Editing listing? It is not funny...

[+Voldik]

Now I'm really pissed off! I own 10 caches and have more almost ready to be published. I have edited listing many many times (you know - new location, more info, mistakes, feedback from other cachers, ...). I understand HTML and CSS so it is much more easier for me, but I would like to ask someone from Groundspeak:

 

You think this is fun?

 

 

The answer is: NO!

 

Even on this forum is WYSIWYG editor. I've found the topic from January 2013 with exactly the same question. The answer was that it is "in progress".

 

I'm trying to prepare nice listings - that is impossible without HTML and CSS and you only place obstacles in my way!

[+T.D.M.22]

I've never had issues, nor have any of the other cachers I know. Adding pictures, links, colour, etc. Never had a problem. I don't see what the issues is. Something in the picture? That picture means nothing to me-it just looks like formatting and color codes.

[+stijnhommes]

If there's no WYSIWYG editor on geocaching.com, then why not use one on your computer and copy the results to the listing page?

[+Beach_hut]

You do have a point, and even making allowances for the fact this is your first post and English may not be your first language, all the same I still think you need to tone down the rhetoric. It really doesn't merit quite that much anger...

 

It's not an ideal situation, I grant you. However, some suggestions: write your page in a different WYSIWYG editor and copy and paste the HTML?

 

And I speak as someone who's put the hours in myself with cache pages (look at my Beachies' Bistro series and Groundhog Day - all done by hand)

[+Beach_hut]

Remember also that the cache descriptions are intended for display not just on cache pages but in GPS units, which really aren't designed for all that CSS and HTML. (Yes I know I'm contradicting my earlier post a bit, but I'm coming at the question from a different angle)

[+Voldik]

Something in the picture? That picture means nothing to me-it just looks like formatting and color codes.

Exactly. Try to find the "real text" in this tiny textarea full of HTML and CSS. And imagine someone, who prepared the listing in WYSIWIG in "New cache submission" and knows nothing about HTML and CSS. He's lost.

 

If there's no WYSIWYG editor on geocaching.com, then why not use one on your computer and copy the results to the listing page?

I'm doing this, but it is still tiresome problem for me. Copy, past, refresh, change something, copy, paste, refresh, ...

There are people who aren't "IT possitive" and don't know about these options.

 

It really doesn't merit quite that much anger...

 

It's not an ideal situation, I grant you. However, some suggestions: write your page in a different WYSIWYG editor and copy and paste the HTML?

 

And I speak as someone who's put the hours in myself with cache pages (look at my Beachies' Bistro series and Groundhog Day - all done by hand)

Actually it does. This "issue" makes me really angry so I became a member of this forum and post this topic. :-) My point is - why is it so hard to add WYSIWIG editor to "Edit listing" page. It would take just few hours for GS developer and save many hours and nerves to owners. I really don't understand that. It is the smallest thing that they can do for us... If I were a BFU, I would just give up editing. (In our language BFU means Common Jack User, it is not rude ;-))

 

Remember also that the cache descriptions are intended for display not just on cache pages but in GPS units, which really aren't designed for all that CSS and HTML. (Yes I know I'm contradicting my earlier post a bit, but I'm coming at the question from a different angle)

I know, but this is a mystery cache and the listing is in terrain useless.

[+Voldik]

I wasn't far enough from putting whole listing on my personal website. On GC would be only link to it. I have to say, that it would save me hours. (For example because of possibility to have css file.)

Edited February 8, 2014 by Voldik

[[COMET]MrTempleDene]

Strikes me you are trying to hard to make your geocache descriptions too fancy, really, is there any need?

Edited February 9, 2014 by [COMET]MrTempleDene

[+Voldik]

MrTempleDene' timestamp='1391904173' post='5350164']

Strikes me you are trying to hard to make your geocache descriptions too fancy, really, is there any need?

 

I'm not sure if I understand you... Are you trying to suggest me that people don't need fancy listings? Take a look at http://coord.info/GC1Z323 and http://coord.info/GC4QQBV. I see big difference.

 

But it is not my point; The point is, that when you are editing listing, wysiwyg editor is missing. And it really doesn't matter whether I have only few HTML tags or more.

 

In this case, I want to have simple panels from bootstrap - http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/ - see the bottom of the page. Is it too fancy?

[jholly]

MrTempleDene' timestamp='1391904173' post='5350164']

Strikes me you are trying to hard to make your geocache descriptions too fancy, really, is there any need?

