask for a gallon of Coke. They might give you 4 32 oz ones, but will probably be too confused to know how to deal with it. Have you ever gone to Sears and asked for a 65 in lawnmower....you wont get it Have you ever gone to Best Buy and asked for a 288 in TV ... you wont get it. Why do so many users think they should get everything they ask for here.

 

I applaud Jeremy for a job well done with only a portion of users paying for the services he gives us.

 

C'mon folks lets use the tools we have and go on from there. Sure put requests into a wish list, but lets not continue bit**ing about minor issues when we could be out finding caches.

 

GOOD JOB Jeremy

 

Thanks for the Adventurers

Gary and Mary

Share this post


Link to post

 

2. Just because someone does it differently does not mean that it is wrong.

 

But it may put an inordinate load on the server, which may be a detriment to other cachers. Sure, just you doing it doesn't, but multiply by 100000 or so, and the problem escalates.

 

 

When it comes to web sites, that is not the users' problem. That is the hoster's problem. You're not going to see Google issuing a statement asking if people wouldn't mind not searching quite as much.

 

 

3. People have every right to cache in a manner different than you ("you" meaning generically, not you specifically).

 

Not if the way you want to cache messes up the way I cache you don't. I'm not saying you can't maintain a large offline database, I'm just saying that the proposed way of changing the system might/would have negative effects on my way and many other peoples way of using pocket queries.

 

 

And what if I said that the way you cache messes up the way I cache because you keep getting FTFs, and I don't? Does that mean that I have the right to say that you can't cache in the manner of your choosing? Absolutely not.

 

So, I'm sorry, but even under circumstances where one person's chosen method of caching might affect you, that does not *necessarily* mean that they still don't have the right to cache in the manner of their choosing.

 

 

Sounds like you *might* have a need beyond just 'I want a big offline database', which is what most of these arguments boil down to. But I was wondering, how much warning do you typically have? An hour? That is more than enough time to generate a fresh pocket query of an area of interest.

 

 

No, I don't necessarily have any warning at all. So that is not an option for me.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am completely bewildered by the way some of the users (customers) think that they deserve to have PQs and other features work exactly like they want.

Have you ever tried to go to McDonalds and ask for a gallon of Coke. They might give you 4 32 oz ones, but will probably be too confused to know how to deal with it. Have you ever gone to Sears and asked for a 65 in lawnmower....you wont get it Have you ever gone to Best Buy and asked for a 288 in TV ... you wont get it. Why do so many users think they should get everything they ask for here.

 

I applaud Jeremy for a job well done with only a portion of users paying for the services he gives us.

 

C'mon folks lets use the tools we have and go on from there. Sure put requests into a wish list, but lets not continue bit**ing about minor issues when we could be out finding caches.

 

GOOD JOB Jeremy

 

Thanks for the Adventurers

Gary and Mary

 

 

Of course you're absolutely correct, because as everyone knows, the customer has no rights, no voice, and their needs are never to be considered. Obviously, when customers have concerns, they are to be ignored - everyone knows this. Never let customers tell you that you are not providing the services and goods that they want or need, after all, who do they think they are "bit**ing" about things you aren't doing right? It's not like they're the ones paying your salary, right? Hmm... moving on...

 

You should always follow the examples of companies who knew how to treat their customers as poorly as those "bit**ing" little buggers deserve, like The Wiz! Remember them? Yeah, they knew how to do it right. It didn't matter how poorly they treated their customers, because they knew there were always ten more behind them! Hey, what happened to them? Oh, yeah, they went under because other chains sprouted up that actually provided *good* customer service, and all their prior poorly treated customers flocked to them. Can you believe that? It must have been some sort of freak accident.

 

So just keep stepping on everyone who tries to say that they have needs different than yours. After all, your opinion is the only one that matters, right?

Share this post


Link to post

 

When it comes to web sites, that is not the users' problem. That is the hoster's problem. You're not going to see Google issuing a statement asking if people wouldn't mind not searching quite as much.

 

 

Try asking for a disconnected pocket google of their search index for your use. They may say yes. They are, like, geniuses and stuff so you never know.

