Jump to content

Request:Increase size of Bookmarks when PQ's increase in size


jholly

Recommended Posts

From this post OpinoNate said we should talk about the increase of bookmark size when the PQ's increase in size. I say the bookmarks should increase in size so a bookmark based PQ can fully utilize the new size of the bookmarks.

Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

 

My Ignore List, which is a Bookmark, is well over 500 and growing daily.

 

It is my understanding that an Ignore List PQ currently will not run if there are over 1000 caches on the Ignore List. It would be nice if the Ignore List PQ was treated the same as the My Finds PQ. i.e. unlimited in size.

Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

 

I expect King Boras, AD0Or, Ozguff, and 9key as a few that have probably maxed out their placed caches bookmarks.<_< It just seems that the size of the PQ and the size of the bookmark should match.

 

For a more real life case, say I plan a three or four week trip. I could exceed 500 caches for this trip. Lets say for argument I use GSAK to load my PDA, GPS and nuvi. I could have planned this over the cold winter months for a nice spring holiday down south. Wouldn't it be nice to create a bookmark list for this trip and then refresh my GSAK database before I go and refresh it while on the road? I think it would be nicer to have only one bookmark and PQ to deal with than two.

Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

 

My Ignore List, which is a Bookmark, is well over 500 and growing daily.

 

It is my understanding that an Ignore List PQ currently will not run if there are over 1000 caches on the Ignore List. It would be nice if the Ignore List PQ was treated the same as the My Finds PQ. i.e. unlimited in size.

Wow! Sounds to me like it might be time to forget the ignore list, and start a smaller to-do list! <_<
Link to post

Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

Add the ability to run 2 bookmark lists (or more) as 1 PQ?

Something way, way, into the future maybe?

Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

 

My Ignore List, which is a Bookmark, is well over 500 and growing daily.

 

It is my understanding that an Ignore List PQ currently will not run if there are over 1000 caches on the Ignore List. It would be nice if the Ignore List PQ was treated the same as the My Finds PQ. i.e. unlimited in size.

Wow! Sounds to me like it might be time to forget the ignore list, and start a smaller to-do list! <_<

 

I got close to 10,000 unfound caches within 200km (and I have already found over 3,000). There are a lot of them that I don't consider worth finding. By Ignoring them I can optimize my PQ's.

Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

 

My Ignore List, which is a Bookmark, is well over 500 and growing daily.

 

It is my understanding that an Ignore List PQ currently will not run if there are over 1000 caches on the Ignore List. It would be nice if the Ignore List PQ was treated the same as the My Finds PQ. i.e. unlimited in size.

Wow! Sounds to me like it might be time to forget the ignore list, and start a smaller to-do list! <_<

 

I got close to 10,000 unfound caches within 200km (and I have already found over 3,000). There are a lot of them that I don't consider worth finding. By Ignoring them I can optimize my PQ's.

 

I have not been able to get the ignore list PQ when it goes over 1000. I added a bunch to the list so I could test it because I know I will actually be there soon. Is it a possibility that this situation will change soon? Just trying to figure out how I will be managing my found and unfound caches.

 

And for those who will inevitably ask why lets just leave it with we use the tools in a different manor.

Link to post

I would treat ignore lists completely separately than the standard bookmark lists. If you want to get your ignore list upwards of 10K caches, and then get a PQ of them, I'm all for that, as that would be considered "special circumstances". Since ignore lists already do "something special" I have no problem with the PQ on these being "special" as well.

 

But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

Link to post

I would treat ignore lists completely separately than the standard bookmark lists. If you want to get your ignore list upwards of 10K caches, and then get a PQ of them, I'm all for that, as that would be considered "special circumstances". Since ignore lists already do "something special" I have no problem with the PQ on these being "special" as well.

 

But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

 

Thank you for the support.

 

No, I have never run a bookmark up to the 500 cache wall. I will give it a try for you though. It will probably take me a while though.

Link to post

I have never run a bookmark up to the 500 cache wall. I will give it a try for you though. It will probably take me a while though.

