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

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.

You do a couple of things.
  1. First, you buy multiple memberships so you can download as many caches as you want.
  2. Second, you buy a really big fat micro SD card.
  3. Third, you use Garmin's POILoader software to fill up the card.
  4. Fourth, you wait patiently for the unit to pull up information on the cache you want because the more caches you put on the card, the longer it takes.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

You did not read my response. I said "ACCESS". I have no need for all those caches since GC mainains a database for me that can handle them. However, since you asked, I have a 700P with internet access and a laptop with wireless. Have never had to look far for a hotspot so if a sudden irrepressible urge hit to find a cache in the area, no problem.

 

That being said, I use GSAK and have my PQ's set up so I get all the caches in about a 100 mile radius. If I have a trip, I use cache along a route. If I find my route changes somewhat, I find a wireless hotspot and problem solved. Even with the data updated regularly, I still run into an occasional cache that has gone missing, been disabled or archived, possibly within hours before I was there.

 

I suppose without the laptop I would find a internet cafe or, like I do now, I would just realize that I do not have to find every cache and be content.

 

If you have the capability for unlimited POI's, then a combination of GSAK and multiple accounts fit the bill. I can't imagine too many states, or multiples there of, that can not be covered with the 35,000 caches just two accounts will get you.

 

This has now become boring. We can discuss this back and forth ad nausea and in the end, you will get 5 PQ's a day at 500 a piece. If you don't like it, hit them where it hurts and take your money elsewhere.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

And I do not believe you read my statement. Just because you chose to work with the data the way you do, and constantly go and update batches by finding hot spots and such, doesn't mean I need to choose to do so. The only reason I need to do so is because TPTB limit the amount of information available.

 

And they do limit it. If they didn't, they would see that charging an extra $3 a month per person who would like to add 5 more pq's to an account per day would be a good business decision, since this would allow more income, and the people that wanted more access to data would have it. They choose to limit the data.

 

It is a hobby site - unless anyone using it is doing this for a job. Yes, the owner and people that work for him have it as a job, but it is a hobby. And for that site to exist, they have to keep as many users as happy as possible. By forcing us to click on pages, they make more money through those gosh-darn ads. This should not be the goal of the site - it should be to make the game as useful and as fun for the users as possible.

 

Unless I missed a point somewhere. Games are meant to be fun, not to make money off of. (good example - professional sports - the game gets lost in the money... amateur sports, kids sports, etc... they're playing for fun)

Share this post


Link to post
It is a hobby site - unless anyone using it is doing this for a job. Yes, the owner and people that work for him have it as a job, but it is a hobby.
The site supports a hobby, but it is not a hobby site. It's a commercial site. It's supposed to make money and stay in business.

Share this post


Link to post

And they do limit it. If they didn't, they would see that charging an extra $3 a month per person who would like to add 5 more pq's to an account per day would be a good business decision, since this would allow more income, and the people that wanted more access to data would have it. They choose to limit the data.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here. If you create another account, then for exactly the $3 a month which you mentioned, you can have 5 more PQs. Yes, the caches for the second account will include some which your main account has found, but it's not bad for a workaround.

 

The alternative is for Groundspeak to propose multi-level memberships. That would be so fraught with problems that I can see why they don't want to open that can of worms. After all, look at all the problems which the introduction of Platinum membership brought. ;) So I imagine that the marketing people and the technical people sat down and worked out what it would cost and what it would bring in, and decided "nah".

 

Unless I missed a point somewhere. Games are meant to be fun, not to make money off of. (good example - professional sports - the game gets lost in the money... amateur sports, kids sports, etc... they're playing for fun)

I couldn't agree more. But given the percentage of American GDP which goes into sports, it looks like we're in the minority. ;)

 

And, unlike Major League Baseball, it's the barrier to entry is low. It's pretty easy to start your own geocache listing site, which you could offer to people for free. I'll certainly put a buck in the tip jar.

Share this post


Link to post

And they do limit it. If they didn't, they would see that charging an extra $3 a month per person who would like to add 5 more pq's to an account per day would be a good business decision, since this would allow more income, and the people that wanted more access to data would have it. They choose to limit the data.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here. If you create another account, then for exactly the $3 a month which you mentioned, you can have 5 more PQs. Yes, the caches for the second account will include some which your main account has found, but it's not bad for a workaround.

