Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Arse&Hemi

Protest

Recommended Posts

Yes, the protest action is flawed. It may as well have been a geocide. The only folks you punish are yourself and your fellow cachers.

 

Probably none of your 4 hides have been affected, but many of ours have been.

 

Why make a nasty remark about how many hides they have? If you have the time and resources to devote to keeping 100+ cache hides, good for you, but there's no need to go looking down your nose at others who have hidden fewer caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about TMWTE, but based on the attitude and statements the OP gets my vote for most appropriate player name of the week. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway, though I'm not fond of this thread, unless there's some gross guideline violation, shutting down this thread would just cause some people to scream censorship and cause more harm than good.

 

Never stopped them before. gc.com doesn't care much for threats.

Share this post


Link to post

I feel disappointed and left out, as I have not experienced any problems at all.

 

I am going to protest the OPs protest by not disabling any caches in the next week.

 

Why make a nasty remark about how many hides they have? If you have the time and resources to devote to keeping 100+ cache hides, good for you, but there's no need to go looking down your nose at others who have hidden fewer caches.

 

Anyone who has hidden more than 94 caches could possibly be insane...

Share this post


Link to post

While I fully believe in the power of the boycott where properly used, this just reeks of "Boycott High Gas Prices"

 

So, you disable your hides for a week. OK, they (probably) won't get any finds for the week. You (probably) won't get any happy emails from finders for the week. Even if we all disabled 100% of our caches for a week... guess what... that would not hurt Groundspeak one iota, financially. You register your protest just as effectively by simply posting a message to the proper thread on the forum. Actually, that's probably more effectively. I seriously doubt that anybody at Groundspeak is watching your caches to see if you disable them, but they are watching the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

I rather suspect that the "upgrade" is mere subterfuge to instead shake off overly sensitive or cranky cachers to let the other sites deal with them. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Disabling your caches for a week? That's shooting yourself in the foot. Archiving 2 caches as a protest? That's shooting yourself somewhere near waist high and and centerline of the body.............. :):shocked:

 

I don't mind the new look, in many ways it's an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post

 

We wrote:

Probably none of your 4 hides have been affected, but many of ours have been.

 

What part of our statement is rude? We are stating facts; he has 4 hides, his 4 hides are unaffected by the recent changes as far as we know, his 4 cache pages appear to look ok. However, several of our cache pages have been altered drastically due to the recent changes.

Oh, I just love it when someone says something that is clearly designed to be condecending, and then claims that they are only stating facts. Get real.

 

That's just like the street thugs who are caresul to word their threats in such a way that they cannot be proven to be threats.

 

Oh...I never said that I was going to hurt him, I just said he might get hurt.

Well, it could also be that the amount of work needed for Arse&Hemi to go through their 163 active caches and modify the html code where it is broken, is quite a lot of work and that they have a lot more reason to complain about the layout changes than someone with 4 caches that render properly with the new layout.

 

Arse&Hemi has invested a lot of unpaid time and effort in geocaching.com with their caches and I can understand their frustration when they have to invest a lot more time and effort just because someone decided to change the layout of geocaching.com without prior notice.

 

So yes, I think that someone with 163 active caches has a lot more reasons to complain for the amount of work they will have to put in, than someone with 4 caches.

 

Of course, anyone regardless of the number of caches he/she has hidden, has equal right to complain about the layout issues for caches own by other users, but that is quite a different thing.

 

iller

 

At least someone gets it! Thanks for being objective!

Share this post


Link to post

I always think it's funny when someone starts a thread and no one agrees with them, and when someone says something favorable towards them, they say "thanks for being objective", which is code for "thanks for agreeing with me, you are the only one, so clearly you are being objective". :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

 

Well, it could also be that the amount of work needed for Arse&Hemi to go through their 163 active caches and modify the html code where it is broken, is quite a lot of work and that they have a lot more reason to complain about the layout changes than someone with 4 caches that render properly with the new layout.

 

Arse&Hemi has invested a lot of unpaid time and effort in geocaching.com with their caches and I can understand their frustration when they have to invest a lot more time and effort just because someone decided to change the layout of geocaching.com without prior notice.

 

So yes, I think that someone with 163 active caches has a lot more reasons to complain for the amount of work they will have to put in, than someone with 4 caches.