My point wasn't to see what would happen. My point is whether this is a fix for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist. If there are cachers out there today using the system for whatever reason that have non-ignore list bookmark lists that they can't use effectively because they would approach 500, that's what I'm asking about. The argument for a trip is a decent one, but it obviously COULD be done with two bookmark lists and two PQs (or the idea of combining two bookmark lists into one PQ, which would be harder to program). I'm also interested in the practicality of this request from OTHER standpoints as well. I'd like people to change my mind.

 

But I'll say this: if it's easy to do, I'm all behind increasing the bookmark lists' sizes. It won't hinder my ability any more than making it so that the cache terrain levels are subdivided further (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 all the way to 4.9 and 5.0). But just like further gradation of the terrain ratings, it just seems kind of unnecessary.

 

Side note: I just wish the pagination worked correctly. I'd like to see them spend their time making the selection of 200 caches per page stick (or better yet give me an "all" possibility that will stick).

Link to post

It occurs to me that I do, in fact, have a bookmark of 500 caches. I have made it public temporarily.

 

It is something I use for my own record keeping. I would find it useful to be able to put more caches on the list but to be honest if the ignore list bookmark could hold as many caches as a my finds PQ and it would return results I'd be happy.

Link to post

I would treat ignore lists completely separately than the standard bookmark lists. If you want to get your ignore list upwards of 10K caches, and then get a PQ of them, I'm all for that, as that would be considered "special circumstances". Since ignore lists already do "something special" I have no problem with the PQ on these being "special" as well.

 

But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

 

Yes, I have several.

 

I maintain 4 bookmarks to list all the WSQs in the state.

Link to post

I have never run a bookmark up to the 500 cache wall. I will give it a try for you though. It will probably take me a while though.

My point wasn't to see what would happen. My point is whether this is a fix for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist. If there are cachers out there today using the system for whatever reason that have non-ignore list bookmark lists that they can't use effectively because they would approach 500, that's what I'm asking about. The argument for a trip is a decent one, but it obviously COULD be done with two bookmark lists and two PQs (or the idea of combining two bookmark lists into one PQ, which would be harder to program). I'm also interested in the practicality of this request from OTHER standpoints as well. I'd like people to change my mind.

 

But I'll say this: if it's easy to do, I'm all behind increasing the bookmark lists' sizes. It won't hinder my ability any more than making it so that the cache terrain levels are subdivided further (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 all the way to 4.9 and 5.0). But just like further gradation of the terrain ratings, it just seems kind of unnecessary.

 

Side note: I just wish the pagination worked correctly. I'd like to see them spend their time making the selection of 200 caches per page stick (or better yet give me an "all" possibility that will stick).

 

Although I gave the trip as a reason, I can see your point of view and perhaps it is valid. I to would like to see some of the paging issues resolved with bookmarks. But for us to answer the question of do we want a larger bookmark or get some of the nagging issues resolved we probably will need to have some feel of the scope of the work. If increasing the size of the bookmark is simply increasing the size of a constant, then it is a no-brainer. If on the other hand if it will require a couple days to a week of engineering effort then I agree two PQ for the trip is a better trade off now and go fix the paging issues or improving the PQ generator or even allow downloadable PQ's. But I think eventually the issue of bookmark size being smaller than PQ size will need to be addressed since there is a relationship between the two. Eventually the limits will be bumped on a more frequent basis and the problem will exist. I would say that if it is a low cost and easy thing to increase the size, then regardless of current usage it would be a reasonable thing to do. Going from 20 to 40 bookmarks seemed to be a easy thing, it was accomplished in one update cycle, but maybe it is just my perception.

Link to post
Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

Yes.

 

I split the caches I was watching for a long trip into two bookmark lists because otherwise I would exceed 500.

 

I think the bookmark lists should allow as many caches as the PQs do.

Edited by beejay&esskay
Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

 

My Ignore List, which is a Bookmark, is well over 500 and growing daily.

 

It is my understanding that an Ignore List PQ currently will not run if there are over 1000 caches on the Ignore List. It would be nice if the Ignore List PQ was treated the same as the My Finds PQ. i.e. unlimited in size.

Wow! Sounds to me like it might be time to forget the ignore list, and start a smaller to-do list! :)

 

I got close to 10,000 unfound caches within 200km (and I have already found over 3,000). There are a lot of them that I don't consider worth finding. By Ignoring them I can optimize my PQ's.

 

I restate my case. Set up a list of what you want to find. It sure sounds like it would be much smaller than the list of what you consider not worth finding. Either that, or lower your standards a tad, but of course, that is your choice. I seriously doubt that there are many that have even clsoe to 500 caches on their ignore list.
Link to post

I have never run a bookmark up to the 500 cache wall. I will give it a try for you though. It will probably take me a while though.

My point wasn't to see what would happen. My point is whether this is a fix for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist. If there are cachers out there today using the system for whatever reason that have non-ignore list bookmark lists that they can't use effectively because they would approach 500, that's what I'm asking about. The argument for a trip is a decent one, but it obviously COULD be done with two bookmark lists and two PQs (or the idea of combining two bookmark lists into one PQ, which would be harder to program). I'm also interested in the practicality of this request from OTHER standpoints as well. I'd like people to change my mind.

 

But I'll say this: if it's easy to do, I'm all behind increasing the bookmark lists' sizes. It won't hinder my ability any more than making it so that the cache terrain levels are subdivided further (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 all the way to 4.9 and 5.0). But just like further gradation of the terrain ratings, it just seems kind of unnecessary.

 

Side note: I just wish the pagination worked correctly. I'd like to see them spend their time making the selection of 200 caches per page stick (or better yet give me an "all" possibility that will stick).

 

I routinely look through the recent pictures gallery on the site. When I find something I think I would like to see I bookmark the corresponding cache. Then when I get to an area I will search for these caches before looking for others because I know that something has already interested me in the cache.

 

I currently have 1100+ caches on three bookmark list that I would like to visit someday. The ability to have all of these on two list would make things much easier on me.

 

I would also like the ability to move caches from one bookmark list to another but that is another thread.

Link to post
But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

 

I like to use a single bookmark list for longer trips. I plan them over months and feed the bookmark list, when new caches come up. I´d like to filter the caches manually to see if they seem like I would try them - so I don´t use "caches along a route" or some fancy GSAK stuff.

Link to post

I like to use a single bookmark list for longer trips. I plan them over months and feed the bookmark list, when new caches come up. I´d like to filter the caches manually to see if they seem like I would try them - so I don´t use "caches along a route" or some fancy GSAK stuff.

 

The argument for a trip is a decent one, but it obviously COULD be done with two bookmark lists and two PQs (or the idea of combining two bookmark lists into one PQ, which would be harder to program). I'm also interested in the practicality of this request from OTHER standpoints as well. I'd like people to change my mind.

Link to post

But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

 

i never really found a use for large bookmark lists on a day to day basis...but i've always added every cache i've found to a bookmark list when i post a find (habit)...my lists are "First 500" "Second 500" etc...i guess it's my instinct for checks and balances in case something starts to go wrong with the site...plus i had a feeling with restrictions on the myfinds, that i might benefit from that habit someday...other than that, i've never really found much use for the bookmarks...but that's just me.

Link to post

I would treat ignore lists completely separately than the standard bookmark lists. If you want to get your ignore list upwards of 10K caches, and then get a PQ of them, I'm all for that, as that would be considered "special circumstances". Since ignore lists already do "something special" I have no problem with the PQ on these being "special" as well.

 

But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

 

I agree in regards to the ignore list being separate from the regular bookmark lists (and hopefully not take up one of the 40 you can have).

 

As far as one being more than 500- I don't use one myself but have seen ones that do. The ones for challenge caches comes to mind. I have contemplated making one that would exceed 500 tho- for those caches I've DNFd. Right now there is no way to get those logs other than in a list or thru your all finds PQ. The latter only includes those you have subsequently found however. I wish that the all finds PQ could actually be an 'all logs' PQ instead. Perhaps at some point in the future it will...

Link to post

A pocket query should be able to include all of the items on a bookmark list. I agree. However, should a bookmark list increase its size to match a pocket query?

 

In other words, with the increase in each pocket query to be able to pull 1000 caches, we're still able to get all of the caches on a 500 limit bookmark list. Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close? Maybe that would be an enhancement in the future, but I don't know that I see the need yet.

 

My Ignore List, which is a Bookmark, is well over 500 and growing daily.

 

It is my understanding that an Ignore List PQ currently will not run if there are over 1000 caches on the Ignore List. It would be nice if the Ignore List PQ was treated the same as the My Finds PQ. i.e. unlimited in size.

Wow! Sounds to me like it might be time to forget the ignore list, and start a smaller to-do list! :)

 

I got close to 10,000 unfound caches within 200km (and I have already found over 3,000). There are a lot of them that I don't consider worth finding. By Ignoring them I can optimize my PQ's.

 

I restate my case. Set up a list of what you want to find. It sure sounds like it would be much smaller than the list of what you consider not worth finding. Either that, or lower your standards a tad, but of course, that is your choice. I seriously doubt that there are many that have even clsoe to 500 caches on their ignore list.

 

I'd be willing to bet there are more than you think. Perhaps not a large percentage of total cachers, but plenty who use the ignore list regularly. It is just one more tool for sorting cache listings.

Link to post

I like to use a single bookmark list for longer trips. I plan them over months and feed the bookmark list, when new caches come up. I´d like to filter the caches manually to see if they seem like I would try them - so I don´t use "caches along a route" or some fancy GSAK stuff.

 

The argument for a trip is a decent one, but it obviously COULD be done with two bookmark lists and two PQs (or the idea of combining two bookmark lists into one PQ, which would be harder to program). I'm also interested in the practicality of this request from OTHER standpoints as well. I'd like people to change my mind.

 

Just pointing out I gave another standpoint in post 18

Link to post
Just pointing out I gave another standpoint in post 18

I was actually pointing out to Blue Gerbil that he added a reason I already agreed with.

 

So to recap so far...

Reason 1) Long protracted trip with little/no service, bookmarking caches as a "to do" list

Reason 2) See a neat picture, mark it as a "to do" for some time in the future

 

Regarding your point to reason 2,: it's definitely s a point in favor of increasing the size of the bookmark list, but even increasing to match the proposed PQs wouldn't help if you currently have three bookmark lists for 1100+ caches.

 

I guess I'm also curious how you would organize such a list. Are they just showing up in alphabetical order or do you categorize them in some way? If it were me, I'd bookmark them into manageable-sized categories like states or counties ("Cool Pictures in Iowa", "Cool Pictures in Wisconsin", "Cool Pictures in Cook County", "Cool Pictures in Kendall County", etc.). That way when I'm out caching, I could download them by area or region. How do you currently manage all 1100+?

 

Just trying to understand.

Link to post
Just pointing out I gave another standpoint in post 18

I was actually pointing out to Blue Gerbil that he added a reason I already agreed with.

 

So to recap so far...

Reason 1) Long protracted trip with little/no service, bookmarking caches as a "to do" list

Reason 2) See a neat picture, mark it as a "to do" for some time in the future

 

Regarding your point to reason 2,: it's definitely s a point in favor of increasing the size of the bookmark list, but even increasing to match the proposed PQs wouldn't help if you currently have three bookmark lists for 1100+ caches.

 

I guess I'm also curious how you would organize such a list. Are they just showing up in alphabetical order or do you categorize them in some way? If it were me, I'd bookmark them into manageable-sized categories like states or counties ("Cool Pictures in Iowa", "Cool Pictures in Wisconsin", "Cool Pictures in Cook County", "Cool Pictures in Kendall County", etc.). That way when I'm out caching, I could download them by area or region. How do you currently manage all 1100+?

 

Just trying to understand.

 

At this point my GPS will hold 2000 caches. I only load the 1100+ in to my gps. Once I get to a location I look for nearby geocaches. If I do not find any I will load another 500 caches in the gps based on a location PQ. This PQ gets deleted every move. The 1100+ "watching" caches stay in the GPS and get updated once a week.

 

I also have a few other caches that get loaded once a week. Mainly the first cache hidden in each state (if I haven't already found it) the cache currently hidden closest to the state capital (also if I haven't already found it), the first 100 placed caches (if I haven't... well you know)

 

If a cache gets archived that is on my "watching" list I do two things. First I look to see if there is a replacement cache in the same location. If so I bookmark that cache and delete the archived one off of my list.

