Jump to content

Beta message center is here to stay!


K13

Recommended Posts

A friend just told me that on her Earthcache, when it published, the Reviewer Note included the following missive

.....included an instruction that as an EC owner I MUST accept logging task responses via the new message center
The sad aspect is that my friend uses an Android Tablet that has, as yet, not been able to access the Message Center.

 

How does Groundspeak expect its cache providers to be forced to use a BETA release of a message system that doesn't yet work on all hardware? This site is becoming less user-friendly with every new release.

When will the latest release note reveal the name change from Geocaching to TwitFaceLogging. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Have them try an alternate browser. Plenty of them. Opera, firefox, dolphin. One is bound to work.

Why not have Groundspeak Reviewers also be required to use only the Beta Message Center, like the rest of us? They require cache owner correspondence to use email instead of the message center. Could this be because they wish to keep conversations separated by sender or topic, which is not possible with the BETA Message Center?

Give the customer a voice in this matter. Quit listening only to the developers of the BETA Message Center for what we need.

Link to comment

Have them try an alternate browser. Plenty of them. Opera, firefox, dolphin. One is bound to work.

Why not have Groundspeak Reviewers also be required to use only the Beta Message Center, like the rest of us? They require cache owner correspondence to use email instead of the message center. Could this be because they wish to keep conversations separated by sender or topic, which is not possible with the BETA Message Center?

Give the customer a voice in this matter. Quit listening only to the developers of the BETA Message Center for what we need.

 

Standard browser - nope.

 

Dolphin browser - nope.

 

Opera - yes!

 

The sad part is though that trying to use the message centre on my Android smartphone is an experience akin to medieval torture :ph34r:

Link to comment

Guess i don't get the issue here. You seem rather irate for such a minor issue which can be resolved by not using the crappy stock browser on some android devices.

 

The message center seems to work just fine from any device i use. No flaws that make it unusable. I use android strictly for anything mobile so its gotta be the tablets browser. I would suggest Opera as it has never failed me when the stock browser did.

Link to comment

 

The message center seems to work just fine from any device i use...

 

Guess i don't get the issue here. You seem rather irate for such a minor issue...

 

In other words, because it doesn't bother you, it shouldn't bother anyone else? And anyone who voices their displeasure must be irate?

 

Still, I suppose all that jumping to conclusions is good exercise at least :P

Link to comment

A friend just told me that on her Earthcache, when it published, the Reviewer Note included the following missive

.....included an instruction that as an EC owner I MUST accept logging task responses via the new message center

 

Time to do some more EC's than before they are archived. :ph34r:

 

So forcing an EC CO to use MC is OK but forcing a new member to validate his/her's e-mail address is non-fixable or not important.. Strange.

Link to comment

So forcing an EC CO to use MC is OK but forcing a new member to validate his/her's e-mail address is non-fixable or not important.. Strange.

While, as usual, we are forced to speculate, I speculate that the MC was designed as an eventual total replacement for the email system, therefore, validating an email address would be moot.

Link to comment

I'm only speculating, but I'm pretty sure the intent was to convey that either method - email or MC - is an acceptable way of sending logging tasks to the CO. From the Help Center:

 

Contact through the geocaching Message Center and through email sent via Geocaching.com are both legitimate ways for geocache finders to send required answers to a geocache owner. A cache owner cannot require that this information be sent through one particular tool.
Link to comment

I'm only speculating, but I'm pretty sure the intent was to convey that either method - email or MC - is an acceptable way of sending logging tasks to the CO. From the Help Center:

 

Contact through the geocaching Message Center and through email sent via Geocaching.com are both legitimate ways for geocache finders to send required answers to a geocache owner. A cache owner cannot require that this information be sent through one particular tool.

+1

 

Nowhere is the reviewer stating that the message center is the ONLY method to be accepted, just that you must accept it if answers are sent that way.

Link to comment

So forcing an EC CO to use MC is OK but forcing a new member to validate his/her's e-mail address is non-fixable or not important.. Strange.

While, as usual, we are forced to speculate, I speculate that the MC was designed as an eventual total replacement for the email system, therefore, validating an email address would be moot.

filepicker%2FVJIP2V7RTKisVWZRSGMa_jaw%20dropped.jpg

 

Oh. No.

Link to comment

Time to do some more EC's than before they are archived. :ph34r:

 

Agreed! :ph34r:

 

So forcing an EC CO to use MC is OK but forcing a new member to validate his/her's e-mail address is non-fixable or not important.. Strange.