 

Of course, anyone regardless of the number of caches he/she has hidden, has equal right to complain about the layout issues for caches own by other users, but that is quite a different thing.

 

iller

 

if he used the proper html this would have never happened, but most likely is done is some page editor and than pasted onto the geocaching page and that is always prone to breaking at some point

 

tbh i wish people would keep their listings plain and simple, without all the fancy shmanzi useless stuff that only makes the page load slower and unusable for most people that try using it in the field on a cell phone, PDA etc, we can't all afford an iPhone or blackberry

 

i don't understand what place has here your comment about "investing unpaid time and effort on geocaching.com"

 

while i agree that is frustrating to have to redo them all geocaching its a voluntary hobby not a job

but as i said above, maybe this will serve as a lesson to keep it simple in the future

 

 

Of course, we are the ones to blame. :ph34r:

 

yes, as per above

 

Yes, some are done with a page editor, others by hand, and both are affected. Interesting how we are being blamed for an oversight by others.

 

Plain white and black pages may be good for you, but we like a little more creativity. There is no reason there cannot be both.

Share this post


Link to post

I just went poking around in some of the OP's cache listings. Looks like the layout changes hosed this one pretty badly:

 

GC1WV30 Echo Rocks

 

At least, it looks pretty hosed to me (Win XP + FF 3.5.7). (Yes, I have cleared my cache. And replaced my monitor ;-) ).

 

-eP

Share this post


Link to post

I always think it's funny when someone starts a thread and no one agrees with them, and when someone says something favorable towards them, they say "thanks for being objective", which is code for "thanks for agreeing with me, you are the only one, so clearly you are being objective". :ph34r:

 

It was obvious before we started this tread what the responses would be from the usual suspects.

 

We just want to say, you screwed up Groundspeak.

 

Since you cruise the forums regularly you know we are not the only ones saying this.

 

Posters who point their finger at us and say our listings are the problem, are not being objective. And others who make it personal, have nothing to say. People who disagree with our method are welcome to do so.

 

Oh, one more thing, thanks for agreeing with us Iller!

Edited by Arse&Hemi

Share this post


Link to post

I think you should be objective and find a more constructive approach of explaining the impact the changes have had on your caches and the level of your frustration.

Share this post


Link to post

I always think it's funny when someone starts a thread and no one agrees with them, and when someone says something favorable towards them, they say "thanks for being objective", which is code for "thanks for agreeing with me, you are the only one, so clearly you are being objective". :ph34r:

It was obvious before we started this tread what the responses would be from the usual suspects.

We just want to say, you screwed up Groundspeak.

Since you cruise the forums regularly you know we are not the only ones saying this.

Posters who point their finger at us and say our listings are the problem, are not being objective. And others who make it personal, have nothing to say. People who disagree with our method are welcome to do so.

Oh, one more thing, thanks for agreeing with us Iller!

I think that all most of us "usual suspects" (eg: those that volunteer their time here in hopes of being of some use to others) are trying to point out is that disabling your caches is a pretty futile form of making your point known.

 

I, and at least some others, understand your frustration... but disabling your caches for a week is not going to affect Groundspeak one bit... even if we all did it at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
I just went poking around in some of the OP's cache listings. Looks like the layout changes hosed this one pretty badly:

 

GC1WV30 Echo Rocks

 

At least, it looks pretty hosed to me (Win XP + FF 3.5.7). (Yes, I have cleared my cache. And replaced my monitor ;-) ).

 

-eP

My guess is that the page was done with Microsoft Word? Looking at the page source, that is what it looks like to me.

 

I use HTML in various forms on most of my pages. Mostly it is color (I like green text). They all look the same now because I use simple HTML. The pages load faster and the pages work on all browsers. I use background images, colors, bold text, italics, various sizes, tables and images. Here is an example. All that extra gunk in your HTML slows the page loading some and invites browser errors. Keep it simple.

Share this post


Link to post

I always think it's funny when someone starts a thread and no one agrees with them, and when someone says something favorable towards them, they say "thanks for being objective", which is code for "thanks for agreeing with me, you are the only one, so clearly you are being objective". :ph34r:

It was obvious before we started this tread what the responses would be from the usual suspects.