 

If there isn't a cache the archived cache gets moved into a POI file that shows up on my GPS as a red X. Since I was wanting to see the location I will still visit it even without a cache nearby.

 

On my bookmark list I have a comment as to why I want to visit, (good view, historical site, nearby food place, whatever) this is why I have requested in the past that the comments attached to a bookmark list item be included in a pocket query as a "private" log.

Link to post

I think the best argument in favor of increasing the list is that some folks may be reluctant to "waste" a PQ on a bookmark list that only makes use of half the allotted caches for a PQ.

 

However rarely this situation may come up, it is probably not fair to force one to choose to either make the most of a limited resource or sacrifice quantity for a smaller, more customized list.

Edited by OpinioNate
Link to post
Just pointing out I gave another standpoint in post 18

I was actually pointing out to Blue Gerbil that he added a reason I already agreed with.

 

So to recap so far...

Reason 1) Long protracted trip with little/no service, bookmarking caches as a "to do" list

Reason 2) See a neat picture, mark it as a "to do" for some time in the future

 

Regarding your point to reason 2,: it's definitely s a point in favor of increasing the size of the bookmark list, but even increasing to match the proposed PQs wouldn't help if you currently have three bookmark lists for 1100+ caches.

 

I guess I'm also curious how you would organize such a list. Are they just showing up in alphabetical order or do you categorize them in some way? If it were me, I'd bookmark them into manageable-sized categories like states or counties ("Cool Pictures in Iowa", "Cool Pictures in Wisconsin", "Cool Pictures in Cook County", "Cool Pictures in Kendall County", etc.). That way when I'm out caching, I could download them by area or region. How do you currently manage all 1100+?

 

Just trying to understand.

 

At this point my GPS will hold 2000 caches. I only load the 1100+ in to my gps. Once I get to a location I look for nearby geocaches. If I do not find any I will load another 500 caches in the gps based on a location PQ. This PQ gets deleted every move. The 1100+ "watching" caches stay in the GPS and get updated once a week.

 

I also have a few other caches that get loaded once a week. Mainly the first cache hidden in each state (if I haven't already found it) the cache currently hidden closest to the state capital (also if I haven't already found it), the first 100 placed caches (if I haven't... well you know)

 

If a cache gets archived that is on my "watching" list I do two things. First I look to see if there is a replacement cache in the same location. If so I bookmark that cache and delete the archived one off of my list.

 

If there isn't a cache the archived cache gets moved into a POI file that shows up on my GPS as a red X. Since I was wanting to see the location I will still visit it even without a cache nearby.

 

On my bookmark list I have a comment as to why I want to visit, (good view, historical site, nearby food place, whatever) this is why I have requested in the past that the comments attached to a bookmark list item be included in a pocket query as a "private" log.

 

Interesting system. Certain to maximize your positive caching experiences.

Link to post

I think the best argument in favor of increasing the list is that some folks may be reluctant to "waste" a PQ on a bookmark list that only makes use of half the allotted caches for a PQ.

 

However rarely this situation may come up, it is probably not fair to force one to choose to either make the most of a limited resource or sacrifice quantity for a smaller, more customized list.

 

Nate, how much of a chore would it be to increase the size of a bookmark? How much of an added drain would it be on the systems resources? I guess what I am asking is would it be cost prohibitive from either aspect?

Link to post

Nate, how much of a chore would it be to increase the size of a bookmark? How much of an added drain would it be on the systems resources? I guess what I am asking is would it be cost prohibitive from either aspect?

I guess that's the whole point of this thread. We'll discuss the merits and problems, and they'll weigh that against the ease of implementation, and decide if it's worth it.

Link to post

Nate, how much of a chore would it be to increase the size of a bookmark? How much of an added drain would it be on the systems resources? I guess what I am asking is would it be cost prohibitive from either aspect?

I guess that's the whole point of this thread. We'll discuss the merits and problems, and they'll weigh that against the ease of implementation, and decide if it's worth it.

 

Yeah. I was just trying to get an idea of which way the scales were tipping.

Link to post

I maintain bookmark lists for U.S. Challenge caches (1100+ caches), and I would love to see the bookmark limit increase to match the PQ limit.

 

Other examples of would-be large bookmark lists I have used are reedkickball's Civil War Geocaches and Isonzo Karst's USA Wherigos.

Link to post

Nate, how much of a chore would it be to increase the size of a bookmark? How much of an added drain would it be on the systems resources? I guess what I am asking is would it be cost prohibitive from either aspect?

I guess that's the whole point of this thread. We'll discuss the merits and problems, and they'll weigh that against the ease of implementation, and decide if it's worth it.

 

Yeah. I was just trying to get an idea of which way the scales were tipping.

 

It's not crazy expensive, resource-wise. However Markwell made a point earlier about the paging being an issue, so increasing the bookmark limit would have to be a package deal with fixing that. We'll look more closely and make an assessment. Probably we'll increase it.

Link to post

Nate, how much of a chore would it be to increase the size of a bookmark? How much of an added drain would it be on the systems resources? I guess what I am asking is would it be cost prohibitive from either aspect?

I guess that's the whole point of this thread. We'll discuss the merits and problems, and they'll weigh that against the ease of implementation, and decide if it's worth it.

 

Yeah. I was just trying to get an idea of which way the scales were tipping.

 

It's not crazy expensive, resource-wise. However Markwell made a point earlier about the paging being an issue, so increasing the bookmark limit would have to be a package deal with fixing that. We'll look more closely and make an assessment. Probably we'll increase it.

 

Thanks Nate. Seems like a reasonable approach. Deal with the bookmark size while you are working on them anyways.

Link to post

I like to use a single bookmark list for longer trips. I plan them over months and feed the bookmark list, when new caches come up. I´d like to filter the caches manually to see if they seem like I would try them - so I don´t use "caches along a route" or some fancy GSAK stuff.

 

The argument for a trip is a decent one, but it obviously COULD be done with two bookmark lists and two PQs (or the idea of combining two bookmark lists into one PQ, which would be harder to program). I'm also interested in the practicality of this request from OTHER standpoints as well. I'd like people to change my mind.

 

Just pointing out I gave another standpoint in post 18

 

I typically create and run separate PQs for puzzles, multis, traditionals, etc.

 

I love to map caches out, using a variety of different symbols, so I can eyeball what is out there. I then pick an area of interest, and create a bookmark.

 

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/78dd82...ebc510a7adb.jpg

Link to post

I would like bookmarks to increase in size. I have quite a few bookmarks at the 500 limits.

I would like that too. While I don't have "quite a few" I do have one. It is for all the cache hides for Cactusart Kids. Right now, I need two bookmark lists for all their hides and I would be very pleased to consolidate it back into one.

Link to post

I would treat ignore lists completely separately than the standard bookmark lists. If you want to get your ignore list upwards of 10K caches, and then get a PQ of them, I'm all for that, as that would be considered "special circumstances". Since ignore lists already do "something special" I have no problem with the PQ on these being "special" as well.

 

But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

 

Yes...check out GeoTruckers...they have a list of trucker-friend caches which is currently on it's 4th bookmark list because they've hit 500 three times and had to start a new list. Having multiple lists makes it possible to have duplication between bookmark list and makes maintenance of the bookmark list a little more difficult.

 

I agree, it would be a nice addition for the Bookmark limit to increase with the increase in PQ results.

Link to post

I would treat ignore lists completely separately than the standard bookmark lists. If you want to get your ignore list upwards of 10K caches, and then get a PQ of them, I'm all for that, as that would be considered "special circumstances". Since ignore lists already do "something special" I have no problem with the PQ on these being "special" as well.

 

But in a regular, non-ignore list bookmark list, I'll ask again: Has anyone ever maxed out a single bookmark list to over 500? Has anyone ever come close?

 

Yes...check out GeoTruckers...they have a list of trucker-friend caches which is currently on it's 4th bookmark list because they've hit 500 three times and had to start a new list. Having multiple lists makes it possible to have duplication between bookmark list and makes maintenance of the bookmark list a little more difficult.

 

I agree, it would be a nice addition for the Bookmark limit to increase with the increase in PQ results.

I'm sold, if it's an easy fix, and if they can get the pagination working.

 

You do realize that even if it increases to 1,000, you'll still have the same problem you had mentioned - because a set of caches currently in four bookmark lists would only reduce to 2 lists, not one.

Link to post

Oh how awesome that would be to be able to raise the Pocket Query to say 1000? It sure would be nice since the new gps units can hold above 1000.

You must have missed the link to the post that the thread starter mentioned. Take a read here from March 8:

Over the weekend there were a lot of issues with Pocket Queries being generated. For that I sincerely apologize.

 

In an attempt to speed up the Pocket Query Generator, the application(s) that processes tens of thousands of Pocket Queries a day, there was a cascading number of issues that resulted in duplicate Pocket Queries going out, Pocket Queries without logs and Pocket Queries not being sent out for a certain amount of time. Also in the process, Pocket Queries were brought down to a trickle, resulting in Pocket Queries not going out at all.

 

We're taking this issue very seriously at Groundspeak, and we'll be focusing on increasing the capabilities over this next weekend to ensure this never, ever happens again. By increasing this capacity we'll also be prepared to offer Pocket Queries with 1,000 results instead of 500. This will happen by the anniversary of geocaching (May 2, 2010). As those veterans to geocaching know, I'm not usually one to offer dates, but this one is solid.

 

Again, I offer my apology for this weekend's issues.

Link to post

So what is the status for these upgrades? Does it look like we are going to see the larger PQs? Bookmarks? Is the paging issue looking like it will be addressed soon? Not trying to be pushy but I am certainly curious.

 

What the man said. No date has been giving on the bookmark size increase.

Link to post

They haven't even definitively said they are GOING to increase the Bookmark list size.

 

Programmers don't like to give progress updates. Once they have a starting date (let's say March 5), if they say "It's 50% done", people do the math...

 

Let's see, today is March 18, and that means it took 13 days to be 50% done, so they should be 100% done in 26 days. It better be done by no later than March 31 or I'm revoking my membership payment.

 

That's why Jeremy also said THIS in his post:

This will happen by the anniversary of geocaching (May 2, 2010). As those veterans to geocaching know, I'm not usually one to offer dates, but this one is solid.

 

I think the most we can expect is that the Pocket Queries will be increased in size by May 2, 2010.

Link to post

They haven't even definitively said they are GOING to increase the Bookmark list size.

 

Programmers don't like to give progress updates. Once they have a starting date (let's say March 5), if they say "It's 50% done", people do the math...

 

Let's see, today is March 18, and that means it took 13 days to be 50% done, so they should be 100% done in 26 days. It better be done by no later than March 31 or I'm revoking my membership payment.

 

That's why Jeremy also said THIS in his post:

This will happen by the anniversary of geocaching (May 2, 2010). As those veterans to geocaching know, I'm not usually one to offer dates, but this one is solid.

 

I think the most we can expect is that the Pocket Queries will be increased in size by May 2, 2010.

 

I believe Nate did mention that they *probably* increase the size of the bookmark. He did not mention a date.

Link to post

I believe Nate did mention that they *probably* increase the size of the bookmark. He did not mention a date.

They haven't even definitively said they are GOING to increase the Bookmark list size.

 

It's not crazy expensive, resource-wise. However Markwell made a point earlier about the paging being an issue, so increasing the bookmark limit would have to be a package deal with fixing that. We'll look more closely and make an assessment. Probably we'll increase it.

 

"Probably" is hardly "definitively" :D

Link to post

I believe Nate did mention that they *probably* increase the size of the bookmark. He did not mention a date.

They haven't even definitively said they are GOING to increase the Bookmark list size.

 

It's not crazy expensive, resource-wise. However Markwell made a point earlier about the paging being an issue, so increasing the bookmark limit would have to be a package deal with fixing that. We'll look more closely and make an assessment. Probably we'll increase it.

 

"Probably" is hardly "definitively" B)

 

It probably is as close to definitive as we will get, unless Jeremy chimes in and makes a statement. :D

Edited by jholly
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...