Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Arne1

Disable of Message Center ?

Recommended Posts

The problem as I see it is not so much the Notification Centre, but the very poor notification system. And that notification system also very poor in notifications about new caches, tb movements etc.

 

Not sure what "notification center" you're talking about.

 

Are you talking about logs posted on caches or trackables you own?

 

Because that's got nothing to do with the Message Center.

 

Why would people contact you using the Message Center about new caches, tb movements, etc?

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem as I see it is not so much the Notification Centre, but the very poor notification system. And that notification system also very poor in notifications about new caches, tb movements etc.

 

Not sure what "notification center" you're talking about.

 

Are you talking about logs posted on caches or trackables you own?

 

Because that's got nothing to do with the Message Center.

 

Why would people contact you using the Message Center about new caches, tb movements, etc?

 

B.

 

You are correct, I was talking about the Message Centre.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, then I'm confused.

 

What has the Message Center got to do with notifications of new caches or tb movement?

 

As Manville Possum Hunters said, the Message Center seems to be the perfect answer for Earthcache logging.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

I think the issue is that some users can't deal with change, as if the way the world was is the way the would should always be. I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same people that still cling to their Garmin gpsMap60csx as the best GPS ever.

 

I guess I'm just old fashion then. The Garmin 60csx was the perfect GPS, I upgraded to the 62s and regretted it ever since. The 62 is cumbersome and non-user friendly to the point of being almost a piece of junk. I'm finally getting it figured out, but sometimes change for the sake of change is not a good thing.

 

Making a change in the message center to make some people happy is not going to make everyone happy.

 

However, it is not a real problem for me as I can ignore messages from the message center as easy as I can ignore messages from E-mail. (If anyone wants to get a hold of me they need to use E-mail, I don't even know where or how to check message center. )

Share this post


Link to post

Well, then I'm confused.

 

What has the Message Center got to do with notifications of new caches or tb movement?

 

As Manville Possum Hunters said, the Message Center seems to be the perfect answer for Earthcache logging.

 

 

B.

 

The notification system is what they have in common.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, then I'm confused.

 

What has the Message Center got to do with notifications of new caches or tb movement?

 

As Manville Possum Hunters said, the Message Center seems to be the perfect answer for Earthcache logging.

 

 

B.

 

The notification system is what they have in common.

 

Ah, okay, I get it now.

 

I don't even know where or how to check message center. )

 

Right Here.....

 

image.png

 

And here, same location on the page:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/my/default.aspx

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even know where or how to check message center. )

 

Right Here.....

 

image.png

 

So someone wants to send me a message. They send it by E-mail, and I get a note that I have a message anytime I log on the computer. They send it by message, and I will only see it if I log onto Geocache.com. (assuming I remember to check to see if I have one.)

 

I don't log onto Geocache that often. Someone wants me they will need to E-mail, I would not be getting the messages that quickly.

 

Of course, most people don't really need to get a hold of me. My cache hides are traditionals, and I don't do Earthcaches, or travel bugs. :P :P

Share this post


Link to post

They send it by message, and I will only see it if I log onto Geocache.com. (assuming I remember to check to see if I have one.)

 

See my post on page 1 of this thread, post #48.

 

You get an email to tell you that you have a message in the Message Center.

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

They send it by message, and I will only see it if I log onto Geocache.com. (assuming I remember to check to see if I have one.)

 

See my post on page 1 of this thread, post #48.

 

You get an email to tell you that you have a message in the Message Center.

 

B.

 

I missed that when you posted it. But going back and rereading it reminded me I did use the Message center a month or so ago.

I had some questions about an event, and left a note on the event page. Someone got back to me with the message center, and we had a couple back and forth with some information.

goes to show the message center must work just fine, I used it and didn't even realize I was using it. B):P

Share this post


Link to post

Well, then I'm confused.

 

What has the Message Center got to do with notifications of new caches or tb movement?

 

As Manville Possum Hunters said, the Message Center seems to be the perfect answer for Earthcache logging.

 

 

B.

 

But not for earthcache owners. Although I can now see the content of the message through email, to respond I have to stop what I am doing (checking email) and go to the website. Although this feature was implemented allegedly to improve communications, it has increased the steps - and sometimes I find that it is not worth it.

 

It has gotten better since I edited my earthcaches to ask that people contact me through email.

Share this post


Link to post

All these people harping on how often they have to go to the website to reply to a message in the message center instead of replying via email. It makes it sound like many of you NEVER actually visit the site, only this forum. We're talking about 15 seconds of your time to get to the message and begin your reply, unless you're on AOL dial-up speeds. It's 2-3 clicks from the email notification. How easy does it really need to be? Are we that lazy, in today's society, that we can't have something take an extra 15 seconds of our time without being flummoxed by how long it takes? Surely we're not the same group of people who toss trash into the street/grass/highway because we can't walk to the trashcan that's 50 feet away, hold onto our refuse until we reach a trash can a couple hours later if we're in the car, or hold onto it on a hike until we find a shelter or trash can at the trailhead, all because we see it as an inconvenience to us.

