Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
bjorges

Feature request: Sharing PQs, and remove the 500 limit.

Recommended Posts

I don't recall anyone stating that those who disagree or won't use it should not post here.

... snip

 

bjorges said exactly that.

 

... snip

To those of you who posts "this we dont need"-postings: Why bother, if you don't need it, maybe others do. ... snip

Share this post


Link to post

I don't recall anyone stating that those who disagree or won't use it should not post here.

... snip

 

bjorges said exactly that.

 

... snip

To those of you who posts "this we dont need"-postings: Why bother, if you don't need it, maybe others do. ... snip

 

Read his comment again. He doesn't say they should not post. He asks why do they bother? BIG DIFFERENCE.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, but the person that does own the company HAS said it.

 

Actually, what Jeremy said in the post YOU quoted from 2 1/2 years ago was:

 

(Jeremy @ Apr 27 2006, 06:47 PM)

 

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

 

There you have it, AT THIS TIME, that was 2 1/2 years ago, and now is not At That Time anymore.

 

This request has evolved over the last week from wanting everything for nothing, to creating a new level of subscription with a pro rata ammount of data access, no different from your own suggestion of multiple PM accounts, save for one tiny little feature, the ability to eliminate your finds from all the queries at source instead of using kludgy workarounds to get around it.

 

Kludgy work arounds are fine when you've only found a few hundred caches, when I get up in the thousands, it's going to mean those PQs are very inefficient unless I sit down and trawl through thousands of cache pages to make an ignore list, then repeat this for every single PM account that I may subscribe to.

 

This of course all assumes that GS won't look at the output of my PQs and notice that it's structured in such a way that it lines up with 3 other accounts to produce a large non redundant set of data, all going to the same email account, then I get accused of breaching the TOU and sharing Data. No, much rather be up front with GS about it all than work around the issue.

 

Incidentally, yes I know I haven't logged a cache for quite a while, although I have been doing some caching, but the barriers that stopped me having time to go caching are now gone, and I am planning to get moving again, and thanks to the density now prevalent in my favourite caching areas, I expect to be racking up some real personal bests in the not too distant future. Now, say I get up over 17,500 finds, not too big a goal, what good will that second PM account do me then when all it puts out is my finds, what a waste of server time and mine that would be.

 

Even the ability to generate an ignore list from someones finds list would be a step in the right direction, although thisa will need to be done every time you log a few caches to stay up to date and would therefore place more load on the systems than just ignoring my own finds for more PQs would be.

 

In answer to the comment about buying GS, even if it were for sale, which I doubt it is, I doubt I would have the cash to buy it, but if I had the money lying around, you can bet I would be making an offer to buy the company. And the very first thing I would do would be to introduce Gold and Platinum membership levels. I do however have $120 a year to spare and would gladly exchange this for the features I have asked for, I also know for certain there are enough others out there like me that the service would pay for itself.handsomly with no negative impact on those who wish to stick with the standard levels.

 

Next thin I would do would be to sit down with Clyde England and work out a way to submit PQs directly from GSAK by sending a text file, and bypass the whole online form system, thereby reducing the bandwith and processor load on that particular system, same for submitting caches, its a real pain when halfway through building the cache page, the link times out and you have to start again. oh, there I go again, getting someone else to contribute to my upgrade for free, wonder where I learn't that? ;)

This is an old and tired arguement that everybody has used in any "If I were in charge" debate. This supposition that GS should provide these types of memberships or increases are based on the premise GS will support offline databases. They have clearly stated they will not in past threads. So, no matter what YOU would do if you were the owner, you gotta remember one thing.... You're not the MFIC.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post

The reasons that some people might express an opinion against the idea are exactly those stated in OpinioNate's post. TPTB have stated that the site performs better when the limits are enforced. So people who state that "it won't hurt you if we get it" are wrong.

 

If the site performs more poorly, then it affects everyone. So even those who "wouldn't use" the new feature have a vested interest in whether or not it is provided. Some people who "want what they want" seem to be turning a blind eye to this fact.

 

And how exactly is this going to be any different if I sign up 4 times and have 20 queries, which I can do today with the blessing of GS, than if they let me have a single 20 query membership for the same price? its the same number of queries and caches either way.

 

Those that want what they want, recognised this 2 pages ago and came up with the suggestion of joining the 4 PMs into one, accepting 500 as a limit on PQ size. In fact, thew Platinum idea would actually reduce the number of results output for a given area and therfore the number of PQs processed by eliminating those finds, compared to the 4x premium accounts, consequently resulting in an improvement in site speed.

 

I encourage all those in favour of the platinum membership or even the gold to sign up for extra PMs as per Markwells original solution. Then our suggestion changes slightly to as follows:

 

We've all got multiple Premium memberships, but we are hammering your site by having to access each find once for every account (whether to Log or ignore the cache) if we could set our PQs to ignore the main account's finds, we'd reduce the load on the site and the live database significantly, thereby improving site performance overall. Some of can't be bothered to load up the site in this way, but are running more PQs than they need to offset the finds they filter out offline.

 

I think that would be a whole different proposal altogether. It would also be quite possible so GS to check and see who's paying extra subscriptions, its a simple 5 minute find duplicates query of the payments database. I for one will be signing up a new Premium account within the next few days when I have the time to set up the new query set, I think the most optimal use would be to keep the oldest caches queried on my main account as I'm more likely to have found them then I only have to ignore newer ones in my second account. My US PQs will go the same way as I have way more UK finds.

Share this post


Link to post

[This is an old and tired arguement that everybody has used in any "If I were in charge" debate. This supposition that GS should provide these types of memberships or increases are based on the premise GS will support offline databases. They have clearly stated they will not in past threads. So, no matter what YOU would do if you were the owner, you gotta remember one thing.... You're not the MFIC.

 

Just for the record, I was merely replying to someone who had posited the suggestion one of bought GS, and I assumed wondered what I would do if I did. I normally restrain myself from such a post unless someone decides to open the door as I agree, they are tired and old, besides, if I had that kind of capital/time, I'd probably compete anyway, more of an exciting way to do business from my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Volvo Man's comment about the existence of "syndicates" that share data is very interesting.

 

While I am not aware of such existence, I don't doubt they do exist. Furthermore, I don't doubt that other non-syndicate cachers share data from time to time; if only to send the My Finds query to facilitate a group caching excursion.

 

So the question is: Why do these syndicates exist??

 

I can think of two obvious reasons.

