Jump to content

Pocket Query Generator issues...


Team Chevelle

Recommended Posts

I don't mean to complain too much, since I am still new -- but this is just starting to frustrate me considerably. The only reason I paid to be a member is to run pocket queries. Basically, it's a Saturday afternoon and my wife and I have decided to do some geocaching. By chance, I had to upgrade the firmware on my GPS recently and therefore lost all my waypoints. To be up to date, I thought that I'd just come here and generate a nice, new GPX file.

 

I don't have any daily saved searches activated, so I simply went in and checked a local one that I have created for today (Saturday) and hoped that it would email it to me soon. 30 minutes later, and I still have nothing.

 

It is so annoying that way this has to be marked for sending when it gets around to it. I've discussed this in another thread also -- and shared my reasoning behind the belief that I don't think it really reduces the load significantly to do this! I know of many people that run it every night -- or at least several times a week -- simply so they'll have some new data IF they decide to use it. A significant portion of the time, they just ignore them -- since they happen not to need them that day.

 

Allowing on-the-fly generation of GPX files with Pocket Queries might put smaller temporary loads on the server, but I think that in the long run, it would work out much better.

 

You could still allow only X searches per day -- or maybe a certain number of caches per day would work.

 

In any case, all I know is that RIGHT NOW, I want a new GPX file for updated data for my area. THAT is why I pay to subscribe to this site -- and yet I sit here whining in the forum instead of being out with my wife driving to the next closest cache! Very frustrating -- both that I can't do an on-the-fly one -- and because the emailed ones sometimes seem to take 2 minutes -- and sometimes seem to never come at all...

 

- John...

Link to comment

Thanks, but it isn't just the waypoints I was wanting. Again, that's why I paid to subscribe. I could have just done the LOCs for free.

 

Also, I wanted a couple hundred waypoints -- doing a dozen or more pages and saving the LOC files for each isn't so convenient. :-)

 

In any case, my GPX finally arrived -- so we're off caching... I still think on-the-fly would be a better option though -- and not just for convenience -- I seriously think that there is a huge amount of extra traffic and CPU time being wasted by people that run daily or even weekly searches simply because they can't do an on-the-fly one. And they ignore most of that data if they don't happen to need it that day/week...

 

- John...

Link to comment

I would agree with you that the total weekly average data would be less. But I think the issue is come Saturday morning when everyone is trying to get their files, the site would grind to a halt. By spreading the downloads out over a period of time the machines can work at their own pace helps the overall usablility of the site.

 

I suspect the problems of Sunday evening would be nothing compared to Saturday morning!

 

Oh, and you're right about people getting queries and not needing them. Personally, I have one query that runs on Friday and one the runs on Saturday. Both are teh exact same thing and only run once a week to move them up the que. Most of the time I only need the Saturday one, but if it hasn't come by the time I need to go I use the Friday one. Works out pretty good!

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

Why can't you just use the last PQ you had emailed to you?

 

I run my PQ's on Wendsday. By that time most weekend caches have been approved. If there are any caches added between the time I get a PQ and the time I leave I can just add them by hand.

 

Seems to be a simple fix for a problem.

 

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

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

Link to comment

Why don't you have a copy of your last PQ?

When I started to get PQ's I made a file that holds just copies of the PQ's that I receive, When I get new ones I just copy over the old ones. This way I can have an up to date PQ's when I am ready to go caching.

I don't get PQ's everyday but a few times per week, one before the weekend and one on Monday to reflect the cache that I have found over the weekend.

I also became a member mainly to get the PQ's.

I have run into the problem that I wish I could download on demand a PQ, but I realize that they only have so much to work with and I work around it.

 

mustanglx

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:

Why can't you just use the _last_ PQ you had emailed to you?


Because it is too out of date. A couple of the spots that I quickly checked individually that I might hit had new info within the last few days.

 

Also, I really think this "running the query all the time even when I don't need the data" concept really sucks -- so I'm trying not to perpetuate this problem by having it run weekly or even more often if I don't normally use the data. I just think that's the wrong way to do this. It would be rather hypocritical of me to do that -- since I'm complaining that it is a problem.

 

I just don't think people should be wasting both CPU and, sometimes more importantly, bandwidth on a regular basis with no intention of using the data -- except once in a great while.

 

Too many people are running it every Friday and/or Saturday just in case they might go Geocaching that weekend. I'm sure that, most of the time, that data just goes to the trade. What a waste of bandwidth...

 

quote:
Seems to be a simple fix for a problem.

It is a simple fix that wastes resources like crazy. I don't think it is a _good_ fix is my point. It's a poor workaround to a currently poor implementation, IMO.

 

I don't know... I just don't want to be one of the "I dump data all the time because otherwise I might not have what I need that one day" people. I think most of the people doing that are doing it because there is just currently no other way. I'm simply suggesting that there really does need to be a better way...

 

- John...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mustanglx:

Why don't you have a copy of your last PQ?


