My Find PQ every 6.5 days please

[+TotemLake]

I'll stand by this... If this gets pushed back to 6.5 days using the same algorithym in use today, we'll see this same gripe come up sometime by late summer if not sooner.

In the theoretical world in which you apparently live this might be correct. In the real world you're dead wrong on this one. I think that while you have a fair grasp of some broad principles, your understanding of human nature is off the mark. But that's what makes "people watching" (and poker) so much fun. It's not an exact science. The formulas don't always work the way they should. I'd love to see this theory tested, even if I find out I'm wrong!

No, in the real world, he is right. It is human nature. Anyone who has been in these forums for a while knows he is right.

 

Right now I think there is a sound argument for changing it to 6 days (not even 6.5, which still leaves room for weekly creep). The difference I see is that the argument would no longer be about creep, but convenience. I support the 6 day timetable because I have experienced the issue first hand. If changed, I could easily defeat the argument for making it less time.

 

At this point, there is nothing I can do regarding the issue created by the 7 day time period. With the 7 day time table, heaven forbid that I actually plan something to where I am away from my computer at the time the PQ goes to 7 days and 1 minute. With 6 days, if I forget, it is 100 percent my fault that the PQ begins to creep. It would not be the site's fault. Personal responsibility comes into play a whole lot more with the 6 day timetable.

let's go then! I'm betting the pot on my hand! How will we know who wins? One thing, though. I'm not denying that it is human nature to complain, I'm saying that this PARTICULAR issue (being able to get PQ's on a certain schedule) would be resolved. You seem to agree with me on that. I said in my response that those who want it every day would not be affected one way or the other.

It's a bandaid fix to push back to 6.5 days with the current setup. Once people know it has been pushed back, they will take advantage of the push back and then the creep will be a problem yet again. You are missing the grasp of that entire issue. That's what you get for staying inisde the box and not look outside to understand the long term issues. It needs to stay on a seven day schedule, but with a different approach to the programming so that the entire seventh day is not affected by the creep.

[+alexrudd]

It's a bandaid fix to push back to 6.5 days with the current setup. Once people know it has been pushed back, they will take advantage of the push back and then the creep will be a problem yet again. You are missing the grasp of that entire issue. That's what you get for staying inisde the box and not look outside to understand the long term issues. It needs to stay on a seven day schedule, but with a different approach to the programming so that the entire seventh day is not affected by the creep.

Please reconsider what you are saying. Are you suggesting that people who currently try to update their stats weekly would start requesting their PQ based on Schedule #1 below because it's technically possible? I think #2 is more likely

 

#1

Week 1: 12PM Sat

Week 2: 12AM Sat

Week 3: 12PM Fri

Week 4: 12AM Fri

...

 

#2

Week 1: 12PM Sat

Week 2: 3PM Sat

Week 3: 9AM Sat

Week 4: 1PM Sat

 

I think you're arguing for the best solution (make the PQ requestable weekly without worrying about creep). The irony is that you fail to realize that everyone else is too, and accuse them of limited sight and comprehension.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

The solution I believe everyone is looking for is whatever algorithm allows the cacher to do his "paperwork" every week on the same day (most likely his "day off") without worrying about the "creep". So, on "Sunday" (or whatever) he/she can sit down and process his "finds". At what ever time on Sunday doesn't matter, just so it doesn't "creep". Heck, most people have some sort of weekly schedule they have developed, whether it be laundry, shopping, work (yuck), mow the lawn, wash the car, geocache (yeah), .... whatever. Let the programmers figure out how to do the details.

[+sbell111]

It's a bandaid fix to push back to 6.5 days with the current setup. Once people know it has been pushed back, they will take advantage of the push back and then the creep will be a problem yet again. You are missing the grasp of that entire issue. That's what you get for staying inisde the box and not look outside to understand the long term issues. It needs to stay on a seven day schedule, but with a different approach to the programming so that the entire seventh day is not affected by the creep.

Please reconsider what you are saying. Are you suggesting that people who currently try to update their stats weekly would start requesting their PQ based on Schedule #1 below because it's technically possible? I think #2 is more likely

 

#1

Week 1: 12PM Sat

Week 2: 12AM Sat

Week 3: 12PM Fri

Week 4: 12AM Fri

...