 

(1) Save Money. This reason doesn't really hold water. The cost of a PM membership is so miniscule that it is probably the best dollar value of any entertainment/sport/hobby in existence. And with the cost of gasoline, a simple caching trip will cost more than an annual PM membership. So I doubt these people, for the most part, are doing this to save money.

 

(2) Meet a Data Requirement. This seems more obvious. For whatever reason, they have decided that the current PM offering does not meet their needs. With the ever increasing issue of cache saturation, and the growing popularity of group caching (encouraged by GS through the existence of events), this should not be a surprise. Particularly in dense areas such as the UK or major metro areas.

 

So, we know syndicates exist. We know there is a perceived need for more PQ's. We know there is a willingness to pay for this upgraded service.

 

And I think is it correct to assume that data sharing exists and will continue to exist. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not impossible, for GS to seek out those individuals and discipline them. And probably not worth the effort. It would cost more than the benefit.

 

So there is money being left on the table for GS taking if they chose to do so. Hard to quantify how much without a survey.

 

I would highly encourage GS to develop some sort of "customer survey" that would cover topics such as this, satisfaction, etc. Most organizations survey the base on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post

you gotta remember one thing.... You're not the MFIC.

 

No, I'm not, and neither is anyone else from either camp that has posted here, unless of course Jeremy gets involved with Sock Puppets, which I doubt in this case. However, I'd be happy to make my way up to WA in a couple of weeks to discuss this with him over an eggnog latte at the original Starbucks in Pike Place. It'd be interesting to see who convinces who.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Volvo Man's comment about the existence of "syndicates" that share data is very interesting.

 

While I am not aware of such existence, I don't doubt they do exist. Furthermore, I don't doubt that other non-syndicate cachers share data from time to time; if only to send the My Finds query to facilitate a group caching excursion.

 

So the question is: Why do these syndicates exist??

 

I can think of two obvious reasons.

 

(1) Save Money. This reason doesn't really hold water. The cost of a PM membership is so miniscule that it is probably the best dollar value of any entertainment/sport/hobby in existence. And with the cost of gasoline, a simple caching trip will cost more than an annual PM membership. So I doubt these people, for the most part, are doing this to save money.

 

(2) Meet a Data Requirement. This seems more obvious. For whatever reason, they have decided that the current PM offering does not meet their needs. With the ever increasing issue of cache saturation, and the growing popularity of group caching (encouraged by GS through the existence of events), this should not be a surprise. Particularly in dense areas such as the UK or major metro areas.

 

So, we know syndicates exist. We know there is a perceived need for more PQ's. We know there is a willingness to pay for this upgraded service.

 

And I think is it correct to assume that data sharing exists and will continue to exist. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not impossible, for GS to seek out those individuals and discipline them. And probably not worth the effort. It would cost more than the benefit.

 

So there is money being left on the table for GS taking if they chose to do so. Hard to quantify how much without a survey.

 

I would highly encourage GS to develop some sort of "customer survey" that would cover topics such as this, satisfaction, etc. Most organizations survey the base on a regular basis.

 

Here Here, or is that Hear hear? I think the first is most applicable to cachers

Edited by Volvo Man

Share this post


Link to post

you gotta remember one thing.... You're not the MFIC.

 

No, I'm not, and neither is anyone else from either camp that has posted here, unless of course Jeremy gets involved with Sock Puppets, which I doubt in this case. However, I'd be happy to make my way up to WA in a couple of weeks to discuss this with him over an eggnog latte at the original Starbucks in Pike Place. It'd be interesting to see who convinces who.

Yah. Like you're the only person with legendary persuasive powers that will have ever tried. ;)

 

He's been pretty adamant about his opinion off line as well. But you're always welcome to try.

Share this post


Link to post

you gotta remember one thing.... You're not the MFIC.

 

No, I'm not, and neither is anyone else from either camp that has posted here, unless of course Jeremy gets involved with Sock Puppets, which I doubt in this case. However, I'd be happy to make my way up to WA in a couple of weeks to discuss this with him over an eggnog latte at the original Starbucks in Pike Place. It'd be interesting to see who convinces who.

Yah. Like you're the only person with legendary persuasive powers that will have ever tried. ;)

 

He's been pretty adamant about his opinion off line as well. But you're always welcome to try.

I never said I'd convince him, I'd be interested to see if he can convince me though.

Share this post


Link to post

While I am not aware of such existence, I don't doubt they do exist. Furthermore, I don't doubt that other non-syndicate cachers share data from time to time; if only to send the My Finds query to facilitate a group caching excursion.

 

So the question is: Why do these syndicates exist??

 

For the purpose of this post, we'll go with the premise that they exist. It is highly doubtful that they exist to the point it has any bearing on this. You are coming from a presumption that a significant number of cachers are dishonest and thieves, our experience has been different.

 

I can think of two obvious reasons.

 

(1) Save Money. This reason doesn't really hold water. The cost of a PM membership is so miniscule that it is probably the best dollar value of any entertainment/sport/hobby in existence. And with the cost of gasoline, a simple caching trip will cost more than an annual PM membership. So I doubt these people, for the most part, are doing this to save money.

 

(2) Meet a Data Requirement. This seems more obvious. For whatever reason, they have decided that the current PM offering does not meet their needs. With the ever increasing issue of cache saturation, and the growing popularity of group caching (encouraged by GS through the existence of events), this should not be a surprise. Particularly in dense areas such as the UK or major metro areas.

 

If #2 is valid, then the main driver would be #1 since multiple memberships can be purchased and queries set-up in such a way as to not have any significant (if any) overlap. (Placed Date, etc.)

 

So, we know syndicates exist. We know there is a perceived need for more PQ's. We know there is a willingness to pay for this upgraded service.

 

And I think is it correct to assume that data sharing exists and will continue to exist. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not impossible, for GS to seek out those individuals and discipline them. And probably not worth the effort. It would cost more than the benefit.

 

So there is money being left on the table for GS taking if they chose to do so. Hard to quantify how much without a survey.

 

Since the assumption is a "syndicate" exists, which would be comprised of individuals of questionable character to begin with, adding the "platinum" membership will not affect the "syndicates" in any way and they will still exist.

 

One of the excuses those who steal music and audio books was for years "I don't need the whole album when there is only one or two tracks I want". Rhapsody, iTunes, etc. started offering individual tracks at a price often less than the per track cost of an album, yet gnutella, limewire and other p2p programs/sites still thrive.

