Feauture Request: Redesign of the PQ-Feature

[+StarBrand]

GC Tour doesn't take any data to use it somewhere else and doesn't change anything on the advertising, but enables you to retrieve and show in a more user friendly manner.

If sincerely hope that the aim of GS is not to make navigation, user experience as such difficult, annoying, ... that one gets the most pageviews of advertisement.

.....

It boogles my mind each time I see some cacher try to speak for the majority. So - if I understand you correctly - you are not happy with the way the information is presented to you. I would venture to say that the vast majority are perfectly content with both the volume and display of cache data as it is currently.

 

If you are not happy with it - I would strongly encourage you to work within the system to seek a change - not continue to try and work around it by altering the content in a manner that makes you happy at the cost of even a teeny tiny bit of performance for the rest of us.

[+Carsten]

I'm not sure what the formal argument against GC Tour is

 

The author of the script wrote in a German forum, that it was the ability to create GPX-files even for basic members.

[+searchjaunt]

I would venture to say that the vast majority are perfectly content with both the volume and display of cache data as it is currently.

If that's a fact, why are there that many users of GC Tour and other GreaseMonkey scripts then?

 

If you are not happy with it - I would strongly encourage you to work within the system to seek a change - not continue to try and work around it by altering the content in a manner that makes you happy at the cost of even a teeny tiny bit of performance for the rest of us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction: seeking a change without altering anything?

 

Anyway, I think I've cleared out enough my point of view. In order to prevent endless discussions, I rest my case.

[+sTeamTraen]

I would venture to say that the vast majority are perfectly content with both the volume and display of cache data as it is currently.

If that's a fact, why are there that many users of GC Tour and other GreaseMonkey scripts then?

Because StarBrand's "vast majority" does not exclude the fact that the remaining minority could be classed as "many".

 

I agree with both. I'm going to guess that 95% of the million or so cachers who use this site every month - the vast majority - are happy. That leaves 5% who are not. That's 50000 people. That's certainly "many". You're both right. No need for conflict here. Just, perhaps, a little care with semantics.

 

At a (very) slightly more sophisticated level: you have a blog where you comment on, among other things, issues to do with availability of GC.com data. I'm going to guess that not many of the people who join in with the comment section of that blog, are in the 95% who don't care. So your view of "many" is perhaps not the same as a random cross-section of cachers might reveal. But, this is perhaps academic, since as shown above, nobody is arguing with "many".

Edited November 17, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[+Fizzle1979]

Can't we all get along?

 

I just want the headers to be sortable.

[+MickEMT]

I'm reasonably happy with the PQ system the way it is now. I would like to see an increase in the maximum # of caches in a PQ go up to 750 or 1000. As I stated before, the sport has grown quite a bit since the system was set up, with many more caches out there. Also, mots GPS units can now handle 1000 waypoints, the newer Garmin units can handle 2000.