Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 26
OpinioNate

Geocaching.com site update Feb 14th, 2012

Recommended Posts

DanPan, your script directly impacted site functionality that had been changed to ease server load, plus you spammed multiple forums with your link. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post

I know no one here can do anything about it, but I've always wondered why Google doesn't provide a free map API option that includes ads on the tiles. The tiles they provide are really nice, but I could get along with them fine if they called out every Starbucks on the map, or in the non-populated areas had a subtle "Need affordable auto insurance?" link on the tiles, kinda like they do on some youtube videos. Of course, the assumption is they don't already embed subliminal messages on them anyway :)

 

Sorry for being somewhat off topic. I just have never really understood their business model of providing the maps to other websites through APIs without any ads on them. I'm sure I'm not the first person to think this up though... :)

Share this post


Link to post

I know no one here can do anything about it, but I've always wondered why Google doesn't provide a free map API option that includes ads on the tiles.

Actually, just last night I was reading through the Google Maps API Terms of Service (sounds fun, doesn't it! <_< ), and I noticed this section:

4.3 Advertising.

( B ) Although the Service currently does not include advertising in the maps images, Google reserves the right to include advertising in the maps images provided to you through the Service.

(i) Google will provide you with 90 days notice prior to the commencement of advertising in the maps images (the "Ads Notice period").

Share this post


Link to post

I know that writing anything else about the "new" map page is like beating a dead horse, but here goes:

 

The current incarnation of the map pages SUCK. I can watch a snail cross my 70'-yard faster than I can see an aerial map show up on screen. And Groundspeak wants us to have a pleasant experience? For my yearly dues I expect better than this. The experience has become extremely painful -- worse than getting a root canal.

 

Somebody (or somebodies) at GS better get their heads out from where the sun don't shine and FIX THIS MESS!! Google Maps or NO Google Maps!!

 

Arrrrrrghhhhhhhh...

Share this post


Link to post

I know that writing anything else about the "new" map page is like beating a dead horse...

Yep.

 

Complaining about the new maps = beating_a_dead_horse_by_potatoehuman-d3fead4-300x225.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

The new maps are AWFUL! There are 17 lakes within a 20 mile radius of my home and NONE of them shows on the new map unless the satellite map is chosen. Yeah they show narrow foot paths but they don't show a 700 acre lake! I can't use the sat maps because they take several minutes to load on a 15Mbs connection. Then if I move them an inch it's another several minutes to update. Sometimes they just freeze showing three or four blocks and the rest blank. OK I get the cost issue but these maps really are terrible.

 

I note that OpenCaching.com uses Bing maps which are FAR superior to these. I suppose they can do that because they have a low hit volume?

 

I agree with many of the posters that suggested only letting premium members have access to Google Maps. I also agree with a higher membership fee.

 

In the meantime I will hope cache owners will list their caches on OpenCaching.com as well. It is all free and uses Bing maps which are fast and detailed and while not as good as Google IMHO they are a Hell of a lot better than the current abomination here!

Share this post


Link to post

New mapping is TERRIBLE. Premium members deserve better, somehow GC must find a work around.

Edited by 5 Campers

Share this post


Link to post

Well, expecting Groundspeak to reinstate the old google maps is beating a dead horse, but identifying specific problems with the new setup I'd say is fair game. They can't control google, but there are still plenty of things they can do, like implement more tile caching, remember map preferences, making the cache icons clickable on mobile devices, etc. The number of people weighing in is also valuable to know, as it could be used to gauge what needs fixed worst.

Share this post


Link to post

iPad. Maybe someone else has covered this, but I can't access cache details from the new maps display on my iPad. I can see the caches, but when I push on the cache icon, nothing happens.

Share this post


Link to post

I know that writing anything else about the "new" map page is like beating a dead horse, but here goes:

 

The current incarnation of the map pages SUCK. I can watch a snail cross my 70'-yard faster than I can see an aerial map show up on screen. And Groundspeak wants us to have a pleasant experience? For my yearly dues I expect better than this. The experience has become extremely painful -- worse than getting a root canal.

