Jump to content

Apology: Weekend Pocket Query Issues

Jeremy

By Jeremy
in Website

Followers 12

Recommended Posts

Avernar

+Avernar

Posted
Posted

Why don't we wait until we actually get to drive the thing before we start ripping it apart? There might be a few other things that were not mentioned that might totally change the direction of the discussion.

Wouldn't it be better to find out how it works before it goes live? That way any the suggestions/complaints can be added in sooner rather than later.

 

And why are these other things not mentioned? One of the bigger complaints about Groundspeak is that they don't inform the user base about changes.

Link to comment
wandering4cache

+wandering4cache

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't care which way they arrive, but I do prefer that they all arrive the same way. I am a "little" surprised to find this info out now however.

 

Perhaps it will be tweaked in the future.

Still happy to have 1000 GPX caches per PQ.

 

Brain trying to figure out if I need to do anything on my end.

Edited by wandering4cache
Link to comment
northernpenguin

+northernpenguin

Posted
Posted

sheeez. First they complain that 500 is too small. Then they complain that getting a 1000 will be a pain. I for one would like to thank the developers and I'm sure that over time things will be tweaked and improved. That seems to be the way the site works. This last weekend the PQ generator performance was super.

We're having a discussion. That's how improvements happen.

 

Why don't we wait until we actually get to drive the thing before we start ripping it apart? There might be a few other things that were not mentioned that might totally change the direction of the discussion.

 

Who's ripping? I'm making suggestions for what I'd like to see. If I see something I don't like, are you suggesting it'll be far better for me to say nothing, and hope Groundspeak detects my silence as a need to fix something?

Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted (edited)

sheeez. First they complain that 500 is too small. Then they complain that getting a 1000 will be a pain. I for one would like to thank the developers and I'm sure that over time things will be tweaked and improved. That seems to be the way the site works. This last weekend the PQ generator performance was super.

We're having a discussion. That's how improvements happen.

 

Why don't we wait until we actually get to drive the thing before we start ripping it apart? There might be a few other things that were not mentioned that might totally change the direction of the discussion.

 

Who's ripping? I'm making suggestions for what I'd like to see. If I see something I don't like, are you suggesting it'll be far better for me to say nothing, and hope Groundspeak detects my silence as a need to fix something?

 

No, I'm saying lets just wait until we have the real product before we start suggesting changes. There might things you like and obviously there are things you think you don't like. Since we were not given an investigation report, the engineering proposal and the implementation report we don't know exactly what is being delivered. Once we have the real thing let the discussion begin. I'll go out on a limb and say anything that is brought up at this point probably will not change what is delivered a day or two. At least I hope not. After it is delivered we can use it and and make the suggestions for future deliveries. At this point we are discussing vaporware.

Edited by jholly
Link to comment
northernpenguin

+northernpenguin

Posted
Posted

 

No, I'm saying lets just wait until we have the real product before we start suggesting changes. There might things you like and obviously there are things you think you don't like. Since we were not given an investigation report, the engineering proposal and the implementation report we don't know exactly what is being delivered. Once we have the real thing let the discussion begin.

 

Nah, I'm seeing this just like the day before the next iPhone comes out. We hear some rumours, we get some official talk, and we start discussing it. Why? Well, it's fun to speculate on things and debate the official rumours. Officially we KNOW we aren't getting a 501 cache PQ emailed to us. That means, if we want to utilize the new feature, we gotta change our processes.

 

Why not toss a few things in the air and see how the software engineers react? Gives them a chance to say "crap! we missed that, and boy they're gonna be mad if we don't ....". Or gives them a chance to ignore it. Or gives them a chance to laugh at how we're so far off the mark.

 

Yes, Saturday the great Monty Python foot will fall and we'll all see the system for what it is. Then another 8 threads will pop up complaining about things.

 

There's nothing wrong with a little pre-launch discussion. Same as with all the threads about the Android geocaching app, or the next Wherigo player update. If Groundspeak didn't want us to talk about exciting new changes to the site, the forums would be shut down.

Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted

 

No, I'm saying lets just wait until we have the real product before we start suggesting changes. There might things you like and obviously there are things you think you don't like. Since we were not given an investigation report, the engineering proposal and the implementation report we don't know exactly what is being delivered. Once we have the real thing let the discussion begin.