We just want to say, you screwed up Groundspeak.

Since you cruise the forums regularly you know we are not the only ones saying this.

Posters who point their finger at us and say our listings are the problem, are not being objective. And others who make it personal, have nothing to say. People who disagree with our method are welcome to do so.

Oh, one more thing, thanks for agreeing with us Iller!

I think that all most of us "usual suspects" (eg: those that volunteer their time here in hopes of being of some use to others) are trying to point out is that disabling your caches is a pretty futile form of making your point known.

 

I, and at least some others, understand your frustration... but disabling your caches for a week is not going to affect Groundspeak one bit... even if we all did it at the same time.

 

I'm sure that is a statement true. We are just falling on our sword.

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

If you're going to protest, do it right and really make an impact. Set the example and archive all your caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Never stopped them before. gc.com doesn't care much for threats.

 

Actually I'm afraid you mistype something here. Naturally you mean "Groundspeak doesn't care much for customers". Yes, I can see that. What if suddenly there weren't customers anymore? Would Groundspeak care then? All those 40 lovely persons trying to find a position where they could do the same "nothing" as in GS... hard times for them.

 

Someone suggested we should address an e-mail and express our discontent with the new design and the lame process which brought it to us. Excuse me? Does anyone really believe those persons would bother reading such e-mails?

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

If you're going to protest, do it right and really make an impact. Set the example and archive all your caches.

 

Word. Go all the way. Rock the vote. Fight the man.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone suggested we should address an e-mail and express our discontent with the new design and the lame process which brought it to us. Excuse me? Does anyone really believe those persons would bother reading such e-mails?

 

It's been my experience they do, have you tried it?

Share this post


Link to post
Well, it could also be that the amount of work needed for Arse&Hemi to go through their 163 active caches and modify the html code where it is broken, is quite a lot of work and that they have a lot more reason to complain about the layout changes than someone with 4 caches that render properly with the new layout.

Yes, it would stink to have 163 caches quit working correctly, but rather than spending all that time disabling them and then re-enabling them, they could use that time to work with the site developers to see if something can be done to fix it.

 

If they re-enable their caches and they still have problems, they'll still have to do something to make them display correctly. The time they spent disabling then re-enabling them could have been used to start working on that, giving them a big head start.

 

If the pages were created in Word, there are programs that will clean up the messy code and make it more standard.

 

If that's the case, it could just be a matter of copying the description into the program, running it and pasting it back into the cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

 

My guess is that the page was done with Microsoft Word? Looking at the page source, that is what it looks like to me.

 

I use HTML in various forms on most of my pages. Mostly it is color (I like green text). They all look the same now because I use simple HTML. The pages load faster and the pages work on all browsers. I use background images, colors, bold text, italics, various sizes, tables and images. Here is an example. All that extra gunk in your HTML slows the page loading some and invites browser errors. Keep it simple.

 

i suggested the same things as you but i was told that they like to be creative

 

when you look at the page source you can see where the problem comes from, overuse of "div & span"

 

The judicious use of div and span is a vital part of HTML and XHTML markup. However, the overuse of these elements, sometimes called divitis (a common mistake of not only beginners), is itself a minor form of Tag Soup

Share this post


Link to post

My professional background is customer support. For many years I was a supervisor at a help desk for a company that provided online content management. I have experienced this same issue from the company side. Here is an example from work. The product the company provided had an HTML editor that customers use to create and edit pages. If you use the editor everything is fine. From day 1 we used the CSS style sheet to change the visual effect for the html header, h1, h2, and the like. The header styles were not included in the editor and we would advise customers not to code those elements into their pages they were creating. Of course when we would change one of the styles because of a design change we would receive multiple phone calls asking us why we changed their code. They would also make the same argument made by the OP, "Why don't you test before you make changes?"

As the provider of an online service you need to advance your product. If things stay the same and no visual or functional changes are made and people leave. They are trying to maintain a viable product.

When changes are made, for example to a CSS style sheet, there is no way to check every single cache page to make sure there are no conflicts. You complain that they did not do enough testing. Do you expect them to setup a sandbox environment, replicate the whole database and pay someone to look at every single cache every time they make any visual change? That is going a little far.

I understand the frustration of fixing the pages. I have been there myself. But I looked at the code for your cache GC1WV30 and I have to say the code could have been made a little more durable. I know div tags are the cool thing to do now but I would never use them unless I was creating pages on a system I had control of. Remember the oldest tools of HTML are still the most reliable.

Edited by andy2049

Share this post


Link to post

"I must ask though. Do you really feel that you are a better or more worthy cacher than someone with 4 hides?"

 

Who said anyone was better?

 

Could be just the impression left by the rude remark to Totemlake.

I don't take much notice to remarks such as this. They don't know me nor the quality of my hides. It's still akin to geocide with the kind of protest they're making. The only people they punish is themselves and the finders.

 

If they need to feel superior to making snarky remarks.... that says plenty about their lack of character and why they think their protest is making a point.

Share this post


Link to post

I always think it's funny when someone starts a thread and no one agrees with them, and when someone says something favorable towards them, they say "thanks for being objective", which is code for "thanks for agreeing with me, you are the only one, so clearly you are being objective". :ph34r:

 

It was obvious before we started this tread what the responses would be from the usual suspects.

 

We just want to say, you screwed up Groundspeak.

 

Since you cruise the forums regularly you know we are not the only ones saying this.

 

Posters who point their finger at us and say our listings are the problem, are not being objective. And others who make it personal, have nothing to say. People who disagree with our method are welcome to do so.

 

Oh, one more thing, thanks for agreeing with us Iller!

 

No matter whose fault it was the thing everyone here is trying to tell you is that your temper tantrum (Call it protest if you want) is not going to sway TPTB. About the only thing that will happen is that your caches will be lrft off a few PQs when people select the "is active" option.

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

What exactly are you protesting? I am curious, did I miss something? Seriously, I had not heard of the changes, I will go and try to find out, but if someone would please explain?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

A&H,

 

While I commend your effort to bring the issue to GS, I hardly think that disabling or even archiving your placed caches are going to do anything short of punish those of us who seek your hides.

 

Rather than disable you hides, why not simply add a short note to the description or a log that

"The above (or below) corruption in HTML you see is due to Groundspeak's incompetence and failure to thoroughly test the recent site updates/changes/downgrades and is not a reflection on the abilities of the owner of this cache. To help us resolve these issues, please contact Groundspeak (insert Groundspeak's phone number, complaint number etc... here)"

 

Maybe if their phones start to ring off the hook and their email boxes begin to fill, they may get the point. Disabling your caches is not something that they will see let alone make any sort of impact.

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

A&H,

 

While I commend your effort to bring the issue to GS, I hardly think that disabling or even archiving your placed caches are going to do anything short of punish those of us who seek your hides.

 

Rather than disable you hides, why not simply add a short note to the description or a log that

"The above (or below) corruption in HTML you see is due to Groundspeak's incompetence and failure to thoroughly test the recent site updates/changes/downgrades and is not a reflection on the abilities of the owner of this cache. To help us resolve these issues, please contact Groundspeak (insert Groundspeak's phone number, complaint number etc... here)"

 

Maybe if their phones start to ring off the hook and their email boxes begin to fill, they may get the point. Disabling your caches is not something that they will see let alone make any sort of impact.

 

That is more likely to get a response. The OPs proposed action amounts to little more that glaring at the back of signals head.

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

A&H,

 

While I commend your effort to bring the issue to GS, I hardly think that disabling or even archiving your placed caches are going to do anything short of punish those of us who seek your hides.

 

Rather than disable you hides, why not simply add a short note to the description or a log that

"The above (or below) corruption in HTML you see is due to Groundspeak's incompetence and failure to thoroughly test the recent site updates/changes/downgrades and is not a reflection on the abilities of the owner of this cache. To help us resolve these issues, please contact Groundspeak (insert Groundspeak's phone number, complaint number etc... here)"

 

Maybe if their phones start to ring off the hook and their email boxes begin to fill, they may get the point. Disabling your caches is not something that they will see let alone make any sort of impact.

 

BTW.. http://www.Groundspeak.com/contact.aspx

Share this post


Link to post

You complain that they did not do enough testing. Do you expect them to setup a sandbox environment, replicate the whole database and pay someone to look at every single cache every time they make any visual change? That is going a little far.

