Dates!!!

[+JetSkier]

Dates are back on the nearest cache page! Did this just happen? Great job, much easier to read. Thanks.

 

JetSkier

[+rldill]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JetSkier:

Dates are back on the nearest cache page! Did this just happen? Great job, much easier to read. Thanks.

 

JetSkier

---

 

I 2nd the thanks.

 

Former EarthNOlink user!!!!!!!!!

 

Take a chance or you'll never know. Let your spirits soar!

[+Hemlock]

I liked it the old way

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hemlock:

I liked it the old way

---

 

The old way with dates, or the new old way without dates?

[+beejay&esskay]

I was looking tonight and said "something is different". I didn't remember seeing dates....

 

I like the change (back). Days ago is fine (and actually nice) for short periods (1 week?) and then switching to dates is good also.

[+RuffRidr]

I like the latest change. It still shows 'x days ago' for anything less than a week, which makes it easy to scan through and find caches that have recently been found. I applaud Jeremy and crew for the change.

 

--RuffRidr

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I guess only the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

I MUCH preferred the amount of time that has passed since found. You can't nearly as easily scan and see the ones that have been several months since found versus days or weeks.

 

Bad move in my opinion.

 

I know you can't please everyone all of the time, but dadgum, at least give us a choice like with the miles/KM option.

 

What's next, getting rid of the filtered finds/hides and going to seperated lists sorted by status?

 

~sheesh~

 

This is a step back, not forward.

 

CR

 

[+Markwell]

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+cachew nut]

WOO HOO! Thank you!

[+WildGooseChase]

I like it with the number of days better than date. The first thing you do now is look at the date and figure out haw many days have passed. Why not let the computer do the work for you? That's what they are for.

[+mtn-man]

I like it better with the exact date too. It makes it easy to find the log rather than having to search a whole month range.

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildGooseChase:

I like it with the number of days better than date. The first thing you do now is look at the date and figure out haw many days have passed. Why not let the computer do the work for you? That's what they are for.

---

Watcher! Watcher! Watcher, Watcher, Watcher!

 

(Um, I mean, er... Watcher not only puts the dates, but you can hover the mouse to see the time in days, months, and years ago. In other words, the computer already does the work, but you have to be using the right software. )

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

[+WildGooseChase]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildGooseChase:

I like it with the number of days better than date. The first thing you do now is look at the date and figure out haw many days have passed. Why not let the computer do the work for you? That's what they are for.

---

Watcher! Watcher! Watcher, Watcher, Watcher!

 

(Um, I mean, er... Watcher not only puts the dates, but you can hover the mouse to see the time in days, months, and years ago. In other words, the computer already does the work, but you have to be using the right software. )

 

_[[[ http://clayjar.com/ ]]]_

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

---

 

Yes, I use watcher. It's great! So why give this site less functionality than Watcher?

[+Sissy-n-CR]

With all due respect to the 3rd party apps, the nearest page was pretty close to the "Killer App," the way I used it anyway.

 

I could easily scan the caches to see which ones have not been found in a while and go after those. True, I can still do that, but I have to look at the year, then the month to figure out how long ago it's been found. Much harder than a simple days or months.

 

The major glaring thing lacking on that list was the ability to sort on your own criteria. If I were able to sort on last found--with never found at the top--that would have made it that much better.

 

Again, with all due respect to the 3rd party apps, they simply can't compete with being able to get the information first hand.

 

I've got a few other suggestions for the Nearest List, but...

 

CR

 

[+cachew nut]

The flaw was that simple days and months could not be accurately predicted into a date, while the date can be predicted to simple days and months.

 

It's still not perfect, I think Mm/Dd/Year would work better than Dd/Month/Year

[+Slider & Smurf]

Except for those of us who actually use dd/mm/yy as standard notation!!

 

We think the current situation is a good compromise, however the today/yesterday format still doesn't take into account those of us in other timezones ... it's 9am here presently, which is "tomorrow" for most folks in the USA. Caches that were found here yesterday are being displayed as "today" on the state index pages, because the date calculation is being made in the US, not in the local area. Switching to displaying dates solves this problem for everyone ...

[+fizzymagic]

I'm thrilled with the change! Thanks, guys. This has been the single thing about the new format that drove me most nuts.

 

My faith is renewed.

[+Brainerd]

Caching will go on, but I tend to agree with CR. I liked the 'days/months' better. It was nice for a quick look.

 

I do realize that this was a big issue for some 'nuts' , and I am probably missing the utility of seeing the actual last found date. Perhaps Mr. Cachew or another cacher would enlighten me on the significance of seeing the exact date. For me, the use of last found on the search result page is to do a quick evaluation of which caches may be missing and possibly not worth making a visit. For that the days/months display worked the best.

 

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

Henry David Thoreau