 

Nah, I'm seeing this just like the day before the next iPhone comes out. We hear some rumours, we get some official talk, and we start discussing it. Why? Well, it's fun to speculate on things and debate the official rumours. Officially we KNOW we aren't getting a 501 cache PQ emailed to us. That means, if we want to utilize the new feature, we gotta change our processes.

 

Why not toss a few things in the air and see how the software engineers react? Gives them a chance to say "crap! we missed that, and boy they're gonna be mad if we don't ....". Or gives them a chance to ignore it. Or gives them a chance to laugh at how we're so far off the mark.

 

Yes, Saturday the great Monty Python foot will fall and we'll all see the system for what it is. Then another 8 threads will pop up complaining about things.

 

There's nothing wrong with a little pre-launch discussion. Same as with all the threads about the Android geocaching app, or the next Wherigo player update. If Groundspeak didn't want us to talk about exciting new changes to the site, the forums would be shut down.

 

I'm torn between the new PQ system we don't have yet and the Garmin series 78 that already it has been decided it is merely a rebadged 450.

Link to comment
BBosman

+BBosman

Posted
Posted
I'm waiting to see how this would actually be implemented. Without needing to login, this could be vulnerable to abuse (and a serious TOU violation). If there is a need to login, it makes automatic retrieval problematic.
I've heard from Bryan that they're looking at making automated downloads of PQ's (by GSAK for example) allowed. Nothing final yet though.
Link to comment
benh57

+benh57

Posted
Posted
If you need to be logged in and download manually then this is gonna be a pain.

I'm waiting to see how this would actually be implemented. Without needing to login, this could be vulnerable to abuse (and a serious TOU violation). If there is a need to login, it makes automatic retrieval problematic.

 

Scripting a login / cookie is not particularly problematic for anyone familiar with web scraping. Perl, etc can do

it easily. Certainly more work, but not much.

 

I question the justification for not emailing the files. "to avoid problems with large email attachments" is theoretical. If it's to avoid load on their email servers, then ok.

 

-Ben

Link to comment
benh57

+benh57

Posted
Posted (edited)

Of course script a login / cookie is a violation of the TOS, so now I'll be watching your account :):)

 

-Raine

 

Feel free :) If you also review my posting history you'll notice i'm one of the guys here who gets on folks for scraping the site using various applications.

 

Any response to all the folks asking if we will be able to grab these files directly from GSAK? If not, this is a pretty big burden and massively reduces the usefulness of the 1000 cache PQs. I'd gladly pay extra to be able to get them via email.

 

It's almost like a 'why bother?' feature if we can't get them via email or work t hem into our current workflows. The folks who normally want 1000 cache PQs are the hardcore users who grab everything using automated email retrieval macros in GSAK or other applications. If we have to grab every file manually (and aren't allowed to make a simple script to grab the URL for us from the email) then it's not much of a 10 year gift.

Edited by benh57
Link to comment
Unobtainium

+Unobtainium

Posted
Posted

Jees. TPTB are upping the limit. That is great. If you don't like it or you can't work that that, just stick with 500.

 

Personally I think this is great and I'll be working out the best way to work with the new system once it arrives.

 

GS gets a BIG thanks from me whilst I'm almost sorry I asked.

Link to comment
GeekBoy.from.Illinois

+GeekBoy.from.Illinois

Posted
Posted
The download PQs for more 501-1000 are still going to be in GPX format, right? Not just in LOC like the ones you get from a link in an email now?

 

Just thought I should ask and not assume.

I think you can safely assume this one. I don't even want to imagine the firestorm if it is LOC only :)

 

Heh... My first pessimistic thought was that the limit of caches in a single PQ would be increased from 500 to 1000, but they would limit you to 3 PQ's a day, and 21 a week, or if they were energetic, they might let you run as many PQ's as you want, with a limit of 2500 or 3000 caches a day. As of now, I don't recall any guarantees that they will keep the current 5 PQ's a day, 35 PQ's a week limit we are all just assuming that this will happen.

 

This new news isn't what I was expecting, but I'm not sure it is "bad". It should help to even out the load for the Groundspeak servers. By sending email attachments, they need a fat pipe to send all the PQ's out in the middle of the night when they are created. By making them a download, they will be sent out when the user requests them, so theoretically, the load will be more balanced throughout the day. This could be a benefit for most of us.

Link to comment
Raine

+Raine

Posted
Posted

We'll also be able to tell when a person doesn't download a PQ that they generated, so we can selectivity turn them off and get PQ's out the door even faster to people who do use them! (really excited exclamation mark)

 

-Raine

Link to comment
gse1986

gse1986

Posted
Posted

Of course script a login / cookie is a violation of the TOS, so now I'll be watching your account :):)

 

-Raine

 

We'll also be able to tell when a person doesn't download a PQ that they generated, so we can selectivity turn them off and get PQ's out the door even faster to people who do use them! (really excited exclamation mark)

 

-Raine

 

I might have missed the reply, but I don't think it's been answered explicitly. Will the download URL require logging in? If yes could it be made so you don't, to enable an alternative script (that is not blocked by the TOS) to grab the file and import into GSAK. Surely since that's a legitimate use of the data it will be allowed?

Link to comment
Chrysalides

+Chrysalides

Posted
Posted
We'll also be able to tell when a person doesn't download a PQ that they generated, so we can selectivity turn them off and get PQ's out the door even faster to people who do use them! (really excited exclamation mark)

Note to self : download that PQ!

 

Actually, doesn't matter to me, since I only schedule them to run once when I need them. But for the others who do schedule them : will the details on how this will be implemented be public? Like, last 4 scheduled runs not downloaded? And remember not to count it for PQs below 500 since it is in the email as attachment, therefore no need to download.

Link to comment
MickEMT

+MickEMT

Posted
Posted

Will we still have the option to have the PQ notification email sent to another email address as we do with the current PQ system?

 

Yes.

 

For all you people already complaining about having to DL, boohoo. Get a life :)

Laughing frog notwithstanding, just because this restriction doesn't affect you doesn't mean it doesn't affect others. Not everyone uses the site the same way.

 

Actually, if you change nothing about the way you consume PQs you will not be affected either. It is only if you opt for the larger 501-1000 cache PQs.

 

I guess the next question on that thread is when we download the PQ will the information be current as of the download time, or will it be current as of the time the email was sent? I'm not trying to stir up trouble, just curious. If the info will be current as of the time I download it, and a couple new caches were published that day between the time the email was sent and the download time, that would mean I wouldn't have to download the individual GPX files for the new caches.

You submit PQ. The hamsters crank out your PQ. When it is done, an email is sent to you with the link. At that point, the data is static.

 

This is accurate.

 

Now that I've slept on this. I do have another question.

 

First, I don't like the possibility of receiving PQ's in two different ways. It will complicate thing, and I know of some people that it'll confuse. :) So, I'm hoping that we will have the option of saying, "I want all my PQ's, no matter the number of waypoints in it, to be send via the download method." Will we?

 

PQs with < 501 caches will be emailed as an attachment *and* be available as a download for 7 days.

 

Thanks Nate. It's pretty much how I figured things would be, but when in doubt, ask higher authority. Everytime things change on the site, I have a group of people that ask me all the questions............

Link to comment
northernpenguin

+northernpenguin

Posted
Posted

We'll also be able to tell when a person doesn't download a PQ that they generated, so we can selectivity turn them off and get PQ's out the door even faster to people who do use them! (really excited exclamation mark)

 

-Raine

 

If you deactivate a PQ download because I failed to download it, does it get a higher priority in the queue when I reactivate it - like it's a new PQ, or will we have to create a new PQ to get it sooner?

 

For example, wouldn't want to wait 24 hours to get a PQ I was expecting when I reactivate it. I realize I can create a new PQ but I'm just curious about how the ones *Groundspeak* disables are handled.

Link to comment
Markwell

+Markwell

Posted
Posted

I just think it's rather funny that not so long ago, people were SCREAMING because of an e-mail outage at Groundspeak. They were DEMANDING that there be some way of downloading the GPX directly from the results of the PQ.

 

Now that we have that, there are still those that complain.

 

Just sayin'

Link to comment
northernpenguin

+northernpenguin

Posted
Posted (edited)

I just think it's rather funny that not so long ago, people were SCREAMING because of an e-mail outage at Groundspeak. They were DEMANDING that there be some way of downloading the GPX directly from the results of the PQ.

 

Now that we have that, there are still those that complain.

 

Just sayin'

 

Sure, but let's be more accurate - Groundspeak is adding the ability to download GPX files directly and removing the ability to get (certain) GPX files emailed to you.

 

If Groundspeak simply added the ability to download GPX files from Pocket Queries, we wouldn't be having this discussion. "It's that sure you can download, but ...." part that's got the eyebrows up.

 

I'm sure Groundspeak would rather hear about the concerns of the community here in the forums than build silent resentment. Kudos to Groundspeak for actively participating in this discussion - I'm sure whatever the outcome, they are making more informed decisions about features on the site based on us "complainers"

Edited by northernpenguin
Link to comment
Team Taran

+Team Taran

Posted
Posted

 

Sure, but let's be more accurate - Groundspeak is adding the ability to download GPX files directly and removing the ability to get (certain) GPX files emailed to you.

 

No, to be accurate, Groundspeak is making it possible to get up to 500 more caches in a pq, if you download it directly, you can still get 500 caches emailed to you. Nothing has changed. You can get 5 500 cache pqs emailed to you everyday. If you want more caches, you may have to change your procedures.

Team Taran

Link to comment
northernpenguin

+northernpenguin

Posted
Posted

 

Sure, but let's be more accurate - Groundspeak is adding the ability to download GPX files directly and removing the ability to get (certain) GPX files emailed to you.

 

No, to be accurate, Groundspeak is making it possible to get up to 500 more caches in a pq, if you download it directly, you can still get 500 caches emailed to you. Nothing has changed. You can get 5 500 cache pqs emailed to you everyday. If you want more caches, you may have to change your procedures.

Team Taran

 

Yes, that's the (certain) GPX files.

We're complaining about the inability to get those emailed, or automated download. I am fully aware of the fact that our existing 500 cache PQs will continue to work but I'm not going to "not mention" that I would like the 1,000 cache PQs emailed capability as well.

Link to comment
Semper Questio

+Semper Questio

Posted
Posted

 

Sure, but let's be more accurate - Groundspeak is adding the ability to download GPX files directly and removing the ability to get (certain) GPX files emailed to you.

 

No, to be accurate, Groundspeak is making it possible to get up to 500 more caches in a pq, if you download it directly, you can still get 500 caches emailed to you. Nothing has changed. You can get 5 500 cache pqs emailed to you everyday. If you want more caches, you may have to change your procedures.

Team Taran

 

Yes, that's the (certain) GPX files.

We're complaining about the inability to get those emailed, or automated download. I am fully aware of the fact that our existing 500 cache PQs will continue to work but I'm not going to "not mention" that I would like the 1,000 cache PQs emailed capability as well.

 

I think his point was that you said "...removing the ability to download GPX files directly...", but since that capability never existed in the first place for PQ results, nothing is actually being removed. Just that the new ability is not being offered for the extended length PQ's. Kinda like Congress saying a reduced budget increase is a cut instead of a lesser increase. :)

Link to comment
northernpenguin

+northernpenguin

Posted
Posted

 

I think his point was that you said "...removing the ability to download GPX files directly...", but since that capability never existed in the first place for PQ results, nothing is actually being removed. Just that the new ability is not being offered for the extended length PQ's. Kinda like Congress saying a reduced budget increase is a cut instead of a lesser increase. :)

 

Other way around, what I said was "removing the ability to get (certain) GPX files emailed to you". You're correct though, we've never had the ability to get 501-1000 cache pqs emailed to us - but they are changing how a feature many of us rely upon functions. We have always had the ability to have a PQ emailed to us - so for those of us that want to continue to rely on PQs being emailed and then automagically pulled into GSAK, the upgrade to 1000 cache PQs is essentially nothing.

 

What's even better is if we setup automatic (1000 cache) PQs and don't log in to download them fast enough, Groundspeak will automatically uncheck it for next week. So now I also have to remember to log in weekly and download those PQs vs hitting "Fetch data via email" in GSAK. or skip the new feature.

Link to comment
Avernar

+Avernar

Posted
Posted

I just think it's rather funny that not so long ago, people were SCREAMING because of an e-mail outage at Groundspeak. They were DEMANDING that there be some way of downloading the GPX directly from the results of the PQ.

I'd bet that was in addition to the email attachment and not instead of.

Link to comment
Hynr

+Hynr

Posted
Posted
... the upgrade to 1000 cache PQs is essentially nothing.

Perhaps you are viewing this a bit too narrowminded. You are looking at this as a change to an existing feature. As I understand this, in the future (perhaps later today) there will be two data delivery features, the existing one (for PQs that request 500 caches or less) and a new one.

 

The existing one is being upgraded to give it some new twists, but everything that you have enjoyed in the past is still there. So even if one new element is installed, then calling that "nothing" is not really a fair assessment.

 

The new feature involves PQs where more than 500 caches are requested. That is an entirely new thing and to call it "nothing" seems a bit naive to me. I see this new features as one that I will definitely be using, even if it does not replace my current data retrieval set-up.

 

I would just encourage the developers to not hardcode the "1000" number into the code. It is pretty obvious that the current generation of geocaching tool can already hold 2000 waypoints and it seems that feature-creep is going to drive that number higher. So users of this site are going to be asking for larger PQs fairly quickly (yet again). So if the upper limit for PQs can be made to be a variable, then perhaps moving it up from 1000 to a higher number at a later date would streamline inevitable future upgrades.

Link to comment
Chrysalides

+Chrysalides

Posted
Posted
I would just encourage the developers to not hardcode the "1000" number into the code.

Changing the code to go from 1000 to a higher number is not an issue. I don't believe it is ever an issue. It is the load on the infrastructure that has always been the main issue, from what I know (which is not a lot, from the outside, I admit).

 

Now that there is an alternate way to retrieve PQs without overburdening the email delivery system, perhaps some day there will be a way to download 5000 geocaches or 5 GPX in whatever combination. That would be a more drastic change than just increasing the cache limit.

 

To Markwell : are these the same people who are complaining? Please don't view "users" as one big generic group who all think alike :D You know what they say - you can't please all the people all of the time.

 

I agree that nothing is being taken away - you still get 2500 geocaches delivered by email every day. The surprise is that after the long awaited increase to 1000 geocaches per GPX, from finding out how the geocaches will be delivered, and dismay at losing the ability to automate the retrieval. I'm the optimist. I'll wait to examine the details, then find a way to work around it within the TOU.

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sounds like they're just adding more complexity into the mix. Of course, that's making anything easier. I guess I'll just keep on doing it as I've been doing it. Nothing's changed.

 

EDIT: Actually, now I have to be extremely careful that none of my PQs go over 500. The script I use for downloading downloads the emails sent to a special mailbox and puts them in a certain folder. Then everything that is not a .ZIP file gets deleted. This would mean any email that is alerting me of a PQ over 500 caches would get deleted without human eyes ever seeing it.

 

Hopefully, Groundspeak doesn't retroactively change my current PQs from 500 caches max to something greater. That'd suck.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
StarBrand

+StarBrand

Posted
Posted

As long as we are making requests for things to be easy....

 

Can Raine just take the corporate jet to bring my PQ over and then load it up to my GPS? That would be great.

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

yeeesh!! - seems more important to have the ability to get the data then to worry about how it gets there.

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted (edited)

Another thing. If the idea is to reduce the server load, what happens when everyone gets on the GC.com and downloads all of these "massive" PQ all at once? Come Friday evening or Saturday morning traffic is going to increase a bit. Wasn't the whole "scheduled delivery" thing to avoid exactly that?

 

I'm not so sure how this is going to really gain anything except for a way to see who is actually downloading PQ and possibly kicking them off the schedule.

 

Any word on the staggered start of PQ generation?

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
Raine

+Raine

Posted
Posted
Hopefully, Groundspeak doesn't retroactively change my current PQs from 500 caches max to something greater

 

All PQ sizes will stay the same, we're not going to go in an bump up the size you set. We also will default to 500 on the screen like we always have.

 

-Raine

Link to comment
Raine

+Raine

Posted
Posted
what happens when everyone gets on the GC.com and downloads all of these "massive" PQ all at once?

 

Bandwidth has never really been an issue, so you downloading a file that has already been generated isn't really going to show up on the radar.

 

-Raine

Link to comment
Chrysalides

+Chrysalides

Posted
Posted (edited)
Another thing. If the idea is to reduce the server load, what happens when everyone gets on the GC.com and downloads all of these "massive" PQ all at once? Come Friday evening or Saturday morning traffic is going to increase a bit. Wasn't the whole "scheduled delivery" thing to avoid exactly that?

Downloading static data doesn't put as much load on the infrastructure as cranking out the PQs. It's the SQL queries that put a lot of load on the database. If enough people hit the web server at the same time to get their PQs, there will be slowdowns and potentially problems with too many HTTP requests, of course. I think the lackeys are going to have a busy weekend anticipating issues. Thanks in advance - and I promise donuts if I ever get to visit HQ.

 

Edit :

 

Bandwidth has never really been an issue, so you downloading a file that has already been generated isn't really going to show up on the radar.

That's good to know, thanks.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment
Raine

+Raine

Posted
Posted

Just to note, the PQ's are being generated in the normal fashion. They won't show up on the "Download" tab until they are actually generated, so going right at midnight to download will only greet you with old data until the new PQ is created and you receive the email that it's ready.

 

I'm not anticipating any slowdowns are major issues this weekend and I hope most people will be out enjoying a 10 Year! event cache or three..

 

-Raine

Link to comment
Avernar

+Avernar

Posted
Posted

The existing one is being upgraded to give it some new twists, but everything that you have enjoyed in the past is still there. So even if one new element is installed, then calling that "nothing" is not really a fair assessment.

 

The new feature involves PQs where more than 500 caches are requested. That is an entirely new thing and to call it "nothing" seems a bit naive to me. I see this new features as one that I will definitely be using, even if it does not replace my current data retrieval set-up.

Now you're being picky about word "nothing". So what would you call something that you can't use? How about "worthless"? Because that's what this new feature is to me.

 

Losing a PQ email doesn't affect me at all and I don't do one shot PQs either. Therefore I have no need of manually downloading PQs.

 

Now if we're allowed to auto download them, that changes everything. But that's one piece of info Groundspeak hasn't revealed yet.

Link to comment
Avernar

+Avernar

Posted
Posted

Wasn't the whole "scheduled delivery" thing to avoid exactly that?

That's what we were led to believe would be how they'd make increasing the limit possible. I would have gladly taken a delay for 501+ cache PQ to be generated if they were still emailed to me.

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted
Hopefully, Groundspeak doesn't retroactively change my current PQs from 500 caches max to something greater

 

All PQ sizes will stay the same, we're not going to go in an bump up the size you set. We also will default to 500 on the screen like we always have.

 

-Raine

Cool. Thanks.

Link to comment
northernpenguin

+northernpenguin

Posted
Posted
... the upgrade to 1000 cache PQs is essentially nothing.

Perhaps you are viewing this a bit too narrowminded. You are looking at this as a change to an existing feature. As I understand this, in the future (perhaps later today) there will be two data delivery features, the existing one (for PQs that request 500 caches or less) and a new one.

 

The existing one is being upgraded to give it some new twists, but everything that you have enjoyed in the past is still there. So even if one new element is installed, then calling that "nothing" is not really a fair assessment.

 

The new feature involves PQs where more than 500 caches are requested. That is an entirely new thing and to call it "nothing" seems a bit naive to me. I see this new features as one that I will definitely be using, even if it does not replace my current data retrieval set-up.

 

 

Leave the quote in context please. What I said was:

 

for those of us that want to continue to rely on PQs being emailed and then automagically pulled into GSAK, the upgrade to 1000 cache PQs is essentially nothing.

 

The new feature delivers absolutely no benefits under this usage model, hence "nothing".

I did NOT say the developers at Groundspeak have done nothing, they've put acres of work into this new functionality that will appeal to certain users and usage models. It won't be a noticable benefit for my workflow.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 12
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...