PQs behind schedule?

[OpinioNate]

This argument becomes moot (or will) when you consider our primary goal for the PQ redesign is to have all PQs run within the first 2 hours of every day. I can't be certain that goal will be fully met but it certainly won't be far off.

[+beejay&esskay]

This argument becomes moot (or will) when you consider our primary goal for the PQ redesign is to have all PQs run within the first 2 hours of every day. I can't be certain that goal will be fully met but it certainly won't be far off.

 

Indeed, once you start meeting that goal. Not before. But that is the first I heard that.

[+sataraid1]

This argument becomes moot (or will) when you consider our primary goal for the PQ redesign is to have all PQs run within the first 2 hours of every day. I can't be certain that goal will be fully met but it certainly won't be far off.

 

That would be splendid. Then, a person could simply plan on running their PQs when they go to bed, and they'll be waiting in the inbox when they wake up.

 

That's something to be looking forward to.

[+beejay&esskay]

I find it hard to believe that whatever server/system/whatever is used to generate PQ's is running 100% 7/24. Which means that some scheduled PQ's could probably be run earlier than they ran yesterday/last week. But I have never seen one of my scheduled PQ's come in earlier than it did the last time. There is always creep. And that is dumb. If the PQ server isn't doing anything in the middle of the night (or other slow period), then run the PQ's scheduled for that day. Don't wait till later.

 

 

At the risk of having a "moot flag" thrown....

 

My PQ today ran at 05:59. Last week it ran at 08:40. I think the PQ system is busy 100% until possibly late in the day.

[jholly]

This argument becomes moot (or will) when you consider our primary goal for the PQ redesign is to have all PQs run within the first 2 hours of every day. I can't be certain that goal will be fully met but it certainly won't be far off.

 

So your saying that if I decide to go caching tomorrow this afternoon I'm hosed on getting a PQ for tomorrows activity until tomorrow? My comment would be, that basically sucks. Now throw in the 24/7 aspect of the geocaching world and that really sucks. I guess my next question is what are the servers doing the other 22 hours of the day? Calculating the next prime?

 

Jim

[+StarBrand]

This argument becomes moot (or will) when you consider our primary goal for the PQ redesign is to have all PQs run within the first 2 hours of every day. I can't be certain that goal will be fully met but it certainly won't be far off.

 

So your saying that if I decide to go caching tomorrow this afternoon I'm hosed on getting a PQ for tomorrows activity until tomorrow? My comment would be, that basically sucks. Now throw in the 24/7 aspect of the geocaching world and that really sucks. I guess my next question is what are the servers doing the other 22 hours of the day? Calculating the next prime?

 

Jim

I think he means to say that all of the pre-scheduled ones will run in the first 2 hours - AND the instant ones will still be instant all day long.

[+Markwell]

Ahhhh - but keep in mind that most Geocachers set thier PQs to run only 1 time per week (aka - every 7 days)...

Not sure where you get that "most" from... Edited March 19, 2009 by Markwell

[jholly]

This argument becomes moot (or will) when you consider our primary goal for the PQ redesign is to have all PQs run within the first 2 hours of every day. I can't be certain that goal will be fully met but it certainly won't be far off.

 

So your saying that if I decide to go caching tomorrow this afternoon I'm hosed on getting a PQ for tomorrows activity until tomorrow? My comment would be, that basically sucks. Now throw in the 24/7 aspect of the geocaching world and that really sucks. I guess my next question is what are the servers doing the other 22 hours of the day? Calculating the next prime?

 

Jim

I think he means to say that all of the pre-scheduled ones will run in the first 2 hours - AND the instant ones will still be instant all day long.

 

But we need to define instant. I have a number of PQ's for different areas that I cache. I might not run a given PQ for several weeks or months. Would that now become and instant? Or would it be on the next day schedule because it ran before even though it was weeks or months ago. As an aside, none of my PQ's are on a schedule. I run them when I feel the need.

 

Jim

[+beejay&esskay]

But we need to define instant. I have a number of PQ's for different areas that I cache. I might not run a given PQ for several weeks or months. Would that now become and instant? Or would it be on the next day schedule because it ran before even though it was weeks or months ago. As an aside, none of my PQ's are on a schedule. I run them when I feel the need.

 

Jim

 

If they can get all the scheduled PQs out in 2 hours, your submitted PQ during the day is going to be essentially instantaneous. (Just as I think it is now if it hasn't run for 7 days.)

[+TotemLake]

Sadly, most astute PQ users simply get around the bottlenecks by creating multiple copies of the same PQ and schedule each one to run once a week. After a few months, creep will have moved them down the queue and you will have to delete them all and recreate it.

