+geocat_ Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I have seen the boards light up like never before with the recent changes to GC.com. It also seems that the majority of these are offering plenty of criticism of the changes. I cannot help but wonder, what is GS's policy on getting stakeholder input for changes it is considering? For example, the site revamp earlier this year...did they do some sort of research about how to improve the site? I know they probably get the most information via the feedback forum, but these recent changes with certain aspects of the Challenges, the dates on logs going away, etc. seem to have quite a few people irate. It just seems that they might have been able to provide a better product if they had this type of feedback BEFORE the launch. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I have seen the boards light up like never before with the recent changes to GC.com. It also seems that the majority of these are offering plenty of criticism of the changes. I cannot help but wonder, what is GS's policy on getting stakeholder input for changes it is considering? For example, the site revamp earlier this year...did they do some sort of research about how to improve the site? I know they probably get the most information via the feedback forum, but these recent changes with certain aspects of the Challenges, the dates on logs going away, etc. seem to have quite a few people irate. It just seems that they might have been able to provide a better product if they had this type of feedback BEFORE the launch. About all I can say is that they don't work that way. I sure wish they did, and I tend to be rather vocal about that, but the bottom line is... it is a privately held company and they can botch it up anyway they chose. Quote Link to comment
+Shebaz Jenkins Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Though I hate the challenges the way they are now set up, from a business stand point it makes sense. Easy challenges that get more people involved which generates more revenue for the company. When they look at the existing paying members (though I am not currently one), they have to consider the loss of one long time paying customer versus the gain of 10. The other thing that boards of a site like this tend to forget is that the members of the boards are usually a very small fraction of the actual user base. Right or wrong (I think wrong), they are trying to cater to the masses of the product rather the loyal and vocal users of the product. In the end, we can say its about the community, but there are owners somewhere who still want to make money. And when that becomes the topic, customers tend to be forgotten ones. The silly thing they are forgetting, or simply being blind to, is that the loyal cusotmer's are the one that sell the product for them. There was no ads or anything needed to get me to get interested, it was a premium member in my area said come along. And I did. Quote Link to comment
+A & J Tooling Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 The scary part is, if they lose their loyal followers, the people they get by this 'fad' will most likely not stay around for the long haul. Tis a poor businessman that dosen't heed the customer's concerns. Quote Link to comment
+geocat_ Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share Posted August 19, 2011 The scary part is, if they lose their loyal followers, the people they get by this 'fad' will most likely not stay around for the long haul. Tis a poor businessman that dosen't heed the customer's concerns. Good point about the fad thing. I don't think too many real geocachers will leave GC.com. And I also wold doubt that any significant number of folks will join GC.com for Challenges. I figure I will just ignore them and watch as they slowly drift off most cachers' radars. They may stick around but hopefully GC gives some sort of guidelines to them or else there will be a huge difference between quality ones and many others. Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I have often been critical of Groundspeak. But I've never claimed to be a stakeholder. Just what is your stake in Groundspeak? When were the shares offered? Are any more available? Quote Link to comment
JonMcP Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I've never seen a company with less common sense. GS appears to spin their wheels making changes nobody wants while ignoring things- like a decent smartphone app- that folks have been clamoring for. At last check, the fans are the ones putting out and maintaining caches DESPITE a horrible front end like what Groundspeak offers. The stupid here makes my brain hurt. Quote Link to comment
+JJnTJ Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) The company I work for is pretty bad too. Buggy software, shipped with the electronic version of bubble gum and bailing wire, hoping against hope our customers don't decide to push it. Bugs in old features that we won't fix because we only devote time to the shiny new thing the leaders are interested in. What? No, I don't work for Groundspeak, why do you ask? Edited August 19, 2011 by JJnTJ Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I'll let you find it for yourselves: Groundspeak More half-baked ideas than any bakery in the world! Follow-through? What's that?? Quote Link to comment
+geocat_ Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 I have often been critical of Groundspeak. But I've never claimed to be a stakeholder. Just what is your stake in Groundspeak? When were the shares offered? Are any more available? You must be confusing "stakeholder" with "shareholder" Stakeholder defined Quote Link to comment
+geocat_ Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 The stupid here makes my brain hurt. I want a shirt that says that!!! Quote Link to comment
+dphickey Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 What it comes down to is how far can they push their customers before they leave for another product. Out of all the comments I've seen on what was done, there are very few stating they will leave and go to a competing site. When Garmin started it site, many people talked about it, but I don't see too much (none in this area) activity on that site and it's been close to a year since it appeared. Groundspeak created a unique product that is entirely user loyalty based.... As long as everyone is loyal, they will be able to run the business as they see fit. Personally, I would hate to this site go publicly traded. Once you get SHAREHOLDERS, then everything will be about stock price. Those type decisions will ruin everything.... Just look at our economy today. Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Of course we users are stakeholders. Every software requirements development methodology I ever worked with stressed the importance of users in the development process. Developers however often find users to be the messy part of their job and don't much like to interact with them. Thus you get systems that work the way the development team thinks it should work, which may not work well for users, if at all! Quote Link to comment
+geocat_ Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 Funny thing....now they are "fixing" most of the things that people are griping about. Stuff that could have been taken care of if they had just done their homework prior to the release. Now they have pissed off a great number of their stakeholders....again. When will they learn? Oh wait, they don't have to since they are a monopoly. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) The problem is that nobody pays for using the website. They pay for those PM features, and those work fine, right? So everybody will continue to pay for the PM features, no matter which way the development of the website goes (we need those PQs, it's the only way they let us have the data). In effect, nobody has a say in the development of the website. Edited August 20, 2011 by dfx Quote Link to comment
+Nature Kids Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I have seen the boards light up like never before with the recent changes to GC.com. It also seems that the majority of these are offering plenty of criticism of the changes. I cannot help but wonder, what is GS's policy on getting stakeholder input for changes it is considering? For example, the site revamp earlier this year...did they do some sort of research about how to improve the site? I know they probably get the most information via the feedback forum, but these recent changes with certain aspects of the Challenges, the dates on logs going away, etc. seem to have quite a few people irate. It just seems that they might have been able to provide a better product if they had this type of feedback BEFORE the launch. They're in Seattle, its a holdout of old hippies, so they brainstorm by burning one in the back room,& saying hey, I got a great idea! Quote Link to comment
+geocat_ Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 I have seen the boards light up like never before with the recent changes to GC.com. It also seems that the majority of these are offering plenty of criticism of the changes. I cannot help but wonder, what is GS's policy on getting stakeholder input for changes it is considering? For example, the site revamp earlier this year...did they do some sort of research about how to improve the site? I know they probably get the most information via the feedback forum, but these recent changes with certain aspects of the Challenges, the dates on logs going away, etc. seem to have quite a few people irate. It just seems that they might have been able to provide a better product if they had this type of feedback BEFORE the launch. They're in Seattle, its a holdout of old hippies, so they brainstorm by burning one in the back room,& saying hey, I got a great idea! LMAO! Now it is all starting to make sense!!! Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I think everyone is capable of communicating constructive criticism in a respectful manner. Don't let this thread disappoint me. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 They are incorporating suggestions. This is actually how they tend to roll new things out. Can it be a painful way to get the job done? Yes. Are there better ways? probably. But for the most part this works for them. I have just gone to take another look at publishing a challenge. They have clearer instructions that pop up in a separate mini window. It is very clear now what you should be doing with the challenges. Now we just need to nudge them towards enforcing the input of coordinates when creating challenges and putting in some kind of validation system for completing challenges since we all know the honor system does not work here. Perhaps given time, we will get to a point where most of us are at least happy with most of the aspects of these challenges. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.