 

#2

Week 1: 12PM Sat

Week 2: 3PM Sat

Week 3: 9AM Sat

Week 4: 1PM Sat

 

I think you're arguing for the best solution (make the PQ requestable weekly without worrying about creep). The irony is that you fail to realize that everyone else is too, and accuse them of limited sight and comprehension.

I'm thinking that what he's suggesting is that there are plenty of people that always want more. If it is changed to every six days, they'll want it every five.

[+hukilaulau]

You are missing the grasp of that entire issue. That's what you get for staying inisde the box and not look outside to understand the long term issues.

Sigh... One last try. I have a firm grasp on the issue that was actually brought up in the OP. You took that and changed it into something else. I understand, and agree with, your contention that some folks will always complain that whatever you give them is not enough, but that's not what we were talking about!

People want to be ably to do their my finds PQ on the same day every week! And (here's the irony) there is more than one way to program this! Geez!!! talk about staying in the box!

now my work week is finished so I'm going caching. Bye...

[+tozainamboku]

I'm thinking that what he's suggesting is that there are plenty of people that always want more. If it is changed to every six days, they'll want it every five.

 

People want to be ably to do their my finds PQ on the same day every week! And (here's the irony) there is more than one way to program this!

 

I'm still confused why you need the ability to run the my finds PQ the same day every week. If you wanted the stats to be most up to date wouldn't you want to run them every day that you actually went caching? It seems people are willing to accept that you can only run the my finds query once every seven days as some kind of compromise to limit the additional load on the servers. So they are willing to have out of date statistics. But when creep cause the My Finds to move too late in the day for them, they are unwilling to use the simple fix of skipping a week. It's as if its OK to have seven day old stats but not eight days old. I can see why the people who are able to live with the current system may think that by changing the time between All Finds to 6 or 6.5 days will just have some people thing that they should run their All Find every six days so that their stats are never more than six days old.

 

I'd personally not mind if the site changed something to reduce or eliminate the creep issue. But the text should say that the the All Finds query can be run only once every seven days. Cachers should be encouraged to only get the My Finds occasionally and to use other methods for computing statistics for those that "need" to have everything up to date.

[Rhialto]

What about having all 7 days available just like for all other PQ we create BUT when you checkmark a day, all others become grayed out, unlike all other PQ we can run each days.

 

This way I will be able to receive it every Monday (as I mostly do geocaching on weekends) and update my stats.

 

On winter I'm not very active so I would only run it on demand.

[+sTeamTraen]

I'm still confused why you need the ability to run the my finds PQ the same day every week.

I can see the use of this for people who do all their caching and logging at the weekend (say), and like to have a nice, tidy, up-to-date set of databases by the end of Sunday evening, then walk away from the Geoputer until Friday evening.

 

One could argue that nobody needs to have their INATN stats or their personal GSAK "Found" database to be up to date, but we're all creatures of habit, a lot of us have our slightly obsessive side (for what it's worth, I'll freely admit that so do I, although not on this particular issue), and it just seems like it would be "nice to have" - after all, do we need the "my finds" PQ at all?

 

I suspect that the creep effect was something which - quite reasonably - wasn't thought of when the "once a week" limitation was imposed, and that if Jeremy were to program it from scratch tomorrow, he'd do it differently. Is it worth running this through all the change control procedures associated with a code change? I'm not sure. Whether or not it's a trivial amount of code to write, will depend on how it's currently programmed.

[robertlipe]

Isn't this whole thread because the AFPQ sets "next available to run" = "time this AFPQ ran +604800" (which will include creep since "elgible to run" != "ran") instead of "next available to run" = "time this AFPQ run + is elgible to run + 604800 " (which will introduce some priority skew, but only for those people who are, by definition, hovering over their 'send me this PQ now' button and fussing about the hundreds of minutes involved?).

 

If so, let me say:

A) the server-side solution is intuitively obvious to any programmer reading this.

You're living your life wrong depending on AFPQ for day-to-day hunting instead of the bulk delivery for which they are pretty clearly intended.

C) I can predict who is going to ding me for this post.

 

 

Even if you think you need an AFPQ weekly (and "why" is beyond he scope of this discussion) it seems to me that if your request goes in weekly and is serviced in a reasonably timely manner (and that doesn't mean "requested += 604800") that it should ruin your life.

 

Yes, the site could do better, but if you're depending on precise delivery of an AFPQ to guide your hunting habits, the fault is to be shared.

[+W8TTS]

I'm still confused why you need the ability to run the my finds PQ the same day every week.