 

I'm not sure if I understand you... Are you trying to suggest me that people don't need fancy listings? Take a look at http://coord.info/GC1Z323 and http://coord.info/GC4QQBV. I see big difference.

 

But it is not my point; The point is, that when you are editing listing, wysiwyg editor is missing. And it really doesn't matter whether I have only few HTML tags or more.

 

In this case, I want to have simple panels from bootstrap - http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/ - see the bottom of the page. Is it too fancy?

Hard to say if there is any difference, both look like a dog pile on my paperless unit but GC1Z323 is definitely worse. simpler is definitely better.

[+andyakashrek]

Are you aware that only some html tags and attributes are supported?

If you use the old cache submission form after selecting the uses html box it will show what tags are allowed. So if you use something like dreaweaver in design mode and then go to split or code you simply copy all code after the <body> tag and before the <\body> tag and paste it into the long description space. Easy.

Just remember Groundspeak strip out all non supported tags so preview the page for issues this may cause.

[+Voldik]

Hard to say if there is any difference, both look like a dog pile on my paperless unit but GC1Z323 is definitely worse. simpler is definitely better.

 

I'm talking about common desktop or mobile browsers, not GPS devices. That is another problem if GS doesn't strip out unsupported HTML tags for GPX export. GS offers WYSIWYG editor as default, offers list of supported HTML tags - why? Is using them inappropriate?

 

BTW, I place every needed information to waypoints so listing is not necessary. And honestly, who read it in devices?

[+Lieblweb]

If you've worked with HTML in a cache page, you'll soon learn that things are glitchy. So why fight it??

 

Use an html editor and write your base code - VIEW - EDIT - Copy & paste into a cache page.

 

But, fully understand..... Groundspeak IS NOT an html editor or viewer. It will NEVER be.

 

Even after copying & pasting the entire code - there are still glitches you have to adjust. It's not that hard especially if you understand code. Even if you don't understand code.... you can easily 'play around' with the code and watch the results and learn a lot about code in the process.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I refer to the OP's example:

 

 

Look at it:

1% (three words) is content,

99% is form.

 

Content is what counts. This is a place to inform us about the cache, not show off web-design skills. Thank you.

 

When cache pages start looking like whirling-twirling media websites, I start ignoring cache pages.

[jholly]

I refer to the OP's example:

 

 

Look at it:

1% (three words) is content,

99% is form.

 

Content is what counts. This is a place to inform us about the cache, not show off web-design skills. Thank you.

 

When cache pages start looking like whirling-twirling media websites, I start ignoring cache pages.

 

Precisely

[+larryc43230]

I'm talking about common desktop or mobile browsers, not GPS devices.

I read cache descriptions on my Garmin Oregon 650 while out in the field. This applies to almost every cache I look for. For the types of caches I prefer (hint: they're not hiding under lamp post skirts), being able to read the cache description on site can often make the difference between finding and not finding the cache. Cache descriptions which employ needlessly fancy HTML and CSS wind up hopelessly scrambled and completely unreadable on my unit. Please keep it simple. You won't get any rewards or accolades here for Web design expertise if half the devices people use for caching can't make heads or tails out of your code.

 

That is another problem if GS doesn't strip out unsupported HTML tags for GPX export.

Sorry, but as a Web designer (among other titles) before I retired, I can assure you that if GS "strips out unsupported HTML tags for GPX export", what's left will be just about as unreadable as an export of the original needlessly-cute HTML and CSS. Why don't you take on the bigger challenge of creating cache pages that show off your claimed expertise both in a Web browser and on portable units? Now, that would get you lots of applause.

 

And honestly, who read it in devices?

I do, for one. And I know a whole lot of other people who do, too.

 

--Larry

[+Voldik]

Sorry guys, but I think that you are still pointing to other problems... Maybe it is because the language barrier as English is not my first language, I don't know. I have to say, that also cachers' habits differ country to country and our country is quite specific as far I can say.

 

You are trying to induce me to skip HTML/CSS because of some reasons. The picture in my first post is just an example I created. When I look at your caches you use HTML/CSS too and now you are criticise it. Quite two-faced, don't you think? You have no idea what I want to do and why I want it.