 

Very well said.

 

Mrs. Car54

Link to comment

Nowhere is the reviewer stating that the message center is the ONLY method to be accepted, just that you must accept it if answers are sent that way.

 

In any case it will cause an issue for those ECs where the answers are to be sent to a special address mentioned in the cache description (which is not the same e-mail address to which

mails via the profile or message center notifications go to).

 

It will also be quite tiresome for EC owners with ECs where the answers need much more than 1000 characters as they will receive a couple of messages via the MC and no mail containing the full answer and not even notifications for further messages.

 

Making the MC a legitimate option at this very moment is not a good idea.

 

I think that this change will lead to two unfortunate effects: Some EC owners will decide to archive their ECs and others who previously replied to sent answers will decide not to reply any longer and so increase the

huge mass of EC owners who do not react at all to sent answers.

Link to comment

Nowhere is the reviewer stating that the message center is the ONLY method to be accepted, just that you must accept it if answers are sent that way.

 

In any case it will cause an issue for those ECs where the answers are to be sent to a special address mentioned in the cache description (which is not the same e-mail address to which

mails via the profile or message center notifications go to).

 

It will also be quite tiresome for EC owners with ECs where the answers need much more than 1000 characters as they will receive a couple of messages via the MC and no mail containing the full answer and not even notifications for further messages.

 

Making the MC a legitimate option at this very moment is not a good idea.

 

I think that this change will lead to two unfortunate effects: Some EC owners will decide to archive their ECs and others who previously replied to sent answers will decide not to reply any longer and so increase the

huge mass of EC owners who do not react at all to sent answers.

I don't know how it's done in Europe (I've only done one), but it's an unusual occasion (over here in the US in my neck of the woods) when there's an email address provided that isn't the one linked to the CO's account. I can understand WHY a CO would want to do that; I just can't fathom it being an issue since the CO will still get a notification of when the message has been sent, linked to their email account that's registered with Groundspeak. It could be a minor annoyance, but that's about all, IMO.

 

If EC COs want to archive their ECs because they're getting answers via the messaging center, then let them. I think that's a rather petty choice to make for such a minor thing. Is a CO more concerned that they get the right answers (and provide a physical science lesson) from a cacher or more concerned about HOW the answers are getting to them? I'm not saying it's a groundbreaking addition, but it's NOT the end of the world. It's one more way for cachers to contact COs. It's certainly got its limitations but you can work around those. Also, if they're too put out to respond, then that's not really being a good CO. They can't take the time to say "Thanks for visiting"? Really? Even by doing it the "old" way? If they ALWAYS responded, and now they won't because it came from the messaging center instead of an email, that's being somewhat petty, again IMO.

 

The 1000 character limit could be an issue and might lead to shorter and more abbreviated answers/replies, but do finders really want to be novelists? You get an incomplete answer, check back, and see there's more. That's certainly NOT conducive to simplicity of use and creates a bit more work for both finder and the CO, but it's really not that much more work.

 

I will continue to do reply via email because I prefer it that way (I get a copy sent to me for verification on my end that it truly was sent). If the messaging center eventually becomes the ONLY way to reply to ECs to get credit for a find, then I'll adapt and use it. It's NOT a great feature and not really groundbreaking, but use of it would involve some minor adjustments on my end to comply with what I've been asked to do. I see no reason to archive my ECs because Groundspeak is saying that I have to accept answers from the messaging center as proof that they visited the site and gathered the answers needed.

 

Finally, I REALLY wish they would require a validated email address, as has been mentioned here. If you can require COs to use the messaging center as another means for communication, I think it should be a requirement for new members to provide a valid email address.

Link to comment

I don't know how it's done in Europe (I've only done one), but it's an unusual occasion (over here in the US in my neck of the woods) when there's an email address provided that isn't the one linked to the CO's account.

 

There are two types. First, there are still many ECs where the reply has to be sent to an address which is assembled from the answers and second, there are EC owners who use separate e-mails addresses for special caches making it easier

to filter and process the answers.

 

I think that's a rather petty choice to make for such a minor thing.

 

It's a matter of perspective. Letting Groundspeak do whatever they want and just comply silently without whichever they enforce on the cachers might also not be the best approach.

 

Is a CO more concerned that they get the right answers (and provide a physical science lesson) from a cacher or more concerned about HOW the answers are getting to them?

