New Addition to Cache Description Page

[+BruceS]

It would be nice if near the top of the cache description page it would indicate whether or not I have found that particular cache. (Assuming I am logged in at the time) At times I don't remember I all the caches I have found and some caches have several pages of logs.

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BruceS:

It would be nice if near the top of the cache description page it would indicate whether or not I have found that particular cache. (Assuming I am logged in at the time) At times I don't remember I all the caches I have found and some caches have several pages of logs.

---

Ahhh, to have Bruce's problems!

 

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

[+Markwell]

I think that's a viable solution. Every cache should have a link as to whether BruceS has found it, and whether or not he's logged in.

 

Stop finding so many dang caches (was that a 350+ cache trip), and maybe you can remember them all.

 

Seriously, though, I would be very suprised if this isn't something that will be implemented in the "new site."

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+Mopar]

I don't know. While discussing this earlier tonite, it occured to me that this feature would require gc.com to render each cache page each user. It was brought up that it would be no different then the TB icon, but in effect it would be. The TB is a semistatic item, and once added to the cache page, can stay there until it's removed, at which time a user is adding a log and rendering a new page anyway. If you added a "found" icon to the page, it would have to be rendered for each user.

Considering that Jeremy has indicated the server usage has more then doubled since they made the cache pages static, I can't imagine they would want to put that sort of load back on the servers. I would rather see those CPU cycles go for the "found caches" on the maps.

Unless of course we are talking about just adding a "this cache was found by BruceS" message!

 

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

[robertlipe]

While the scale of my problems don't quite match Bruce's, I certainly know where he's coming from. I know the way I log those multi-score cache trips, and I'm pretty certain that it smacks the gc.com servers silly in the process. I know it leaves me tired. I've been meaning to write something like this up and mail admin for some time.

 

The only thing that's reasonably fast to get to that records the "I've found it or not" state is the "find by nearest" page. So I find myself logging one cache, going back to the cache page, bringing up "find by nearest" then running down that list, middle clicking like a mad man, opening each new page in a new browser tab. (I don't find two dozen tabs unnerving.) I then click on "log your visit" to log each find. If it's a virt and I have to email a verification question, I have to wait for the "your log is accepted", go back to the cache page, click on the hider's profile, and then send it. A similar sequence is necessary for locationless (I know Bruce is a hero because he doesn't do them and I'm scum because I do, so let's please optimize away that part of the discussion) where you have to reload the page after the log so you can get to the 'upload foto' link. And if your log happens to be backdated, you have to load all the logs (thus forcing yet antoher page rendering cycle) just so you can get to yours so you can get to the 'upload foto' link.

 

Once you've depleted that bank of tabs, you pick the cache that was furthest way, bring up "find by nearest" and do it again. You iterate through this process until the number on the "my cache page" matches the number of finds for the day that you have in your notes for that day of the trip.

 

The end result of all this - and it was WAY more obvious last week on my mother-in-law's 150Mhz Pentium with a modem than on my UNIX workstations with broadband - is that the servers spend a lot of time building and transmitting pretty pages that contain only one useful link when you're logging.

 

Independent, but I suspect reasonably simple ways to reduce the number of round-trips would include:

 

A) Provide an additional input dialog in the log page that mails the cache owner. This could be used for virts for the verification question and for physicals to report cache status without requiring the additional "profile->mail owner" linkage.

 

Provide a way to upload fotos with the log itself.

 

C) Let the "your log has been accepted" precompute the nearest unfound logs and display them in one shot. It's already customizing the page, so it's not like it's getting the economy of a static page anyway.

 

D) Provide a 'log-specific' interface to the pages containing only the brief description text (no maps, no linky links, etc.) to jog your mind "Oh, it was the one in the park with the covered bridge" and none of the other eye-candy to streamline the logs.

 

If an admin would like to contact me and count the number of page loads required to log, say, 50 finds, and work through ways to reduce that, I'd encourage them to do so and be glad to help optimize it.

[+SimonG]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

I don't know. While discussing this earlier tonite, it occured to me that this feature would require gc.com to render each cache page each user. It was brought up that it would be no different then the TB icon, but in effect it would be. The TB is a semistatic item, and once added to the cache page, can stay there until it's removed, at which time a user is adding a log and rendering a new page anyway. If you added a "found" icon to the page, it would have to be rendered for each user.

---

Surely it would be no different to the edit/delete options around your own logs?

 

SimonG.org - now with added blog!

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonG:

Surely it would be no different to the edit/delete options around your own logs?

---

Good point Simon. I have no clue. I'm only going on what was brought up during some past discussions (here, here, and here) from when the find counts changed from dynamic to static. I guess in my eyes it breaks down to how much of a load it would add to the server, vs how useful it would be to the majority of geocachers. I mean, how many of us regularly log 350 finds at a time, or even 35? If the added load doesn't take away from other things that many geocachers use, like say found caches on maps, then fine.

 

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

[+BruceS]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

I mean, how many of us regularly log 350 finds at a time, or even 35?

---

 

My problem is not when I am logging caches. I keep good track of caches as I log them. I mainly run into the problem when I am browsing or linking into cache pages from recent log list etc. I see a cache that seems interesting only to realize I have already found it.

[+sbell111]

I understand what you are saying. Most lists of caches found on the site (nearest, my state, city, etc.) already pull out those caches that you have found so its not an issue. It becomes an issue when you are looking through cache pages by other 'less conventional' means, such as the recent log list. I can see how it could become trying to remember whether you found this cache six months ago during a trip outside of your home area.