 

Because I want to.

[+the hermit crabs]

I'm still confused why you need the ability to run the my finds PQ the same day every week.

Because I want to.

I hope I don't get spanked for straying slightly OT here. But I'll bring it back at the end, I promise.

 

This reminds me of a former neighbor of ours, when we lived in a different town. I'll call him "Mr. Diagonal". (I'll call him that now because that was, in fact, what I called him back then, since I didn't know his real name, and his house was diagonally behind ours.)

 

One summer we were painting our house, and my mother came over to help. Some of the things to be painted were some big pieces of latticework that were to be installed under the porch; that was her job. She leaned them up against some big old oak trees at the edge of the yard and used a power sprayer to paint them. Which worked great on the lattice, but left hundreds of little red painted diamonds on the tree trunks.

 

So the next day she came back to fix it: she brought some brown and grey paint and was dabbing over the red paint to cover it up.

 

"YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT!" a voiced shouted from behind her, startling her out of her wits.

 

She turned around and saw Mr. Diagonal squinting at her from his back porch, about 200 feet away.

 

"What?" she asked.

 

"You don't have to cover up the red paint! I can't see it from here!!"

 

"Well, I can," she said, and went on with her fix-up painting.

 

Back on topic:

 

Sometimes I wonder if Mr. Diagonal is a cacher. Or at least a forum poster . So often there seems to be the idea here that "I don't do it that way, so I can't see why anyone else should possibly need or want to do it that way either."

 

There are a lot of the features of the site that I don't use or care about. I have never used the WAP interface, and yet if someone were to post a suggestions for a change to it, I would never say "I don't think Groundspeak should waste their time on it. just don't understand why you need to use the wap interface at all." I never use the calendar feature, and yet I hope that the issue that London Rain has been posting about gets fixed. I never use Google Earth, but I'd never suggest that no one else "needs" to use it since I don't.

 

This particular issue is very straightforward, and yet it is also unfortunately being dragged down into the "But why do you need it? I don't get it!" pit. What difference does it make? When Groundspeak added the "My Finds" query, they included text on the PQ page that says that the MFPQ can be run once every 7 days. It is not unreasonable for a person to assume that that would mean "I can run this every Monday" -- but that's not how it was implemented. It would be a minor tweak to change it so that it operates the way that a reasonable person would expect it to operate. That fact that not everyone would want it every Monday, or every 7 days, makes no difference at all.

 

(For the record, I run it about once a month or so. I've never run into the creep issue, but I can see where that would be bothersome for many people. People who just want it to works like they expected it to work when they were told it could be run every 7 days -- not people who always want "more more more" and will ask for 6 and then 5 and then 4. People who just want it to work the way that it should work.)

 

.............

 

I always find it funny when Cacher A will say to Cacher B, "What do you want to do that for?" referring to something that Cacher B does in a way that Cacher A doesn't. Because that's what the whole rest of the world thinks about all of us and caching in general.

[+SPonGER]

Thanks, crabs!

Totally my point :-)

[+tozainamboku]

I'm still confused why you need the ability to run the my finds PQ the same day every week.

 

Because I want to.

I want to run it every time I find a cache so it will be up to date. But I can't. "Because I want to" does not answer my question. Even if you want to run this every Monday, why not every few weeks when the creep got to the point you'd have to wait till Tuesday you just skip that week and get back on Monday?

 

However, I have to agree with the hermit crabs that when Geocaching.com says you can run the MFPQ only once every seven days that it is not unreasonable for a person who ran it on Monday to think that they can run it again the next Monday. It also seems to me that it would not be hard to change the code to eliminate the problem of PQ creep. I'm simply trying to point out that until this does get fixed there is a very simple workaround.

 

The people who respond on the forums are not like Mr. Diagonal. They offer workarounds and alternatives to people who are having problems using the website features in a particular way. For some reason this is often taken as if they are telling people, "you're doing it wrong". Take the suggestions at face value. If you can't run the MFPQ when you want to, skip a week to get back on track. Use other tools to keep your GSAK data up to date and generate your stats that way. Workarounds are not bad. They are a way to accomplish something using existing capabilities. Should Geocaching.com still fix a problem or provide a new feature if there is a workaround? Well certainly if enough people request it. But in the meantime, use the workaround and enjoy caching.

Edited March 18, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+sbell111]

I think that when a person makes a suggestion, they should expect to explain why the implementation of that suggestion would be good. This allows people to 'buy into' the idea.

