NEW CACHE SUBMISSION PAGE

[+JOESMILE]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

[+The.Outsider]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

 

I don't know who to complain to, but I'd like to add my complaint to yours. I keep getting errors off the new page, but I can't figure out why. If this is easier, bring back the harder way.

Edited June 3, 2012 by seouledout

[+The A-Team]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use.

I agree, but I also don't have a problem with that. Too often in the past I've seen new cachers completely gloss over critical parts of the hiding procedure. Holding their hand, which is pretty much what the new form does, will benefit everyone. The new cacher will have to pay more attention to what's required to hide a cache, and the seekers will be provided with a more accurate cache description. Also, keep in mind that this is basically a first draft of the new form. You can certainly expect refinements and fixes in the near future.

[+Cardinal Red]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

You're being too kind. It's worse than that.

[+MickEMT]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

You're being too kind. It's worse than that.

 

It does seem a bit "dumbed down". I know TPTB tried their best on this one, but well, not everything works the way we want it to.

PLEASE go back to the old form permanently!

[+Don_J]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

You're being too kind. It's worse than that.

 

It does seem a bit "dumbed down". I know TPTB tried their best on this one, but well, not everything works the way we want it to.

PLEASE go back to the old form permanently!

 

No need for that. Just keep the old form around for those of us that have experience hiding and submitting a cache. I do take issue with calling it "the new form". It is a series of forms that when put together form what is called a "wizard". Wizards are useful for those that are going through a process for the first time because they step the user through everything in a logical order and force them to go through all the steps. A lot of popular software programs utilize just such a thing to educate a new user. After the user is comfortable with the software, they have the option to turn it off and just use the software as they seem fit. It's my hope that the old one page form will always be available to those of us that do not need to be stepped through the process.

[+Heidi Seekers]

I don't mind the fact that it is a wizard, it will help people to remember what to do in a consistent way.

 

What I do mind is the constant errors that I get. In particular it continually tells me to check coordinates on the map when I have already done so. I can then get no further and have to start again on the old 'clunky' form. It also dislikes me when I try to enter any number of characters in the cache summary section. However many I use it tells me that the maximum is 500 and again won't go any further.

 

I salute the powers that be for trying to drag the website into more modern times, technology moves quickly and the whole site needs attention and clarity of presentation.

 

Sure it works and many complain that it should stay as it is, but having just started caching (paperless) I am amazed at the clunky, convoluted and archaic way in which some people approach caching.

 

It works though, who needs progress? Sometimes you need to abandon to innovate.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think it's great idea, especialy for those new to hiding caches.

 

For me, I"m happy with the old form, never had any problems with it and it would be nice to keep this as an option.

[cezanne]

I think it's great idea, especialy for those new to hiding caches.

 

Actually, I would hate the page also as a newcomer. Back when I was new, I had no issue using the old form, but I'm too dumb to use the new one.

This map checking process is annoying as it works or rather does not work.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 6, 2012 by cezanne

[+The A-Team]

I think it's great idea, especialy for those new to hiding caches.

 

Actually, I would hate the page also as a newcomer. Back when I was new, I had no issue using the old form, but I'm too dumb to use the new one.

This map checking process is annoying as it works or rather does not work.

 

Cezanne

That's just because it has a bug. Once they iron out the kinks, it will probably work quite well.

[+Lil Devil]

This map checking process is annoying as it works or rather does not work.

That's just because it has a bug.

Even though they didn't mention it in the release notes, I just tested and it appears they fixed the bug in today's release.

[Moun10Bike]

This map checking process is annoying as it works or rather does not work.

That's just because it has a bug.

Even though they didn't mention it in the release notes, I just tested and it appears they fixed the bug in today's release.

 

That fix is slated for the next sprint. We have not yet been able to address it.

[+Don_J]

I think it's great idea, especialy for those new to hiding caches.

 

Actually, I would hate the page also as a newcomer. Back when I was new, I had no issue using the old form, but I'm too dumb to use the new one.

This map checking process is annoying as it works or rather does not work.

 

Cezanne

That's just because it has a bug. Once they iron out the kinks, it will probably work quite well.