See above -- it's just too out of date. I don't run them often enough (on purpose, in a way).

 

quote:
When I started to get PQ's I made a file that holds just copies of the PQ's that I receive, When I get new ones I just copy over the old ones. This way I can have an up to date PQ's when I am ready to go caching.

 

Agreed -- my latest ones were simply too out of date. I run them when I need them -- not all the time just to take one of the few that I need.

 

quote:
I don't get PQ's everyday but a few times per week, one before the weekend and one on Monday to reflect the cache that I have found over the weekend.

 

I can't cache every weekend and sometimes I don't know that I get a chance to go until the last minute (like if something falls through). I refuse to run queries a "few times per week" on the off chance that one week I might be able to use them.

 

I just shouldn't have to is my point. It seems that a better system should be possible without everyone having to basically work with the existing system by requesting tons of extra data just to get the data that they might need that one time...

 

- John...

Link to comment

Sorta like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

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

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

Link to comment

John, I understand your point. I have a website of my own, granted no where near the size of gc.com, but I still hate to see wasted bandwidth. But, I don't charge for my site. You pay for a membership and I commend you for not running a PQ every day (in order to save gc.com's bandwidth), but at a minimum you should run a PQ every friday or thursday. That way you will still get your up to date caches.

 

From my limited experience, on the fly requests would seriously tax the servers. I have seen servers of some of my favorite sites go down under less pressure. Rather than have a PQ on a need only basis, set it up so that you will have up to date info when you will need it.

 

It seems from your comments that you only go caching on the weekends (or some weekends), but not during the week. The simple solution would be that you get a PQ for Friday, that way your info is up to date for your weekend caches.

 

I understand your desire to reduce gc.com bandwidth, but your request could actually result in more work for the gc.com administrators which may be worse than the bandwidth use!

 

-Technology...I have no idea what I would do without my GPSr, my TiVo, or my Computer with a DSL connection. I guess I would spend more time with my wife! icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Stroh:

You pay for a membership and I commend you for not running a PQ every day (in order to save gc.com's bandwidth), but at a minimum you should run a PQ every friday or thursday. That way you will still get your up to date caches.


 

But that wouldn't really necessarily be up to date either -- it could be up to 5-6 days old depending on when I go. Most of the caches within 40 miles or so of me seem to be getting visited on almost a daily basis -- sometimes multiple geocachers per day will visit one. This data matters to me -- especially since I'm into travel bugs lately. Being 5 days out of date can be significant...

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I can't make it "kind work" under the current system. I'm just extremely curious about just how bad on-the-fly, if certain limitations were made, would be. THey don't have to allow 500 cache on-the-fly searches, for example. They could also limit the number per day (2? Maybe even 1 if it had to be). In other words, maintain the current system as it is for people -- but allow smaller, limited on-the-fly.

 

Heck, as someone mentioned -- it's almost doing this now. If you haven't done one for a day and put a new one in -- you often get it just 5 minutes later. My problem is that once in a while it is 30 minutes later. And, according to what people have told me, this seems to be pretty regular -- that in 90+% of the cases, they get their request within 5 minutes.

 

I just find it difficult to believe that 5-minute-delay is really that much better than on-the-fly as far as system load goes. I think it could be done by enforcing certain limits -- and not be a burden.

 

quote:
From my limited experience, on the fly requests would seriously tax the servers. I have seen servers of some of my favorite sites go down under less pressure.

 

Well, I think it could be done, I guess. Maybe if someone discusses it with me and convinces me otherwise, then I'll just let it go. But I help Moderate and maintain a large site that does a great deal of on-the-fly database work (The Game Trading Zone). It can be made to work, IMO.

 

quote:
It seems from your comments that you only go caching on the weekends (or some weekends), but not during the week. The simple solution would be that you get a PQ for Friday, that way your info is up to date for your weekend caches.

Oh, I didn't mean to apply that. It was just a recent example. I've up and gone in the middle of the week when something gets cancelled after work also. So, it really isn't a matter of that. If I really did just go on the weekends, then I'd considering doing a weekly Friday query (although I still think it would often be a waste) -- but, again, that just isn't the case for me, sorry.

 

quote:
_I understand your desire to reduce gc.com bandwidth, but your request could actually result in more work for the gc.com administrators which may be worse than the bandwidth use!_

 

Well, bandwidth is one of my concerns, but not the only one. There is certainly more to it than that. There is just an overall feeling of "this is the wrong way to do it." Plus, my primary concern was just convenience -- it would just work better for me to be able to do on-the-fly queries. The fact that many, many users are just throwing away generated weekly/daily data and wasting those resources was just a secondary reason.

 

Thanks for your comments though. I agree that there could be some technical problems with on-the-fly. I just don't agree that these problems could not be overcome, in most cases, by doing it correctly and setting reasonable limits on those searches...

 

Maybe with the new servers and such going on, this will be more feasible soon -- maybe even already planned and I'll be happily surprised! :-)

 

- John...

Link to comment

I think when you see your first "Server to busy" message on Sat. and Sun. afternoon you'll understand. When everyone is trying to log finds at the same time the server gets crushed.

 

If we could get PQs on the fly it would crush the server every Sat and Sun. morning too. By allowing the server to pick the time it runs PQs (such as 4am EST) the server can choose the "Time of least resistance".

 

I understand what you are looking for. But also try to understand that you can make the system (in it's present state) work for you. It's hard to believe that a once a week PQ with a quick check to the web site wouldn't work for you. It's working for almost everyone else.

 

Give it a try for a few weeks. You may find it's not as bad as you think.

 

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

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:

If we could get PQs on the fly it would crush the server every Sat and Sun. morning too. By allowing the server to pick the time it runs PQs (such as 4am EST) the server can choose the "Time of least resistance".


 

I'm just not convinced that that is the case -- that it coudln't be done to not crush the server -- by limiting what can be done and how often.

 

Again, it appears that in almost all cases, currently large queries, if you create one now and mark it for today, will get executed and run within 20 minutes or so -- often 5 minutes. This seems to be even during busy periods. In other words, the "concept" of "saving them until 4am" makes some sense -- but that doesn't appear to be what is really happening now. Even during a busy time, it generated it for me about 20 minutes later -- during a time that the site still seemed quite busy.

 

quote:
I understand what you are looking for. But also try to understand that you can make the system (in it's present state) work for you. It's hard to believe that a once a week PQ with a quick check to the web site wouldn't work for you. It's working for almost everyone else.

 

Um, if you read what I wrote above, you'll see that I mentioned more than once that I CAN make it work. I never said that it wouldn't work as it is. I just think it is a bad way to do it now -- and yes, it "works for everyone else" -- but only by generating data that is thrown away probably 90% of the time.

 

All I'm saying is that I think it is a bad solution. I thought that I'd share my thoughts on why I think that it is a poor solution and what else might be done to try to remedy that.

 

For now, I guess I can just join the herd and also generate a ton of data that I plan to throw out. "Moo." :-(

 

- John...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

I'm just not convinced that that is the case -- that it coudln't be done to not crush the server -- by limiting what can be done and how often.


It has been limited - none.

 

There are other issues that need to be addressed before on-the-fly GPX becomes standard.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

Your suggestion to limit the number of selected waypoints to a number less than 500 sounds good, but in reality, the PQ would still take the same resources. You would still have to search the entire database, and all you would save is the temp space and the e-mailing resources.

A possible comprimise would be to allow "one-time" PQs that would be given a higher priority in the queue. I am completely against "on-the-fly" PQs, but this should be a viable alternative. It could relieve some of the stress put on by those folks that run them daily, "just in case" but would not cause the Sunday Night delay on Saturday morning.

Yes you would have to think ahead a bit, but if the priority is adjusted, most will be in the 5-15 minute range.

 

Thanks for the Adventures

 

ingeo-button1.gif

Link to comment

quote:
In any case, all I know is that RIGHT NOW, I want a new GPX file for updated data for my area. THAT is why I pay to subscribe to this site

 

I really appreciate the capability of running PQs, but that is "not what you are paying for". The subscription supports the site overall, and as a bonus gives you extra capabilities.

 

Thanks for the Adventures

 

Gary and Mary

 

ingeo-button1.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gary and Mary Adventurers:

I really appreciate the capability of running PQs, but that is "not what you are paying for". The subscription supports the site overall, and as a bonus gives you extra capabilities.


 

Sorry, but you are incorrect. That IS what I pay for. It is advertised as a benefit of subscribing. It is the reason that I subscribed. I have subscribed to other sites just to "support the site", but that wasn't the case here. I paid so that I could run Pocket Queries. It was advertised as being a feature for paid members. You may have subscribed to support the site, but I subscribed to be able to run Pocket Queries.

 

I haven't been around long enough to pay just to support the site (again, as I do at some other sites). I was new here and wanted to use Pocket Queries specifically. That IS why I paid.

 

Thanks though.

 

- John...

Link to comment

I got to thinking. I was wondering if it's better to run a PQ or search for caches manually as it relates to bandwidth.

 

I looked at the size of one of my PQ's as I get it in the mail. It's a zipped GPX that comes in at 612k.

 

Next I looked a typical Nearest Cache list. The HTML alone saved at 59K.

 

Then I looked at a typical Cache page with limited description and logs--in other words everything was short and to the point--the HTML was 24K. The printer friendly page was 6K. The two unique maps came in at around 10k for both. So, without looking at all of the logs, just going once to the page and then to the PF page and taking into account all common graphics are cached, then one cache is ~40K. You milage is sure to vary.

 

So, very roughly only one Nearest Cache list and 13-14 cache views with PFs to print them out would equal one of my PQs as it relates to bandwidth.

 

Again, this is very rough.

 

The server load issue is moot as the PQs are run at the server's leisure, as far as I understand it.

 

While new PQs do get out pretty darn fast, that's because PQs with more recent runs are run at a lower priority and PQs that haven't run for a while are a higher priority. Following that logic, PQs that have never run are given the highest priority.

 

Right now, a new PQ is a little bit of a PITA. Make it a simple click away and readily available, then everybody would be doing and you'll see those 5 minute waits start to stretch out, I'm sure. I know that where your PQ is in the que can make at great deal of difference--by many hours in some cases. Try upping a once-a-week PQ to every day and you'll notice a great deal of difference of when you get it. That's how readily available on-the-fly GPX downloads would affect the load.

 

That's how I see it. I would like some input from others to see if I'm on target with my thinking.

 

The only other issue I can see is freshness of data. I don't think the core information on caches changes so fast that one week would make data too stale to cache. While someone might come up with information like a missing cache, it doesn't happen so aften that I would worry about it so much.

 

But for now, I get my PQs once a week, load up the GPS, PDA, and laptop and I'm set for another week.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

Sorry, but you are incorrect. That IS what I pay for. It is advertised as a benefit of subscribing. It is the reason that I subscribed. I have subscribed to other sites just to "support the site", but that wasn't the case here. I paid so that I could run Pocket Queries. It was advertised as being a feature for paid members. You may have subscribed to support the site, but I subscribed to be able to run Pocket Queries.

 

I haven't been around long enough to pay just to support the site (again, as I do at some other sites). I was new here and wanted to use Pocket Queries specifically. That IS why I paid.

 

Thanks though.

 

- John...


 

That may have been the main reason YOU paid, but for most of us it is an added benefit to supporting the site. I run PQs twice a week, and don't feel that it is wasted bandwidth.

 

I am quite happy with the way PQs run on the system, and I think most other subscribers are too. It may not be exactly the way you prefer, and I would venture to say that it isn't what very many of us consider perfect, but it is a very useful tool. Considering the quality of the competition, I think it is a great value, even if it is the only reason you subscribed.

 

Caches in most areas don't change so quickly that a day or two makes a great deal of difference. It seems strange that you just signed up this month, but feel previous PQs are totally useless. Most weeks it is hard to tell the difference between the previous iteration or two.

 

If you are looking for brand new caches to be "First To Find", you might try this.

 

Pardon me if I am not overly sympathetic. PQs are what they are, and for most of us that is fine. I doubt you will find many sites that will make their services totally customized for you for $30 a year!

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

That may have been the main reason YOU paid, but for most of us it is an added benefit to supporting the site.


Um, that's fine. I didn't say it wasn't FOR YOU. Someone tried to tell me why I started paying and I corrected them. That is all. I didn't say anything about why you or anyone else subscribed.

 

To be honest, I'm really not liking the "vibe" I'm getting here. I didn't attack anyone. I didn't rip into anything. I didn't say that the current system wouldn't "work" at all. I just made a friendly suggestion about how I think it could be improved -- and why I didn't think it necessarily had to be impossible to implement.

 

And, yes, I feel like I'm getting attacked here -- from numerous people. It's really getting quite disturbing. I feel like that by suggesting that the site isn't just perfect and dandy how it is and I'm suddenly the evil guy.

 

Very odd. Especially since everyone in the logs seems so friendly. And yet some of the responses here have been pretty attacking or pushy. Maybe some of you need to get out and do more caching and logging and less ripping on the guy that simply tried to suggest something. icon_frown.gif

quote:
I run PQs twice a week, and don't feel that it is wasted bandwidth.

Um, then either you cache using all of that new data every week -- or you are missing the point, since most others here even seemed to agree that it IS wasting bandwidth -- just that it needs to be that way for now to make things work.

 

So, I don't see why you don't see it -- but it definitely is wasting bandwidth -- even if you don't feel that it is.

quote:
I am quite happy with the way PQs run on the system, and I think most other subscribers are too.

Actually, I think most would agree that a BETTER system would involving having options to do it the way it is now AND on-the-fly queries. It's just a matter of not currently

having the system resources to do it, right?

 

Are you suggesting that having on-the-fly queries, if the system COULD handle it, would not be a benefit?

quote:
It may not be exactly the way you prefer, and I would venture to say that it isn't what very many of us consider perfect, but it is a very useful tool.

And I never, ever said it wasn't useful. Of course it is useful. I simply explained my concerns about how it was far from a perfect system -- which you seem to agree on...

quote:
Considering the quality of the competition, I think it is a great value, even if it is the only reason you subscribed.

Yes, of course -- it is a great thing that I still plan to use. It just got frustrating when, the day I started this thread, I suddenly realized that I couldn't get in the car and just GO -- because I hadn't been wasting enough bandwidth that day with an ongoing query...

quote:
Caches in most areas don't change so quickly that a day or two makes a great deal of difference.

As I said previously -- which I hope you read -- they have been changing enough here where a day or two matters. I've been on a travel bug kick lately, for example, and that easily changes daily.

quote:
It seems strange that you just signed up this month, but feel previous PQs are totally useless.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. They are not worthless. You seem to be overly defensive of the existing system. I simply suggested why I think the current system wastes a lot of resources -- and explained my desire for an on-the-fly system and tried to explain why I thought it would be possible.

 

So far, I'm being told that even with a severely limited system, it can't be done on the current hardware. That's fine -- I can accept that for now. I don't see why you can't just accept that I was giving a suggestion and wanting to discuss the issue. You don't need to defend the current system -- as I agree that it "works." It is just far from perfect, of course.

 

quote:
If you are looking for brand new caches to be "First To Find", you might http://www.rusticweb.com/geocaching/ncalert/

 

No, that wasn't my intent, thanks.

 

quote:
Pardon me if I am not overly sympathetic. PQs are what they are, and for most of us that is fine. I doubt you will find many sites that will make their services totally customized for you for $30 a year!

 

Sheesh! It was a suggestion and discussion! Your attitude just sucks! You're attacking and overly defensive when I simply was trying to discuss my views on the current implementation.

 

I didn't ask for something to be customized just to my own desires. I now see that, apparently, making suggestions for this site and/or wanting to discuss why something is the way it is -- is not looked kindly upon by many of the users. Fine -- I'll stop.

 

- John...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

Sheesh! It was a suggestion and discussion! Your attitude just sucks! You're attacking and overly defensive when I simply was trying to discuss my views on the current implementation.

 

I didn't ask for something to be customized just to my own desires. I now see that, apparently, making suggestions for this site and/or wanting to discuss why something is the way it is -- is not looked kindly upon by many of the users. Fine -- I'll stop.

 

- John...


 

Suggestions and comments are welcome. Your post started out critical and your responses seemed to go downhill.

 

You complain about others "wasting bandwidth", but you expect to be able to use bandwidth on demand rather than when scheduled PQs have little or no impact on system resources.

 

You state clearly that others scheduling a PQ to run twice a week is wasting bandwidth, but at the same time having a PQ file yourslf that is several days old makes it too out of date to use.

 

All these constructive comments and suggestions about a system you apparently signed up on less than two weeks ago. And yet during this time you don't go geocaching every weekend. Which of the two weekends have you missed?

 

As I said, I am less than sympathetic. You rail that the responses to your post hasn't been what you expected. Maybe you should re-read the posts you have made and consider how you would have responded.....

 

"In any case, all I know is that RIGHT NOW, I want a new GPX file for updated data for my area."

 

The only way to learn patience is by practice. The features on the GC.com website are designed to give the best service to the most geocachers. Odds are, it won't give everyone exactly what they want with no delay.

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

 

[This message was edited by Dave_W6DPS on July 21, 2003 at 10:36 PM.]

Link to comment

Quite frankly, I don't see what the problem is. A member for less than two weeks--which is not even long enough for a weekly PQ to run twice--and only 11 finds and already talking about wasted bandwidth, getting into moving TBs, and wanting archived caches in his PQs.

 

Dude, you haven't even had enough time to settle into a good caching routine, yet.

 

While it's strictly my opinion, this simply seems like a case of running mouth before engaging brain. There's a reason for people being encouraged to lurk and learn before jumping in and trying to improve the system.

 

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but to criticize how things are done before learning why things are done just opens one's self up to embarassment.

 

Here's my last suggestion on this issue; run some PQs, spend your time learning to work within the system, go find and place some caches for a few weeks, and then let's talk.

 

Okay?

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

Suggestions and comments are welcome. Your post started out critical and your responses seemed to go downhill.


 

Well, as I said, I was frustrated when I posted that first message. After that, I tried to explain my feelings -- and any feeling that it was going downhill at that point was because I felt I was basically being attacked for sharing my views on it.

 

quote:
You complain about others "wasting bandwidth", but you expect to be able to use bandwidth on demand rather than when scheduled PQs have little or no impact on system resources.

 

You seem to be missing the point. I didn't complain about others wasting bandwidth from their own actions really. I was just pointing out that a great deal of the data generated by the stored PQs does appear to be wasted/disgarded -- because people have to use the system as it is -- which generates a great deal extra data in most cases.

 

I didn't say that I expected to use on-the-fly with little or no impact on the system -- so, again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

I simply stated that I felt that a good compromise between limited on-the-fly and excessive stored PQs could be reached.

 

quote:
You state clearly that others scheduling a PQ to run twice a week is wasting bandwidth, but at the same time having a PQ file yourslf that is several days old makes it too out of date to use.

 

Exactly! Because I'm actually going to USE it if I ran it on-the-fly. I thought I made that fairly clear. It is wasting bandwidth and resources if a PQ runs that has very little likelihood of being used. Those happen very, very often apparently. Not using an on-the-fly seems much more unlikely.

 

So, yes, you are correct -- I believe that running a stored PQ twice a week is usually wasting more resources than running an on-the-fly query at pretty much any time.

 

quote:
All these constructive comments and suggestions about a system you apparently signed up on less than two weeks ago. And yet during this time you don't go geocaching every weekend. Which of the two weekends have you missed?

 

It isn't about when I DON'T go. It's about when else I DO go -- and, probably more important, WHERE else I do go.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear before. Looking back, I see that, in my frustration, I really didn't explain the entire situation...

 

On a Saturday morning, we discovered that we were suddenly going to be going to my wife's parents house. It's about 100 miles north of here. I don't normally run data for that area, of course, since I'm rarely there. I actually HAD run data there once when I was first testing out PQs -- but I wouldn't think of running them on a regular basis since we go there very rarely.

 

So, yes, I had some data for this location -- but it could have just as easily been a situation where I had nothing for it. My frustration was that to get new data, I needed to wait some undertermined amount of time.

 

So, let's forget weekly data for local places for a bit -- since that seems to be a sticking point... What do I do for places that I'm NOT normally running stored PQs for and really couldn't possibly be.

 

This may be rare for you -- but actually happens fairly often for me... I find out some morning that I need to go to a location an hour or two away from my home -- and need to leave rather quickly. Going in an creating a new stored PQ and hoping that it runs for that area before I have to leave just isn't a good solution, in my opinion.

 

That is the type of situation that I really want on-the-fly for. As I said before, I'm willing to join the herd and add a once-a-week scheduled PQ for my "home area." But what about those trips where I don't have time to wait until 4am for the data?

 

I'm not saying "THIS HAS TO BE DONE!" I'm just saying that, for situations like that, it would really be convenient, of course, to be able to run fairly limited on-the-fly PQs. And I still believe that, with the right limits as far as search depth and frequency, it could be done.

 

quote:
As I said, I am less than sympathetic. You rail that the responses to your post hasn't been what you expected.

 

I just thought some of them were more attacking and defensive than they needed to be. Instead of more along the lines of "yes, maybe we can have on-the-fly PQs in the future if we have more resources available for the server" it was "it works for everyone else, what's the matter with you??"

 

quote:
Maybe you should re-read the posts you have made and consider how you would have responded.....

 

"In any case, all I know is that RIGHT NOW, I want a new GPX file for updated data for my area."


 

Again, I've already admitted to be quite frustrated when I made that post. I was in a hurry, of course, and needed to leave. Yes, I should have treated that first one differently -- but at least I can admit that...

 

quote:
The only way to learn patience is by practice. The features on the GC.com website are designed to give the best service to the most geocachers. Odds are, it won't give everyone exactly what they want with no delay.

 

I didn't say that it had to. I just gave a suggestion that I thought would get closer to that -- and wanted to discuss what the reasonings were for it not being possible at this point...

 

- John...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

Quite frankly, I don't see what the problem is. A member for less than two weeks--which is not even long enough for a weekly PQ to run twice--and only 11 finds and already talking about wasted bandwidth, getting into moving TBs, and wanting archived caches in his PQs.


I don't see what the amount of time I've been here has to do with recognizing what I see as a problem and asking about it. It is obviously wasted bandwidth -- the question is just whether or not it needs to be that way for technical reasons -- which is all I wanted to discuss.

quote:
Dude, you haven't even had enough time to settle into a good caching routine, yet.

It was enough time for a situation to come up where I would be in a location and was having trouble getting data for that location. That's all. So I brought it up.

quote:
There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but to criticize how things are done before learning _why_ things are done just opens one's self up to embarassment.

Um, I'm familiar with why things are done that way as far as a belief about resources. I brought it up to see just how restricted those resources were -- since it seemed that the current system really wasted some resources in order to save some during the peak periods. The servers are also just being upgraded from what I've read. Therefore, it seemed and appropriate time to bring it up.

 

Yes, I brought it up poorly -- because I was upset. I did react to a situation instead of just bringing it up to discuss. But, that is past now, and there is little I can do about it. But since my points still stand -- even if brought up in a poor way at the time.

 

quote:
Here's my last suggestion on this issue; run some PQs, spend your time learning to work within the system, go find and place some caches for a few weeks, and then let's talk.

 

Okay?


 

Ok -- just let me know what I am supposed to do about situations where I'm going to be going somewhere and don't have 24 hours notice. Do you recommend that I just don't do any geocaching? If so, that's fine, feel free to tell me that -- I'm just curious what other "more experienced" cachers do to "work within the system" when I don't see how that system allows that to occur.

 

Thanks.

 

- John...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

Ok -- just let me know what I am supposed to do about situations where I'm going to be going somewhere and don't have 24 hours notice. Do you recommend that I just don't do any geocaching? If so, that's fine, feel free to tell me that -- I'm just curious what other "more experienced" cachers do to "work within the system" when I don't see how that system allows that to occur.


 

First of all I'd stop worrying about "wasted" bandwidth. Run a PQ once a week of all of the caches in the areas you cache, at least you'll have data that is no more than a week old. 99% of the time, one week is not too old--who cares if you miss out on a log or two. If you need a PQ right now, run a new one.

 

If you're looking for TB's even PQs can be stale, use the NCL (Nearest Cache List) and jot down the GC#'s and go for it--it'd be faster than a PQ anyway and more accurate.

 

That's what this more experienced cacher does.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

But I help Moderate and maintain a large site that does a great deal of on-the-fly database work (http://gametz.com/ref/2). It can be made to work, IMO.

- John...


 

You've been registered for 13 days, have 42 posts mostly on this subject, and a handful of finds. If you think you can do a better job start your own site, otherwise give it a chance.

 

My wife says put a coordinate on it and I'll find it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

First of all I'd stop worrying about "wasted" bandwidth.


I wasn't "worrying" about it. I was just mentioning it as to why the current system isn't perfect. It was part of a larger discussion -- not the main point.

quote:
Run a PQ once a week of all of the caches in the areas you cache, at least you'll have data that is no more than a week old.

How can I do that? As I said, I recently made a trip 100 miles north of here. That is outside my "the areas I cache" normally. The PQs max out at 500 caches -- I can't easily say that I want to do a search for everything within 500 miles of me or something. In fact, I recently tried to do a 200 mile radius, and it didn't seem to take (I couldn't get the PQ to save).

 

I'm more concerned with when I might go to an area that I'm not normally in. It is then that I need the data at the last minute -- and can't really get to it.

 

As I've said, I'm willing to do the PQs and live with that for my local area -- even if I feel that much of that data is wasted -- that's fine. But, even in my short time here, I've already run into situations where I just can't get to the data that I'd need for somewhere that I'm going. And it is far enough away that I wouldn't (or, couldn't even) have any weekly PQs to cover that area.

quote:
99% of the time, one week is not too old--who cares if you miss out on a log or two.

Agreed. Maybe I was over-doing it trying to stay more up to date than that.

quote:
If you need a PQ right now, run a new one.

Um, isn't that the point of this entire thread? That you can't do that? If I need a PQ "right now", I can't get one "right now." I can make one -- and hope that it doesn't wait until 4am -- but I can't really just "run a new one" and get it "right now." Or am I missing something? I find it really odd that you just said that -- since I thought the fact that I can't do that was the whole reason we're discussing this...

quote:
If you're looking for TB's even PQs can be stale, use the NCL (Nearest Cache List) and jot down the GC#'s and go for it--it'd be faster than a PQ anyway and more accurate.

 

_That's_ what this more experienced cacher does.


So, if you are going somewhere that you don't have an existing PQ for, you do the nearest cache search and then write down all of the info? What about if there are a dozen or more caches in that area (sometimes several dozen). What about the descriptions and such?

 

I'm mainly, at this point, talking about areas that I don't already have PQs for -- because they are farther away than anyone would normally run weekly PQs. At least, I hadn't considered running PQs for everywhere in my state -- are you suggesting that is what I should be doing? Generating data for my entire state on a weekly basis on the chance that I might go on a trip one day?

 

icon_confused.gif

 

- John...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Fattuhr:

You've been registered for 13 days, have 42 posts mostly on this subject, and a handful of finds. If you think you can do a better job start your own site, otherwise give it a chance.


 

Again, this is one of those negative attitudes that really sucks. I didn't rip into the existing system. I didn't say that I could do better. I asked a question about a specific feature and wanted to discuss why and how it might be implemented to improve on the existing system. Other users freely admit that the existing system of stored PQs isn't perfect -- so what is wrong with discussion possible changes for the future??

 

Heck, it looks like this idea WILL eventually come to pass once the hardware can support it, if ever. It isn't like it is some crazy, huge change. It is just a matter of making PQs available on-the-fly. The only thing really holding it back is hardware/resource utilization. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with a discussion of such resources here. Why do I have to be attacked and told to "go make my own site" for bringing such things up??

 

- John...

Link to comment

This paragraph set the tone of this thread:

 

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

 

In any case, all I know is that RIGHT NOW, I want a new GPX file for updated data for my area. THAT is why I pay to subscribe to this site -- and yet I sit here whining in the forum instead of being out with my wife driving to the next closest cache! Very frustrating -- both that I can't do an on-the-fly one -- and because the emailed ones sometimes seem to take 2 minutes -- and sometimes seem to never come at all...

 

- John...


 

For most of the thread your theme was pretty consistent. The points you made were pretty clear:

 

1. YOU want what YOU want, without delay. After all, that is why YOU paid $30 for a subscription!

 

2. The current system is just plain wrong, as evidenced by the fact that it didn't give YOU what YOU wanted, without delay.

 

3. Based on whatever information and experience you have, you determined that the site should be able to give YOU what YOU want, without delay.

 

4. Anyone who didn't see the logic of giving YOU what YOU want, without delay, was hostile and defensive. It truely is terrible that we simple insist on not agreeing with you completely!

 

5. Those of us who use Pocket Queries as designed--to allow them to run when the system is not as busy rather than on demand--are wasting system resources that could be better used to give YOU what YOU want, without delay.

 

Did I miss any significant points?

 

My advice? Relax and just go geocaching for a while. Your "suggestions" are on record. There probably will be changes to Pocket Queries in the future. Most of the requests for changes deal with search cabilities. For now, I think the majority of geocachers would agree that there are other priorities for system changes.

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

 

[This message was edited by Dave_W6DPS on July 22, 2003 at 10:44 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

Again, this is one of those negative attitudes that really sucks. I didn't rip into the existing system. I didn't say that I could do better. I asked a question about a specific feature and wanted to discuss why and how it might be implemented to improve on the existing system. Other users freely admit that the existing system of stored PQs isn't perfect -- so what is wrong with discussion possible changes for the future??

 


 

Sorry, I must have missed the questions. It seemed like you were whining about how things were. See my previous post for the paragraph that set the tone of this thread.

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

[This message was edited by Dave_W6DPS on July 22, 2003 at 10:43 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

For most of the thread your theme was pretty consistent. The points you made were pretty clear:

 

1. YOU want what YOU want, without delay. After all, that is why YOU paid $30 for a subscription!


Ok, first of all, I've already admitted that my original post was a bit too harsh. I explained that I was frustrated at the time -- and in a hurry -- and upset that I couldn't get the data out that was advertised to me. Yes, I was a bit angry -- and mentioned what _I_ wanted at that moment. But, again, there has been discussion since then where I did not speak in that tone. Regardless, I still get attacked for it.

 

So, again, yes, I fully admit that I was too harsh in my first message here. I was upset. I'm sorry. Can you try to let it go instead of repeatedly bringing it up even after we've moved on and I've brought up other relevant points since?

quote:
2. The current system is just plain wrong, as evidenced by the fact that it didn't give YOU what YOU wanted, without delay.

Again, I've asked several times for you to not put words into my mouth -- why do you keep doing it? I never said that the current system was just plain wrong. I think it isn't perfect. Is that allowed?

quote:
3. Based on whatever information and experience you have, you determined that the site should be able to give YOU what YOU want, without delay.

No, based on my experiences, I suggested some ways that I thought it could be improved FOR MOST PEOPLE -- while keeping the way that is currently being used. I then wanted to discuss why and how that might be done -- or why it might have to wait. Why is it wrong to make suggestions for improvement if it doesn't negatively affect the current users using it the way it current works? I never suggested changing anything about the stored PQs at all. It would not change them at all. I just brought up issues with the current system and wanted to discuss possible changes...

quote:
4. Anyone who didn't see the logic of giving YOU what YOU want, without delay, was hostile and defensive. It truely is terrible that we simple insist on not agreeing with you completely!

Again, you've really taken this too far. That isn't what I said nor implied nor intented at all.

quote:
5. Those of us who use Pocket Queries as designed--to allow them to run when the system is not as busy rather than on demand--are wasting system resources that could be better used to give YOU what YOU want, without delay.

The current PQ system DOES waste resources. Period. Others have agreed to this. I've explained it several times. If you generate data that you don't use -- that is a waste. Now, I agree that it NEEDS TO BE THAT WAY for now. It still doesn't change the fact that there are wasted resources there. I'm not saying to take anything away from anyone -- I was just discussing what I feel is a problem with the current system.

quote:
Did I miss any significant points?

You hit the points apparently -- you just conveniently added implication and intent to my statements that I never implied nor intended. You're still obviously upset with me -- apparently based on my first post -- when I've already admitted that some of that was said in haste and wasn't the best. But, after that, I've just wanted to DISCUSS the situation -- and you continue to want to DEBATE it apparently.

quote:
My advice? Relax and just go geocaching for a while. Your "suggestions" are on record. There probably will be changes to Pocket Queries in the future. Most of the requests for changes deal with search cabilities. For now, I think the majority of geocachers would agree that there are other priorities for system changes.

I never said that there weren't more important priorities. I just wanted to mention what I thought were worth mentioning. Now that you've confirmed that my suggestions "are on record", I guess I'm all set. Thanks for your warmth and kindness.

 

- John...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by John Goggan:

So, if you are going somewhere that you don't have an existing PQ for, you do the nearest cache search and then write down all of the info? What about if there are a dozen or more caches in that area (sometimes several dozen). What about the descriptions and such?


Preparation.

 

You are asking that the system be designed for you to go caching at a moment's notice for a huge outing, not just a couple caches. If it were a couple caches, plug in the ZIP and copy the pertinent information.

 

For an outing where you may hit a couple dozen caches (FWIW, many of us have never done that number in a day) I imagine more preapration than a GPX file presented to you in a minute will need to be had. I know the three caches I did today had me preparing quite a bit (and I had been to all three areas before. I began two hours north of here and worked my way back.).

 

So . . .

 

TPTB have created a system that they have determined to be the best use of their resources at this time. It apparently does not meet your specifications. I am sorry for that.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...