 

Providing explanations on what's wrong and what's write requires reply features. So if someone is really concerned about the teaching aspect, the the MC is a very inconvenient method.

The MC is best for those who do not care about the answers at all. Just accept whatever is sent and never reply or just canonically reply with Thank you and do not care about the educational

aspect any longer. It's all just about smilies.

 

If they ALWAYS responded, and now they won't because it came from the messaging center instead of an email, that's being somewhat petty, again IMO.

 

Not because it came from the MC, but because no quoting and reply by e-mail is possible and all the features of e-mail systems (search etc) are lacking.

 

The 1000 character limit could be an issue and might lead to shorter and more abbreviated answers/replies, but do finders really want to be novelists? You get an incomplete answer, check back, and see there's more. That's certainly NOT conducive to simplicity of use and creates a bit more work for both finder and the CO, but it's really not that much more work.

Link to comment

Is a CO more concerned that they get the right answers (and provide a physical science lesson) from a cacher or more concerned about HOW the answers are getting to them?

 

Providing explanations on what's wrong and what's write requires reply features. So if someone is really concerned about the teaching aspect, the the MC is a very inconvenient method.

The MC is best for those who do not care about the answers at all. Just accept whatever is sent and never reply or just canonically reply with Thank you and do not care about the educational

aspect any longer. It's all just about smilies.

 

There IS a reply feature in the messaging center. You just start typing and then hit send (or enter if you have that option chosen). You can't quote, like here on the forums, but you could copy and paste if you really wanted to. Not that hard and it's NOT just for those who don't care about answers at all. Like I've said, I'm not overly impressed, but it works, with limitations and room for improvement. Why wouldn't you want one more avenue of contact so people have even less of an excuse for not sending in the answers.

Link to comment

I'm not a huge fan of the messaging center but most of the arguments against its use are minor in nature. I'll use it grudgingly, but I won't archive my ECs because GS says I have to accept answers sent using this method. Is it lacking in some areas? Certainly. You'll get NO arguments from me on that. Saying that cachers will commit geo-cide because a second method of contact has been approved seems a bit silly to me. If it ever gets to the point that the message center replaces email as the ONLY way to log ECs, (and without any improvements in its functions) then there might be a bit of empathy from me. As it stands now, there are two ways to contact the CO of an EC, doubling up the options and providing even less of an excuse to a cacher who doesn't send in answers as requested.

Link to comment

I just don't go to Geocaching.com on a daily basis and I'm probably not going to follow an external link from an email notification so I can reply right away. If someone uses the message system (or emails without the reply option), that's fine, but it's likely that I'll forget to respond to them by the next time I go to the site. It's not malice, I'm just too old and cranky to deal with messages from so many directions.

Link to comment

I just don't go to Geocaching.com on a daily basis and I'm probably not going to follow an external link from an email notification so I can reply right away. If someone uses the message system (or emails without the reply option), that's fine, but it's likely that I'll forget to respond to them by the next time I go to the site. It's not malice, I'm just too old and cranky to deal with messages from so many directions.

 

But you ARE here on the forums every day, 2 clicks away from the message centre and you must be on your email everyday (just an assumption as it seems you are happy to use that) so it seems you are not too concerned with going into multiple different programs while you are on the computer.... so what's the problem??

 

I've said it in another thread before and will say it again... One of the comments coming out of these conversations is "I'm not going to reply right away, it may even take a day..." So what? Why is it the end of the world if it takes a week to get a reply back to someone? You are still going to get the answers required to log the cache, you are still going to approve it, or not and they claim their find....

Link to comment

While, as usual, we are forced to speculate, I speculate that the MC was designed as an eventual total replacement for the email system, therefore, validating an email address would be moot.

 

The first question in the Message Center FAQ is "Why did you create the Message Center?" Therefore, speculation as to why it was designed shouldn't be necessary.

 

The issue of email validation is much-discussed at HQ. The overwhelming consensus is that validation should be required (and the sooner the better), but some technical issues will need to be worked through before it happens.

Link to comment

As an EarthCache owner I like the new Message Centre so well that I have requested that finders use it to send the answers to me.

 

The MC sends me an email with the contents of the message (answers or questions) so that I can decide whether I need to reply right away. When I do reply it is so simple to click on the link to the MC to type my reply.