 

It's a poor analogy. I don't know why you continue to ignore users that give you ways to get the information you want now.

Share this post


Link to post

So just keep stepping on everyone who tries to say that they have needs different than yours. After all, your opinion is the only one that matters, right?

 

No. Apparently yours is.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Try asking for a disconnected pocket google of their search index for your use. They may say yes. They are, like, geniuses and stuff so you never know.

 

It's a poor analogy. I don't know why you continue to ignore users that give you ways to get the information you want now.

 

 

To your first point, actually *yours* is the poor analogy. Offering a disconnected pocket google of their search index is not normally a service they offer. Whereas, the equivalent, in the form of PQs *is* a service that your customers are paying for.

 

To your second point, I acknowledged the advice I was given, and admitted that it might help. How is that ignoring anyone?

Edited by Enchanted Shadow

Share this post


Link to post

 

So just keep stepping on everyone who tries to say that they have needs different than yours. After all, your opinion is the only one that matters, right?

 

No. Apparently yours is.

 

 

As usual, Jeremy, your customer service and understanding of your customers is lacking.

 

I *never* at any point indicated that I thought my opinion should be the only one that matters. What I am constantly fighting for, however, is the right to have my opinion be ONE of the ones that matter.

 

You and many other users are in the habit of stomping on users who do things differently than you. You *could* listen to them and treat them like their opinion matters to you, but you don't. And that's not saying that you should cater to every whim, but what constantly seems to escape you is that it's possible to say no politely, kindly, and with an explaination. And more to the point, to say no only AFTER you have given the opinion of your customers the respect and consideration they are due.

 

To have this kind of behavior coming from other users is bad enough, but from management? You need to get some training in Customer Service. And that is not a personal attack, but an honest opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

To have this kind of behavior coming from other users is bad enough, but from management? You need to get some training in Customer Service. And that is not a personal attack, but an honest opinion.

 

If you would like to speak with Customer Service please write us at contact@geocaching.com and we'll be happy to assist you!

 

Warm regards,

 

Nate

Groundspeak Inc.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Of course you're absolutely correct, because as everyone knows, the customer has no rights, no voice, and their needs are never to be considered. Obviously, when customers have concerns, they are to be ignored - everyone knows this. Never let customers tell you that you are not providing the services and goods that they want or need, after all, who do they think they are "bit**ing" about things you aren't doing right? It's not like they're the ones paying your salary, right? Hmm... moving on...

 

You should always follow the examples of companies who knew how to treat their customers as poorly as those "bit**ing" little buggers deserve, like The Wiz! Remember them? Yeah, they knew how to do it right. It didn't matter how poorly they treated their customers, because they knew there were always ten more behind them! Hey, what happened to them? Oh, yeah, they went under because other chains sprouted up that actually provided *good* customer service, and all their prior poorly treated customers flocked to them. Can you believe that? It must have been some sort of freak accident.

 

So just keep stepping on everyone who tries to say that they have needs different than yours. After all, your opinion is the only one that matters, right?

 

I am reminded of a quote "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one" This is how most companies run there customer service. You have to balance what you can give. If only a few want something and to give it to them would cause issue with a greater majority then the few are left to work with what they have.

 

I also am reminded of the hundred of customer service companies that pass that customer service on to the customer with higher prices. I am current quite comfortable with the price.

Share this post


Link to post

 

So just keep stepping on everyone who tries to say that they have needs different than yours. After all, your opinion is the only one that matters, right?

 

No. Apparently yours is.

 

 

As usual, Jeremy, your customer service and understanding of your customers is lacking.

 

 

You know you're right. From now on I will treat you with excellent customer service instead of complete honesty about our strategy and planning for new features that benefit the broader geocaching community. So here you go.

 

Enchanted Shadow,

 

Thanks for your post! At Groundspeak we appreciate the feedback we receive from geocachers around the world, and sincerely thank you for your request regarding improvements to our Pocket Query features. We'll pass on your information to our technical department who will consider your ideas as part of future features on Geocaching.com.

