Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Leboyf

REDUCING THE LOAD on Grounspeak servers AND give MORE to premium users

Recommended Posts

bblhed, I just think that we play the game differently.

My best week caching: 122 finds

Your best year caching: 120 finds

 

That could explain why you don't understand the issue.

 

This isn't about how I cache, but if you look at my terrain and difficulty ratings you will also see that I usually hike in at least .3 miles and a lot of the time I need a boat or climbing gear, but it isn't about my style of caching or yours.

 

It is about you being too lazy to figure out how to work with the tools available to you so you think it is the responsibility of GC.com to accommodate you at the expense of everyone else, it isn't.

 

This forum is for asking for enhancements to the web site to make things better.

 

Things like. (These just came to mind, I am not asking for them)

 

1. Make the terrain and difficulty stars different colors so they are easier to read. (actualy I do like this one)

2. How about a way to change the text size to make the text fit better, or easier to read.

3. Why is there no easy to use link to to the GC.com store

4. why doesn't GC.com have links to HTML editors that are easy to use to for making cache pages.

5. Why not have a list of "stock" backgrounds.

 

This forum is not for asking for changes to the rules of geocaching because you are lazy.

 

What I don't understand is why geocaching has to change the way they dole out data because you are to lazy to figure out how to use the data to fit the way that you cache in the as provided format.

Share this post


Link to post

It is about you being too lazy to figure out how to work with the tools available to you so you think it is the responsibility of GC.com to accommodate you at the expense of everyone else, it isn't.

 

This forum is for asking for enhancements to the web site to make things better.

 

Things like. (These just came to mind, I am not asking for them)

 

1. Make the terrain and difficulty stars different colors so they are easier to read. (actualy I do like this one)

2. How about a way to change the text size to make the text fit better, or easier to read.

3. Why is there no easy to use link to to the GC.com store

4. why doesn't GC.com have links to HTML editors that are easy to use to for making cache pages.

5. Why not have a list of "stock" backgrounds.

 

This forum is not for asking for changes to the rules of geocaching because you are lazy.

 

What I don't understand is why geocaching has to change the way they dole out data because you are to lazy to figure out how to use the data to fit the way that you cache in the as provided format.

I don't understand the need to call come someone lazy because they ask for a an enhancement to make it easier to geocache. Pocket Queries were added because someone asked for ways to grab a bunch of caches at once to load into their GPS and make it easier to go caching. Many other feature have been added because people suggested ways to make it easier to go caching. It is not a sign of laziness for someone to ask for a feature even it there are more complicated ways to achieve the same results.

 

I fully expect for people to respond to requests with workarounds and alternatives. The original poster may not have thought of that possibility and many be willing to live with it even if it isn't as good as the idea they suggested. I don't mind people asking the original poster questions to better understand the purpose of the request. It may be that in this case Leboyf has not explained it well enough so many of us still wonder why he needs so many caches in a offline database. But I wouldn't assume it is because he is lazy. I don't mind too much people who speculate on the reasons Groundspeak limits the PQs to what they are. If leboyf could accept that Geocaching.com has reasons to limit the amount of data he receives and these may have nothing to do with the load on the servers, perhaps he would accept that his request is not going to go any further. The OPs stubbornness in insisting that his enhancement is critical to the way he caches and to not accept that Groundspeak has no plans to change their limits is frustrating attempts to convince him otherwise. But there is no excuse for calling him lazy.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

Lazy defined; faineant, disinclined to work or exertion.

 

Leboyf wants PQ's delivered in such a way that he doesn't have to do any work to make them fit the way that he caches because he feels that the exertion of compiling multiple PQ's is too much. He also doesn't want to do the work of figuring out how to use the system as designed to his advantage.

 

That sounds like lazy to me, fits the definition as well.

 

Again this change the rules to suit me attitude is offensive to me.

Edited by bblhed

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe that the number of caches in a PQ or the number of PQ's per day is any more a rule for geocaching than one smiley per cache.

 

It is an arbitrary limit set up by Geocaching.com, and TPTB that run this website. They don't tell you how to cache - they only tell you how they will make their information available to you.

 

If you want to say that the OP's idea is being lazy, than you have to say anyone who uses PQ's is lazy, because you could download every cache you want one at a time. I feel it is a request, and a legitimate one, for an improvement to the functionality and usefullness of the site to some users.

Share this post


Link to post
You keep using the ± symbol. I don't think it means what you think it means. :yikes:

I would guess that is what your searching for.

Translation problem between French and English ?? :yikes:
While I have also used that symbol incorrectly in the past, '±' is used to identify a range. For instance, if I say that I need to download 8,000 ± 500 caches, I am saying that I will need information on from 7,500 to 8,500 caches. Alternatively, '' means 'approximately'. Therefore, if I say that I need to download 8,000 caches, I am saying that I need information on about 8,000 caches.

Your usage is correct. Very common to see it these days (in the US at least), with political polls saying 37% are in favor of candidate X, ± 3%, indicating a plus or minus range of 3%. However, saying you loaded ± 700 caches into your PDA is nonsense. How do you load a minus 700 caches?

Share this post


Link to post

other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif

 

 

 

Seriously, let's try to stay on track regarding the original topic of conversation, unless we're done.

Share this post


Link to post
other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif

I don't understand why people FIGHT against my idea.

 

Personally, the suggestions listed in bblhed's post (Jan 23rd) are useless to me.

Nonetheless, they might be appealing for others.

I respect that.

I won't FIGHT against it or be disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post

Because you still keep missing the point that TPTB have already answered this (and just recently) as was posted by The Leprechauns and Markwell.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3234210

 

But here it is again.