 

With email it was often inconvenient when a cacher had not authorized the inclusion of their reply email address thus requiring me to copy and paste their answers into an email that I would need to send from their profile page. This old process could be very time consuming and required more steps than the MC.

 

I also like the MC because the complete conversation thread, with other geocachers, is kept in one place.

Edited by Nonsuch30
Link to comment

While, as usual, we are forced to speculate, I speculate that the MC was designed as an eventual total replacement for the email system, therefore, validating an email address would be moot.

 

The first question in the Message Center FAQ is "Why did you create the Message Center?" Therefore, speculation as to why it was designed shouldn't be necessary.

 

I read that and I still don't understand the need for the message center. There is nothing in the answer that shows the message center is answer when email is not, other than the need for verified emails. So to me the question why create a system that your users don't like, and your volunteer reviewers don't like, instead of using those resources to fix the existing email system? When your volunteer reviewers tell people to not contact them via email and that emails will be ignored but to use the message center only, then there might be a need for the message center.

Link to comment

I just don't go to Geocaching.com on a daily basis and I'm probably not going to follow an external link from an email notification so I can reply right away. If someone uses the message system (or emails without the reply option), that's fine, but it's likely that I'll forget to respond to them by the next time I go to the site. It's not malice, I'm just too old and cranky to deal with messages from so many directions.

 

But you ARE here on the forums every day, 2 clicks away from the message centre and you must be on your email everyday (just an assumption as it seems you are happy to use that) so it seems you are not too concerned with going into multiple different programs while you are on the computer.... so what's the problem??

 

I've said it in another thread before and will say it again... One of the comments coming out of these conversations is "I'm not going to reply right away, it may even take a day..." So what? Why is it the end of the world if it takes a week to get a reply back to someone? You are still going to get the answers required to log the cache, you are still going to approve it, or not and they claim their find....

 

The "problem" (if it can be called a problem) is that in an email, I hit "Reply" and type out my reply, whether it's on my computer or my phone. If I have to go to an external link from the email, I likely won't bother. I wouldn't call it a "problem" so much as a fact of my existence that I know isn't going to change.

 

I don't see what the forum has to do with anything. Nobody's expecting a reply or waiting for a reply from me here. It's an entirely different thing.

Link to comment

So to me the question why create a system that your users don't like, and your volunteer reviewers don't like, instead of using those resources to fix the existing email system?

 

Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email. Since then, there hasn't been a day when email use exceeded MC use. I realize you don't like MC. And some reviewers don't like MC. But the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

 

Personally, I still use email more than MC. But, again, the stats would indicate that I'm in the minority right now. I would expect to use it more as the Beta MC system evolves. And especially once the Intro app becomes more robust. For now, I use the paid app almost exclusively (when not using my GPSr), so the appeal of MC isn't as great to me as it likely will be further down the line.

Link to comment

Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email. Since then, there hasn't been a day when email use exceeded MC use. I realize you don't like MC. And some reviewers don't like MC. But the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

 

The key question is just what are most MC messages used for? There is a difference between casual chatting and serious communication that one wants to save organized cache-wise (this applies both to the situation of reviewers and owners of more complex ECs and virtual caches).

 

I have no doubts that the MS appeals to those who enjoy chatting via social media.

 

Moreover, a normal e-mail message via gc.com allows for 5000 characters. One needs to write 5 messages in the MC per message in the e-mail system. So the number of messages sent might not be the best indicator.

Link to comment

Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email. Since then, there hasn't been a day when email use exceeded MC use. I realize you don't like MC. And some reviewers don't like MC. But the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

 

Do these stats include the clicks of people just wanting to send an email but clicked MC by mistake because of the layout? :ph34r:

 

Of course MC is going to be used a lot. 1 there's the placement of the icon on the webpages and then there's the "official" app user who likes the FB like communications. As said in other threads, I'm one click away from sending an e-mail to another user and one click to reply. In the field this method of communication takes a few KB, going through the website takes MB. Not gonna happen on the dataplan (pay/MB) I'm on now. I like to have my mails handy when in the field which I can re-read offline in my mailsoftware. All sorted to my own liking of course. Looks like that beta can use some work before it's as efficient as e-mail. If only time/effort spend on the MC was spend on validating e-mailaccounts.....

Link to comment
Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email.
I wonder whether this pattern would continue if the Send Email link appeared before the Send Message link on a user's profile, or if there were an Email This Owner link on every cache description page.