 

Let me repeat it once again:

Imagine someone who wants to create his own cache. He doesn't know anything about HTML/CSS, he never heard about it - he is a surgeon for example. He starts with the new pretty submission form step by step, adding coords, name, hint and description. He uses the WYSIWYG editor because it is turned on as default (And it cannot be turned off to place unformatted text.). Why not, it is similar to MS Word. He creates some headings, links, images, bold words, maybe list. Then he clicks to OK, looks at the result and he is satisfied. Everything is as he wanted. Cache is published and later, he is noticed by other cacher that he has mistake in the cache description. Ok, he admits, he clicks on "Edit Listing" and whohoho, what is this? Where is the MS Word-like editor? What is "<img src...>"? Why is it so small and unfriendly? Gosh!

Then he finally finds the sentence with the mistake, corrects it, clicks on "Save", looks at the result and - What the hell is that? Why is everything in bold?

 

I think, the he accidently deleted end tag for <strong>. Does he know it too? Will he find out where is the mistake? I don't think so.

 

This is my point. I don't speak primary about myself in this topic. Forget about me, I'm able to handle this situation but I know many many others who aren't.

 

Editing listing is like changing vector image (created in editor) by editing the XY coordinates in its source file.

[+Viajero Perdido]

It's all a matter of degree. Yes, I use HTML in my listings, but mostly just to place images. I leave color, font, etc. to the defaults. (I'll never make you look at Comic Sans.) I can actually read the HTML I've written.

 

What I'm saying is, let's not encourage more focus on form vs content - which is what an HTML editor would do. And as mentioned above, if you're determined, there are ways...

[Keystone]

In the grand history of geocaching, the implementation of the WYSIWYG cache submission form is a fairly recent development. I know that Geocaching HQ is busy working on several enhancements and extensions of the cache submission page. I don't know exactly when the WYSIWYG functionality might become available for editing a page that's already been created. It is great to see these improvements!

[+fbingha]

In the grand history of geocaching, the implementation of the WYSIWYG cache submission form is a fairly recent development. I know that Geocaching HQ is busy working on several enhancements and extensions of the cache submission page. I don't know exactly when the WYSIWYG functionality might become available for editing a page that's already been created. It is great to see these improvements!

 

I've developed several interfaces that utilize WYSIWYG editors. To support a WYSIWYG editor for content creation and not for content modification generates a very big WHAT THE? It really makes no sense why a coder would do one and not finish the job in the same cycle.

[Moun10Bike]

In the grand history of geocaching, the implementation of the WYSIWYG cache submission form is a fairly recent development. I know that Geocaching HQ is busy working on several enhancements and extensions of the cache submission page. I don't know exactly when the WYSIWYG functionality might become available for editing a page that's already been created. It is great to see these improvements!

 

I've developed several interfaces that utilize WYSIWYG editors. To support a WYSIWYG editor for content creation and not for content modification generates a very big WHAT THE? It really makes no sense why a coder would do one and not finish the job in the same cycle.

 

How many times have you had to develop a WYSIWIG editor that can handle 10 years of legacy cache listings? We're working on it.

[+andyakashrek]

Sorry guys, but I think that you are still pointing to other problems... Maybe it is because the language barrier as English is not my first language, I don't know. I have to say, that also cachers' habits differ country to country and our country is quite specific as far I can say.

 

You are trying to induce me to skip HTML/CSS because of some reasons. The picture in my first post is just an example I created. When I look at your caches you use HTML/CSS too and now you are criticise it. Quite two-faced, don't you think? You have no idea what I want to do and why I want it.

 

Let me repeat it once again:

Imagine someone who wants to create his own cache. He doesn't know anything about HTML/CSS, he never heard about it - he is a surgeon for example. He starts with the new pretty submission form step by step, adding coords, name, hint and description. He uses the WYSIWYG editor because it is turned on as default (And it cannot be turned off to place unformatted text.). Why not, it is similar to MS Word. He creates some headings, links, images, bold words, maybe list. Then he clicks to OK, looks at the result and he is satisfied. Everything is as he wanted. Cache is published and later, he is noticed by other cacher that he has mistake in the cache description. Ok, he admits, he clicks on "Edit Listing" and whohoho, what is this? Where is the MS Word-like editor? What is "<img src...>"? Why is it so small and unfriendly? Gosh!

Then he finally finds the sentence with the mistake, corrects it, clicks on "Save", looks at the result and - What the hell is that? Why is everything in bold?

