Time limit

[+Rustynails]

I am very PISSED OFF with Groundspeak. I just spent 2 hours working on a new puzzle nice page and when I hit continue it went away. What kind of crap is this? When you create a new cache you should have the time to do it. Yes, I know I can save it but I wanted to finish it at one time.

[+Viajero Perdido]

It's a reality of how the web is designed, sorry. It's not just Groundspeak.

[+Roman!]

So you knew you should saved it but decided not to and it's Groundspeaks fault how?

Edited May 27, 2013 by Roman!

[+The_Incredibles_]

No matter what you're doing, whether it be a cache page or writing up a Word document, you need to get in the habit of saving your work frequently.

[+T.D.M.22]

So you knew you should saved it but decided not to and it's Groundspeaks fault how?

 

Of course it. Just like when I got drunk and drove into a house-I sued the owner of the house because it got in my way.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I am very PISSED OFF with Groundspeak. I just spent 2 hours working on a new puzzle nice page and when I hit continue it went away. What kind of crap is this? When you create a new cache you should have the time to do it. Yes, I know I can save it but I wanted to finish it at one time.

It always stinks when some technology thingy causes someone to lose work, but in the world we live/type in, such things happen. While I understand your frustration, it's not really fair to hold Groundspeak responsible for your lost work.

 

Not that this will make you feel any better, but whenever I type anything on a keyboard and what I'm typing begins to get long, I always force myself to copy and save my typed work, knowing that at any moment a power outage or network failure or lightening strike or alien attack or Act of God could cause me to lose my work.

[AZcachemeister]

Bummer.

And the page even has instructions to tell you that you have 90 minutes to complete the task.

 

At the one hour mark, you should get to see a pop-up on your screen as a warning:

 

[+SSO JOAT]

Oh, look at what is written at the top of the cache submission page...

 

Always keep a backup of your geocache information.

 

You have a limited session timeframe (40 minutes). You'll need to enter your cache report within this time, or your session will end and your submission won't be sent. If you need more time, we suggest writing your report in a text editor and copying and pasting the text onto this page.

 

Just can't seem to manage any sympathy on this one.

 

[+cheech gang]

Why are there two of this same thread, or was the OP just saving his work?

[+SSO JOAT]

It's actually rather telling. Sounds like the 'puter-puncher's problem is at his interface, not Groundspeak's. Just sayin...

[+The_Incredibles_]

Why are there two of this same thread, or was the OP just saving his work?

 

Maybe this thread was a 'backup' in case the other one was lost?

[Keystone]

I merged two duplicate threads.

[+Rustynails]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

I do see all the attacks coming. Nice bunch of folks here.

[+SSO JOAT]

There is no warning pop up. The instructions clearly state you have 40 minutes to complete the online form. It ain't GS' fault that you didn't follow the directions.

[+ArtieD]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

I do see all the attacks coming. Nice bunch of folks here.

 

No one is attacking you. You made a mistake by not saving your work, you made another mistake by not heeding the warning seen on every cache submission page and yet it's somehow Groundspeak's fault?

 

 

What did you expect people to do? Rally behind you and your cause while totally ignoring the fact this was and is your fault completely?

[+Rustynails]

Bummer.

And the page even has instructions to tell you that you have 90 minutes to complete the task.

 

At the one hour mark, you should get to see a pop-up on your screen as a warning:

 

 

This person states there is a warning.

[+Roman!]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

I do see all the attacks coming. Nice bunch of folks here.

 

Just curious what kind of response were you expecting?

[+ArtieD]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

After publishing 72 caches, surely you knew that there was a finite time to write up a cache, right?

[+Rustynails]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

I do see all the attacks coming. Nice bunch of folks here.

 

Just curious what kind of response were you expecting?

 

A little support with getting more time to compose a new cache page. No one seems to get that.

[+ArtieD]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

I do see all the attacks coming. Nice bunch of folks here.

 

Just curious what kind of response were you expecting?

 

A little support with getting more time to compose a new cache page. No one seems to get that.