 

The only changes to the PQ system planned for release when the new Phoenix project is completed will be the introduction of instant downloads. There are some details that have yet to be finalized concerning the storage of those PQs on Geocaching.com, but those issues will be worked out.

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

 

Most people seem to have accepted that.

Share this post


Link to post

I received a PM from trainlove.

Thank you for your PM.

 

Regards,

 

Leboyf.

 

I wanted to reply to your http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=182986&st= forum message but […SNIP personal reasons].

 

I have read ALL the 106 messages and guess that you are not explaining WHAT you want correctly since I, and everyone else, completely disagree with your request.

I agree that state wide was too big. What about region wide?

 

I'm thinking:

- We could subscribe to some regions that we could select from a map.

- One fresh new set sent once a week

- And daily updates could be available on request.

 

For one thing; when I do PQ's, I do so with 'not Found by Me' selected since those extra duplicated entries already exist in the My Finds PQ. As such, absolutely nobody else will ever have the exact same PQ request of 54Megs as you are thinking can be generated for all to 'share'. Each and every PQ is personalized to each and every requesters demands.

My idea behind preset PQs is that, for a given region, every body will receive the same set of caches (less load on servers)

GSAK will figure out your finds

I guess my real question is, with 2500 caches per day, 17,500 per week, 77,500 per month... in your PQ's, how is it possible for you to be in an area where you do not have access to a public library or Wi-Fi connection and/or just so happen to be near a cache that was just planted today so that it does not already exist in one of your previous PQ's? I suggest getting a cell phone, not even one with web access. You could phone a friend, give him your present coords, and have him do a search for you to see exactly the same caches that you already have in your massive Groundspeak-unsupported offline database.

Q: Why not Wi-Fi or call a friend

A: When I go geocaching, I want to go out and find cache.

 

Q: 77 500 per month?

A: It looks like a lot but even with all those, 5000 (5x500 x 2) is the maximum if you want a set of caches, no more then 1 day old.

 

I run a couple of different PQ in a week.

But the most important are

For an update set of cache less then 1 day old, I use 10 PQs

- Traditional and Multi

- I haven't found

- Is Active

- From Home coordinate. Within a distance that I figured out with GSAK

- Breaking the data up by date placed.

- Home state

 

------------------------

 

In my home state, it takes time to break the data up by date placed but I have a good idea where to start because I can use GSAK's old data to figure a distance to put in the PQs.

 

Creating PQ for a new area, densely populated, is a lot more difficult.

 

The reason why I thought of Presets (State wide = too big = Ok then --> Regions) is to simplify the PQ management.

 

You run 1 preset PQ, once a week and you go out geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be a lot simpler if TPTB would stop treating the information submitted by the users as their own. They want to protect their database. Their database is made of information submitted by the users. Apparently when we submit it, we give up our rights to do with it as we want. Maybe I missed that - maybe it is in the agreement when I submit a cache listing that I give up my rights to do with it what I want.

 

I would say that anyone can download my cache information at any time as part of any PQ or individual download. If everyone did this, then it would be somewhat difficult for TPTB to say "nope, we're ignoring our users saying they can do what they want with their data - we're only going to allow them to get tiny little pieces as we see fit, and they have to live with it."

 

But like any business, they'll do whatever they want, regardles of what the users want, unless so many users leave they can't run their business... but since I don't see that happening, I guess we're stuck with it.

Share this post


Link to post

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=180594

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=163541

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=182986

 

There might be more?

 

It seems like there are 6 or 7 power poster that are guardians of secret ancient tombs.

 

They flood the threads with negative posts. Neophytes read the threads and think that EVERYBODY is against the idea. It's not true. More people are in favor.

 

It's something that the public MUST NOT know!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

And another simple point - since people seem to fit into 3 distinct categories, lets look at reasonable options for them:

 

1) People who would like to see the number raised: they see good reasons for having more access to the data, have a legitimate request, and have made that request. It would benefit them if the change was made.

 

2) People who are happy with the number they currently can get: they are happy with the status quo, and therefore have nothing to complain about. It would not hurt them if the change was made, therefore there is no reason short of trolling or being argumentative to state that the change shouldn't be made.

 

3) People who don't care one way or the other: they aren't likely to post on this topic.

 

So it would make more sense if the people who are opposed to this, simply because they feel they get enough, didn't complain about a change which would benefit some and hurt none.

Share this post


Link to post
Is there a macro that can automatically update my database, let's say over night?

 

GSAK is prohibited from doing this by the Groundspeak (gc.com) terms of use (TOU). The only way to do this would be by "spidering" or "scraping" the gc.com site, which are specifically prohibited in the TOU. Groundspeak has spoken of implementing an API that third party software developers could use to access the site, but it hasn't happened.

 

It seems the guardians of secret ancient tombs are not willing to relinquish their secrets just yet.

 

The guardians are very tough :)

 

In the mean time let's stay on the legit side

Edited by Leboyf

Share this post


Link to post

bblhed, I just think that we play the game differently.

My best week caching: 122 finds

Your best year caching: 120 finds

 

That could explain why you don't understand the issue.

 

This isn't about how I cache, but if you look at my terrain and difficulty ratings you will also see that I usually hike in at least .3 miles and a lot of the time I need a boat or climbing gear, but it isn't about my style of caching or yours.

 

It is about you being too lazy to figure out how to work with the tools available to you so you think it is the responsibility of GC.com to accommodate you at the expense of everyone else, it isn't.

 

This forum is for asking for enhancements to the web site to make things better.

