Jump to content

New Notification Format


stebu
Followers 19

Recommended Posts

I'm not buying the "data cap" argument. I forwarded two emails to my Outlook from Gmail (I can't figure out how to read a message size in Gmail) - one old "text only" email and one new style HTML email.

 

Text only size: 14 KB

HTML size: 19 KB

 

Unless you are receiving thousands of emails from GC.com, I don't see how it could make much difference in mobile data usage. If data usage is a concern, maybe you shouldn't be getting email on your phone?

 

I am actually very surprised at the over-the-top reaction to the email formatting change. At MOST this seems like a minor annoyance. For me it's more of a lateral move. Never been a fan of their dependence on email for notifications. I'd rather see in-app notifications...or notifications via the website (similar to those right here in the forums).

 

Looking at my old emails the old format took about 3k and the current format takes about 15k. When I was a premium member I routinely received 100-200 notification emails daily so for me the increase would have been from about 450k to 2250k per day. Someone who has a lot of caches in high-traffic areas could easily have more mails than that coming in.

 

I'd flip your argument around and say that if the data requirement is going to be increased fivefold, what benefit is offered in exchange? The answer, as far as I can tell, is none whatsoever. So Groundspeak have broken email filters set up by their paying customers, increased the data overhead of sending emails, and offered no benefit in return. In the meantime useful suggestions continue to languish in the black hole known as "the backlog" or the "to do list".

 

:blink:

 

I don't even see that many in a week!

 

Assuming you DO receive hundreds per day, it's easy enough to deal with the problem without it wreaking havoc on data. There are a couple ways I can immediately think of:

 

1 - Separate email account that you access only via a computer or a mobile device while connected to a wifi network (i.e., no notifications, etc.)

2 - If you use Gmail, there is a trick where you can use variations of an email address using only a single account. Say my email was myemail@gmail.com. I could change my email on the GC site to myemail+GC@gmail.com and set a filter to move all emails sent to that address to a particular gmail tab that you do not sync.

3 - Other basic filters could involve all email FROM Groundspeak/Geocaching addresses going to a non-sync tab or folder.

 

I actually DO have unlimited data through Sprint, so it's never been a concern for me. Even so, my usage has never been high enough even to bump against limits other carriers set.

 

I don't receive any since I let my premium membership lapse but getting 100+ per day was far from rare in the past. That was just looking for publish/archive/enable/disable/NM/OM logs - I never requested Find/DNF notifications or I'd have been swamped.

 

The trouble with all these processes is that the end result is that Groundspeak's paying customers end up constantly working around Groundspeak changing things for the sake of changing them. As I mentioned before it creates an extra data overhead and breaks existing user processes while offering nothing in return. It is nothing more than a change for the sake of change, which is particularly irritating when other changes that offer tangible benefits languish forgotten in the black hole known as "the to do list".

 

There are all sorts of ways of working around the problem that Groundspeak created but frankly I don't pay money to a company to then have to constantly change what I do to get around the fact they've broken it all again. If there was a single tangible benefit to the new HTML format I'd be less hostile to it, but as it stands it seems to me that putting links to twitface in every single email takes a higher priority than making useful changes.

 

The refusal to even offer an option of text-based emails just shows a level of arrogance that assumes they know best what their customers want. Which is a large part of the reason I'm not a paying customer any more.

Link to comment

It would be a heck of a lot LESS work for gc.com to simply hear the majority clearly and roll back the code. At BEST, some here seem neutral about the change. MOST are not very pleased with it. Apart from some self-serving advertising, there's no clear benefit to having done this for either side, and the customers are the unhappy ones. I hope gc.com thinks that on the balance, it was worth it to them to have raised so many complaints just to stick in a few icon links and mobile app ads.

 

Sadly it's becoming par for the course to have to work around Groundspeak's curious priorities. No need to provide any more useful functionality, just refer people to GSAK. No need to fix the emails that they broke, just get someone to botch together a script that kind of puts it back the way it was.

Link to comment

The refusal to even offer an option of text-based emails just shows a level of arrogance that assumes they know best what their customers want. Which is a large part of the reason I'm not a paying customer any more.

So, in a way, Groundspeak are moving toward a position of providing what their paying customers want. Those who don't want the ever-worsening service and "we know best" arrogance will cease being paying customers, as you have, leaving only those decreasing numbers who are satisfied with the rubbish paying the bills.

 

It's an interesting business model, that's for sure.

Link to comment

It would be a heck of a lot LESS work for gc.com to simply hear the majority clearly and roll back the code. At BEST, some here seem neutral about the change. MOST are not very pleased with it. Apart from some self-serving advertising, there's no clear benefit to having done this for either side, and the customers are the unhappy ones. I hope gc.com thinks that on the balance, it was worth it to them to have raised so many complaints just to stick in a few icon links and mobile app ads.

 

Looking at the comments here are misleading. If a change is made that you don't care about or like, you are unlikely to go to the forum and post about it. If there is a change that you hate, then you're more likely to be vocal about it.

 

When you buy a product and it works as advertised, do you ever send an email to the company saying you like the product? Probably happens very seldom. If you buy a product and hate it, you are very likely to complain about it via email or a company's forums (if they have one.)

 

Making generalizations that say "MOST" are not pleased because of comments here are incorrect, unless you are saying MOST that comment here are not pleased, in which case I'd agree. I think most people in the geocaching world probably don't care.

Link to comment

Making generalizations that say "MOST" are not pleased because of comments here are incorrect, unless you are saying MOST that comment here are not pleased, in which case I'd agree. I think most people in the geocaching world probably don't care.

I indeed referred to those who read and post here, understanding that it is a self-selecting population. That said, the complaints on this feature change have come more quickly and in greater volume than is often the case, which also indicates that this one 'stung' more than usual. The specifics of the complaints, most particularly with regard to cell phone use, will certainly impact a wider audience than we have here. I do not receive my gc.com email over my cell phone, but fully appreciate the brain damage this is likely causing those that do, hence my comments.
Link to comment

Making generalizations that say "MOST" are not pleased because of comments here are incorrect, unless you are saying MOST that comment here are not pleased, in which case I'd agree. I think most people in the geocaching world probably don't care.

I indeed referred to those who read and post here, understanding that it is a self-selecting population. That said, the complaints on this feature change have come more quickly and in greater volume than is often the case, which also indicates that this one 'stung' more than usual. The specifics of the complaints, most particularly with regard to cell phone use, will certainly impact a wider audience than we have here. I do not receive my gc.com email over my cell phone, but fully appreciate the brain damage this is likely causing those that do, hence my comments.

