Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
CoyoteRed

Groundspeak Downtime

Recommended Posts

I think you hit the wrong nail.

 

The downtime didn't prove it's time to change the PQ policy. It showed us the model has to be redesigned.

 

Life or death, we don't care. A paid service? Yes. Groundspeak being a for-profit organization? Yes.

 

Then we expect to be served 24/7, especially because Groundspeak is promoting to not use OLDBs.

 

If load-balancing is too costy, then make it 100$/year. People wouldn't want to pay? Then make it 10$/year for everyone (instead of having free accounts with less services). Old debate, I guess.

 

This only proves the model will have to be revisited.

 

Next time, will it be a earthquake? How much downtime? Weeks, months? Still just a hobby, but it won't serve your business, Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

I think you hit the wrong nail.

 

The downtime didn't prove it's time to change the PQ policy. It showed us the model has to be redesigned.

 

Life or death, we don't care. A paid service? Yes. Groundspeak being a for-profit organization? Yes.

 

Then we expect to be served 24/7, especially because Groundspeak is promoting to not use OLDBs.

 

If load-balancing is too costy, then make it 100$/year. People wouldn't want to pay? Then make it 10$/year for everyone (instead of having free accounts with less services). Old debate, I guess.

 

This only proves the model will have to be revisited.

 

Next time, will it be a earthquake? How much downtime? Weeks, months? Still just a hobby, but it won't serve your business, Groundspeak.

 

Yeah, when the earthquake hits, my main concern will certainly be my ability to find tupperware in the woods. :drama: Maybe it's more of a time to rethink how you prepare instead of worrying how GS will, it's truly not that tough to have a PQ run weekly, just save the old one until you get the new....you know, just in case? OR, maybe those who are able to load caches onto their units should load them up...just in case? I suspect a lot of people can load caches. Or buy the Geomate and stop worrying? It's a pretty cheap way to be completely safe of downtimes! Hey, even a PDA with a memory full of caches would stop the problem in most cases. And, of course, those knowing they're traveling should prepare a bit sooner than Friday morning or they shouldn't be complaining when their plans are shot down due to an act of God!

 

As for the expectation of being served 24/7....really? ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to the WWW! If there was an earthquake in Seattle, it would probably not change my plans for the weekend 5000 km away...

 

Anyway, another solution would be to raise the annual fees, and have a separate server for us that support the site.

 

Free access gets a downtime while contributors get to surf the load-balanced site.

 

That's a business decision and only the powers that be know the real numbers. Maybe it's profitable enough in its current form.

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to the WWW! If there was an earthquake in Seattle, it would probably not change my plans for the weekend 5000 km away...

 

Anyway, another solution would be to raise the annual fees, and have a separate server for us that support the site.

 

Free access gets a downtime while contributors get to surf the load-balanced site.

 

That's a business decision and only the powers that be know the real numbers. Maybe it's profitable enough in its current form.

 

I like how some want the majority to pay more so that same "some" can go on caching without worry. If you wish to pay more, please do, but don't try to suggest we should all do the same. As I said, a simple workaround for those who feel they need 24/7 service would be to buy that GeomateJR or prepare better....that's the cheapest and easiest way I can see to not allow a disruption to ruin your plans!

 

Unless, of course, you'd like to offer up the equipment and services needed in case of another downtime? Maybe, instead of griping about a very minor inconvenience, you could put up, then you could charge others who feel as you a nice hefty fee for your security?

 

I stand behind my comment on the earthquake. If a catastrophic quake (or other disaster) were to hit, my concerns CERTAINLY wouldn't be whether I can search out tupperware...but that's me!

Share this post


Link to post
As I've said, this really didn't affect those who keep OLDBs much at all, yet we keep hearing the PQs aren't made for such things.
I think you should have quit while you were behind. I guarantee Jeremy (if he's bothering to read this thread at all) is thinking "You were able to use the current tools to create your OLDB so it didn't affect you, but somehow the downtime proves that PQs aren't good enough to create OLDBs so you're not affected by downtimes?"