 

I'm not questioning whether some people like the Message Center more than email. I'm questioning the conclusions you can draw from the relative use of the two systems, given the bias introduced by the way the Message Center is promoted.

Link to comment

While, as usual, we are forced to speculate, I speculate that the MC was designed as an eventual total replacement for the email system, therefore, validating an email address would be moot.

 

The first question in the Message Center FAQ is "Why did you create the Message Center?" Therefore, speculation as to why it was designed shouldn't be necessary.

Answer: "We know that geocaching is better when players communicate with each other so we wanted to make that easier"

 

What's not easy about adding a link like the "Message Owner" to be "Email Owner"? Email is something we all (well, most of us?) use for notificaitons and newsletters. Some of us even have a specific email address for geocaching. So, I ask, what's easier than using an email address which we're already using for geocaching to message other users about geocaching?

 

The issue of email validation is much-discussed at HQ. The overwhelming consensus is that validation should be required (and the sooner the better), but some technical issues will need to be worked through before it happens.

I may not know the ins and outs of App API, but I would assume it's rather easy to require email validation when you sign up at geocaching.com. Heck, c:geo already uses an interface that requires an input of an existing account with validated email address.

 

So, what's stopping us from just adopting that app or validation process?

 

The message center is a bit of "cart before the horse", IMO

Link to comment

...the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

Correction: a lot of people use MC. The numbers can't tell you if they like it.

 

Even though it's stated as still being in beta and clearly unfinished, the MC is being heavily pushed as a finished product with links to it all over the place. I'm confident this is the only reason MC usage is so high: it's in your face everywhere you look. It's only natural that if you spam links to the MC all over the website, it will get more usage. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's meeting the needs of those users, or that they prefer that system. I have to wonder how many people saw the new "Message this owner" link on cache pages, started using it, and don't even realize that the old email system in still in place. Had an email link been added alongside the MC links, indicating that there are two parallel systems and giving members a clear choice, the numbers would provide a better indication of which system is being preferred. With one system getting much more exposure than the other, the usage numbers will naturally be biased.

 

It's good to hear that validation is considered important, but it's unfortunate that it couldn't have been dealt with before spending all this time on the MC. If that development time had been spent dealing with validation, it would have obviated the need for the MC.

Link to comment

Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email. Since then, there hasn't been a day when email use exceeded MC use. I realize you don't like MC. And some reviewers don't like MC. But the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

 

The key question is just what are most MC messages used for? There is a difference between casual chatting and serious communication that one wants to save organized cache-wise (this applies both to the situation of reviewers and owners of more complex ECs and virtual caches).

 

I have no doubts that the MS appeals to those who enjoy chatting via social media.

 

Moreover, a normal e-mail message via gc.com allows for 5000 characters. One needs to write 5 messages in the MC per message in the e-mail system. So the number of messages sent might not be the best indicator.

 

Cezanne--you own 1 virtual cache and no EarthCaches. I think that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I looked at your virtual cache--the answers come down to a line or two each (if that in most cases). It just doesn't look all that complicated--long, yes, but complicated, no. And I agree with someone who posted above, you are here onsite all the time. Using the MC doesn't look like it should be that big an issue. As for EarthCaches, for the most part, an instant email isn't needed. Replying the next day is usually fine.

Link to comment

The first question in the Message Center FAQ is "Why did you create the Message Center?" Therefore, speculation as to why it was designed shouldn't be necessary.

We know that geocaching is better when players communicate with each other so we wanted to make that easier.

...but that isn't an answer at all. It sounds like the type of an answer you'd get from a politician: a bunch of words strung together without actually saying anything meaningful. Rather than the non-specific, side-stepping answer that's there now, I'd love to see one that more specifically addresses the reasons behind the MC. Based on posts from TPTB here in the forums, that reason seems to have been to deal with the inability to communicate with non-validated members. If that was the reason, then just tell us, including the reasoning why the MC is better than simply requiring email validation.

 

As someone who uses and prefers the email system, there's nothing in the FAQ (or in any other communication surrounding the MC) that explains to me why I should welcome a parallel communication system that is completely disconnected from the current system. For that matter, I can't think of any way to connect the term "easier" with the concept of multiple disconnected communication systems.

Link to comment

I think that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I looked at your virtual cache--the answers come down to a line or two each (if that in most cases). It just doesn't look all that complicated--long, yes, but complicated, no.

 

The typical length of all answers exceeds 1000 characters by far.

