The official website desperately needs an overhaul

[+roziecakes]

After reading the rest of this thread; I like the comment about integrating some social networking aspects if folks have the choice to disable them if they want. Then the most amount of people could be satisfied.

 

I also agree with another poster that this site is too big for most CMS; including Drupal, which I often toot the horn of because in my opinion it's the best CMS with the most options, but no, I don't think that even Drupal could handle this site.

 

After considering all of this for a while, I personally feel that the best option would be for GS to fix the problems with the current site and make sure that everything is functional 100% before they move on; and make sure that they have the resources to handle the site as is before adding more and more and more features.

 

If the site can't handle all of the users currently as is, it certainly won't be able to handle it with a lot of added features.

 

That being said... I think that the current navigability could be improved on as part of 'making the current site function' That might be a good compromise at this point.

 

If you build a house of cards, it's going to fall at some point. I say allow GS to get everything fixed on the current site with its current features, and current look, so that this 'house' has a strong foundation.

 

Please know, that I am NOT one of those people who is opposed to change, for the most part I welcome it; and I am an avid social networking user, when I'm not on GC.com; but I also see extreme value in maintaining as much simple functionality in the site as possible.

 

Hope that makes sense!

[+StarBrand]

What are these "modern principles"? - where can I read about these? What committee sat down and voted on them? Why wasn't my opinion included?

I' date=' of course, meant the trends that marks modern social networks as up-to-date. Such as easy communications, ease of navigation - and these are not trends in merely social networks. If you check out the rest of the web, most modern and particularily proffesional websites have these qualities, whereas Goecaching.com does not. User-friendlyness is generally considered to be an importment platform to develop over the coming decade, and you already see Google and Microsoft taking it seriously (smartphones have become ridiculously easy-to-use, just as computer software, OS's, web-services and websites). It's commonly accepted and more often commonly requested.

.....

[/quote']

 

Ok - fair enough - but I again must ask - where is it that can read up on these "trends", "up-to-date" features, "professional" websites and the qualities that you continue to promote and ask for?? Where are the scientific studies/polls that show that vast amounts of current users are begging for them?

 

I'd like to know the source material here? Or maybe - just maybe - your just expressing an individual opinion with a bit of passion and exaggerated wording??? Just like I am.

[Viscus]

Ok - fair enough - but I again must ask - where is it that can read up on these "trends", "up-to-date" features, "professional" websites and the qualities that you continue to promote and ask for?? Where are the scientific studies/polls that show that vast amounts of current users are begging for them?

 

I'd like to know the source material here? Or maybe - just maybe - your just expressing an individual opinion with a bit of passion and exaggerated wording??? Just like I am.

Let me answer this with a counter-question: What sane person would prefer a complicated, clunky and unnecessarily intricate layout than a smooth, simple and user-friendly one? I don't need source-material, just check the direction that about every computer-software (offline or online) is going towards. I already compared geocaching.com with geocaching.se which has a generally better design (and so far, no one has disagreed).

 

It seems you would have been satisfied with the web as it was 10 years ago, where coding was too undeveloped to give a content and flowing experience. I however, would not have been. Back in those days navigating through sites were normally difficult and there were no sense of giving a pleasurable experience through easy-to-use GUI, most pages were simply HTML-files linked to eachother. Then came the demand for user-friendlyness in order to attract new members and give them a pleasurable experience.

 

When the impprovements are there, everyone will be happy: It's the transition that frighetns people. And, of course it's my opinion that Geocaching.com should follow this same direction. You don't have to put on your captain Obvious-cape to prove that. Everything in my first post is purely subjective. However, an increasing demand for user-friendlyness and ease-of-use is a reality, whether you choose to "believe" me or not.

 

Oh, now your just getting stupid, (I'll take the warning).

You went from improving the site to degrading it. What purpose would that serve? It's cool. We don't have enough flashing lights for you. Nothing to see here, move along.

You're the one who does not see blatant irony and I'm the one who is stupid. This will keep me up tonight..

Edited April 28, 2011 by Viscus

[+roziecakes]

Let me answer this with a counter-question: What sane person would prefer a complicated, clunky and unnecessarily intricate layout than a smooth, simple and user-friendly one? I don't need source-material, just check the direction that about every computer-software (offline or online) is going towards. I already compared geocaching.com with geocaching.se which has a generally better design (and so far, no one has disagreed).

 

Ya can't argue with that. I always prefer a smoother less complicated layout myself; as long as functionality is not compromised. As for the geocaching.se site; The layout is good, but I hate the colors. I think it's way too dark. You are right though, that for a new user, it is less clunky looking and somewhat better organized. Even with some of the language barriers I was able to find my way around.

 

As per the colors; I much prefer the color scheme of geocaching.com I also think that their top banner does NOT need to be so huge. It's a little distracting; but those are purely cosmetic issues, so to me they aren't as important as the meat of the site, which is really pretty great. I do agree with you there.

[+StarBrand]

Ok - fair enough - but I again must ask - where is it that can read up on these "trends", "up-to-date" features, "professional" websites and the qualities that you continue to promote and ask for?? Where are the scientific studies/polls that show that vast amounts of current users are begging for them?

 

I'd like to know the source material here? Or maybe - just maybe - your just expressing an individual opinion with a bit of passion and exaggerated wording??? Just like I am.

Let me answer this with a counter-question: What sane person would prefer a complicated, clunky and unnecessarily intricate layout than a smooth, simple and user-friendly one? I don't need source-material, just check the direction that about every computer-software (offline or online) is going towards.

...

 

Ummmmm - unless you have been reading a far different thread than I have - The vast majority of responders just don't see the site as nearly bad as you keep portraying it. Sure it needs a few tweaks here and there and the navigation is sometimes inconsistent but overall - the look and feel of the site are just not all that bad according to most of the responders. It is the functionality of the site that seems to be far more important - rather than the look and feel. I happen to agree - no matter what site I visit.

 

And - no, I do not prefer older web styles and navigation preferences. Neither do I think that some of the so called modern interfaces are not all that appealing or great. Monkey-see Monkey-do is not the same thing as easier, and better. Again your opinion is yours and thrown out with great compassion - but do not attack me as old fashioned and unwilling to change just because I do not happen to agree with your every point. We can agree to disagree without insulting anybody.

Edited April 28, 2011 by StarBrand

[+niraD]

It seems you would have been satisfied with the web as it was 10 years ago, where coding was too undeveloped to give a content and flowing experience. I however, would not have been. Back in those days navigating through sites were normally difficult and there were no sense of giving a pleasurable experience through easy-to-use GUI, most pages were simply HTML-files linked to eachother. Then came the demand for user-friendlyness in order to attract new members and give them a pleasurable experience.

I've been using the web since my coworkers called it "that Mosaic thing". There have been a lot of changes for the better, including a growing awareness of usability and UX among web developers. But there have also been a lot of detours and other changes that we would have been better off without. While I agree that geocaching.com could benefit from usability/UX improvements, I also agree the Groundspeak needs to focus on their core competency (geocache listings). New functionality that supports publishing and accessing geocache listings is great, but they should not get distracted chasing the web buzzword du jour just to appear trendy.

 

And yes, there is still a place for simple HTML documents linked to each other, even when those HTML documents are generated from a database (as the geocache listings at geocaching.com are). Not everything needs to be a DHTML/AJAX/whatever web app.

 

Anyway, I've already offered specific comments about some of your specific suggestions, so I won't repeat them here.

[Viscus]

@StarBrand, I'm not here to gain your approval and I'm not in the slightest interested in argumentum ad populum. And I'm sorry if I "portrayed" the site to be as bad as it actually is, I still think it's a great and informative site, and I was planning to add one section in my starting post where I'd point out positive things about the site - but it would have served no purpose. This thread is solely meant for my request that the site should be improved, not a thread where I vent any hate towards it.

 

In other news, this is what Groundspeak wrote about the upcoming site update on Facebook:

 

Get ready for

a new sleek design

and improved performance on Geocaching.com. The site, along with mobile apps, will be offline on Wednesday, May 4th for up to six hours as we add more hamsters* to power our site.

Details here:

http://bit.ly/iiVycA

*Our servers are not powered by hamsters. We're upgrading our database servers.

 

So, not only can we expect better performance after the update, but also a "new sleek design". This should prove to be interesting. Really looking forwards to this.

 

New functionality that supports publishing and accessing geocache listings is great, but they should not get distracted chasing the web buzzword du jour just to appear trendy.

I completely empathize and agree with you. While I wish for increased connectivity between members, I would not want a Facebook-clone or a mainstream-platform for teenagers who wants to be part of something "special". No one wants that.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Viscus

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It seems you would have been satisfied with the web as it was 10 years ago, where coding was too undeveloped to give a content and flowing experience. I however, would not have been. Back in those days navigating through sites were normally difficult and there were no sense of giving a pleasurable experience through easy-to-use GUI, most pages were simply HTML-files linked to eachother. Then came the demand for user-friendlyness in order to attract new members and give them a pleasurable experience.

I've been using the web since my coworkers called it "that Mosaic thing". There have been a lot of changes for the better, including a growing awareness of usability and UX among web developers. But there have also been a lot of detours and other changes that we would have been better off without. While I agree that geocaching.com could benefit from usability/UX improvements, I also agree the Groundspeak needs to focus on their core competency (geocache listings). New functionality that supports publishing and accessing geocache listings is great, but they should not get distracted chasing the web buzzword du jour just to appear trendy.

 

And yes, there is still a place for simple HTML documents linked to each other, even when those HTML documents are generated from a database (as the geocache listings at geocaching.com are). Not everything needs to be a DHTML/AJAX/whatever web app.

 

Anyway, I've already offered specific comments about some of your specific suggestions, so I won't repeat them here.

 

I also have been using the web since it began (and other internet technologies many years before that) an am glad that you've mentioned the trends regarding usability and user experience (UX). In that context of this thread, we've seen several opinions on how that site might work, but from what I've seen usability/UX discussions are not very useful based on the opinions of a few people. User driven design is only successful when accompanied with a good user studies and an interactive design approach that involved the end users as the development is taking place. What we often get is a response to an general enhancement request such as "we'll work on implementing this 'soon'", the developers will go off and do some work, then we'll get a "site is will be down for maintenance" message and then the solution will go live on the production site. Saying, "the site needs to be more user friendly" might sound like a good idea but it needs specifics, and an interactive design approach that ensures that the result is what users really want.

[+Zor]

So I read your original post and have read a bunch of the replies and admittedly, I see how this could be such a volatile subject. Here's my take on geocaching.com.

 

I'll admit that for myself, I find the site pretty easy to move around in but I've also been caching for 3.5 years and have gotten used to how things work. There are however things I stumble upon now and then that I never knew were there. It would be nice if things weren't so spread out as much. Profiles are profiles are profiles. I think of my profile account when I click on my name as more of a "history" than a profile. It's not a profile, it's my caching history, and a launchpad into other things that are specific to me. It's not a place to show off who I am. My "profile" page is the actual page people see. To me, I see them as totally different entities, not the same thing repeated twice. It would be nice if things could be consolidated a bit more in a dashboard type of interface, but I have seen far worse.

 

Social networking... there are SOME aspects to social networking that I think have merit, but the problem is that people get worried about privacy and keeping their real and geocaching lives separate. I think the idea that you could have the option to integrate certain things, but with that integration turned off by default, and available for those who want to use it, is a great idea. I used to use the Twitter feature to post my occasional finds (can't do it anymore since field notes no longer work on the iPhone app).

 

That being said, I think something like the Geocaching LIVE idea is very cool. Where I'm from, we have a local news/information site that runs a live Twitter feed that local cachers can push to whenever they want. We use it as a means to liveblog various geocaching events and hikes the locals are doing. Anyone with a cell phone can post an update, and for smartphone users, they can upload photos and share them instantly with other folks who are on the site. Folks who can't make the event or group hike can follow the activity live via the Twitter feed/liveblog. We have had a LOT of positive feedback on that sort of thing. Folks like the idea that if they want to, they can see pictures and notes from folks who are actually out in the field right now. That kind of "social networking" would be very cool to see on geocaching.com. I believe this is what live.geocaching.com was supposed to be.

 

The search page for caches, I actually agree with you. I despise that page. I use the address box to search by city once in awhile, but I ALWAYS end up opening up the first listing, scrolling down to the map, opening up the full page map, and then build a PQ from there. I personally would love to see that page overhauled. Yes, it has lots of options, but it could use some updating. I don't have any suggestions I'm just giving my opinion.

 

I can understand how some people would view the official site's layout as somewhat old schoolish, but I also don't think we're looking at a geocities website either. There is always room for improvement. I mean hey, they finally got the forums replaced, and although I can't stand the look of them now, I do find they work better. You need to take it step at a time.

 

Inch by inch, life is a cinch. Yard by yard life is very very hard.

[jholly]

 

So, not only can we expect better performance after the update, but also a "new sleek design". This should prove to be interesting. Really looking forwards to this.

 

And that the part that scares the living daylights out of me. That usually means that the features many consider important and worthwhile will be broken for the next couple days while the lackeys scramble like mad to fix them or promise that they will be back to normal on the next site update. And after the dust settles we will find something missing that maybe will be fixed in the next site update.

[+tozainamboku]

 

So, not only can we expect better performance after the update, but also a "new sleek design". This should prove to be interesting. Really looking forwards to this.

 

And that the part that scares the living daylights out of me. That usually means that the features many consider important and worthwhile will be broken for the next couple days while the lackeys scramble like mad to fix them or promise that they will be back to normal on the next site update. And after the dust settles we will find something missing that maybe will be fixed in the next site update.

I agree. For many Geocaching.com is primarily a site for searching for geocaches your are going to go looking for, printing out or downloading the information you need to find the geocaches, and perhap logging your experiences after you have gone geocaching. It is not about chatting with your friends about geocaching, keeping tabs on what your geocaching friends are doing, setting up meetings with your friend to go geocaching, or a myriad of other "social" activities that may be related to geocaching.

 

The OP brings up two different concerns. First: why not support some of these related social activities, for those who want to use them? Second: the overall design of the website seems dated. Why not make changes to improve the user interface?

 

By combining these two distinct issues he's created some controversy. Those that want to use geocaching.com primarily as a database to keep track of their own geocaching experience are wary of all the talk of new features they would not use. Also using the term overhaul, when the user interface probably just needs some tweeks is frighten to people have a comfort level from thing having always been this way. Quite frankly, from looking at comments in this forum over the years, it's pretty clear there are many features that people have trouble finding. The existence and popularity of the many Greasemonkey scripts and other browers add-ons to support geocaching, is an indication that the current system does not support everyone.

 

One observation that I can make is that this is just as true for so called modern interfaces. I don't have a Facebook account but I use my 92 year old mother's that she has to keep in touch with her grandchildren. Invariably I get frustrated because I can't figure out where some feature is. (How did I post a picture on my wall last time? Why can't I change something in my profile?) My nephew installed a third party Facebook app on her ipad and thought perhaps it would be easier to find what I was looking for. Instead I got a page with a bunch of icons that provided me with no hint of what happens if I touch one of them. It kept putting me into chat when I wasn't interested in chatting. Apparently the person who created this app thought chat was the most important feature so he made it easy to get to. To me is just made using the app frustrating. The OP is admittedly a Facebook junkie and is probably used to the Facebook interface. I will tell him right now, that an old fogey like mean is much more at ease drilling down a menu system than guessing at what some icon means. That isn't to say that the menus on Geocaching.com can't use some improvement.

[+Ike 13]

That being said, I think something like the Geocaching LIVE idea is very cool. Where I'm from, we have a local news/information site that runs a live Twitter feed that local cachers can push to whenever they want. We use it as a means to liveblog various geocaching events and hikes the locals are doing. Anyone with a cell phone can post an update, and for smartphone users, they can upload photos and share them instantly with other folks who are on the site. Folks who can't make the event or group hike can follow the activity live via the Twitter feed/liveblog. We have had a LOT of positive feedback on that sort of thing. Folks like the idea that if they want to, they can see pictures and notes from folks who are actually out in the field right now. That kind of "social networking" would be very cool to see on geocaching.com. I believe this is what live.geocaching.com was supposed to be.

 

Yes that is cool for the local community but it would mean absolutly nothing to me. You know the local cachers through events, group caching, and now that site. You know the local caches and areas as well so I can see how this is interesting to you.

 

For example I use the Greasemonkey Script 'Friends List Enhancments' and I can see what each one of my friends has logged since I last looked. It always me to quickly see what cool caches they may have found. But if anyone else saw the same info it would mean very little due to lack of context.

[+TomToad]

To be fair, a "new sleek design" may actually help things. If people can get to things like PQs and such with a couple fewer clicks, or not spend searching the site for 10 minutes trying to find that function buried under layers of pages, it may relieve some of the load on the servers. I know that a couple of clicks don't use a huge amount of resources, but when you multiply those few clicks by the 1000s of hits the site gets a day, it could make a big difference. And let's face it, 90% of the site's problems are due to server load.

 

I'm not talking about adding new functionality or changing this into a social network, just changing the way we access the current functionality of the site to make it faster and easier.

[+MissJenn]

Do you all subscribe to the Weekly Mailer? To subscribe to it, just edit your email preferences.

Here is the text from this week's mailer:

 

Website Downtime Wednesday, May 4

 

 

On May 4, 2011, Geocaching.com, Waymarking.com, Wherigo.com and all related mobile applications will be going down for several hours as we perform site maintenance. You may or may not be aware that Groundspeak's servers are powered by hamsters.* We are adding several additional hamsters to the mix**, which should fix website service issues. Groundspeak products will go offline around 9 am Pacific Daylight Time (UTC/GMT -7 hours). We are not sure how long it will take to complete the upgrade; we estimate 4 to 6 hours, but it may be more or less. We will be providing updates on the 4th via Facebook and Twitter. When the Groundspeak products come back online, Geocaching.com will have an updated look and the website performance will be improved.

*Our servers are not powered by hamsters

**Upgrading our database server

 

I've emphasized the bit in bold and green above, per one of the points in the original post #1.

If you want more info about the bit in bold and blue: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=273130

[+Don_J]

The profile is irritating to me in that there's not a quick and easy way I've found to switch back and forth between my profile and my public profile. It can go one way easily, but to get back I have to do some roundabout clicking to get there.

 

 

You can quickly access your private profile page by simply clicking your name in the line that says, "You are logged in as XYZ" that is on the top left right of every page.

Or, to a geocacher, the northeast corner.

 

Maybe that's why I can't find any caches.

[knowschad]

Here are the new updates for the website: http://forums.Ground...pic=269950&st=0

 

A video section (YouTube implementation, that is). I like this. Although it's youtube implemented which people should hate - I mean, youtube is banned in schools as well and it, like Facebook, is a social network with an extremely large amount of members. I must've forgotten what's the problem with this again, as Groundspeak seem to have missed it as well.

 

A very nice addition to the site. At first glance I thought this video section was something like the photos section in profiles, where members can share their experiences with personal photos and images. But sharing experiences is not the important thing, right. The important thing is geocaching, right. Let's remove the photos section, right.

 

Psst... your gallery is empty.

Oops!

Just an observation, but I also looked at your logs. All of the older ones had nothing in them at all. I don't want you to get beat up on that, but if you are not even going to comment in a log I don't see this being too much of a social game for you.

 

Snarky moderators!! Sheesh! I wasn't going to even mention the logs! :lol:

[+StarBrand]

@StarBrand, I'm not here to gain your approval and I'm not in the slightest interested in argumentum ad populum. And I'm sorry if I "portrayed" the site to be as bad as it actually is, I still think it's a great and informative site, and I was planning to add one section in my starting post where I'd point out positive things about the site - but it would have served no purpose. This thread is solely meant for my request that the site should be improved, not a thread where I vent any hate towards it.

 

...

 

I work in the business of creating and designing web interfaces and web back end programming and database integration. Does that fact surprise you?? I happen to be one of the web professionals that has helped craft some internet standards used everyday.

 

Let me assure you that there is very broad disagreement over what constitutes universally appealing user interfaces. I appreciate and understand your your compassion and beliefs but I have also tried hard to make you understand that no majority of anybody will every have broad agreement over how an interface should look or function.

 

Also - one thing you are not considering at all is the existing userbase. You can't just tear down the site and rebuild it new and totally different. Many existing supporters and users would likely be lost and very upset. Changes need to be small and incremental over time. I have learned this fact the hard way more than once.

[+t4e]

Do you all subscribe to the Weekly Mailer? To subscribe to it, just edit your email preferences.

Here is the text from this week's mailer:

 

 

key words bolded, the problem has been with us for at least two weeks now...the mailer actually came after the banner was added on the site

[+WRASTRO]

Do you all subscribe to the Weekly Mailer? To subscribe to it, just edit your email preferences.

Here is the text from this week's mailer:

 

 

key words bolded, the problem has been with us for at least two weeks now...the mailer actually came after the banner was added on the site

Nothing in my inbox yet today. I feel so left out.

[+The Jester]

Do you all subscribe to the Weekly Mailer? To subscribe to it, just edit your email preferences.

Here is the text from this week's mailer:

 

 

key words bolded, the problem has been with us for at least two weeks now...the mailer actually came after the banner was added on the site

Nothing in my inbox yet today. I feel so left out.

Hmm, I saw mine yesterday at about 5:30pm.

[+briansnat]

@StarBrand, I'm not here to gain your approval and I'm not in the slightest interested in argumentum ad populum. And I'm sorry if I "portrayed" the site to be as bad as it actually is, I still think it's a great and informative site, and I was planning to add one section in my starting post where I'd point out positive things about the site - but it would have served no purpose. This thread is solely meant for my request that the site should be improved, not a thread where I vent any hate towards it.

 

...

 

I work in the business of creating and designing web interfaces and web back end programming and database integration. Does that fact surprise you?? I happen to be one of the web professionals that has helped craft some internet standards used everyday.

 

Let me assure you that there is very broad disagreement over what constitutes universally appealing user interfaces. I appreciate and understand your your compassion and beliefs but I have also tried hard to make you understand that no majority of anybody will every have broad agreement over how an interface should look or function.

 

Also - one thing you are not considering at all is the existing userbase. You can't just tear down the site and rebuild it new and totally different. Many existing supporters and users would likely be lost and very upset. Changes need to be small and incremental over time. I have learned this fact the hard way more than once.

 

True (esp. the bolded part). What do you want to bet that within an hour of the release of this "sleek new design" that there will be a thread with people screaming bloody murder about the changes. Viscus on the other hand may be quite pleased with them.

 

What one person finds usable might be quite different from what another person finds usable.

 

For years Metacritic was a site that I visited regularly. They made major changes. Modernization and usability improvements they said. The users were not pleased. The thread discussing the changes was probably close to 100-1 against. I tried the new site several times, but it no longer did what I wanted to (or I could not figure how to do it) so I haven't been back. I bet I'm not alone.

 

Change isn't always for the better and change for the sake of being trendy is one of the worst reasons for change.

[+OHail]

Do you all subscribe to the Weekly Mailer? To subscribe to it, just edit your email preferences.

Here is the text from this week's mailer:

 

 

key words bolded, the problem has been with us for at least two weeks now...the mailer actually came after the banner was added on the site

Nothing in my inbox yet today. I feel so left out.

 

Don't feel left out. I didn't get one this week either.

[camdendoziers]

...

This is not facebook and we don't want it to be facebook.

 

If you want facebook, go to facebook.

 

This is for geocaching.

Could not have said it better.

 

While I certainly see some navigation and search issues - I just don't think things are nearly as bad as the op.

 

I am very new to all of this with only 30 finds and 7 newly placed caches in my two weeks here and am thankful it is nothing like a Facebook Social site. I think, for me, the social aspects of it come in many ways through posts from the Geocaching Sites I have visited as well as the ones I have recently begun to place. This is my kind of a out on your own locating caches others have placed and placing them for others. It is a bit difficult to use at times but it is mainly, I believe in my inexperience and am learning more every day

[+Semper Questio]

 

...within an hour of the release of this "sleek new design" that there will be a thread with people screaming bloody murder about the changes....

 

 

Within an HOUR? I'd bet we can narrow that down to under 5 minutes!

[+mtn-man]

 

...within an hour of the release of this "sleek new design" that there will be a thread with people screaming bloody murder about the changes....

 

 

Within an HOUR? I'd bet we can narrow that down to under 5 minutes!

Heh. I was thinking I would probably need to request a day off from work and do a quick refresher on my Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics Course. Keystone is busy testing the mod group's flack jackets by telling the new corp of hamsters that they look like a bunch of squirrels. It hasn't been pretty over there, but so far the Groundspeak issued body armor is holding up well.

 

[Keystone]

The design change for the Kevlar flak jackets has been rolled back, so they won't be transparent. I am quite grateful for solid Kevlar. Those hamsters have pointy teeth!

Edited April 29, 2011 by Keystone

[+Panther&Pine]

 

...within an hour of the release of this "sleek new design" that there will be a thread with people screaming bloody murder about the changes....

 

 

Within an HOUR? I'd bet we can narrow that down to under 5 minutes!

I go with 5-7 minutes. 2 minutes to find the new link, 2 minutes to hit f5 over and over again, 30 seconds to login (cause it wont remember you after the upgrade), 30 seconds to find the correct thread (and pick one of about a dozen), 1 minute to write "I hate the new layout. Make it go away".

[GOF and Bacall]

And if you don't like the changes you will be labeled a troublemaker who is afraid of change and eventually told to shut up.

[+JBnW]

And if you don't like the changes you will be labeled a troublemaker who is afraid of change and eventually told to shut up.

I'm surprised "Luddite" doesn't come up more often.

[Viscus]

Thanks for all the great responses in this thread. It seems most people are sceptical to the notion of this site adopting accessibility and communication as prime directives in its development. Others are more open and positive to it. I think we will have plenty to discusw after the update and I am looking forward to it.

 

Again, I should mention that I hope the layout will be close to http://www.geocaching.se/. Any agreements/disagreements or comments on that, for the meantime?

Edited April 29, 2011 by Viscus

[+Team Taran]

I am really puzzled that you seem to think you should be in charge of the look and feel of a website you refuse to support financially and have only been visiting for a few months. If you like an alternative geocaching site, feel free to participate there. I'm also curious why you wish intrusive social networking tools graphed on the site when you have ignored the current ways to share your geocaching experience. I certainly hope that you do not find that the new design suits you since if it does I may have to abandon a site and a hobby I have enjoyed for years and have financially supported for most of that time.

[+A & J Tooling]

Again, I should mention that I hope the layout will be close to http://www.geocaching.se/. Any agreements/disagreements or comments on that, for the meantime?

Well it sucks, in my opinion. If this site looked like that, it'd run a lot smoother since no one would use it.

[+GeoReapers]

You know, it would seem to me that exactly the kind of people that should be listened to regarding site usability are those people that are new. Those that are here daily and see how things work and find their own little shortcuts have the benefit of experience. People like the OP are experiencing it with fresh eyes and bringing a new opinion to how we interact with the site, I think that is something that should be embraced. Regardless if he is a premium member or not( BTW Viscus, I didn't think I needed a premium memberships either until I got one and realized how useful it can be).

[+roziecakes]

Thanks for all the great responses in this thread. It seems most people are sceptical to the notion of this site adopting accessibility and communication as prime directives in its development. Others are more open and positive to it. I think we will have plenty to discusw after the update and I am looking forward to it.

 

Again, I should mention that I hope the layout will be close to http://www.geocaching.se/. Any agreements/disagreements or comments on that, for the meantime?

 

Not sure if you saw my comments above. I mentioned that I felt the layout was fairly easy to figure out even for new folks, but I hate the color scheme (too dark), and I don't like the gigantic top banner. Again, it's an okay layout, but I'm not thrilled or anything.

[+angevine]

I can't say that I agree about the social aspects -- the best way to socialize is to go caching together, organize caching events, etc.

 

But as for the rest ... yeah. I think you're certainly right about the lack of intuitiveness about the website, the really poor navigation, and the ability to lose destinations easily. Instead of adding on, as generally seems to happen, a new website would be grand.

 

Thanks for taking the time to put this post together ... your thoughtfulness is appreciated.

 

Jeannette

who write the book on geocaching: "Open Your Heart with Geocaching" available at Amazon and booksellers everywhere.

[+niraD]

It seems most people are sceptical to the notion of this site adopting accessibility and communication as prime directives in its development.

To me, it seems you have mistaken disagreement with some of your suggestions for disagreement with all of your suggestions.

[sabrefan7]

You know, it would seem to me that exactly the kind of people that should be listened to regarding site usability are those people that are new. Those that are here daily and see how things work and find their own little shortcuts have the benefit of experience. People like the OP are experiencing it with fresh eyes and bringing a new opinion to how we interact with the site.

I agree with you. However, pimping your own interests and or website ad nauseam has become tiresome

[+GeoReapers]

You know, it would seem to me that exactly the kind of people that should be listened to regarding site usability are those people that are new. Those that are here daily and see how things work and find their own little shortcuts have the benefit of experience. People like the OP are experiencing it with fresh eyes and bringing a new opinion to how we interact with the site.

I agree with you. However, pimping your own interests and or website ad nauseam has become tiresome

 

Good point. I have only been around these forums for a bit...my most recent memory of this nature was Geocachingresponsibly.whatever

 

.....that was fun

[Viscus]

I am really puzzled that you seem to think you should be in charge of the look and feel of a website you refuse to support financially and have only been visiting for a few months. If you like an alternative geocaching site, feel free to participate there. I'm also curious why you wish intrusive social networking tools graphed on the site when you have ignored the current ways to share your geocaching experience. I certainly hope that you do not find that the new design suits you since if it does I may have to abandon a site and a hobby I have enjoyed for years and have financially supported for most of that time.

Besides your completely incorrect conclusion of my standpoint, you are also saying that I should not be allowed to add my thoughts to this community unless I send Groundspeak money (for services that I do not require; ie premium)? If it comforts you, I bought the iphone app and recruited about ten friends to buy it as well. Lets clear things up: i do not want to be "in charge" of this sites development, nor have I EVER mentioned that I want "intrusive social networks", quite the contrary: that it should at least be optional.

 

You seem content with disagreeing and I am perfectly fine with that. But please refrain from concluding false ideas and paste them onto mine. This is a discussion, nothing more, so relax.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Viscus

[Viscus]

Thanks for all the great responses in this thread. It seems most people are sceptical to the notion of this site adopting accessibility and communication as prime directives in its development. Others are more open and positive to it. I think we will have plenty to discusw after the update and I am looking forward to it.

 

Again, I should mention that I hope the layout will be close to http://www.geocaching.se/. Any agreements/disagreements or comments on that, for the meantime?

 

Not sure if you saw my comments above. I mentioned that I felt the layout was fairly easy to figure out even for new folks, but I hate the color scheme (too dark), and I don't like the gigantic top banner. Again, it's an okay layout, but I'm not thrilled or anything.

The colourscheme can be changed. I agree with you; it looks more like a site for anarchists judging by the presentation. But again, it can be changed. The banner as well. But the main point was rhe layout which is intuitive and informative.

[+Team Van Dyk]

Alright, I've read this entire thread and while it's clear that there is a contingent (maybe even a majority) of long-time geocachers that would prefer to NOT have any Facebook or Twitter integration, the question remains, "why not?". I realize this is my first post, and I realize that there are strongly held views here, but please hear me out.

 

Where is the harm in providing users the OPTION of connecting their Facebook and/or Twitter accounts to their GC account for purposes of either (a) tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook automatically, or ( better yet, selectively tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook on a case-by-case basis (preferably via a toggle option on the log page in the app)? Since it would be an option, it would be purely optional; no one would be required to connect their Facebook or Twitter accounts if they didn't want to (or didn't have one); as such, providing the option would not seem to impact the anti-FB/Twitter crowd in any appreciable way whatsoever.

 

So, where's the harm in that? The best I can come up with is that permitting such social network broadcasts may act as an advertisement for the game resulting in an influx of new users. At first blush, this may seem like a good thing, but I can see a fairly compelling argument for it being a bad thing. Since the geocaching universe exists in the real world and most new users are much more likely to be finders-only, it's unlikely it would be able to "scale up" sufficiently to handle a large influx of new users without doing damage to the game. Moreover, there's a not-insignificant learning curve involved in geocaching "correctly", and were there to be a large influx of new users, there would almost certainly be an increased number of etiquette "issues".

 

That said, I'm guessing here since those who have objected to the notion in this thread have been a bit "light" on compelling rationale for their objection. So again, I'd ask the more seasoned folks to advise on the reason behind their objection. I surely hope it's not a general curmudgeon/luddite sentiment that certain folks simply don't want more people playing "their" game...although, if I'm honest, it kind of looks that way.

[+tozainamboku]

And if you don't like the changes you will be labeled a troublemaker who is afraid of change and eventually told to shut up.

Not true. As few as 200 regular users can get a change undone.

[+Don_J]

Alright, I've read this entire thread and while it's clear that there is a contingent (maybe even a majority) of long-time geocachers that would prefer to NOT have any Facebook or Twitter integration, the question remains, "why not?". I realize this is my first post, and I realize that there are strongly held views here, but please hear me out.

 

Where is the harm in providing users the OPTION of connecting their Facebook and/or Twitter accounts to their GC account for purposes of either (a) tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook automatically, or ( better yet, selectively tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook on a case-by-case basis (preferably via a toggle option on the log page in the app)? Since it would be an option, it would be purely optional; no one would be required to connect their Facebook or Twitter accounts if they didn't want to (or didn't have one); as such, providing the option would not seem to impact the anti-FB/Twitter crowd in any appreciable way whatsoever.

 

So, where's the harm in that? The best I can come up with is that permitting such social network broadcasts may act as an advertisement for the game resulting in an influx of new users. At first blush, this may seem like a good thing, but I can see a fairly compelling argument for it being a bad thing. Since the geocaching universe exists in the real world and most new users are much more likely to be finders-only, it's unlikely it would be able to "scale up" sufficiently to handle a large influx of new users without doing damage to the game. Moreover, there's a not-insignificant learning curve involved in geocaching "correctly", and were there to be a large influx of new users, there would almost certainly be an increased number of etiquette "issues".

 

That said, I'm guessing here since those who have objected to the notion in this thread have been a bit "light" on compelling rationale for their objection. So again, I'd ask the more seasoned folks to advise on the reason behind their objection. I surely hope it's not a general curmudgeon/luddite sentiment that certain folks simply don't want more people playing "their" game...although, if I'm honest, it kind of looks that way.

 

Most of the long term site users are not anti-social, but have a high sense of online privacy. Groundspeak has a bad reputation of implementing "features" that the user is not allowed to opt out of. I think a lot of us were surprised when they implemented "Stats" and actually allowed their users to opt out.

 

Currently, there are three major projects that are underway. Making the beta maps full featured and phasing out the db intensive present maps, adding "Favorites" criteria to Pocket Query's, (or perhaps a major overhaul, and finalizing the long awaited API for third party programs.

 

Meanwhile, the site has been experiencing major problems for the last five weeks. One of it's major features has been disabled for over a week.

 

While some wants the Lackeys to create a social network out of the site, or make major visual changes, the rest of us are hoping that the Lackeys are working on ways to make the site function properly and are implementing changes that help us find and get Geocache listings onto our GPSrs.

 

To repeat my prior post. This site is here to help me find geocaches, not geocachers.

[+Don_J]

And if you don't like the changes you will be labeled a troublemaker who is afraid of change and eventually told to shut up.

Not true. As few as 200 regular users can get a change undone.

 

200? I thought it was 800.

 

All I can say is if they ever introduce integration with Facebook and such, I hope that they allow an opt out that makes it completely disappear from my monitor.

[+TomToad]

 

Where is the harm in providing users the OPTION of connecting their Facebook and/or Twitter accounts to their GC account for purposes of either (a) tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook automatically, or ( better yet, selectively tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook on a case-by-case basis (preferably via a toggle option on the log page in the app)? Since it would be an option, it would be purely optional; no one would be required to connect their Facebook or Twitter accounts if they didn't want to (or didn't have one); as such, providing the option would not seem to impact the anti-FB/Twitter crowd in any appreciable way whatsoever.

 

many people cache from work, many people cache from school. Adding anything facebook, twitter, myspace, etc... would probably cause difficulty for those working in "No social networking" zones. If you did read the entire thread, you would've seen where I mentioned a teacher and her class were affected just by adding a "Like" button. I don't mind the idea of making GC more social, but only if it is kept separate from other sites. If you must post your cache finds on Facebook, learn to copy/paste the link.

[+Team Van Dyk]

To repeat my prior post. This site is here to help me find geocaches, not geocachers.

 

Fair enough, but permitting users to broadcast their finds to their social networks (external to the site) has nothing to do with "finding geocachers" or the core functionality of the site. Indeed, that level of integration wouldn't make it any easier to "find geocachers" than it is right now.

 

As for the concern that facebook/twitter integration in the manner I described would divert resources from fixing the current site issues, I haven't been around long enough to know if that's a realistic concern, but if it is, I agree entirely. Fix functionality issues first, address social networking integration second, and site navigation issues third (I didn't mention this one in my post, but at some point, the site does need a bit of an overhaul; it's not exactly user-friendly). But, saying "don't add these features until you've fixed what's broken" is materially different than "don't add these at all".

 

As an aside, I did not mean to imply that the "old timers" are anti-social (and looking back, I don't think I did), but I apologize if it could have been interpreted that way.

 

Thanks for the response Don!

 

--Matt

[+Team Van Dyk]

many people cache from work, many people cache from school. Adding anything facebook, twitter, myspace, etc... would probably cause difficulty for those working in "No social networking" zones. If you did read the entire thread, you would've seen where I mentioned a teacher and her class were affected just by adding a "Like" button. I don't mind the idea of making GC more social, but only if it is kept separate from other sites. If you must post your cache finds on Facebook, learn to copy/paste the link.

 

There's no conceivable reason permitting users the OPTION of enabling the sharing options I describe in their settings should cause the site to be treated any differently under "many people's" IT policies. If it causes an overzealous IT Department to block the site, so be it; restricting site functionality out of a largely baseless fear of getting the site blocked by corporate filters is a little tinfoil-hat-type nuts. Fact is, permitting the EXTERNAL sharing OPTIONS I describe would not, in any way, change the functionality of the GC site itself or convert it into a social networking site. That is, my suggestion would not cause the site to violate a "no social networking" policy any more than it already does.

 

Re the snarky copy/paste remark, that's cute, but not consistent with the way the interwebs works today.

 

--matt

[+Don_J]

many people cache from work, many people cache from school. Adding anything facebook, twitter, myspace, etc... would probably cause difficulty for those working in "No social networking" zones. If you did read the entire thread, you would've seen where I mentioned a teacher and her class were affected just by adding a "Like" button. I don't mind the idea of making GC more social, but only if it is kept separate from other sites. If you must post your cache finds on Facebook, learn to copy/paste the link.

 

There's no conceivable reason permitting users the OPTION of enabling the sharing options I describe in their settings should cause the site to be treated any differently under "many people's" IT policies. If it causes an overzealous IT Department to block the site, so be it; restricting site functionality out of a largely baseless fear of getting the site blocked by corporate filters is a little tinfoil-hat-type nuts. Fact is, permitting the EXTERNAL sharing OPTIONS I describe would not, in any way, change the functionality of the GC site itself or convert it into a social networking site. That is, my suggestion would not cause the site to violate a "no social networking" policy any more than it already does.

 

Re the snarky copy/paste remark, that's cute, but not consistent with the way the interwebs works today.

 

--matt

 

When Groundspeak experimented with the Facebook "Like" button, last year, there were dozens of people coming here to complain that they could no longer load a cache page in their browsers. I suspect that most of these restrictions have been lifted in the past year as it would be impossible to navigate the web without stumbling onto a page that doesn't have some sort of Facebook on it.

[+Team Van Dyk]

When Groundspeak experimented with the Facebook "Like" button, last year, there were dozens of people coming here to complain that they could no longer load a cache page in their browsers. I suspect that most of these restrictions have been lifted in the past year as it would be impossible to navigate the web without stumbling onto a page that doesn't have some sort of Facebook on it.

 

I see. Yes, I would imagine that those restrictions have eased dramatically. The www would be largely unusable if every page with Like or "Share to Facebook" or "Recommend" or Tweet were blocked. And, again, if some IT department decides to block pages on that basis, that's hardly something Groundspeak should concern itself with on a policy basis.

 

--Matt

 

P.S. For the record, the share options I'm suggesting is, essentially, a switch in the user account settings that uses the FB or Twitter API. This would not result in anything whatsoever appearing on any of the cache or profile pages (i.e. this is not the same as adding a "Like" button). So, even if you had such an overzealous IT department, that risk is even lower than it would've been with a Like button.

[+tozainamboku]

There's no conceivable reason permitting users the OPTION of enabling the sharing options I describe in their settings should cause the site to be treated any differently under "many people's" IT policies. If it causes an overzealous IT Department to block the site, so be it; restricting site functionality out of a largely baseless fear of getting the site blocked by corporate filters is a little tinfoil-hat-type nuts.

The fact is however that some businesses and schools see Facebook and other social networking sites as eating into productivity. They block these sites because they don't want employees and students spending time on them when internet access is provide specifically for doing work or research. Of course most of these place would not want people visiting Geocaching.com either, but Geocaching can sometime fly under the radar.

 

The problem with the Facebook like button is that it is a frame with Facebook content. Facebook can put content in the like button frame customized for a facebook users. The methods used to block sites tended to not allow a page with a frame that was from an other site. Some IT departments block all sites like this as a security risk. The share on facebook button is just an image and with a hyperlink and does not seem to cause the problems that the like button causes.

 

Fact is, permitting the EXTERNAL sharing OPTIONS I describe would not, in any way, change the functionality of the GC site itself or convert it into a social networking site. That is, my suggestion would not cause the site to violate a "no social networking" policy any more than it already does.

Other than the site getting blocked and some people who hate anything Facebook, I agree with this. I don't have a Facebook account, but I took the time to find out what the Like button does during the period that it was on the cache pages. It seemed to me a very unobtrusive way for people who did use Facebook to let their Facebook friends see what caches they were looking at and found interesting. Some may have used it like a favorites button to let Facebook friend know they like a cache. Other may have used it as a to do list - telling their friends "here's and interesting cache, lets get together to hunt it". What makes the like button useful is that when a friend likes something you see which of your friends likes it. I have to click on the favorites button on a cache to see if any of the favorites are from my friends. If Don_J favorited the cache, I'm more likely to enjoy it.

 

A few years ago, Geocaching implemented its own friends system. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything. If there is really an objection to having integration to Facebook, Twitter, and other sites; then at least Groundspeak ought to provide some functionality to their own friends system. The most often ask for capability is to get a pocket query of caches that neither you or your friend(s) have found. But other options are: ability to track friends activity (notification when friends log a cache), notification when a friend adds a favorite, ability to share additional information with friends that you would not want to share with the general public (real name, email, IM, etc.)