 

I, for one, am hoping he's working on improving the site in other ways that could be actually useful.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious from the crowd that dosen't like the "life-and-death" statements. For the people who really and truly felt "put out" or "severely inconvenienced" can you describe the situation that made it so you felt that way? I'm looking for real-life answers to that question so I can better understand.

 

For the sake of this argument, I'll personally refrain from nitpicking the answers one-by-one with work-arounds on the board (although I'm sure others will nitpick, and I'll probably nitpick in my head). I'm genuinely interested in what makes people so emotional about this topic.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using GSAK, so I definitely don't bother for a 24 hours downtime (I don't even have PQs running on Fridays!).

 

I see last week's event as a way to improve the system. I'm pretty sure Groundspeak is aware of the potential issues and solutions. They're the ones with the numbers, so (hopefully) they know what people are willing to spend for such a service (I can feel the general consensus is to pay less, or nothing). I don't mind paying 30$/year for the extra features, but when money is involved, people expect to have some ROI. I guess everyone will consider downtime differently (as a problem or not).

 

If having redundant servers and raising the fees is not a solution, then let be it. Too many downtimes will put off some users, but this is a large community and part of the revenus is based on ads, so that shouldn't be a big problem for the head of the company.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using GSAK, so I definitely don't bother for a 24 hours downtime (I don't even have PQs running on Fridays!).

 

I see last week's event as a way to improve the system. I'm pretty sure Groundspeak is aware of the potential issues and solutions. They're the ones with the numbers, so (hopefully) they know what people are willing to spend for such a service (I can feel the general consensus is to pay less, or nothing). I don't mind paying 30$/year for the extra features, but when money is involved, people expect to have some ROI. I guess everyone will consider downtime differently (as a problem or not).

 

If having redundant servers and raising the fees is not a solution, then let be it. Too many downtimes will put off some users, but this is a large community and part of the revenus is based on ads, so that shouldn't be a big problem for the head of the company.

 

I've only been around for what....3 years or so? BUT, I have only seen one downtime, the one that happened last week. I highly doubt this is enough to say we need a back-up, I could be wrong...

Share this post


Link to post

While geocaching is a 24x7 sport, it is NOT mission critical. No one is gonna die or somehow be harmed if we don't get real time data for 24 - 36 hours.

I'll try to keep that in mind... No requests for changes or suggestions for improvements will be considered unless people will die if the changes are not made.

 

"No impending deaths? Then shut up! We don't want to hear it!"

Sums up how I feel about maintaning my caches. "I'll get to it, and that's enough"

Share this post


Link to post
So, how many of you premium members were upset enough about the downtime to request a refund of all or part of your premium fees?

Not me. The downtime didn't effect me in the slightest. The site could have stayed down for a couple more days and not affected me. I didn't even know something had happened until the second day when someone asked me what was going on.

 

I was in an area with almost no cell service and was caching along happily using the 1 PQ I downloaded to cover the majority of the area I was in and a second cache along a route PQ that I had downloaded a couple days before heading out.

Share this post


Link to post

I am actually quit happy about this break because finally I was able to get my life back. Of course it didn't last long, but it's still something. :drama:

Edited by Geovius

Share this post


Link to post

Last Friday I was again happy to have plenty of data in my possession to be able to geocache over the weekend. I was miffed that I had one particular PQs scheduled which did not arrive. That was a minor annoyance as I already have lowered my expectations in this regard over the years. Over Saturday and Sunday I was in areas where my phone had no data service; clearly I pretty much had to have an off-line database or do my vacation differently. On the way home I got stuck in traffic and when I took the “route less travelled” was then extremely happy that I had 16000 waypoints in my GPSr as custom POIs so that I could cache in areas that were not on my planned route.

I note on a local discussion forum that I am not the only one who will be caching across thousands of miles in the span of 1 to 3 weeks this summer. The areas I am traversing include so many caches that I have to basically run all my allocated PQs (in 2 premium accounts) to get all the data that may be within a few miles of the planned route or possible detours. I already assume that I won’t be able to get data on some weekend mornings or afternoons.