 

Also, since all changes require using up a finite amount of resources, someone may oppose changes for which there are easy workarounds, even if they do not utilize the feature in question.

 

For example, if you had an ugly pile of trash in your yard that peaved Mr. Diagonal, I'm sure that he would prefer that you worked on getting rid of that instead of spending your time repainting your trees.

Edited March 18, 2008 by sbell111

[+SPonGER]

I understand that the change implies some additional effort for Groundspeak and that they may have good reasons not to implement it, but since most of the posts in this thread apparently come from the user side, just let me ask one simple question:

 

As a user - what is your problem with weekly updates in contrast to updates every 7+x days?

 

I still can't see any disadvantages for the users ...

[+mtn-man]

Honestly, I think I have explained in great detail why this is being requested pointing to specific examples of the issues created.

 

<snip>

 

As one who was on a mission to find a cache every day for a while, I understand how that regular pocket query coming in on a Saturday or Sunday can be nice. It is great for those who use INATN.

Do understand that by "creep", I mean that we like to manage our account information on a certain day. I like to do it on the weekends. With it being exactly 7 days, I have to watch the time each weekend and hit it at the right time. If not, it slides slowly but most assuredly into Monday, and then I end up slipping and slipping since I am busy during the week. I worry about when I can push the button, not how long it takes for the PQ to get to me after I push it. It always comes in right away anyway it seems.

 

For those actively going for such things as DeLorme Challenges or caches-every-day for some time period like I was, that slide into a time that I am too busy to manage my account causes me grief. I posed that problem to Jeremy and he understood where I was coming from, though it wasn't something written down. He has most likely forgotten about the request by now I'm sure. It may be something that has to wait until Version 2 of the site though.

 

I do totally agree with you and others that we don't need to stress the server with this being an automatic thing. If you need it, push the button. If you don't, let the PQ server process other requests. Mine is never a big file though. With 2,200+ finds, it is about 1.5 MB. My 500 PQ requests typically are 2.5 MB. With people running 5 of those every day 7 days a week, the load from the All Finds PQ is nothing when compared to standard PQ's. My guess is that shaving off a day should not hurt.

Shaving off a few minutes means I still have to watch the clock. I want to do it any time on Sunday, depending on when I want to go to church, walk the dog, go out to eat with my wife, mow the grass, or whatever. I have enough of a schedule to deal with during the week. One Sunday I might want to do it at 10 PM at night. The next one I might want to do it at 7 AM.

So basically, it should be set up with a 6-day delay, instead of seven. I have no real issues with that, <snip>

Yes, that is what is being asked.

Right now I think there is a sound argument for changing it to 6 days (not even 6.5, which still leaves room for weekly creep). <snip, not important> I support the 6 day timetable because I have experienced the issue first hand. <snip, not important>

At this point, there is nothing I can do regarding the issue created by the 7 day time period. With the 7 day time table, heaven forbid that I actually plan something to where I am away from my computer at the time the PQ goes to 7 days and 1 minute. With 6 days, if I forget, it is 100 percent my fault that the PQ begins to creep. It would not be the site's fault. Personal responsibility comes into play a whole lot more with the 6 day timetable.

[+TotemLake]

 

I'm thinking that what he's suggesting is that there are plenty of people that always want more. If it is changed to every six days, they'll want it every five.

That's pretty much it. Its too bad some folks don't get it. It's not about agreeing that people complain, it is about people taking advantage of the push back then complaining it still doesn't solve the creep. I have no problem with fixing the creep issue, but pushing it back to 6.5 or even 6 days by the seconds plus 1 is a bandaid fix. The creep is still there.

 

I'm not much of a programmer... in fact, I'm not a programmer, but the fix seems pretty obvious with today's programming capabilities. I'd rather have it built into the upgrade site rather than try to fix the problem on the current site. Let's keep the limited resources focused on the new release rather than sidetrack it to do a temporary fix on the old release.

[+W8TTS]

. . . I'd rather have it built into the upgrade site rather than try to fix the problem on the current site. Let's keep the limited resources focused on the new release rather than sidetrack it to do a temporary fix on the old release.

 

Agreed. At least fix the 'creep' problem in the new release and I think everyone might be happy.

[+W8TTS]

. . . I'd rather have it built into the upgrade site rather than try to fix the problem on the current site. Let's keep the limited resources focused on the new release rather than sidetrack it to do a temporary fix on the old release.