 

That's why they say you should write it up offline. I don't see how anything needs to be changed just because you didn't heed the instructions.

[+Roman!]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

I do see all the attacks coming. Nice bunch of folks here.

 

Just curious what kind of response were you expecting?

 

A little support with getting more time to compose a new cache page. No one seems to get that.

 

Try your significant other, this forum is a tough place.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Never saw a warning pop up.

 

I do see all the attacks coming. Nice bunch of folks here.

 

Just curious what kind of response were you expecting?

 

A little support with getting more time to compose a new cache page. No one seems to get that.

 

No, because even if they gave you more time there are a million things that could go wrong. Your browser may freeze or you may click on the wrong button. I think it's good practice to save your work at least every 10 minutes.

[+Condorito]

Bummer.

And the page even has instructions to tell you that you have 90 minutes to complete the task.

 

At the one hour mark, you should get to see a pop-up on your screen as a warning:

 

 

This person states there is a warning.

I don't think he is stating there is a warning. First impression is that you "should" get to see it, as in it doesn't happen but it should.

If that's not what he means, he is being sarcastic altogether.

Anyway, consider the image. Do you really think that GS would use something remotely similar to that as a warning?

 

No offence intended, but it happens to most people at some point(loss of information), and you just have to get over it.

I think a good solution for you would be to write up your cache description on MS Word or some similar program, and then just paste it into the description field when it is ready....

[4wheelin_fool]

I've done it a few times. It always comes out better the second time anyway.

[+Don_J]

Deleted - I decided I didn't want be part of the pile on.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Don_J

[AZcachemeister]

Oh, look at what is written at the top of the cache submission page...

 

Always keep a backup of your geocache information.

 

You have a limited session timeframe (40 minutes). You'll need to enter your cache report within this time, or your session will end and your submission won't be sent. If you need more time, we suggest writing your report in a text editor and copying and pasting the text onto this page.

 

Just can't seem to manage any sympathy on this one.

 

 

Oh, gee!

I would have sworn it was 90 minutes!

Now I understand why the OP is upset...

[AZcachemeister]

In any case, the answer is to save the bare-bones page early-on, and then complete the details at your leisure taking as long as you need over however many sessions until it is perfect.

 

Just don't check the 'ready for review' checkbox until you are finished.

[+edscott]

In any case, the answer is to save the bare-bones page early-on, and then complete the details at your leisure taking as long as you need over however many sessions until it is perfect.

 

Just don't check the 'ready for review' checkbox until you are finished.

 

Exactly!! Best to do that even on a simple page. I like to let it "rest" a few hours, then read it again to be sure everything is just as I want it to be.

[+dprovan]

I always compose my cache pages off-line first, then copy them into a submission form when I think they're ready. And even then, I create the page without "ready for review" checked and edit it several times before submitting it for publication.

 

I know it's annoying, but lesson learned, eh? Keep in mind, the exact same thing would have happened to you if your computer had crashed, and in that case you wouldn't be able to blame Groundspeak in the slightest.

[Clan Riffster]

Keep in mind, the exact same thing would have happened to you if your computer had crashed, and in that case you wouldn't be able to blame Groundspeak in the slightest.

With this glaring warning on the cache submission page, RustyNails still isn't able to blame Groundspeak in the slightest.

Always keep a backup of your geocache information.

 

You have a limited session timeframe (40 minutes). You'll need to enter your cache report within this time, or your session will end and your submission won't be sent. If you need more time, we suggest writing your report in a text editor and copying and pasting the text onto this page.

[+The A-Team]

It isn't clear which form the OP was using, so it's worth mentioning that while the old-style submission form does include that warning of the time limit, the edit form and the new-style submission form do not. The new-style submission form does include the following on step 4, but doesn't mention a time limit:

To prevent lost data, we strongly recommend that you save an offline copy of your cache description before submitting to the website.

[+ArtieD]

Either way, the OP should have known to periodically save his work. I have hidden give or take the same amount of caches he has and I have seen one form of warning or another every single time.