 

I wouldn't assume this.

 

Most of the geocaching world probably doesn't even know about these forums. Many of those who do know simply don't care to utilize them. I figure the people who do use them make for a good representation of the general geocaching population.

Link to comment

Making generalizations that say "MOST" are not pleased because of comments here are incorrect, unless you are saying MOST that comment here are not pleased, in which case I'd agree. I think most people in the geocaching world probably don't care.

I indeed referred to those who read and post here, understanding that it is a self-selecting population. That said, the complaints on this feature change have come more quickly and in greater volume than is often the case, which also indicates that this one 'stung' more than usual. The specifics of the complaints, most particularly with regard to cell phone use, will certainly impact a wider audience than we have here. I do not receive my gc.com email over my cell phone, but fully appreciate the brain damage this is likely causing those that do, hence my comments.

When Groundspeak decided to get rid of the Google Earth geocache link because only about 200 people were using it and tha it was putting undue load on Grounspeak servers, this forum filled with complaints and thy brought back th link.

 

I really think they were taken by surprise by the response to the email changes. I suspsect they had a number of meetings discussing ways to improve the emails and incorporate many of the changes people have been aksing for for a long time. THey might have even have had some focus groups of geocachers review the proposals. I don't think the expected so many people who were relying on the messages being formated in some specific way or having the email subject line containing specific fields.

 

I suspect the more typical case would be someone like me. I too had the emails from Geocaching.com go to a separate email folder. In this respect I was completely uneffected, the emails all continued to sort to the same folder as before. What I normally did was read the emails and then click throug to the cache page for caches I might be interested in. With the exception of the low contrast color scheme, the formatted emails are in fact easier for me to read. The font size was perfect (I may have set the default font for HTML email to a larger sixe, and it seems the emails abide by that selection). The additional information that is provide means that I can make a better decision as to which cache I click through to bring up the page. It takes me less time to get through the geocaching emails now.

 

Beside the color, the only other issue that has been brough up that I have seen are the notifications for other than publish that dont have the log type.

 

I don't use the notifications to run out for FTF like some people. My understand is that the published notifications to still have a text option that can easily be forwarded as an SMS message to a mobile device. This text contains more information about the cache than the previous message. Smartphones have email clients that can display HTML emails and the format seems to be one considers how it will fit on a small screen. I understand that some people prefer forwading the emails as text SMS messages to avoid data charges. This can be done with the published logs which are the emails where timely delivery is critical.

 

For most people, the new emails may need some minor tweaking but it seems to be a better solution. People who rolled their own solution to automate how they deal with emails should not be surprised to see that break when changes are made.

Link to comment
For most people, the new emails may need some minor tweaking but it seems to be a better solution. People who rolled their own solution to automate how they deal with emails should not be surprised to see that break when changes are made.

 

How exactly is this a better solution?

 

From what I've seen of the old format and the new format the new version uses three times as much data to convey the same information, the change breaks email routing rules, and the new version offers nothing the old version didn't. The only difference I can see is that there's text formatting on the new version (which some people find harder to read) and links to assorted twitface sites that offer no benefit to users.

 

I still can't see this as anything other than a change for the sake of change, breaking existing processes without adding any new value in exchange for the breakages. If Groundspeak really believe this is an improvement why not offer an option to keep the existing format - the code to produce it already exists because it's been running for a while.

Link to comment

It would be a heck of a lot LESS work for gc.com to simply hear the majority clearly and roll back the code. At BEST, some here seem neutral about the change. MOST are not very pleased with it. Apart from some self-serving advertising, there's no clear benefit to having done this for either side, and the customers are the unhappy ones. I hope gc.com thinks that on the balance, it was worth it to them to have raised so many complaints just to stick in a few icon links and mobile app ads.

 

Looking at the comments here are misleading. If a change is made that you don't care about or like, you are unlikely to go to the forum and post about it. If there is a change that you hate, then you're more likely to be vocal about it.

 

When you buy a product and it works as advertised, do you ever send an email to the company saying you like the product? Probably happens very seldom. If you buy a product and hate it, you are very likely to complain about it via email or a company's forums (if they have one.)

 

Making generalizations that say "MOST" are not pleased because of comments here are incorrect, unless you are saying MOST that comment here are not pleased, in which case I'd agree. I think most people in the geocaching world probably don't care.

 

On the other hand if I buy a Keurig coffee maker and use it to make coffee every morning then it stops one day and complains about the water you bet I am writing/calling Keurig to complain.

Now when Keurig says "we have no plans to address this, instead we recommend you start a fire, fill a pot with water, boil the water and pour that into your Keurig coffee maker - really it's a simple workaround" - well I might start drinking Pepsi instead.

 

That's what the Gmail hack script is, you're telling the customer base to simply put on their programming hat if their email client doesn't work exactly as Groundspeak has assumed. Seeing as the email is generated by a template from a database query I don't see why it is a big deal for Groundspeak to take on the cognitive load of writing a script (or say reuse the code they had back in June) rather than directing people to scripting school.

 

 

Link to comment

Interesting points from tozainamboku. Three of them relate to the points that I mentioned in my email to Groundspeak. I had never written to Groundspeak before but this time I had to voice my opinion as the changes severely affected our enjoyment of this hobby. I explained to them that somedays we received over 100 emails about our caches.

 

So here are the three points:

 

I don't think the expected so many people who were relying on the messages being formated in some specific way or having the email subject line containing specific fields.

 

Because of the number of geocaching emails, it was important that emails concerning our caches have a short subject line that includes the finder, the log type and the cache name. Thankfully they have gone back to the previous method and we are happy with that.

 

 

I suspect the more typical case would be someone like me. I too had the emails from Geocaching.com go to a separate email folder. In this respect I was completely uneffected, the emails all continued to sort to the same folder as before.

 

In our case, we also had a separate email folder for geocaching, with 4 different filters that identified geocaching emails by words in the subject line and by the sender sender. None of them worked after the changes and my inbox was flooded. I had to redo the filters. In fact Groundspeak indicated in their reply that I would have to redo them. I recreated the filters and now it is OK

 

 

What I normally did was read the emails and then click throug to the cache page for caches I might be interested in. With the exception of the low contrast color scheme, the formatted emails are in fact easier for me to read. The font size was perfect (I may have set the default font for HTML email to a larger sixe, and it seems the emails abide by that selection). The additional information that is provide means that I can make a better decision as to which cache I click through to bring up the page. It takes me less time to get through the geocaching emails now.

......