 

I'm tired of the complaints because it's really not THAT much of an inconvenience. It ISN'T optimal. It needs some tweaks. It has its limits. Other things should have been done to/for geocaching.com and its members before rolling out something that appears to be redundant at this time. While all are valid issues, none of that changes the fact that it's here right now and in use and we have to accept its use. As it stands right now, they're not telling us it's the ONLY method of communication, just that it's one more avenue we have to accept.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes when I am out in the field geocaching I get questions from caches who are doing my multi caches. It would be most convenient if I could answer such questions with my smartphone on time and on the spot where I am. In my view that would be an e-mail that I can reply with an e-mail on my phone.

Share this post


Link to post

All these people harping on how often they have to go to the website to reply to a message in the message center instead of replying via email. It makes it sound like many of you NEVER actually visit the site, only this forum. We're talking about 15 seconds of your time to get to the message and begin your reply, unless you're on AOL dial-up speeds. It's 2-3 clicks from the email notification. How easy does it really need to be?

 

 

Well, if the stated purpose of a system is to improve communication, it should be easier than other methods.

 

Right now, I get notifications through email that I check on my phone during a commute or my tablet. It makes more sense to respond through email rather than opening another app, going to the Groundspeak site, and opening up the message center. And then going back and forth to keep track of the logs that are outstanding. I generally use the website to log caches, but I may not even notice the MC. Perhaps I am being lazy, but perhaps I have enough multitasking to do without adding one more thing.

 

Yes, Groundspeak has implemented the MC. I hope that at some point it will make communication easier. Until then. I am glad that most users have contacted me through email.

Share this post


Link to post

I know for those with limited data, this could eat up some data, but if you open your browser, go to the site, and log in (if you aren't already) then you can access your messages that way. Yes, a little more work but still instantaneous. Also, it's hard to miss the MC as it's prominently displayed in the upper right hand corner of the main page as well as next to each cacher's name when logging. They're almost bludgeoning us with it!

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

This is not about limited data, but about convenience. I have to admit that the notifications have improved though.

Share this post


Link to post

I know for those with limited data, this could eat up some data, but if you open your browser, go to the site, and log in (if you aren't already) then you can access your messages that way. Yes, a little more work but still instantaneous.

 

Hey look, it's not easier than email. That's what people are saying the whole time. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I get an email when I get a message in my message center, containing the entire text.

 

Not true, you only get one under certain conditions.

 

When I receive a message via the MC and reply by e-mail to the first message and then get a reply via the MC again within 30 minutes (quite a likely situation in my case)

I will not get a notification for the second message and will easily overlook it (it happened for example yesterday). That's not an issue of lazyness. Communication gets much more

difficult than needed if a user of the MC and a user of e-mail communicate with each other. The people at Groundspeak apparently mainly have chatting single messages in mind.

 

The fact that the text is now included, but only one notification is sent out actually even aggravated the situation in my opinion. There is a real need for an option

to receive a notification for every message sent.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Again, how EASY does everything need to be for people? The launch notification does NOT say this is an easier method, only implies it through this quote - "We’ll be the first to admit it: contacting other geocachers hasn’t always been the easiest thing to do on Geocaching.com. We heard your feedback and that’s why we’ve created the brand new Message Center beta."

 

My point is that we're not talking about the two systems taking minutes of difference between one system and the other. It's (at most) probably a minute in difference between the two to reply to a message in the MC. It's like it's the end of the world that you can't get that minute back in time because you wasted it by going to the site to check your messages. We're complaining about a minute?

 

I get that it's not EASIER than email. It's different, still in beta, and BOTH systems are currently slated to remain available for use. They've already made improvements (getting an email with the entire text) and I expect them to make more. As it stands now, it's NOT faster than email. I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing the point that a response that takes an extra 15-60 seconds to do isn't a viable reason to cry that the sky is falling and we're going to archive our ECs.

 

As to "missing' a message, if the original cacher sends a message via the MC, how are you not expecting a reply via that same method if you asked for or expected a reply?

 

Again, I ask, do all of you EVER actually visit the website to look at caches and instead spend all your time on the forums? I go to the site just about every day, if only to check for a daily PQ I run. I see the MC notification that I have a message and there it is. No indication, no need to waste 15 seconds. If nothing else, I'm on the site for less than 3 minutes checking my PQ each day.

Share this post


Link to post

As to "missing' a message, if the original cacher sends a message via the MC, how are you not expecting a reply via that same method if you asked for or expected a reply?