[+dprovan]

With this glaring warning on the cache submission page, RustyNails still isn't able to blame Groundspeak in the slightest.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Putting in a glaring warning does not nullify a glaring deficiency.

 

Still, we agree that blaming Groundspeak isn't useful in this case because hitting their timeout is just one of many possible ways he could have lost his work.

[Clan Riffster]

Putting in a glaring warning does not nullify a glaring deficiency.

What glaring deficiency would that be?

[+fizzymagic]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Putting in a glaring warning does not nullify a glaring deficiency.

 

The Web is stateless. Maintaining state takes resources. Groundspeak does not have infinite resources. Thus, there must be a limit of some kind.

 

You may not like the particular limit they chose, but a limit must exist.

[+dprovan]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Putting in a glaring warning does not nullify a glaring deficiency.

The Web is stateless. Maintaining state takes resources. Groundspeak does not have infinite resources. Thus, there must be a limit of some kind.

 

You may not like the particular limit they chose, but a limit must exist.

I did not mean to imply this deficiency is avoidable or unnecessary.

[+The_Incredibles_]

[+Don_J]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Putting in a glaring warning does not nullify a glaring deficiency.

 

The Web is stateless. Maintaining state takes resources. Groundspeak does not have infinite resources. Thus, there must be a limit of some kind.

 

You may not like the particular limit they chose, but a limit must exist.

 

I'm curious as to how displaying a form on my screen, waiting for me to click a button uses their resources? This is an honest question, not a sarcastic one. I was always under the impression that a web site would log you off or poof your form after a time out because of security reasons.

 

I don't know what it says in the new multi-form process as I always use the old single page form. While it has changed a bit over the years, the one thing that hasn't changed since I created my first cache page in 2005 is the paragraph at the top. I can understand the OP's frustration, but let's be honest. It's not like this snuck up on us in last week's update, or something.

[+fizzymagic]

I'm curious as to how displaying a form on my screen, waiting for me to click a button uses their resources? This is an honest question, not a sarcastic one. I was always under the impression that a web site would log you off or poof your form after a time out because of security reasons.

 

For the new cache-entry pages, the session state is stored on the server. When you click on the new form, it has to remember all the pages you clicked through to make the GC, and combine all that information to make a single listing. The info is on their server, not your computer. If you never get around to finishing the page, it is just hanging there, and the server needs to occasionally go through and garbage-collect all the unfinished data.

 

For the old forms, where it was only one page, the situation was different. In that case, I suspect the motivation was primarily one of security. But since it was trivially easy for any reasonably-competent Web programmer to get around it, it didn't add much security. Maybe that is part of the reason they went to the new system.

[+ras_oscar]

Soooo just out of curiosity, since I'm not a web designer, Why exactly is there a time limit to enter info into a cache listing?

[AZcachemeister]

Soooo just out of curiosity, since I'm not a web designer, Why exactly is there a time limit to enter info into a cache listing?

 

As Fizzy says above, the server needs to occasionally purge un-saved data to remain efficient.

 

If a bunch of people started (but didn't finish) a bunch of cache pages and they were just sitting there in limbo, server performance would degrade and eventually grind to a halt.

 

This would be a pretty easy way to attack Groundspeak if you were somehow upset with them. It would probably take thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions??) of unfinished cache pages to cause an issue, but there ARE people with that kind of determination...not to mention it would probably be fairly easy to create a bot to do the job.

[+OZ2CPU]

>but a limit must exist.

 

how about : until the internet crashes

or my computer crashes, or the world looses power ??

not just some kind of man made counter made to RESET all the text on purpose

maybe that is what the OP wanted to talk about..

[+Viajero Perdido]

Or, we all just adapt to how the web works.

 

Many of us have.

 

Save, save, save...

[+TeamRabbitRun]

We've all heard the term "Denial of Service Attacks" - it's in the news all the time. It happens when someone throws so much stuff at a company's web server that it can't possibly respond to everybody in a reasonable period of time. NOBODY gets in.