The second account can use the ignore list for caches found by the main account.

Share this post


Link to post

And they do limit it. If they didn't, they would see that charging an extra $3 a month per person who would like to add 5 more pq's to an account per day would be a good business decision, since this would allow more income, and the people that wanted more access to data would have it. They choose to limit the data.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here. If you create another account, then for exactly the $3 a month which you mentioned, you can have 5 more PQs. Yes, the caches for the second account will include some which your main account has found, but it's not bad for a workaround.

 

The alternative is for Groundspeak to propose multi-level memberships. That would be so fraught with problems that I can see why they don't want to open that can of worms. After all, look at all the problems which the introduction of Platinum membership brought. :lol: So I imagine that the marketing people and the technical people sat down and worked out what it would cost and what it would bring in, and decided "nah".

 

Unless I missed a point somewhere. Games are meant to be fun, not to make money off of. (good example - professional sports - the game gets lost in the money... amateur sports, kids sports, etc... they're playing for fun)

I couldn't agree more. But given the percentage of American GDP which goes into sports, it looks like we're in the minority. :D

 

And, unlike Major League Baseball, it's the barrier to entry is low. It's pretty easy to start your own geocache listing site, which you could offer to people for free. I'll certainly put a buck in the tip jar.

 

Platinum membership joke aside, I don't see how this would be an issue. You increase the number of PQ's allowed per day (and maybe even to store) based on the level of membership. Sounds like a way to make more money, which seems to be a good thing for TPTB. But it increases the ability of a user to download more caches, getting offline access to more of the database, which has historically been a problem for TPTB - Keep us from our data, except in small chunks.

 

The "Ignore" issue listed in a separate reply is a heck of an issue in terms of trying to keep track of found caches on 2 accounts. Way too much work for $3 a month.

Share this post


Link to post
... The "Ignore" issue listed in a separate reply is a heck of an issue in terms of trying to keep track of found caches on 2 accounts. Way too much work for $3 a month.
Not if you only log finds to your primary account.

Share this post


Link to post

I see the phrase "keeping us from the data we supply to them" being thrown around a lot on this thread.

 

Each user only supplies data for their caches and their finds/dnf's and you have complete control over "that" data. You can delete, modify, archive or anything else "you" supplied them but data submitted by other users does not give you the right to have ownership of those other people's data.

 

Currently, everyone has access to way more data than they supply to the site.

 

So how can we claim ownership over data we did not individually submit? We, as a whole submitted it but if any one individual user gets protective about a company managing, organizing, maintaining, upgrading and everything else they do with the data we supply them, than its up to that one individual to take their "treasured" data that they supplied off the site and make their own website.

 

IMO, its worth the 3 bucks a month to let someone else do the work and let me enjoy the hobby. Which includes following their rules. We pay them for a service. Heck, they offer it for free. The perks come with a very small fee but all in all, its their site. Their rules. And their equipment.

 

One person saying they are not giving us access to "OUR" data is foolish.

 

All of us saying that would be a different story. But all of us do not see a need for 17k caches a week.

Edited by Mike and Mitya

Share this post


Link to post

 

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.

______________________________________________________________________

 

I usually dont respond to these kind of threads but sometimes i just must.

 

we pay for a service. They manage the data. If we dont like the way they do it, why do we stay their customers?

 

Why resort to things like "Until a change is made" when refering to a question about how many times should they respond?

 

If we do not like a service provided to us, we change. We dont revolt and continuously make threads demanding they "change"

 

I thoroughly enjoy this sport but if I ever reach a point where I feel my 3 bucks entitles me to revolt to the way someone manages the data that helps me play, its time to rethink my hobby because life is filled with unpleasantless and why conciously try and make my hobby that way too?

 

Life is also filled with micro-managing everything. If I cant download some caches, load a few waypoints in my GPS and go out and enjoy myself on a weekend without turning it into how much data, reports, analysis, comparisons, charts, graphs, and anguish over possibly missing the fact that the cache I am about to try and find was archived 10 minutes ago, again, its time to rethink my hobby.

 

Yes, I do have Gsak reports on my profile but thats for me and my Dad to pass our data back and forth and its fun to see what we have done. But its a game. A hobby. A chance to get away from it all for a while. Not to drag it all with us.