And I almost always write comments on some answers or add additional information when replying. For that purpose quoting and commenting on various parts of the answers is important.

The same holds true when people send me a (partial) list of values for the variables of some of my ? caches (no checker available). I need to comment part by part on what is correct and what is wrong (note cachers ask me for that sort of reply and I offer it as a service to them).

 

As for EarthCaches, for the most part, an instant email isn't needed.

 

If people ask for help directly from a cache site (this also applies to my virtual but also other caches of mine), quick answers are important. When people send an e-mail I might be able to answer within 10 minutes (in the optimal case less) if I'm online - this is not manageable with the MC - it will take longer to be notified already. The prominent presence of the MC link makes many cachers use the MC who earlier used e-mail and who do not realize the difference.

 

As I'm asking for an e-mail with answers for my virtual before people write a log, I also prefer to reply as quickly as possible. Replies a day later or many hours later are not my preference if it can be avoided.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I think that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I looked at your virtual cache--the answers come down to a line or two each (if that in most cases). It just doesn't look all that complicated--long, yes, but complicated, no.

The typical length of all answers exceeds 1000 characters by far.

That seems exceedingly unlikely. I just made rough assumptions on the length of each answer, using conservative averages (ie. higher than the average) for the lengths of names, and came up with ~250 characters not including the text of the sign in Part 3. Even if you conservatively bump that up by another 150 characters to add additional formatting, a greeting, and to account for longer names than my assumptions, are you really asking for people to send you 600+ characters of the text of a sign? :unsure:

Link to comment

2 words to answer "Why the Message Center":

 

Instant. Gratification.

Meaning, people can feel like they've "done what they should" to validate an Earthcache, but how many answer you when you let them know they've answered incorrectly?

 

I can tell you: none! This is from experience...I have tried to contact people who have sent answers via the message center (AND I email them back so I can have a record in my email address to easily index, search, and archive contact I have with other geocachers), and they have not responded.

 

Unless the person is going to the website right now, they aren't getting responses to their MC messages. And many still don't understand the concepts of why and how to contact someone about completing an Earthcache or existing Virtual.

 

So, there is no solid way to quantify or qualify use and success with adopting the new system without a metric better than "Numbers of messages sent via Groundspeak Message Center". Right now we have a way to "instantly" contact someone. But that someone has to be able and willing to see and use that new message center. So now we have 2 methods of communication which perform almost the same process with different results. ...And we're still left with unvalidated email addresses and no way for app users to see communication unless they're validated.

 

Add in that we also will see MC integrated into the App before simple things like being able to see your own account from within the App, or to link to a cache owner's profile to be able to get in touch with them to ask a question. There is virtually no benefit to adding the MC to the app without first integrating features such as being able to access your own account to look at your caches, or to look at another user's profile (even via a "open with browser" option) when we need to.

 

:blink:

Link to comment

While, as usual, we are forced to speculate, I speculate that the MC was designed as an eventual total replacement for the email system, therefore, validating an email address would be moot.

 

The first question in the Message Center FAQ is "Why did you create the Message Center?" Therefore, speculation as to why it was designed shouldn't be necessary.

 

The issue of email validation is much-discussed at HQ. The overwhelming consensus is that validation should be required (and the sooner the better), but some technical issues will need to be worked through before it happens.

 

OK, so this was the reason the MC was developed: "We know that geocaching is better when players communicate with each other so we wanted to make that easier."

 

Which tells me that my speculation was wrong that it will not eventually be replacing the complicated and convoluted :ph34r: email process, but will continue to co-exist beside it. Or am I assuming too much?

Link to comment

So to me the question why create a system that your users don't like, and your volunteer reviewers don't like, instead of using those resources to fix the existing email system?

 

Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email. Since then, there hasn't been a day when email use exceeded MC use. I realize you don't like MC. And some reviewers don't like MC. But the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

 

Personally, I still use email more than MC. But, again, the stats would indicate that I'm in the minority right now. I would expect to use it more as the Beta MC system evolves. And especially once the Intro app becomes more robust. For now, I use the paid app almost exclusively (when not using my GPSr), so the appeal of MC isn't as great to me as it likely will be further down the line.

 

That is very interesting! I must say though, that it does not fit what I hear from other geocachers (not those that post to the forums). Do your statistics also include the source of the messages and the length of time the users of the MC have been active geocachers? In other words... are the majority of those users new accounts that are using the intro app, or have a significant portion of your long-term members come to accept it and prefer it to email?