 

One older flavor of this is to gum up a server with exactly the type of 'state tracking' we're reading about here. Make a server keep track of thousands of concurrent sessions and available memory shrinks. These days servers are big enough that it usually isn't an issue, but one way to program against it is by limiting the time that the 'state' information is kept. There ARE, like, two million of us hitting these servers owned by what's essentially a small business. We know they limit us in other ways; limits on results returned from PQ's, limits on the number of PQ's you can run in a day, etc.

 

Stop complaining and use the tools you have. They set the rules for their own resources for business reasons, not strictly so we can treat our computers as most people do: as if they're toasters, and I don;t mean the B.G. type!

[+SSO JOAT]

Makes me wonder... if the OP pulled up in the parking lot of a fast food joint 40 minutes before closing time and sat there contemplating the menu for 2 hours, would he be ticked off at the management for closing the place before he placed his order, or upset at himself for taking too long to make it?

 

Personal responsibility. The lack of it is the root cause of most of today's societal problems.

 

[+Redfist]

Like others, I don't get the outrage. As a matter of habit, I save my work every few minutes. 90 minutes seems like an eternity to not save. If you went 2 hours without saving... the issue is with you not with the website.

 

Get in the habit. Done.

[+bflentje]

Yep, rusty may have made a mistake in not saving his work. He may have even made a mistake in blaming Groundspeak (as not all of us know how the web works). But the approach some of you take in delivering your message is appalling. What a bunch of... [oops, I am not ready to be banned today].

[+dprovan]

We've all heard the term "Denial of Service Attacks" - it's in the news all the time. It happens when someone throws so much stuff at a company's web server that it can't possibly respond to everybody in a reasonable period of time. NOBODY gets in.

Denial of service is not really a factor here, since 40 minutes is plenty of time to gum up the works and keep it gummed up with new pages as the old ones time out. They're much more worried --and rightly so -- about pages piling up because of incidental legitimate activity over a long period of time.

 

Makes me wonder... if the OP pulled up in the parking lot of a fast food joint 40 minutes before closing time and sat there contemplating the menu for 2 hours, would he be ticked off at the management for closing the place before he placed his order, or upset at himself for taking too long to make it?

The correct analogy would be the OP pulls up to the drive-up speaker and starts making a very complex order. The clerk says "uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" for 2 hours, and then when the OP says, "OK, that's everything," the clerk says, "Sorry, we closed an hour and 20 minutes ago."

 

Mind you, I agree with everyone that the limit's perfectly reasonable and the OP should, now that he knows, save his work. I'm just rejecting the logic of these arguments that seem to suggest that it wasn't reasonable of him to have been upset when he discovered this little quirk. Yeah, he made a mistake, but it wasn't because he's stupid.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

We've all heard the term "Denial of Service Attacks" - it's in the news all the time. It happens when someone throws so much stuff at a company's web server that it can't possibly respond to everybody in a reasonable period of time. NOBODY gets in.

Denial of service is not really a factor here, since 40 minutes is plenty of time to gum up the works and keep it gummed up with new pages as the old ones time out. They're much more worried --and rightly so -- about pages piling up because of incidental legitimate activity over a long period of time.

 

 

Well, that was my point. I mentioned DOS attacks to highlight one of the reasons that web tech and practices have developed as they have. As I said, these days it USUALLY isn't a problem in this manner, but part of why it isn't a problem is because of 'timeouts'. We're saying the same thing.

[Clan Riffster]

The correct analogy would be the OP pulls up to the drive-up speaker and starts making a very complex order. The clerk says "uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" for 2 hours, and then when the OP says, "OK, that's everything," the clerk says, "Sorry, we closed an hour and 20 minutes ago."

This would work as an analogy if the clerk started by stating, "Sir, I'll be happy to take your order. But please be aware that we are closing in 40 minutes. If you don't have your order completed by closing time, we won't be able to serve you. Would you like fries with that?". Any analogy that ignores the fact that the customer knew they were on a limited time factor won't work.