 

Agreed. At least fix the 'creep' problem in the new release and I think everyone might be happy.

 

But, I'd still like to have the ability to schedule this to run anytime (Geocaching.com's choice) on a given day of the week; Monday, or Tuesday, or . . .

[+TotemLake]

. . . I'd rather have it built into the upgrade site rather than try to fix the problem on the current site. Let's keep the limited resources focused on the new release rather than sidetrack it to do a temporary fix on the old release.

 

Agreed. At least fix the 'creep' problem in the new release and I think everyone might be happy.

 

But, I'd still like to have the ability to schedule this to run anytime (Geocaching.com's choice) on a given day of the week; Monday, or Tuesday, or . . .

It should go without saying when the creep is resolved, you'll be able to pick your 7th day. Currently there is no day limitation when you start it, you just can't have it for another 7 days of seconds plus creep. What it sounds like you're looking for is an auto-delivery of the PQ to happen every seven days. That would be ideal for thsoe who want it. If it isn't a simple switch, let's save that for the upgrade effort.

[Mushtang]

I have no problem with fixing the creep issue, but pushing it back to 6.5 or even 6 days by the seconds plus 1 is a bandaid fix. The creep is still there.

I don't understand why you say the creep is still there. If it's set to 6 days then folks can have it downloaded on Sunday afternoon every week to do what they want, and it'll reset on Saturday. If something happens and they have to wait until late Sunday night, it'll reset on Saturday. If they have to download early Sunday morning and do their work, it'll reset on Saturday.

 

So it'll always be ready for someone on Sunday.

 

No creep.

 

Right?

[+TotemLake]

I have no problem with fixing the creep issue, but pushing it back to 6.5 or even 6 days by the seconds plus 1 is a bandaid fix. The creep is still there.

I don't understand why you say the creep is still there. If it's set to 6 days then folks can have it downloaded on Sunday afternoon every week to do what they want, and it'll reset on Saturday. If something happens and they have to wait until late Sunday night, it'll reset on Saturday. If they have to download early Sunday morning and do their work, it'll reset on Saturday.

 

So it'll always be ready for someone on Sunday.

 

No creep.

 

Right?

Actually, if you go back to my original post where this was quoted from with a full conversation encapsulated you would see me expanding upon the creep issue.

 

It's a bandaid fix to push back to 6.5 days with the current setup. Once people know it has been pushed back, they will take advantage of the push back and then the creep will be a problem yet again. You are missing the grasp of that entire issue. That's what you get for staying inisde the box and not look outside to understand the long term issues. It needs to stay on a seven day schedule, but with a different approach to the programming so that the entire seventh day is not affected by the creep.

Edited March 23, 2008 by TotemLake

[+sTeamTraen]

Creep arises as a cumulative effect of people "arbitraging" the odd couple of hours which would be left by using a relative wait value of 6.5 days instead of 7.0.

 

However, there is no creep if the definition is changed from

You cannot run this PQ again until 6.0/6.5/6.whatever days have elapsed frow now

to

"You cannot run this PQ again until yyyy-mm-dd at 00:00:01"

where yyyy-mm-dd is today's date plus 7 days.

 

You're welcome. (I'm pleased to be able to dig some stuff from my algorithm design courses circa 1980 from the back of the dustier regions of my brain.)

 

I think it's a good feature idea.

[Mushtang]

Actually, if you go back to my original post where this was quoted from with a full conversation encapsulated you would see me expanding upon the creep issue.

Actually, I did read your post, and it did not clear anything up for me, which is why I asked the question. Quoting the same confusing post doesn't help.

 

It's not required that you explain it more clearly to me, it's just a request.

 

If someone wants to work on their My Finds PQ on Sundays, but they don't know when on Sunday they'll get to it, with a 7 day turn around the creep will eventually make them miss a week. However, if the limit is changed to 6 days won't they always be able to work on the PQ on Sunday without any creep?

 

Or are you only suggesting that if it's changed to 6 days then people will also change how they want to work with them to a 6 day cycle too?

[+TotemLake]

Actually, if you go back to my original post where this was quoted from with a full conversation encapsulated you would see me expanding upon the creep issue.

Actually, I did read your post, and it did not clear anything up for me, which is why I asked the question. Quoting the same confusing post doesn't help.

 

It's not required that you explain it more clearly to me, it's just a request.