This is how many geocachers operate. I know that many more want to work this way because they talk to me at events asking for tips and tricks. The persons I am talking about spend a lot of money on geocaching. Many have several accounts; many buy geoparaphanalia. We think nothing about filling huge gas tanks with tons of fuel just to go caching. We all know that this is a business and we are happy to pay for quality. We are not happy with any senseless aggravation and we all avoid it because this is the part of our lives where we can have fun. It is indeed a luxury thing; not a life-and-death thing.

The current PQ system was invented in a time when geocaching was different. One could pull all the data within an hour’s drive on-demand with one query. This met our needs. None of us used all the PQs per week that we had available. In my home area getting the things that I need routinely now takes 8 PQs. I know of areas where you cannot even pull all the data within one day’s biking distance in one day. The talk of bandwidth in regard to PQs is somewhat nonsensical, but I think it can show an interesting pattern: When the geocaching website was created it would have been thought exorbitant for the website to return more than a 100k of data for each user request. Effort was invested to trim down pictures and to keep things compact. The bandwidth consumed by each hit now is 100 times that (given all the mapping and imaging data on each cache page). Each user click moves more data that one full PQ gpx file.

I would also point out the that number of logs that one would look at on a cache page has changed. A few years ago, you could get the gist of what you wanted to know by looking at the last 4 or 5 logs. That is no longer the case. I routinely find myself looking at more logs because so many are fairly useless. I suspect that most users, if given the opportunity, would elect to have 6 to 10 logs sent to them if they had an option. This represents a change in our “needs”.

So geocaching now involves much more data (100 times more?) than when it was invented. The value of the PQ (which is the primary benefit of the annual fee) has degraded by this same factor since it has not followed a parallel evolution and stayed at the same level as originally designed. I personally would like to see the data query service upgraded as some have suggested, at least to keep pace with how geocaching data are used these days.

Share this post


Link to post

Well said Hynr. That is the gist of what I say too. Plus...

 

I just cannot seem to grasp the thought that GS has to protect the data?

 

Allow more to be dl'ed for a fee to protect BW usage if needed. Make us agree not to share it or sell it. If illegal sites pop up, well that is what the authorities are for.

 

I wonder - is this "data protection" just something the forum veterans mention or is it a real GS principle? Why?

 

Just wondering - not fighting GS or anyone on this. I love geocaching.com! :drama:

Share this post


Link to post
Make us agree not to share it or sell it. If illegal sites pop up, well that is what the authorities are for.

Do you have any examples of that model working anywhere else on the Internet? Last time I checked, about 0.0001% of the people who illegally share MP3 data had been prosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Make us agree not to share it or sell it. If illegal sites pop up, well that is what the authorities are for.

Do you have any examples of that model working anywhere else on the Internet? Last time I checked, about 0.0001% of the people who illegally share MP3 data had been prosecuted.

 

Are we comparing geocaching data to MP3 music? GS is not that big yet TT :drama: Next...

Share this post


Link to post
Are we comparing geocaching data to MP3 music? GS is not that big yet TT ;) Next...

How is the relative size of the market relevant? :drama:

 

Actually I would argue that Groundspeak has more to lose, proportionately, than the recording industry - and far fewer resources to sue people. And don't expect "the authorities" to protect you much - most piracy cases end up in the civil courts. I completely understand why these guys are keeping the crown jewels under lock and key.

Share this post


Link to post

Last Friday I was again happy to have plenty of data in my possession to be able to geocache over the weekend. I was miffed that I had one particular PQs scheduled which did not arrive. That was a minor annoyance as I already have lowered my expectations in this regard over the years. Over Saturday and Sunday I was in areas where my phone had no data service; clearly I pretty much had to have an off-line database or do my vacation differently. On the way home I got stuck in traffic and when I took the “route less travelled” was then extremely happy that I had 16000 waypoints in my GPSr as custom POIs so that I could cache in areas that were not on my planned route.

I note on a local discussion forum that I am not the only one who will be caching across thousands of miles in the span of 1 to 3 weeks this summer. The areas I am traversing include so many caches that I have to basically run all my allocated PQs (in 2 premium accounts) to get all the data that may be within a few miles of the planned route or possible detours. I already assume that I won’t be able to get data on some weekend mornings or afternoons.

This is how many geocachers operate. I know that many more want to work this way because they talk to me at events asking for tips and tricks. The persons I am talking about spend a lot of money on geocaching. Many have several accounts; many buy geoparaphanalia. We think nothing about filling huge gas tanks with tons of fuel just to go caching. We all know that this is a business and we are happy to pay for quality. We are not happy with any senseless aggravation and we all avoid it because this is the part of our lives where we can have fun. It is indeed a luxury thing; not a life-and-death thing.

The current PQ system was invented in a time when geocaching was different. One could pull all the data within an hour’s drive on-demand with one query. This met our needs. None of us used all the PQs per week that we had available. In my home area getting the things that I need routinely now takes 8 PQs. I know of areas where you cannot even pull all the data within one day’s biking distance in one day. The talk of bandwidth in regard to PQs is somewhat nonsensical, but I think it can show an interesting pattern: When the geocaching website was created it would have been thought exorbitant for the website to return more than a 100k of data for each user request. Effort was invested to trim down pictures and to keep things compact. The bandwidth consumed by each hit now is 100 times that (given all the mapping and imaging data on each cache page). Each user click moves more data that one full PQ gpx file.

I would also point out the that number of logs that one would look at on a cache page has changed. A few years ago, you could get the gist of what you wanted to know by looking at the last 4 or 5 logs. That is no longer the case. I routinely find myself looking at more logs because so many are fairly useless. I suspect that most users, if given the opportunity, would elect to have 6 to 10 logs sent to them if they had an option. This represents a change in our “needs”.

So geocaching now involves much more data (100 times more?) than when it was invented. The value of the PQ (which is the primary benefit of the annual fee) has degraded by this same factor since it has not followed a parallel evolution and stayed at the same level as originally designed. I personally would like to see the data query service upgraded as some have suggested, at least to keep pace with how geocaching data are used these days.

 

Disregard, it appears you don't with a PQ....odd

 

Other than that, I wish I had your money and time to cache, sounds fun!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

What would happen if Groundspeak lost all the data for all the caches? What if the fire destroyed all the servers? Is the data backed up on other servers?....Would we be able to continue geocaching if a catastrophic event happened at GS?

Share this post


Link to post
What would happen if Groundspeak lost all the data for all the caches? What if the fire destroyed all the servers? Is the data backed up on other servers?

Given that the geocaching database represents most of the assets of a company that employs 20+ people, it would probably be bordering on criminally negligent if this were not the case. (Of course, since it's a private company, they can do what they like.)

 

I think that you can confidently assume that the data is backed up, and that they know how to restore it (which is, incidentally, not the same thing at all). It probably isn't backed up on a duplicate set of equally powerful servers, but servers can be had for same-day delivery quite easily, especially if an insurance company is paying (and otherwise has to pay for the consequential losses).

 

Would we be able to continue geocaching if a catastrophic event happened at GS?

The main problem with a disaster which impacts the integrity of your data is deciding whether to roll back to the (inevitably) out-of-date backups, or to try and carry on from where you are. In the case of a fire destroying the live database you don't have much of a choice, of course. But if the Fisher Plaza fire had knocked out access to the servers for X days - for example, if the servers were known to be undamaged but the corridor leading to the machine room had collapsed - then there's presumably some value of X above which you decide that the loss of data involved in rolling back to the previous backup is less costly than the continuing service outage. It's not an enviable decision. (On the other hand, it's not on the same scale as the decisions which, say, military medics in Afghanistan have to make more or less every day. :P)

Share this post


Link to post

Well said Hynr. That is the gist of what I say too. Plus...

 

I just cannot seem to grasp the thought that GS has to protect the data?

 

Allow more to be dl'ed for a fee to protect BW usage if needed. Make us agree not to share it or sell it. If illegal sites pop up, well that is what the authorities are for.

 

I wonder - is this "data protection" just something the forum veterans mention or is it a real GS principle? Why?

 

Just wondering - not fighting GS or anyone on this. I love geocaching.com! :P

All I am going to say is do some searches for Buxley's (SP?) site. Groundspeak has been very heavy handed at times against other sites that try to use their data without permission. Rightly so in my opinion. This is a very real issue to them.

Share this post


Link to post

Then we expect to be served 24/7, especially because Groundspeak is promoting to not use OLDBs.

 

But of course, don't forget that geocaching is an global activity, while some of us have night and are sleeping (or doing nightcaching) others have daytime and are out caching.

Share this post


Link to post

Then we expect to be served 24/7, especially because Groundspeak is promoting to not use OLDBs.

 

But of course, don't forget that geocaching is an global activity, while some of us have night and are sleeping (or doing nightcaching) others have daytime and are out caching.

 

Absolutely!

 

Unfortunately, GS made the member fees an upgrade to the free version. You just get extras, not reliability.

Share this post


Link to post

Last Friday I was again happy to have plenty of data in my possession to be able to geocache over the weekend. I was miffed that I had one particular PQs scheduled which did not arrive. That was a minor annoyance as I already have lowered my expectations in this regard over the years. Over Saturday and Sunday I was in areas where my phone had no data service; clearly I pretty much had to have an off-line database or do my vacation differently. On the way home I got stuck in traffic and when I took the “route less travelled” was then extremely happy that I had 16000 waypoints in my GPSr as custom POIs so that I could cache in areas that were not on my planned route.

I note on a local discussion forum that I am not the only one who will be caching across thousands of miles in the span of 1 to 3 weeks this summer. The areas I am traversing include so many caches that I have to basically run all my allocated PQs (in 2 premium accounts) to get all the data that may be within a few miles of the planned route or possible detours. I already assume that I won’t be able to get data on some weekend mornings or afternoons.

This is how many geocachers operate. I know that many more want to work this way because they talk to me at events asking for tips and tricks. The persons I am talking about spend a lot of money on geocaching. Many have several accounts; many buy geoparaphanalia. We think nothing about filling huge gas tanks with tons of fuel just to go caching. We all know that this is a business and we are happy to pay for quality. We are not happy with any senseless aggravation and we all avoid it because this is the part of our lives where we can have fun. It is indeed a luxury thing; not a life-and-death thing.

The current PQ system was invented in a time when geocaching was different. One could pull all the data within an hour’s drive on-demand with one query. This met our needs. None of us used all the PQs per week that we had available. In my home area getting the things that I need routinely now takes 8 PQs. I know of areas where you cannot even pull all the data within one day’s biking distance in one day. The talk of bandwidth in regard to PQs is somewhat nonsensical, but I think it can show an interesting pattern: When the geocaching website was created it would have been thought exorbitant for the website to return more than a 100k of data for each user request. Effort was invested to trim down pictures and to keep things compact. The bandwidth consumed by each hit now is 100 times that (given all the mapping and imaging data on each cache page). Each user click moves more data that one full PQ gpx file.

I would also point out the that number of logs that one would look at on a cache page has changed. A few years ago, you could get the gist of what you wanted to know by looking at the last 4 or 5 logs. That is no longer the case. I routinely find myself looking at more logs because so many are fairly useless. I suspect that most users, if given the opportunity, would elect to have 6 to 10 logs sent to them if they had an option. This represents a change in our “needs”.

So geocaching now involves much more data (100 times more?) than when it was invented. The value of the PQ (which is the primary benefit of the annual fee) has degraded by this same factor since it has not followed a parallel evolution and stayed at the same level as originally designed. I personally would like to see the data query service upgraded as some have suggested, at least to keep pace with how geocaching data are used these days.

 

Perfectly said.

Especially the last 5 logs part i really dont need three TB drop notes and two found it logs i need corrected co ords, owner notes and found it logs.

Share this post


Link to post
Are we comparing geocaching data to MP3 music? GS is not that big yet TT <_< Next...

How is the relative size of the market relevant? :)

 

Actually I would argue that Groundspeak has more to lose, proportionately, than the recording industry - and far fewer resources to sue people. And don't expect "the authorities" to protect you much - most piracy cases end up in the civil courts. I completely understand why these guys are keeping the crown jewels under lock and key.

 

This is the one argument I have never understood. Please do not get me wrong I am not trying to start any fights or mud slinging at all, and do not think this is any leverage point for making any changes in the delivery of data from GS. I just do not understand the references to our cache data and log submissions as Groundspeak's Data. I think it is fairly well stated in section 6 of the TOU that all of the cache submission data and logs belong to the author, and us by agreeing to the TOU have given GS a full non expiring license to use that data in any way they can dream of.

 

Am I misinterpreting this section of the TOU?

Share this post


Link to post
This is the one argument I have never understood. Please do not get me wrong I am not trying to start any fights or mud slinging at all, and do not think this is any leverage point for making any changes in the delivery of data from GS. I just do not understand the references to our cache data and log submissions as Groundspeak's Data. I think it is fairly well stated in section 6 of the TOU that all of the cache submission data and logs belong to the author, and us by agreeing to the TOU have given GS a full non expiring license to use that data in any way they can dream of.

 

Am I misinterpreting this section of the TOU?

Your cache page data and logs are your data and you own the copyright. However, Groundspeak makes money by making "your" data available subject to certain conditions (looking at ads, paying $30, etc). It's a bit like publishing a book: J.K.Rowling owns the copyright to Harry Potter but her publisher is the one determining which countries it gets published in, etc. (The analogy breaks down when you compare how much J.K.Rowling makes out of the deal, with how much we make. Maybe "very very cheap vanity publishing" is a better fit. :))

 

A big part of Groundspeak's business model breaks down if people can obtain the data by looking at fewer advertisements, or paying less than $30, or by otherwise clicking on fewer pages. Thus, the ability to control how much data you can get hold of per day, is an important element in protecting this data.

Share this post


Link to post

Your cache page data and logs are your data and you own the copyright. However, Groundspeak makes money by making "your" data available subject to certain conditions (looking at ads, paying $30, etc). It's a bit like publishing a book: J.K.Rowling owns the copyright to Harry Potter but her publisher is the one determining which countries it gets published in, etc. (The analogy breaks down when you compare how much J.K.Rowling makes out of the deal, with how much we make. Maybe "very very cheap vanity publishing" is a better fit. :))

 

A big part of Groundspeak's business model breaks down if people can obtain the data by looking at fewer advertisements, or paying less than $30, or by otherwise clicking on fewer pages. Thus, the ability to control how much data you can get hold of per day, is an important element in protecting this data.

 

I completely agree they are the listing service that we have licensed to list our content and as such they have all the ability and rights as licensees to protect the data from proliferation, and try to maintain their business model. I have absolutely no qualms with that at all. What I was not understanding was why individuals were referencing it as Groundspeak's DATA. It is their DATABASE but our data makes up the contents and we are completely liable for our CONTENT not Groundspeak from my interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post

All I am going to say is do some searches for Buxley's (SP?) site. Groundspeak has been very heavy handed at times against other sites that try to use their data without permission. Rightly so in my opinion. This is a very real issue to them.

 

Know all about that "issue" and not gonna go there! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
All I am going to say is do some searches for Buxley's (SP?) site. Groundspeak has been very heavy handed at times against other sites that try to use their data without permission. Rightly so in my opinion. This is a very real issue to them.
Know all about that "issue" and not gonna go there! :unsure:

While it might have been heavy-handed, in defense of Groundspeak I seem to recall Buxley's refusal to remove archived caches from the maps as a major point of contention.

 

I agree with the notion of archived caches not to be listed as available like that of the case of Buxley's site. The other side of the coin is Groundspeak not providing data that would remove that very data from circulation.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I agree with the notion of archived caches not to be listed as available like that of the case of Buxley's site. The other side of the coin is Groundspeak not providing data that would remove that very data from circulation.

 

I thought that is what GS does now, remove the very data from circulation. :unsure:

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
I agree with the notion of archived caches not to be listed as available like that of the case of Buxley's site. The other side of the coin is Groundspeak not providing data that would remove that very data from circulation.
I thought that is what GS does now, remove the very data from circulation. :unsure:

 

Jim

No, they stop sending out update information if you haven't found that cache. Regardless of whether you maintain an OLDB or are just adding to data from last week, because Groundspeak does not send out that caches are archived leaves the user to know that he has to use workarounds to remove archived cache from his list of available caches. Judging from the number of posts that keep popping up it an issue.

 

The way it's set up now simply isn't very user friendly.

Share this post


Link to post

A big part of Groundspeak's business model breaks down if people can obtain the data by looking at fewer advertisements, or paying less than $30, or by otherwise clicking on fewer pages. Thus, the ability to control how much data you can get hold of per day, is an important element in protecting this data.

 

I pay my $30 but see no ads. Where are they? (BTW, FF3.5 + adblock + hosts file) :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Let's keep it in perspective,............

 

Good advice.

 

I imagine GS is prepared for all the things they can reasonably be expected to be prepared for.

 

What happened to cause the downtime was outside their sphere of control, and that's just what happens sometimes in life.

 

GS didn't lose any data, have their servers hacked, lose their forum db, or any of the unpleasant things that make a system admin prematurely gray. All that happened was a situation that briefly interrupted their contact with the world.

 

As a system admin, I can tell you that the good folks at GS are far more concerned about what happened than their customers are. By now the folks at GS will have already reviewed all options to see if there is a way to prevent another occurrence of downtime for the same cause. If it can be done within financial feasibility, they've probably got a plan in place to make it happen. If it can't they won't.

 

Considering the massive user load the GC site has each day, I am impressed with the good session the site enjoys. Few other commercial operations with a similar load can provide what GS does with as little downtime as they do.

 

I'm all for letting they guys who do so well do what they do without any uninformed input from me.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Good advice.

 

I imagine GS is prepared for all the things they can reasonably be expected to be prepared for.

 

What happened to cause the downtime was outside their sphere of control, and that's just what happens sometimes in life.

 

GS didn't lose any data, have their servers hacked, lose their forum db, or any of the unpleasant things that make a system admin prematurely gray. All that happened was a situation that briefly interrupted their contact with the world.

 

As a system admin, I can tell you that the good folks at GS are far more concerned about what happened than their customers are. By now the folks at GS will have already reviewed all options to see if there is a way to prevent another occurrence of downtime for the same cause. If it can be done within financial feasibility, they've probably got a plan in place to make it happen. If it can't they won't.

 

Considering the massive user load the GC site has each day, I am impressed with the good session the site enjoys. Few other commercial operations with a similar load can provide what GS does with as little downtime as they do.

 

I'm all for letting they guys who do so well do what they do without any uninformed input from me.

 

I concur.

 

EXCELLENT response!

Share this post


Link to post
Let's keep it in perspective,............
Good advice.
Good advice.
I concur.

 

EXCELLENT response!

I think keeping it in perspective is good. ...depending on the perspective.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I don't cache to support Groundspeak. I use Groundspeak to support my geocaching. That's the perspective I'm viewing in from.

 

Having been in business both as an owner and upper management, I understand the perspective of viewing negative issues from that end. Did any of our customers really care? If they knew, it was only a passing concern with where they might get served and general human compassion. They're primary concern was getting the product or service they wanted.

 

Yeah, let's keep it in perspective.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...