 

Iron out the kinks. I like that. They have been accused in the past of doing beta testing with live paying customers, without their knowledge. Now I guess they moved us up to alpha. Really, no one noticed that it was impossible to create a multi or a puzzle with the new wizard until they made it prime time? Really?

[+Don_J]

I don't mind the fact that it is a wizard, it will help people to remember what to do in a consistent way.

 

What I do mind is the constant errors that I get. In particular it continually tells me to check coordinates on the map when I have already done so. I can then get no further and have to start again on the old 'clunky' form. It also dislikes me when I try to enter any number of characters in the cache summary section. However many I use it tells me that the maximum is 500 and again won't go any further.

 

I salute the powers that be for trying to drag the website into more modern times, technology moves quickly and the whole site needs attention and clarity of presentation.

 

Sure it works and many complain that it should stay as it is, but having just started caching (paperless) I am amazed at the clunky, convoluted and archaic way in which some people approach caching.

 

It works though, who needs progress? Sometimes you need to abandon to innovate.

 

I call this the dumbing down of the Internet. I used to be able to go to my banks site and pay my credit card in less than a minute. Now it takes about five because I have to go through about seven pages, each containing one single aspect of the transaction. It all used to be on one clean form but I guess it was too much information for most of their customers to process at one time, so, they dumbed it down.

[+Lil Devil]

Really, no one noticed that it was impossible to create a multi or a puzzle with the new wizard until they made it prime time? Really?

The bug only rears it's head with certain values of east longitude. I'll bet the developers did lots of testing with values around Seattle, or at least with variations of the sample coords on the submission page

 

That's also why I falsely determined that the bug was fixed, above. I just tested again and could get it to work with a variation of the sample coords changed to E008, but it wouldn't work with the similar coords in palmetto's post here. Not sure why such a subtle difference will work vs. not work, but whatever. I'm sure the devs will get to the bottom of it and fix it in the next 2 weeks.

[+Don_J]

Really, no one noticed that it was impossible to create a multi or a puzzle with the new wizard until they made it prime time? Really?

The bug only rears it's head with certain values of east longitude. I'll bet the developers did lots of testing with values around Seattle, or at least with variations of the sample coords on the submission page

 

That's also why I falsely determined that the bug was fixed, above. I just tested again and could get it to work with a variation of the sample coords changed to E008, but it wouldn't work with the similar coords in palmetto's post here. Not sure why such a subtle difference will work vs. not work, but whatever. I'm sure the devs will get to the bottom of it and fix it in the next 2 weeks.

 

I guess I sounded a bit harsh. It really wasn't my intention. I was just surprised that something so basic as not being able to create a multi was was not caught prior to release. I didn't realize that it only effected those in a specific part of the eastern hemisphere.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think it's great idea, especialy for those new to hiding caches.

 

Actually, I would hate the page also as a newcomer. Back when I was new, I had no issue using the old form, but I'm too dumb to use the new one.

This map checking process is annoying as it works or rather does not work.

 

Cezanne

That's just because it has a bug. Once they iron out the kinks, it will probably work quite well.

 

Agreed. I didn't have any problems with the old form either, but alot of people did. The 'new' way will reduce alot of confusion.

[+akkatracker]

Just to add my 2 cents, I find the new form great for the design of the page- saves me writing all that code.

The old form didn't look as nice either and I find the new form friendly.

If some people want the old form- let them choose. I like the new form but what I don't like is that you can't save and continue progress.

[cezanne]

Really, no one noticed that it was impossible to create a multi or a puzzle with the new wizard until they made it prime time? Really?

The bug only rears it's head with certain values of east longitude. I'll bet the developers did lots of testing with values around Seattle, or at least with variations of the sample coords on the submission page

 

If they really used only coords around Seattle, this is a bad choice of test cases, but that's not untypical for Groundspeak.

 

BTW: There is another aspect about the new form I do not like. They refer e.g. to 3* terrain as challenging which does not fit to the description of 3* in the Clayjar system

 

Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

 

The typical very fit and young cachers in my area will not choose 3* unless the terrain is challenging for them which means that the terrain is at least 4*.

 

Cezanne

[+jjpeg]

I tried the new online add a cache form today and found it extremely cumbersome. A new feature should be easier and quicker to use not harder and slower. I don't know if I have the patience to add many caches using the new form.

[+eagsc7]

I Found the BEST part about the "New Page..." Its the link to "Go back to the old page."

Looks good for beginners that have under 10 hides, BUT for us that Have placed Many More caches, the older form is Easier, AND more efficient... Not to mention uses LESS BANDWIDTH! Seriously, Did people NOT LEARN from the issues the last couple years.... REALLY!

 

Recommendation: In our Account Options, allow people to Set the link to the Old or New form. New being mandatory until cachers place and get published 10 caches. Allow the option on the 11th cache placed.

 

The Steaks

[+Heplercache]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

You're being too kind. It's worse than that.

 

Second....Third.......Fourth.....It is TERRIBLE!!!!!!

[jholly]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

You're being too kind. It's worse than that.

 

Second....Third.......Fourth.....It is TERRIBLE!!!!!!

So just use the old page and be happy.

[+Heplercache]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

You're being too kind. It's worse than that.

 

Second....Third.......Fourth.....It is TERRIBLE!!!!!!

So just use the old page and be happy.

 

The old page option is gone.......or I am completely blind?

[+MickEMT]

I Found the BEST part about the "New Page..." Its the link to "Go back to the old page."

Looks good for beginners that have under 10 hides, BUT for us that Have placed Many More caches, the older form is Easier, AND more efficient... Not to mention uses LESS BANDWIDTH! Seriously, Did people NOT LEARN from the issues the last couple years.... REALLY!

 

Recommendation: In our Account Options, allow people to Set the link to the Old or New form. New being mandatory until cachers place and get published 10 caches. Allow the option on the 11th cache placed.

 

The Steaks

 

Now THAT'S A great Idea!

[+Don_J]

How many of you think the NEW CACHE SUBMISSION pages are patronising, clumsy and slow to use. It feels like the system is being dumb-down. Thank goodness we can still use the "old form" but for how long? Who do we complain to?

You're being too kind. It's worse than that.

 

Second....Third.......Fourth.....It is TERRIBLE!!!!!!

So just use the old page and be happy.

 

The old page option is gone.......or I am completely blind?

 

[knowschad]

I Found the BEST part about the "New Page..." Its the link to "Go back to the old page."

I'm not putting any money on that link being there for long.

[jholly]

I Found the BEST part about the "New Page..." Its the link to "Go back to the old page."

I'm not putting any money on that link being there for long.

It will be there a long time, if not forever.

[+sTeamTraen]

I Found the BEST part about the "New Page..." Its the link to "Go back to the old page."

I'm not putting any money on that link being there for long.

It will be there a long time, if not forever.

Well, since the old page is pretty much the same page which you need to edit an existing cache, it probably won't cost Groundspeak very much extra to maintain the code for that page to create new caches, at least until there's a new editing process which integrates additional WPs and attributes.

 

I really like the new process, give or take the obvious bugs. I created a cache the other day and it took me far *less* effort (as measured by clicks, page reloads, etc) than the old one, by the time I'd added some attributes and the additional waypoints. Also, this approach allows the page to explain what's going on, which is important for new placers. And the more-or-less forced verification against the map should reduce the number of caches which are published, only to be followed a few hours later by a large coordinate update due to a typo.

[jholly]

I Found the BEST part about the "New Page..." Its the link to "Go back to the old page."

I'm not putting any money on that link being there for long.

It will be there a long time, if not forever.

Well, since the old page is pretty much the same page which you need to edit an existing cache, it probably won't cost Groundspeak very much extra to maintain the code for that page to create new caches, at least until there's a new editing process which integrates additional WPs and attributes.

 

I really like the new process, give or take the obvious bugs. I created a cache the other day and it took me far *less* effort (as measured by clicks, page reloads, etc) than the old one, by the time I'd added some attributes and the additional waypoints. Also, this approach allows the page to explain what's going on, which is important for new placers. And the more-or-less forced verification against the map should reduce the number of caches which are published, only to be followed a few hours later by a large coordinate update due to a typo.

And that is why the old page will be there forever. Groundspeak does and excellent job of introducing bug laden new features that they never really fix before they go on to the next new facebook thing or other new buggy feature. I wish they would stop introducing new stuff and spend the next six months or so fixing what they have.