 

I think, the he accidently deleted end tag for <strong>. Does he know it too? Will he find out where is the mistake? I don't think so.

 

This is my point. I don't speak primary about myself in this topic. Forget about me, I'm able to handle this situation but I know many many others who aren't.

 

Editing listing is like changing vector image (created in editor) by editing the XY coordinates in its source file.

 

Ok got it now and I understand your problem. Although without a major rewrite of the cache submission process I think the best way to edit a wysiwig created page would be to apply the edit in the program that was used to create it and then cut and paste the entire code instead of just a minor edit in the submission page. As you are doing. I understand your frustration but the system is what we have and that's what we have to use.

Secondly it is a small number of people who create these good pages, i like them, and gs probably think the effort and cost is not the best use of their time. There are some big obstacles to overcome because as you know a page doesn't render the same on all devices as there is no universal standard, sure you can write hacks into the code to try and get the page to display correctly on most browsers but a gpsr is different.

[+J Grouchy]

Sorry guys, but I think that you are still pointing to other problems... Maybe it is because the language barrier as English is not my first language, I don't know. I have to say, that also cachers' habits differ country to country and our country is quite specific as far I can say.

 

You are trying to induce me to skip HTML/CSS because of some reasons. The picture in my first post is just an example I created. When I look at your caches you use HTML/CSS too and now you are criticise it. Quite two-faced, don't you think? You have no idea what I want to do and why I want it.

 

Let me repeat it once again:

Imagine someone who wants to create his own cache. He doesn't know anything about HTML/CSS, he never heard about it - he is a surgeon for example. He starts with the new pretty submission form step by step, adding coords, name, hint and description. He uses the WYSIWYG editor because it is turned on as default (And it cannot be turned off to place unformatted text.). Why not, it is similar to MS Word. He creates some headings, links, images, bold words, maybe list. Then he clicks to OK, looks at the result and he is satisfied. Everything is as he wanted. Cache is published and later, he is noticed by other cacher that he has mistake in the cache description. Ok, he admits, he clicks on "Edit Listing" and whohoho, what is this? Where is the MS Word-like editor? What is "<img src...>"? Why is it so small and unfriendly? Gosh!

Then he finally finds the sentence with the mistake, corrects it, clicks on "Save", looks at the result and - What the hell is that? Why is everything in bold?

 

I think, the he accidently deleted end tag for <strong>. Does he know it too? Will he find out where is the mistake? I don't think so.

 

This is my point. I don't speak primary about myself in this topic. Forget about me, I'm able to handle this situation but I know many many others who aren't.

 

Editing listing is like changing vector image (created in editor) by editing the XY coordinates in its source file.

 

Hmmm...sounds like me.

It's gotten so I try to make my pages as simple as possible, but I usually still have to save, check and re-edit several times to get it to look right.

At home I have Firefox and use one of those extensions that creates a WYSIWYG editors in a form field...but at the office I only have access to IE (yeah, I know...don't get me started on that one) and must resort to trying to decipher the code.

[cezanne]

Hard to say if there is any difference, both look like a dog pile on my paperless unit but GC1Z323 is definitely worse. simpler is definitely better.

 

That depends a lot on the user. I prefer the cache page of GC1Z323. I use printouts for caching and my own caches are

not directed at paperless cachers. For me it is already bad enough that the new developments like challenges and lab caches seem to be directed to

people with your preferences.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 10, 2014 by cezanne

[cezanne]

Sorry guys, but I think that you are still pointing to other problems... Maybe it is because the language barrier as English is not my first language, I don't know. I have to say, that also cachers' habits differ country to country and our country is quite specific as far I can say.

 

No, I do not think that the language plays a role here. Even the tone addressed in #4 is rather an issue of different communication cultures.

 

What indeed plays a role are different geocaching cultures in different countries. As someone coming from continental Europe you have to get used to the fact that your issues will not be really understood by the majority of people who are around in this forum.

 

As your problem is concerned, I also cannot provide you with any other solution that using an external editor also for changes and then copy over the changed text over.

 

What Groundspeak makes out of html files can be quite annoying and goes beyond stripping off nonsupported commands (which I do not use anyway).

 

Cezanne

Edited February 10, 2014 by cezanne

[+Don_J]

Voldik,

Use Firefox and install a plugin named Write Area. Once installed, you right click in any textarea, choose the plugin and the CKEditor HTML WYSISYG editor opens.