Edited by Mike and Mitya

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I think that GC.com should just email all the members 1 email every day. It should include every geocache in the world. And not only just the updates from the previous day, but each day should contain the complete listing of each cache (just in case I lost an email or two).

 

 

... just wanted to keep the argument flowing.... :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, first off, it you can't take a little time and figure out how to use the things you are provided with to do what you want then you are lazy.

 

Next a word on improvement, someone brought up the Ford motor company. It's 2008, where is my flying car? By your logic my asking for a flying car should get one on the market this week right. If I can get a flying car you can have unlimited access to data.

 

Finally if you pay someone $3 a month to give you data, and you agreed that you would take the data the way that they provide it and figure out how to use it on your own then you should quit whining like a spoiled brat. If you really have that much of a problem with the way that data is provided to you then you should take your $3 and start your own geocaching web site and dole out data any way you want to. At the risk of getting bounced out of the forums I will say that GC.com is not the only game on the planet, and you are free to use other providers to get your cache data. Just remember they will dole out data the way that they see fit, not the way that you want them to. If you want data tailor provided to you there is only one way to make that happen, start your own Geocaching web site from scratch. Build it from the ground up one cacher at a time for about eight years and lets see how that works out for you. I know that some people believe that GC.com is here to accommodate their every wish, but there are other people out there playing the game besides you. Suck it up, things are the way they are, and that isn't going to change because a dozen people out of several hundred thousand are complaining. If you want change that bad you need to find a better way to make it happen than whining like a bunch of crybabies that want everything handed to them because they asked for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Just stopped by to see if I can FINALLY have the ability to hunt more that 2500 caches a day, however I see the disappointment of not being able to access all my data will obviously continue a while longer. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

So in the end, we do whatever TPTB wants us to, live with it, like it, and not complain or suggest changes. Guess we can remove anything but the help forums, because any of us that disagree with what is done already are bad and wrong and lazy.

 

Wow...

Share this post


Link to post

Nobody ever said suggesting changes was bad.

 

But when comments are made to the fact that threads will keep popping up and they (TPTB) will have to keep responding till change is made probably goes a little far.

 

And you dont have to do anything that GS wants you to do. You only have to use their service the way they state. They provice a service. Take what they provide or move on. Ahh, the life in a free world.

Edited by Mike and Mitya

Share this post


Link to post

So in the end, we do whatever TPTB wants us to, live with it, like it, and not complain or suggest changes. Guess we can remove anything but the help forums, because any of us that disagree with what is done already are bad and wrong and lazy.

 

Wow...

I don't see you getting off your lazy rear and starting your own geocaching web site so you can set up the outflow of data the way you want to. That part makes you lazy.

You had to agree to the users agreement like the rest of us. You can complain all you want but you have been told many times that it isn't going to change any time soon. The constant complaining makes you a crybaby.

Share this post


Link to post

Just stopped by to see if I can FINALLY have the ability to hunt more that 2500 caches a day, however I see the disappointment of not being able to access all my data will obviously continue a while longer. :smile:

I am fairly certain that I wrote all my own cache logs, and designed all my own cache pages. If it's "Your" data why weren't you entering your data for me?

 

Also I have to say that I am not the best speller in the world, but baloo&bd doesn't look anything like Groundspeak incorporated in any way shape or form. You as well accepted the user agreement that says the information you entered including your forum posts become the property of Groundspeak and they may distribute it any way they want to.

 

If you knew that was going to be a problem for you you should have told them before you agreed.

Share this post


Link to post

Just stopped by to see if I can FINALLY have the ability to hunt more that 2500 caches a day, however I see the disappointment of not being able to access all my data will obviously continue a while longer. :smile:

I am fairly certain that I wrote all my own cache logs, and designed all my own cache pages. If it's "Your" data why weren't you entering your data for me?

 

Also I have to say that I am not the best speller in the world, but baloo&bd doesn't look anything like Groundspeak incorporated in any way shape or form. You as well accepted the user agreement that says the information you entered including your forum posts become the property of Groundspeak and they may distribute it any way they want to.

 

If you knew that was going to be a problem for you you should have told them before you agreed.

Take a deep breath. B&BD is on your side of this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Nobody ever said suggesting changes was bad.