 

I am wondering how far along this route they actually went. They'd have to have some kind of sandbox to make sure the updates don't catastrophically fail. It it possible that neither of the testers looked at ANY sample cache listings or other pages? Unlikely. I'd chalk this whole thing up to better-to-beg-forgiveness-than-ask-permission

 

I too come from an IT service background and I know that a rollout like this on a production system where EVERYONE pays would result in the fecal matter impacting the horizontal air impeller.

 

frinkiac.gif

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

A&H,

 

While I commend your effort to bring the issue to GS, I hardly think that disabling or even archiving your placed caches are going to do anything short of punish those of us who seek your hides.

 

Rather than disable you hides, why not simply add a short note to the description or a log that

"The above (or below) corruption in HTML you see is due to Groundspeak's incompetence and failure to thoroughly test the recent site updates/changes/downgrades and is not a reflection on the abilities of the owner of this cache. To help us resolve these issues, please contact Groundspeak (insert Groundspeak's phone number, complaint number etc... here)"

 

Maybe if their phones start to ring off the hook and their email boxes begin to fill, they may get the point. Disabling your caches is not something that they will see let alone make any sort of impact.

 

That is more likely to get a response. The OPs proposed action amounts to little more that glaring at the back of signals head.

 

So glare away: :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

You complain that they did not do enough testing. Do you expect them to setup a sandbox environment, replicate the whole database and pay someone to look at every single cache every time they make any visual change? That is going a little far.

 

I am wondering how far along this route they actually went. They'd have to have some kind of sandbox to make sure the updates don't catastrophically fail. It it possible that neither of the testers looked at ANY sample cache listings or other pages? Unlikely. I'd chalk this whole thing up to better-to-beg-forgiveness-than-ask-permission

 

I too come from an IT service background and I know that a rollout like this on a production system where EVERYONE pays would result in the fecal matter impacting the horizontal air impeller.

 

frinkiac.gif

 

But how do they know which of the million or so cache pages to look at? If word was used to generate the pages it might have problems while ones generated by hand may or may not have problems.

Share this post


Link to post

To protest the recent changes made to geocaching.com, we are temporarily disabling all our active cache hides (163 total) for one week beginning 01-18-10. If you are unhappy with the changes made to geocaching.com and want your voices heard, disable your cache hides along with us. Together we can perhaps get the point across.

 

A&H,

 

While I commend your effort to bring the issue to GS, I hardly think that disabling or even archiving your placed caches are going to do anything short of punish those of us who seek your hides.

 

Rather than disable you hides, why not simply add a short note to the description or a log that

"The above (or below) corruption in HTML you see is due to Groundspeak's incompetence and failure to thoroughly test the recent site updates/changes/downgrades and is not a reflection on the abilities of the owner of this cache. To help us resolve these issues, please contact Groundspeak (insert Groundspeak's phone number, complaint number etc... here)"

 

Maybe if their phones start to ring off the hook and their email boxes begin to fill, they may get the point. Disabling your caches is not something that they will see let alone make any sort of impact.

 

That is more likely to get a response. The OPs proposed action amounts to little more that glaring at the back of signals head.

 

So glare away: :ph34r:

 

Why would I glare? My cache pages work fine.

Share this post


Link to post

I dont know if it is or not the best option, but since I play geocaching is the first time I'm really unhappy with groudspeak and see a lot of people complaning.

 

Groundspeak should (at least) offer you extra premium member for the time they take to resolve all this situation.

 

I will send them an email complaning and I think every one should do the same, as we are making a position on the forum, but no one heard us...

 

their email is contact@Groundspeak.com

Edited by rmatosinhos

Share this post


Link to post

Is it Groundspeak's responsibility now to account for problems with cache owner's poorly formed HTML? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at coding for HTML, but I went to the trouble of asking a friend who IS really good at it what programs would help me create some good (working) HTML. There are a lot of good, freeware programs out there.

 

I have a couple cache pages that are HTML "heavy", and with the new system, not one has a problem, heck one actually looks better.

 

Yes, I understand that having to redo the coding for your cache pages is a P.I.T.A., but that's why I wanted it to be right the first time on mine.

