What is the reasoning behind PQ email limitations?

February 13, 2011

I edited all my PQ's to have 950 or so caches and they stopped emailing to me. I then realized the reason why. Should have read the forums first as there are tons of posts telling us that! But what I don't understand and can't find by searching is this:

Why does it work this way? By having PQ'S with 950 caches, I have to run 1/2 as many PQ's each week. You would thing this would be a good thing for the GC servers? But by not allowing emailing of the larger PQ's, all of us that want them sent have to stay at double the number of PQ's necessary.

Anyone know why this is limited in this way?

2.8k · February 13, 2011

I suspect its partly to do with the overall size of the file. Many email servers have limits on attachment file sizes.

February 13, 2011

I suspect its partly to do with the overall size of the file. Many email servers have limits on attachment file sizes.

You might be right but I am a bit skeptical of that reason. I have noticed recently that emailing large files has become limited by my ISP. It is really big files though not PQ size files. My PQ's that are 900 to 1000 caches are all under 900kb in size. The files my ISP stops are more like 10, 15, or 20mb in size.

1k · February 13, 2011

Here is a link from the support pages that briefly explains why.

7k · February 13, 2011

FWIW, I was also very disappointed to learn that there's no automated way of getting the larger PQ data. It makes them largely useless to me and that's why I still use PQs with <=500 caches almost exclusively.

7.3k · February 13, 2011

...there's no automated way of getting the larger PQ data. It makes them largely useless...

I find this confusing.

You can't just click on "download" and get them?

That's what I do. Click download, and they download to my computer.

I save it where I want it, the same place I put the emailed PQs.

And do exactly the same stuff I'd do with it if came as an email attachment.

7k · February 13, 2011

I find this confusing.
You can't just click on "download" and get them?

I can, but that's not automated, that's manual. Automated means without any sort of human interaction.

Edited February 13, 2011 by dfx

10.1k · February 13, 2011

Dunno. I far prefer downloading from the site. (My virus software changes the file type.) Only takes a few minutes to download them all. I get twice as many files (if I wish). I like it. Guess I'm not an automated user.

7.4k · February 13, 2011

I don't mind downloading them from the site. I can do this easily on my computer or on my iPod, so it presents no major barrier to me.

38.2k · February 13, 2011

I find this confusing.
You can't just click on "download" and get them?

I can, but that's not automated, that's manual. Automated means without any sort of human interaction.

I don't know about you, but when I receive the e-mail I still have to open it and download it.

7k · February 14, 2011

I don't know about you, but when I receive the e-mail I still have to open it and download it.

Yep, and I don't. Not when the file is attached, anyway.

18.9k · February 14, 2011

I don't see it as an issue in the least. The download is simple to get and I can be off to find caches right away after loading it to me GPS unit.

I know some use GSAK to process the PQ further but it only takes seconds to download manually with a decent speed connection.

3k · February 14, 2011

FWIW, I was also very disappointed to learn that there's no automated way of getting the larger PQ data. It makes them largely useless to me and that's why I still use PQs with <=500 caches almost exclusively.

So you haven't actually lost anything, have you?

You can still get your usual 500 PQs emailed to you, where whatever it is you're using can open them and pull in the data automatically?

The rest of us, meanwhile, can perform a couple of extra clicks and get PQs with 1000 caches. Everyone's a winner

2.1k · February 14, 2011

Dunno. I far prefer downloading from the site. (My virus software changes the file type.)

Then you need better antivirus software that doesn't mangle your attachments.

7k · February 14, 2011

So you haven't actually lost anything, have you?
You can still get your usual 500 PQs emailed to you, where whatever it is you're using can open them and pull in the data automatically?

The rest of us, meanwhile, can perform a couple of extra clicks and get PQs with 1000 caches. Everyone's a winner

No, not losing something doesn't equal winning. I'm not complaining though, I understand that I'm in a minority group of PQ users and Groundspeak obviously has no interest in implementing something that makes the extended PQs work for us. But that doesn't make me any happier about being left out. Alternatives to the archaic email delivery were extensively discussed last year, but I'd be surprised if they ever did anything about it.

Of course other people would benefit from an automated mechanism of PQ retrieval as well, as the lack of it is the only thing that keeps it from going into programs like GSAK. Once somebody was able to fetch and process PQs without manual intervention, they don't wanna go back. Making it impossible (or rather illegal - it's still possible, just against the TOU) to do so is a step backwards. It perfectly fits into Groundspeak's closed concept of their website though.

5k · February 14, 2011

So you haven't actually lost anything, have you?
You can still get your usual 500 PQs emailed to you, where whatever it is you're using can open them and pull in the data automatically?

The rest of us, meanwhile, can perform a couple of extra clicks and get PQs with 1000 caches. Everyone's a winner

No, not losing something doesn't equal winning. I'm not complaining though, I understand that I'm in a minority group of PQ users and Groundspeak obviously has no interest in implementing something that makes the extended PQs work for us. But that doesn't make me any happier about being left out. Alternatives to the archaic email delivery were extensively discussed last year, but I'd be surprised if they ever did anything about it.

Of course other people would benefit from an automated mechanism of PQ retrieval as well, as the lack of it is the only thing that keeps it from going into programs like GSAK. Once somebody was able to fetch and process PQs without manual intervention, they don't wanna go back. Making it impossible (or rather illegal - it's still possible, just against the TOU) to do so is a step backwards. It perfectly fits into Groundspeak's closed concept of their website though.

The Groundspeak API may be out as soon as the next update. I have no doubt that Clyde (GSAK) will have exactly what you want, shortly afterwords.

7k · February 14, 2011

The Groundspeak API may be out as soon as the next update. I have no doubt that Clyde (GSAK) will have exactly what you want, shortly afterwords.

Most likely yes. Still no use to me as I don't use GSAK though.

6.7k · February 14, 2011

What is the big advantage to automating it? I mean it only saves a couple of mouse clicks, right?

7k · February 14, 2011

What is the big advantage to automating it? I mean it only saves a couple of mouse clicks, right?

Yeah, and with that it saves time. It's the whole point of having computers around, to save you time, so you don't have to do everything yourself. I already know what I want to do with the PQs, so it makes sense to just tell my computer to do that for me. Only that Groundspeak doesn't let me with the larger PQs, for no good reason.

6.7k · February 14, 2011

What is the big advantage to automating it? I mean it only saves a couple of mouse clicks, right?

Yeah, and with that it saves time. It's the whole point of having computers around, to save you time, so you don't have to do everything yourself. I already know what I want to do with the PQs, so it makes sense to just tell my computer to do that for me. Only that Groundspeak doesn't let me with the larger PQs, for no good reason.

Ah, ok. Not being the computer genius type I thought there might be something I wasn't getting.

5.2k · February 14, 2011

... for no good reason.

Actually there is one very good reason. Groundspeak doesn't want to be automatically and repeatedly generating PQs for people who are no longer using them. When they just blindly email the PQ to you, they have no idea if you actually used the file, or if it sat in your inbox for eternity, or was summarily deleted. By making you click a link to get it, they can be reasonably content in knowing that you are using the file, and the CPU cycles used to create the file, and the bandwidth used to send the file, were not wasted.

1.2k · February 14, 2011

Actually there is one very good reason. Groundspeak doesn't want to be automatically and repeatedly generating PQs for people who are no longer using them. When they just blindly email the PQ to you, they have no idea if you actually used the file, or if it sat in your inbox for eternity, or was summarily deleted. By making you click a link to get it, they can be reasonably content in knowing that you are using the file, and the CPU cycles used to create the file, and the bandwidth used to send the file, were not wasted.

That doesn't matter, we PAY for PQ's, it doesn't really matter if we use them or not, that's not the issue.

If I go to the gas station and I PAY for 5 gallons of gas, but I only use 4, does that mean they don't have to give me the 5th gallon? Its the exact same thing, you should get what you PAY for.

February 14, 2011

As far as I'm concerned, they wouldn't need to email me my pqs if they would make it possible for GSAK to grab them from my "Your Pocket Queries" page.

For the time being, I'm happy to limit my pqs to 500 and use the GSAK macro to import them.

18.9k · February 15, 2011

Actually there is one very good reason. Groundspeak doesn't want to be automatically and repeatedly generating PQs for people who are no longer using them. When they just blindly email the PQ to you, they have no idea if you actually used the file, or if it sat in your inbox for eternity, or was summarily deleted. By making you click a link to get it, they can be reasonably content in knowing that you are using the file, and the CPU cycles used to create the file, and the bandwidth used to send the file, were not wasted.

That doesn't matter, we PAY for PQ's, it doesn't really matter if we use them or not, that's not the issue.

If I go to the gas station and I PAY for 5 gallons of gas, but I only use 4, does that mean they don't have to give me the 5th gallon? Its the exact same thing, you should get what you PAY for.

By your logic - they owe me a few thousand PQs by now. <_<

6.7k · February 15, 2011

Actually there is one very good reason. Groundspeak doesn't want to be automatically and repeatedly generating PQs for people who are no longer using them. When they just blindly email the PQ to you, they have no idea if you actually used the file, or if it sat in your inbox for eternity, or was summarily deleted. By making you click a link to get it, they can be reasonably content in knowing that you are using the file, and the CPU cycles used to create the file, and the bandwidth used to send the file, were not wasted.

That doesn't matter, we PAY for PQ's, it doesn't really matter if we use them or not, that's not the issue.

If I go to the gas station and I PAY for 5 gallons of gas, but I only use 4, does that mean they don't have to give me the 5th gallon? Its the exact same thing, you should get what you PAY for.

By your logic - they owe me a few thousand PQs by now.

If I buy a burger and fries and don't "use" all the fries how long before they can throw them out? I paid for them, right?

5.2k · February 15, 2011

That doesn't matter, we PAY for PQ's, it doesn't really matter if we use them or not, that's not the issue.

Wow. The naive sense of entitlement is just amazing :blink:

So if Joe Geocacher were to die tomorrow, you'd still expect Groundspeak to continue generating PQs for him until his Premium Membership lapses next year. Even when the growth of the sport means that the PQs are no longer generating in a timely matter. Eventually Groundspeak needs to take action to increase capacity and keep the PQ generators running, but according to your logic, killing PQs that are not being used is not an option.

You've never run a business, have you?

7k · February 15, 2011

Actually there is one very good reason. Groundspeak doesn't want to be automatically and repeatedly generating PQs for people who are no longer using them. When they just blindly email the PQ to you, they have no idea if you actually used the file, or if it sat in your inbox for eternity, or was summarily deleted. By making you click a link to get it, they can be reasonably content in knowing that you are using the file, and the CPU cycles used to create the file, and the bandwidth used to send the file, were not wasted.

As I explained above, I fully understand the reason behind not wanting to email the files. I don't need them email delivered at all and would be quite happy about an alternative retrieval mechanism. However, me using a browser to click through the website to get the files is not an alternative.

February 15, 2011

What is the big advantage to automating it? I mean it only saves a couple of mouse clicks, right?

Yeah, and with that it saves time. It's the whole point of having computers around, to save you time, so you don't have to do everything yourself. I already know what I want to do with the PQs, so it makes sense to just tell my computer to do that for me. Only that Groundspeak doesn't let me with the larger PQs, for no good reason.

:blink:

8.9k · February 15, 2011

As I explained above, I fully understand the reason behind not wanting to email the files. I don't need them email delivered at all and would be quite happy about an alternative retrieval mechanism. However, me using a browser to click through the website to get the files is not an alternative.