 

But it does get you around the ever increasing delays of previously scheduled PQ's.

 

You don't even have to recreate them. Just use the "copy" button in the PQ list, and it will run instantly. I have been forced into doing that on several occasions, where I'm basically sitting packed and ready go go and still waiting on PQs I submitted hours previously.

 

But I'd prefer not to have to do that, and continuing to do so doesn't answer any of the questions I've asked.

How ironic... You're complaining how FIFO would be better in one post, and complaining about not getting your fresh PQ right away in another.

 

Why does my post say "Ringbone"?

 

You're quoting two different people.

 

At no point have I complained about fresh PQs not running. I know they do.

Yah you're right you didn't and I apologize for not being more careful.

 

Of course, we can go back to the draconian method used a couple years back.

 

Cancel all scheduled PQs for a couple of months. Make them disable after one run. It seems there were a lot of folks running PQs that were no longer using them. It helped clear up a residual backlog for a while. Some folks changed their PQ habits because of it. I myself learned to make my PQs leaner and run fewer of them gaining the same amount of information as a result.

[+Tequila]

 

It seems there were a lot of folks running PQs that were no longer using them.

 

How could anyone possibly know whether or not someone is "using" a PQ? My God!!! Is my webcam 2 way??????

[OpinioNate]

But we need to define instant. I have a number of PQ's for different areas that I cache. I might not run a given PQ for several weeks or months. Would that now become and instant? Or would it be on the next day schedule because it ran before even though it was weeks or months ago. As an aside, none of my PQ's are on a schedule. I run them when I feel the need.

 

Jim

 

If they can get all the scheduled PQs out in 2 hours, your submitted PQ during the day is going to be essentially instantaneous. (Just as I think it is now if it hasn't run for 7 days.)

 

This.

 

But maybe I should point out that they will never be instant, in a strict sense of the word. There are a lot of calculations that go into creating a PQ that take some small amount of time to build (otherwise we wouldn't have the backups we do now). For our purposes instant = ~a minute. The idea is that you would request a PQ and it will be ready to download a short time later. This is all still preliminary planning or I would give you more details.

[OpinioNate]

 

It seems there were a lot of folks running PQs that were no longer using them.

 

How could anyone possibly know whether or not someone is "using" a PQ? My God!!! Is my webcam 2 way??????

 

I think he means the ones that weren't re-enabled would obviously be going to waste.

[+TotemLake]

 

It seems there were a lot of folks running PQs that were no longer using them.

 

How could anyone possibly know whether or not someone is "using" a PQ? My God!!! Is my webcam 2 way??????

If the PQs aren't re-enabled, they were obviously not being missed, thus not being used. You do need to know how to connect the dots to make a route.

[+Tequila]

 

It seems there were a lot of folks running PQs that were no longer using them.

 

How could anyone possibly know whether or not someone is "using" a PQ? My God!!! Is my webcam 2 way??????

If the PQs aren't re-enabled, they were obviously not being missed, thus not being used. You do need to know how to connect the dots to make a route.

 

That is not true. I have a PQ that gives me the newest caches in my area. I only ran it once. Now, I use the url it generates as a Firefox Toolbar button. No intention to ever run it again but I certainly need it.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Tequila

[+TotemLake]

 

It seems there were a lot of folks running PQs that were no longer using them.

 

How could anyone possibly know whether or not someone is "using" a PQ? My God!!! Is my webcam 2 way??????

If the PQs aren't re-enabled, they were obviously not being missed, thus not being used. You do need to know how to connect the dots to make a route.

 

That is not true. I have a PQ that gives me the newest caches in my area. I only ran it once. Now, I use the url it generates as a Firefox Toolbar button. No intention to ever run it again but I certainly need it.

Re-read my original post and quit taking it out of context.

 

Cancel all scheduled PQs for a couple of months. Make them disable after one run. It seems there were a lot of folks running PQs that were no longer using them. It helped clear up a residual backlog for a while. Some folks changed their PQ habits because of it. I myself learned to make my PQs leaner and run fewer of them gaining the same amount of information as a result.

 

Just so you're clear, I'm talking about the ones that are regularly scheduled and run every week. If they are cleared by TPTB as had happened a couple years back and are not re-enabled my statement stands true. The people who notice are the ones doing active hunts. The ones that don't notice had been ignoring them and running them for no reason. I was never speaking of single run PQs.

Edited March 20, 2009 by TotemLake

[+Yossarian]

This argument becomes moot (or will) when you consider our primary goal for the PQ redesign is to have all PQs run within the first 2 hours of every day. I can't be certain that goal will be fully met but it certainly won't be far off.

 

What if (maybe a big if) scheduled PQs could be added to the queue based on each user's local time instead of all worldwide scheduled PQs being added to the queue after midnight Groundspeak time? That way they could be spaced more evenly throughout the day and there wouldn't (hopefully) be a big backlog at any one time. Of course...that wouldn't help things with the current setup if it really is taking longer than 24 hours to process them all some days.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Yossarian

[+Cache O'Plenty]

My understanding of the priority system is that it gives priority to those people that actually have gotten on the system and requested a PQ (a new one). The idea being that the person is actually active and needs a PQ.

 

Then the scheduled ones are generated based on the age of the previous data provided to the user. The older ones get to go first because that data is the most out of date. The system has no knowledge of the active status of the requestor, only the age of the data. For all the system knows, the requestor is on vacation and just letting the PQs build up in his e-mail until he get back. He may never actually get on the system in the meantime.

 

Here's an idea for the priority system, although it probably will confuse things. If a user logs on the system, then his scheduled PQs get bumped up the scheduled list.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty

[+StarBrand]

Ahhhh - but keep in mind that most Geocachers set thier PQs to run only 1 time per week (aka - every 7 days)...

Not sure where you get that "most" from...

...."in my limited experience". (you didn't let me finish my sentence. Yeeesh!!)

[+sataraid1]

My understanding of the priority system is that it gives priority to those people that actually have gotten on the system and requested a PQ (a new one). The idea being that the person is actually active and needs a PQ.

 

This is definitely not the case, because *none* of my PQs are set to automatically run.

 

And if anyone's interested, here's what happened to my three missing PQs yesterday. Reference the screen shot above, then look at this:

 

 

One of the missing PQs ran about 11:30 local time, a delay of 14 hours . The other two ran *at 3 AM*!

 

And bear in mind ... all three of these PQs had been previously run on the same date! Again, why the difference?

 

But of course, here's the annoying part:

 

 

The "late" PQs from yesterday got counted against TODAY's allocation.

 

Anyway, there's really not a lot more to say. The current PQ system is broken. I hope for something better very soon.

 

I just wanted to prove that when I assert that the current system is "unpredictable", I'm not just making stuff up or wildly exaggerating to call attention to myself. If there's one word to describe the way my PQs ran yesterday, it's definitely "unpredictable".

 

The bad part is, there's no way to plan around "unpredictable".

[+Tequila]

I have experienced delays on several occasions that resulted in PQ's running a day late. And you are correct, they affect the next day's count.

 

And when I brought that to Groundspeak's attention, I was basically told there was nothing they could do about it.

 

Several months ago I started a thread suggesting they use date/time requested to determine when to count against the daily allocation of 5 as opposed to date/time read.

[+StarBrand]

My understanding of the priority system is that it gives priority to those people that actually have gotten on the system and requested a PQ (a new one). The idea being that the person is actually active and needs a PQ.

 

This is definitely not the case, because *none* of my PQs are set to automatically run.

 

And if anyone's interested, here's what happened to my three missing PQs yesterday. Reference the screen shot above, then look at this:

 

 

One of the missing PQs ran about 11:30 local time, a delay of 14 hours . The other two ran *at 3 AM*!

 

And bear in mind ... all three of these PQs had been previously run on the same date! Again, why the difference?

 

But of course, here's the annoying part:

 

 

The "late" PQs from yesterday got counted against TODAY's allocation.

 

Anyway, there's really not a lot more to say. The current PQ system is broken. I hope for something better very soon.

 

I just wanted to prove that when I assert that the current system is "unpredictable", I'm not just making stuff up or wildly exaggerating to call attention to myself. If there's one word to describe the way my PQs ran yesterday, it's definitely "unpredictable".

 

The bad part is, there's no way to plan around "unpredictable".

Did you catch that Raine was doing something to the PQ system yesterday particularly last night - that made several unusual things happen.....

[+sataraid1]

Did you catch that Raine was doing something to the PQ system yesterday particularly last night - that made several unusual things happen.....

 

No, I didn't, and if that's the cause of yesterday's weirdness then it's perfectly understandable.

 

Still, this sort of thing has happened to me a number of times in the past. More often than could realistically be attributed to maintenance or extenuating circumstances.

 

It's not the end of the world. I just wish there was enough consistency that I could work around it.

[+Raine]

Well rest assured that we're in the process of poking and prodding the hamsters that generate all those little PQ's.

 

Sataraid1: Looks like PQ's #11, 12 and 13 were generated at around 6:05 PST this morning

[+sataraid1]

Sataraid1: Looks like PQ's #11, 12 and 13 were generated at around 6:05 PST this morning

 

Yes, they ran almost immediately. I should have noted that for the sake of completeness.