 

But when comments are made to the fact that threads will keep popping up and they (TPTB) will have to keep responding till change is made probably goes a little far.

 

And you dont have to do anything that GS wants you to do. You only have to use their service the way they state. They provice a service. Take what they provide or move on. Ahh, the life in a free world.

 

But if they took responsibility for their own actions then they couldn't complain about how the world is holding them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Next a word on improvement, someone brought up the Ford motor company. It's 2008, where is my flying car? By your logic my asking for a flying car should get one on the market this week right. If I can get a flying car you can have unlimited access to data.

 

You can order a flying car right now, but it's going to cost you a little more than $3 a month :drama:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see you getting off your lazy rear and starting your own geocaching web site so you can set up the outflow of data the way you want to. That part makes you lazy.

You had to agree to the users agreement like the rest of us. You can complain all you want but you have been told many times that it isn't going to change any time soon. The constant complaining makes you a crybaby.

Wow... Some people around here needs anger Management therapy :drama:

 

Don't forget,

It's only a possible improvement.

I'm not complaining about the issue.

I'm not imposing the change.

For now, most of us can manage it.

It might be a different story in the nearby future.

It's only a suggestion and I still think it's a good one.

Share this post


Link to post

Just stopped by to see if I can FINALLY have the ability to hunt more that 2500 caches a day, however I see the disappointment of not being able to access all my data will obviously continue a while longer. :drama:

I am fairly certain that I wrote all my own cache logs, and designed all my own cache pages. If it's "Your" data why weren't you entering your data for me?

 

Also I have to say that I am not the best speller in the world, but baloo&bd doesn't look anything like Groundspeak incorporated in any way shape or form. You as well accepted the user agreement that says the information you entered including your forum posts become the property of Groundspeak and they may distribute it any way they want to.

 

If you knew that was going to be a problem for you you should have told them before you agreed.

Take a deep breath. B&BD is on your side of this issue.

 

Dang, I put the smilie there and everything. :drama:

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Achem... Actually, all of us have access to every bit of published cache data on the site. At a moments notice, you can look up information for any published cache. Its that simple.

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Achem... Actually, all of us have access to every bit of published cache data on the site. At a moments notice, you can look up information for any published cache. Its that simple.

 

The Steaks

 

Ah-hem - I will consider that to be correct when I can put my phone into the GPS program I use, and have live access to the caches. What I have now is what I was permitted to download in a specific period of time, and may or may not be completely accurate. Geocache Navigator is the next best thing to what I am saying, but only available for certain phone services.

 

Maybe that should be the priority - making that available to all service providers. I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks a month to have up-to-the-minute access to cache data...

Edited by FireRef

Share this post


Link to post

It amazes me how many threads boil down to 'I want eveything that I want, but I don't want to do any work'.

 

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

Share this post


Link to post

It amazes me how many threads boil down to 'I want eveything that I want, but I don't want to do any work'.

 

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

 

And it always amazes me how many of these threads, with legitimate suggestions and ideas, boil down to people complaining about those suggestions and ideas, and complaining about the people who make them, rather than simply moving on to other things.

 

Whine, Whine, Whine.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ah-hem - I will consider that to be correct when I can put my phone into the GPS program I use, and have live access to the caches. What I have now is what I was permitted to download in a specific period of time, and may or may not be completely accurate. Geocache Navigator is the next best thing to what I am saying, but only available for certain phone services.

 

Maybe that should be the priority - making that available to all service providers. I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks a month to have up-to-the-minute access to cache data...

 

Now there is a good idea, and it puts no more strain on the system than someone logging from home.

Share this post


Link to post

It amazes me how many threads boil down to 'I want eveything that I want, but I don't want to do any work'.

 

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

 

And it always amazes me how many of these threads, with legitimate suggestions and ideas, boil down to people complaining about those suggestions and ideas, and complaining about the people who make them, rather than simply moving on to other things.

 

Whine, Whine, Whine.

I didn't call you a whiner. If you are self-identifying, however...

 

BTW, asking to be able to download all the caches in the database is not a 'legitimate suggestion'.

Share this post


Link to post

It amazes me how many threads boil down to 'I want eveything that I want, but I don't want to do any work'.