 

Bottom line is if you are dishonest enough to participate in "syndicate, alternate offerings won't matter. Since GS does to some extent depend on the integrity of the users, and understand there will always be a small percentage of thieves, they are not leaving any "money on the table".

 

I would highly encourage GS to develop some sort of "customer survey" that would cover topics such as this, satisfaction, etc. Most organizations survey the base on a regular basis.

 

Who do they survey? Can't do it on the forums, the percentage of cachers that participate here is such a small percentage (probably less than a percentage point or two) it would not be reliable. Send out a survey? Most would ignore. Even this thread, if you look, has been dominated by 3 to 4 people.

 

Even in these threads the majority of posters have stated to leave the system as is.

 

To answer the question "how will I be affected?" I occasionally do not see regularly recurring PQ's until later in the day. Bookmarks are not searchable. I can not watch other users. Occasionally the forum slows down to the point that people hit enter on a post more than once and there are multiple posts. WAP site could use a revamping. Notifies need tweaking. Etc., etc, etc. (Sorry Yul). I would prefer efforts and resources are concentrated in areas that affect the majority rather than the few who already have tools available to them to do what they want, even if their numbers approach 5 digits..

 

Bottom line: GS (and many users) see this offering as a reasonable compromise while still protecting their interests. They have stated, time and again, they have no intention of revisiting the PQ's anytime soon.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

I never said I'd convince him, I'd be interested to see if he can convince me though.

 

He already has. You're a premium member so agreed to the ToS.

 

Trust me, he sees and reads these when they pop up.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll bet they could even do all of that for around $2.50 per month.

Ah, yoiur math is 'in the ballpark as we physicists' say but it's actually about $3.33 per month, oh wait, you mean the full year membership, not the seasonal one.

 

But back to this point, I'm actually going to go caching 'right now' and not continuously whine about lack of impossible things.

Share this post


Link to post

you gotta remember one thing.... You're not the MFIC.

 

No, I'm not, and neither is anyone else from either camp that has posted here, unless of course Jeremy gets involved with Sock Puppets, which I doubt in this case. However, I'd be happy to make my way up to WA in a couple of weeks to discuss this with him over an eggnog latte at the original Starbucks in Pike Place. It'd be interesting to see who convinces who.

Yah. Like you're the only person with legendary persuasive powers that will have ever tried. :rolleyes:

 

He's been pretty adamant about his opinion off line as well. But you're always welcome to try.

I never said I'd convince him, I'd be interested to see if he can convince me though.

The bolded quote I quoted that you quoted implied you would try to convince him. So you're retracting it then? :)

 

Frankly, he doesn't have to do any convincing. As previously pointed out, you agreed to the terms to use the data as it is doled out in the method prescribed within the TOU. What wasn't said is that's already have the battle in his favor.

Share this post


Link to post

Totem lake & Baloo

 

I didn't say who would convince who, I said it would be interesting to see who left such a meeting with their opinion changed, even if only slightly, the statement is what it is, don't try to read anything implied either way, as bias is likely to tilt your interpretation one way or another. I do not tend to make hidden implications, I say what I say, and it would be an interesting meeting is all I said.

 

I do not remember any line in the TOU that says I can't ask for an enhanced level of service in return for payment. I am aware that I agreed not to share data, and that's cool, because I don't share data, and don't want to either, otherwise I would not be asking to have the ability to remove my finds at source from my queries.

 

I also understand that the TOU are written in such a way as not to prevent me signing up for multiple premium memberships, or asking for any kind of enhancement on the forums. Funnily enough quite a few feature requests have been granted from suggestions on the forum, so I really do not see what the relevance of the TOU is, none of what the original request has evolved into would require any kind of change to the TOU in any way.

 

I am aware of the title of this thread, but the direction has changed, and I am assuming that the fact the OP has backed this evolution publicly, is the reason the mods have not weighed in to state that we have wandered off topic.

 

Your regular queries being late is likely due to being repeated more than once a week, as all my PQs run no more than once a week, and I have never had to wait more than 2 hours past the reset time for them to arrive even on a Friday or Saturday. The weekend PQ backlog also demonstrates that the load placed by last minute queries and heavy site access is what slows things down, I don't see anyone complaining about their Tuesday PQ being late.

 

TPTB have always refered to the PQ system as being on a seperate machine to the main site and database, and I very much doubt that it has equal priority in access to either the main Db or Bandwidth as the main site or any other access methods do. The whole point of having a batch query system from their point of view, is to be able to shift some bandwidth usage away from the peak periods. If every active cacher was online Friday night planning their week from the site, It would slow to unusable even if you turned off the PQ server, those who use the PQ service shift the majority of their bandwidth usage into the nice quiet period in the early hours of the morning PST, when UK cachers are out caching or working and Americans are tucked up in bed or on the forums. they also do not download all the images in the cache pages, which are the real bandwidth munchers.

 

An average page from the site is about 300-500KB in size, the largest PQ I've ever gotten was about 900KB (zip) it's not the PQs eating the bandwidth on a Friday night, its the users who don't use them and trawl through the site looking for caches.

 

if site usability is an issue for you, then you should advocate that GC ban such enhancements as background images and cache page photos, it would have a far greater effect than opposing a group who are asking for something that has no effect on bandwidth at all (my previous posts explain this). (I do not oppose such features however)

 

If everyone, or even just a majority, decided to use the Live 3g apps, even if they all could, the load on the site's bandwidth would be massive on any weekend day, to the point of becoming unusable perhaps.

 

I have also noticed that the worst time to access the site is Saturday and Sunday night in the US when its peak logging time for the largest group of cachers, in order to minimize the inconvenience for myself and indirectly to minimize my footprint effect on other users, I use the great feature of my offline Db that bypasses the bandwidth intensive cache page completely and goes straight to the simple post log page, as is probably the case for most cachers who primarily use an offline Db of a similar feature set.

 

As for the WAP site, i thought the whole point of it was to have only the most basic functionality in order to keep it fast and affordable.

 

As regards Syndicates, simple math shows that the smallest syndicate in the Uk would have at least 15 members and as they are unlikly to donte all of their PQs every day, this is more likely to be around 30, if just 5 existed in the UK, that's 150 cachers. In the US, CA for instance would need 50-60 members to work, again just 5 syndicates puts that up to 300 members, apply that across the board and you have a large number of people involved. as for getting such together, caching meets are more and more frequent and come under fire for a lot of questionable logging activity on other threads, if they are not above dodgy find logs, why should they be above dodgy syndicate agreements.

 

And seriously, who can 100% honestly say they have never in their life downloaded or used a copied MP3 or piece of software, or even used shareware past its 30 day limit without paying the fee. (this only counts if you actually have the ability to download stuff which I assume all here actually do)

 

Regardless, this thread has moved past discussing "illegal" activity and on to a feature request that is perfectly legitimate. "If you don't ask, you don't get!"

Share this post


Link to post

 

Who do they survey? Can't do it on the forums, the percentage of cachers that participate here is such a small percentage (probably less than a percentage point or two) it would not be reliable. Send out a survey? Most would ignore. Even this thread, if you look, has been dominated by 3 to 4 people.

 

Actually, "They" Can do it on the forums, they just don't let "us" do it, as for the validity of the results, it could be argued that the objections so posted here are merely that of a "miniscule" minority and do not truly reflect the feelings of the membership at large (most online forums are well known for vocal opposition). Given this, you can't both use the argument that the majority are against, and that a forum survey would not be a valid reflection of the overall sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post

You still don't get it. If you can find over 500 caches in one day, then you have a point and a need. Otherwise, the ONLY reason for a larger than 500 PQ is to build an off line database, which isn't being supported by TPTB.

 

Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post

You still don't get it. If you can find over 500 caches in one day, then you have a point and a need. Otherwise, the ONLY reason for a larger than 500 PQ is to build an off line database, which isn't being supported by TPTB.

 

Get over it.

 

I refer you to my previous posts, which have addressed all of these points, except one, I don't think I need to go over it all again.

 

The one point I have not previously addressed is regarding TPTB's support or lack thereof of offline databases. Of course they don't "Support" them, you are quite right in that. Support of offline database software is handled by the people that write them, GS are not Windows or Mac application developers, they leave that to people who are. What they do however is to endorse such applications, which you will find from their inclusion on the Geocaching Software Resources section on the main site. Their own iPhone application even stores a group of caches in an offline database, as does your GPSr.

 

Many things are not "supported" by TPTB, but they are not forbidden, and some of us would like to be less picky about the caches we hunt and be able to move around different areas with more "Freedom" to move about on the day. I can (as can you in WA) drive past 1,000 caches in less than 15 minutes on my way to the nearest Starbucks when I fancy a coffee halfway through the morning. I'd like to then resume my search from there, not return to my start point again, its not always just about the hunt, for the majority, its about the places you go on the hunt too, otherwise, I can find hundreds of tupperware boxes in my local Walmart. I don't think I've ever done a days caching in less than a 15 mile radius (2 PQs here) and the norm is about 100 radius and almost always random. (about 25-30 PQs here) the longest was 350 miles as a dedicated days caching (now in that area about 50 PQs)

 

Oh, there I go, I've gone over it again.

Edited by Volvo Man

Share this post


Link to post

You still don't get it. If you can find over 500 caches in one day, then you have a point and a need. Otherwise, the ONLY reason for a larger than 500 PQ is to build an off line database, which isn't being supported by TPTB.

 

Get over it.

 

Using that assumption, we should only be allowed 1 PQ per day. In fact we are allowed 5 which is 2500 caches, not 500.

 

The "off line" database is not a question. It is a FACT. Everyone who uses GSAK is maintaining some sort of offline database. The only debatable point is the size of that off line database.

Share this post


Link to post

You still don't get it. If you can find over 500 caches in one day, then you have a point and a need. Otherwise, the ONLY reason for a larger than 500 PQ is to build an off line database, which isn't being supported by TPTB.

 

Get over it.

 

Using that assumption, we should only be allowed 1 PQ per day. In fact we are allowed 5 which is 2500 caches, not 500.

 

The "off line" database is not a question. It is a FACT. Everyone who uses GSAK is maintaining some sort of offline database. The only debatable point is the size of that off line database.

 

hey there don't give them any ideas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, "They" Can do it on the forums, they just don't let "us" do it, as for the validity of the results, it could be argued that the objections so posted here are merely that of a "miniscule" minority and do not truly reflect the feelings of the membership at large (most online forums are well known for vocal opposition). Given this, you can't both use the argument that the majority are against, and that a forum survey would not be a valid reflection of the overall sentiment.

Reality check. This topic rarely garners much support. You have been told it has been posted a few times before. There hasn't been much support in the past either. That's a fact.

 

The reality check? Google ads. There were some issues at first where everyone saw them. People POURED into the forums complaining about it. Groundspeak listened. Quickly. Premium Members don't see them now.

 

There is no flood of people asking for this. Most folks can live well within the parameters given because no one has ever found 500 caches in one day, ever, period. I don't think anyone will ever find 2,500 caches in a day, ever, period.

 

There are indeed polls here, though informal. There was a poll on Google Ads, and the paying community voted them down. The paying community gives the "I want more than 500 returns in a PQ" informal poll a yawn. yawnnn.gif Very few care.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, "They" Can do it on the forums, they just don't let "us" do it, as for the validity of the results, it could be argued that the objections so posted here are merely that of a "miniscule" minority and do not truly reflect the feelings of the membership at large (most online forums are well known for vocal opposition). Given this, you can't both use the argument that the majority are against, and that a forum survey would not be a valid reflection of the overall sentiment.

Reality check. This topic rarely garners much support. You have been told it has been posted a few times before. There hasn't been much support in the past either. That's a fact.

 

The reality check? Google ads. There were some issues at first where everyone saw them. People POURED into the forums complaining about it. Groundspeak listened. Quickly. Premium Members don't see them now.

 

There is no flood of people asking for this. Most folks can live well within the parameters given because no one has ever found 500 caches in one day, ever, period. I don't think anyone will ever find 2,500 caches in a day, ever, period.

 

There are indeed polls here, though informal. There was a poll on Google Ads, and the paying community voted them down. The paying community gives the "I want more than 500 returns in a PQ" informal poll a yawn. yawnnn.gif Very few care.

 

We're not asking for more than 500 results in a PQ, it's evolved from there, we want the ability to filter out caches someone else has found from our PQs, that way we can sign up another couple of PMs to cover a larger area, as Suggested by another Mod.

Share this post


Link to post
We're not asking for more than 500 results in a PQ, it's evolved from there, we want the ability to filter out caches someone else has found from our PQs, that way we can sign up another couple of PMs to cover a larger area, as Suggested by another Mod.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder.

 

That was a topic a couple of weeks ago. Feel free to go find it and post your support there. I actually support that too. If you don't mind, how about getting back on topic.