 

If someone wants to work on their My Finds PQ on Sundays, but they don't know when on Sunday they'll get to it, with a 7 day turn around the creep will eventually make them miss a week. However, if the limit is changed to 6 days won't they always be able to work on the PQ on Sunday without any creep?

 

Or are you only suggesting that if it's changed to 6 days then people will also change how they want to work with them to a 6 day cycle too?

First let me just say you didn't make it clear you read the post by quoting just the piece somebody else quoted and merely asked for clarification. Frankly, I thought my replies were pretty clear, but as in the windowless room with the single lamp, I'll answer this inquiry one more time...

 

I'm saying the creep factor is still there if it gets pushed back to 6.5 or 6 days using the current method now in place. Human nature being the way it is, folks will indeed take advantage of the push back and complain about the creep factor once again.

 

I'm not arguing against the pushback as suggested by the OP, just merely the bandaid fix with the current algorithym. If it's going to be fixed, I'm suggesting use the calendar days as the solution to the creep factor. So, IF I choose to pull my finds every Sunday, then no matter what hour on Sunday I choose to do so, that is the day I can pull it, from 00:01-11:59. Six more days go by and on the 7th day or later, I can have my Finds PQ. Six more days, one more pull on the 7th. No complaints, no issues, no creep factor.

 

Y'all work it out amongst yourselves. I'm outta this thread.

[+tozainamboku]

snip...

snip...

snip ...

 

Y'all work it out amongst yourselves. I'm outta this thread.

I can never get over what some people will argue about in these forums. Looks like several proposals to eliminate the creep and now we have a disagreement about which is better or what is creep in the first place.

 

So I'll argue my point and see if anyone agrees

 

Creep is probably the wrong word for the problem. The problem is more simple. Geocaching.com says you can run the My Finds Pocket Query only one time every seven days. That could mean one of two things

1. After you run the MFPQ you have to wait 7 days or 604800 seconds till the next time you run it.
   
2. If you ran the MFPQ on Sunday you can't run it again till the next Sunday.
   

Most people seem to want it to mean the second choice. The are willing to get the MFPQ only once a week to update their statistics.

 

Leave the current restriction in place - you can only run the MFPQ once every seven days. Behind the scenes it doesn't matter how you implement it - except to the Groundspeak programmers. I'm sure they would like the easiest solution. It would be difficult to know the timezone the submitter is in thus difficult to implement so that he can run the same day the next week local time. You might set the time last run to the beginning of the day Seattle time. Some Australian geocachers might run the query on Sunday at 6PM and find out that now they can't run it early than 6PM the next Sunday but the Australians already know that they are on the short end of the timezone issue. So that leaves allowing the cacher to run the MFPQ after 6 days or 518400 seconds. Sure someone will discover that you could run more than once every 7 days. They may even decide to get their stats every six days. Or if they forget one week they know they can get the MFPQ on Monday and the following week shift back to Sunday. But they can't complain of creep. The site only promises once every seven days. So while some may take advantage of 518400 seconds between MFPQ I don't think that many will. It's easy to implement and it solves the problem most people are having.

 

Of course the easiest thing is to do nothing at all. The first definition of the seven day restriction is correct. As the time you can run gets later each time you run, you simply skip a week to get back on schedule. So far no one has given a good reason for needing to run the MFPQ every week. "Because I want to" is not a good reason.

[+the hermit crabs]

The first definition of the seven day restriction is correct.

Maybe, if you're a robot. Not if you are a human.

 

Say you went to the library on Saturday morning and took out some books.

"They're due back in two weeks," the librarian tells you.

 

Two weeks later, on Saturday, you bring your books back.

 

Librarian: "These are overdue. You owe late fees for them."

You: "What? No, they're on time -- they're due today."

Librarian (sternly peering at you over her glasses): "You checked these out at 9:37 am on March 1. It is now 1:15 pm on March 15. These books are three hours and thirty eight minutes overdue. Pay up!"

 

Same idea here, with the down-to-the-second definition of "once every seven days".

 

So far no one has given a good reason for needing to run the MFPQ every week. "Because I want to" is not a good reason.

What does "need" have to do with it? Does anyone really need the MFPQ? Do we need to geocache at all? No. We geocache because we want to. "Need" is irrelevant.

[+DavidMac]

Librarian: "These are overdue. You owe late fees for them."

You: "What? No, they're on time -- they're due today."

Librarian (sternly peering at you over her glasses): "You checked these out at 9:37 am on March 1. It is now 1:15 pm on March 15. These books are three hours and thirty eight minutes overdue. Pay up!"

 

Sorry to ruin your example, but... ever been more than an hour late returning a rental car?

[+the hermit crabs]

Librarian: "These are overdue. You owe late fees for them."

You: "What? No, they're on time -- they're due today."

Librarian (sternly peering at you over her glasses): "You checked these out at 9:37 am on March 1. It is now 1:15 pm on March 15. These books are three hours and thirty eight minutes overdue. Pay up!"

 

Sorry to ruin your example, but... ever been more than an hour late returning a rental car?

If you were Groundspeak, who would you rather have your customers think you were similar to: your friendly neighborhood librarian, or the evil, nasty, insurance-waiver-fee-charging, gas-price-gouging, "yes we know you reserved a midsize but all we have is this subcompact" car rental companies?

[+mtn-man]

So far no one has given a good reason for needing to run the MFPQ every week. "Because I want to" is not a good reason.

I've already explained it a couple of times and even re-quoted it just above. This time, I will link you to my post explaining it.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3365543

 

For those actively going for such things as DeLorme Challenges or caches-every-day for some time period like I was, that slide into a time that I am too busy to manage my account causes me grief.

In addition, I actually like to look at cache find density and spread them out, especially in places I've been before when I am traveling. It can be frequent and furious at times. There is a third reason for you. Just because you can't understand the issue or don't see a good reason that applies to you personally doesn't mean that there are not good reasons that might apply to other cachers out there.

 

By the way, in case you think I am kidding about my compulsion with my dots on the map, you can see that I have a web page dedicated to this on my web site: http://www.mtn-man.org/geofindmaps.html I need to do some updating!

Edited March 25, 2008 by mtn-man

[+sbell111]

In addition, I actually like to look at cache find density and spread them out, especially in places I've been before when I am traveling. It can be frequent and furious at times. There is a third reason for you. Just because you can't understand the issue or don't see a good reason that applies to you personally doesn't mean that there are not good reasons that might apply to other cachers out there.

 

By the way, in case you think I am kidding about my compulsion with my dots on the map, you can see that I have a web page dedicated to this on my web site: http://www.mtn-man.org/geofindmaps.html I need to do some updating!

The first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Edited March 25, 2008 by sbell111

[+mtn-man]

Hi. I'm mtn-man. I'm a geocacher.

 

 

waits for it...

[+sbell111]

Hi mtn-man.

[Rhialto]

My previous reply is not the solution you are looking for?

 

If they can do it is another story.

[Mushtang]

Actually, if you go back to my original post where this was quoted from with a full conversation encapsulated you would see me expanding upon the creep issue.

Actually, I did read your post, and it did not clear anything up for me, which is why I asked the question. Quoting the same confusing post doesn't help.

 

It's not required that you explain it more clearly to me, it's just a request.

 

If someone wants to work on their My Finds PQ on Sundays, but they don't know when on Sunday they'll get to it, with a 7 day turn around the creep will eventually make them miss a week. However, if the limit is changed to 6 days won't they always be able to work on the PQ on Sunday without any creep?

 

Or are you only suggesting that if it's changed to 6 days then people will also change how they want to work with them to a 6 day cycle too?

First let me just say you didn't make it clear you read the post by quoting just the piece somebody else quoted and merely asked for clarification. Frankly, I thought my replies were pretty clear, but as in the windowless room with the single lamp, I'll answer this inquiry one more time...

I'm sorry for not making it clear that you weren't making it clear. I'll try to be more clear if you do.

 

I'm saying the creep factor is still there if it gets pushed back to 6.5 or 6 days using the current method now in place.

I totally understand that you're saying the creep factor is still there... but what you're not saying is how this could be. I gave you an example of someone only requesting the PQ on Sundays and there being no creep, but you didn't show me where there was, you only say that it will be there.

 

Human nature being the way it is, folks will indeed take advantage of the push back and complain about the creep factor once again.

Again, I don't see how taking advantage of the update in order to get PQs every Sunday will give them any reason to complain about creep. They'll always have the PQ on Sunday and they won't be forced to wait later and later each week until soon it's not available until Monday (creep).

 

I'm not arguing against the pushback as suggested by the OP, just merely the bandaid fix with the current algorithym. If it's going to be fixed, I'm suggesting use the calendar days as the solution to the creep factor. So, IF I choose to pull my finds every Sunday, then no matter what hour on Sunday I choose to do so, that is the day I can pull it, from 00:01-11:59. Six more days go by and on the 7th day or later, I can have my Finds PQ. Six more days, one more pull on the 7th. No complaints, no issues, no creep factor.

And this is my example from before. Six days. One pull on the 7th. No complaints or creep factor. After I said this you came back and said that creep still exists. I asked you to explain how, you said that it'll exist again, and at the very end you do a 180 and now say that a 6 day turn around will eliminate creep.

 

Y'all work it out amongst yourselves. I'm outta this thread.

Okay. Thanks for the confusion. I'd prefer you stick around and point out what I'm not understanding (instead of just re-stating the same thing), but leaving is certainly an option. If you do come back and read this I hope you see that I wasn't trying to argue with you, only to understand your position.

[+W8TTS]

My previous reply is not the solution you are looking for?

 

If they can do it is another story.

 

It's the answer I like, and it would work for me. Check a day, the others gray out and it runs sometime on that day.

[+sbell111]

My previous reply is not the solution you are looking for?

 

If they can do it is another story.

It's the answer I like, and it would work for me. Check a day, the others gray out and it runs sometime on that day.

I'd be totally happy with that solution, as long as it ran after every 'regular' PQ that was scheduled for that day.

[+mtn-man]

Same here. Great solution. Would love to see that in GC.com V2.

[OpinioNate]

I will open a case for this issue, although please keep in mind there are plenty of other more important issues in line before this can be addressed. I agree that this "creep" is an unnecessary inconvenience.

[+mtn-man]

Thanks Nate!

 

It would be no problem to wait until V2, and thanks for Groundspeak's consideration.

[+TotemLake]

I will open a case for this issue, although please keep in mind there are plenty of other more important issues in line before this can be addressed. I agree that this "creep" is an unnecessary inconvenience.

[+W8TTS]

I will open a case for this issue, although please keep in mind there are plenty of other more important issues in line before this can be addressed. I agree that this "creep" is an unnecessary inconvenience.

 

[+SPonGER]

I will open a case for this issue, although please keep in mind there are plenty of other more important issues in line before this can be addressed. I agree that this "creep" is an unnecessary inconvenience.

 

Thanks a lot

I'm very looking forward to this

[+BookieW]

I wish creep were my problem. Mine is this....I run the query and I get one without any on my logged finds for the current month! Everything ends in February.

 

Any ideas?

 

BookieW

[+mtn-man]

One thing I have seen is that if you enter finds and then run the query quickly, it will omit the finds you entered within some short time period. I've not timed it, but it may be like 30 minutes or an hour. Maybe this is the case? I saw you had finds from a couple of days ago, but one from March 18. If you entered the March 18th one back then, it may be a bigger issue. When I log finds and want a PQ right away, I wait about an hour now and all is well.

[+BookieW]

One thing I have seen is that if you enter finds and then run the query quickly, it will omit the finds you entered within some short time period. I've not timed it, but it may be like 30 minutes or an hour. Maybe this is the case? I saw you had finds from a couple of days ago, but one from March 18. If you entered the March 18th one back then, it may be a bigger issue. When I log finds and want a PQ right away, I wait about an hour now and all is well.

 

Could be, but when I ran the query yesterday, 24 hours later, it didn't pick up the Mar 18 entry as well as the Mar 29 ones. And I can't try again until next Sunday night!

 

Bookie

[+mtn-man]

OK, that answers the March 18th question then. That is odd. I doubt they would make any immediate changes though. Run it again in a week and post in the topic again. I had one deliver no results one time (which really freaked me out wondering if I was deleted or something ), but the following week it got them all with no problems.

[+BookieW]

I wish creep were my problem. Mine is this....I run the query and I get one without any on my logged finds for the current month! Everything ends in February.

 

Any ideas?

 

BookieW

 

Well, DOH! I wait years to post and then I pose a question to which the answer is read the directions. The reason my stats weren't updating is because I didn't put the downloaded files in the correct folder. Put them in the correct folder and it works every time! Sorry to have taken up anyone's time with this post.

 

Bookie

[+Dash-2]

Here's my post to say that I would also like this feature!

[+Corey]

Any news? As a INATN user, a slightly shorter interval would be nice. Please?