 

Thanks again and happy Geocaching!

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you would like to speak with Customer Service please write us at contact@geocaching.com and we'll be happy to assist you!

 

Warm regards,

 

Nate

Groundspeak Inc.

 

 

Thank you OpinioNate.

 

However, my understanding is that Jeremy is the top of the Groundspeak food chain. Am I wrong? Because if not, than I honestly don't see how speaking with Customer Service will achieve anything. Please let me know if I am incorrect about any of this.

Share this post


Link to post

Need?????

 

Sounds like a "want" to me.

 

Can't imagine any set of circumstances that would absolutely require access to a few thousand caches. Use the PQ to find all the 1/1 micros - have fun finding those. Then shoot for 1/1 regulars. As you find and ignore caches the numbers in your PQ's will fall.

 

Heck it would be nice to carry the entire database with me wherever I go but I can take 10 minutes to plan a bit.

 

And I will use the $3 argument. For $3 a month - you pay for 5 PQs a day limited to 2500 total per day. If you want more - pay more (addtional Account names). I won't sell you a 72" LCD HDTV for the price of a 13" B&W model. Even if you are my customer and that is what you want. (need).

Edited by StarBrand

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am reminded of a quote "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one"

 

 

However, the more accurate version of that quote is that the needs of the many do not necessarily outweight the needs of the few or the one. Otherwise, think about where that leaves civil rights. :blink:

 

 

This is how most companies run there customer service. You have to balance what you can give. If only a few want something and to give it to them would cause issue with a greater majority then the few are left to work with what they have.

 

 

I completely understand that point of view. I really do. My biggest complaint is not that some users aren't getting what they're asking for, it's how their concerns, needs, and desires are being summarily dismissed, and more generally, how they are being treated.

Share this post


Link to post

 

You know you're right. From now on I will treat you with excellent customer service instead of complete honesty about our strategy and planning for new features that benefit the broader geocaching community. So here you go.

 

Enchanted Shadow,

 

Thanks for your post! At Groundspeak we appreciate the feedback we receive from geocachers around the world, and sincerely thank you for your request regarding improvements to our Pocket Query features. We'll pass on your information to our technical department who will consider your ideas as part of future features on Geocaching.com.

 

Thanks again and happy Geocaching!

 

 

A few points to be made here:

 

1. Minus the lack of sincerity and form-letter approach, that wouldn't have been a bad response.

 

2. Being honest and being kind are not mutually exclusive.

 

3. People aren't looking for superficial customer service. Saying you'll take something under consideration, while you're throwing out the proposal under the desk with nary a thought doesn't do anyone any good.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Need?????

 

Sounds like a "want" to me.

 

Can't imagine any set of circumstances that would absolutely require access to a few thousand caches. Use the PQ to find all the 1/1 micros - have fun finding those. Then shoot for 1/1 regulars. As you find and ignore caches the numbers in your PQ's will fall.

 

Heck it would be nice to carry the entire database with me wherever I go but I can take 10 minutes to plan a bit.

 

 

StarBrand, as I've tried to convey previously, the way *you* might do things does not necessarily work for everyone else. Just because *you* can't imagine any set of circumstances that would require what I do, doesn't mean they don't exist. And if you read what I posted about how I cache, you might be able to rely on a logical set of facts, instead of your imagination.

 

How I use PQs are *my* way of planning. And they suit *my* needs. You want to take 10 minutes to plan? Go right ahead. I don't always have those 10 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post

 

You know you're right. From now on I will treat you with excellent customer service instead of complete honesty about our strategy and planning for new features that benefit the broader geocaching community. So here you go.

 

Enchanted Shadow,

 

Thanks for your post! At Groundspeak we appreciate the feedback we receive from geocachers around the world, and sincerely thank you for your request regarding improvements to our Pocket Query features. We'll pass on your information to our technical department who will consider your ideas as part of future features on Geocaching.com.

 

Thanks again and happy Geocaching!