 

Edited to add: Here is your topic.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=205776

Edited by mtn-man

Share this post


Link to post

well well well,

 

A couple of quick searches of the forum history shows a very interesting thing.

 

Indeed, this topic comes up regularly in one guise or another (roll over PQs, offline databases, 1000 cache limits, state PQs and of course the Platinum Membership) what is most interesting though is something that has not been brought up is who is posting to these threads.

 

In each thread, most of the Pros are a different set to those on any other thread, but the cons are mostly the same small group. But it gets more interesting still, some of this small group of cons post in favour of the very features they slate on other threads, around half the cons on this very thread have posted pro comments elswhere for the same things they say they are against here.

 

one was even giving tips on how best to use GSAK to optimize your PQs to get the most out of it.

 

Now then, I support everyone's right to change their opinion from time to time (I used to think Mullets were a good idea :) ) but if they can change their mind, then so can TPTB, so I will continue.

 

To respond to the earlier poster who called us Control freaks for wanting the data, to me, the control freaks are those who feel an overwhelming need to get everyone to conform to their way of caching and do everything their way. None of the cons here or any other thread have told the Cons they should do it their way, merely asked to be allowed to do do it the way they want to. I have tried caching in most of the ways suggested, preplanned routes, only going after certain types etc etc etc, the one I prefer is the unpredictable magical mystery tour, to paraphrase Forest Gump "ya nevuh know where ya gonna end up", I don't think you can get further from being a control freak than that.

Share this post


Link to post
We're not asking for more than 500 results in a PQ, it's evolved from there, we want the ability to filter out caches someone else has found from our PQs, that way we can sign up another couple of PMs to cover a larger area, as Suggested by another Mod.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder.

 

That was a topic a couple of weeks ago. Feel free to go find it and post your support there. I actually support that too. If you don't mind, how about getting back on topic.

 

Edited to add: Here is your topic.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=205776

 

This is the post that changed the direction of this discussion:

 

My standard response:

 

If you want more caches, then buy more premium memberships - one for the wife, one for the dog, one for your goldfish, etc. There's nothing that says that you can't have many, many premium memberships. Then you get what you want (more caches updated every single day :)) and Groundspeak doesn't have to change it's current business methodology. They get increased revenue through additional premium memberships and you can still get all of the caches you want.

 

Only problem is when the goldfish won't share his PQ data.

 

That was on page 1 of this thread, post #31, we've been discussing how that basic idea could be enhanced for the last 3 pages, after having agreed that for a few reasons, perhaps its better to leave the 500 limit alone and that sharing data is immoral, despite the fact that it happens. However the solution now on the table seems to fit the needs of almost everyone that has asked for some changes. In similar previous threads, I cannot find any that have formed into such defined and clear parameters that effectively meet the needs of the OP.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, mtn-man, I've been to the thread, why didn't someone point that out 3 pages ago? like the two other mods that have been here? thats what we are asking for and someone seems to think its "In the Pipeline" and a couple of our cons from here seem to support it there ( :) )

 

I shall now join that thread.

 

Cheers, its been fun

Share this post


Link to post

You still don't get it. If you can find over 500 caches in one day, then you have a point and a need. Otherwise, the ONLY reason for a larger than 500 PQ is to build an off line database, which isn't being supported by TPTB.

 

Get over it.

 

Using that assumption, we should only be allowed 1 PQ per day. In fact we are allowed 5 which is 2500 caches, not 500.

 

The "off line" database is not a question. It is a FACT. Everyone who uses GSAK is maintaining some sort of offline database. The only debatable point is the size of that off line database.

You've got no argument from me there. I believe 5 PQs per day is overly generous already. 5 PQs per day is a phenomenon that was allowed about 3 or 4 years ago if I recall correctly. But this request goes to a previous post I made earlier this year on another thread. Give folks a little, and they will eventually want more of it. Figuratively speaking, the limit proposed today will be too little sometime tomorrow by someone wanting even more. Where does the line get drawn? Your limit requests or someone else's?

 

Oh and regarding that offline database? It isn't fresh data and it doesn't include anything that gets archived.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post
Give folks a little, and they will eventually want more of it. Figuratively speaking, the limit proposed today will be too little sometime tomorrow by someone wanting even more. Where does the line get drawn?

Well, as someone who has been keeping an offline database from the beginning I can say the total limits are fine--for my area. We're allowed 17,500 unique cache downloads per week. The reality is a lot lower simply because of mechanics, but the largest my database has ever been is a little short of 10,000. Right now, it's around 5400. The main reason for the drastic drop is I've sacrificed micros and unknowns beyond 80 miles from home. There are so many caches out there that I don't have to waste time trying to figure out if a particular micro is worth while.

 

Anyway, our region is not that dense with caches. Even if it where I'm not sure I'd need more than the slotted 17,500 caches if I had better tools in which to filter out the caches that don't interest me.

 

For instance:

  • There is someone who I regularly ignore. I wait for his caches to show up in the PQs, filter in GSAK, then come back here and ignore individually.
  • I look at word counts, reverse sort from the smallest, scan the logs, mark for ignore.
  • I search for variants of "keyholder," "bison," "capsule," etc. and if these turn up to be micros mis-categorized as something other than micro, I mark to ignore.
  • I seek for the common terms for "Lowes," "Depot," "x-mart," etc. scan and mark.
  • I filter on LPC, etc. scan and mark.
  • ...and so on.

That's a lot of work. The hobby has changed. We used to be satisfied with simply finding everything out there. Too much junk now a days. GS should recognize the hobby has changed as well. I've changed and no longer hunt everything in front me. GS should realize they need to provide better tools for me to filter out stuff that I want to skip.

 

Here's why: folks aren't downloading basket-loads of caches so they can hunt them. They are downloading basket-loads of caches so they will have the caches they want to hunt within the range from home they want to hunt them. The reason they have to download that basket-loads is because they can't effectively and efficiently eliminate the undesirable caches. The simpleton "ignore micros" scheme simply does not work well enough. Personally, I'm ignoring much more than micros and unknowns--these are just easy. I'm ignoring a custom list of low word counts, mis-categorized sizes, big box caches, and more.

 

Yes, I understand that Groundspeak is pretty much abandoning any upgrades to the PQ system in favor of "real time" access with mobile phones. It feels like the way Magellan treated their customers in regards to the WAAS issue--a shrug, "tough nuts," and "here, buy something new." How about fixing and upgrading that which we have and make that better?