 

GOF said your protest is about as effective as glaring at the back of Signal's head, I think he's giving the protest too much credit. The only people you "hurt" will be your fellow cachers, and anyone that knows that you are just setting them inactive for a week as a protest may just go and find and log them anyway.

 

Yes, you can email TPTB with your concerns, and a well written, reasoned email may well be noticed, but if the issue is your coding, I don't see that they are at all likely to do do anything about it.

 

To me this is like someone coming to the forum and crying because TPTB won't approve a new hide that's in the "world's most perfect ammo can hiding spot", only to find that the OP wants to place the cache 250 feet from an existing cache. Yes, it sucks, but it's not Groundspeaks fault.

Share this post


Link to post

You complain that they did not do enough testing. Do you expect them to setup a sandbox environment, replicate the whole database and pay someone to look at every single cache every time they make any visual change? That is going a little far.

 

I am wondering how far along this route they actually went. They'd have to have some kind of sandbox to make sure the updates don't catastrophically fail. It it possible that neither of the testers looked at ANY sample cache listings or other pages? Unlikely. I'd chalk this whole thing up to better-to-beg-forgiveness-than-ask-permission

 

I too come from an IT service background and I know that a rollout like this on a production system where EVERYONE pays would result in the fecal matter impacting the horizontal air impeller.

 

frinkiac.gif

I am sure that, like most companies of this type, they have a couple of small scale sand box systems with sand box information. They most likely do not replicate the whole database. If you did this the sandbox system would begin to function just like the main system including sending notifications. Also if something was wrong with the sandbox db then you have find out if it is an issue with the db copy, the sandbox, or the release.

 

I might be wrong but it appears this issue is not widespread. It looks like only a handful of people that had certain pages affected. After looking at a couple of the OPs problem pages it appears to be an issue with his code. I don't think that GS has any obligation to check to make sure that their changes don't break pages with poor html code.

 

So the questions is how many cache pages do they need to look at before they roll out even a small visual change?

Edited by andy2049

Share this post


Link to post

You complain that they did not do enough testing. Do you expect them to setup a sandbox environment, replicate the whole database and pay someone to look at every single cache every time they make any visual change? That is going a little far.

 

I am wondering how far along this route they actually went. They'd have to have some kind of sandbox to make sure the updates don't catastrophically fail. It it possible that neither of the testers looked at ANY sample cache listings or other pages? Unlikely. I'd chalk this whole thing up to better-to-beg-forgiveness-than-ask-permission

 

I too come from an IT service background and I know that a rollout like this on a production system where EVERYONE pays would result in the fecal matter impacting the horizontal air impeller.

 

frinkiac.gif

I am sure that, like most companies of this type, they have a couple of small scale sand box systems with sand box information. They most likely do not replicate the whole database. If you did this the sandbox system would begin to function just like the main system including sending notifications. Also if something was wrong with the sandbox db then you have find out if it is an issue with the db copy, the sandbox, or the release.

 

I might be wrong but it appears this issue is not widespread. It looks like only a handful of people that had certain pages affected. After looking at a couple of the OPs problem pages it appears to be an issue with his code. I don't think that GS has any obligation to check to make sure that their changes don't break pages with poor html code.

 

So the questions is how many cache pages do they need to look at before they roll out even a small visual change?

It was fine before the update. What was removed to make the pages look like that?

Edited by Arse&Hemi

Share this post


Link to post

I dont know if it is or not the best option, but since I play geocaching is the first time I'm really unhappy with groudspeak and see a lot of people complaning.

 

Groundspeak should (at least) offer you extra premium member for the time they take to resolve all this situation.

 

I will send them an email complaning and I think every one should do the same, as we are making a position on the forum, but no one heard us...

 

their email is contact@Groundspeak.com

Nós também estamos insatisfeitos com as mudanças. Obrigado por se manifestar também.

Eu sou Português também! (Metade)

Edited by Arse&Hemi

Share this post


Link to post

Someone suggested we should address an e-mail and express our discontent with the new design and the lame process which brought it to us. Excuse me? Does anyone really believe those persons would bother reading such e-mails?

 

It's been my experience they do, have you tried it?

 

I know I don't have 15 thousand something posts but still I'm not a complete rookie. In these 5 years I tried to communicate with Groundspeak a few times, never with a proper outcome. Therefore, it's been my experience they don't.

