Jump to content

Release Notes - July 29, 2014

ThePaigeTurner
Followers 15

Recommended Posts

Lissi&Gusti

+Lissi&Gusti

Posted
Posted

I dont know how long this has been like this, in a "[LOG] Owner" email:

 

"© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching, a Groundspeak, Inc. Project. All Rights Reserved."

 

but "@DateTime.Now.Year" looks like a broken variable, dunno at which end.

 

Please bring back text-only emails, possibly as an option.

Link to comment
The A-Team

+The A-Team

Posted
Posted

I dont know how long this has been like this, in a "[LOG] Owner" email:

 

"© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching, a Groundspeak, Inc. Project. All Rights Reserved."

 

but "@DateTime.Now.Year" looks like a broken variable, dunno at which end.

 

Please bring back text-only emails, possibly as an option.

Looking back through the emails I've received, it broke sometime between 11:28 am and 11:51 am Pacific Daylight Time on Tuesday August 12.

Link to comment
Viajero Perdido

+Viajero Perdido

Posted
Posted (edited)
© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching' date=' a Groundspeak, Inc. Project. All Rights Reserved.

Hmm, a little problem at the server end, and another little gaffe that somehow got past QA. ("QA"?!?)

 

...and it can't be copyright by "Geocaching", that's not an entity. Groundspeak would be the entity.

...and they didn't write the log text, so how can they claim copyright on that?

 

The comedy continues...

Edited by Viajero Perdido
Link to comment
juc_cacher

+juc_cacher

Posted
Posted
© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching' date=' a Groundspeak, Inc. Project. All Rights Reserved.

Hmm, a little problem at the server end, and another little gaffe that somehow got past QA. ("QA"?!?)

 

...and it can't be copyright by "Geocaching", that's not an entity. Groundspeak would be the entity.

...and they didn't write the log text, so how can they claim copyright on that?

 

The comedy continues...

I suspect this will get fixed before the real problem does.

Link to comment
ADKer

+ADKer

Posted
Posted
© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching' date=' a Groundspeak, Inc. Project. All Rights Reserved.

Hmm, a little problem at the server end, and another little gaffe that somehow got past QA. ("QA"?!?)

 

...and it can't be copyright by "Geocaching", that's not an entity. Groundspeak would be the entity.

...and they didn't write the log text, so how can they claim copyright on that?

 

The comedy continues...

 

That would be a serious problem if they began to claim that they "owned" geocaching.

Link to comment
NinjaCacher!

+NinjaCacher!

Posted
Posted

I dont know how long this has been like this, in a "[LOG] Owner" email:

 

"© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching, a Groundspeak, Inc. Project. All Rights Reserved."

 

but "@DateTime.Now.Year" looks like a broken variable, dunno at which end.

 

Please bring back text-only emails, possibly as an option.

Looking back through the emails I've received, it broke sometime between 11:28 am and 11:51 am Pacific Daylight Time on Tuesday August 12.

 

I can narrow it down to between 11:39 and 11:47 PDT on August 12 ;)

 

And it's not only in [LOG Owner] mails but also in [LOG Watchlist], [LOG Bookmark], [LOG Attendee], [GEO Notify], "New xx Cache" etc.

Link to comment
NinjaCacher!

+NinjaCacher!

Posted
Posted
© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching' date=' a Groundspeak, Inc. Project. All Rights Reserved.

Hmm, a little problem at the server end, and another little gaffe that somehow got past QA. ("QA"?!?)

 

...and it can't be copyright by "Geocaching", that's not an entity. Groundspeak would be the entity.

...and they didn't write the log text, so how can they claim copyright on that?

 

The comedy continues...

 

Copyright owner of the log text is always the log writer.

 

From Terms of Use Agreement, 3.C.:

Your Content. All content you submit through our services remains yours; this includes your geocache logs and pictures, your comments and anything you post to our discussion forums. You and not Groundspeak are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via our services. You represent and warrant that you have all necessary rights and permissions required for all content you post and for the rights you grant to us below, and that your content does not violate this this Agreement, other Groundspeak terms, policies or guidelines, the rights of any other party or applicable law.

 

So yes, Groundspeak claiming copyright would be wrong. Maybe with "© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching" they mean something like the copyright is held by "someone at Geocaching", in that case that would be the user. But yeah don't think that's legally correct, as "Geocaching" is not an entity..

Link to comment
NinjaCacher!

+NinjaCacher!

Posted
Posted

Focus on what you don't like about feature changes, and on any bugs that you see. Thanks.

 

Ok again:

 

I still don't like those html mails "The Team" has forced upon us. It is also obvious here that many others don't like them. In fact, I would be quite surprised if even a single geocaching user (not sitting at GS HQ) has ever asked for the notification mails to be changed to html format. From a user's perspective, a forced change to html mails with no option to keep what worked before is a bug.

 

Could you, on the other hand, provide us with any estimate of how likely it is that this issue will ever get fixed? And if it doesn't, at least explain us the real reason why not? Whether it be that GS can spam us with farcebook/twatter links in every message, or if there are future plans to include other advertisments, or any other hidden agenda?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
frinklabs

+frinklabs

Posted
Posted

Focus on what you don't like about feature changes, and on any bugs that you see. Thanks.

 

Ok again:

 

I still don't like those html mails "The Team" has forced upon us. It is also obvious here that many others don't like them. In fact, I would be quite surprised if even a single geocaching user (not sitting at GS HQ) has ever asked for the notification mails to be changed to html format. From a user's perspective, a forced change to html mails with no option to keep what worked before is a bug.

 

Could you, on the other hand, provide us with any estimate of how likely it is that this issue will ever get fixed? And if it doesn't, at least explain us the real reason why not? Whether it be that GS can spam us with farcebook/twatter links in every message, or if there are future plans to include other advertisments, or any other hidden agenda?

 

Thanks.

 

Likely there was one or more members of The Team that indicated it wouldn't be a good idea to jam this stuff down our throat. Hopefully, going forward, the rest of The Team will heed their advice.

 

Meanwhile, if I thought that there was any room for The Team to compromise, I would suggest that they concede that not everyone wants HTML mail. In return, we would agree to click on one or more text-only links that would generate the seemingly-precious InstaYouTwitFace hits which is possibly what drove this initiative in the first place.

Link to comment
Delta68

+Delta68

Posted
Posted

Could you, on the other hand, provide us with any estimate of how likely it is that this issue will ever get fixed?

 

The answer to this question is NEVER

 

And if it doesn't, at least explain us the real reason why not?

 

The answer to this question is:

because it's a substantial technical issue

 

There you go...

I know because I asked someone directly :blink:

 

M

Link to comment
cheech gang

+cheech gang

Posted
Posted

Could you, on the other hand, provide us with any estimate of how likely it is that this issue will ever get fixed?

 

The answer to this question is NEVER

 

And if it doesn't, at least explain us the real reason why not?

 

The answer to this question is:

because it's a substantial technical issue

 

There you go...

I know because I asked someone directly :blink:

 

M

 

Shouldn't we be hearing this from a lackey? Second hand info is suspect.

Link to comment
ADKer

+ADKer

Posted
Posted

 

Copyright owner of the log text is always the log writer.

 

From Terms of Use Agreement, 3.C.:

Your Content. All content you submit through our services remains yours; this includes your geocache logs and pictures, your comments and anything you post to our discussion forums. You and not Groundspeak are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via our services. You represent and warrant that you have all necessary rights and permissions required for all content you post and for the rights you grant to us below, and that your content does not violate this this Agreement, other Groundspeak terms, policies or guidelines, the rights of any other party or applicable law.

 

So yes, Groundspeak claiming copyright would be wrong. Maybe with "© 2000-@DateTime.Now.Year Geocaching" they mean something like the copyright is held by "someone at Geocaching", in that case that would be the user. But yeah don't think that's legally correct, as "Geocaching" is not an entity..

 

I'm surprised with how much they seem to love working with HTML that they haven't fixed this yet!tongue.gif

 

But yeah, we'd have a serious problem if GS started to claim that they "owned" geocaching.ph34r.gif

Link to comment
Lissi&Gusti

+Lissi&Gusti

Posted
Posted

I'm getting this error where logs contain the string "ERROR: Method not found" and broken HTML code. It appears to happen when logs contain a link. I can't ewll if it's broken by the logger or somewhere downstream. (I've xxx-ed out the nonessential information.)

 

(And yeah, it likely wouldn't have happened with a text-only email, which I would prefer...)

 

"Plakativ! (GC56P6H) has a new log:

Logged by: xx

Log Type: Found it

Date: 8/16/2014

Location: Bayern, Germany

Type: Traditional Cache

 

Log: XXXX

 

<p[ERROR: Method not found: 'Int32 System.Environment.get_CurrentManagedThreadId()'.]Besucht uns auf http://www.Gutenberg-2015.de

<br[ERROR: Method not found: 'Int32 System.Environment.get_CurrentManagedThreadId()'.]

Link to comment
msrubble

+msrubble

Posted
Posted

The answer to this question is:

because it's a substantial technical issue

 

How can it be a "substantial technical issue" when:

 

A. Forcing HTML everything was a "snap," and

 

B. Groundspeak used to offer a choice between HTML and plain text newsletters, although now they are not honoring users' decisions?

Link to comment
DragonsWest

+DragonsWest

Posted
Posted

The answer to this question is:

because it's a substantial technical issue

 

How can it be a "substantial technical issue" when:

 

A. Forcing HTML everything was a "snap," and

 

B. Groundspeak used to offer a choice between HTML and plain text newsletters, although now they are not honoring users' decisions?

 

Maybe the HTML email wasn't done entirely in-house, but was shopped out to another company, one in India or China? Nothing in these communications suggests GS does everything in-house. This all smacks of something done in an out-house. rimshot2.gif

Link to comment
terratin

+terratin

Posted
Posted

The answer to this question is:

because it's a substantial technical issue

 

How can it be a "substantial technical issue" when:

 

A. Forcing HTML everything was a "snap," and

 

B. Groundspeak used to offer a choice between HTML and plain text newsletters, although now they are not honoring users' decisions?

 

Really? I wonder what percentage of users choose to have plain text and HTML. If the majority actually like to get HTML then this might be the answer as to 'why'. GS, would you like to comment? :)

Link to comment
NinjaCacher!

+NinjaCacher!

Posted
Posted

The answer to this question is:

because it's a substantial technical issue

 

good one.. :laughing:

 

can't be so hard.. the substantial part, the plain text emailer, was already there. now all we need is a flag, a setting if the user wants this option...

 

now if that is a substantial technical issue, i wonder how everything else works on this page :rolleyes::ph34r:

 

Really? I wonder what percentage of users choose to have plain text and HTML. If the majority actually like to get HTML then this might be the answer as to 'why'. GS, would you like to comment? :)

 

well no matter what percentage of users wants to have HTML in newsletters. HTML in notifications is still a bad idea.

Link to comment
juc_cacher

+juc_cacher

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

well no matter what percentage of users wants to have HTML in newsletters. HTML in notifications is still a bad idea.

 

^^^^ This.

 

I actually like the HTML in the newsletter. Newsletters are a different medium from email notifications. HTML works for newsletters, it doesn't work for email notifications.

Edited by juc_cacher
Link to comment
LazyLeopard

LazyLeopard

Posted
Posted (edited)

They forgot the tick box to allow me to choose PLAIN TEXT EMAILS. Very disappointed in that.

 

Likewise. Annoyed, even. Have HTML if you must, but a decent plain-text with links that can be cut-n-pasted is absolutely essential for some of us.

 

The answer to this question is:

because it's a substantial technical issue

 

There you go...

I know because I asked someone directly :blink:

 

Yeah, right. </SARCASM>

 

Someone clueless, presumably...

 

They can't even be bothered to do the HTML properly (with a multipart/mixed plain-text alternative)...

Edited by LazyLeopard
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 15
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...