 

Somebody (or somebodies) at GS better get their heads out from where the sun don't shine and FIX THIS MESS!! Google Maps or NO Google Maps!!

 

Arrrrrrghhhhhhhh...

Again, it is Google that is the problem, not Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

New mapping is TERRIBLE. Premium members deserve better, somehow GC must find a work around.

I looked at the list of premium benefits and did not see where it said premium members have superior mapping. Both regular and premium members have always had the same mapping. Nothing changed in regards to that. Instead of a general whine about the mapping, perhaps citing a specific problem would help resolve the problems faster. Groundspeak is not the only web site that has had to move from Google to some other map source. Google is the problem, not Groundspeak. Go whine at Google, but I doubt they really care.

Share this post


Link to post

What happened to the terrian map.

With regards to what someone wrote up here: yes, the topo and aerial maps don't seem to work outside the US :(

Share this post


Link to post

I do not like the new maps at all. Three MAJOR bad points.

 

1. There is no hybrid map option. I used this alot on the old maps.

2. Those grey blocks on the map, which take forever to go away.

3. NO map legend, what good is a map without some kind of scale.

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, but you've made a mistake. Your petition is directed towards Groundspeak, when it should have been towards Google.

It seems many on here don't, but I completely understand why Google has had to start charging for their service, and hence why Groundspeak had to make the change that they did.

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, but you've made a mistake. Your petition is directed towards Groundspeak, when it should have been towards Google.

It seems many on here don't, but I completely understand why Google has had to start charging for their service, and hence why Groundspeak had to make the change that they did.

 

You're wrong on this. It is a Groundspeak issue. Groundspeak created a product with Google maps and then sold it to their customers. Google is/was a supplier to Groundspeak. If I have some issue with the air conditioner in my car I fault the car manufacturer and not the supplier of the air conditioner.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a beginning cacher and this has been a rough few weeks. First, the Geomate Jr. device I first used and still enjoy will no longer be made by its manufacturer and cannot be updated for caches created after 12/30/2011. I use my Mac laptop to find caches, read the logs and then print out the first page and hybrid satellite map. Today I went to do this before heading out for an errand in another neighborhood, thinking I would find a cache. I seriously thought the site was broken and came back this evening to discover what went wrong. I was just starting to feel confident in my growing geosense capabilities and now I'm not sure how well i'll be able to do at all.

 

We're going on vacation in NC and FL for a couple of weeks, I hope I can find some caches. Even non techies enjoy going for walks with the prospect of finding something. I know I've gotten outside more on not so pretty days because of it.

 

I wonder how the handheld gps manufacturers are doing. Is the community of geocachers growing fast enough to sell a steadily increasing number of devices?

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, but you've made a mistake. Your petition is directed towards Groundspeak, when it should have been towards Google.

It seems many on here don't, but I completely understand why Google has had to start charging for their service, and hence why Groundspeak had to make the change that they did.

 

You're wrong on this. It is a Groundspeak issue. Groundspeak created a product with Google maps and then sold it to their customers. Google is/was a supplier to Groundspeak. If I have some issue with the air conditioner in my car I fault the car manufacturer and not the supplier of the air conditioner.

 

Everybody can come to the Groundspeak site and download caches to their GPS's free of charge, right? Groundspeak then enhanced the site so that those who WISH to download PQ's can do so for a nominal cost of $30 a year. (8.2 cents/day) I would still like to see it where ALL users who wish to us GS to cache would have to pay. Non-Premium $5 a year. Premium $30 a year. If that doesnt generate enough to cover the Google map issue, then increase the cost of using GS. I cant recall what I paid 6 years ago when I joined, but it seems to me that everything else around me has gone in price, so why not GS too.

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, but you've made a mistake. Your petition is directed towards Groundspeak, when it should have been towards Google.

