New Nearest Cache Page (Observations)

1.5k · June 16, 2003

I just thought of something. Isn't the bracketed X/not-X a bit redundant whan on the opposite side of the page you have a green text showing when YOU found the cache?

Brian

Team A.I.

June 16, 2003

Here is my latest problem after deleting cookies and trying to login I can no longer search for caches at all. Anyone have a suggestion on how I deal with the following message on my screen. To me it the message says server side, not my side:

Server Error in '/' Application.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

Stack Trace:

[NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.]

Geocaching.UI.WebformBase.IsLoggedIn() +622

Geocaching.UI.geocaching_nearest.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) +171

System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +67

System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +35

System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain() +747

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.573

3.1k · June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kite & Hawkeye:
I'm a bit confused as to one thing: when I look up my public profile, and click on the number of caches I've found, I often like to skim for ones that have been found since I found them, to read the new logs. When I do this now, though, in the "Last Found" column, the green and the black dates always match. Both dates indicate the date *I* found the cache. I thought the black 'last found' date was supposed to be the objective 'last date anyone found the cache,' not a me-specific date (that's what the green date is for). I know many of the caches in this list were found more recently than the black date indicates. And I'd much prefer the actual DATE on either/both of these displays, not "two months ago." I don't know how much of that's a server load issue, though.

Ditto this whole thing.

Other than that, fixes that have already been deemed doable in this thread will make me happy.

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MO & GO:
The only other suggestion would be in the Last Found column to have the actual dates rather than 10 months ago, 23 days ago...

MO & GO

Ditto here. One other suggestion: Also somehow indicate the caches I've _hidden_. Right now they look just like any other cache.

Thanks for the great work, Jeremy!

Steve

June 16, 2003

I've noticed that it is still possible to use URL query strings on the new search page...examples...

?ul=username for all caches found by a user

?u=username for all caches hidden by a user

?acode=### for all caches in a U.S. area code

?key=keyword for all caches containing the keyword

However, if I do a search for ul=Nothlit, to see all the caches I've found (yes, I realize I could just go to My Cache Page, but humor me for a moment) then both the black "public" and green "private" last found dates on each cache are identical, even if someone else has found the cache since I did. If I perform a search from my home coordinates, the black and green dates are different as they should be, if someone else has found the cache after I did. (Jeremy, is this what you meant by "2. For caches found (by username), if the query is for your finds, show the last found date for the cache and not of the user." at the beginning of this thread? If so, my apologies for rehashing something that's already been brought up.)

Not sure if you still want us to use query strings like this, Jeremy, but I thought I would point this out...

Edit: A couple more things I just remembered... I wholeheartedly agree with others who have suggested that instead of a select-only-one dropdown list of cache types, we should be able to select multiple cache types to search for, either from a list of checkboxes or from a list that allows Ctrl+clicking to select multiple options. Also, I keep getting thrown off by the fact that when I change from "By Postal Code" to any of the other search methods, the page has to reload before I can type my search query into the text box. Sometimes it takes a couple of seconds for the page to reload, and I've already typed my search term, only to lose it because I forgot that the page has to reload first. Is there an absolute need for this, or is it something I'm just going to have to get used to?

The more I use this new interface, the more I like it, but a few tweaks like this could make it even better.

---

Grove City College

[This message was edited by Nothlit on June 16, 2003 at 11:56 AM.]

June 16, 2003

Not sure if this was mentioned here, have not had time to read everything yet. I enjoy going over my found list and seeing what was found recently without haveing them in my watch list. On my found list (profile, caches found/hid), the last found and I found times are the same even if I found it 18 months ago and the cache was last found yesterday. Hoping it to be just a bug. Thanks.

Car37 & Shnde

1.4k · June 16, 2003

Thank you, Jeremy & crew! I love the ability to filter out all of my hides & finds! It drops the number of pages I have to click through by about 2/3 for a 100 mile search.

Thanks for your ongoing efforts to improve this feature & to work out bugs. The only requests I have would be to return the "watch list" indicator, and to give the ability to save the search parameters. I use the "watch list" to indicate to myself which cache pages I've already printed but haven't hunted yet.

You guys are awesome! Thanks!

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by slegal:
Here is my latest problem after deleting cookies and trying to login I can no longer search for caches at all. Anyone have a suggestion on how I deal with the following message on my screen. To me it the message says server side, not my side:

Server Error in '/' Application.

I'm having a similar problem with my Danger Hiptop / T-Mobile Sidekick browser. Looks like it's strangly pushing "/./" in the url.

I'm very curious: What browser are you using, slegal?

-Aaron

June 16, 2003

I liked the idea, at first, of indicating the found vs not found by color on the nearest cache page. But then I realized that I tend to print black & white most of the time - so some sort of graphical indicator is still necessary.

Oh - and someone recently said that the green indicator of the date of my find is plenty instead of a checkbox to show I found it. Well, honestly, the green doesn't look very green on my page. The font is too skinny such that the color isn't very bold. Plus, there is my above comment about printing in black and white. I really liked the idea of a big checkmark instead of an X in the box to indicate found.

I really like the idea of something we can save in our profile that says how we like our search to come up when first clicked on from the My Profile page. Having to go to the New Search every time is a little silly and goes against what folks were trying to avoid by making this upgrade - there will be at least double the searches from me being sent to the servers.

Respectfully submitted (Jeremy's doing things on this virtually free service (admit it, many non-members: you spend more on coffee in a day than the membership would cost you in a month) that I am incapable of doing. I am thankful that it is available to feed my addiction. Heartfelt thanks.),

Hilary

UPSCWRU (University of Puget Sound, Case Western Reserve University)

June 16, 2003

Thanks a lot Jeremy - once the changes you've already agreed to are done this version will be way better than the old one. A few comments to record my opinions:

- Most of my searches are either 'nearest from home coords' on My Cache Page, or 'neaby caches' on a cache page, so having the found/owned filter work from those places would be ideal.

- Some people would prefer the actual Last Found date, but I much prefer the days/months ago approach. I'd guess that the actual date would take less server side work, but this new way saves me from having to figure it out myself. If I want specifics I can go to the cache page, but this gives me a good 'at a glance' indication of how long ago it was found without having to do a mental date comparison.

- In general I think you're time is better spent making it easier to filter searches, so people get only what they want, rather than ways to distinguish within a result set that contains too much data. If the stuff you're not interested in isn't in the list, being able to distinguish it becomes moot.

Just my thoughts, and again, thanks for the constant work to improve your incredible site.

SylvrStorm

*** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

June 16, 2003

I hate change.

Please stop.

Thank you.

June 16, 2003

Hmm. I also got an exception error last night. Thought it was a one time event and things appeared to work on second try ... and after clearing cookies and cache history.

[This message was edited by GPS_Brian on June 16, 2003 at 01:21 PM.]

[This message was edited by GPS_Brian on June 16, 2003 at 01:26 PM.]

June 16, 2003

Hi!

quote:
Originally posted by rickrich:
Imagine a system where the geocache database is scalably distributed across the computers of all users, instead of the current unscalable

centralized system.

There has already been thoughts about building a distributed database. This would allow cachers to 'own' there own data - meaning the data could be used by the community through defined interfaces instead of having to spider the data from here... ;-(

You might like to look for some older postings in the usenet newsgroup - google is your friend. Or contact me, I'll find the post for you.

I definitely like the idea. GC.com would then use _this_ data as everyone else. And it would build it's leadership on usability and service, not on the simple fact, that they 'own' the data.

Greetings

Nicola

June 16, 2003

Was having problems logging in and editing my caches but have resolve it by bouncing through things. Like the new format.. great job..

[This message was edited by geosync on June 16, 2003 at 04:06 PM.]

June 16, 2003

In general I like the new layout and I really like the speed!! As with a lot of folks, I would like to be able to add your list of filters under the "My Cache Page" search for nearest from my house. Maybe the filters can be added as hidden field in our profile page. One other item I would like to see added if possible, (not something caused by your changes) would be the ability of the cache owner to see who has put a cache on their watch list. I am not angry that someone is watching my cache, I am just curious to know who they are. Overall, it is a good change.

Thanks, Wayne

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by enfanta:
I hate change.

Please stop.

Thank you.

I'm guessing that if the old was the new and the new was the old this thread would look pretty much like it does now.

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by s4xton:

quote:
Originally posted by slegal:
Here is my latest problem after deleting cookies and trying to login I can no longer search for caches at all. Anyone have a suggestion on how I deal with the following message on my screen. To me it the message says server side, not my side:

Server Error in '/' Application.

I'm having a similar problem with my Danger Hiptop / T-Mobile Sidekick browser. Looks like it's strangly pushing "/./" in the url.

I'm very curious: What browser are you using, slegal?

-Aaron

IE 5.0

June 16, 2003

Where is the View by state map??????? I REALLY used that esp. when we went on trips to search along routes.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

June 16, 2003

The page does look good and loads alot faster, have to get use to it. I have only seen 2 problems, 1 I mentioned before. When looking up from my profile, my finds, the how long ago was found is both for mine and not for the recent so both last founds and the same number and nothing for the recent. I have also noticed that I am missing a cache on my search with no filters. From postal code E3N 1W3, Miss Ketoe (GC7142) is not in the list, from the coords of my fathers place, it is the last cache listed. From the Postal Code it would be missed but now that the search is 150miles, it should be well in there. Do not know if there are any others not showing up, but I can only get the cache if I look up the cache itself, not on a postal code or lat/long search at all. The cache has not been archived, just cannot see it, I have not found it yet and it is not my own.

Car37 & Shnde

June 16, 2003

I have tried everything about 5 times. I simply cannot log onto the cache search pages. I can't log a find. I can't do anything. I never had a problem under the old set up. It's never worked since the new one came about. I have deleted cookies, history, temporary files, closed the browser, reopen, restarted. Absolutely nothing works!

Scott

5.3k · June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
Where is the View by state map??????? I REALLY used that esp. when we went on trips to search along routes.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

ALABAMA State Map

From the main page, select the state in the box on the top right. Then click the MAP link at the top of the next page.

OR

http://www.geocaching.com/map/XX.asp

(replace XX with the state)

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

June 16, 2003

First off, Jeremy, you are the BOMB! Thanks so much for doing all this work to make our geocaching experience so much better!

For all you people out there who have posted complaining that the old format was better and saying "I just can't see how the old category system was slowing down the server", well, you're not web and database programmers, are you? When Jeremy said, SEVERAL TIMES, that it would be impossible to go back to the old system whereby caches are sorted by Not Found / Found / Hidden / Archived, he didn't say that just to p1ss you off! It's not practical to go back to the old way without increasing server load 75%, hence crashing the server often. Who wants an awesome website that isn't running?

And, if you want to know the reason for the change, here's the most likely answer: for each and every Search Results page for a logged-in member, the Server must query the database FOUR times! Four queries (for Not Found / Found / Hidden / Archived) means the server has to do FOUR times the amount of backend processing. After it makes the first query, it must sort the results, build that into a part of the web page, and then move on to the next query for the next category, repeat, repeat...

Just by saying YOU can't see why the new system must be used doesn't mean there isn't a VERY good reason for that change. Unless you're a SQL database guru who can tell Jeremy how to do the impossible, just deal with it; I'm sure he and his team have tried everything possible to avoid the change.

Further, by now allowing you to Hide your Found and Hidden caches, you will always have a list of 20 caches on your FIRST Search Results page of caches for you to do. This means LESS hits on the server as you have to surf from page to page to page to page looking for caches you haven't done. (Some of the ubercachers have told me they have 300! such pages with no caches that haven't been found by them! They are all Finds or Hiddens.) This will seriously lighten the load on the server and free up bandwidth!!

That said (and accepting that the new system WILL be final), there's certainly much room for little improvements on the little features that make the pages more friendly, nearly all which have already been thrown about in this thread.

Here's my recap of what would be awesome if changed:

- The color & graphic icon scheme would be much much appreciated! It is REALLY hard to look at X's, and seeing your own Hidden caches appear as Not Found's is just wrong (although you can eliminate these Hiddens and Founds using the advanced search).

- As mentioned in a previous post, many of us do our search from our My Cache Page. From there, we click on "Search for nearest caches from your home coordinates". If you click this, you get a search results page that is NOT filtered by eliminating Founds and Caches you've hidden, and it is also not filtered by the other criteria possible in the new "New Search" page, such as for "Traditional Caches" plus "MultiCaches" (which would need to be done with checkboxes, as previous discussed in other posts). To fix this, it would be pretty darn cool if you could add something into our "Account Information" settings page which allowed us to set our "Default" settings... i.e. Default to never show Hidden/Found items, along with other criteria. This would ALSO improve server performance because it would be three or four less pages for someone to wade through, causing many less hits on the server! Although Jeremy and others have said you can just start from the geocaching home page, go to advanced search, type zip code, etc. etc., it would have to be a much smaller drain on the server to already have your preferences set and all wrapped into one click from your My Cache Page.

- When you check the box to exclude Hides/Finds, it would be REALLY COOL to also exclude Archived caches at the same time, since there's no point in showing a cache that is unavailable. This would return a "pure" results list of the 20 nearest caches you haven't found!

Things that are much better now:

- The speed has Definitely increased, and I have DSL. The server has clearly less of a load on it.

- I LOVE the new page number system (< 1 2 3 ... &gt That will obviously speed up searching AND require less hits on the server.

- I also appreciate the change from having to click the [details] text before to view the cache. It is MUCH more intutive to have the cache name a hyperlink. That said, there DOES seem to be a flaw in the style sheet which makes page links you've already visited not-bold, whereas page links you haven't visited bold. These should just always be bold. (Check the Active, Hover, Link, and Visited settings in the style sheet).

Things that will be fixed soon, or new suggestions:

- Although I've also experienced the "log out" problem, just let Jeremy get it fixed without bugging him again and again.

- When the programming team has some more free time, it would be incredible nice to be able to customize the basic look of the Search Results page, using style sheets, possibly with your settings stored in a cookie.

- On top of everything here, many people would also love to see an "Ignore Cache" item when you LOG a find on the Cache Log Page. There are many caches many members simply don't want to do. By marking them in the Log as Ignored, they will never bother us again!

Misc:

Someone also mentioned (Kablooey?) that they coudn't download Waypoints into EasyGPS format because the checkbox was no longer there... I still see the checkbox on my screen for each cache on the Search Results page. At the bottom is a button which says "Download Waypoints" to download as one file all boxes you've checked. Maybe it's not showing up on yours for some reason?

Thanks again, Geocaching.com Team!! We all look forward to the new improved site! Sorry for the long long post, but I wanted to also throw in my 2 cents, or 200 cents, as the case may be.

June 16, 2003

Jeremy,

Thanks for the hard work on these search pages. They really are an improvement.

Please forgive me if any of these were mentioned, but the thread is getting kind of long...

1. I think it would be cool if the list had the coordinates included. Although I print or download the pages with the coordinates, it would be great to have a simple list of "un-found" caches with coordinates. Something small and simple would be fine.

2. Have a way to filter disabled caches. (I think someone else may have said that already...)

3. Somehow have the home coordinates as an automatic option for this filtering system rather than having to enter them into the coordinates box. The "search from home coordinates" now mixes found and un-found caches. In the past, I'd only print a few pages of the top of the list in order to exclude my found caches. Now I have to print them all, or go to the filtering page and type in my home coordinates. Not a big deal but...

P.S. What my heart most dearly desires is the long-awaited, new State Map pages. That was the most powerful means of searching for clusters of un-found caches. Now all the cache symbols look the same and I can't tell whether they are ones I've found or not.

Parsa

June 16, 2003

Hello Jeremy,

The new cachepages for Belgium needs some attention. I'm having some problems with searching for Belgian caches.

I can only search for caches in Belgium that have a state/province filled in while most of the caches here don't have that information. Being such a small country filling in that information just doesn't make much sense.

So I think the best way to do this, is to skip this option.

Is there any way to change this to the situation in for example the Netherlands,

where you just get a -not appicable- in the state/province box ?

At this moment only 15 caches are selectable out of +/- 200...

Thanks in advanse,

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chrissy_Skyking & Blaze:
First off, Jeremy, you are the BOMB! Thanks so much for doing all this work to make our geocaching experience so much better!

For all you people out there who have posted complaining that the old format was better and saying "_I just can't see how the old category system was slowing down the server_", well, you're not web and database programmers, are you? When Jeremy said, SEVERAL TIMES, that it would be impossible to go back to the old system whereby caches are sorted by Not Found / Found / Hidden / Archived, he didn't say that just to p1ss you off! It's not practical to go back to the old way without increasing server load 75%, hence crashing the server often. Who wants an awesome website that isn't running?

And, if you want to know the reason for the change, here's the most likely answer: for each and every Search Results page for a logged-in member, the Server must query the database FOUR times! Four queries (for Not Found / Found / Hidden / Archived) means the server has to do FOUR times the amount of backend processing. After it makes the first query, it must sort the results, build that into a part of the web page, and then move on to the next query for the next category, repeat, repeat...

Just by saying _YOU_ can't see why the new system must be used doesn't mean there isn't a VERY good reason for that change. Unless you're a SQL database guru who can tell Jeremy how to do the impossible, just deal with it; I'm sure he and his team have tried everything possible to avoid the change.

Further, by now allowing you to Hide your Found and Hidden caches, you will always have a list of 20 caches on your FIRST Search Results page of caches for you to do. This means LESS hits on the server as you have to surf from page to page to page to page looking for caches you haven't done. (Some of the ubercachers have told me they have 300! such pages with no caches that haven't been found by them! They are all Finds or Hiddens.) This will _seriously_ lighten the load on the server and free up bandwidth!!

That said (and accepting that the new system WILL be final), there's certainly much room for little improvements on the little features that make the pages more friendly, nearly all which have already been thrown about in this thread.

Here's my recap of what would be awesome if changed:

- The color & graphic icon scheme would be much much appreciated! It is REALLY hard to look at X's, and seeing your own Hidden caches appear as Not Found's is just wrong (although you can eliminate these Hiddens and Founds using the advanced search).

- As mentioned in a previous post, many of us do our search from our _My Cache Page_. From there, we click on "Search for nearest caches from your home coordinates". If you click this, you get a search results page that is NOT filtered by eliminating Founds and Caches you've hidden, and it is also not filtered by the other criteria possible in the new "New Search" page, such as for "Traditional Caches" plus "MultiCaches" (which would need to be done with checkboxes, as previous discussed in other posts). To fix this, it would be pretty darn cool if you could add something into our "Account Information" settings page which allowed us to set our "Default" settings... i.e. Default to never show Hidden/Found items, along with other criteria. This would ALSO improve server performance because it would be three or four less pages for someone to wade through, causing many less hits on the server! Although Jeremy and others have said you can just start from the geocaching home page, go to advanced search, type zip code, etc. etc., it would have to be a much smaller drain on the server to already have your preferences set and all wrapped into one click from your My Cache Page.

- When you check the box to exclude Hides/Finds, it would be REALLY COOL to also exclude Archived caches at the same time, since there's no point in showing a cache that is unavailable. This would return a "pure" results list of the 20 nearest caches you haven't found!

Things that are much better now:

- The speed has Definitely increased, and I have DSL. The server has clearly less of a load on it.

- I LOVE the new page number system (< 1 2 3 ... &gt That will obviously speed up searching AND require less hits on the server.

- I also appreciate the change from having to click the [details] text before to view the cache. It is MUCH more intutive to have the cache name a hyperlink. That said, there DOES seem to be a flaw in the style sheet which makes page links you've already visited not-bold, whereas page links you haven't visited bold. These should just always be bold. (Check the Active, Hover, Link, and Visited settings in the style sheet).

Things that will be fixed soon, or new suggestions:

- Although I've also experienced the "log out" problem, just let Jeremy get it fixed without bugging him again and again.

- When the programming team has some more free time, it would be incredible nice to be able to customize the basic look of the Search Results page, using style sheets, possibly with your settings stored in a cookie.

- On top of everything here, many people would also love to see an "Ignore Cache" item when you LOG a find on the Cache Log Page. There are many caches many members simply don't want to do. By marking them in the Log as Ignored, they will never bother us again!

Misc:

Someone also mentioned (Kablooey?) that they coudn't download Waypoints into EasyGPS format because the checkbox was no longer there... I still see the checkbox on my screen for each cache on the Search Results page. At the bottom is a button which says "Download Waypoints" to download as one file all boxes you've checked. Maybe it's not showing up on yours for some reason?

Thanks again, Geocaching.com Team!! We all look forward to the new improved site! Sorry for the long long post, but I wanted to also throw in my 2 cents, or 200 cents, as the case may be.

I don't have a problem with the updates if I could just log in. Clearly, there are bugs in the code that do not affect everyone, but do affect me and many people I know. I have done everything I can and still cannot get the website to acknowledge that I am logged in when I am searching for caches and when I am trying to log a find.

I recognize that there was an overhead issue and change was needed. I also recognize that those that are not having problems are singing the praises of the programmers. But if it worked for everyone before and only works for some now, it is NOT an improvement. And for the record, I do know a thing or two about SQL programming because I build websites with SQL myself.

So the bottom line is, there are too many people that have been negatively impacted by the changes to just ignore them and say that we are whining and that we don't know anything about SQL and system overhead. We need to be able to login, stay logged in, and be able to log cache finds, or geocaching just got a whole lot less popular.

Scott

June 16, 2003

I don't know if anyone has said this already (as I don't want to wade through 4 pages of replies ) - what was wrong with the old style results page? I can understand the need to have some options to select from but the results page itself was OK surely? Well, I thought it was anyway.