 

Here's another thought on the "sharing the PQ" issue. Groundspeak knows who all of the licensees are, right? How hard would it be to add something to the PQ way down at the bottom where it says "Output to" and allow, say, 10 additional accounts to which that PQ is sent? Groundspeak would know if that person is entitled to the data, so why not? A few friends could pool a state's list and the PQ servers won't have to do the extra work. Sure, they'd probably use those freed up slots to create more PQs, but at least you'd be able to put off doing any "real work" on the PQs by adding additional features and filters for at least a little while.

 

BTW, I wonder how many accounts are already using that alternate email address to bounce PQs to a bunch of friends.

 

Anyway, the 17,500 a week slots would be plenty, IMHO, if the caches that filled those slots where the ones we really wanted to hunt and not just used because there is no good way to "take out the trache."

Share this post


Link to post

GS should realize they need to provide better tools for me to filter out stuff that I want to skip.

 

Out of that lengthy post and this lengthy thread, this was the absolutely best sentence written.

 

An official appearing opinion would be a very negative thing. The poor cacher that never gets the nice looking icon is bound to feel insulted.

There is an apparent demand for a way to filter the wheat from the chaff, so how would you address this need? In my eyes it isn't a particularly competitive reason that raised these questions but a practical one. If there are 1,000 caches in the area and you only have a limited amount of time to go caching, how do you determine whether a cache is a drive-by or a well-placed cache.

 

On the same note, why wouldn't other geocachers want to recognize folks who take a lot more time and energy to make their cache something to remember?

 

Here's my thought of the matter (or rethink, if you will). In my opinion creating a bunch of different ratings is nice but isn't really necessary. What I would propose instead is a way for users to rate individual caches for their overall experience and use an algorithm to compare your opinion to other users instead of just averaging the rating out. Once we get enough ratings we can say that based on your ratings of caches you found you would probably be interested in x cache that someone else with similar interests found.

 

We had a similar discussion on the Waymarking site to see what categories you may like.

 

The rating system would be linked to waymarks, waymark categories, geocaches, and possibly even photos you like to see if there are any ways to compare your ratings of say, a geocache, to ratings of individual waymarks (or even an entire category). Make sense?

 

The physical nature of a micro means that it is a cache, regardless of the argument of whether a cache is lame or not. The idea that it would be spun off to another web site is an unnecessary worry.

 

I'll adapt an old quote and say (IMO):

It has been said that Geocaching.com is the worst form of geocaching except all the others that have been tried.
There are the flaws but we'll find out better ways of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

GS should realize they need to provide better tools for me to filter out stuff that I want to skip.

 

 

And why do you believe you as a PQ user should have better tools than a user of a iPhone? :)

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

You still don't get it. If you can find over 500 caches in one day, then you have a point and a need. Otherwise, the ONLY reason for a larger than 500 PQ is to build an off line database, which isn't being supported by TPTB.

 

Get over it.

 

Using that assumption, we should only be allowed 1 PQ per day. In fact we are allowed 5 which is 2500 caches, not 500.

 

The "off line" database is not a question. It is a FACT. Everyone who uses GSAK is maintaining some sort of offline database. The only debatable point is the size of that off line database.

You've got no argument from me there. I believe 5 PQs per day is overly generous already. 5 PQs per day is a phenomenon that was allowed about 3 or 4 years ago if I recall correctly. But this request goes to a previous post I made earlier this year on another thread. Give folks a little, and they will eventually want more of it. Figuratively speaking, the limit proposed today will be too little sometime tomorrow by someone wanting even more. Where does the line get drawn? Your limit requests or someone else's?

 

Oh and regarding that offline database? It isn't fresh data and it doesn't include anything that gets archived.

 

Your PQ's are not "fresh" either. A new log could be entered 1 second after it is generated. But properly maintained an offline database can be "fresh" within 24 hours and that should suffice. I am confident you will have a reason why it isn't.

 

Also properly maintained, archived caches are simple to identify and flag using the "Last GPX Date" in GSAK.,

Share this post


Link to post

You still don't get it. If you can find over 500 caches in one day, then you have a point and a need. Otherwise, the ONLY reason for a larger than 500 PQ is to build an off line database, which isn't being supported by TPTB.

 

Get over it.

 

Using that assumption, we should only be allowed 1 PQ per day. In fact we are allowed 5 which is 2500 caches, not 500.

 

The "off line" database is not a question. It is a FACT. Everyone who uses GSAK is maintaining some sort of offline database. The only debatable point is the size of that off line database.

You've got no argument from me there. I believe 5 PQs per day is overly generous already. 5 PQs per day is a phenomenon that was allowed about 3 or 4 years ago if I recall correctly. But this request goes to a previous post I made earlier this year on another thread. Give folks a little, and they will eventually want more of it. Figuratively speaking, the limit proposed today will be too little sometime tomorrow by someone wanting even more. Where does the line get drawn? Your limit requests or someone else's?

 

Oh and regarding that offline database? It isn't fresh data and it doesn't include anything that gets archived.

 

Your PQ's are not "fresh" either. A new log could be entered 1 second after it is generated. But properly maintained an offline database can be "fresh" within 24 hours and that should suffice. I am confident you will have a reason why it isn't.

 

Also properly maintained, archived caches are simple to identify and flag using the "Last GPX Date" in GSAK.,

Again you have no argument with me. Depending on how big of a database you choose to keep, it can be much more stale than just 1 second or 24 hours. Mine is stale by 1 week per PQ. It's just simple math. No reasons or excuses needed. I don't understand why you think I'm being adversarial.

Share this post


Link to post

Reality check. This topic rarely garners much support. You have been told it has been posted a few times before. There hasn't been much support in the past either. That's a fact.

 

The reality check? Google ads. There were some issues at first where everyone saw them. People POURED into the forums complaining about it. Groundspeak listened. Quickly. Premium Members don't see them now.

 

There is no flood of people asking for this. Most folks can live well within the parameters given because no one has ever found 500 caches in one day, ever, period. I don't think anyone will ever find 2,500 caches in a day, ever, period.

 

There are indeed polls here, though informal. There was a poll on Google Ads, and the paying community voted them down. The paying community gives the "I want more than 500 returns in a PQ" informal poll a yawn. yawnnn.gif Very few care.

 

I'm impressed over those of you having the "Moderator" sign around your neck. It seems like you are trying to kill all discussions in a thread by posting as you do.

 

What makes me wonder is that you say the question has been raised a few times earlier as well with little support. I believe in development, and I guess the users of GS are developing their habits and needs as they continue geocaching. Some users might even be able to change their opinion as they see that the thought dey did not need a year ago now would be very helpful :ph34r:

 

I really think that if you want a change you have to put out your wants, and hope that there are others that see the same need, regardless if the same question is put out before.

Moderators should be careful when posting their comments with "negative vibes", especially since they are moderators (and the forum owners extended hands), unless you want an kommunistic forum where everyone are alowed to post what the moderators have approved :)

 

As mantioned earlier: I will NEVER have an iPhone, but I haven't complained about GS using "my share" developing this. Actually I give this development a big yawn yawnnn.gif, and really don't care, to use a moderators way of speech.

 

Still, it seems that someone could have use of such a feature as requested, and since the question raises from time to time, I figure some of the users would be happy if it was implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm impressed over those of you having the "Moderator" sign around your neck. It seems like you are trying to kill all discussions in a thread by posting as you do.

If in your opinion posting facts kills the discussion, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
As mantioned earlier: I will NEVER have an iPhone, but I haven't complained about GS using "my share" developing this. Actually I give this development a big yawn yawnnn.gif, and really don't care, to use a moderators way of speech.

Actually, I am glad you said this too, and I hope that Groundspeak hears my opinion here, just as yours.

 

They *sell* the iPhone/iPod Touch application. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Very simple. It is going to have to support itself with sales. If it doesn't sell, I would bet it would go away. I really, really, really wish they would offer a PQ with 1,000 results and *sell* that service. Those of you who *really* want this can put your money where your mouth is. I totally agree with TotemLake that if you give 1,000 away, then some people will want 2,000. Sell it, let people decide what level they want to be at, and then we will see how many people will pay $60 a year for PQ's with 1,000 results. Groundspeak makes more money. You are happy, I'm happy (which I am with 500 in a result) and Groundspeak makes more money, which makes them happy.

 

So, would you pay more for this service?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm impressed over those of you having the "Moderator" sign around your neck. It seems like you are trying to kill all discussions in a thread by posting as you do.

If in your opinion posting facts kills the discussion, then so be it.

 

When posting like you do, it might.

 

Your posting could be seen as a "this has been discussed before, so drop it"-message, especially since you are a moderator.

 

Actually I don't care if it has been posted once or houndres of times earlier, as long as this was a feature request posted by me. I might even try once more if nothing happends in a while. Probably I would get the same grumpy postings from the same grumpy moderators, but I don't care.

 

One thing I know for sure: If I want a change, I have to post it as a feature request. I am probably not the only one who want it, even thoug there also will be several posting telling me that others don't need my request. SO WHAT? I want it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
As mantioned earlier: I will NEVER have an iPhone, but I haven't complained about GS using "my share" developing this. Actually I give this development a big yawn yawnnn.gif, and really don't care, to use a moderators way of speech.

Actually, I am glad you said this too, and I hope that Groundspeak hears my opinion here, just as yours.

 

They *sell* the iPhone/iPod Touch application. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Very simple. It is going to have to support itself with sales. If it doesn't sell, I would bet it would go away. I really, really, really wish they would offer a PQ with 1,000 results and *sell* that service. Those of you who *really* want this can put your money where your mouth is. I totally agree with TotemLake that if you give 1,000 away, then some people will want 2,000. Sell it, let people decide what level they want to be at, and then we will see how many people will pay $60 a year for PQ's with 1,000 results. Groundspeak makes more money. You are happy, I'm happy (which I am with 500 in a result) and Groundspeak makes more money, which makes them happy.

 

So, would you pay more for this service?

 

If the service works out for me: YES.

As Volvo Man has spoken for in several of his postings in this thread: What about a Platinum membership where you pay a little extra and get a little extra?

Share this post


Link to post

 

If the service works out for me: YES.

As Volvo Man has spoken for in several of his postings in this thread: What about a Platinum membership where you pay a little extra and get a little extra?

 

Platinum membership doesn't cost any extra and we cannot talk about the perks.

Share this post


Link to post
As mantioned earlier: I will NEVER have an iPhone, but I haven't complained about GS using "my share" developing this. Actually I give this development a big yawn yawnnn.gif, and really don't care, to use a moderators way of speech.

Actually, I am glad you said this too, and I hope that Groundspeak hears my opinion here, just as yours.

 

They *sell* the iPhone/iPod Touch application. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Very simple. It is going to have to support itself with sales. If it doesn't sell, I would bet it would go away. I really, really, really wish they would offer a PQ with 1,000 results and *sell* that service. Those of you who *really* want this can put your money where your mouth is. I totally agree with TotemLake that if you give 1,000 away, then some people will want 2,000. Sell it, let people decide what level they want to be at, and then we will see how many people will pay $60 a year for PQ's with 1,000 results. Groundspeak makes more money. You are happy, I'm happy (which I am with 500 in a result) and Groundspeak makes more money, which makes them happy.

 

So, would you pay more for this service?

 

I think most, if not all, of the requestors for a "platinum 1000" service, have indicated they are very willing to pay for such a service.

 

I agree with you that services such as the so-called "platinum" or iPhone application should stand on their own merits. I have no plans to buy an iPhone either and would be disappointed if my PM fees went to support such a service.

 

Thanks for posting your comments. It brings a nice level of clarity to this sometimes emotional topic.

Share this post


Link to post

The "off line" database is not a question. It is a FACT. Everyone who uses GSAK is maintaining some sort of offline database. The only debatable point is the size of that off line database.

But you know, the size of ones offline database has absolutely NO relation to the size of any particular PQ, and it has absolutely NO relation to the number of PQ's one can run in a day.

Don't get me going about database fresshness. I once had several databases of 5000-10000 caches each, and nearly every cache within those were fresh, and those that were not I could easily see just how current they were by the fantastic features of GSAK.

Share this post


Link to post

That made me think of something. Not everyone who uses GSAK is using it for an offline database. I use it for pocket queries I pull to do sorting by different things and to see the last five logs status at a glance. I rely on the GC.com site for my database, and pull queries only to examine current data. I never save it and always over-write it every time. I know others that use it just to push data to their GPS or other electronic devices. Others us it to look at new PQs on their laptop while they are on a caching trip using that same data in their GPS for the actual hunt.