 

Things like. (These just came to mind, I am not asking for them)

 

1. Make the terrain and difficulty stars different colors so they are easier to read. (actualy I do like this one)

2. How about a way to change the text size to make the text fit better, or easier to read.

3. Why is there no easy to use link to to the GC.com store

4. why doesn't GC.com have links to HTML editors that are easy to use to for making cache pages.

5. Why not have a list of "stock" backgrounds.

 

This forum is not for asking for changes to the rules of geocaching because you are lazy.

 

What I don't understand is why geocaching has to change the way they dole out data because you are to lazy to figure out how to use the data to fit the way that you cache in the as provided format.

Thanks for the smile. I think it's very funny for someone who is calling someone lazy (for a suggestion to make the site easier for them) to then list a suggestion to make the site easier to use. Every arguement you make about "not working within the bounds of how the data is delivered" apply to the suggestion to have a HTML editor linked to the site. Are YOU too lazy to find one and use it without it being handed to you on a platter?

 

I assume that you NEVER have more caches in your pin-point PQ's than you use? Otherwise you are you are just as bad, ordering more data than you can use. I also assume you never do spur-of-the-moment caching, as you always plan your caching at least a day ahead - at least according to your posts.

 

I'll answer your question as to why I would like to have (not demand) region/state wide data: Delorme Challenge planning. A route PQ won't work, as that's what I'm trying to develop, the route. I need to see large sections of the state at one time so I can figure out where I want to go. The online maps that the site now use are next to useless, as they choke if the area showing has more than 500 caches - and you can't do fine control on the area shown, it's either too tight a view, or too many caches to show. Big help. Once I have the route, then I can use smaller PQs to update just before I leave.

But do I want that much all the time? Nope. But nice some times (just like a linked HTML editor, not needed, but nice).

Share this post


Link to post

I find the comments about "out-of-date, offline databases" to be rather untruthful. Any PQ is out-of-data as soon as it's sent - anybody within the range of the PQ could be making changes at any time. So until there are GPSr's that have a constant link to the website, all of us are working with "stale data". So if both of use order the same PQ, you dump yours right into the PDA & GPSr so you have "current data", I dump mine into GSAK to update the info - who has the stale data? You might - there's that cache that moved and the sixth finder back noted the new co-ords - I have that log, you have 5 guys saying "thanks, found it using xx's co-ords". (of course, any example - such as this one - can be countered with another, but that doesn't make either untrue.)

Share this post


Link to post

And another simple point - since people seem to fit into 3 distinct categories, lets look at reasonable options for them:

 

1) People who would like to see the number raised: they see good reasons for having more access to the data, have a legitimate request, and have made that request. It would benefit them if the change was made.

 

2) People who are happy with the number they currently can get: they are happy with the status quo, and therefore have nothing to complain about. It would not hurt them if the change was made, therefore there is no reason short of trolling or being argumentative to state that the change shouldn't be made.

 

3) People who don't care one way or the other: they aren't likely to post on this topic.

Commenting on the part in bold, you are wrong. Allow me to repeat, yet again, what has been said by Groundspeak:

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

I read that to mean that if the limits were increased, the site would not perform as well. And that would hurt all of us.

Share this post


Link to post

And another simple point - since people seem to fit into 3 distinct categories, lets look at reasonable options for them:

 

1) People who would like to see the number raised: they see good reasons for having more access to the data, have a legitimate request, and have made that request. It would benefit them if the change was made.

 

2) People who are happy with the number they currently can get: they are happy with the status quo, and therefore have nothing to complain about. It would not hurt them if the change was made, therefore there is no reason short of trolling or being argumentative to state that the change shouldn't be made.

 

3) People who don't care one way or the other: they aren't likely to post on this topic.

Commenting on the part in bold, you are wrong. Allow me to repeat, yet again, what has been said by Groundspeak:

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

I read that to mean that if the limits were increased, the site would not perform as well. And that would hurt all of us.

 

Since they have not allowed the limits to be changed, they have no evidence to back this up. If they allowed larger, or more frequent PQ's, and the performance of the site went down in some appreciable manner, I would believe this. Saying it would happen without ever allowing it to happen to see what the results were is like the weathermen predicting snow in this area. Conditions are right, but we don't get it more than half the time they predict it.

 

Besides - how much slower could it go? Some PQ's I submit a request for take almost a day to get done, since they were done recently.

 

Besides - most of the people in group #2 above aren't indicating worry with more system lag - they're trolling by saying "We don't care what you want - we are happy the way things are and therefore, are just going to tell you your idea is stupid or you are lazy". At least that is how most of the anti-change posts have been.

Share this post


Link to post

I demand that Ford make a hover car for me. I travel to work in an area that is so congested with cars that what used to take me 30-35 minutes of travel time now takes me 60 minutes. The increased travel time eats into my family life and makes me irratable when I come home.

 

Sure my present car CAN get me to work, and I could drive off-road, but that's not the point. I want to get to my office on a straight shot without having to deal with the regular cars on the ground. If I had a flying car that travelled at 250 mph, I could be in my office in just over 3 minutes instead of the 60 it takes now.

 

Why Ford? If you have enough money, you could actually just have a heliport placed on your property, and then get permission from your employer to build one there too. Of course, then you have the quandry of what helecopter to buy, and then to pilot or pay someone to pilot it for you. [:)]

 

I'm sure the 3 minuites are not including Pre-flight, Clearances(which takes a LONG time sometimes...), Takeoff, Acceleration, Deceleration, Landing, or Post-flight. Even with a paid person to pilot the helecopter it will Still take longer than the time to drive.

 

If you were Somehow able to get the FAA to do like some people have been trying to do for YEARS now, by creating a Highway system in the air for situations like this... then you would realize that you would still drive to a certain point, then Transition to the air and fly for a ways(in your case not more than a few miles) and then re-transition back to the ground... then wait for awhile as you go thru the same traffic you already drive thru daily.

 

Of course, If you live on one side of town, but work on the other and just wade thru the traffic.. you Might be able to save a few minuites by the FAA plan... but even then, its not that 3 minuite travel time. Remember as is in the air like the ground... Faster may save you more time the further you go. Any time you go less than 60 miles, you only save seconds...

 

If your going to GeoWoodstock though...[:)]

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

And another simple point - since people seem to fit into 3 distinct categories, lets look at reasonable options for them:

 

1) People who would like to see the number raised: they refuse to see there are noe good reasons for having access to more data then they could possibly use effectively, keep repeating the request even thought GC has repeatedly pointed out ther position and reasoning on the matter, therefore there is no reason short of trolling or being argumentative to keep re-stating that the change should be made.

 

2) People who are happy with the numbers they currently can get: they are happy with the system's intended uses and understood this when they decided to support the site. While it would not hurt them if the change was made, they understand since there is no possible way to hunt any significant portion of the 17,500 caches they can download in a weeks time (or even the 2500 in a day), there are no legitimate benefit either and do not see any need to waste any resources on this non-issue.

 

3) People who don't care one way or the other: they aren't likely to post on this topic.

 

So it would make more sense if the people who continually ignore GC's stated policies, simply because they feel they can't get enough, didn't complain about a change which simply is not going to happen.

 

Even though it appears the majority are happy with the way the system is set-up, it is irrelevant. It is not up for a vote. Their system to allocate as they desire.

 

For those of you that keep asking why someone from GC does not respond, a search will turn this up. How many times should they respond?

Share this post


Link to post

Since they have not allowed the limits to be changed, they have no evidence to back this up. If they allowed larger, or more frequent PQ's, and the performance of the site went down in some appreciable manner, I would believe this. Saying it would happen without ever allowing it to happen to see what the results were is like the weathermen predicting snow in this area. Conditions are right, but we don't get it more than half the time they predict it.

 

Isn't this the same logic people accuse Microsoft of when a new OS does not perform to expectations? Testing it in the field?

 

The system performance comments have been speculation by several users. I am fairly certain no one from GC has stated this is a system performance issue, simply the path they have chosen to take.

 

Edit: I stand corrected on the italicized portion. OpinionNate did state performance issues.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

...

Besides - how much slower could it go? Some PQ's I submit a request for take almost a day to get done, since they were done recently.

 

Really? I realized that I hadn't ran any PQs yesterday at about 11pm. Setting up and running each of them only took a few minuites. After each one I had to DL it and then import into GSAK and then MapSource. Then I would be able to see how far I got. Rince and repeat 4 times...

 

...

Besides - most of the people in group #2 above aren't indicating worry with more system lag - they're trolling by saying "We don't care what you want - we are happy the way things are and therefore, are just going to tell you your idea is stupid or you are lazy". At least that is how most of the anti-change posts have been.

 

Personally, I'm For more PQs avaliable per person per day, But at the same time, I only run into this issue when planning for a trip.

 

Something I just thought of.. Get a second account and get the Premium Membership there too. Then, you have access to 10PQs which is 5000 cache listings -AND- the knowingness that your $60 is Hopefully going to a better website. The caches you choose to do are all up to you[:smile:]

 

Hmm... another thought Open Source between GSAK and the Groundspeak DB. Hmm...(only dreaming at this time...)

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

...

Besides - how much slower could it go? Some PQ's I submit a request for take almost a day to get done, since they were done recently.

 

Really? I realized that I hadn't ran any PQs yesterday at about 11pm. Setting up and running each of them only took a few minuites. After each one I had to DL it and then import into GSAK and then MapSource. Then I would be able to see how far I got. Rince and repeat 4 times...

 

...

Besides - most of the people in group #2 above aren't indicating worry with more system lag - they're trolling by saying "We don't care what you want - we are happy the way things are and therefore, are just going to tell you your idea is stupid or you are lazy". At least that is how most of the anti-change posts have been.

 

Personally, I'm For more PQs avaliable per person per day, But at the same time, I only run into this issue when planning for a trip.

 

Something I just thought of.. Get a second account and get the Premium Membership there too. Then, you have access to 10PQs which is 5000 cache listings -AND- the knowingness that your $60 is Hopefully going to a better website. The caches you choose to do are all up to you[:smile:]

 

Hmm... another thought Open Source between GSAK and the Groundspeak DB. Hmm...(only dreaming at this time...)

 

The Steaks

 

Major issue with this is that only one of the accounts will have all of the finds, so they can be filtered out by the PQ.

 

How about $3 more a month for 5 more pq's a day, up to whatever limit the person is willing to pay for? That sounds reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post

Since they have not allowed the limits to be changed, they have no evidence to back this up. If they allowed larger, or more frequent PQ's, and the performance of the site went down in some appreciable manner, I would believe this. Saying it would happen without ever allowing it to happen to see what the results were is like the weathermen predicting snow in this area. Conditions are right, but we don't get it more than half the time they predict it.

 

Isn't this the same logic people accuse Microsoft of when a new OS does not perform to expectations? Testing it in the field?

 

The system performance comments have been speculation by several users. I am fairly certain no one from GC has stated this is a system performance issue, simply the path they have chosen to take.

 

Edit: I stand corrected on the italicized portion. OpinionNate did state performance issues.

 

Performance issues were stated - not supported. Simply saying it would create them goes back to my original argument. Doing it, and then dropping it because of significant performance issues, is a different story.

Share this post


Link to post

And another simple point - since people seem to fit into 3 distinct categories, lets look at reasonable options for them:

 

1) People who would like to see the number raised: they refuse to see there are noe good reasons for having access to more data then they could possibly use effectively, keep repeating the request even thought GC has repeatedly pointed out ther position and reasoning on the matter, therefore there is no reason short of trolling or being argumentative to keep re-stating that the change should be made.

 

(WRONG - there are no "good" reasons - only speculations of possible system issues and TPTB protecting data that really isn't theirs... it's the users.)

 

2) People who are happy with the numbers they currently can get: they are happy with the system's intended uses and understood this when they decided to support the site. While it would not hurt them if the change was made, they understand since there is no possible way to hunt any significant portion of the 17,500 caches they can download in a weeks time (or even the 2500 in a day), there are no legitimate benefit either and do not see any need to waste any resources on this non-issue.

 

(These people have no legitimate argument for system resources which they're not losing because of them being devoted to making something better for some people that want it. They only are happy following rules and procedures which happen to be in place. I guess we could go back to Jim Crow laws and segregation - some people weren't affected by them, but others were, and fought against them. Just because you like things the way they are, doesn't mean you should fight against change which won't hurt you, but will benefit others - as for legitimate benefit, what if I am on a long trip, have downloaded a bunch of caches, and decide to significantly change my route. Now, I'm screwed because of an arbitrary number picked by people protecting data that isn't really theirs)

 

3) People who don't care one way or the other: they aren't likely to post on this topic.

 

So it would make more sense if the people who continually ignore GC's stated policies, simply because they feel they can't get enough, didn't complain about a change which simply is not going to happen.

 

(Isn't going to happen is a matter of opinion... - they're not ignoring the policies anyway - we're just requesting a change to them. Ignoring the stated policies would be scraping to get the data that TPTB is keeping us from getting in a timely manner)

 

Even though it appears the majority are happy with the way the system is set-up, it is irrelevant. It is not up for a vote. Their system to allocate as they desire.

 

(But our access to our data shouldn't be.)

 

For those of you that keep asking why someone from GC does not respond, a search will turn this up. How many times should they respond?

 

Until a change is made.

 

Obviously they listen in some circumstances (agreeing to return archived caches to the maps, etc)... because a large number of people asked for it. Some people who didn't want it spoke up, but again, there was no reason for them to - they aren't hurt by having that data available.

 

Asking for legitimate change, which isn't likely to hurt anyone (and can be reversed if it does), is a good idea. Fighting against change for the simple sake of arguing is a waste of time and resources.

 

(Please note responses to specific points in parentheses throughout the quote above - I didn't feel like wasting the time to do the HTML work to get the quotes in the right places.)

Share this post


Link to post

 

Performance issues were stated - not supported. Simply saying it would create them goes back to my original argument. Doing it, and then dropping it because of significant performance issues, is a different story.

You would have to assume Groundspeak has no facilities for testing changes to the site other then live implementation. It's been stated before they have servers for beta testing code before it goes live.

Adjusting PQ parameters and measuring the effects on a offline version of the database would be a trivial task you can be sure has probably been done many times over while trying to optimize site performance.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Performance issues were stated - not supported. Simply saying it would create them goes back to my original argument. Doing it, and then dropping it because of significant performance issues, is a different story.

You would have to assume Groundspeak has no facilities for testing changes to the site other then live implementation. It's been stated before they have servers for beta testing code before it goes live.

Adjusting PQ parameters and measuring the effects on a offline version of the database would be a trivial task you can be sure has probably been done many times over while trying to optimize site performance.

 

No, I can't be sure. I don't believe much in life without proof. Otherwise, every time I received an email touting a new drug or way to make money, I would respond to every one.

Share this post


Link to post

...

Besides - how much slower could it go? Some PQ's I submit a request for take almost a day to get done, since they were done recently.

 

Really? I realized that I hadn't ran any PQs yesterday at about 11pm. Setting up and running each of them only took a few minuites. After each one I had to DL it and then import into GSAK and then MapSource. Then I would be able to see how far I got. Rince and repeat 4 times...

 

...

Besides - most of the people in group #2 above aren't indicating worry with more system lag - they're trolling by saying "We don't care what you want - we are happy the way things are and therefore, are just going to tell you your idea is stupid or you are lazy". At least that is how most of the anti-change posts have been.

 

Personally, I'm For more PQs avaliable per person per day, But at the same time, I only run into this issue when planning for a trip.

 

Something I just thought of.. Get a second account and get the Premium Membership there too. Then, you have access to 10PQs which is 5000 cache listings -AND- the knowingness that your $60 is Hopefully going to a better website. The caches you choose to do are all up to you[:smile:]

 

Hmm... another thought Open Source between GSAK and the Groundspeak DB. Hmm...(only dreaming at this time...)

 

The Steaks

 

Major issue with this is that only one of the accounts will have all of the finds, so they can be filtered out by the PQ.

 

How about $3 more a month for 5 more pq's a day, up to whatever limit the person is willing to pay for? That sounds reasonable.

 

So then, your willing to pay an additional $36 per year to filter out finds on the additional PQs than to just get a second membership and pay $30.

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

A second membership shouldn't necessary.

The game is growing. More caches = Mores Cachers = more Premium members = More cash.

 

Larger PQ following the growth or Presets (State/Region wide) should be something expected to happen.

 

The game is progressing. Let's plan for the futur.

Share this post


Link to post

A second membership shouldn't necessary.

The game is growing. More caches = Mores Cachers = more Premium members = More cash.

 

Larger PQ following the growth or Presets (State/Region wide) should be something expected to happen.

 

The game is progressing. Let's plan for the futur.

Why shouldn't you be expected to purchase a second membership?

 

TPTB provide a certain number of PQs with a certain number of caches each for $30 a year. Most people adapt to that limit and cache quite contentedly. You, however, state that you want more data. Why shouldn't you have to pay a little bit more for this extra data that you want?

Share this post


Link to post

Larger PQ following the growth ... should be something expected to happen.

 

I don't see why the number of caches in a PQ should be a function of the size of the database. Since the stated purpose of PQs is to allow you to download a reasonable number of caches for a trip, the number should presumably go up if people develop teleportation, or something else which makes their caching "productivity" significantly higher.

 

It seems that the fact that the number of caches in your home area is so large that you might miss finding one on a spontaneous trip because it didn't fit in your PQ or your GPSr, causes you genuine concern and anguish. If that's truly the case, I suggest you might want to seriously reconsider how you view this game.

Share this post


Link to post

A second membership shouldn't necessary.

The game is growing. More caches = Mores Cachers = more Premium members = More cash.

 

Larger PQ following the growth or Presets (State/Region wide) should be something expected to happen.

 

The game is progressing. Let's plan for the futur.

Even though the game is growing, is your ability to find hundreds of caches in a day also improving? If not, how is it that you need more data than that already provided, which is nearly 2500 unique caches per day, if you set up your PQs in an optimal way?

 

Until we have hovercraft than hone in on the caches, enabling us to fly from cache to cache in a straight line, as the crow flies, I am befuddled why you need so much data. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

A second membership shouldn't necessary.

The game is growing. More caches = Mores Cachers = more Premium members = More cash.

 

Larger PQ following the growth or Presets (State/Region wide) should be something expected to happen.

 

The game is progressing. Let's plan for the futur.

Why shouldn't you be expected to purchase a second membership?

 

TPTB provide a certain number of PQs with a certain number of caches each for $30 a year. Most people adapt to that limit and cache quite contentedly. You, however, state that you want more data. Why shouldn't you have to pay a little bit more for this extra data that you want?

I don't understand that either. It's only an extra 3 bucks a month to get another 17,500 caches/week. I think 6 bucks a month for 35,000 caches/week is a great deal! :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

A second membership shouldn't necessary.

The game is growing. More caches = Mores Cachers = more Premium members = More cash.

 

Larger PQ following the growth or Presets (State/Region wide) should be something expected to happen.

 

The game is progressing. Let's plan for the futur.

 

I demand that Ford make a hover car for me. I travel to work in an area that is so congested with cars that what used to take me 30-35 minutes of travel time now takes me 60 minutes. The increased travel time eats into my family life and makes me irratable when I come home.

 

Sure my present car CAN get me to work, and I could drive off-road, but that's not the point. I want to get to my office on a straight shot without having to deal with the regular cars on the ground. If I had a flying car that travelled at 250 mph, I could be in my office in just over 3 minutes instead of the 60 it takes now.

 

Superconductivity is already a reality. Magnetic induction tracks area already used for high speed trains. Why should I expect to pay for a second car to get my hover conversion. I already pay for gas and maintenance on my existing car. Let's plan for the future.

 

I'm sorry but you just aren't reading what has been recently said very clearly.

 

The only changes to the PQ system planned for release when the new Phoenix project is completed will be the introduction of instant downloads. There are some details that have yet to be finalized concerning the storage of those PQs on Geocaching.com, but those issues will be worked out.

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

 

How much plainer could this be?

Share this post


Link to post

A second membership shouldn't necessary.

The game is growing. More caches = Mores Cachers = more Premium members = More cash.

 

Larger PQ following the growth or Presets (State/Region wide) should be something expected to happen.

 

The game is progressing. Let's plan for the futur.

 

I demand that Ford make a hover car for me. I travel to work in an area that is so congested with cars that what used to take me 30-35 minutes of travel time now takes me 60 minutes. The increased travel time eats into my family life and makes me irratable when I come home.

 

Sure my present car CAN get me to work, and I could drive off-road, but that's not the point. I want to get to my office on a straight shot without having to deal with the regular cars on the ground. If I had a flying car that travelled at 250 mph, I could be in my office in just over 3 minutes instead of the 60 it takes now.

 

Superconductivity is already a reality. Magnetic induction tracks area already used for high speed trains. Why should I expect to pay for a second car to get my hover conversion. I already pay for gas and maintenance on my existing car. Let's plan for the future.

 

I'm sorry but you just aren't reading what has been recently said very clearly.

 

The only changes to the PQ system planned for release when the new Phoenix project is completed will be the introduction of instant downloads. There are some details that have yet to be finalized concerning the storage of those PQs on Geocaching.com, but those issues will be worked out.

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

 

How much plainer could this be?

"What we have here is a failure to communicate." :smile:

coolhandluke4to1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I guess this would a good idea for people that live in smaller states with few caches, but I sure wouldn't want a PQ hitting my mailbox everyday with all of the caches in Texas! Good grief! 450 of the nearest to my home is plenty! Why do you need your whole state anyway - I didn't see that explained sufficiently by the OP.

 

I got to agree with this. I can get 500 caches downloaded within 50 miles without batting an eye, the whole state would be prohibitive and GSAK would have to work a while to process them. I prefer the system as it is, you can either pick a point and get the area you area going to be in, or follow your route. I'll not hunt 10k caches in a week-end, so I don't need them downloaded.

Share this post


Link to post

Until a change is made.

 

<snip>

 

Asking for legitimate change, which isn't likely to hurt anyone (and can be reversed if it does), is a good idea.

 

Keep us posted on how that works out for ya.

Share this post


Link to post

Until a change is made.

 

<snip>

 

Asking for legitimate change, which isn't likely to hurt anyone (and can be reversed if it does), is a good idea.

 

Keep us posted on how that works out for ya.

 

I won't have to - if the change is made, it would obviously be publicized. What I think would be missing is the number of people arguing against it doing so then... I honestly don't see people, if the number of caches downloaded were to be increased, putting up a fight to get the number lowered again.

 

Once again, my point - the people whom this would not affect in a negative fashion have no reason to argue against it.

 

In my area, 500 caches is about 15 miles (and I have a lake on 3 out of 8 of the directions it could search in). Filtering is nice - but there still is really no reason to limit access to data which is actually provided by the users.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess this would a good idea for people that live in smaller states with few caches, but I sure wouldn't want a PQ hitting my mailbox everyday with all of the caches in Texas! Good grief! 450 of the nearest to my home is plenty! Why do you need your whole state anyway - I didn't see that explained sufficiently by the OP.

 

I got to agree with this. I can get 500 caches downloaded within 50 miles without batting an eye, the whole state would be prohibitive and GSAK would have to work a while to process them. I prefer the system as it is, you can either pick a point and get the area you area going to be in, or follow your route. I'll not hunt 10k caches in a week-end, so I don't need them downloaded.

 

Hunting for those 500 though probably makes for a fairly busy weekend, eh? At least Saturday morning would likely be toast.

Share this post


Link to post

A second membership shouldn't necessary.

The game is growing. More caches = Mores Cachers = more Premium members = More cash.

 

Larger PQ following the growth or Presets (State/Region wide) should be something expected to happen.

 

The game is progressing. Let's plan for the futur.

 

I demand that Ford make a hover car for me. I travel to work in an area that is so congested with cars that what used to take me 30-35 minutes of travel time now takes me 60 minutes. The increased travel time eats into my family life and makes me irratable when I come home.

 

Sure my present car CAN get me to work, and I could drive off-road, but that's not the point. I want to get to my office on a straight shot without having to deal with the regular cars on the ground. If I had a flying car that travelled at 250 mph, I could be in my office in just over 3 minutes instead of the 60 it takes now.

 

Superconductivity is already a reality. Magnetic induction tracks area already used for high speed trains. Why should I expect to pay for a second car to get my hover conversion. I already pay for gas and maintenance on my existing car. Let's plan for the future.

 

I'm sorry but you just aren't reading what has been recently said very clearly.

 

The only changes to the PQ system planned for release when the new Phoenix project is completed will be the introduction of instant downloads. There are some details that have yet to be finalized concerning the storage of those PQs on Geocaching.com, but those issues will be worked out.

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

 

How much plainer could this be?

 

Not much... doesn't mean all of us agree with it.

 

And it is clear from the last line of that that the site is not looking to make this as painless and be as helpful as they can. They're doing it for some other reason - to protect data, to get more people to come and see the ads they have up to make more money, possibly to keep the system from possibly slowing down, or whatever.

 

I have to hope that the ulterior reason isn't simply to inconvenience some of us... that just wouldn't make sense.

 

To force the retrieval of the freshest data, simply remove downloads and PQ's - if we want the data, we have to go to the website, copy down the numbers manually into our GPSr's, and go from there.

 

Often, I do check the latest data - I go online with my phone to the WAP site, and see what may or may not have changed since my GSAK downloads. I am surprised there's no ads on that yet. Forcing me to do that here seems silly.

Share this post


Link to post

I won't have to - if the change is made, it would obviously be publicized. What I think would be missing is the number of people arguing against it doing so then... I honestly don't see people, if the number of caches downloaded were to be increased, putting up a fight to get the number lowered again.

 

Once again, my point - the people whom this would not affect in a negative fashion have no reason to argue against it.

 

In my area, 500 caches is about 15 miles (and I have a lake on 3 out of 8 of the directions it could search in). Filtering is nice - but there still is really no reason to limit access to data which is actually provided by the users.

Is there some reason why you are not getting several PQs by "Date Placed" so you are not limited by the cache density? Is there a problem using that easy work-around? In my GSAK database, I have a 100-mile circle of caches I can load into my GPSr if a spontaneous caching opportunity presents itself. :(

Share this post


Link to post

I see where another French Canadian cacher has has two threads locked where he is trying to spin off another idea from this thread. In that case he doesn't necessarily what more caches returned in his pocket query - just a way to auto generate the a series of pocket queries to get the same results using the placed by date. Unforturnately, Keystone has been quick on the trigger in locking those thread so I will use this thread to respond.

 

There are several third party tools that already do most of the work for you. In particular there is a GSAK macro which will calculate the placed by dates assume you have already loaded the caches into your offline database.

 

In general I find that I don't have to adjust the placed by date too often. But usually I discover this after my pocket queries have run and the most recent one returned 500 caches. So for that week, I some times miss the most recent caches that are furthest from my PQs origin. If I did a PQ by state, I would guess I would miss the most recent caches. In general, this has not affected my caching. However, it does take a bit of time for me to adjust the place by dates because I don't use the GSAK macro and instead use trial an error to find the dates by preview my Pocket Queries.

 

I actually like cron's suggestion since it would save me time in setting up my pocket queries. However, I suspect that TPTB purposely keep it somewhat difficult to setup PQs that you can use to maintain an offline database. They have on numerous occasions stated that the intent of PQs is not for maintaining an offline database. I know Coyote Red will now ask why there is an option in a pocket query to return caches that have been updated in the last 7 days if not for making it easier to keep your offline database. I have no idea. So perhaps there are cases where TPTB will listen and make it easier to generate PQs. :(

Share this post


Link to post
... Asking for legitimate change, which isn't likely to hurt anyone (and can be reversed if it does), is a good idea. ...
Many times in these forums, people suggest a change that may or may not be a good idea and support making the change with 'they can always change it back'. The problem is that this would tend to cause even greater problems for TPTB.

 

For instance, let's say that the requested change was made and that lots of people were unhappy with it. Either it ended up being worse for systems efficiency or because people don't want to have to cull their PQs down in GSAK, rather than having the PQ generator do it.

 

TPTB decide that the change didn't work and change it back. This angers the people who wanted the change and liked it. It's a losing proposition for TPTB.

 

As it is, only the very few people that argue for the change and refuse to use the existing solutions are unhappy and TPTB get's to protect their product. That's a win.

Share this post


Link to post
I see where another French Canadian cacher has has two threads locked where he is trying to spin off another idea from this thread. In that case he doesn't necessarily what more caches returned in his pocket query - just a way to auto generate the a series of pocket queries to get the same results using the placed by date. Unforturnately, Keystone has been quick on the trigger in locking those thread so I will use this thread to respond.

 

There are several third party tools that already do most of the work for you. In particular there is a GSAK macro which will calculate the placed by dates assume you have already loaded the caches into your offline database.

 

In general I find that I don't have to adjust the placed by date too often. But usually I discover this after my pocket queries have run and the most recent one returned 500 caches. So for that week, I some times miss the most recent caches that are furthest from my PQs origin. If I did a PQ by state, I would guess I would miss the most recent caches. In general, this has not affected my caching. However, it does take a bit of time for me to adjust the place by dates because I don't use the GSAK macro and instead use trial an error to find the dates by preview my Pocket Queries.

After a big caching day, I like to go to my PQ page and tweak the dates on my PQs. If I can adjust the dates by a month or so, I feel like I accomplished something. It's kind of fun. Perhaps I'm a little bent.
I actually like cron's suggestion since it would save me time in setting up my pocket queries. However, I suspect that TPTB purposely keep it somewhat difficult to setup PQs that you can use to maintain an offline database. They have on numerous occasions stated that the intent of PQs is not for maintaining an offline database. I know Coyote Red will now ask why there is an option in a pocket query to return caches that have been updated in the last 7 days if not for making it easier to keep your offline database. I have no idea. So perhaps there are cases where TPTB will listen and make it easier to generate PQs. :(
The 'last seven days' option can be helpful to run online to see the newest caches in the area. It basically works like a nearest in 'state' query targeted to your general area. I believe that some people use it for targeting FTF opportunities in areas that they are traveling to. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
... Asking for legitimate change, which isn't likely to hurt anyone (and can be reversed if it does), is a good idea. ...
Many times in these forums, people suggest a change that may or may not be a good idea and support making the change with 'they can always change it back'. The problem is that this would tend to cause even greater problems for TPTB.

 

For instance, let's say that the requested change was made and that lots of people were unhappy with it. Either it ended up being worse for systems efficiency or because people don't want to have to cull their PQs down in GSAK, rather than having the PQ generator do it.

 

TPTB decide that the change didn't work and change it back. This angers the people who wanted the change and liked it. It's a losing proposition for TPTB.

 

As it is, only the very few people that argue for the change and refuse to use the existing solutions are unhappy and TPTB get's to protect their product. That's a win.

 

I don't know about that. Besides, I didn't think this was about GS.com and TPTB getting a win. It should be about the users, not TPTB. Without the users, TPTB have no purpose. It should be about the users getting a win.

 

Thanks for all the suggestions for using what little data we are "permitted" to have access to.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

Thanks for all the suggestions for using what little data we are "permitted" to have access to.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand this. :D

 

When you can get the data for almost 2500 unique caches each day of the week depending on where you set up the centerpoints for "Data Placed" PQs, and you can request Caches Along A Route for a distance of up to 500 miles, and you can get Intant Notifications on your cell phone for brand new caches, and you can visit the web site anytime you have access and download the .gpx file for any cache in the world, I wonder about your definition of the word "little." :(:D

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for all the suggestions for using what little data we are "permitted" to have access to.

 

Access to 512216 caches anytime I want seems reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for all the suggestions for using what little data we are "permitted" to have access to.

 

Access to 512216 caches anytime I want seems reasonable.

 

And how do you put those into your GPS device so you have access to them while driving down the road?

 

And yes, I do have the ability to put essentially an unlimited amount of POI's in my GPS.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know about that. Besides, I didn't think this was about GS.com and TPTB getting a win. It should be about the users, not TPTB. Without the users, TPTB have no purpose. It should be about the users getting a win.
GC.com is a not a hobby site. Therefore, any activity that Groundspeak takes should be to create a win for the company. Part of that, of course, is to make as many of it's customers happy as possible. In my previous post, I explained how taking the position that things could simply be changed back if new features didn't work out could end up making more of it's customers unhappy. For that reason, I think that it's important not to roll out new features (or make wholesale changes to surrent ones) unless they are sure that it will be a positive change and to never take the position that you could take that feature back if badness happened.
Thanks for all the suggestions for using what little data we are "permitted" to have access to.
You're welcome, I guess.

 

I think it's important to remember that TPTB are not limiting anyones access to as much data as anyone could possibly want. The person would just have to be willing to pay the cost.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...