In the number of clicks and time and bandwidth it took to make that post, you probably could have downloaded 3 PQs

1.4k · February 15, 2011

That doesn't matter, we PAY for PQ's, it doesn't really matter if we use them or not, that's not the issue.

Wow. The naive sense of entitlement is just amazing

What's amazing is the misuse of the word entitlement in these forums. Nobody here thinks they're entitled to their allotment of PQs as a matter of "rights". It's just economics. You pay for a service, you expect to get it.

I can pay FedEx to deliver a box to an warehouse. Does FedEx care if that box will sit there for years without me looking at it? No. They got paid, they delivered.

So if Joe Geocacher were to die tomorrow, you'd still expect Groundspeak to continue generating PQs for him until his Premium Membership lapses next year.

It's prepay. They already have the money to cover the CPU/bandwidth.

Even when the growth of the sport means that the PQs are no longer generating in a timely matter.

That's a provisioning issue. Some of the money they were taking in should have been earmarked for hardware upgrades.

Eventually Groundspeak needs to take action to increase capacity and keep the PQ generators running, but according to your logic, killing PQs that are not being used is not an option.

They would be killed if the person doesn't renew their PM. You're argument is that this could take up to a year but there were several suggestion on how to solve this problem presented back when this was discussed previously.

You've never run a business, have you?

He doesn't have to run one, just see how others run them. In Joe Geocacher case, do you think the power, cell, internet, TV and water services would be shut off when Joe stopped using them? Electricity would be the one closer to PQs. If Joe left his TV and lights on, they'd be consuming power without him being around.

1.4k · February 15, 2011

In the number of clicks and time and bandwidth it took to make that post, you probably could have downloaded 3 PQs

I'd like to hear how that could be done while one is asleep.

I used to have everything automated so that it downloaded my PQs and loaded my GPS units before my alarm went off in the morning. I'd just grab the GPSr's and head out the door.

February 15, 2011

In the number of clicks and time and bandwidth it took to make that post, you probably could have downloaded 3 PQs

I'd like to hear how that could be done while one is asleep.

You're a night cacher - you don't sleep.

February 15, 2011

That doesn't matter, we PAY for PQ's, it doesn't really matter if we use them or not, that's not the issue.

Wow. The naive sense of entitlement is just amazing

How is expecting to get something you paid for a "naive sense of entitlement"? If I pay for something I AM entitled to it. It is neither naive nor unreasonable to expect to receive a product or service that you have paid up front for.

You've never run a business, have you?

I have and if I didn't deliver to my customers what they paid for I wouldn't have been in business for very long.

February 16, 2011

No one says you can't use them. If you want them automatically handled limit your requests to 500 and fewer. As far as I know no one was promised access via email to 1000 cache pqs.

5.6k · February 16, 2011

... for no good reason.

Actually there is one very good reason. Groundspeak doesn't want to be automatically and repeatedly generating PQs for people who are no longer using them. When they just blindly email the PQ to you, they have no idea if you actually used the file, or if it sat in your inbox for eternity, or was summarily deleted. By making you click a link to get it, they can be reasonably content in knowing that you are using the file, and the CPU cycles used to create the file, and the bandwidth used to send the file, were not wasted.

Um, how does not emailing them let them know if you are using the PQ or not? 500 PQ- generated, emailed, and stuck on PQ page (for download if wanted). 1000 PQ- generated, and stuck on PQ page. Whether you download the PQ or not, it is generated and placed on your PQ page, GS has no way of knowing if you will use that PQ or not. Once generated it can be used, ignored or deleted as you see fit (yeah, I know that it will only last a week on the page, but that has no bearing on this discussion).

2.1k · February 16, 2011

Um, how does not emailing them let them know if you are using the PQ or not? 500 PQ- generated, emailed, and stuck on PQ page (for download if wanted). 1000 PQ- generated, and stuck on PQ page. Whether you download the PQ or not, it is generated and placed on your PQ page, GS has no way of knowing if you will use that PQ or not.

Server logs. The server logs show if the file has been downloaded or not.

I have no way of knowing if GS is doing anything with that information, although I doubt it. But they COULD, in theory, know if you have downloaded the file by checking the server logs.

1.4k · February 16, 2011

I have no way of knowing if GS is doing anything with that information, although I doubt it. But they COULD, in theory, know if you have downloaded the file by checking the server logs.

They COULD, in theory, send an email with a "click on this link to continue getting PQs emailed to you" every 3 or 4 months. They COULD do a lot of things to make sure people are using the PQs emailed to them.

So in effect there is no difference between emailing and downloading with respect to auto shutting down PQ generation.

February 16, 2011

In the number of clicks and time and bandwidth it took to make that post, you probably could have downloaded 3 PQs

I'd like to hear how that could be done while one is asleep.

I used to have everything automated so that it downloaded my PQs and loaded my GPS units before my alarm went off in the morning. I'd just grab the GPSr's and head out the door.

you need to come to my house.... hook a brother up!!!!!

5.2k · February 16, 2011

They COULD, in theory, send an email with a "click on this link to continue getting PQs emailed to you" every 3 or 4 months.

They did do that a couple of times. And lots of people bitched about that too. However, I did hear from reliable sources that a significant portion of users did not click on those emailed links.

February 19, 2011

Wow! My original simple question sure generated a lot of interesting reading. In summary GC is concerned about the file size attachment of a 1000 PQ vs a 500 PQ. Makes sense to me. Also they are concerned about having lots of queries generated and sent that are not being used. This is less understandable to me as most people that have PQ's mailed do like me and just make 2X as many 500 limit PQ's and have them sent. But in any case it does not matter to me as I am not at my limit of saved PQ's and it is no more work for me to have 10 size 500 PQ's mailed rather than 5 or 6 size 1000 PQ's. I was just curious as on the surface it seemed that having the larger PQ size cut by about 1/2 the number of queries the servers at GC have to run.

But the bottom line is that I can still get the cache information I want to have my fun. I have been a premium member here since 2004 and although sometimes frustrated by a slow site on busy weekend evenings, have always felt I get my $ worth from the Groundspeak. Heck, add in the work the cache publishers/reviewers do, the community that has built up around the game and all the places I have seen while chasing a cache that I would never have seen otherwise, and I have and am one happy cacher!

7k · February 20, 2011

In the number of clicks and time and bandwidth it took to make that post, you probably could have downloaded 3 PQs

Totally misses the point. I spend a fair amount of time to automate all kinds of little things. The idea is to save time (and nerves) in those moments when I don't have the time (or don't want to spare it) to wait for those things that could've been done before.

5k · February 20, 2011

In the number of clicks and time and bandwidth it took to make that post, you probably could have downloaded 3 PQs

Totally misses the point. I spend a fair amount of time to automate all kinds of little things. The idea is to save time (and nerves) in those moments when I don't have the time (or don't want to spare it) to wait for those things that could've been done before.

Exactly what was it that you could do before, that you can't do now?

7k · February 20, 2011

Exactly what was it that you could do before, that you can't do now?

Read above.

5k · February 20, 2011

Exactly what was it that you could do before, that you can't do now?

Read above.

Before, you could automatically extract from email, and process 500 cache PQs. Can you no longer do that?

1.4k · February 20, 2011

Before, you could automatically extract from email, and process 500 cache PQs. Can you no longer do that?

Yes and no. We can still get the same number of caches but can't get the same area.

3.1k · February 20, 2011

In the number of clicks and time and bandwidth it took to make that post, you probably could have downloaded 3 PQs

I'd like to hear how that could be done while one is asleep.

I used to have everything automated so that it downloaded my PQs and loaded my GPS units before my alarm went off in the morning. I'd just grab the GPSr's and head out the door.

you need to come to my house.... hook a brother up!!!!!

He brought a bottle of Tequila when he came to my house.

.

What is the reasoning behind PQ email limitations?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation