Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
iryshe

New Nearest Cache Page (Observations)

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

Maybe Markwell will put an explanation of how it works after he gets it figured out in the morning icon_smile.gif


Nah. I'm having too much fun watching everyone else figure it out. icon_wink.gif
quote:
Also, I notice that you can filter Planet APE caches. Is there any reason someone would want to? Besides being hidden in an abnormally large ammo box, are they any different from any other cache hidden in an abnormally large ammo box? If I go find one, will there still be some APE memorabilia I can trade for?
Since there were only 13 to begin with and I think most of them (mine included) have rolled over into regular caches when they were adopted, it's probably not going to help. I agree with Cachew Nut here, Jeremy. Can't we change the remaining caches to traditional ones and do away with the "cache type"?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

To see how others feel about the format of the Nearest Cache page, I added a poll under Geocaching.com Discussion. Let everyone know what you think!

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post

1. Visit Geocaching.com

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

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

 

(#3 is available if you are logged in, obviously. If you aren't logged in it wouldn't make sense as an option)

 

I've already made comments on other criticisms. Please read those before repeating them.

 

Out of curiosity, what are you doing with the search results page to cause such an issue with how its laid out? The concept of the nearest cache page is to quickly search for a cache to hunt (or several caches to hunt) during a day's outing. If you plan to hunt more than, say, 5 I suggest trying a pocket query. If you want to seek out ones that you haven't found, check the box.

 

The comment about how the tool is for uber cachers is a bit silly, don't you think? A regular on again off again geocacher would be satisfied by a quick zipcode search off the main page.

 

"I liked it the way before" is pedantic, at best. Keep the comments constructive. Obviously your (constructive) input will ultimately improve the search tools.

 

Good point about the Project APE caches. I'll switch them over and remove the option.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Share this post


Link to post

this thread was too long and tedious to read all the way through, and searching didn't bring anything up so I hope I'm not repeating something thats already been discussed

 

...but has anyone else noticed that you can't press the ENTER key to do the search? It seems like pressing enter just refreshes the page. Kind of weird...but maybe its just me.

 

Happy Halloween

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Woof!:

 

...but has anyone else noticed that you can't press the ENTER key to do the search? It seems like pressing enter just refreshes the page. Kind of weird...but maybe its just me.


 

Hasn't been mentioned, but I'm investigating solutions for that one. I may be able to sort it out in the next couple of days.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Out of curiosity, what are you doing with the search results page to cause such an issue with how its laid out? The concept of the nearest cache page is to quickly search for a cache to hunt (or several caches to hunt) during a day's outing. If you plan to hunt more than, say, 5 I suggest trying a pocket query. If you want to seek out ones that you haven't found, check the box.

My standard routine has been to select my geocaching.com bookmark, and 2 clicks later I'm at the nearest cache page. No entering of zip code necessary (which has not changed). For planning a few caches for an outing, the top part of the page was perfect without needing to weed through the found ones. For following up on caches I've found to see how others are doing, the bottom part of the page was perfect without having to weed through the unfound ones. For educating friends on the wonders of geocaching, I would pick a couple found ones, describe my trips, and let them read a few of the logs, then let them choose one of the unfound ones and take them on a trip. No making sure they don't pick one with an [X]...just choose from this list. All these possibilities from the same page made easy thanks to the wonderful layout of the page. Now separate searches with the box checked/unchecked are required to do the same things. I truly will miss it!

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post

One more post for the evening. I like the idea of "create a bookmark for this query" as an option for the search results page. I'll see what I can do to implement it.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Greg_:

 

My standard routine has been to select my geocaching.com bookmark, and 2 clicks later I'm at the nearest cache page.

 

Search from my home coordinates has been discussed and will become an option on the search page.

 

quote:
For planning a few caches for an outing, the top part of the page was perfect without needing to weed through the found ones.

 

Choose the option to filter out the caches you have found.

 

quote:

For following up on caches I've found to see how others are doing, the bottom part of the page was perfect without having to weed through the unfound ones.


 

Already discussed, if search by user found is you, it will list both the time you found it and the time it was last found.

 

quote:
For educating friends on the wonders of geocaching, I would pick a couple found ones, describe my trips, and let them read a few of the logs, then let them choose one of the unfound ones and take them on a trip.

 

Give them a link to your list of caches found. Email caches you both want to seek out.

 

quote:

No making sure they don't pick one with an [X]...just choose from this list. All these possibilities made easy thanks to the wonderful layout of the page. I _truly_ will miss it!


 

Nothing you have explained so far can't be done with proposed and accepted changes already listed above.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Jeremy,

 

The new cachepages for Belgium needs some attention. When we search for caches in Belgium, we have an option to choose from 4 States.. actually we have 10 States in Belgium. But Belgium is so small. I think we can say that Belgium is even smaller than one state in the US. So I think the best way to do this, is to skip this option and that no states can be selected in Belgium...

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

 

Greetings,

 

Rovertje

www.geocache.be

 

I thought I was wrong, but I made a mistake....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Nothing you have explained so far can't be done with proposed and accepted changes already listed above.

Yes, that is correct. All the capabilities of the old site are still there, plus much more.

 

quote:
Choose the option to filter out the caches you have found.

This is what I will miss. The simplicity of the old site is gone. All these could be done from the same page without having to do separate searches and choosing different options and without having to weed through unwanted caches.

 

You now know how I feel about the issue, and I think I may be becoming an annoyance, so I'll shut up now. Despite appearances, I do honestly appreciate all the time and effort that has gone into making this website the best geocaching site on the internet by far! And I know we all have only the site's best interests in mind, even if we do disagree on the details.

 

Thanks!

Greg

Share this post


Link to post

Do you regularly censor polls? Or is this just a one time mistake?

Share this post


Link to post

It appears that some of the db info is bunged. Specifically, I am referring to who 'appears' to be the owner on 2 caches I've recently found. They are GCG93W and GCG93Y. On the search for all new geocaches in Arizona, the results page shows them as being owned by Fishkiller. However, on the cache page itself, Furry Friends is correctly listed as the owner.

 

Aside from that, I'm glad to know that the search from home coordinates option is being added back. I primarily use My Cache Page and the homepage search for Arizona under Hide & Seek A Cache to check for new caches in the area. I've only found 3 locationless caches in my geocaching history, and don't care for them, because you don't 'work' for the cache. But that's for another time. IMHO, I don't care to see them as part of my search, nor do I particularly care for having to use 'advanced search' in order to filter out caches I've hidden/found. The interfunctionality among the various search options needs to return. The 'X' option is cool, but it requires more time to process the information and decide which caches to select and download. I think it should go and the previous method of auto-filtering and segregation should be put back in place.

 

Between this and the previous site, I would say the previous. The difference is this. While slow due to load, the previous configuration was much more functional. The new version, while fast, lacks a certain functionality that provides a pleasurable web experience while searching for caches to find.

 

I do like the Last Found feature, as it can be a valuable tool in deciding whether or not to go out of your way for a cache that may be gone, but people are too afraid of logging a 'no find' for the emotional damage it will inflict on them and their stats.</breathe>

 

The color change to RED was interesting. I'm mixed as to whether or not I truly like it, but it's different.

 

This discovered after about 5 minutes or so of browsing. When I have an opportunity to spend more time looking around, I may come up with more that people HAVEN'T mentioned. icon_biggrin.gif

 

Brian

Team A.I.

Share this post


Link to post

To impove space usage you could probably drop the Placed date from the search results. Its enough to have it on the cache details page. I think the added room would be worth it.

-Jamz

PS You could probably drop the 'ago' from the Last found column. We all know it was days 'ago' icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

First of all I LIKE the new search page. Now comes the but!

 

But - I'm having severe problems with logging in/out so as to be able to view caches tailored for my userID. The only way I can achieve it is to manually delete the cookies relavent to GC/Groundspeak then login.

 

Once I login as normal (having removed the cookies) everything works fine. If I then logout I get logged out of the search page but remain logged in to everywhere else on Groundspeak. If I then try and do a search it says I'm not logged in. I then try and login but it says I'm already logged in. I then try and do a search and it says I'm not logged in!!! And so on. A bit of a catch 22.

 

Why, you might ask would I want to logout? Well other people use this PC including my son who has his own geocaching ID.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

_________________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post

Found the enter key problem. Manually read through all the way until Woof!'s post. Can't believe it took that long.

 

Similar to Rovertje suggestion, I liked the ability to see all the caches in Australia on one list. Now I have to search by state. COuld you add another option for "All States" please.

Share this post


Link to post

No checkbox for downloading to EasyGPS

 

I really miss the checkbox options for downloading waypoints from the search page. Luckily, I downloaded all 625 waypoints within 100 miles of me before the feature was disabled.

 

It was so much easier when the checkbox was available. Then I could decide which cache's to hit. First I would look at them all laid out on a map, then I would get their papers I already printed, hop over to the search page and download the waypoints for the day. Guess it doesn't make too much of a difference since I have them downloaded already...but for the original bulk download it made a huge difference.

 

________________________

I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people in the world. I'm just saying that we should remove all the warning labels from everything and let the problem take care of itself.

Share this post


Link to post

For some reason Jeremy doesn't want our opinoins on this and has locked it. Nice.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Greg_:

To see how others feel about the format of the Nearest Cache page, I added a poll under _Geocaching.com Discussion_. Let everyone know what you think!

 

Greg


Share this post


Link to post

I see the problem I reported above has already been discussed on this other thread

 

However I've tried all the suggested remedies and nothing works when I try to logout/login except deleting the cookies the re-starting my browser (IE6).

 

_________________________________________________________

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

_________________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy,

 

Sorry for the completely minor complaint before, but it would be nice to be fixed. (The goes from page 21 to page 11 and not 20 problem.)

 

I first want to say I like the new search page much better. The colors are good and the layout is good. The criticisms bad layout or design are totally offbase, the colors and the layouts are just fine. But, you have to realize people prefer different styles of layout just like they like different music.

 

Anyway, here's to some constructive remarks:

 

• The [X] does get a little lost. It's hard to distinguish from the corner of your eye as you are scanning the list. I'd suggest using graphics; an empty box for unfound, same box with a big green check mark for found, a light colored dot (yellow?) for owned. This would those easier to distinguish without having to look directly at them.

 

• I think a lot of complaining could be halted, and functionality added, if we were able to query directly from the address bar. For example, we could pass variables we want to see, or not see. Say, I wanted to see my Nearest Cache list, hide the ones I own and have found, and hide locationlesses, events, CITO, and webcams, we could post a URL of

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?zip=29483&exclude=found,owned,ll,ec,ct,wc
Plus, you could use INCLUDE and tackle it from the other way and have it parse from left to right to determine which takes precedence over the other.

 

What if a user lookup was included so we could put in our user name or ID and the program grab either our zip or coords, that would be very helpful as well.

.../nearest.aspx?A=72057&...
. This would be different from the u=72057/ul=72057 page as those tell you all of your founds/hides, not just the "nearest."

 

This would allow us to save custom bookmarks, or heck, even hook in from another site.

 

• Replace the "5 MONTHS AGO" with "5 M AGO" or something shorter to prevent wrapping. Personally, I like the number of days/months since my found date. I feel it puts things in better perspective.

 

• Style sheets: with the complaints people are having about the colors--though I think they are perfectly fine--may I suggest having the class tags something unique so people can create their own style sheets and make certain elements whatever size, color, or font they want? Only this will come come close to satisifying everyone.

 

Suggestion for unique class name, "nearestwhatever." Have a different class for each major element including TR.nearestfound, TR.nearestowned, cachename, etc. This way people can have the colors they want for each section and each element.

 

Overall, I feel this is a major improvement. I wish to thank you for all of the hard work you and your team have put in for us.

 

Kudos on the new Nearest Caches Page!

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

 

[EDIT: content, spelling]

 

[This message was edited by Sissy-n-CR on June 16, 2003 at 06:07 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy -

 

Thanks for the effort. I generally like the new page. I do think people will get used to it eventually, but it's a bummer whenever you first field a change!

 

I have been surprised at the number of people who are willing to spend hours looking for something hidden in the world and have trouble locating information on a web page. Having said that, though, I do agree with many that the filters are possibly too tight. I don't want to search for just traditionals and I don't want to filter out just finds/hides. Allowing multiple filters gives us the flexibility to have what we need to have on the page, and nothing else.

 

Also, I do take some exception to the comment about using Pocket Queries. As I have been able to determine that is a feature that is only available to Premium Members. We are discussing a page that is open to the world. It is unfair to recommend the use of a feature that is not available to the bulk of the users.

 

One more bug report: I did a search for only traditional caches and on the first page found only traditionals as expected. However, I then used the '>>' link to go to the last page and found virtuals and multis there. Using the '<<' to go back to the first page I found virtuals and multis again.

 

Thanks again for all your efforts.

 

With Grace....

Share this post


Link to post

It's cool, but also frustrating, to read the feedback on the new search pages.

 

Jeremy let the cache approvers experiment with a beta version of this last week. He wanted very much to get it up and running before the weekend to prevent a reoccurance of the problems of the weekend before. The casual user may not have noticed, but the site was down for long stretches due to the overload.

 

Anyway, the cache approvers had many of the same concerns I read expressed above, but after using the new tools and getting used to them we love them. The speed alone is great, but being able to do the specific searches is wonderful. There are a lot of benefits to the cache approver like being able to see archived and never approved caches, but even more benefits to those looking for a cache to hunt.

 

I used to be frustrated when doing a search for nearest caches to my zip on a Saturday morning - I'd have to scroll thru three pages to get beyond those I'd hidden, those I'd already found, or those virtuals I had no intention of finding. Now I can filter all that out and get right to what I want to see. After printing out a cache page I can do a search for other caches near that one and again see only what interests me. This is great.

 

We whined when our "find count" wasn't updated on every cache page every time we viewed it, but we got over it. This latest update has done wonders to speed up the site and improved the search tool. Get used to it and you'll come to love it too. I'm sure Jeremy will fine tune it to make it even better.

 

I've experienced the same aggravations of finding myself logged out of the site and having to log back in, but it's not the end of the world to have to reenter the data. Happens all the time at work too. I'm sure Jeremy will straighten this out as well.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

Share this post


Link to post

Just a minor thing. When your search result only gives one hit, the "check all" button doesn't seem to work. It changes to "uncheck all" but doesn't check the one found.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for the improvements!

feedback from Mac OS X, Internet Explorer

 

I really like the new layout/design and look forward to the color solution for found/not/dead. I quite prefer this layout of not separating certain ones out to the bottom of the page.

 

Really like the clickable cache name instead of having to click on the non-intuituive "details."

 

Love the speed improvement: I notice this even with the already-high base speed of a cable modem.

 

I did not have any issues with logging in/out, nor with font sizes.

 

Question: Why are some caches bold and some are not? Here is a picture of a search I did for all caches by the user JackQuest. The boldness seems random to me. It isn't related to distance or found-status. What criteria am I missing ? (I get similar random boldness when I simply click on "nearest caches" from My Cache Page.

quote:
Originally posted by graciella:

I have been surprised at the number of people who are willing to spend hours looking for something hidden in the world and have trouble locating information on a web page.


ROFLMAO icon_smile.gif

 

[This message was edited by MissJenn on June 16, 2003 at 07:48 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, here's what I miss (maybe has already been pointed out). I often go my my "see your profile as others see it" to see if caches I've found have been found since I did. I could check the dates to see if someone took something I left, had similar experiences etc. Now it shows both dates as the time I've found it- ie both (green & black) will say 3 months ago. Would it be possible to have one the time I found it and the other the last time it was found?

 

Thanks,

Eswau

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Eswau:

Ok, here's what I miss (maybe has already been pointed out).


 

Was mentioned in the very first post in this thread.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I scanned through everything here and didn't see this, so I hope I'm not duplicating it. Before the switch, when I did a zip code search of 32828, I got around 675 caches. Now I get 1028. I seriously doubt that 350 caches were placed this weekend, so is this a bug or is it counting differently now (not counting disabled, etc)?

Share this post


Link to post

After having slept on it, and looked at the new format on a slightly better screen, it looks a bit better.

Here is a thought: the old version must be archived somewhere, how about putting a link for those of us that are hard to retrain.

 

Haicoole

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that the distance increased from 100 miles to 150. That might be where the extra caches are coming from.

 

kc

row, row, row your boat

Share this post


Link to post

I'm old and old people don't like change. But I'll get use to it. The only thing that I see right now that I can't find is the state map. I used it to plan outing. I would pick a cache in an area of the state that I wanted to go then click nearest caches to see what other caches were close around.

right now I can't just look at the name and know where it located.

 

Mejas

Share this post


Link to post

After reading some more post. Some like it the old way. The old way had some things that weren't too good. such as there were caches that I would not go to for one reason or another. They kept comeing up on top of the page for the nearest caches. I got tired of seeing them but they were there. So I guess it's hard to please all of us.

 

Mejas

Share this post


Link to post

icon_biggrin.gif

I really like the new pages - I love change!

The colors are a nice addition.

 

I agree that...

1) more noticable indicators of found/not found (color bar or graphic) would be very useful

2) multi selection of cache type would be useful

3) being able to save my New Search(s) (perhaps as a list on My Cache Page, like the pocket query list) would be VERY useful

4) speed is great (and I too have broadband, more speed is always a good thing IMO)

5) being able to bookmark searchs would be useful

6) seeing which caches I'm watching would be nice

 

I think that you may have already indicated that these are all being looked at.

 

Overall, I think that this is a great step forward and we'll all (well most of us) will adjust just fine. You've layed the groundwork for future enhancements. Now we can all look forward to the coming overhaul of the My Cache Page and the long anticipated maps.

 

Thanks for the hard work.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Before the switch, when I did a zip code search of 32828, I got around 675 caches. Now I get 1028. I seriously doubt that 350 caches were placed this weekend, so is this a bug or is it counting differently now (not counting disabled, etc)?

 

The search has expanded from 100 miles to 150 miles from your ZIP or coordinates. Click on ">>" to see the distance of the furthest caches.

 

quote:
Originally posted by haicoole:

After having slept on it, and looked at the new format on a slightly better screen, it looks a bit better.

 

Haicoole


 

The old search version was overloading and crashing the site. Creating a link to it would bring geocaching.com to a halt. The new search is great. Just give Jeremy a little time to improve the ease of functionality, and we will all forget about the old version.

 

Happy hunting,

Tom

 

Not until we are lost do we begin to understand ourselves.

Henry David Thoreau

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Mejas:

The only thing that I see right now that I can't find is the state map.


 

The easiest way is probably to pick any cache in the state and then select "state map" from the cache details page (just to the right of the first mini-map).

Share this post


Link to post

(sorry for another long post, but I hope that I can be of some help)

 

First of all, I think some people need to understand that there are two speed issues going on when you search for caches. It has to do with what The Leprechauns said. There's your computer - how fast the page loads for you. More important (I'm guessing with this update) is that the new page probably takes less time for the Geocaching computer(s) to make. To create the page you see, a computer needs to go through a database and filter out the right stuff. If that time is shortened, more people can do searches. And if that happens, hopefully the site won't crash and burn like it's been doing off and on. So even if you don't see it, I'm guessing there was a speed improvement on the other side.

 

About the X's in the left column: I think one thing you could do with the hide found option is to use the results page as a checklist. When you're in the field, use the blank [ ] boxes to check off which you've visited.

 

Techie stuff...

 

Customizable style sheets would rock, but I bet those would be pretty time-consuming to drum up. Since you're using CSS, though, I think what Sissy-n-CR said would really work pretty easily; just give each row in the table a class and have it pop back a background color. Personally, I'd make them pretty faint in order to not drown out the text, and I wouldn't make any of them green due to the "your last found" text color. So maybe (in order of greatest to least precedence:

 

- Hidden: blue (#ccccff)

- Found: yellow (#ffffcc)

- Disabled: red (#ffcccc)

 

Table background colors are hidden when printing, so that'd still not disturb the checklist aspect. I think it'd work really, really well.

 

I really like the idea of the bookmarking option, and I really would like to see a "hide this cache" option (not sure how that would work in the DB, but you're the magician, Jeremy).

 

Using Phoenix 0.5 in WinXP, the titles of the caches change from bold to regular when I click them (in other words, when I visit the cache's page). I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's a nice feature, and it'll take some time to get used to it.

 

I hope you're not too saddened by negative opinions, Jeremy; people don't like change, but it's usually a good thing in the end. And as always, people need to read the thread before they post. icon_razz.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Since I'm so new, I probably have fewer issues with what is "different" but for me the new page is considerably better. There is a great deal more information available on the search page, which I really like.

 

My suggested changes would be for a profile setting where you can set your default search parameters so that the quick searches recognize this. Especially if combined with an interface that let you check multiple cache types, it could be very handy.

 

I don't recall anyone else mentioning it, but I'd also to be able to eliminate currently unavailable caches from the results. I think the most useful implementation would be to have three checkboxes instead of one ("Exclude hidden.."/"Exclude found..."/Exclude dead...")

 

I may be in the minority, but I like this page much better than the other one even without the speed improvements.

Share this post


Link to post

Imagine a system where the geocache database is scalably distributed across the computers of all users, instead of the current unscalable

centralized system.

 

A custom peer-to-peer (P2P) network and backend program(s) would be used to automatically distribute small portions of the database (say, the 100 or 1000 nearest entries) to each machine participating in the network. Each machine would have a "home" zip code, "home" bandwidth value,

"home" radius value, and other parameters which would control the number of database entries its backend program would hold (cache) locally. Of course, the backend could be asked to query any area of the world (and for a time) also hold non-home data.

 

Any number of frontend programs and browser plug-ins could be written and used to query this distributed database. All filtering, rendering, and visualization of the database would occur on the local system, rather than on an overloaded central server. Some frontends might allow the full power of an aribtrary SQL query.

 

New geocache entries could be handled with either approval or dis-approval servers. Note that this is different from from the current

system, where all geocaches must be approved first. Approval or disapproval servers would dole out only lists of geocache IDs, and each users backend would use these lists to accept or reject caches.

 

Multiple approval/dis-approval servers could exist, to account for regional taste, custom, laws, and to foster competition. An approval

server could be of either the inclusive or exclusive variety. Users could run their local backend with or without filtering from one or

more disapproval or approval servers. Each user would control what level of approval they prefer for their own backend filtering, but all

submitted caches would be available somewhere on the P2P network. Each user would have the choice of who to trust for approval/disapproval.

 

Geocaching.com could run their own (dis)approval server(s), and I imagine that many people would opt to use their judgement for their own backend filter. At least, as long as they continue to provide a valuable service. The (dis)approval service could be free or by subscription.

 

Some stats....

Average GPX entry size: 3600

Average compressed GPX entry size: 1200

Guess: average entry size with full logs: 12000

Guess: average compressed entry size with full logs: 4000

Size of million-entry worldwide database: 4 GB

Size of thousand-entry local database: 4 MB

Size of hundred-entry local database: 400 KB

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Team TJ:

For some reason Jeremy doesn't want our opinoins on this and has locked it. Nice.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Greg_:

To see how others feel about the format of the Nearest Cache page, I added a poll under _Geocaching.com Discussion_. Let everyone know what you think!

 

Greg



SOME reason has been explained already. There really isn't a choice. If you wanted a more realistic poll it should be:

 

[ ] Do you want the old way back, with the website grinding to a halt the last 5-6 nice weekends?(and expect it to get worse to the point of NEVER being able to accually use the website)

 

[x] Do you like the new way, that has lots of cool features and I'm sure will get even better with some CONSTRUCTIVE input? (and reduces the server load to 1/4 of what the old format was)

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

 

_SOME_ reason has been explained already. There really isn't a choice. If you wanted a more realistic poll it should be:

 

[ ] Do you want the old way back, with the website grinding to a halt the last 5-6 nice weekends?(and expect it to get worse to the point of NEVER being able to accually use the website)

 

[x] Do you like the new way, that has lots of cool features and I'm sure will get even better with some CONSTRUCTIVE input? (and reduces the server load to 1/4 of what the old format was)

 


 

I'm pretty sure the #1 complaint with the new format is the lack of grouped display of the cache status. A poll could be run to determine if this is the case. Grouped display, if implemented in an intelligent manner, should cause no more load on the server than an ungrouped display. This is simply a rendering choice. In fact, the new system (without grouped display) is probably causing unnecessary database queries to be initiated.

Share this post


Link to post

The easiest way is probably to pick any cache in the state and then select "state map" from the cache details page (just to the right of the first mini-map).

 

Thanks that works.

Mejas

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
I'm pretty sure the #1 complaint with the new format is the lack of grouped display of the cache status.

 

And that is what i hated THE most about the newly old layout and much prefered the very first format from '01 and the new format is even better too.

 

I hate having to scroll thru pages and pages of found caches, one page at a time to get to anything to find. Now the problem is solved. I can easily jump ahead multiple pages or just filter them out at the start. MUCH better.

 

The new format is working great for me and i really enjoy the ADDED functionality of the pages and the increased speed of the server.

 

My DSL is useless if the server if overloaded and locked up.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

glenn

Share this post


Link to post

I can't view the new searches page yet on my computer because of login problems that I assume are being worked on, but here's a suggestion:

 

Include the coordinates on the search results page. When I use the Nearest Search page, I'm usually trying to get coordinates to load into my GPSr. Right now (well, up until yesterday when the page stopped working), I have to load Nearest Search, go into the cache to get the coordinates, go back to Nearest Search (not sure whether my browser is caching it or reloading), go into the next cache to get the coordinates, back to Nearest Search and so on.

 

I realize that I'm not the typical user (small black&white screen), so I'm not sure how the [x] thing is going to work just yet. It sounds like it's going to be a mess, but I'll see it when Jeremy gets it working.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick question... I see mention of O's in the bracketed area [O]. All I see is X's [X] and empty brackets [ ]. What are the [O]'s and how do I get them to display?

Share this post


Link to post

Me, too.

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

Just a quick question... I see mention of O's in the bracketed area [O]. All I see is X's [X] and empty brackets [ ]. What are the [O]'s and how do I get them to display?


 

-- I recognize fun when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post

My apologies if this has already been discussed. When I do a search by coordinates or zip/postal code it returns a list of approx 800 caches sorted by distance, nearest first. Would it be possible to add an option to sort this same list by 'date listed', newest first but also indicating distance from?

The reason is when I check to see what new caches have been listed in Ontario I have to open each cache page to check its location in relation to my home. No big deal if it were only 1 or 2 but a dozen or more at one time is a lot of opening/closing.

 

Thanks, Olar

 

"You are only young once but you can stay immature forever"

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by MissJenn:

Me, too.

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

Just a quick question... I see mention of O's in the bracketed area [O]. All I see is X's [X] and empty brackets [ ]. What are the [O]'s and how do I get them to display?


 

-- _I recognize fun when I see it._


 

The 'O' appears if you click and drag over an empty bracket. I have no idea what it's purpose in life is (much like me). I discovered this when I clicked inside a bracket 'just to see what it would do' (admit it, a lot of you have done this too! icon_biggrin.gif ) When I accidentally dragged my mouse a little when I clicked, the 'O' mysteriously appeared.

 

As a whole, I like this new set up much better. I have noticed a significant decrease in the amount of time it takes. Kinda fun to play with the search features. Since I just gotta make at least one nitpicky suggestion, can I have my quick zip code directory link back? This came in handy when I was planning a georun and didn't know the zip code where I was going.

 

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

It's cool, but also frustrating, to read the feedback on the new search pages.

 

Jeremy let the cache approvers experiment with a beta version of this last week. He wanted very much to get it up and running before the weekend to prevent a reoccurance of the problems of the weekend before. The casual user may not have noticed, but the site was down for long stretches due to the overload.

 

Anyway, the cache approvers had many of the same concerns I read expressed above, but after using the new tools and getting used to them we love them. The speed alone is great, but being able to do the specific searches is wonderful. There are a lot of benefits to the cache approver like being able to see archived and never approved caches, but even more benefits to those looking for a cache to hunt.

 

I used to be frustrated when doing a search for nearest caches to my zip on a Saturday morning - I'd have to scroll thru three pages to get beyond those I'd hidden, those I'd already found, or those virtuals I had no intention of finding. Now I can filter all that out and get right to what I want to see. After printing out a cache page I can do a search for other caches near that one and again see only what interests me. This is great.

 

We whined when our "find count" wasn't updated on every cache page every time we viewed it, but we got over it. This latest update has done wonders to speed up the site _and_ improved the search tool. Get used to it and you'll come to love it too. I'm sure Jeremy will fine tune it to make it even better.

 

I've experienced the same aggravations of finding myself logged out of the site and having to log back in, but it's not the end of the world to have to reenter the data. Happens all the time at work too. I'm sure Jeremy will straighten this out as well.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin


 

All that sounds great, if I could just get the site to work for me. I have deleted cookies. I get server errors on IE when trying to login and search for caches. I don't know what to do about that. So off to Netscape. I cannot search in logged in status. Why?!!!! It seems that the new setup is great in theory and horrible in execution. There are too many bugs for this to have gone live.

 

Yes, the site going down is a bad thing. But it isn't any better for me now than it was last weekend when it was down. Judging from the messages I'm seeing here and the messages on the scgeocachers.org site, I am not alone in my problems with the new features.

 

So it's OK to say that we are "whining" about the site if everything is working exactly as it should. But the site has some serious bugs in it now and I don't at all think it is appropriate to say we are "whining" about it when we can't even get it to work!

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

Just a quick question... I see mention of O's in the bracketed area [O]. All I see is X's [X] and empty brackets [ ]. What are the [O]'s and how do I get them to display?


 

It appears on the caches that I own. Could it stand for "Owner"?

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe it's just me (ok, it isn't), but I'm guessing the global opinion of people is that the functionality we have all come to love should be retained, without replacing them (entirely) with new methods of doing the same thing, but not. Providing MORE information than the user would like to see is counter-productive in a number of ways, unless it can be configured on a per-user basis perhaps. As I've stated in a previous post, segregation of different cache categories (not found/found/hidden/disabled) isolates information into categories that cachers can easily sort. Bundling them all together is like opening the floodgates of a dam with a small fishing boat in the path of the water. In this respect, you could equate disabled caches in the list as the fish that already got away. Personally, I don't care that it isn't there, until it is again. However, the separation of cache types can keep this cache at perhaps the bottom of the page and I could look at it or keep an eye on it if I choose.

 

Brian

Team A.I.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by pater47:

The 'O' appears if you click and drag over an empty bracket. ... When I accidentally dragged my mouse a little when I clicked, the 'O' mysteriously appeared.


Oooh, yeah. There it is! It's as if it is being displayed in the same color as the background ...

That's what I'll do next time I can't seem to see a cache out there: I'll just click and drag and see if it fixes the problem for me!

 

-- I recognize fun when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post

I use two links to do most of my searching: the "from your home coordinates" link off of my cache page, and the "nearest" link off a particular cache's page. I almost never use the search page, since those two links give me everything I want. Now, though, there's no way to get filtered results out of those links. (The old 'grouping' results were fine for the purpose, but the new ungrouped results are harder to sort through.) I see that "from home coords" is going to be added as a possibility on the new advanced search page, which will be cool, but often I find myself at a particularly interesting cache's page, and I want to know what's nearby, so I click the nearest caches link. As someone already suggested, perhaps making the filter options sticky, so that any search I do while logged in will show only unfound caches until I turn the option off, would be useful.

 

The big issue underlying that comment, though, is that the ungrouped display is currently rather hard to skim. I'm finding the mingling of found and unfound caches to be confusing, but I think I will get used to it and perhaps like it in the future... as long as it becomes easier to distinguish the found from the unfound. Plenty of good suggestions have been offered already about using background colors or text colors to do this.

 

The font is unreadably tiny in my Netscape 4.7, both Windows and Mac. This isn't the first site where a website's tweak has caused such behavior; I'm trying to get used to IE, since I'm not about to stop geocaching, but since this IS the feedback thread I thought I'd mention it.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...