 

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

 

And it always amazes me how many of these threads, with legitimate suggestions and ideas, boil down to people complaining about those suggestions and ideas, and complaining about the people who make them, rather than simply moving on to other things.

 

Whine, Whine, Whine.

I didn't call you a whiner. If you are self-identifying, however...

 

BTW, asking to be able to download all the caches in the database is not a 'legitimate suggestion'.

 

...in your opinion.

 

And thanks for the line above that. I didn't realize this was turning into a topic for trading insults. I thought it was about suggestions to get more out of this website. At least that is what I have been posting. I would hope that, again, people posting suggestions for improvement of the functionality of this site would be supported, rather than trashed because it isn't what some others want.

 

I guarantee for every suggestion, there is at least 1 person who feels it isn't worth anything, at least to them, and will make sure to post that it is a bad idea, simply to argue the point. I don't agree with all suggestions. But I do agree that anything with makes the site more useful to anyone, allows for more flexibility to anyone, or improves the site's functionality to anyone is a good one. Insulting the ideas, or the people that suggest them, is really counterproductive.

 

I'm not here to argue. I'm here to make suggestions. I made mine. Some agree, some disagree. Few choose to insult and call me lazy or greedy. In my opinion, those people need to find something better to do with their time.

 

This would not have widened to downloading "ALL" of the caches, had the much more legitimate suggestion (not saying mine wasn't...) of having statewide options available been considered. Some of you, it would seem, would prefer to do one cache at a time. Download one, go out and get it, come home, log it, and download the next one. I prefer having the option of having the cache information in my phone, and while driving around, when I see I am passing near something, check it out, maybe get it, and log sometime later. Without downloading the caches ahead of time, I can't put them on the map and see when I am driving by one. (unless I choose to switch phone service providers, which I do not choose to at this time). That would actually be the eaiser, less "lazy" choice, since to set up my phone now takes 10-15 minutes to dl the pq's I do, run them through GSAK, and export them as various files to my phone so I get different icons for different types. A statewide PQ would do the same thing, take the same amount of time, and give me a more comprehensive set of marks on my map.

 

I'm not ever saying I would be able to do 2500 caches in a day, or 7x that in a week. But having them available and knowing where they are for when the caching bug hits would be much more prefered than saying "Whoops, used my PQ's for the day... guess I'm working with old data now because GS is limiting my updates". And isn't staying away from old data one of GS's concerns?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't post here often but I do read a lot.

 

If you have a suggestion post it.

 

If its a good suggestion it needs no defense.

 

If its a bad suggestion all the defense in the world will not convince Groundspeak to do it.

 

So either way, make your suggestion and move on. Constantly trying to defend it doesn't help your case or any others.

 

All it does is cause angst and lead to a thread where only a few are really posting back and forth. There has not been a new idea from either side in 2 pages.

 

You made your case, Groundspeak has already said they are not making a changes in this area at the moment. If Groundspeak thinks its a good idea it will show up at some point. Harping for or against it will not make Groundspeak accept or kill the idea. It has ti stand on it's own merit.

 

Let it go.

 

Because there has been no new ideas in the last 2 pages would a moderator consider closing this thread please?

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

It amazes me how many threads boil down to 'I want eveything that I want, but I don't want to do any work'.

 

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

 

And it always amazes me how many of these threads, with legitimate suggestions and ideas, boil down to people complaining about those suggestions and ideas, and complaining about the people who make them, rather than simply moving on to other things.

 

Whine, Whine, Whine.

Some interesting reading here, which is exclusively regarding the current conversation:

Pocket Queries - will they ever go beyond 500 - 85 posts

Pocket Queries: Raising the 500 limit - 148 posts

500 Waypoint Pocket Query Limit - 45 posts

I need one pocket querry with 1000 results - 34 posts

Pocket Query Idea - Hey Wow! It's exactly what you're asking for, and it's only 2 posts long!!!!!

Feature Request - Pocket Query Limit - 19 posts

Buy A Single Additional Pocket Query? - 5 posts

 

Well, that ought to keep you going. For the record, these answers were found by searching for pocket query in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum. The results encompass from today through July of 2006. And this is by no means a complete listing, I'm sure. This was just a brief scan through the titles, and picking the most likely candidates - ones that, with a brief glance at title and short description, I could quickly tell if they were relevant.

Now, you may want to say "Hey! Since there's so many requests, TPTB should make the change." That's only seven people that have asked for it. Add to that the maybe fifteen or twenty that have seen each message and said "yeah. Sounds good!", and you've got maybe 140 people wanting it. Out of how many premium members?

Hopefully, this will shed a little light on why you perceive some flak about the subject.

 

</soapbox>

Share this post


Link to post

Well... PJPeters, maybe more then you think.

We don't see many topics about "Make the terrain and difficulty stars different colors so they are easier to read". Maybe people don't really think that it will help them so much.

 

But, the amount of topics about PQ sizes, coverage, ... That tells a lot.

 

The same group of people was against those ideas.

But NEW people, each time, were in favor....

 

GC won't implement stuff that would jeopardize their servers!!!

 

I'm asking this to people against those ideas, what differences will it make to your life?

Edited by Leboyf

Share this post


Link to post
... I'm not ever saying I would be able to do 2500 caches in a day, or 7x that in a week. But having them available and knowing where they are for when the caching bug hits would be much more prefered than saying "Whoops, used my PQ's for the day... guess I'm working with old data now because GS is limiting my updates". And isn't staying away from old data one of GS's concerns?
I doubt that they are too terribly concerned if you have to cache using day-old data.

Share this post


Link to post

5x500 caches/day is now simply not enough ohmy.gif ohmy.gif sad.gif tongue.gif huh.gif

This question has come up many times and the answer from Jeremy has always been no. Do not expeecct this to change any time soon if at all.

 

WHY

-------

Too much load on Groundspeak Servers

 

Every week I generate 20 PQs breaking the data up by date placed.

Every week I spend 1 hour fine tuning the PQ's

All of that is creating a lot of load on the servers

You know, there is already a solution you can use today to reduce the load on Groundspeak servers. Once you've run your initial 20 PQs, you shouldn't ever need to run them again. Instead, create one (or more, if necessary) PQs using the same information as your original PQs but add "Updated in the last 7 days". This will keep your offline database fresh, and won't include any caches that haven't changed since your last PQs, assuming that you run your "Update" PQs at least every 7 days. But I'm guessing that the number of PQs needed will be quite a bit less than your original 20. For example, I have 4 PQs I run to build a list of close to 2000 caches. Usually, I can run 1 "Update" PQ a week to keep that set of 4 PQs up to date. Obviously, this would only work for people who keep their GSAK data from week to week.

 

The only drawback with this method is that the "date hidden" method used to break up the PQs will have to be checked and possibly modified every time you want to run your "Update" PQs (i.e. you can't just set them and forget them) because it is harder to predict which range of caches might get a lot of activity.

 

Just an idea, if anyone is concerned about trying to reduce the load on the servers.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't use my quota of PQ's a month. But for those that do I wonder if its worth an additional 3 bucks a month to you to run 10 a day instead of 5? If it is worth 3 dollars why not create an extra premium member account who's soul purpose is to run PQ's?

Edited by Harriet the Spy

Share this post


Link to post

So why doesn't Groundspeak just have simple levels for their memberships... $3 for 5, $6 for 10, etc... then you're all on the same account, all of your pq's are set - and you could pay more for times when more pq's are useful, like during the summer months.

Share this post


Link to post
So why doesn't Groundspeak just have simple levels for their memberships... $3 for 5, $6 for 10, etc... then you're all on the same account, all of your pq's are set - and you could pay more for times when more pq's are useful, like during the summer months.
You can already do that. If there are months that you need more PQs, simply pay 'the man' three bucks. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

So why doesn't Groundspeak just have simple levels for their memberships... $3 for 5, $6 for 10, etc...

 

They implemented that a while ago here. 17500 caches for $3, 35000 for $6, 70000 for $12, etc.

 

What is frustrating is that for all that money, you think they would include a laptop or at least a GPS. Not doing so limits our ability to hunt caches at will using our data. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I need them to include an additional cacher who is able to find the hard ones. Not including that wily person limits my ability to find caches using my data.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

This has been so hilarious to follow the whole last month buring my banishment.

While I was a Premium Member for 1 year then a while later for 1 month I actually had never needed a PQ that I didn't already have.

 

Actually only once did I need to look up something and lo & behold, there was a library right there.

 

And only once did I actually use my PQ,s when out in the field to find a particularily hard hide, I didn't make note of it on my GPS so when I got back to my car on went the laptop and up went GSAK and the info I needed was right there. Good thing that I didn't need to solve the puzzle as PQ's don't contain images or links that one can see ofline.

 

And only once did I download the results of a PQ to my GPS. Boy, I must be doing something right since in 2.5 years I have had over 1450 finds and not many DNF's.

 

I imaging the op wants to make his own database that's exactly identical to geocaching.com's and up to date every millisecond? The one database that's instantly up to date is the one that many who have answered this message thread already said, http://www.geocaching.com

 

It's too bad that he has not asked for eac and every log for each and every cache, sopmething others have asked for in the forums and been shot down, I would have loved to add my bullet to those shots. And gee, it's alos too bad that he did not ask for all archived and retracted caches let alone the hundreds of thousands of un-published, never planned to be published, caches, that would have been a bigger can of worms.

 

In no way will any of this ever Reduce The LOAD as each and every PQ I imagine is personalized by each and every PM who generates one. I for one used to do PQ's by placed date for a whole state at a time for all 6 of the New England States, some require 6 PQ's, and being a rocket scientist I maximize my yield by NOT including caches I've found as that data exists in one very useful PQ.

 

Cell phone and a friend with a computer, cell phone with web access, public libraries, hand held computer or laptop with Wi-Fi will give one instant access to all the data one could ever need. What's the real reason for this original request?

Share this post


Link to post
In no way will any of this ever Reduce The LOAD as each and every PQ I imagine is personalized by each and every PM who generates one.

The preset PQs won't be personalized. One Preset per region. Please go back to the Original Post for more explanation.

 

What's the real reason for this original request?

See post 84

See post 110

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

I know I'm coming in late to this discussion, and I decided not to read every post, but I have to wonder - all of those people who think this is such a bad/horrible/worthless idea, and don't understand how or why anybody might want the suggested changes - why are you even in this discussion? Because you like arguing about things? Because you like to think you're better than somebody else? This was a suggestion to change the way PQ's are made available. Not to eliminate the way it's currently done, but to offer different alternatives. If you don't like the suggestion, leave the conversation. Nobody is making you stay here and read this, and if you're not interested you're certainly not contributing anything.

 

It's things like this that remind me why I'm not a regular in the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

esquimaux, in nearly six years here, I've learned what it takes for me to enjoy participating in forum discussions. I need to be respectful of those who hold opinions which differ from mine, and respectful of their right to express those opinions within the limits of the forum guidelines. If you cannot do that, then in my opinion it's unlikely that you will enjoy participating. It is, therefore, probably best if you avoid the forums and stick with finding geocaches and other activities that bring you enjoyment. Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post

I know I'm coming in late to this discussion, and I decided not to read every post, but I have to wonder - all of those people who think this is such a bad/horrible/worthless idea, and don't understand how or why anybody might want the suggested changes - why are you even in this discussion? Because you like arguing about things? Because you like to think you're better than somebody else? This was a suggestion to change the way PQ's are made available. Not to eliminate the way it's currently done, but to offer different alternatives. If you don't like the suggestion, leave the conversation. Nobody is making you stay here and read this, and if you're not interested you're certainly not contributing anything.

 

It's things like this that remind me why I'm not a regular in the forums.

 

This is nonsense. This is a complex site managing a complex database with limited resources. If the decision ia made to use programming time, server resources, etc to satisfy one request, those same resources cannot be used to satisfy someone else's top priority. So it makes perfect sense for people to say, "don't use resources for this, I'd rather you did this," or "the site does not have to be changed to accomplish this because you can already do it this way," or "if people want to use more site resources they should contribute more." If Jeremy and the Lackeys are working on your project, they can't work on mine and one way they can decide which project is most important is to hear users discuss both the pros and cons of ideas and evaluate the positive and negative feedback suggestions receive.

Share this post


Link to post

I know I'm coming in late to this discussion, and I decided not to read every post, but I have to wonder - all of those people who think this is such a bad/horrible/worthless idea, and don't understand how or why anybody might want the suggested changes - why are you even in this discussion? Because you like arguing about things? Because you like to think you're better than somebody else? This was a suggestion to change the way PQ's are made available. Not to eliminate the way it's currently done, but to offer different alternatives. If you don't like the suggestion, leave the conversation. Nobody is making you stay here and read this, and if you're not interested you're certainly not contributing anything.

 

It's things like this that remind me why I'm not a regular in the forums.

What a ridiculous argument!

 

To say that those that don't agree with the suggestion should stay out of the discussion is both narrow-minded and immature.

 

Adults are generally permitted to have discussions in which not everyone agrees with everyone else. Isn't that the whole point of having a discussion. If every just came in after the OP and said, "I agree" or "Me too" that would be a fairly boring discussion and likely would not result in all the aspects of the subject being covered.

 

Plus if the OP is entitled to his or her opinion on the subject and has a "right" to get that message out to TPTB and the masses, why doesn't everyone else have that same "right"?

 

And to say that those who don't agree are "certainly not contributing anything" is insulting. I certainly believe that dissent is a VERY valuable part of any discussion. Who knows, people might even be enlightened by the dissenting opinions!

 

If you can't handle differences of opinion then perhaps discussion forums are not the place for you. But for the rest of the people who can conduct a civil, albeit disagreeing, discussion, that's why the forums exist.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not ridiculous - it's the same argument I made before. A suggestion was made. People who argue against it have no reason to do so, as it does not/would not affect them.

 

Suggesting other ways to do things makes sense.

 

Arguing against a modification which doesn't negatively affect them is nothing more than the sake of arguing.

 

And we know several people, based on their contributions in this and many other discussions, are only posting to argue or taunt. All you have to do is read several sets of longer posts in any of the on-topic forums, and you can pick out these 3-4 posters with no problem. They often have high numbers of posts, and just about always contradict any suggestion made.

 

And I thought the point of these forums was to either ask questions or suggest ways to improve the site... not put down every suggestion or taunt everyone who makes them.

 

Maybe I was wrong...

Share this post


Link to post

So only people who agree with the suggestion are allow to participate in the discussion? And who decides whether or not it would affect them? How do you know that it wouldn't?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

 

dis·cus·sion /dɪˈskʌʃən/

–noun

an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

 

discussion

c.1340, from O.Fr. discussion, from L.L. discussionem "examination, discussion," in classical L., "a shaking," from discussus, pp. of discutere "strike asunder, break up," from dis- "apart" + quatere "to shake." Originally "examination, investigation, judicial trial;" meaning of "talk over, debate" first recorded 1448. Sense evolution in L. appears to have been from "smash apart" to "scatter, disperse," then in post-classical times (via the mental process involved) to "investigate, examine," then to "debate."

Share this post


Link to post

People who argue against it have no reason to do so, as it does not/would not affect them.

 

Arguing against a modification which doesn't negatively affect them is nothing more than the sake of arguing.

More of the same. Read my reply to Esquimaux above. I find your discounting of my right to express an opinion to be very disrespectful. My views are well-founded and I believe in them as much as you believe in yours.

Share this post


Link to post

So only people who agree with the suggestion are allow to participate in the discussion? And who decides whether or not it would affect them? How do you know that it wouldn't?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

 

dis·cus·sion /dɪˈskʌʃən/

–noun

an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

 

discussion

c.1340, from O.Fr. discussion, from L.L. discussionem "examination, discussion," in classical L., "a shaking," from discussus, pp. of discutere "strike asunder, break up," from dis- "apart" + quatere "to shake." Originally "examination, investigation, judicial trial;" meaning of "talk over, debate" first recorded 1448. Sense evolution in L. appears to have been from "smash apart" to "scatter, disperse," then in post-classical times (via the mental process involved) to "investigate, examine," then to "debate."

 

I'm not saying I don't know that it will - however, they haven't shown that it will affect them. (and TPTB haven't said that it would either).

 

In regards to the two people who have replied so far, you don't fall into the category I was referring to in my previous post. Positive debate is one thing. "I don't like your idea, so I'm just going to complain" is another. The people I was referring to in the above post are certainly, provable by searching posts, doing little to contribute to the level of positive debate and discussion in these threads.

 

I guess it would make more sense to email suggestions privately to TPTB than to post them here, so people can just tear ideas apart and try to make you look stupid.

 

Maybe, since most people aren't debating this anymore and are simply complaining about each other's posts, it's time to close this thread - moderator?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...