 

Often it's not me who is expecting a reply. Say someone contacts me via the MC because he/she needs help. I choose to reply by e-mail. The person needs something in addition and again contacts me via the MC. I do not like if what happens is that I could have helped someone in time if I knew in time about the message and missed it and could only answer when it was not relevant any longer.

That's not an issue of how many seconds are spent on whatever approach.

It's just that e-mail is the only way I can manage to reply quickly (much more quickly than if someone would try to call me ignoring the fact that hardly any cacher has my number anyway).

 

I really would appreciate a switch that allows me to receive a notification for every MC message. Those who do not wish to receive such notifications would not need to use that switch.

 

Again, I ask, do all of you EVER actually visit the website to look at caches and instead spend all your time on the forums? I go to the site just about every day, if only to check for a daily PQ I run. I see the MC notification that I have a message and there it is. No indication, no need to waste 15 seconds. If nothing else, I'm on the site for less than 3 minutes checking my PQ each day.

 

I use the website for checking for new caches and for logging them, but I do that much more infrequently than accessing my e-mail folders. I could be busy with completely different things at the computer but will become aware of e-mails.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
It's (at most) probably a minute in difference between the two to reply to a message in the MC.
Assuming the MC works in your environment. If it doesn't, then that minute becomes forever.

 

I'm arguing the point that a response that takes an extra 15-60 seconds to do isn't a viable reason to cry that the sky is falling and we're going to archive our ECs.
And in situations where an archive of past conversations is important (e.g., volunteer reviewers and EarthCache owners), the MC takes the conversation out of the email context where that archive of past conversations is conveniently available.

 

As to "missing' a message, if the original cacher sends a message via the MC, how are you not expecting a reply via that same method if you asked for or expected a reply?
The same could be said about the MC user who replied to the email via the MC. Different people prefer different systems at different times for different reasons. Sometimes I reply to email via IM, or via phone, or even via postal mail. Sometimes I reply to voicemail via email, or via IM. I usually reply to SMS via email (once I finally notice the SMS). And so on. It's not a crime to switch communication systems when you reply.

 

I'm not really an opponent of the MC. But I'm not a fan either. The only messages I've sent on the MC have been test messages of one sort or another, and I can understand the points raised by the opponents of the MC. From my perspective, it's yet another PM system that I'll probably ignore, except when I get an email notification, or when I happen to notice the "unread message" icon on the site.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not a matter of 15 seconds. It is a matter of hours, possibly days

 

I spend most of my on-line time on an Android tablet and the MC does not work on that device. To reply to an e-mail is simple. To reply to an MC message means waiting till the PC is booted, which may not be till tomorrow, assuming I am at home. If I am away from home it may be a day or two.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not a matter of 15 seconds. It is a matter of hours, possibly days

 

I spend most of my on-line time on an Android tablet and the MC does not work on that device. To reply to an e-mail is simple. To reply to an MC message means waiting till the PC is booted, which may not be till tomorrow, assuming I am at home. If I am away from home it may be a day or two.

 

We have white hair, we don't count.

Share this post


Link to post

Days? I can post from my Samsung S5 just fine on the MC so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work, unless you have an outdated Android OS that isn't playing nice with the site.

 

As to the part niraD raises about the thread being saved and archived, it's ALL there from the first one to the last one on the MC. I've been corresponding with someone and the entire thread is there AND I get an email with the entire text EVERY time I get a new message now, even if it's from a recurring conversation. They also provide a link to view and reply to the message. One click and I'm there, just like email.

 

bcc2cf60-dc47-45d1-961a-5a738937d33d.png

 

Like niraD, I don't think it's a great system, yet. I'm neither a fan nor a harsh critic but it's not the end of the world and NOT worth considering archiving ECs because it's not quite as easy as email.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

D

 

As to the part niraD raises about the thread being saved and archived, it's ALL there from the first one to the last one on the MC.

 

But's is not sorted with respect to caches or topics something one can do when using e-mail folders. There are also no search tools etc

 

The system is designed for casual chats where noone wants to look up weeks or months later what has been written.

Share this post


Link to post

And why would an EC CO need to search through old emails regarding ECs? My guess is that people aren't having long drawn out conversations if they don't know the CO and only want to reply to the questions. Sorting by separate ECs would be nice, but again, why would a CO need to go back through to look at previous answers unless there's a logging discrepancy? If that's the case, see the above point about long conversations between a CO and a cacher who doesn't know the CO.

 

For other conversations about "other" topics (help on your caches, hints, suggestions), no it's not going to be organized at all, but I rarely save any emails about geocaching once the conversation has resolved itself and ended. Then it goes in the trash can. That's not a factor for me but it is for others. My messages on the MC are "stored" chronologically, but that's about it with regard to organization, other than the fact that the last message is the one displayed.

 

As to the point about not wanting to look up stuff that happened weeks or months later, why would you willingly do that on an email search system? What hasn't been resolved that you have to wait a couple weeks or a couple months to search for a user response via email? Keyword searching would be nice in the MC, but again, either with email or the MC, I usually don't save something if it's resolved.

 

NO comment about the fact that you can have a one click link to reply AND the fact that you get an email for EVERY message, not just the first one? As I see it, those were two of the biggest issues with "ease of use" and now they're no longer issues, unless I'm the only one with these services available. Seems Groundspeak is listening and rendering some of these arguments invalid.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

As to the point about not wanting to look up stuff that happened weeks or months later, why would you willingly do that on an email search system? What hasn't been resolved that you have to wait a couple weeks or a couple months to search for a user response via email? Keyword searching would be nice in the MC, but again, either with email or the MC, I usually don't save something if it's resolved.

 

I have quiet a lot of mails in my "GC" e-mail program's folder that are "old". Most of them are about caches we were doing and where we ran into a problem. The helpmails we get from the CO are kept so they can be read again when we are in that area again and want to finish that cache. It may be months or even more than a year later and looking up those mails only takes seconds in an email program. The same goes for mysteries. I already mailed a few CO's when preparing for our holidays later this year and of course, I'll have to use these mails later when working on these caches before we leave and possibly again while there.

Share this post


Link to post

And why would an EC CO need to search through old emails regarding ECs?

 

For many reasons and also for other cache types. As a cache owner one might want to look up previously sent answers after a while and maybe reconsider the D-rating or have a look at a partial answer or questions that have been sent a while ago when a follow-up arrives considerably later.

As a cacher I might want to look up what I sent to someone with regard to a cache and what I received as reply.

 

For other conversations about "other" topics (help on your caches, hints, suggestions), no it's not going to be organized at all, but I rarely save any emails about geocaching once the conversation has resolved itself and ended. Then it goes in the trash can.

 

That's you. As you can see from my reply and onbam4's reply other caches handle this differently.

 

NO comment about the fact that you can have a one click link to reply AND the fact that you get an email for EVERY message, not just the first one?

 

When have they changed that? Hardly a week ago I only received an e-mail for the first message - no e-mail for the second which followed 10 minutes after the first one.

 

As I see it, those were two of the biggest issues with "ease of use" and now they're no longer issues, unless I'm the only one with these services available. Seems Groundspeak is listening and rendering some of these arguments invalid.

 

For you. For me there are many more issues which I consider as big issues, including the issue of the 1000 char limit.

Share this post


Link to post

 

For you. For me there are many more issues which I consider as big issues, including the issue of the 1000 char limit.

You've only mentioned the 1000 character limit and the inability to sort, search, and store the messages like your email can. You also wished you could receive an email every time you received one (later in the thread). That's it - 3 issues. 1/3 of your issues are "solved" and I believe it's a matter of time for the 1000 character limit. The other third is a harder nut to crack and it's my guess that this issue will be the sole argument for many against use of the MC versus use of email.

 

For the record, I PREFER email over the MC, but can't stand when people complain about minor inconveniences, and any way we look at it, complaints about a hobby (and its accoutrements) are a minor inconvenience to anyone in the larger scheme of things.

Share this post


Link to post

You've only mentioned the 1000 character limit and the inability to sort, search, and store the messages like your email can.

 

I also mentioned the fact that MC messages are under the control of Groundspeak. e-mail replies are not (assuming a valid e-mail address is sent along which should be a requirement in my opinion).

 

I also mentioned that quoting is not possible within the MC center and when applying copy and paste, I need to insert quote symbols at the start of each line manually.

 

That's it - 3 issues. 1/3 of your issues are "solved"

 

Again I'm not convinced that it got solved. My most recent experience has been negative.

 

For the record, I PREFER email over the MC, but can't stand when people complain about minor inconveniences, and any way we look at it, complaints about a hobby (and its accoutrements) are a minor inconvenience to anyone in the larger scheme of things.

 

Well when we do not need this forum and we could stop geocaching at all. Of course the scale I'm applying here is a geocaching-related one.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I also mentioned that quoting is not possible within the MC center and when applying copy and paste, I need to insert quote symbols at the start of each line manually.

 

Really? SMH and OMG

Share this post


Link to post

I still think that if you have a message to send that is over 1000 characters the really simple answer is to send character 1001 and beyond in a separate message, or if answering questions send each question as a separate message.

 

As for having mystery caches you have contacted the CO about, you are interested in the cache so you must have it saved elsewhere. This means you know who CO is, type CO's name into box and there is the conversation you have had with them containing all the details you need.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I also mentioned that quoting is not possible within the MC center and when applying copy and paste, I need to insert quote symbols at the start of each line manually.

 

Really? SMH and OMG

 

Yes, really. There is no other way to distinguish who wrote what.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I also mentioned that quoting is not possible within the MC center and when applying copy and paste, I need to insert quote symbols at the start of each line manually.

 

Really? SMH and OMG

 

If you're going to start using profanity, then your posts are not worth reading. You go on the Ignore List.

The message center was developed for the young app-using FaceSlappers. For many of us grey-haired (even with dye) cachers, it is annoying and far more difficult to use. But you ignore their points, and basically make fun of serious arguments. Ignore.

Share this post


Link to post

Days? I can post from my Samsung S5 just fine on the MC so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work, unless you have an outdated Android OS that isn't playing nice with the site.

I'm not sure why it works on some Android devices and not others either.

 

The worrying thing is that Groundspeak don't seem to care. This thing is on beta, we are all beta testers and, like any good beta tester I reported my problem the day after the MC was released in the official thread. So far I've received no acknowledgement of my report and no follow-up for further information. Others have reported similar problems and someone suggested it might be related to the default browser.

 

Maybe Groundspeak are working on the problem with others but, from my perspective, they are ignoring the issue.

 

The upshot is that my response to e-mail messages will be timely and my response to MC messages may be delayed for up to a few days.

Share this post


Link to post

SMH - shaking my head

OMG - Oh my god

 

Where is the profanity? I'm attempting to point out how silly it appears that you have to enter a quote maually vs. having it done for you. Difference of 10 seconds of time with copy and paste and an EXTREMELY minor inconvenience, yet that's one point that's given to show how bad/inferior the MC is. It illustrates my point about how easy we want things to be for convenience sake. Yes, convenience is good and appreciated, but when it's a difference of seconds, is it really that big a deal that we get all worked up over it and say the sky is falling? Is it a valid point - the ""? Yes, but again, it's a difference of seconds and a truly minor inconvenience, even in the scope of geocaching (vs. life). The funny thing is that the message that cezanne wants to be able to quote is directly above the reponse cezanne would be typing (in the MC). The same goes for email, if you have the message history displayed. The quoted portion just zeroes in on a specific topic to address, which could just as easily be addressed without the quote with a preface - "With regard to your point about the MC,'''" In a two way conversation, there's really no need to quote the other person because they're the one that made it and the only two people reading it are the two people involved. It's not like it's a message board with multiple people involved in a back and forth discussion. There, the quote specifies the topic you're responding to and makes it certain that you are targeting something instead of a general comment.

 

I get the points everyone is making, but think they're not worthy of the doom and gloom of archiving ECs. Yes, it's a bit annoying and not as easy to use as email (which I've stated that I prefer), but it's NOT a completely worthless tool, as some believe it to be.

 

As to the Android discussion with Gill and Tony, that would certainly be a major issue on my end, if it weren't working for me. I've never purchased the official app because when I first started, the Android version, compared to the iPhone version, was not nearly as good. I'm assuming it's caught up, but for some reason, it appears to me that the Android side of things has a tendency to lag behind the iPhone side of things. That's all it may be, appearances, but Gill and Tony show me that it might still be an issue of playing catch up.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm attempting to point out how silly it appears that you have to enter a quote maually vs. having it done for you. Difference of 10 seconds of time with copy and paste and an EXTREMELY minor inconvenience,

 

Copy and paste does not insert a special symbol at the start of each line. I would first need to mail the text to myself and then reply to it and then copy and paste from the reply into another message.

 

The funny thing is that the message that cezanne wants to be able to quote is directly above the reponse cezanne would be typing (in the MC).

 

No, it is not. As I often want to reply to specific lines, like say a list of variables and assumptions about a cache. Depending on what kind of help is asked for, I might end up to quote ten different parts of the message and comment on wrong variables/ideas etc.

 

The same goes for email, if you have the message history displayed. The quoted portion just zeroes in on a specific topic to address, which could just as easily be addressed without the quote with a preface - "With regard to your point about the MC,'''" In a two way conversation, there's really no need to quote the other person because they're the one that made it and the only two people reading it are the two people involved. It's not like it's a message board with multiple people involved in a back and forth discussion. There, the quote specifies the topic you're responding to and makes it certain that you are targeting something instead of a general comment.

 

Actually, the big majority of my professional and private electronic communication is a communication between two people and very often explicit quotes are used for example when replying to 5 different questions it's nice to have the questions within the message not to lose the context.

 

It's not about "Let's meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. at the post office" or "Have you recently checked your cache XY". For such messages I do not need quoting.

 

I get the points everyone is making, but think they're not worthy of the doom and gloom of archiving ECs.

 

Typically a lot of minor inconveniences add up and might cause certain decisions. Someone who feels fully attached to what Groundspeak is doing or to the EC program will react differently than someone who is already very critic about how Groundspeak deals with certain matters.

For example, for me the change of the language guidelines for ECs a few years ago were the reason to throw away the work I ahd already invested into an EC - I'm not willing to let me force by the GSA to use another language than the primary language I use for all my caches (=English).

Share this post


Link to post

OMG - Oh my god

 

Where is the profanity?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the person who posted that comment to you can no longer see your reply. :ph34r: So I will venture to say that for people of devout Christian faith, using that phrase is considered profane and violates one of the ten commandments.

 

I'm attempting to point out how silly it appears...

{snip}

I get the points everyone is making, but think they're not worthy of the doom and gloom of archiving ECs. Yes, it's a bit annoying and not as easy to use as email (which I've stated that I prefer), but it's NOT a completely worthless tool, as some believe it to be.

 

Speaking for myself, I often don't understand why someone archives their cache - any cache, not just ECs. I still think it's mildly impolite to call them silly for doing so. Those of us who are CO's have vastly different motivations for placing caches and it is the height of hubris to assume that my reason is the same as, or even superior, to someone else's. If those reasons are no longer valid for a particular CO, who am I to call them silly for their opinion?

 

As to the Android discussion ... {snip}

 

So last week, I'm sitting downstairs at home on my Kindle, checking my e-mail and I get a "time is of the essence" MC e-mail from a fellow cacher (relating to an upcoming event). I attempt to click on the links to the MC from that e-mail, but apparently the MC doesn't play well with my Kindle. I can't reply to the e-mail because the cacher did not attach their e-mail. So my choices now are:

 

1. I can log into my GC profile on my Kindle, look them up, try to remember the exact spelling of their user name so I can find them and send them a reply.

2. I can decide that my "trick" knee is up to another trip upstairs to log into the PC, which would allow use of e-mail, MC, multiple monitors, etc.

3. I can ignore the message until I am next at the PC for a different reason, which could be a day away.

 

None of those options take "mere seconds" for me.

 

I get that you are very tech savvy, almost certainly in better physical condition than I am and the MC is a big ol' No Problem for you. Please stop assuming it is that way for everyone. :)

 

Mrs. Car54 (Yes, I have gray hair. :ph34r: )

 

(edited to clarify that the Kindle episode actually happened - it is not hypothetical)

Edited by Car54

Share this post


Link to post
OMG - Oh my god

 

Where is the profanity?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the person who posted that comment to you can no longer see your reply. :ph34r: So I will venture to say that for people of devout Christian faith, using that phrase is considered profane and violates one of the ten commandments.
That would be the "irreverent" meaning of "profanity".

 

There is also the common use of "profanity" as a pseudo-synonym for "obscenity", and perhaps a misinterpretation of what SMH means.

Share this post


Link to post

 

As to the Android discussion ... {snip}

 

So last week, I'm sitting downstairs at home on my Kindle, checking my e-mail and I get a "time is of the essence" MC e-mail from a fellow cacher (relating to an upcoming event). I attempt to click on the links to the MC from that e-mail, but apparently the MC doesn't play well with my Kindle. I can't reply to the e-mail because the cacher did not attach their e-mail. So my choices now are:

 

1. I can log into my GC profile on my Kindle, look them up, try to remember the exact spelling of their user name so I can find them and send them a reply.

2. I can decide that my "trick" knee is up to another trip upstairs to log into the PC, which would allow use of e-mail, MC, multiple monitors, etc.

3. I can ignore the message until I am next at the PC for a different reason, which could be a day away.

 

None of those options take "mere seconds" for me.

 

I get that you are very tech savvy, almost certainly in better physical condition than I am and the MC is a big ol' No Problem for you. Please stop assuming it is that way for everyone. :)

 

Mrs. Car54 (Yes, I have gray hair. :ph34r: )

 

(edited to clarify that the Kindle episode actually happened - it is not hypothetical)

 

If they sent you an MC message and you logged into your profile they would be at the top, aiming of course you hadn't gotten any more messages in the mean time. Their message would be right there waiting for you to reply to, no need to search them out.

Share this post


Link to post

1. I can log into my GC profile on my Kindle, look them up, try to remember the exact spelling of their user name so I can find them and send them a reply.

If they sent you an MC message and you logged into your profile they would be at the top, aiming of course you hadn't gotten any more messages in the mean time. Their message would be right there waiting for you to reply to, no need to search them out.

Option 1 is on their Kindle, where the MC doesn't work. The searching they're talking about is for looking up the cacher's name in the old email system.

Share this post


Link to post

1. I can log into my GC profile on my Kindle, look them up, try to remember the exact spelling of their user name so I can find them and send them a reply.

If they sent you an MC message and you logged into your profile they would be at the top, aiming of course you hadn't gotten any more messages in the mean time. Their message would be right there waiting for you to reply to, no need to search them out.

Option 1 is on their Kindle, where the MC doesn't work. The searching they're talking about is for looking up the cacher's name in the old email system.

 

Yep, A-Team is correct. Didn't work on the Kindle. :)

 

Mrs. Car54

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm attempting to point out how silly it appears...

{snip}

I get the points everyone is making, but think they're not worthy of the doom and gloom of archiving ECs. Yes, it's a bit annoying and not as easy to use as email (which I've stated that I prefer), but it's NOT a completely worthless tool, as some believe it to be.

 

Speaking for myself, I often don't understand why someone archives their cache - any cache, not just ECs. I still think it's mildly impolite to call them silly for doing so. Those of us who are CO's have vastly different motivations for placing caches and it is the height of hubris to assume that my reason is the same as, or even superior, to someone else's. If those reasons are no longer valid for a particular CO, who am I to call them silly for their opinion?

 

The silly being referenced is in regard to inserting "" vs. having it done for you and the fact that it's a minor inconvenience, not for archiving any caches. I never consider that silly. That's a CO's perogative since it's their cache and there's nothing I can do about that.

 

I'm not as techonlogically advanced as others and I only have my smartphone, so all my observations are based on my personal experiences. The lack of cross platform functionality is certainly something to keep an eye on, but this is still listed as a beta. I've already stated that this is somewhat redundant in nature and there are other things many of us wanted done instead of this, but it's NOT a reason to archive ECs, IMO. Had they removed the email option and installed the MC as the replacement, and in the version which was initially released, I'd be just as upset as all of the people who are anti-MC. They've already addressed some of the issues and I'm sure cross platform compatibility and character length are high on their list of fixes. Call me a defender of the MC if you want, but I still send all my EC answers via email, not via the MC.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

I'm attempting to point out how silly it appears that you have to enter a quote maually vs. having it done for you. Difference of 10 seconds of time with copy and paste and an EXTREMELY minor inconvenience,

 

Copy and paste does not insert a special symbol at the start of each line. I would first need to mail the text to myself and then reply to it and then copy and paste from the reply into another message.

 

The funny thing is that the message that cezanne wants to be able to quote is directly above the reponse cezanne would be typing (in the MC).

 

No, it is not. As I often want to reply to specific lines, like say a list of variables and assumptions about a cache. Depending on what kind of help is asked for, I might end up to quote ten different parts of the message and comment on wrong variables/ideas etc.

 

The same goes for email, if you have the message history displayed. The quoted portion just zeroes in on a specific topic to address, which could just as easily be addressed without the quote with a preface - "With regard to your point about the MC,'''" In a two way conversation, there's really no need to quote the other person because they're the one that made it and the only two people reading it are the two people involved. It's not like it's a message board with multiple people involved in a back and forth discussion. There, the quote specifies the topic you're responding to and makes it certain that you are targeting something instead of a general comment.

 

Actually, the big majority of my professional and private electronic communication is a communication between two people and very often explicit quotes are used for example when replying to 5 different questions it's nice to have the questions within the message not to lose the context.

 

It's not about "Let's meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. at the post office" or "Have you recently checked your cache XY". For such messages I do not need quoting.

 

I get the points everyone is making, but think they're not worthy of the doom and gloom of archiving ECs.

 

Typically a lot of minor inconveniences add up and might cause certain decisions. Someone who feels fully attached to what Groundspeak is doing or to the EC program will react differently than someone who is already very critic about how Groundspeak deals with certain matters.

For example, for me the change of the language guidelines for ECs a few years ago were the reason to throw away the work I ahd already invested into an EC - I'm not willing to let me force by the GSA to use another language than the primary language I use for all my caches (=English).

 

1. Isn't that a roundabout way to get the job done? Are you referring to the fact that you want boxes for your quotes (like on the forum here) or simply the use of quotation marks? If quotation marks, it took me five seconds to do this instead of the method you describe, which I'm still not sure I understand. Using my mouse, highlight the section for quoting, copy, move cursor to new location, paste, click at beginning of part you want to quote, ", click at end, ". "Copy and paste does not insert a special symbol at the start of each line. I would first need to mail the text to myself and then reply to it and then copy and paste from the reply into another message." If it's a box you want, I'm pretty sure that's html specific and the MC doesn't do html (as far as I can tell).

 

2. All 10 parts of the message you would be quoting ARE in the message above yours in the MC, otherwise you wouldn't be able to quote them. I'm not sure I understand this point. The message the person wrote to you in the MC is directly above your response. You quoted me in the order in which I made my points. Do you make it a habit to jump around the message from point to point? If so, quotes would certainly be needed but you went down the list in a logical order (start to end, top to bottom). Even without the quoted portions of my response, I would still understand the context and order of each point you made because you went in a linear manner and had breaks to separate each point.

 

3. The boss coach works for Eli Lilly and I rarely see her (mostly when she works from home) use quotes to answer professional emails and I NEVER see her use them in personal email and she's as devout a Type A personality as there is. When she does, it's because it's a legal issue or an unapproved method for communication. Most of the time she prefaces her comments in the email threads she replies to. "With regard to the suggested press release about our new molecule in Stage 3 testing,...". I believe it's a personal choice, so your choices require qoutes, which again, can occur in a variety of ways.

 

4. Problem is, I think you rarely have found anything positive about the direction in which GS is moving. Almost every thread where you and I have discussed things, you've always been critical and upset about the changes that have been implemented.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Are you referring to the fact that you want boxes for your quotes (like on the forum here) or simply the use of quotation marks?

 

Actually neither nor though boxes would be better than nothing.

 

I like quoting as it is done by a mail program like pine. Inserting manually > at the beginning of the lines is a lot of work and also

depends on the number of symbols per line which gets corrupted again when sent via Groundspeak like systems.

I do not want html - I hate html for anything except web pages.

 

2. All 10 parts of the message you would be quoting ARE in the message above yours in the MC, otherwise you wouldn't be able to quote them. I'm not sure I understand this point. The message the person wrote to you in the MC is directly above your response. You quoted me in the order in which I made my points. Do you make it a habit to jump around the message from point to point? If so, quotes would certainly be needed but you went down the list in a logical order (start to end, top to bottom). Even without the quoted portions of my response, I would still understand the context and order of each point you made because you went in a linear manner and had breaks to separate each point.

 

If I want to comment on a longer list with variables and values and some comments in between this is nothing I can keep in remembrance and the same is true for the recipient.

It makes sense to comment e.g. about variable E directly after the line where variable E is mentioned in the message I get.

 

3. The boss coach works for Eli Lilly and I rarely see her (mostly when she works from home) use quotes to answer professional emails and I NEVER see her use them in personal email and she's as devout a Type A personality as there is. When she does, it's because it's a legal issue or an unapproved method for communication. Most of the time she prefaces her comments in the email threads she replies to. "With regard to the suggested press release about our new molecule in Stage 3 testing,...". I believe it's a personal choice, so your choices require qoutes, which again, can occur in a variety of ways.

 

I rather think it depends on what gets send and what I want to reply. I use quoting where it makes sense and increases clearity and readability and where it also reduces the risk that I overlook a wrong value sent to me which is unfortunate as it makes people continue in the wrong direction.

 

Your example above does not comment on particular values and their correctness and on hints on how to proceed.

 

 

4. Problem is, I think you rarely have found anything positive about the direction in which GS is moving. Almost every thread where you and I have discussed things, you've always been critical and upset about the changes that have been implemented.

 

That's definitely true but is only true when it comes to GS and not in general. It's just that my preferences and my profile are the exact opposite of the group of people they try to appeal to.

Share this post


Link to post

 

4. Problem is, I think you rarely have found anything positive about the direction in which GS is moving. Almost every thread where you and I have discussed things, you've always been critical and upset about the changes that have been implemented.

 

That's definitely true but is only true when it comes to GS and not in general. It's just that my preferences and my profile are the exact opposite of the group of people they try to appeal to.

Then move on. Why deal with something that's moving in the opposite direction of your preferences? Life's too short to deal with all the negativity of a hobby that appears to be evolving in a direction counter to your original reasons for getting involved in geocaching. I know I would drop a voluntary hobby if it was causing me more headaches and problems than giving me joy.

Share this post


Link to post

I am posting here purely because of the topic header - I must admit I've not read all the postings.

I have just had my first experience with the message center and as a result I'd like to be able to disable it.

Clunky to use and I can't keep an email thread of a discussion with another geocacher while not logged on gc.

I get the impression I'm not alone in feeling this way....

But I imagine we are stuck with it.

Share this post


Link to post

I know I would drop a voluntary hobby if it was causing me more headaches and problems than giving me joy.

 

That's it!!! Change the word "drop" to "archive" and the word "hobby" to "cache" and you have perfectly summed up my feelings!! So tell me why archiving a cache or caches is "silly", but quitting the whole hobby is not?

 

WHATEVER reason causes a CO to find a cache more headache than joy is a valid reason for THAT CO to archive THAT cache or caches. An example would be the recent thread about a DC virtual. Posters commenting on that thread are sorry to see the cache go, but no one is insulting the CO for his/her decision. And they don't even know for sure why the CO made that decision.

 

Mrs. Car54

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...