It seems many on here don't, but I completely understand why Google has had to start charging for their service, and hence why Groundspeak had to make the change that they did.

 

You're wrong on this. It is a Groundspeak issue. Groundspeak created a product with Google maps and then sold it to their customers. Google is/was a supplier to Groundspeak. If I have some issue with the air conditioner in my car I fault the car manufacturer and not the supplier of the air conditioner.

 

Thank you for this point. Google has always had the right to stop giving away their maps for free. I'm sure they paid plenty to acquire them.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is something about the new maps that I *do* like.

 

Go to the hide-n-seek a cache page and select "search with Google Maps" (that link text should be changed). Enter a location name (pick a city you might be visiting in the future). Then zoom in/out and pan the map until it shows a couple hundred caches or so. Then click on "Save as Pocket Query". All you need to do is change the name of the query and save it.

 

Before this feature existed if I wanted to create a pocket query for, say Buffalo, NY I'd either have to know the a postal code in Buffalo, the GC code for a cache in Buffalo, or already know the lat/long coordinates for a point in Buffalo. To me, that's a significant improvement.

 

Yes indeed, that is a nice feature for sure.

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, but you've made a mistake. Your petition is directed towards Groundspeak, when it should have been towards Google.

It seems many on here don't, but I completely understand why Google has had to start charging for their service, and hence why Groundspeak had to make the change that they did.

 

You're wrong on this. It is a Groundspeak issue. Groundspeak created a product with Google maps and then sold it to their customers. Google is/was a supplier to Groundspeak. If I have some issue with the air conditioner in my car I fault the car manufacturer and not the supplier of the air conditioner.

 

Everybody can come to the Groundspeak site and download caches to their GPS's free of charge, right? Groundspeak then enhanced the site so that those who WISH to download PQ's can do so for a nominal cost of $30 a year. (8.2 cents/day) I would still like to see it where ALL users who wish to us GS to cache would have to pay. Non-Premium $5 a year. Premium $30 a year. If that doesnt generate enough to cover the Google map issue, then increase the cost of using GS. I cant recall what I paid 6 years ago when I joined, but it seems to me that everything else around me has gone in price, so why not GS too.

If you don't mind, I like the fee structure as it is now. I really don't care to pay for Google maps. Besides, Jeremy has said geocaching will always be free, so did we change that idea? There are plenty of ways to get Google maps for free with out paying more for the Groundspeak memberships, so why don't we just leave it that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Here is something about the new maps that I *do* like.

 

... Then click on "Save as Pocket Query". All you need to do is change the name of the query and save it.

 

Before this feature existed ...

Yes indeed, that is a nice feature for sure.

The funny thing is that feature existed on both the old maps, and the beta maps, although the link was kind of hidden among all the noise on those pages. It is slightly more prominent on the new maps.

Share this post


Link to post
If you would not say it your grandparent or to a child, it is likely not suitable for the Geocaching.com forums.

 

2012 in America, well all goes then..... ;-)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe some of the comments, are you people Geocachers or what? This is the way it's gonna be for right now so like it or get out. Sounds like some would like a picture of the cache and a picture of spot its hid and a robot to run and get it. Your doing a good job Groundspeak, Thank you.

Not everybody is talking about using the maps to find the caches. Some use them to plan their caching, and the more information, the better. For example, you might think that the nearest distance between two caches is a straight line until you look at the satellite view and notice a bog between them. The Google terrain maps are much easier to understand when considering the amount of physical effort needed to get to a cache or to go between two caches. There are reasons for the maps, or they wouldn't be there.

 

I agree with this... good point KC! Still can do it though with GSAK.

Edited by Frank Broughton

Share this post


Link to post
I truly hope GSP is working on alternatives to improve the options.

 

How about create their own maps? Enough of us to help... we cover the globe!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, but you've made a mistake. Your petition is directed towards Groundspeak, when it should have been towards Google.