 

Additionally, the future will tell each of these experiences is somehow distorted. Assuming you don't have a doubt regarding the general opinion of users / customers about these changes, we will see if our opinion / will, will be respected in the end. I hope I am wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post

Your big protest and the best you could say was "maintenance"? :ph34r:

yawn

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

Yawn again

Share this post


Link to post

Someone suggested we should address an e-mail and express our discontent with the new design and the lame process which brought it to us. Excuse me? Does anyone really believe those persons would bother reading such e-mails?

 

It's been my experience they do, have you tried it?

 

I know I don't have 15 thousand something posts but still I'm not a complete rookie. In these 5 years I tried to communicate with Groundspeak a few times, never with a proper outcome. Therefore, it's been my experience they don't.

 

Additionally, the future will tell each of these experiences is somehow distorted. Assuming you don't have a doubt regarding the general opinion of users / customers about these changes, we will see if our opinion / will, will be respected in the end. I hope I am wrong though.

I guess that depends upon what and how you define a "proper outcome". A "No" is still an answer whether it's appreciated or not. The alignment of ideas and suggestions with their business model do not have to be taken into consideration until you become a profiteering shareholder.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone suggested we should address an e-mail and express our discontent with the new design and the lame process which brought it to us. Excuse me? Does anyone really believe those persons would bother reading such e-mails?

 

It's been my experience they do, have you tried it?

 

I know I don't have 15 thousand something posts but still I'm not a complete rookie. In these 5 years I tried to communicate with Groundspeak a few times, never with a proper outcome. Therefore, it's been my experience they don't.

 

Additionally, the future will tell each of these experiences is somehow distorted. Assuming you don't have a doubt regarding the general opinion of users / customers about these changes, we will see if our opinion / will, will be respected in the end. I hope I am wrong though.

I guess that depends upon what and how you define a "proper outcome". A "No" is still an answer whether it's appreciated or not. The alignment of ideas and suggestions with their business model do not have to be taken into consideration until you become a profiteering shareholder.

 

We are the shareholders of the information on this site. We are fools.

Edited by Arse&Hemi

Share this post


Link to post

It was fine before the update. What was removed to make the pages look like that?

I don't know. But I doubt that they will revert the site design because a tiny percentage of cache pages have dirty HTML code causing the page to display incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post

It was fine before the update. What was removed to make the pages look like that?

I don't know. But I doubt that they will revert the site design because a tiny percentage of cache pages have dirty HTML code causing the page to display incorrectly.

 

Nothing dirty.

Share this post


Link to post

It was fine before the update. What was removed to make the pages look like that?

I don't know. But I doubt that they will revert the site design because a tiny percentage of cache pages have dirty HTML code causing the page to display incorrectly.

 

Nothing dirty.

 

I have good "clean" HTML on my pages and no issues since the change. I know of a few people who have looked at YOUR code and have said it's got some problems, I looked myself and saw the same problems. You want to complain about GC's "flawed" coding that won't let your flawed coding work the way you want it to??

Sorry, I can't support that. If you had spent the same amount of time and effort cleaning up the code on your pages that you have spent on this thread, you would probably have at least a good start on having your pages render properly.

Share this post


Link to post

It was fine before the update. What was removed to make the pages look like that?

I don't know. But I doubt that they will revert the site design because a tiny percentage of cache pages have dirty HTML code causing the page to display incorrectly.

 

Nothing dirty.

 

I have good "clean" HTML on my pages and no issues since the change. I know of a few people who have looked at YOUR code and have said it's got some problems, I looked myself and saw the same problems. You want to complain about GC's "flawed" coding that won't let your flawed coding work the way you want it to??

Sorry, I can't support that. If you had spent the same amount of time and effort cleaning up the code on your pages that you have spent on this thread, you would probably have at least a good start on having your pages render properly.

I agree with mtn-man, t4e, and MickEMT. As stated in posts 45, 66 and 73. I think you will find that the issue with your pages is in the code you provided.

BTW I don't know if you used MS Word to create any of these pages but Word is possibly the worst HTML editor on the planet. It is so bad that applications like dreamweaver have tools like "Clean Up Word HTML" to correct the crappy HTML Word uses.

Edited by andy2049

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...