For most people, the new emails may need some minor tweaking but it seems to be a better solution. People who rolled their own solution to automate how they deal with emails should not be surprised to see that break when changes are made.

 

In the past when I received a large number of finds from one person, I would click on the first one and see the content in the preview pane below. I would then click on the others and see if there was additional info regarding cache condition etc. Because the log message was at the top of the email, I could see it in the preview pane without clicking further or scrolling.

 

The new email messages have the log further down and i can not read it without scrolling. That may seem like a minor annoyance, but with the number of caching emails we get, it is important. I have moved the preview pane to the right of my email and it helps but is much less convenient.

 

PAul

 

.

Link to comment

How exactly is this a better solution?

For people using a typical e-mail reader, which can display HTML, the new format provides a consistent and clear presentation. While being distinctive and well branded have obvious marketing advantages that you may find offensive, those same features also allow the recipient to immediately recognize the e-mail as a geocaching.com notification. The social media links are "the wave of the future", so while you and I might not find them useful, it's easy to see why GS wanted to include them.

 

While the objections being raised here are important and worthy of consideration, my guess is that about 95% of the people seeing these e-mails thought they were a big improvement. The other 5% were doing one thing or another that the new format trips over, and about 1% of them are complaining here. And although the complaints may be valid, I think they're getting drowned out in all the "Groundspeak never listens to us" whining.

Link to comment

How exactly is this a better solution?

For people using a typical e-mail reader, which can display HTML, the new format provides a consistent and clear presentation.

 

The old format was also a consistent and clear presentation. From the people who have issues reading the formatted text it sounds like the old way was clearer.

 

While being distinctive and well branded have obvious marketing advantages that you may find offensive, those same features also allow the recipient to immediately recognize the e-mail as a geocaching.com notification.

 

Strange how people didn't seem to have issues recognising the emails in the previous format as being a geocaching.com notification. The subject matter, the sender, the general layout, all pointed to an email from Groundspeak.

 

The social media links are "the wave of the future", so while you and I might not find them useful, it's easy to see why GS wanted to include them.

 

If Groundspeak is sending the same person dozens or hundreds of mails in a day it's hard to see why every single one of them needs to have links to faceache etc, especially when the net effect is to triple the amount of data being sent to convey the same basic information.

 

While the objections being raised here are important and worthy of consideration, my guess is that about 95% of the people seeing these e-mails thought they were a big improvement. The other 5% were doing one thing or another that the new format trips over, and about 1% of them are complaining here. And although the complaints may be valid, I think they're getting drowned out in all the "Groundspeak never listens to us" whining.

 

I'd be curious to know why you think 95% of people think they are an improvement, let alone a big improvement.

 

As it stands the formatted text appears to offer no value to any users while the changes break systems that some users may have set up to route emails. Ironically the people most likely to be affected are cache owners, who are the people Groundspeak can least afford to annoy. If I owned a lot of caches I'd want notification emails routed so that Find and Note logs would go to one folder that I could read at leisure while DNF/NM/NA logs would go to another so I could see early on if there was a problem with my caches.

Link to comment

I really think they were taken by surprise by the response to the email changes. I suspsect they had a number of meetings discussing ways to improve the emails and incorporate many of the changes people have been aksing for for a long time. THey might have even have had some focus groups of geocachers review the proposals. I don't think the expected so many people who were relying on the messages being formated in some specific way or having the email subject line containing specific fields.

 

I fail to see how Groundspeak could be taken by surprise by the changes to the emails. When Groundspeak changed the weekly newsletter from text to HTML there was a large response asking for the text only version to come back or at least a text only option. I don't recall any discussions where people were asking for HTML notifications, unless it was the folks that never use the website or pay attention to the email that Jayme interviewed and those folks thought HTML would be cool. And if the folks making changes to the subject lines and such never thought that some users might, just maybe, might be filtering they emails and separating them out then they certainly did not do any design reviews or spent more than a second or two thinking about what impact those changes might have on the users.

Link to comment

I'd be curious to know why you think 95% of people think they are an improvement, let alone a big improvement.

I think 95% of the people think it's a big improvement because I'm impartial, so I see what ways it's a big improvement. You asked, so I tried to explain it to you, but you're wrapped up in how it's failed you, you can't see the advantages even now that I've pointed them out to you.

Link to comment

I'd be curious to know why you think 95% of people think they are an improvement, let alone a big improvement.

I think 95% of the people think it's a big improvement because I'm impartial, so I see what ways it's a big improvement. You asked, so I tried to explain it to you, but you're wrapped up in how it's failed you, you can't see the advantages even now that I've pointed them out to you.

 

 

I dont think 95% of the people think it's a big improvement because I'm impartial, so I dont see ways it's a big improvement. You tried to explain it, but I can't see the advantages even now that you've pointed them out to me.

 

I actually suspect that most people may have noticed the change but it doesn't affect them so they don't have an opinion and likely don't think it is a big improvement or even an improvement. They likely think it is simply a change.

 

PAul

 

.

Link to comment

I actually suspect that most people may have noticed the change but it doesn't affect them so they don't have an opinion and likely don't think it is a big improvement or even an improvement. They likely think it is simply a change.

I'm not sure what you would count as a big improvement. While there has been a lot of discussion on the changes to the subject lines and the use of HTML to format the message, most people seem over look that there were real changes that address thing asked for by people in this forum. That includes more information in the published notice including the name of the cache owner and the direction and distance to the cache. I happen to find the formatted text easier to read (especially now that they changed the background color).

 

I also see they've put back the old subject on most of the emails (even the useless {LOG] and [GEO] in the front), so that people who wrote brittle email sorting rules can continue to use them. My rules have manage to work through all the changes - but I'm just putting all the emails for Geocaching.com in one folder so I'll admit that if you want to sort on some other keyword that you need more complicated rules.

 

I'm having a little trouble understanding why someone who is concerned about the increased data charges due to HTML would have so much email sent to their phone that this would make a difference. At least now that the subject lines are back, one can sort the notification of new caches from the other logs wait till you have WiFi before opening anything but a new cache notification.

Link to comment

OK, so let's see:

 

BAD:

Makes it harder for disabled cachers (this has been pointed out many times)

Change for the sake of change without checking if it affects anybody (yes, they rolled back partially, but why not check first?)

Added advertising and promotional links.

 

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

Link to comment

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

 

Added cache owner to the email.

 

Personally, I think it's easier to read. Not sure why folks think it's more difficult.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

I just listed the main advantages as I see them a few posts above, so you're confirming a suspicion I'm starting to have that people affected negatively are so emotionally wrapped up in this, they can't see the good side even when it's laid out in front of them. I think HTML in e-mail is the sign of simplistic thinking and a desire for control, but at least I can see the advantages, too.

 

Kinda surprised to hear you say this change is so bad for the disabled. Normally HTML puts the text in an environment where there are more tools available for adjusting the display to suit the viewer.

Link to comment
Normally HTML puts the text in an environment where there are more tools available for adjusting the display to suit the viewer.
Well, that's the original idea of HTML. And if the HTML email didn't specify a font size in pixels or a low-contrast color scheme, then it would continue to adjust the display to suit the viewer.

 

So maybe what we need to do is ask Groundspeak to stop specifying a font size in pixels, and to stop specifying colors in the email.

Link to comment
Normally HTML puts the text in an environment where there are more tools available for adjusting the display to suit the viewer.
Well, that's the original idea of HTML. And if the HTML email didn't specify a font size in pixels or a low-contrast color scheme, then it would continue to adjust the display to suit the viewer.

 

So maybe what we need to do is ask Groundspeak to stop specifying a font size in pixels, and to stop specifying colors in the email.

 

Or ask them to let us specify them:

 

[FEATURE] Enhance email preferences

Link to comment

Well, that's the original idea of HTML.

Yeah, sorry. I'm an old timer, so I remember more about what HTML was invented for and try to ignore how it's actually used these days, which is almost exactly the opposite. Ironic.

 

And if the HTML email didn't specify a font size in pixels or a low-contrast color scheme, then it would continue to adjust the display to suit the viewer.

Right. The implementation is the problem in this case, but with all the yapping about how much HTML stinks, they aren't hearing complaints that could be fixed even within the context of having switched to HTML e-mail.

 

Although HTML e-mail does introduce some problems text e-mail doesn't have, to me the main problem with HTML e-mail is that the sender always feels compelled to control everything. I myself am not having any trouble with the font or the color, but the fact that the line width is fixed so I can't adjust the window for my own purposes really grates on me.

Link to comment

Making generalizations that say "MOST" are not pleased because of comments here are incorrect, unless you are saying MOST that comment here are not pleased, in which case I'd agree. I think most people in the geocaching world probably don't care.

I indeed referred to those who read and post here, understanding that it is a self-selecting population. That said, the complaints on this feature change have come more quickly and in greater volume than is often the case, which also indicates that this one 'stung' more than usual. The specifics of the complaints, most particularly with regard to cell phone use, will certainly impact a wider audience than we have here. I do not receive my gc.com email over my cell phone, but fully appreciate the brain damage this is likely causing those that do, hence my comments.

 

I personally always try to provide positive feedback to companies that I have a good experience with. This includes supermarkets, fast food, etc. If a customer service rep has gone out of their way to provide me with friendly and professional service, I will let their manager know about it.

 

I think that this attitude comes from the fact that I work for a company that emails a review form to every one of our customers, and if a customer voices a negative experience, our managers do every thing in their power to correct the problem. The last thing that we want is negative reviews on our web site.

 

I can't believe that a company would simply accept so many negative reviews and simply ignore them, with almost no comment. The fact that every single post in the new release thread is negative should be of concern. Instead, they dig into their trenches and wait for us to run out of ammunition.

Link to comment

I can't believe that a company would simply accept so many negative reviews and simply ignore them, with almost no comment. The fact that every single post in the new release thread is negative should be of concern. Instead, they dig into their trenches and wait for us to run out of ammunition.

 

Why should it concern Groundspeak what we think? When you enjoy a 99.9%+ market share you can afford not to have the slightest concerns about your service or how your users perceive you. The reason why your company is concerned is there are probably six or seven others that would like your customers business and would like the opportunity to please your customers. Until some alternate site gains traction and until Groundspeak understands they might lose their position nothing is going to change. Until Teddy Roosevelt had a conversation with J.D. Rockefeller he was not concerned about his business practices or what the folks that wanted to buy kerosene thought.

Link to comment

Making generalizations that say "MOST" are not pleased because of comments here are incorrect, unless you are saying MOST that comment here are not pleased, in which case I'd agree. I think most people in the geocaching world probably don't care.

I indeed referred to those who read and post here, understanding that it is a self-selecting population. That said, the complaints on this feature change have come more quickly and in greater volume than is often the case, which also indicates that this one 'stung' more than usual. The specifics of the complaints, most particularly with regard to cell phone use, will certainly impact a wider audience than we have here. I do not receive my gc.com email over my cell phone, but fully appreciate the brain damage this is likely causing those that do, hence my comments.

When Groundspeak decided to get rid of the Google Earth geocache link because only about 200 people were using it and tha it was putting undue load on Grounspeak servers, this forum filled with complaints and thy brought back th link.

 

I really think they were taken by surprise by the response to the email changes. I suspsect they had a number of meetings discussing ways to improve the emails and incorporate many of the changes people have been aksing for for a long time. THey might have even have had some focus groups of geocachers review the proposals. I don't think the expected so many people who were relying on the messages being formated in some specific way or having the email subject line containing specific fields.

 

I suspect the more typical case would be someone like me. I too had the emails from Geocaching.com go to a separate email folder. In this respect I was completely uneffected, the emails all continued to sort to the same folder as before. What I normally did was read the emails and then click throug to the cache page for caches I might be interested in. With the exception of the low contrast color scheme, the formatted emails are in fact easier for me to read. The font size was perfect (I may have set the default font for HTML email to a larger sixe, and it seems the emails abide by that selection). The additional information that is provide means that I can make a better decision as to which cache I click through to bring up the page. It takes me less time to get through the geocaching emails now.

 

Beside the color, the only other issue that has been brough up that I have seen are the notifications for other than publish that dont have the log type.

 

I don't use the notifications to run out for FTF like some people. My understand is that the published notifications to still have a text option that can easily be forwarded as an SMS message to a mobile device. This text contains more information about the cache than the previous message. Smartphones have email clients that can display HTML emails and the format seems to be one considers how it will fit on a small screen. I understand that some people prefer forwading the emails as text SMS messages to avoid data charges. This can be done with the published logs which are the emails where timely delivery is critical.

 

For most people, the new emails may need some minor tweaking but it seems to be a better solution. People who rolled their own solution to automate how they deal with emails should not be surprised to see that break when changes are made.

 

Personally, I had [LOG] and [GEO] going to one one folder. I also had Owner going to another folder, and Published going to a third. If they could add a [NEW] tag to the newly published caches, I could sort them and I guess I could learn to live with the rest of the changes.

 

I do not like the new formats, but have been on the net since 1992 when the WWW basically started. I've learned that companies do not like to roll back changes that they have paid money to create. NASCAR.com is a classic example. For a number of years, they rolled out an entirely new web site on the date of the first race of the season. Fans were so confused that they couldn't figure out how to use the site on the most important date that they needed to do so. Despite the complaints, they continued to do this year after year.

 

Just like with the email updates, nothing new was added, just everything was moved around, or information was deleted. Finally, someone figured out that all they were doing was spending money to to do nothing but piss off their customers.

Link to comment

How exactly is this a better solution?

For people using a typical e-mail reader, which can display HTML, the new format provides a consistent and clear presentation. While being distinctive and well branded have obvious marketing advantages that you may find offensive, those same features also allow the recipient to immediately recognize the e-mail as a geocaching.com notification. The social media links are "the wave of the future", so while you and I might not find them useful, it's easy to see why GS wanted to include them.

 

While the objections being raised here are important and worthy of consideration, my guess is that about 95% of the people seeing these e-mails thought they were a big improvement. The other 5% were doing one thing or another that the new format trips over, and about 1% of them are complaining here. And although the complaints may be valid, I think they're getting drowned out in all the "Groundspeak never listens to us" whining.

 

Wow! Love the statistics. Don't quit you day job.

Link to comment

I'd be curious to know why you think 95% of people think they are an improvement, let alone a big improvement.

I think 95% of the people think it's a big improvement because I'm impartial, so I see what ways it's a big improvement. You asked, so I tried to explain it to you, but you're wrapped up in how it's failed you, you can't see the advantages even now that I've pointed them out to you.

 

Can you please explain the improvements? No one else on this forum, including the Lackeys can seem to do so.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

Can you please explain the improvements? No one else on this forum, including the Lackeys can seem to do so.

There's an improvement. Cache owner is now listed in Publish notifications. (Thanks again for that, Groundspeak.)

 

Of course, this in no way requires, depends on, or justifies the use of HTML.

Link to comment

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

 

Added cache owner to the email.

 

Personally, I think it's easier to read. Not sure why folks think it's more difficult.

 

That's like asking a guy in a wheelchair why he is having trouble walking up the stairs. I suffer from low grade red/green color blindness. A small light green font on a white background is very hard to read. Your attitude is offensive to me+.

 

FWIW, when I'm driving, I only know to go or stop by the position of of the light on the signal. From 1000' back, I can not discern the color being displayed.

Link to comment

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

I just listed the main advantages as I see them a few posts above, so you're confirming a suspicion I'm starting to have that people affected negatively are so emotionally wrapped up in this, they can't see the good side even when it's laid out in front of them. I think HTML in e-mail is the sign of simplistic thinking and a desire for control, but at least I can see the advantages, too.

 

Kinda surprised to hear you say this change is so bad for the disabled. Normally HTML puts the text in an environment where there are more tools available for adjusting the display to suit the viewer.

 

Irf I adjust my email client to make these email comfortable, it breaks all of my other emails, so it becomes necessary to adjust it back. It seems silly that I should have to change me setting to read Groundspeak mail, then change it back to read all of my other mail.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

I can't believe that a company would simply accept so many negative reviews and simply ignore them, with almost no comment. The fact that every single post in the new release thread is negative should be of concern. Instead, they dig into their trenches and wait for us to run out of ammunition.

 

Why should it concern Groundspeak what we think? When you enjoy a 99.9%+ market share you can afford not to have the slightest concerns about your service or how your users perceive you. The reason why your company is concerned is there are probably six or seven others that would like your customers business and would like the opportunity to please your customers. Until some alternate site gains traction and until Groundspeak understands they might lose their position nothing is going to change. Until Teddy Roosevelt had a conversation with J.D. Rockefeller he was not concerned about his business practices or what the folks that wanted to buy kerosene thought.

 

I totally agree with you. Our company is the largest in the industry. They do have competitors, so they do every thing in their power to retain their customers and to have their customers recommend them to their friends and associates, as new customers.

 

At this point, I have no desire to recruit new cachers and recommend that they become premium members.

 

Changing our submittable form. Changing the notifications. No Feedback.

 

I think I need to change my signature. It's now just a smartphone game.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

I'd be curious to know why you think 95% of people think they are an improvement, let alone a big improvement.

I think 95% of the people think it's a big improvement because I'm impartial, so I see what ways it's a big improvement. You asked, so I tried to explain it to you, but you're wrapped up in how it's failed you, you can't see the advantages even now that I've pointed them out to you.

 

But you didn't indicate any ways that it's actually an improvement.

 

The things you listed as "improvements" aren't actually improvements at all. The old format was consistent and clear, the old format was clearly from Groundspeak, and the old format required one third of the data to download.

 

Unless you really think having links to Groundspeak's social media presences on every single one of the hundreds of daily emails is a step forward the new system offers nothing over and above the old one, except for the fact that many people find it harder to read. Edit to add, after re-reading your post with the "improvements" listed - social media may be the "wave of the future" but I'm sure anyone who has notifications set up can find Groundspeak on faceache without too much trouble, and frankly I really don't want to be using my bandwidth so they can remind me to follow them on twitter with every single email.

 

Someone else mentioned that the cache owner is now listed in Publish notifications. We didn't need to change to HTML to do that, it had been requested for months if not years before we got this half-baked idea.

 

From a purely selfish perspective it actually makes no difference to me. I've let my premium membership lapse now for a variety of reasons so never had to rejig my software to process emails in an unwanted new format. For me it just shows another example of Groundspeak spending their seemingly very limited resources on breaking stuff than on doing anything useful.

 

So once again I'm in agreement with Don_J (and that's not something that has happened very many times). I used to be the guy in my circle of friends who was thought of as a bit of an oddball because of the way I wanted to find these odd things hidden in random places while out on a walk. I was fine with that, I'd recommend people give geocaching a try to see if they liked it. Now the way the game is developing I'd be more inclined to suggest people try the QR game instead - they seem to be no less interesting, you don't have to rummage around among the spider webs looking for a soggy film pot, and from what I can tell the owners of that game make efforts to keep the game fresh rather than just endlessly breaking stuff while saying they don't have the resources to commit to doing anything useful.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment
Can you please explain the improvements? No one else on this forum, including the Lackeys can seem to do so.

From the release notes:

HTML has arrived, making the coveted FTF easier than ever.

 

I'd love to know how getting FTF is made easier by the fact the email is now three times larger than it used to be, in a font that some people struggle to read. How exactly does the email format make it any easier to get an FTF?

 

Oh, wait, they now have links so you can download the Groundspeak app. Maybe that's what makes a difference. Or are caches published on faceache first, and the email notifications give you the chance to click the link to rush directly to the faceache page so you can like the new cache within a nanosecond of it being published, then go out and find it. Maybe that's it, people were wasting so much time looking for the faceache page they forgot to go and look for the cache and someone else got the FTF.

Link to comment

I totally agree with you. Our company is the largest in the industry. They do have competitors, so they do every thing in their power to retain their customers and to have their customers recommend them to their friends and associates, as new customers.

 

At this point, I have no desire to recruit new cachers and recommend that they become premium members.

 

Changing our submittable form. Changing the notifications. No Feedback.

 

I think I need to change my signature. It's now just a smartphone game.

Does your company ask customers what color they want their equipment?

 

In a way, HTML formatted email expresses the Geocaching.com brand. I know immediately that I'm looking email from Geocaching.com. There are links that are similar to what I would find looking right at the cache page.

 

Sure there have been specific complaints dealing with email filters that broke or with the choice of color scheme. From what I see these are being addressed. They are reading the feedback here and where there are specific issues that need to be address they have, or are, addressing these.

 

In may be true that Groundspeak hasn't learned how to communicate with customers yet. They seem to deal well with telling us about the souvenirs we can can get in August but not in revealing that they hear our pain because of something they thought would be a minor change (and is a minor change for most people). Whenever they get someone who is good about replying on the forum or responding to email with something more than a form letter, they "promote" them from customer service to product development.

Link to comment

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

 

Added cache owner to the email.

 

Personally, I think it's easier to read. Not sure why folks think it's more difficult.

 

That's like asking a guy in a wheelchair why he is having trouble walking up the stairs. I suffer from low grade red/green color blindness. A small light green font on a white background is very hard to read. Your attitude is offensive to me+.

 

FWIW, when I'm driving, I only know to go or stop by the position of of the light on the signal. From 1000' back, I can not discern the color being displayed.

 

WTF? Offensive? Your being "offended" is absurd to me.

 

Light green font? I don't know what YOU are seeing, but I am seeing a dark brown/almost black font on a pale beige background. High contrast.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

 

Light green font? I don't know what YOU are seeing, but I am seeing a dark brown/almost black font on a pale beige background. High contrast.

 

High contrast? Certainly you jest. Any other HTML email I get is bright and high contrast with readable fonts. Lots of white on blue, black on white, white on read and other bright color combinations. Groundspeak email is very muted, pastel and over all dim and hard to read. There is no snap to the email. It is just plain hard to read.

Link to comment

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

 

Added cache owner to the email.

 

Personally, I think it's easier to read. Not sure why folks think it's more difficult.

 

That's like asking a guy in a wheelchair why he is having trouble walking up the stairs. I suffer from low grade red/green color blindness. A small light green font on a white background is very hard to read. Your attitude is offensive to me+.

 

FWIW, when I'm driving, I only know to go or stop by the position of of the light on the signal. From 1000' back, I can not discern the color being displayed.

 

WTF? Offensive? Your being "offended" is absurd to me.

 

Light green font? I don't know what YOU are seeing, but I am seeing a dark brown/almost black font on a pale beige background. High contrast.

 

Maybe Don_J just made it all up to be awkward. Or maybe he's using a different email client. In which case it would suggest that Groundspeak didn't test their new creation on more than one or two email clients, which seems consistent with previous observations.

Link to comment
I am seeing a dark brown/almost black font on a pale beige background. High contrast.

I am seeing #584528 on #F7F1E9 (log text on background), which by my math, is 68% of the maximum possible contrast of typical plain text, which is #000000 on #FFFFFF (black on white).

 

68%. That's medium contrast to me.

 

Oh, and it _____.

Link to comment

 

Light green font? I don't know what YOU are seeing, but I am seeing a dark brown/almost black font on a pale beige background. High contrast.

 

High contrast? Certainly you jest. Any other HTML email I get is bright and high contrast with readable fonts. Lots of white on blue, black on white, white on read and other bright color combinations. Groundspeak email is very muted, pastel and over all dim and hard to read. There is no snap to the email. It is just plain hard to read.

 

It seems clear to me (no pun intended) that different folks are seeing different things. Honestly, until this discussion, I actually thought it was easier to read since the log was clearly distinct in the body of the email instead of blending into the field of plain text of the previous format. I see a very clear and easy to read font with good contrast against the background color. No "light green" font color here and I don't even see how it could be interpreted as such.

Link to comment

Light green font? I don't know what YOU are seeing, but I am seeing a dark brown/almost black font on a pale beige background. High contrast.

 

High contrast? Certainly you jest. Any other HTML email I get is bright and high contrast with readable fonts. Lots of white on blue, black on white, white on read and other bright color combinations. Groundspeak email is very muted, pastel and over all dim and hard to read. There is no snap to the email. It is just plain hard to read.

 

I must disagree with you there.

 

Oh snap! A new geocache has just been published!

 

wink.gif

Link to comment

Groundspeak is always changing things that have no reason to be changed, but leave important things unfixed for months or years.

 

I suspect that we (the cachers) are not the customers, but rather the product that is being sold. Which explains why many features and changes appear odd to us. Kinda like on Facebook.

 

-wesi

 

It's quite true that on the internet, if you're not a customer, you're a commodity.

 

There are no longer any bystanding consumers.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

As is true across the internet, the fact that many of us are indeed paying to be customers is apparently NOT the determining factor that controls which category we occupy.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
Link to comment

GOOD:

err, somebody help me because I can't see it. Perhaps because I am one of these disabled cachers Groiundspeak is always up in arms against

 

Added cache owner to the email.

 

Personally, I think it's easier to read. Not sure why folks think it's more difficult.

 

That's like asking a guy in a wheelchair why he is having trouble walking up the stairs. I suffer from low grade red/green color blindness. A small light green font on a white background is very hard to read. Your attitude is offensive to me+.

 

FWIW, when I'm driving, I only know to go or stop by the position of of the light on the signal. From 1000' back, I can not discern the color being displayed.

 

WTF? Offensive? Your being "offended" is absurd to me.

 

Light green font? I don't know what YOU are seeing, but I am seeing a dark brown/almost black font on a pale beige background. High contrast.

 

I'm using the Windows Live Mail client, and seeing a tiny light green font on a white background. (Actually, I'm barely seeing it).

Link to comment

The things you listed as "improvements" aren't actually improvements at all. The old format was consistent and clear, the old format was clearly from Groundspeak, and the old format required one third of the data to download.

I'm sorry you can't see it. The old text message was text, just like every other piece of mail everyone gets, so you had to actually look at the words to discover it was a GS message. The format was a mess, and, again, you could only figure out what was where by reading the words, where now everything's laid out in a way that visually obvious. You may not think these changes were needed, and you may have different opinions about how improvements should be measured, but by simple user interface standards they are objectively better, just as a graphical user interface is better than a text based one. Have you noticed that almost everyone uses a graphical user interface these days?

 

Unless you really think having links to Groundspeak's social media presences on every single one of the hundreds of daily emails is a step forward the new system offers nothing over and above the old one, except for the fact that many people find it harder to read.

You're reacting emotionally. The question was asked how this is better, and the stupid social media tags are an objective way it is better if you think having social media tags is a good thing. You don't, and I don't, and neither of us think anyone would use them, but many other people consider those tags important even if they don't need or use them. You may have missed that trend.

 

Edit to add, after re-reading your post with the "improvements" listed - social media may be the "wave of the future" but I'm sure anyone who has notifications set up can find Groundspeak on faceache without too much trouble...

One of the aspects of the social media trend is that one should never, ever have to go look for something: it should always be handed to you on a plate. I have no idea why our society is going that way, but it's silly to complain that GS has recognized that it is, in fact, going that way.

 

...and frankly I really don't want to be using my bandwidth so they can remind me to follow them on twitter with every single email.

And, again, the question was how it was better, not why you personally must think it is better. Most people know nothing about bandwidth and don't care about bandwidth and, if they have trouble with bandwidth, will blame it on their service provider, not the people that send them HTML e-mail (which is just about everyone, in case you missed that trend, too).

 

I have no problem understanding why the people complaining don't like these changes and consider them worthless. Personally, I'm finding them to be a slight improvement, but not so much that I would have wanted them to waste time on it. But what annoys me is this complete denial of the simple fact that most people don't have any clue about these issues that are affecting the people complaining so deeply. For the masses, HTML e-mail is simply a better, more modern presentation. And what I've been trying to point out is that the more stridently you deny that, the more GS will have cause to ignore your complaints as nothing but an irrational, emotional reaction.

Link to comment

I got a new cache published notification tonight.

 

The header of the email looked like this:

 

New Traditional Cache: green hill (GC5A47K), 8.9mi W (14.4km W)‏

 

It is very good, actually to have the distance in the header so I can know at a glance whether it makes

sense to go for a FTF or not.

 

Changes I would like:

 

1) the "New" would be better as [NEW] to make it stand out more

2) the GC code really doesn't need to be included in the header. It adds unnecessary clutter. Having it in the email is enough

Link to comment

I'm sorry you can't see it. The old text message was text, just like every other piece of mail everyone gets, so you had to actually look at the words to discover it was a GS message. The format was a mess, and, again, you could only figure out what was where by reading the words, where now everything's laid out in a way that visually obvious. You may not think these changes were needed, and you may have different opinions about how improvements should be measured, but by simple user interface standards they are objectively better, just as a graphical user interface is better than a text based one. Have you noticed that almost everyone uses a graphical user interface these days?

You're missing the point of the Notification Emails. Their function is to convey information about a cache related event, nothing else. Among the information that needs to be conveyed is the event (Archived/Published/Disabled etc), the GC code, the name of the cache, the location, etc. All of these things are words (or numbers) and MUST be read to make sense of the information. The fact that there's corporate branding on the mail provided no functional benefit, so it's not objectively better in any sense, though it may be subjectively better. The HTML Emails have their place, in mailshots and the weekly newsletter etc., but for a functional mail like these it's just frippery. It's easy to see from the subject line alone (as long as it's well constructed) what the mail is and who it's from without having to open the mail to look at the pretty pictures.

 

 

The question was asked how this is better, and the stupid social media tags are an objective way it is better if you think having social media tags is a good thing.

That's a ridiculous argument, and it's not OBJECTIVE it's a SUBJECTIVE perspective, you might just as well say sending a blank Email is better if you think receiving blank Emails is a good thing.

 

 

One of the aspects of the social media trend is that one should never, ever have to go look for something: it should always be handed to you on a plate. I have no idea why our society is going that way, but it's silly to complain that GS has recognized that it is, in fact, going that way.

This is a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes", everyone is doing it, so it must be good and GS think they need to do it too, probably because someone's recently done some training where they've heard this sort of argument and decided they have to follow the herd regardless of the fact it adds nothing to the functionality of these particular Emails.

 

 

Most people know nothing about bandwidth and don't care about bandwidth and, if they have trouble with bandwidth, will blame it on their service provider, not the people that send them HTML e-mail (which is just about everyone, in case you missed that trend, too).

Admittedly many people know nothing about bandwidth but I bet a lot of them care, particularly those using mobiles, and GS are chewing up their bandwidth (and hence their £££/$$$) for no benefit.

 

 

But what annoys me is this complete denial of the simple fact that most people don't have any clue about these issues that are affecting the people complaining so deeply. For the masses, HTML e-mail is simply a better, more modern presentation.

 

 

You speculate that most people don't have a clue, and you may be right (but you have no evidence for that), however clearly a lot of people do have a clue about it, and disapprove of it, as the issue has brought many who don't usually frequent the forums (unlike you, me & TeamTisri) out to complain.

 

Maybe a lot of people do prefer the HTML Emails, and that's fine, all we're asking is for the option to keep text only.

 

 

This whole issue reminds me of an incident on a computing course I was on years ago. The instuctor put up a rather complicated slide to demonstrate a relatively simple concept, with lots of icons and very few words. He asked the class "What does this slide tell us", to which some wag replied "I've got a clip-art package and I'm gonna use it".

Link to comment

The old text message was text, just like every other piece of mail everyone gets, so you had to actually look at the words to discover it was a GS message.

 

What I look at first for every mail is the sender and the subject line. I see them before seeing anything else.

 

When sending out personal mails to geocachers (yes, I know this thread is about notifications sent by Groundspeak) I regard it as quite annoying that the most prominent part of the mail is the green Groundspeak bar. These mails come from me and not from Groundspeak which just acts as a relay to allow cachers to hide their e-mail addresses from their public profile page.

 

but by simple user interface standards they are objectively better, just as a graphical user interface is better than a text based one. Have you noticed that almost everyone uses a graphical user interface these days?

 

I would not say that automatically text based interfaces are worse than graphical ones. For those who really know what they do, text based alternatives can offer the much faster approach.

 

not the people that send them HTML e-mail (which is just about everyone, in case you missed that trend, too).

 

Among the tons of mails I receive in my job and privately, less than 0.5% are html mails. I become aware of html mails very quickly as I often use e-mail readers that do not handle html. There are very few newsletters that come as html, but they almost always provide a link to a page where they can be viewed online.

 

I know many people who have switched off html in their e-mail programs due to security reasons.

 

Even if the masses prefer html mails, it would be very easy to offer an option for the cachers to choose between text mode and html mode. That would not change a bit for those who prefer html.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The things you listed as "improvements" aren't actually improvements at all. The old format was consistent and clear, the old format was clearly from Groundspeak, and the old format required one third of the data to download.

I'm sorry you can't see it. The old text message was text, just like every other piece of mail everyone gets, so you had to actually look at the words to discover it was a GS message. The format was a mess, and, again, you could only figure out what was where by reading the words, where now everything's laid out in a way that visually obvious. You may not think these changes were needed, and you may have different opinions about how improvements should be measured, but by simple user interface standards they are objectively better, just as a graphical user interface is better than a text based one. Have you noticed that almost everyone uses a graphical user interface these days?

 

Woah! Perish the thought people should have to look at the words to see what the email was about. That's just a crazy thought.

 

I found the old style of email to be pretty obvious. The message title was clearly from Groundspeak, and looking at the text gave me everything I needed to know.

 

It's not true to say the new email is "objectively better" given it's clearly a matter of subjective opinion. Unless you want to click through from the email telling you there's a new cache published so you can download the Groundspeak app or visit their faceache page the pretty interface offers nothing the text interface didn't. The fact GUIs replaced text interfaces for program interaction is nothing to do with text formatting.

 

Unless you really think having links to Groundspeak's social media presences on every single one of the hundreds of daily emails is a step forward the new system offers nothing over and above the old one, except for the fact that many people find it harder to read.

You're reacting emotionally. The question was asked how this is better, and the stupid social media tags are an objective way it is better if you think having social media tags is a good thing. You don't, and I don't, and neither of us think anyone would use them, but many other people consider those tags important even if they don't need or use them. You may have missed that trend.

 

I'm not reacting emotionally at all. I just don't want to be downloading endless links to things that don't interest me when all I want is a simple notification that someone found a cache on my watchlist. Can't I be told "Billybob found Giant Cache" without the notification also carrying links to all sorts of garbage that is of no interest?

 

Edit to add, after re-reading your post with the "improvements" listed - social media may be the "wave of the future" but I'm sure anyone who has notifications set up can find Groundspeak on faceache without too much trouble...

One of the aspects of the social media trend is that one should never, ever have to go look for something: it should always be handed to you on a plate. I have no idea why our society is going that way, but it's silly to complain that GS has recognized that it is, in fact, going that way.

 

Maybe they should quit with the half measures and give me a direct link to my caching profile, my forum profile, the GS forums and any other random caches they think might be of interest. Why not have an extended list of "people watching this cache are also watching" with some pretty pictures from the galleries of those caches too?

 

...and frankly I really don't want to be using my bandwidth so they can remind me to follow them on twitter with every single email.

And, again, the question was how it was better, not why you personally must think it is better. Most people know nothing about bandwidth and don't care about bandwidth and, if they have trouble with bandwidth, will blame it on their service provider, not the people that send them HTML e-mail (which is just about everyone, in case you missed that trend, too).

 

Just about all of the mailing lists I'm on have an option to receive a text email.

 

I have no problem understanding why the people complaining don't like these changes and consider them worthless. Personally, I'm finding them to be a slight improvement, but not so much that I would have wanted them to waste time on it. But what annoys me is this complete denial of the simple fact that most people don't have any clue about these issues that are affecting the people complaining so deeply. For the masses, HTML e-mail is simply a better, more modern presentation. And what I've been trying to point out is that the more stridently you deny that, the more GS will have cause to ignore your complaints as nothing but an irrational, emotional reaction.

 

It's clear that Groundspeak ignore any dissent however rational it may be. If HTML is better "for the masses" that still doesn't explain why they don't make text emails an option. If people like HTML then more power to them. I'd just like the option to get an email without endless links that don't interest me and formatting that I don't particularly care for. Adding a simple profile option would make the whole issue go away, but clearly Groundspeak knows best and Groundspeak doesn't care what its customers think. (As I've said before I'm no longer a paying customer but it's clear that premium members dislike the change too)

Link to comment

I'm sorry you can't see it. The old text message was text, just like every other piece of mail everyone gets, so you had to actually look at the words to discover it was a GS message. The format was a mess, and, again, you could only figure out what was where by reading the words, where now everything's laid out in a way that visually obvious. You may not think these changes were needed, and you may have different opinions about how improvements should be measured, but by simple user interface standards they are objectively better, just as a graphical user interface is better than a text based one. Have you noticed that almost everyone uses a graphical user interface these days?

You're missing the point of the Notification Emails. Their function is to convey information about a cache related event, nothing else. Among the information that needs to be conveyed is the event (Archived/Published/Disabled etc), the GC code, the name of the cache, the location, etc. All of these things are words (or numbers) and MUST be read to make sense of the information. The fact that there's corporate branding on the mail provided no functional benefit, so it's not objectively better in any sense, though it may be subjectively better. The HTML Emails have their place, in mailshots and the weekly newsletter etc., but for a functional mail like these it's just frippery. It's easy to see from the subject line alone (as long as it's well constructed) what the mail is and who it's from without having to open the mail to look at the pretty pictures.

 

Yep, in the mailbox that my caching-related messages get routed to I get subject titles like the following:

 

Your August Geocaching Mission Begins Friday

***SPAM*** How about a THREESOME with two perfect ladies?

[LOG] Watchlist: (username) found (cache) (Virtual Cache)

Obesity kills. Stop it before it stopped you!

 

Somehow I've always managed to figure out which ones came from Groundspeak without having to open them.

Link to comment

I got a new cache published notification tonight.

 

The header of the email looked like this:

 

New Traditional Cache: green hill (GC5A47K), 8.9mi W (14.4km W)‏

 

It is very good, actually to have the distance in the header so I can know at a glance whether it makes

sense to go for a FTF or not.

 

Changes I would like:

 

1) the "New" would be better as [NEW] to make it stand out more

2) the GC code really doesn't need to be included in the header. It adds unnecessary clutter. Having it in the email is enough

 

3) Is it really necessary to display the distance in miles and kilometers? I set a preference in my account which indicates I want to see distance as feet/miles. Why not use that?

 

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 19
×
×
  • Create New...