Saved pocket query selection process

[+yukionna]

I travel quite a bit and hence have built/saved (100+) many PQs which cover the states/areas where I travel. Each month, I find myself individually unchecking all the PQs I don't want to run automatically for the next month and then individually checking the ones that I want to run. It is a long process which involves repeating the following steps for each PQ I want to change when/if it runs automatically on a day:

 

1) check/uncheck one PQ

2) wait for the server request to complete

3) when the server request completes, the PQ page refreshes and brings the user to the top of the PQ page

4) scroll down the page to find the next PQ to check/uncheck

5) repeat steps 1-4 until done

 

I'm wondering if a change to the PQ "Active Pocket Queries" selection process to turn the page into a form which is submitted once would benefit the server (by reducing server requests) and save user's time. If the change to a form isn't feasible, it would be nice if, after the server request, the page stays in the same location as the last check/uncheck. This would remove the extra step of having to scroll down the page after each server refresh.

 

I'm not sure if others encounter this situation as well but I would imagine there are others that could benefit from this change now that Groundspeak has increased the number of PQs allowed to be saved and submitted.

Edited January 2, 2015 by yukionna

[+Bear and Ragged]

The three options are:

 

Uncheck the day of the week after the query runs

Run this query every week on the days checked

Run this query once then delete it

 

Why not just selected the first option, and run the PQ when needed?

 

GSAK will allow you to refresh up to 6,000 caches with logs (gpx equivalent), or 10,000 without logs (loc equivalent) in a database.

[+Mineral2]

That's not what he's asking about. I leave my queries on Uncheck after the query runs.

 

The issue is that when you check a day of the week, the whole page refreshes which is time costly when you want to turn on (and off) multiple pocket queries at once. I think this is a valid request.

 

In addition, it would be nice if we could have the option to check and bundle all of the files in one batch download action from the "ready for download" tab.

[+Bear and Ragged]

That's not what he's asking about. I leave my queries on Uncheck after the query runs.

 

The issue is that when you check a day of the week, the whole page refreshes which is time costly when you want to turn on (and off) multiple pocket queries at once. I think this is a valid request.

 

In addition, it would be nice if we could have the option to check and bundle all of the files in one batch download action from the "ready for download" tab.

 

I travel quite a bit and hence have built/saved (100+) many PQs which cover the states/areas where I travel.

Each month, I find myself individually unchecking all the PQs I don't want to run automatically for the next month and then individually checking the ones that I want to run.

It is a long process which involves repeating the following steps for each PQ I want to change when/if it runs automatically on a day:

 

 

OK, the select day, page refresh, scroll, select day, etc does get a bit annoying!

 

In addition, it would be nice if we could have the option to check and bundle all of the files in one batch download action from the "ready for download" tab.

 

GSAK does it.

 

(It would seem that if a Groundspeak API partner provides the function, Groundspeak seem 'reluctant' to provide it themselves...)

[+ecanderson]

The three options are:

 

Uncheck the day of the week after the query runs

Run this query every week on the days checked

Run this query once then delete it

 

Why not just selected the first option, and run the PQ when needed?

 

GSAK will allow you to refresh up to 6,000 caches with logs (gpx equivalent), or 10,000 without logs (loc equivalent) in a database.

Of some interest, GSAK will allow you to refresh up to 6,000 caches with logs (gpx equivalent), AND 10,000 without logs (loc equivalent) in a database. Only noted because that turns out to be very handy for me in one of my macros where I pull in all of a friend's unfound caches using the "Advanced" bit of "Get Geocaches". I just need his list of unfounds to match up to mine, not the detailed data, so I can run my own stuff within the confines of the full 6,000, and grab his using the added 10,000 as 'Light" entries.

[+Mineral2]

Yeah, but these are solutions that could be easily implemented into the website so that users don't have to pay an extra fee for them on top of the premium membership.

[+ecanderson]

Once again - you folks can all keep banging your heads against a wall with a very long laundry list of features most of which could be served effectively on a common (gc.com) server, most of which will never see the light of day, and a host of others that make more sense to be processed on your own PCs. "...so that users don't have to pay..." Well, GSAK is a heck of a lot cheaper than a premium membership (a 1 time charge equal to that of a year of premium membership), and it can be used for free -- a fully featured demo, if you like -- if you don't mind the nags, and will actually produce RESULTS that benefit the user. Given the HUGE list of useful features being requested of the rather minimal resources at gc.com, one can either opt for function that is immediately available or argue about how to get someone else (gc.com) to create it.

 

OK - you Mac users - put your money where your mouths are. If there are that many of you, and ANY of you is capable of coding an app (or are associated with those who are), you should have a talk with Clyde about a deal to port his code for OSX. He's a very reasonable and responsive sort of guy. I know that this issue has been brought up frequently here, but nothing will happen until the OSX community stops sitting on their hands and helps to create a tool as good as GSAK for their preferred platform. Complaining about having to run a Windows emulator (yes - sometimes difficult, but sometimes just a matter of personal sentiment about Windows) isn't going to solve this problem.

 

Note in the 1st paragraph: ...and a host of others that make more sense to be processed on your own PCs...". Some of what is requested here is much more efficiently performed on a person's own PC with one's own data rather than on the gc.com host. For those that use GSAK already, and understand the value of the use and manipulation of several personal databases, it should be clear why some things are far better done that way and not burdening gc.com's servers in the first place. Further, GSAK allows the user (or proxy) to create macros to perform functions that would be so incredibly complicated to describe to gc.com's server through any 'simple' user interface that it just isn't practical.

 

Example:

1 - Pull in my own rectangular (my preference) PQ areas of unfound caches

2 - Merge/overlay into the caches from step 1 a database that I keep of solved puzzle coordinates and the coordinates of the 'next' stage of any multis I'm working on currently

3 - Pull in my caching buddy's unfound caches from the same rectangular PQ areas from step 1 - a very nifty feature of the API that has never been available on their web site

4 - Delete from my list of unfound caches from step 1 any 'problem' caches (those that should probably be archived anyway!) that I don't want to visit - I manually update this periodically

5 - Run a comparison of my unfound caches and those of my caching buddy, flagging those that just he needs and those that just I need

6 - Create TomTom *.ov2 files for my car unit that show those I need, those he needs, and those we both need, separated by cache type

7 - Generate the *.gpx file for my Garmin Oregon

8 - Generate a *.gdb file for routing our caching day on Mapsource or Basecamp, complete with custom icons that show up properly, and also flag the caches from step 5 with their own special icons

 

I don't think I've forgotten anything important in that. And it's all done with ONE mouse click from a macro menu.

 

So really folks -- isn't it worth at least thinking about an alternative to asking the impossible from gc.com when this kind of tool is available NOW? I don't know about you, but the $30 I paid Clyde is FAR MORE than paid for by the amount of time I save in one week of using it, much less the years I've been enjoying it here.

Edited January 3, 2015 by ecanderson

[+yukionna]

Thank you "Bear and Ragged" and "ecanderson" for the synopsis of some of the features of GSAK but I don't see how GSAK can help in the situation I outlined. I have over 10,000 caches in my various GSAK state databases that I need to refresh with logs so don't see anyway around this other than rerunning PQs to refresh my databases with the most current data.

[+ecanderson]

@yukionna

My post wasn't directly specifically at your situation (it was directed at post #6), though it could apply to your situation as well. I probably blew through the info too quickly. Note step 1 in that mess I wrote above. Many of us never execute a PQ from the gc.com site now, not even from GSAK. We define our areas (circular or rectangular) within GSAK, and use the API to call in the cache data. That can be done manually or with a macro. With GSAK's API abilities (better than the site), I do not need to have ANY PQs set up at gc.com to accomplish this. I think a lot of GSAK users never get past executing existing gc.com PQs from within GSAK, not realizing they can set up their own without gc.com. Either way might make it easier for you than checking the boxes on the web site, though. Worth a shot.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Thank you "Bear and Ragged" and "ecanderson" for the synopsis of some of the features of GSAK but I don't see how GSAK can help in the situation I outlined. I have over 10,000 caches in my various GSAK state databases that I need to refresh with logs so don't see anyway around this other than rerunning PQs to refresh my databases with the most current data.

 

Database of 80,000 caches.

Oldest update for non-PQ caches is 5 days.

My regular weekly PQs are 6/7 days old, and start to run again tomorrow.

 

PQ's only have the last 5 logs, GSAK will load ALL required logs,

 

Limits are:

Following are the current (geocaching.com imposed) limits for the Geocaching.com Access menu in GSAK, for easy reference:

 

Get Geocaches (Note: this is a combined limit with Refresh Cache Data)

Full: up to 900 caches per minute, maximum of 6000 caches per day, maximum 30 Logs per cache

Light: up to 900 caches per minute, maximum of 10,000 caches per day, no Logs

 

Refresh Cache Data (Note: this is a combined limit with Get Geocaches)

Full: up to 900 caches per minute, maximum of 6000 caches per day, maximum 30 Logs per cache

Light: up to 900 caches per minute, maximum of 10,000 caches per day, no Logs

 

Download Pocket Queries

Up to 900 Pocket Queries per minute (practical limit is the number of available Pocket Queries)

 

Get Recent Logs

Up to 900 logs per minute, maximum of 54,000 logs per hour. No maximum per cache. No daily maximum.

 

Status Check

Up to 900 caches per minute: maximum of 54,000 caches per hour. No daily maximum.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Bear and Ragged

[+MartyBartfast]

This http://www.webextender.net/scripts/show/106655.html may alleviate some of your pain (it does for me). It's a greasemonkey script (runs on firefox) which automatically refreshes the PQ page so the last PQ you ticked/unticked is right at the top of the screen, so saves a lot of that scrolling business.

[+ecanderson]

PQ's only have the last 5 logs, GSAK will load ALL required logs,

Ah, right. Been so long since I'd pulled up my cache list with less than the max 30 logs, I'd completely forgotten about that. Another good reason for a GSAK user to pull down caches directly with the API instead of calling regular PQs up from gc.com with GSAK.

[+EngPhil]

That's not what he's asking about. I leave my queries on Uncheck after the query runs.

 

The issue is that when you check a day of the week, the whole page refreshes which is time costly when you want to turn on (and off) multiple pocket queries at once. I think this is a valid request.

 

In addition, it would be nice if we could have the option to check and bundle all of the files in one batch download action from the "ready for download" tab.

Yes, this. And that.

 

The "click/wait for refresh/click/wait for refresh" cycle is somewhat maddening, especially on a small screen, if you happen to mis-click (which PQ did I just toggle?)

 

And GSAK is, as always, Not The Answer To Everything. There are a lot of things that I can do within Geosphere that are lacking via the website, but that doesn't make "Just use Geosphere" a valid solution to the shortcomings, in the same way that GSAK is not.

[+ecanderson]

And GSAK is, as always, Not The Answer To Everything.

I seem to have missed the post where that was asserted. Will have to read them again.

Meanwhile, it is an answer to enough things, many of which are - quite frankly - inefficient to achieve on a common server, to make it well worth the time for many to make an attempt to use it. Once the tool is in hand for one reason, one often discovers that it creates alternate solutions to a great many things that are either less than desirable or not possible within the confines of the gc.com UX. Some of this is simply a function of additional capabilities when accessing the site via API rather than directly.

Edited January 5, 2015 by ecanderson

[+dprovan]

At first, I read the OP and was asking myself why anyone would do that. It seemed like there must be a better way. But then when I got to the specific description of the problem, I no longer cared why because that behavior drives me crazy even though what I'm doing is entirely different. It's very common for me to want to kick off 3 or more PQs, but every time I have to scroll back down to select the next one and then scroll back down again to select the next one. I could live with the delay, although certainly it would be better if I could just click, click, click, and be done with it.

 

I don't really understand why the PQ page doesn't simply take my mouse click and act on it without moving the screen. That's fine when I'm submitting a single PQ, but it gets old just to submit 2, let alone 4 or 5, especially when they're right next to each other.

 

If that's too hard, a compromise might be to use the "delete selected" check box, and use it to provide additional features like "submit selected" or "unsubmit selected". That would leave the individual PQ submission unchanged, but provide a way to submit bulk requests when that would be useful.

[+Walts Hunting]

I haven't used pqs in a long time but as I recall you can go to the page listing them and click the day including the current day and then the next day unchecked them and check new ones. Is that no longer available?

[+Bear and Ragged]

OK. Non-GSAK option.

 

I use Firefox as my web browser. I have an add-on to select multiple links in a cache page to open links in new tabs.

 

In the new page, do your selections of PQ details, close tab.

Refresh the original page.

Job done.

[+EngPhil]

I haven't used pqs in a long time but as I recall you can go to the page listing them and click the day including the current day and then the next day unchecked them and check new ones. Is that no longer available?

That's the page that the OP is (justifiably) complaining about. The problem is that each time you check/uncheck a box it refreshes the page and you have to wait to check/uncheck the next box...

[+ecanderson]

One option that gc.com could consider for THAT particular page is to allow selection without action, and require a "Submit" button to complete any actions taken. Would resolve the OP's problem.

[+dprovan]

The problem is that each time you check/uncheck a box it refreshes the page and you have to wait to check/uncheck the next box...

You have to wait, and it repositions you at the top of the page, so you have to scroll back down to where you were.

 

One option that gc.com could consider for THAT particular page is to allow selection without action, and require a "Submit" button to complete any actions taken. Would resolve the OP's problem.

That might solve the CO's problem, but it would introduce new problems, including adding scrolling to the bottom of the page and submitting the page even when one wants to enable a single PQ where the current one click submit works perfectly. Furthermore, I'm worried about how often I'd forget to click on submit.

[+Mineral2]

One option that gc.com could consider for THAT particular page is to allow selection without action, and require a "Submit" button to complete any actions taken. Would resolve the OP's problem.

 

That's what the OP (and I) have been suggesting all along and keep meeting resistance from GSAK users who think we should stop using the website altogether.

[+ecanderson]

I only threw out a possible solution. I don't hold out any hope that the page will be modified in any useful way. gc.com has their own agenda when it comes to how they deploy their resource (as we've seen in the past - unrequested new features appearing while major bugs remain), so if I were in the OP's shoes, and wanted a solution -- yes -- I'd look to a 3rd party solution that I could control rather than hope that my own personal issues were resolved some day. There's certainly nothing wrong with beating the drums to try to get action on web site improvements, but I'm afraid it's more on the order of beating a dead horse in most cases. So while users continue to make requests, it might behoove them to find their own solutions to many of these problems that we encounter in our daily use of the site.

 

Moving away from GSAK for a moment, and forgetting how many times gc.com has broken scripts by making unexpected site changes, how many people who still use the gc.com site are also running GreaseMonkey scripts of one sort or another to improve the look or features of the site? We've had a couple of our fellow cachers do their level best for years to bring a better UX to the rest of us with their scripts. Now - how many of the improvements that they have made to the UX have ever been implemented by gc.com on their end? Once again, people taking it unto themselves to solve problems that they know will never be solved any other way.

 

Moving further away from the desktop entirely - one wonders whether gc.com's focus will become more and more on mobile apps, and less and less on the desktop web site. Not that I'm particularly enamored of their own mobile offerings (another example of the user base doing a better job creating a user experience), but I can't imagine that trapping more $ from new premium members through all of the mobile APIs isn't a priority for them.

 

I hate to sound like a defeatist here, but looking back, I think people need to be realistic, and if an improved UX is important to them, they're going to have to take matters into their own hands.

[+Lil Devil]

I assume this thread is talking about this page with the big grid of checkboxes. It's actually pretty easy. Just ctrl-click on a checkbox, and if your browser is configured correctly, it will open a new tab in the background to process the checkbox. I can continue to ctrl-click on all the checkboxes I want without interuption, and the browser will happily process them all in the background. When I'm done, just close all the tabs except the last one opened, which will show the current state.

[+dprovan]

Moving away from GSAK for a moment, and forgetting how many times gc.com has broken scripts by making unexpected site changes, how many people who still use the gc.com site are also running GreaseMonkey scripts of one sort or another to improve the look or features of the site?

I do not use any external scripts. I don't like everything about the website, but I'm willing to adapt to what they provide, even when a feature is annoying and seems simple to fix like this one. And, to be honest, I suspect any scripts would just annoying me in different ways.

[+dprovan]

I assume this thread is talking about this page with the big grid of checkboxes. It's actually pretty easy. Just ctrl-click on a checkbox, and if your browser is configured correctly, it will open a new tab in the background to process the checkbox. I can continue to ctrl-click on all the checkboxes I want without interuption, and the browser will happily process them all in the background. When I'm done, just close all the tabs except the last one opened, which will show the current state.

Wow, thanks. I never imagined that would work, so I never even considered trying it.

[+ecanderson]

I do not use any external scripts. I don't like everything about the website, but I'm willing to adapt to what they provide, even when a feature is annoying and seems simple to fix like this one. And, to be honest, I suspect any scripts would just annoying me in different ways.

Ooo... quite to the contrary, a handful of your fellow cachers have tried over time to produce some very useful improvements to the UX of the site. You might be surprised at what folks like Lil Devil have accomplished. The only time you'd be annoyed was when gc.com made a site change that broke one of the ones you really liked! For Firefox users, some of these have really proved useful. See http://www.lildevil.org/greasemonkey/ and long before gc.com offered any sort of useful map options, we had this http://geo.inge.org.uk/gme.htm and it is still in use by many because it continues to offer features not available at gc.com.

[+dprovan]

You might be surprised at what folks like Lil Devil have accomplished.

I'm sure they've accomplished a lot, so I doubt I'd be surprised.

 

The only time you'd be annoyed was when gc.com made a site change that broke one of the ones you really liked!

Which is nothing to sneeze at, especially if I've been running a script so long I've forgotten where the broken feature came from.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying scripts can't be used to improve the interface, I'm just saying I don't feel the improvements would be worth it for me. If you like them, be my guest.

[+ecanderson]

I used to like them. As I say, I don't use the web site now, so it doesn't matter here. Those that do use the site might benefit, which is why I pointed to those options.