Share this post


Link to post

That made me think of something. Not everyone who uses GSAK is using it for an offline database. I use it for pocket queries I pull to do sorting by different things and to see the last five logs status at a glance. I rely on the GC.com site for my database, and pull queries only to examine current data. I never save it and always over-write it every time. I know others that use it just to push data to their GPS or other electronic devices. Others us it to look at new PQs on their laptop while they are on a caching trip using that same data in their GPS for the actual hunt.

 

I used to overwrite my GSAK database with each new PQ but with the Oregon's abilities, sometimes having more than 5 logs can be a major benefit. Particularly on a cache with a lot of note logs. Now I maintain last 15 logs which can often be a lifesaver for a difficult cache.

Share this post


Link to post
I really, really, really wish they would offer a PQ with 1,000 results and *sell* that service. Those of you who *really* want this can put your money where your mouth is. You are happy, I'm happy (which I am with 500 in a result) and Groundspeak makes more money, which makes them happy.

If it doesn't kill bandwidth for others, I saw make it available. If people want it, they'll buy it.

Edited by Skippermark

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know the code of this site, but one way that it might work is as a "multiplier." A non-paying member would be zero and for every $30 a year the multiplier would go up by one. So, instead of getting 500 in a PQ you get 1000, -or- instead of getting 5 PQs a day you get 10. Instead of 40 PQs in your list you get 80. Instead of 20 bookmarks, you get 40; and so on.

 

Some of those limits should be fairly easy to change versus others.

 

However, I prefer a surgical change versus a blunt one. I don't need more PQs. I need better PQs. For instance:

  • Recognize that folks do use offline databases and work with towards providing the most fresh data from that angle.
  • Recognize not everyone is going to embrace mobile solutions.
  • Don't send data that is not needed, but send all data that is, with the "Last 7 days" option checked.
    • Send a notice of cache archivals. *
    • All logs written in last 7 days.
    • Only those logs written in the last days
    • Base that on when the log was written or modified and not by the log date.
    • Don't send cache descriptions or details that haven't changed.

    [*]Provide better filtering either in-house or a way to dump the results to a bookmark or ignore list.

    [*]Allow creation of bookmarks from PQs.

    [*]Allow any bookmark list(s) to act as an ignore list on individual PQs.

I say continue the "surgical" trend that was started with "Along a Route" feature. (...which works great for those who like to jump of the interstate to find caches, but for the rest of us, not so much.)

 

Additionally, I'd prefer to use the 2,500 caches-a-day more efficiently over getting 5,000 a day. Splitting up an area by date has always been a pain, but I understand the limits of 500 caches simply because of server use. However, that server could do that splitting up for us and make it more efficient. Just like paging results returned on the Nearest Cache List page, the server could automatically "page" the results into 500 cache chunks.

 

So, while increasing the number of caches we can get would have the effect of us getting the caches we want, it would do nothing about not getting the caches we don't want. I say fix the later issue and the former would take care of itself.

 

* A simple text file of waypoints (GCXXXX) included in the zipfile would be better than nothing and would satisfy the nay-sayers who don't want archived caches in the GPX file.

Share this post


Link to post

CR, that's a pretty creative suggestion. I can get behind that one.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post
As mantioned earlier: I will NEVER have an iPhone, but I haven't complained about GS using "my share" developing this. Actually I give this development a big yawn yawnnn.gif, and really don't care, to use a moderators way of speech.

Actually, I am glad you said this too, and I hope that Groundspeak hears my opinion here, just as yours.

 

They *sell* the iPhone/iPod Touch application. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Very simple. It is going to have to support itself with sales. If it doesn't sell, I would bet it would go away. I really, really, really wish they would offer a PQ with 1,000 results and *sell* that service. Those of you who *really* want this can put your money where your mouth is. I totally agree with TotemLake that if you give 1,000 away, then some people will want 2,000. Sell it, let people decide what level they want to be at, and then we will see how many people will pay $60 a year for PQ's with 1,000 results. Groundspeak makes more money. You are happy, I'm happy (which I am with 500 in a result) and Groundspeak makes more money, which makes them happy.

 

So, would you pay more for this service?

 

You're durn tooting I would, sign me up right now, have GS mail me and we'll sort out the Paypal stuff tonight

Share this post


Link to post

I've just read my way through the last few days posts that I've missed while travelling. Some really creative thinking going on here, and starting to see some support from those who were initially zagainst. This i8s totally what the forum is about, discussing a suggestion and shaping a final solution. Even if that doesn't always work, when it does, its worth the effort, even if TPTB don't implement the solution, a few more people are singing from the same songsheet.

 

I've said all along I'd be happy to pay pro rata for the data, I'd also be pleased to see improvements such as stronger updated data queries, particularly needed there is the results to be sortable in reverse order, for instance if the last 2500 update results for your area goes back 5 days, you know you need to run that query every 4 days or so to ensure you catch all the updates, the problem with the current method is that the results are sorted by a different index aand if your query overflows the limit, you don't get all the results in say the last 24hours, but get some from each of the last 7 days..

 

with regard to the iPhone service and Mtn-Man's comments, I would be pretty annoyed if I went out and got a new iPhone specifically because the GC app was available, then support was pulled because of low uptake, this is one of the reasons I will not be getting an iPhone unless I can find another way to justify it, or the app is ported to a Nokia equivalent, as like many europeans, I always buy Nokia phones as they are simply the most rounded and reliable phone range on the market (as a generalisation on the whole range)

Share this post


Link to post

I just had a thought on this. I'm pulling for more than 500 in a single PQ. I have said before I would love to have 1000 instead. If Groundspeak is unwilling at this time to increase the amount of PQ's run in a day from 5, I wonder if programing the PQ machine so a person could up there amount of PQ result's by giving up another PQ that they could run that day.

 

Just incase I'm not explain this clearly here's a example.

 

Currently I run three PQ's when I update,, which is ever few days or once a week. Instead of getting 500 caches in one PQ. I wonder if I could take two PQ's and combine them into one "bigger" one.

 

Set a center point and get 1000 result's instead of 500 and use a total of 2 of my allotted 5 for the day. It would be helpful so then my 3 PQ's that I used already "walk" on each other. Then I could just get the 1000 closest caches and have no duplicate's.

 

Could this be changed and be useful to other's as well?

Share this post


Link to post

Some great ideas.

 

It is very clear that a certain percentage of the PQ's being run currently are wasted because of overlap etc. By providing more PQ selection criteria, GS could actually improve server performance by reducing the number of PQ's that get run each day.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...