 

 

A few points to be made here:

 

1. Minus the lack of sincerity and form-letter approach, that wouldn't have been a bad response.

 

 

I'm completely sincere. I appreciate feedback, good or bad. Receiving feedback at all is in my opinion a badge of honor. It wasn't even a form letter. I didn't copy and paste it from anywhere.

 

2. Being honest and being kind are not mutually exclusive.

 

I'm serious here. I appreciate the feedback and will consider it.

 

3. People aren't looking for superficial customer service. Saying you'll take something under consideration, while you're throwing out the proposal under the desk with nary a thought doesn't do anyone any good.

 

It wasn't superficial. As you said I am at the top of the food chain. There aren't many places I know of where the owner of the company provides you with direct customer service. And I sincerely appreciate all the feedback I get.

 

In my first response in my thread I didn't dismiss your recommendation outright. I just noted that it wasn't the big priority of the moment so not to expect anything to happen in the near term. I also pointed out that recommendations have been made to do what you want to do.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you want at this point other than your needs met now. I'm afraid we can't accomodate the needs of everyone now. But I appreciate the feedback.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok - lets use logic - re-read this thread.

 

Now - using logic - you want something that cannot and will not be delivered to you (anytime soon). Stated clearly.

 

Therefore - you cannot cache the "way you want".

 

Yet you continue to insist that you have to.

 

You have not yet defined clearly (to me) exactly why you NEED all these caches at your disposal. You have expressed that you WANT them but not NEED.

 

BTW - I think I have pretty darn good and expansive imagination........

Edited by StarBrand

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm completely sincere. I appreciate feedback, good or bad. Receiving feedback at all is in my opinion a badge of honor. It wasn't even a form letter. I didn't copy and paste it from anywhere.

 

2. Being honest and being kind are not mutually exclusive.

 

I'm serious here. I appreciate the feedback and will consider it.

 

 

You realize that it's hard to believe that when you said earlier that you would treat me with excellent customer service *instead* of complete honesty... :blink:

 

 

In my first response in my thread I didn't dismiss your recommendation outright. I just noted that it wasn't the big priority of the moment so not to expect anything to happen in the near term. I also pointed out that recommendations have been made to do what you want to do.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you want at this point other than your needs met now. I'm afraid we can't accomodate the needs of everyone now. But I appreciate the feedback.

 

 

Insofar as the technical nature of my initial inquiry, the suggestion made by a few others to try sorting by date is a possible partial remedy. I will try that and see if it reduces the headache of management I have to go through now. That is sufficient for now.

 

Any further conversation in this thread is going to be in response to users who can't possibly understand how someone could do things differently than they do, and general conversation relating to business/CS practices.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm completely sincere. I appreciate feedback, good or bad. Receiving feedback at all is in my opinion a badge of honor. It wasn't even a form letter. I didn't copy and paste it from anywhere.

 

2. Being honest and being kind are not mutually exclusive.

 

I'm serious here. I appreciate the feedback and will consider it.

 

 

You realize that it's hard to believe that when you said earlier that you would treat me with excellent customer service *instead* of complete honesty... :blink:

 

 

Dude. Seriously. Do you really want complete honesty? My take is you just want someone to acknowledge your pain because I offered you complete honesty and you threw it back in my face as poor customer service. So I'm trying to find a happy medium where I give you honest feedback but hold back on our strategy for new features because they seem to hurt your feelings.

 

We consider all feedback but we need to prioritize stuff but I acknowledge that we may need to hold that information back so we don't upset folks like you who have their own priorities that don't necessarily mesh with the broader community as we see it.

 

A difference of opinion is not poor customer service. You just need to work on making that distinction.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ok - lets use logic - re-read this thread.

 

Now - using logic - you want something that cannot and will not be delivered to you (anytime soon). Stated clearly.

 

 

Actually, my initial post stated clearly that I *knew* the resistance requests for increased PQ limits are met with, and therefore that was NOT what I was requesting. Instead, I thought that a consolidation of the current EXISTING limits might be a good compromise.

 

You will note, if you bother to read the original post, that contrary to your suggestions, I did not take a "gimme gimme" attitude, but instead - I asked if my idea of consolidating the existing limits would be an acceptable compromise.

 

 

Therefore - you cannot cache the "way you want".

 

Yet you continue to insist that you have to.

 

You have not yet defined clearly (to me) exactly why you NEED all these caches at your disposal. You have expressed that you WANT them but not NEED.

 

 

Ultimately, the line is blurred between need and want in this case - as no one is going to keel over and die if geocaching died in its entirety. That being said, take a look at what I stated about how I cache:

 

1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

 

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

 

3. I often do not have internet access when I travel.

 

Now, you suggested earlier that I do all the 1/1 micros first, then all the 1/1 regulars, etc... But that doesn't work for me, because that's not how I like to cache. And you know what? That is ENTIRELY within my prerogative. Some people hate micros, some people hate mystery caches, some people hate easy caches - are you going to tell them they're being unreasonable in not searching for those? No, lest you forget, this is a *hobby*. You do it as you enjoy it. If you can't understand that, than I'm afraid that remains your problem.

 

You also implied earlier that I can just take 10 minutes to generate an on-the-spot PQ. Well, let's examine that, shall we?

 

1. I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

 

Therefore, where am I going to generate a PQ for?

 

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

 

Therefore, I can't just generate a PQ for a 5 mile radius from me. It won't work.

 

3. I often do not have internet access when I travel.

 

Therefore, I can't necessarily generate a PQ on the road.

 

You say I haven't defined clearly why I need all those caches at my disposal. I think I stated it pretty clearly on my earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post

You have explained many ways in which a mobile application for a phone is the best alternative to your initial request. Fortunately it is our top priority.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Dude. Seriously. Do you really want complete honesty? My take is you just want someone to acknowledge your pain because I offered you complete honesty and you threw it back in my face as poor customer service.

 

 

Jeremy, if you look carefully, you'll note that I never directly replied to or complained about your first post in this thread. Your telling me that you have no plans to adjust PQs at this time and telling me about your plans for future service was fine. I didn't have any problem with that, which is why I didn't reply. Between that and the suggestion that I try sorting by date, I considered the original purpose of my posting this thread to be done and dealt with.

 

My complaints about your manner and customer service were in regards to your third and fourth posts. And those had NOTHING to do with your telling me the state of things in regards to Groundspeak's plans for current and future service.

 

So please don't accuse me of something I didn't do.

 

 

A difference of opinion is not poor customer service. You just need to work on making that distinction.

 

 

As I stated above, that was NEVER the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ok - lets use logic - re-read this thread.

 

Now - using logic - you want something that cannot and will not be delivered to you (anytime soon). Stated clearly.

 

 

Actually, my initial post stated clearly that I *knew* the resistance requests for increased PQ limits are met with, and therefore that was NOT what I was requesting. Instead, I thought that a consolidation of the current EXISTING limits might be a good compromise.

 

You will note, if you bother to read the original post, that contrary to your suggestions, I did not take a "gimme gimme" attitude, but instead - I asked if my idea of consolidating the existing limits would be an acceptable compromise.

 

 

Therefore - you cannot cache the "way you want".

 

Yet you continue to insist that you have to.

 

You have not yet defined clearly (to me) exactly why you NEED all these caches at your disposal. You have expressed that you WANT them but not NEED.

 

 

Ultimately, the line is blurred between need and want in this case - as no one is going to keel over and die if geocaching died in its entirety. That being said, take a look at what I stated about how I cache:

 

1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

 

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

 

3. I often do not have internet access when I travel.

 

Now, you suggested earlier that I do all the 1/1 micros first, then all the 1/1 regulars, etc... But that doesn't work for me, because that's not how I like to cache. And you know what? That is ENTIRELY within my prerogative. Some people hate micros, some people hate mystery caches, some people hate easy caches - are you going to tell them they're being unreasonable in not searching for those? No, lest you forget, this is a *hobby*. You do it as you enjoy it. If you can't understand that, than I'm afraid that remains your problem.

 

You also implied earlier that I can just take 10 minutes to generate an on-the-spot PQ. Well, let's examine that, shall we?

 

1. I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

 

Therefore, where am I going to generate a PQ for?

 

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

 

Therefore, I can't just generate a PQ for a 5 mile radius from me. It won't work.

 

3. I often do not have internet access when I travel.

 

Therefore, I can't necessarily generate a PQ on the road.

 

You say I haven't defined clearly why I need all those caches at my disposal. I think I stated it pretty clearly on my earlier post.

 

Clever twisting of my post indeed!!

 

I never stated anything about your request - only the NEED for that many caches to be carried with you. However you come about aquiring them.

 

I too often drive 200 miles on a whim. Always found a few minutes to get that PQ. I virtually never have Internet access when I travel - therefore the NEED to plan ahead as I cannot get 1000's of caches instantly.

 

Can't address your need to Randomly drive around. Except to encourage you to take a different tack and plan ahead.

 

I have read and read your posts - still not answered to my satisfaction (IMHO).

 

My 1/1 suggestion was just an idea to overcome your problem. Nothing more. Not trying to force anything upon you. Chill dude!!!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Clever twisting of my post indeed!!

 

I never stated anything about your request - only the NEED for that many caches to be carried with you. However you come about aquiring them.

 

I too often drive 200 miles on a whim. Always found a few minutes to get that PQ. I virtually never have Internet access when I travel - therefore the NEED to plan ahead as I cannot get 1000's of caches instantly.

 

Can't address your need to Randomly drive around. Except to encourage you to take a different tack and plan ahead.

 

I have read and read your posts - still not answered to my satisfaction (IMHO).

 

My 1/1 suggestion was just an idea to overcome your problem. Nothing more. Not trying to force anything upon you. Chill dude!!!

 

 

If I misunderstood your tone, than I humbly apologize.

 

As to the rest of your post, what you don't seem to realize is that what I do *is* planning ahead. The way I do it, I *can* drive spontaneously anywhere I want and still have the caches at my fingertips. By planning ahead as *I* do it, I have *more* freedom, not less.

 

That's why I find it amusing that you're telling me to plan ahead. Right now, I haven't found anyone who's doing a *better* job of planning ahead with circumstances such as mine. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

 

If I misunderstood your tone, than I humbly apologize.

 

 

I also apologize for mistaking your post as hypocracy. That probably wasn't your intent. In no way was it meant to be customer service. I further mistook your other posts as indirect attacks to my post when you ignored it. I'm sure it was all just a big misunderstanding. Please accept my apology.

Share this post


Link to post

I could...........but I won't. :lol::):lol: Have a wonderful weekend.

 

I do accept your apology though. You too.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I also apologize for mistaking your post as hypocracy. That probably wasn't your intent. In no way was it meant to be customer service. I further mistook your other posts as indirect attacks to my post when you ignored it. I'm sure it was all just a big misunderstanding. Please accept my apology.

 

 

Accepted, and thank you. I think we can put this thread to rest - God knows it certainly got its exercise. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Wow ... go away and do some work for a day and a post can take on an entire life of it's own!

 

In the spirit of the discussion, I offered my suggestions as a way to improve the service and make it more usable (i.e. encourage more paying members or retaining those that do pay).

 

My assumption is that GC is genuinely interested in how people are using the service and enhancing that experience -- and Jeremy on the other hand is just being honest on what is currently in the works (i.e. while our comments may not be ignored, one shouldn't expect anything to popping out of the oven any time soon to address it). I'd much rather have insight into what I can expect to see and not see in the coming months than be told "we'll add it to our list for consideration" and never hear anything again.

Edited by Lasagna

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe I read the whole thing! That's a whole heck of alot of PQs to find 31 caches. And at a total cost of about $9, 3months membership, a real bargain!

Share this post


Link to post

You have explained many ways in which a mobile application for a phone is the best alternative to your initial request. Fortunately it is our top priority.

 

How is this service different from the WAP service? Just curious.

 

I'm getting the impression it is a program that actually runs on a cellphone or am I reading too much into it?

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm getting the impression it is a program that actually runs on a cellphone or am I reading too much into it?

 

That's right. A GPS enabled cell phone though it doesn't have to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...