It seems many on here don't, but I completely understand why Google has had to start charging for their service, and hence why Groundspeak had to make the change that they did.

 

You're wrong on this. It is a Groundspeak issue. Groundspeak created a product with Google maps and then sold it to their customers. Google is/was a supplier to Groundspeak. If I have some issue with the air conditioner in my car I fault the car manufacturer and not the supplier of the air conditioner.

 

Everybody can come to the Groundspeak site and download caches to their GPS's free of charge, right? Groundspeak then enhanced the site so that those who WISH to download PQ's can do so for a nominal cost of $30 a year. (8.2 cents/day) I would still like to see it where ALL users who wish to us GS to cache would have to pay. Non-Premium $5 a year. Premium $30 a year. If that doesnt generate enough to cover the Google map issue, then increase the cost of using GS. I cant recall what I paid 6 years ago when I joined, but it seems to me that everything else around me has gone in price, so why not GS too.

If you don't mind, I like the fee structure as it is now. I really don't care to pay for Google maps. Besides, Jeremy has said geocaching will always be free, so did we change that idea? There are plenty of ways to get Google maps for free with out paying more for the Groundspeak memberships, so why don't we just leave it that way?

 

Well said Mr Holly, I am looking at the Google Terrain map right now, plotting some cache hunting for this summer in PA (using GSAK split screen Google maps of course).

Share this post


Link to post

I am a beginning cacher and this has been a rough few weeks. First, the Geomate Jr. device I first used and still enjoy will no longer be made by its manufacturer and cannot be updated for caches created after 12/30/2011. I use my Mac laptop to find caches, read the logs and then print out the first page and hybrid satellite map. Today I went to do this before heading out for an errand in another neighborhood, thinking I would find a cache. I seriously thought the site was broken and came back this evening to discover what went wrong. I was just starting to feel confident in my growing geosense capabilities and now I'm not sure how well i'll be able to do at all.

 

We're going on vacation in NC and FL for a couple of weeks, I hope I can find some caches. Even non techies enjoy going for walks with the prospect of finding something. I know I've gotten outside more on not so pretty days because of it.

 

I wonder how the handheld gps manufacturers are doing. Is the community of geocachers growing fast enough to sell a steadily increasing number of devices?

Share this post


Link to post

Look into the Magellan GC or the Garmin Etrex 10. Both can be found discounted for about a hundred bucks. Both offer "paperless geocaching" and you can download all the caches you want.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, expecting Groundspeak to reinstate the old google maps is beating a dead horse, but identifying specific problems with the new setup I'd say is fair game. They can't control google, but there are still plenty of things they can do, like implement more tile caching, remember map preferences, making the cache icons clickable on mobile devices, etc. The number of people weighing in is also valuable to know, as it could be used to gauge what needs fixed worst.

 

I agree 100%. I'd also add: Change the +/- zoom control back to a version that has a slider (though using a scroll wheel works for me too). Apparently there are still a few people that haven't figured out that you can pan the maps without a left/right/up/down arrow control (click on the map and hold down the button while moving the mouse). Allow end users to select which base map we want to use as a default and persist that value (i.e. let me use OSM instead of the Mapquest layer as my default). Add a scale to the map. Add a number next to each cache that corresponds with cache list form a PQ in the left frame. When viewing caches from a PQ, show caches which have a DNF (and not a subsequent Found it log) with a blue frown...that has actually shown up as what is probably a bug but could become a feature). All of these have been suggested and have nothing to do with the basemaps being used (or not being used).

Share this post


Link to post

I have not seen this mentioned but I cannot print any of the new maps....comes up with nothing on the page.

When we go to a new area we print a map with the caches on it and use it as a guide..

What is going on ???

It seems like were going backwards here.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not seen this mentioned but I cannot print any of the new maps....comes up with nothing on the page.

When we go to a new area we print a map with the caches on it and use it as a guide..

What is going on ???

It seems like were going backwards here.

 

Geeez... Hadn't event thought of that. When I get one worth printing I'll have to give it a try. When it was broken the last time I took screen shots for printing. Sometimes that is better anyway as you can cut away the parts you don't need and only print the parts you want.

Edited by edscott

Share this post


Link to post

Oh dear!! Very disappointed in the new maps, I just took a peak at my local area and noticed two roads that are incorrectly named.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is sad goundspeak sank so much money into making challenges when it was not what were were promised or wanted. Sure wish you had that money now, then maybe we could have some decent maps.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh dear!! Very disappointed in the new maps, I just took a peak at my local area and noticed two roads that are incorrectly named.

 

That is one of the best things about the new maps. If you are looking at the OSM maps you can go to http://www.openstreetmap.org and edit the names yourself so they are correct. Then the next person who uses the map can gain from your help.

Share this post


Link to post

It never ceases to amaze me how the negative comments outnumber the positive comments every time GS upgrades.

 

And to think there are those who think the lackeys are filthy rich because of the site? 30 bucks a year is NOTHING.

 

I suppose for the people who dont want to pay the Premium Membership to have access to PQ's, its more difficult to plan a days cache outing.

 

I using a GC Tour script for firefox and CacheList for Chrome, and I have much better functionality for planning exploration and search for caches in the terain, than what is available for premium members.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry The A-Team I am going to have to disagree, this is in no way a google issue. Google is in the business of profiting off their products, why should geocaching expect to use it for free when people are paying to use geocaching services?

 

I believe the true issue to be the implementation of the current maps and how they work (more like dont work). As someone else mentioned opencaching utilizes bing maps, which in my few seconds of looking at their site seem acceptable. Would there be this many people complaining had they implemented opensource maps that actually load and act similar to past google maps? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry The A-Team I am going to have to disagree, this is in no way a google issue. Google is in the business of profiting off their products, why should geocaching expect to use it for free when people are paying to use geocaching services?

 

I believe the true issue to be the implementation of the current maps and how they work (more like dont work). As someone else mentioned opencaching utilizes bing maps, which in my few seconds of looking at their site seem acceptable. Would there be this many people complaining had they implemented opensource maps that actually load and act similar to past google maps? Probably not.

Groundspeak was put into a very difficult position by Google, but like you said, I completely understand that Google had to start charging for the service.

The problem I have with all the complaining around here is everyone saying "You need to give us something better!" Like what? Are you just going to complain, or suggest alternatives? Simply complaining doesn't help anyone.

You mention Bing, but it was mentioned somewhere around here that their fees are double or triple those of Google, so they really aren't an option. As far as the poor performance with the open-source maps, we've only had them for 3 days. Every software update will contain bugs. Give Groundspeak time to work them out. If a few weeks from now the maps are still performing as they are now, then I might think about joining you in condemning them.

Groundspeak has given us the best they can under the circumstances, but most on here seem ungrateful of that fact. You do realize they could have just taken away the maps entirely, right? Be glad we still have some maps to work with. In fact, if it weren't for OpenStreetMaps.org, there likely wouldn't be a viable alternative and we wouldn't have maps at all.

If anyone knows of another mapping provider that could work other than Google, Bing, and OpenStreetMaps, feel free to let us all know. It's unlikely that one exists, but there's always the chance that we've all overlooked a viable alternative.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry The A-Team I am going to have to disagree, this is in no way a google issue. Google is in the business of profiting off their products, why should geocaching expect to use it for free when people are paying to use geocaching services?

 

I believe the true issue to be the implementation of the current maps and how they work (more like dont work). As someone else mentioned opencaching utilizes bing maps, which in my few seconds of looking at their site seem acceptable. Would there be this many people complaining had they implemented opensource maps that actually load and act similar to past google maps? Probably not.

It is a Google issue. Although Google maps WERE free for a long time, Google has changed their policy and now users like Groundspeak must pay. At the time Groundspeak started using Google, they were free with no indication that they would change that policy. Of course that was before Google became a public company and concerns about the bottom line became more acute. Groundspeak is not alone in the move from Google to other mapping services. A number of other sites have also made the switch.

 

Although Bing maps look okay, you really need to dig into the license agreements. They require a license and for the volume of sessions Groundspeak would create it has been mentioned that Bing is probably more expensive than Google. As for the other site you mention, I really can't seem them generating more than a small fraction of the map views that Groundspeak generates. They also have a large, profitable, company backing them.

 

When your dealing with 2,000,000 or more map views per year the costs of the license becomes very important.

Edited by jholly

Share this post


Link to post
I truly hope GSP is working on alternatives to improve the options.

How about create their own maps? Enough of us to help... we cover the globe!

Hey, that's it! We could call it OpenStreetMaps. :grin:

 

Oh wait.

Share this post


Link to post
When your dealing with 2,000,000 or more map views per year per day the costs of the license becomes very important.

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
When your dealing with 2,000,000 or more map views per year per day the costs of the license becomes very important.

Fixed.

Days, weeks, months, year, how about a boatload?

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has given us the best they can under the circumstances, but most on here seem ungrateful of that fact. You do realize they could have just taken away the maps entirely, right? Be glad we still have some maps to work with. In fact, if it weren't for OpenStreetMaps.org, there likely wouldn't be a viable alternative and we wouldn't have maps at all.

If anyone knows of another mapping provider that could work other than Google, Bing, and OpenStreetMaps, feel free to let us all know. It's unlikely that one exists, but there's always the chance that we've all overlooked a viable alternative.

 

With all due respect to the Groundspeak team, I don't think what was rolled out was ready for production, even just the things under their direct control. There are a lot of things broken, just silly little things even, that in my opinion should have been caught in testing. One poster mentioned printing maps. That should have been on a "regression test" script (in other words, here's what used to work, let's see if it still does). The little pet peeve that drives me nuts in the fact that on the cache page, the link to view the new maps is still labeled "Geocaching.com Google Map." Wouldn't a beta tester have spotted that? Throughout the rest of this thread are lots of other examples. I know there are lots of reason why quality can suffer (low budgets, staffing issues, etc.) but as a paying customer, and a cache hider (contributor), I really don't feel that I need to be "grateful" for keeping the service running.

 

Google's intention to start charging for their maps API was publicly announced in early November of last year. Since you're asking for viable alternatives, my suggestion is to have gotten the tile-caching server spun up in time for this rollout. Alternately, butter us up with some other killer feature we've been wanting, to take the sting off a bit.

Share this post


Link to post

There are a lot of things broken, just silly little things even, that in my opinion should have been caught in testing. One poster mentioned printing maps. That should have been on a "regression test" script (in other words, here's what used to work, let's see if it still does). The little pet peeve that drives me nuts in the fact that on the cache page, the link to view the new maps is still labeled "Geocaching.com Google Map." Wouldn't a beta tester have spotted that? Throughout the rest of this thread are lots of other examples.

This is something I completely agree with. The most glaring issue with this most recent update is the new maps on mobile devices. One of the main reasons they were changing the way the maps worked was so they would work properly on mobile devices. They don't. You can't click on cache icons on the map. It would take just a single tester to try it to realize it didn't work, but this apparently didn't happen. This leads me to believe that little or no testing is done before release. Apparently even the developers aren't testing their own code, or they would have realized it too.

They absolutely must get beta-testers. I've mentioned it on previous bug or release note topics, but Groundspeak apparently hasn't done anything about it. For some strange reason, they seem hesitant to do so, even though beta-testing is a widely-used and effective method of catching bugs before release. What they actually end up doing is releasing a likely-buggy version to the public, and let them find the problems. This is definitely not a good way to endear yourself to your customers. Getting even a small group of beta-testers to use the site as they normally would could catch a lot of these bugs before release.

I'm not holding my breath, though...

Share this post


Link to post

 

If anyone knows of another mapping provider that could work other than Google, Bing, and OpenStreetMaps, feel free to let us all know. It's unlikely that one exists, but there's always the chance that we've all overlooked a viable alternative.

 

I started to post this early but accidentally close my browser tab and lost all my edits (I hate it when that happens).

 

Yahoo used to have a mapping service but shut it down in Sept. 2011. On the relevant page they suggesting using OVI Maps API (backed by Nokia). Take a look at their "playground" page at: http://api.maps.ovi.com/playground2/

 

I actually discovered that through a site called Modest Maps which uses tiles from OVI Maps, Microsoft, OSM, and Blue Marble (NASA).

 

There's another product from a company called DevelopmentSeed (those that have done any work with Drupal may recognize the name) called MapBox. I got a demo from their chief technology officer a year or so ago and found it quite impressive. Before Development Seed started focusing on Mapbox they did a of Drupal development, include work on the site for the Whitehouse, and the site for the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

It's been awhile since I looked it but I've done a bit of work with OpenLayers but when I did it had a lot of different options for base layers.

 

Even if it GS implemented any of these solutions it's not something that's going to be done overnight. Developing a mapping application like this is going to take some time.

Share this post


Link to post

This leads me to believe that little or no testing is done before release. Apparently even the developers aren't testing their own code, or they would have realized it too.

They absolutely must get beta-testers. I've mentioned it on previous bug or release note topics, but Groundspeak apparently hasn't done anything about it. For some strange reason, they seem hesitant to do so, even though beta-testing is a widely-used and effective method of catching bugs before release. What they actually end up doing is releasing a likely-buggy version to the public, and let them find the problems. This is definitely not a good way to endear yourself to your customers. Getting even a small group of beta-testers to use the site as they normally would could catch a lot of these bugs before release.

I'm not holding my breath, though...

 

I think it's more like this scenario: Ya ever take your car in to the shop to have it worked on, for an annoying little issue, only to have it not do that annoying thing when you're there? I'm guessing that it's kind of similar. That they can't replicate what you're talking about. In the posts that I've seen from TPTB, they like to actually replicate an issue before they start tinkering with things. I do know that any site changes they do, they test internally for a while first before they make anything public. To say that they don't, well that's just not correct. There are lots of minor issues that can't be accounted for with a small sampling of users, and only thousands of people looking at (any changes) would detect things. What seems to be needed therefore is a public beta test, with the emphasis on beta test, so that the public can expose any little things that might be lurking that just wouldn't be detected by a small sampling of private testers, no matter how good they are.

Share this post


Link to post

There are lots of minor issues that can't be accounted for with a small sampling of users, and only thousands of people looking at (any changes) would detect things. What seems to be needed therefore is a public beta test, with the emphasis on beta test, so that the public can expose any little things that might be lurking that just wouldn't be detected by a small sampling of private testers, no matter how good they are.

But using the example I had above of the new maps on mobile devices, not a single person has reported it as working. There are numerous topics from people using different mobile devices all reporting the same thing. The odds of it working perfectly for the internal testers, but not working for anyone in the public, is astronomically low. I find it hard to believe that this particular item was tested.

 

As for beta testing, it's good to hear that I'm not alone in thinking this is required. I can't believe a site like this would not be using public beta testing, since the site is used so extensively and in so many different ways. Internal testers can never hope to test all the various ways people find to use the site. I'm sure there's no shortage of members who would love to beta test the site. I'm one of them.

Share this post


Link to post

But using the example I had above of the new maps on mobile devices, not a single person has reported it as working. There are numerous topics from people using different mobile devices all reporting the same thing. The odds of it working perfectly for the internal testers, but not working for anyone in the public, is astronomically low. I find it hard to believe that this particular item was tested.

 

Actually, it worked fine on our test site on mobile devices. We are trying to track down what we believe is a config issue on the production servers that is preventing proper functioning there.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 26

×
×
  • Create New...