Regards,

Lisa

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
Where is the View by state map??????? I REALLY used that esp. when we went on trips to search along routes.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

From any cache page in your state click on State Map.

Mejas

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chrissy_Skyking & Blaze:

And, if you want to know the reason for the change, here's the most likely answer: for each and every Search Results page for a logged-in member, the Server must query the database FOUR times! Four queries (for Not Found / Found / Hidden / Archived) means the server has to do FOUR times the amount of backend processing. After it makes the first query, it must sort the results, build that into a part of the web page, and then move on to the next query for the next category, repeat, repeat...

There is no reason to execute four separate database queries in order to form the grouped web page. If that was what the old system was doing, then that is simply bad or naive programming.

There are enough geek programmers in this sport that if the source code to the servers were opened up, we could have this web site humming without having to give up useful features.

June 16, 2003

(edit: I was going to say something else, but I changed my mind.)

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by slegal:
I don't have a problem with the updates if I could just log in. Clearly, there are bugs in the code that do not affect everyone, but do affect me and many people I know. I have done everything I can and still cannot get the website to acknowledge that I am logged in when I am searching for caches and when I am trying to log a find.

You're right, and I didn't mean to suggest that the log in and STAY logged in issue isn't very very important, as you can't do very much with the site without it. I was just suggesting that we all (or some of us) may have to wait a few days to log our finds. If we write them in a paper log, we can catch up and get everything logged in as soon as its fixed. At least we can find caches in our area, and, especially, rely on Pocket Queries (the coolest thing since Geocaching) to get us the data we need.

I'd guess this problem is right on the top of the programming team's to-do list. At least I sure hope so! Especially since we're dead in the water if we can't log in!

5.9k · June 16, 2003

My 2 cents:

Dump the dropdown box and instead have checkboxes. It would have "Exclude:" and then checkboxes for "Caches I've Found", "Caches I've hidden", "Locationless", "Virtual", "Multi's", "Traditional" etc. You would simply check or uncheck the appropriate box or boxes to filter your results.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

June 16, 2003

One of the main ways that I search for caches is to click on an existing caches page and search for caches around that area. This then takes you to the search page where it the caches are not grouped like they were before. making it time consuming and confusing to quickly determine where the caches in that area are that you havent found.

I like how you can have the ability to filter out caches that you have found/hidden.

But when you click on nearby caches from an existing page is now useless with this new search.

Is there a way to make the new search work for this?

June 16, 2003

quote:
There are enough geek programmers in this sport that if the source code to the servers were opened up, we could have this web site humming without having to give up useful features.

It would be nice to let everyone help, that's for sure, knowing all the work Jeremy and the rest of the team are putting into this. However, I suppose that letting everyone put their hand in the cookie jar could be a bit distracting.

I'm a part-time SQL database and web programmer, like others who have posted on this forum. So, whether or not I was correct on my logic as to why the Results Pages needed to be changed, I'm confident in saying that it was done for a very good (and probably irrefutable) reason.

1.8k · June 16, 2003

First, let me say that any change that keeps the site up and running should take precedence over anything that makes the site usable. I can understand that sorting the pages into not found / found / hidden may take extra processing time that makes it slower for everybody. Certainly, my main use of the nearest cache page was to find the nearest caches to an existing cache, and I'm not able to have my ''founds'' buried at the bottom any more.

I'll also point out, as others have, that a lot of the concerns that people are expressing are, in large part, due to the fact that the pages aren't what they're used to. Change is difficult to adapt to sometimes, especially with a web layout that you've used for months and months and months. E-bay's recent design changes illustrate this well -- Google for it and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Once I got over the initial change, three things struck me, as the did many others on this thread.

1) The X-in-brackets didn't mean anything to me at first glance. It wasn't until I saw a few of them, checked the caches that they were marked with, and tossed it around my brain a bit, that I realized that X-in-bracket meant 'found'. We've got a better icon than that: the smilie.

2) Yes, I miss having the caches sorted by found / not found / hidden, but the suggestion of color would work well. As one other person on this thread wrote, if you do use color, use it sparingly, and don't try to make a red/green distinction -- a significant portion of the population is color blind.

3) The green text on the right took literally took me about three visits to the site to figure out. There was nothing to indicate that the green text indicated the last time I had found the cache. A simple two word heading would fix this.

Here's a mock-up that I came up with, incorporating these three suggestions, which I don't think would add anything to the back-end processing needs.

As I mentioned to Jeremy more than a year ago, I've found geocaching.com to be one of the most straightforward, usable sites on the net. Its great use of white-space (green-space?), its uncluttered layout, and it's consistent look-and-feel are certainly no accident.

The new Nearest Cache pages do use up some of this white space, and do have a slightly more cluttered layout, but do so with the benefit of having additional useful information.

I particularly like the

Prev. << <[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10]> >> Next

bar and the fact that it now shows who I'm logged in as.

(Heck -- I guess it wouldn't hurt to toss in some credentials here... my day job is designing electronic and paper forms for a Fortune 200 company, which, essentially, is creating usable user interfaces on a daily basis.)

WWJD? JW RTFM.

June 16, 2003

quote:
Here's http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8EvuPoCZs1ttksGamRPtP6uxx7aGDTfqVM9kzcPczCALu6c_ZVwlp6NQcRIlo_9NcYTXZefHyLvLEWp1/GeoUse1.htm that I came up with, incorporating these three suggestions, which I don't think would add anything to the back-end processing needs.

That's a very nice mockup... good example of how it could work. I also 2nd (3rd, 15th?) the motion that the pages should be altered to work similarly to your mockup. It shouldn't be much more effort on the server while imparting information in several different ways for the quick glance.

June 16, 2003

quote:
As one other person on this thread wrote, if you do use color, use it sparingly, and don't try to make a red/green distinction -- a significant portion of the population is color blind.

Keep in mind that isn't the only bad combination for color blind people. Dark yellow/light green and blue/purple are also often indistinguishable. (I know from personal experience.)

quote:
Here's a mock-up that I came up with, incorporating these three suggestions, which I don't think would add anything to the back-end processing needs.

After looking at this mockup, while not my preferred, I can certainly be happy with this format.

Greg

June 16, 2003

Maybe this has already been addressed, but I would like to see a symbol on the left to compliment the [X] that tells me which caches I've placed. When I scan the page the ones I've placed and the ones I haven't found appear the same - although it only takes a second to read the title and see it's mine, it would be nice to have that little [] feature! Thanks

June 16, 2003

I noticed that when I do a search from my home coordinates, the "last found" dates correctly distinguish between the last date found at all (black) and the date I found it (green). It's only when I click through my public page via my "found" number that the black and green dates become the same number, both being the date I found it.

I'm liking the format more and more, the more I use it. Hope this is a simple bug that will be easily fixed.

June 16, 2003

Found another bug in the search results display. (Aside: Is there somewhere else I should be reporting these?)

Search from coordinates N38 51.035 W094 46.548. Go to page 15 of the results. The 14th item, "Rest / West" (GC3C63) is reported as being "103.5 mi 360*", as opposed to "103.5 mi N". (The asterisk in there is mine; I don't know if I can jam HTML entities in here, and I'm too lazy to experiment with it.) Similarly, the 20th item, "Zinger One" (GC199A) is reported as being "104.1 mi -1*".

Roundoff errors and/or floating-point corner conditions?

9.4k · June 16, 2003

I did some work to alleviate some of the memory issues we had over the weekend, and while doing so added two more options for the nearest cache page. I'll be working on other bits as I go.

Add f=1 if you want to filter out caches you have hidden and found from a search query. Like so:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?zip=98008&dist=100&f=1

zip = zipcode

dist = distance in miles (max 150)

f = filter type 1 (filter all)

Also, when you do a search of caches found and the person you're searching on is you, it will show your find date below the date it was last found above.

More changes coming. The most important thing is I adjusted the server so it will no longer cause a headache with sessions when I make quick changes to the code.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.6k · June 16, 2003

Now we're talking! Bookmarkable! Great addition!

CR

June 16, 2003

Well, just my .02cents worth. I really liked it when the caches were seperated by caches I have not found at the top of the page. I think something needs to be changed with the little X in the box, and it would work better in my opinion if they were seperated found/not found.

I do however like the part where it shows when you found the cache, thats pretty cool.

What about MAP PAGES?? Are they going to be up and running anytime soon? can anyone give me a timeframe on that?

Thanks,

Rusty

RW Da Man!!!

CHS#1

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
I did some work to alleviate some of the memory issues we had over the weekend, and while doing so added two more options for the nearest cache page. I'll be working on other bits as I go.

Add f=1 if you want to filter out caches you have hidden and found from a search query. Like so:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?zip=98008&dist=100&f=1

zip = zipcode

dist = distance in miles (max 150)

f = filter type 1 (filter all)

Also, when you do a search of caches found and the person you're searching on is you, it will show your find date below the date it was last found above.

More changes coming. The most important thing is I adjusted the server so it will no longer cause a headache with sessions when I make quick changes to the code.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

I'm looking forward to trying out the new features you just talked about. But it sure would be nice if you'd fix the bugs that are preventing myself and many others from logging on to the cache search pages and to be able to log caches, before you make the sorts of changes you've outlined. While those that can login are happy with the changes, people like myself would just be happy to login. Please help!

Scott

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by rusty_da_dog:
I really liked it when the caches were seperated by caches I have not found at the top of the page. I think something needs to be changed with the little X in the box, and it would work better in my opinion if they were seperated found/not found.

What about MAP PAGES?? Are they going to be up and running anytime soon? can anyone give me a timeframe on that?

I think it's been pretty well established in many, many posts on this thread that the sorting of caches by found/not-found within the search page was one of the things that was contributing to the server load, which is why it had to be changed in the first place. I doubt we'll see that feature again.

As for the maps, if you're talking about the state maps with icons for each cache...you can find those using the URL format http://www.geocaching.com/map/TX.asp (for Texas). If that's not what you were looking for, my apologies.

---

Grove City College

1.1k · June 16, 2003

First I would like to say being able to search without trashing through all the caches that you've already done is a great timesaver for the user. I hopes this also reduces the server load.

I like many others would like a check box selection of either what you do, or don't, want to display in the results.

I also like the "home coordinates" search from the "My Cache" page as it is the quickest way to do a search (other than paging past all the already found entries). Two clicks and you're off. I could live with a postal code search if that is less load on the server but you should be able to pre-define a default postal code on your profile page.

I think that both things could be accomidated by adding prefered search result checkboxes to the user's profile page. This way you still get the two click access with the reduced list size.

If you wanted to do a different type of search you could still use the "Hide and Seek" page (which doesn't have the filters yet)

Mark

June 16, 2003

I like the new pages. But they all tell me Im logged out. Even though I use "remember me" on just one computer and sign using the new sign in page. Any help?

Happy Hunting

-Amazingracer

If war protesters don't believe in violence what would they do if we punched them in the nose?

[This message was edited by Amazingracer on June 16, 2003 at 08:39 PM.]

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
1. Visit Geocaching.com

2. Click "advanced search" link on the front page.

3. Enter zipcode and click "Exclude hidden/found items from results

ok, tried it.

It's most excellent....except the 'my cache -> nearest' link doesn't do that coolness and still shows all the clutter. While I definitely appreciate the speed of the suggestion above (and the filtering of hidden/found), that's still a lot of things to enter and click.

If there was a way to save the specifications from your advanced search as the default 'my page' nearest query (or 'default search' or something like that), you'd have a winner there....

June 16, 2003

Quicker searches and more searching options. I think I could get to like these updates, but of course there are a few things I would like to see. When I do a new search and search by zip code for all cache types and exclude the ones I already found, I would also like to be able to choose a distance so that I don't get 1400 caches in the search. I like to work in radius from my zip code and enjoyed seeing searches come up with all found with in 5, 10, 15 miles as I completed each. Don't see how I can do that anymore. Along with that would be to exclude certain types of caches yet choose see mutltiple other types i.e. see micro, virtual, and traditional but not see locationless and disabled. Thanks for continuously trying to make the site better. I understand it takes time and trials to get what is best and you can never please everyone.

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MissJenn:
Question:The boldness seems random to me. It isn't related to distance or found-status. What criteria am I missing ?

This is caused when you have previously viewed a link. Cache pages that you have viewed are not bold -- cache pages that you have not viewed are bold. You've seen this phenomenon many times when the links change color, it just seems different when it changes from bold to normal.

June 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wooden_nickel:
I like to work in radius from my zip code and enjoyed seeing searches come up with all found with in 5, 10, 15 miles as I completed each. Don't see how I can do that anymore.

To filter by distance, see Jeremy's post above:

quote:
Add f=1 if you want to filter out caches you have hidden and found from a search query. Like so:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?zip=98008&dist=100&f=1

zip = zipcode

dist = distance in miles (max 150)

f = filter type 1 (filter all)

---

Grove City College

New Nearest Cache Page (Observations)

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment