Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
PilotMike

Chronological Confusion

Recommended Posts

I've recently noticed some confusing sorting methods used by the site when looking at my summary pages. The "All logs" will sort chronologically by day and reverse chronologically by cache. It makes it hard for the user (me) to find landmark caches (and frankly, just doesn't make a ton of sense). Here's my example;

 

Say I like numbers 1, 5, and 10 and within 3 days I find my first 10 caches. Call them A, B, C... all the way to J. I find 2 on the first day, 4 on the second, and 4 again on the third day.

 

The current system will list them like this (without the extra space between days, I just added that for ease of viewing):

G

H

I

J

 

C

D

E

F

 

A

B

 

If I were to count them in order from the bottom, I would consider B as my first cache, D as my 5th, and G as my 10th. When in all actuality, the correct landmark caches are A-1, E-5, and J-10. Is there a way to sort either bottom to top or top to bottom for both days and logs? Instead of mixing the two? The proposed system would list them like this:

 

J

I

H

G

 

F

E

D

C

 

B

A

 

Did I confuse everyone or does this make sense?

Share this post


Link to post

Makes sense to me, and I've asked for the same thing in the past (as have others).

 

The answer I got a long time ago from Jeremy was something like, "I don't log all my finds in order, and a lot of other people don't either, so doing this wouldn't help everyone".

Share this post


Link to post

I see what you are saying but...

 

 

The current order is Chrono by day and then within that day they are sorted top (first) down in the order you logged them.

 

 

Within each day - it makes sense. All together it does not.

Share this post


Link to post

"I don't log all my finds in order, and a lot of other people don't either, so doing this wouldn't help everyone".

 

To me that's kind of a screwed up "If/Then" statement.

 

He says "If not everyone logs in order, then it won't help."

 

I change both sides of the same statement to positive and say "If some people log in order, then it will help..."

 

Besides, one is set to 'sort ascending' and the other to 'sort descending,' is it too difficult to have them be sorted the same way?

Share this post


Link to post

Within each day - it makes sense. All together it does not.

 

Exactly my point... I understand that its one goes up the other goes down. Making sense versus being useful/logical are different items <_<

Share this post


Link to post

If I were to count them in order from the bottom, I would consider B as my first cache, D as my 5th, and G as my 10th. When in all actuality, the correct landmark caches are A-1, E-5, and J-10. Is there a way to sort either bottom to top or top to bottom for both days and logs? Instead of mixing the two? The proposed system would list them like this:

 

J

I

H

G

 

F

E

D

C

 

B

A

 

Did I confuse everyone or does this make sense?

 

I agree - I would prefer this sorting method.

Share this post


Link to post

Or just log your finds in reverse. End of problem.

you mean, if you reverse your logging they change the sorting order?

Share this post


Link to post

Or just log your finds in reverse. End of problem.

 

Okay, I'll go back and re-log 2 1/2 years of caching and 220 something finds before starting to log all of my cache finds from now on backwards :D ... Thanks, but no thanks :mad:

 

I think having the system match itself makes the most sense. Sort both days and dates in descending (or ascending) order.

Share this post


Link to post

Um, everyone who cares about the order is thoroughly familiar with the current way. Once someone logs 2 or more caches in a day then they will soon learn the ropes.

One can easily capture your cache finds listing as text, import into Excel and reverse each and every day, but why bother? Just count in that order.

but of course you must remember about every log you had done in incorrect order either accidently or because of faulty memory of a day of 30+ finds.

Edited by trainlove

Share this post


Link to post

Um, everyone who cares about the order is thoroughly familiar with the current way. Once someone logs 2 or more caches in a day then they will soon learn the ropes.

One can easily capture your cache finds listing as text, import into Excel and reverse each and every day, but why bother? Just count in that order.

but of course you must remember about every log you had done in incorrect order either accidentally or because of faulty memory of a day of 30+ finds.

 

It sounds like you wouldn't want them to 'fix' the system since you've developed your own workaround. My point is that, shouldn't the system exist in a fashion that does not require a workaround to be efficient/logical? You've got way more finds than I do and I would understand your hesitation to back an idea like this because if it gets instated, your finds would be mixed up. Maybe if it changed so that everything sorts in the same order, it could grandfather (or better yet, let users choose whether or not to grandfather) their old logs into reverse order.

 

Your argument isn't for the logic or sensibility of the current system. It's for getting around the system in a way that works for you. As far as the 'everyone who cares' part, some people (like myself) get into caching slowly and become more involved and begin to care more about their finds as they go along. I never thought about a landmark cache find because I never thought I'd find 100+. Now that I have, I've realized that my logs are all out of order (I log them in the order that I find them and don't worry about 30+ memory failures because the most I've found in a day is 8 plus 2 DNF's). It's easiest for me to think "Where did I start my day?" and progress through till the end and log in the correct chronological order. That, or I have my printout already in the order that I hunted...

 

Many email and price comparison websites (and Excel) allow you to sort by clicking on the column heading to sort as you please (click again to reverse the order). Is this too difficult to add? On the http://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1<=2 page, it could allow you to sort by date, name, or state. If date is the chosen sort column, the user could choose ascending or descending within each date. That or allow each user to choose in their account settings to continue sorting in the fashion (that you are thoroughly familiar with) or in chronological order.

 

Then everybody could be happy, right? :D

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like you wouldn't want them to 'fix' the system since you've developed your own workaround. M

...

Your argument isn't for the logic or sensibility of the current system. It's for getting around the system in a way that works for you.

 

Welcome to the Groundspeak forums. 95% of all suggestions on this forum elicit similar responses. "I can work around it using (X method, X external program) so stop suggesting things" or 'i can't work around it but its no big deal so shut up and stop suggesting things"

 

This is a great suggestion - the current sort method makes little sense.

Edited by benh57

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to the Groundspeak forums. 95% of all suggestions on this forum elicit similar responses. "I can work around it using (X method, X external program) so stop suggesting things" or 'i can't work around it but its no big deal so shut up and stop suggesting things"

 

This is a great suggestion - the current sort method makes little sense.

 

Well, thanks for the heads up and the vote of confidence :)

Share this post


Link to post

Or just log your finds in reverse. End of problem.

 

Okay, I'll go back and re-log 2 1/2 years of caching and 220 something finds before starting to log all of my cache finds from now on backwards :smile: ... Thanks, but no thanks :smile:

 

I think having the system match itself makes the most sense. Sort both days and dates in descending (or ascending) order.

Technically, it is sorting in the order you entered the data. It's just not in the order you want it.

 

Personally, I'm ok with the way it is sorted as entered. I'd hate to try to remember the time of the day I found it and enter that too.

Share this post


Link to post

Log them in reverse?

 

So if you go find 3 and come home and log them and do 3 later in the day, then you should come home and delete your first 3 to log all six in the proper reverse order?

 

The system is a bit screwy. I log mine in the order i find them. Im not going to attempt to change to make up for system differences.

Edited by knight2000

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to the Groundspeak forums. 95% of all suggestions on this forum elicit similar responses. "I can work around it using (X method, X external program) so stop suggesting things" or 'i can't work around it but its no big deal so shut up and stop suggesting things"

 

Right, why fix anything if there is a work around? Everything is a work around. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
I've recently noticed some confusing sorting methods used by the site when looking at my summary pages. The "All logs" will sort chronologically by day and reverse chronologically by cache. It makes it hard for the user (me) to find landmark caches (and frankly, just doesn't make a ton of sense). [...]

Did I confuse everyone or does this make sense?

What I find makes it even more confusing is that all traveller events (travel bug and geocoin picks, drops and discoveries) get added to the start of the daily listing in forward chronological order, just opposite to the way cache finds are listed.

 

I suspect this is the way it was originally hacked together, and "everyone" is so used to it the geocaching.com crew does not feel comfortable changing it. I wouldn't complain, pretty please?

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to the Groundspeak forums. 95% of all suggestions on this forum elicit similar responses. "I can work around it using (X method, X external program) so stop suggesting things" or 'i can't work around it but its no big deal so shut up and stop suggesting things"

 

Right, why fix anything if there is a work around? Everything is a work around. :smile:

I think its not quite that people pooh-pooh every suggestion that is made. The issue is that Geocaching.com has limited programming resources. These resources should be put toward developing features that make looking for geocaches more enjoyable. Improvements to maps, pocket queries, and some online queries to help people sort through caches are more valuable to most people than having their finds displayed in a certain order. Sometimes people will give work arounds to these suggestion too. But these generally have to do with telling people that Premium members already have these features or that they are easily archived using readily available third party tools.

 

The OP's issue is not a simple sort as some may think. Currently only a date is stored with the log. Some people would like to record the times they find the cache and others would not. I suppose that an optional time could be entered in the log to allow sorting. Right now the logs on the My Account page are sorted by descending date. They happen to get listed for each date in order that they were entered - probably because there is an index in the database on the sequential log id. In other queries - for instance in the list of caches found by a user, the sort is on date found but the caches appear in random order within the date. This is because there is a join on the cache table and the log table so you no longer have the log id index for the database engine to use. Having the logs listed in the desired order would require a possible change to the database schema and the entry of a time for each log. I personally can't see the importance to some people of having the logs appear in exactly the order they think makes more sense. I'd rather see some new mapping features and perhaps some more capability in Pocket Queries.

Share this post


Link to post

What I find makes it even more confusing is that all traveler events (travel bug and geocoin picks, drops and discoveries) get added to the start of the daily listing in forward chronological order, just opposite to the way cache finds are listed.

 

Wow, you're right... I guess I didn't notice that :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

Does this screwy sort order then affect tools like GSAK and or stat generator tools It's not about the numbers?

 

Paksen

-getting ready to log #100

 

Actually, signing up for "Its' not about the numbers" is what got me interested. I had been keeping my own record of milestones (with more than they list) and mine were off by more than a couple. After I researched it a little bit, I realized that the INATN milestones were correct and the ones I had figured out were incorrect due to the weird sorting hierarchy. If you look at my profile, you'll see I've listed 7 milestones, while INATN only lists the first and each 100 after that.

 

Geocaching counts the following types in your Found #.

Traditional Caches*

Multi-caches*

Virtual Caches*

Letterbox Hybrids*

Event Caches*

Unknown (Mystery) Caches*

Webcam Caches*

 

If you can successfully copy, paste, and sort your logs in Excel, you can get the logs to be shown in true chronological order but it seems like more hassle than it should be. Also if you click the "Show All" and filter by "Found it" the list will not include your Events or Webcams so you'll need to manually work those into your own information since they are included in your "Finds."

Share this post


Link to post

100% agree. I began geocaching actively in the last days and I noticed that particular order that make no sense after logging a few caches.

 

I'd like also this to be better handled and why not also log the TIME? This would like to do the sort and also I find it interesting to see if 15 minutes before me someonewas there...

 

On my personnal page I rewrite all my finds and insert the time.

Share this post


Link to post

100% agree. I began geocaching actively in the last days and I noticed that particular order that make no sense after logging a few caches.

 

I'd like also this to be better handled and why not also log the TIME? This would like to do the sort and also I find it interesting to see if 15 minutes before me someonewas there...

 

On my personnal page I rewrite all my finds and insert the time.

Logging the time won't fly. If I was out all day caching, I would have to record the time I found each and every one. My daily record is only 38, but others can find north of 100 in a day! I can't imaging trying to keep track of the time I found each cache as I'm in the field on a mega-run.

 

Many people don't log their caches as soon as they get home - it may actually be a week or more before it is logged and most of us are lucky to remember on which day we found a cache, never mind at what time!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Logging the time won't fly. If I was out all day caching, I would have to record the time I found each and every one. My daily record is only 38, but others can find north of 100 in a day! I can't imaging trying to keep track of the time I found each cache as I'm in the field on a mega-run.

 

Many people don't log their caches as soon as they get home - it may actually be a week or more before it is logged and most of us are lucky to remember on which day we found a cache, never mind at what time!

 

I guess it could be an optional field. Maybe with dropdown boxes in 15 minute increments (or just a fill field). Those who want to log a time, can, those who don't, won't.

 

I still go back to my original idea of just having the sort order within a day be the same as it is between days... No messing with the log pages, just sort up vs. sort down...

Share this post


Link to post

Ok to jump on the boat here, how many of you are database programmers? I am I design maintain and program databases, and to quite honest doing what you are all asking isn't as easy as just flipping some switch. It requires many hours of developing code that will work with the existing code, more hours of testing, more coding and testing. I agree that all sorting should be done in the same order, however there are many more important coding issues as brought up by several other posts. Use GSAK its free and keep your own database, what difference does it make what order the website keeps the caches in anyway?

Share this post


Link to post

Or just log your finds in reverse. End of problem.

 

Okay, I'll go back and re-log 2 1/2 years of caching and 220 something finds before starting to log all of my cache finds from now on backwards :laughing: ... Thanks, but no thanks :laughing:

 

I think having the system match itself makes the most sense. Sort both days and dates in descending (or ascending) order.

 

It took you two and a half years to realize that logs are sorted like this?

 

It sounds like you wouldn't want them to 'fix' the system since you've developed your own workaround. M

...

Your argument isn't for the logic or sensibility of the current system. It's for getting around the system in a way that works for you.

 

Welcome to the Groundspeak forums. 95% of all suggestions on this forum elicit similar responses. "I can work around it using (X method, X external program) so stop suggesting things" or 'i can't work around it but its no big deal so shut up and stop suggesting things"

 

This is a great suggestion - the current sort method makes little sense.

 

Don't forget "Wait for v2.0. That suggestion might be in there."

Share this post


Link to post

Ok to jump on the boat here, how many of you are database programmers? I am I design maintain and program databases, and to quite honest doing what you are all asking isn't as easy as just flipping some switch. It requires many hours of developing code that will work with the existing code, more hours of testing, more coding and testing.

 

I am not a programmer, most of us probably aren't. We don't mean to offend you by suggesting a programming tweak that we might not understand the full complexity of. I do however believe that suggestions drive programmers to tweak and to make improvements, right? Consider it job security. Besides, this forum is to discuss the website... A large portion of that is suggestions, a forum discussion only last so long full of praise and contentment.

 

Use GSAK its free and keep your own database, what difference does it make what order the website keeps the caches in anyway?

 

Yes, GSAK is free. Some people that could benefit from the logical sort order don't have a premium membership (which is not free).

 

I agree that all sorting should be done in the same order...

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

I use Excel (also not free!), and keep a record of the date and time of each find. The site can mix, match, sort, and hokey-pokey with my finds, and I will still know what happened, and when it happened. And, yes, I do log my finds (DNFs too!!) in order.

Most of us have gotten so used to the current site method that it's transparent.

Share this post


Link to post

100% agree. I began geocaching actively in the last days and I noticed that particular order that make no sense after logging a few caches.

 

Actually if you use CacheMate (for paperless caching), there's an option there to insert the time at the start of your log. Checkout my log on GC14QT0

 

Cheers,

 

Paksen

Share this post


Link to post

This bizarre sorting method has always annoyed me greatly. I log my caches in the order I found them. I've never understood the "logic" behind the way the site sorts the logs.

 

However, I've also never understood why a "new cache notification" email includes the name of, and link to the profile of, the reviewer (utterly useless to me) but doesn't include any info at all regarding the person who hid the cache - which would be good to know.

Share this post


Link to post

The current sort order is exactly the way I like it. I would be disappointed if it were changed.

Share this post


Link to post

As an OS developer with more than 20 years of experience, I can tell you that while I understand the current behavior from a programming point of view, I think it's crappy human factors. Data should be presented in an easy-to-understand fashion -- not for the convenience of the programmers.

Even something as simple as a visual break between days would improve it. The best solution would be a true last in, first out display.

 

I also understand the programming-resources-to-features tradeoff, but I'd gladly trade in the very-broken-from-initial-implementation "events I plan to attend in the next 30 days" feature for a fix on that.

Edited by Still_Avatar

Share this post


Link to post

Ok to jump on the boat here, how many of you are database programmers? I am I design maintain and program databases, and to quite honest doing what you are all asking isn't as easy as just flipping some switch.

 

Given that I have programmed databases, I fail to see why it's so hard to turn the data around. In effect instead of ordered by day (descending) and then log id (I guess) ascending, just order by day (descending) and then log id (descending). Sorting is something databases are good at.

 

It's only reversing the current order within the day. And while clearly people who don't log chronologically wouldn't get any benefit they wouldn't be any worse off, and those who do log chronologically would have a list which made more sense.

Share this post


Link to post

If you've ever used It's not about the numbers - you would find it would track you finds by the order you log them.... so the 100th find, is your milestone..... why? because in GC the logs are numbered (which we cannot see)... so why can't they just be sorted by log number... then, whether you log them in order is up to you. I don't have that many milestones yet... but I know who they are, and I log in order... and INATN knows who they are. I personally don't care... but don't think (what do I know) it would be a huge programming issue. Sort by date - or by that 'log number'.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok to jump on the boat here, how many of you are database programmers? I am I design maintain and program databases, and to quite honest doing what you are all asking isn't as easy as just flipping some switch.

 

Given that I have programmed databases, I fail to see why it's so hard to turn the data around. In effect instead of ordered by day (descending) and then log id (I guess) ascending, just order by day (descending) and then log id (descending). Sorting is something databases are good at.

 

It's only reversing the current order within the day. And while clearly people who don't log chronologically wouldn't get any benefit they wouldn't be any worse off, and those who do log chronologically would have a list which made more sense.

 

Precisely! Since the logs are sorted, just backwards, it really can't be difficult to have the software reverse the order.

 

I might as well get on record in this thread as also wishing the sorting would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post

I always try to log my caches in order using the Track I download from my GPSr to maps on my computer. I have gotten used to the up-side-down order, even though I also think it would be better the other way around.

 

A recent wrinkle with this list occurred when I logged several caches I found on October 8th. I didn't get all of them logged in the morning. Those are in one "up-side-down list" on My Account page.

 

The other half of the caches I logged that day are in another "up-side-down list" for that day. The caches I found later in the day are now at the top of the list, instead of at the bottom. :laughing: Very confusing . . . :laughing:

 

Why did the ones I logged later in the day not fall to the bottom of the list they way they should have . . . ?

 

The week before, when I logged a cache later than all the others, it fell to the bottom of the list of caches found that day.

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to the Groundspeak forums. 95% of all suggestions on this forum elicit similar responses. "I can work around it using (X method, X external program) so stop suggesting things" or 'i can't work around it but its no big deal so shut up and stop suggesting things"

An excellent summary. I hope you've not trademarked that because I've filed it away for future use :laughing:.

 

This is a great suggestion - the current sort method makes little sense.

Most definitely.

Share this post


Link to post

Since this is a discussion about sorting, I'd like to re-emphasize a suggestion that may have been lost in the mish-mash above. Tables and/or datagrids can quite easily include a control that allows for users to choose to sort any column in the grid that they wish (ascending/descending toggles every time you click the same column twice in a row).

 

Additionally you can include the LogID in the grid so if people want to see them in the order they entered them, they can choose to do so.

 

I realize the resource problems are very real, and that sorting finds may not be a top priority, but standardizing table controls should be. Any time you see tabled data, those tables should be datagrids with user-sortable columns. This will end a lot of the sorting controversy.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to add my vote for improving the chronological order of logs. It would be useful to lots of people (going by the discussions about it in the forums), so why not add the feature. I did five caches yesterday, so now I have some NOTES grouped together (in uncertain order), then FOUND IT logs (in opposite order to that logged), then TB logs(in as yet uncertain order) - all very confusing.

 

I suggest adding an optional time stamp to the date - you do not have to use it, but for those that do you could influence the order in which logs are placed to suit your own preferences. I would like to have my logs replicate my days caching.

Share this post


Link to post

Does this screwy sort order then affect tools like GSAK and or stat generator tools It's not about the numbers?

 

Paksen

-getting ready to log #100

 

My personal experience, I have found no problems in GSAK. However, in Itsnotaboutthenumbers, the wrong cache showed up as my 200th. I researched why, and found this policy to be the reason.

 

I decided instead of deleting and relogging to shuffle the order, it was easier just to type the information into my profile instead of using the provided chart.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to add my vote to have the logs displayed in reverse chronological order. Even better would be to have the sort order user settable. And I think having an option to enter the time of the find is a good idea too. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

As an OS developer with more than 20 years of experience, I can tell you that while I understand the current behavior from a programming point of view, I think it's crappy human factors. Data should be presented in an easy-to-understand fashion -- not for the convenience of the programmers.

Even something as simple as a visual break between days would improve it. The best solution would be a true last in, first out display.

 

I also understand the programming-resources-to-features tradeoff, but I'd gladly trade in the very-broken-from-initial-implementation "events I plan to attend in the next 30 days" feature for a fix on that.

 

When I started, I was very excited about making my milestone Finds special caches. So with a little research, I decided to hunt for Gaston County's First Cache (GC10MC2) to be my First Find. I found it and a few others that day (and a DNF.) After I logged them (in the order that I found them,) I was very disappointed to see them listed “upside-down.” :unsure:

 

I’m approaching my 100th and started looking at my GSAK data. After I reverse the Found by me column, it sorts by Miles (from me.) So my first cache looks like it was my third. (On GC, it looks like my fourth.) I’m just learning GSAK, so maybe I haven’t found a way to change this yet. And I don’t know if it will matter to me in the future.

 

I wanted to try out www.logicweave.com and hoped that after uploading the data, I would be able to change my First Find to the correct cache. Low and behold, it knew which one I logged first.:unsure: Wish GC would list them in the order logged.

 

As for "I can work around it using (X method, X external program) …,” I don’t want to have to use workarounds. Look at it from a beginner’s point of view. Trying to figure out how to navigate the GC site, how to use a GPSer and the software that comes with it, then add some “tools” like Google Earth with Geocaches, GSAK, Cachemate, etc., is enough tech stuff to learn. So eliminating or reducing the need for workarounds would make this a lot more fun.

 

Don’t know if the GC webmasters actually read the forums for suggestions or concerns but the word “workaround” should jump out at them. If you want new folks to pay for a membership, make the website experience as fun and easy as possible. “Data should be presented in an easy-to-understand fashion …“

 

I’m having a ton of fun caching. Glad I discovered the game. Wish I had known about it years ago.

 

Just my two cents.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Adding my vote... the display order doesn't make very much sense.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll jump in and vote for the corrected sort order as well.

 

There shouldn't be additional programming (and I DO know what I'm talking about), since clearly it IS already sorting them. The Log ID or timestamp from the log submission must be what's being used. Because they're not in random order... or in Alpha order... or in numeric order of GC#. They're IN our entered order, just upside-down and inside-out!

 

Show the log ID and add the clickable headers so we can determine our own sort order. :ph34r:

 

We'd be happy cachers, I think.

 

~Ariel

Share this post


Link to post

I like it the way it is. I didn't like it the original way, but it wasn't high on my angsty list.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll jump in and vote for the corrected sort order as well.

 

There shouldn't be additional programming (and I DO know what I'm talking about), since clearly it IS already sorting them. The Log ID or timestamp from the log submission must be what's being used. Because they're not in random order... or in Alpha order... or in numeric order of GC#. They're IN our entered order, just upside-down and inside-out!

Actually there is additional programming. Right now on list of logs the system is querying the logs tables and sorting by date. SELECT * FROM Logs WHERE Username='xxxxx' ORDER BY LogDate DESC (Note I don't know the schema of the Geocaching.com database so this is just a example). Because the natural order of the logs in the logs table is the order they were entered they end up sorted within a date in the order in which there were entered. It is likely that there is a LogID field, perhaps being used as the key on the table that corresponds to the order the logs were entered so you could possibly add that to the sort

ORDER BY LogDate DESC LogID DESC. This may result in the query taking longer to run. In any case as soon as someone enters a log out of order they won't be able to sort as they want. You would have to have people enter another field such as LogTime or LogOrder which many people would not want to deal with.

 

In other queries where there is a Join between the Logs table and the Geocaches table, you lose the natural order and the list of caches while sorted by date found will appear random within that date.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

I'm quite happy with it the way it is. It's just like reading a blog -- the most current day is at the top of the page, the least current day is at the end of the page. Within each day, you read from the top down. If I want to use the "My Account" page to review what I did on one of the past thirty days, I find it MUCH easier to find the date in question and then read down the page, just like I would read anything else.

 

If anything, I'd vote for a blank line on a date break -- but that's so trivial, I'm sure I could come up with at least a dozen other things I'd rather see first.

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to PilotMike's Forum!!

<note: insert tongue firmly in cheek before reading>

 

descending (or ascending) order.

most sense. Sort both days and dates in

I think having the system match itself makes the

 

;) ... Thanks, but no thanks B)

to log all of my cache finds from now on backwards

caching and 220 something finds before starting

Okay, I'll go back and re-log 2 1/2 years of

Or just log your finds in reverse. End of problem.
sorted the same way?

'sort descending,' is it too difficult to have them be

Besides, one is set to 'sort ascending' and the other to

 

and say "If some people log in order, then it will help..."

I change both sides of the same statement to positive

 

He says "If not everyone logs in order, then it won't help."

 

To me that's kind of a screwed up "If/Then" statement.

everyone".

people don't either, so doing this wouldn't help

"I don't log all my finds in order, and a lot of other

useful/logical are different items :D

up the other goes down. Making sense versus being

Exactly my point... I understand that its one goes

Within each day - it makes sense. All together it does not.
Did I confuse everyone or does this make sense?

 

A

B

 

C

D

E

F

 

G

H

I

J

 

system would list them like this:

and logs? Instead of mixing the two? The proposed

to sort either bottom to top or top to bottom for both days

caches are A-1, E-5, and J-10. Is there a way

as my 10th. When in all actuality, the correct landmark

would consider B as my first cache, D as my 5th, and G

If I were to count them in order from the bottom, I

 

J

I

H

G

 

F

E

D

C

 

B

A

 

extra space between days, I just added that for ease of viewing):

The current system will list them like this (without the

 

the third day.

I find 2 on the first day, 4 on the second, and 4 again on

my first 10 caches. Call them A, B, C... all the way to J.

Say I like numbers 1, 5, and 10 and within 3 days I find

 

just doesn't make a ton of sense). Here's my example;

the user (me) to find landmark caches (and frankly,

reverse chronologically by cache. It makes it hard for

The "All logs" will sort chronologically by day and

used by the site when looking at my summary pages.

I've recently noticed some confusing sorting methods

(Note: NO OFFENSE INTENDED. I was just having some fun with the blog analogy. If you'd like your logs presented in a different order, you have as much right to ask for it as I have to say it's OK as is.)

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to PilotMike's Forum!!

 

(Note: NO OFFENSE INTENDED. I was just having some fun with the blog analogy. If you'd like your logs presented in a different order, you have as much right to ask for it as I have to say it's OK as is.)

No offense taken, thanks for the note... I suppose since I started the topic, it would make sense that I've made a few comments on it. ;)

 

Anyway, since my original post last year, I've succumbed to using workarounds and not using that summary page in it's simplest form. I've realized that the stat programs are, in fact, correct with my milestones. Since I have always logged my finds in the order that I find them.

 

The summary page when sorted only by "Found it" logs is misleading by

1) Being in a "Chronologically Confusing" order
B)

and

2) Not showing other cache types that are included in the numbers (specifically Events and Webcams)

 

From what I've read, TPTB are helping out INATN, so they must have a little faith in the 3rd party help with the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...