Link to comment

I think that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I looked at your virtual cache--the answers come down to a line or two each (if that in most cases). It just doesn't look all that complicated--long, yes, but complicated, no.

The typical length of all answers exceeds 1000 characters by far.

That seems exceedingly unlikely. I just made rough assumptions on the length of each answer, using conservative averages (ie. higher than the average) for the lengths of names, and came up with ~250 characters not including the text of the sign in Part 3. Even if you conservatively bump that up by another 150 characters to add additional formatting, a greeting, and to account for longer names than my assumptions, are you really asking for people to send you 600+ characters of the text of a sign? :unsure:

 

I will say that her complaint about the lack of ability to quote and to add comments within the quoted portion is a valid one, though. Yes, you can still copy from the original and paste into your reply, but that is a lot more work than simply inserting comments into the quoted email reply.

Link to comment

command/ctrl + C and command/ctrl +V are your copy and paste friends. Not really that much extra work. Annoying and a hassle? Yes. "...a lot more work..."? Not really.

 

I come in around 500-750 characters in my responses and that's using complete sentences. I can think of about ten ECs where I probably went over 1000 characters. Again, there's a workaround (multiple messages) that's not optimal, but it still gets the job done.

 

Most of my correspondence with other cachers has occurred via email, NOT the message center.

Link to comment

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332375

 

I own a large number of Earthcaches with my player account, and have not had problems. Do I find it better, no. Do I find it more difficult, No. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

 

On a few messages above I read above that if someone sends the answer through the MC it is not the cache owners problem. You must accept the log. It is not the cachers problem to validate their answers.

 

The Earthcache guidelines state

 

#6 ....Visitors must be able to send their answers to logging tasks via the cache owner's profile.

 

They can choose how, not the cache owner. If you try to fight that as a cache owner, you will loose.

 

B.

Link to comment

I'm going to buck the system and reveal that I actually like the message center. I think the disconnect is with people who do not use their smartphone for caching. My problem with the MC is that last I checked, they only offer it for the intro app and not the paid app. I found it quite convenient when testing it in the intro app.

 

If they could figure out a way to allow people to email to a special address and then have that integrate with the MC so not app users could use it easily, I think we'd see a lot less complaints.

 

I'm an old timer, but I have switched to primarily using my phone and it's a nice addition, imho.

Link to comment

Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email. Since then, there hasn't been a day when email use exceeded MC use. I realize you don't like MC. And some reviewers don't like MC. But the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

By this logic, most people like spam because they get so much of it in their in box.

 

Personally, I still use email more than MC.

OK, so you personally don't like it, either.

Link to comment
I'm going to buck the system and reveal that I actually like the message center. I think the disconnect is with people who do not use their smartphone for caching. My problem with the MC is that last I checked, they only offer it for the intro app and not the paid app. I found it quite convenient when testing it in the intro app.
I use my smartphone for most of my geocaching, but I don't really care for the Message Center. But I don't really care for the PM systems of the various forums that I frequent either. I prefer email to having to check the various PM (or MC) systems.

 

If they could figure out a way to allow people to email to a special address and then have that integrate with the MC so not app users could use it easily, I think we'd see a lot less complaints.
Yep. And if the goal is to facilitate communication among geocachers, then it would be good to enable email users to communicate with MC users, each group using their preferred system.
Link to comment

I'm going to buck the system and reveal that I actually like the message center. I think the disconnect is with people who do not use their smartphone for caching. My problem with the MC is that last I checked, they only offer it for the intro app and not the paid app. I found it quite convenient when testing it in the intro app.

 

If they could figure out a way to allow people to email to a special address and then have that integrate with the MC so not app users could use it easily, I think we'd see a lot less complaints.

 

I'm an old timer, but I have switched to primarily using my phone and it's a nice addition, imho.

 

I do not cache with my phone generally, and when I do, I use the app that I actually paid money for, silly me.

Link to comment

So to me the question why create a system that your users don't like, and your volunteer reviewers don't like, instead of using those resources to fix the existing email system?

 

Within a few days of being introduced, Message Center was being used to start more conversations than email. Since then, there hasn't been a day when email use exceeded MC use. I realize you don't like MC. And some reviewers don't like MC. But the stats indicate that a lot of people do like MC.

 

Personally, I still use email more than MC. But, again, the stats would indicate that I'm in the minority right now. I would expect to use it more as the Beta MC system evolves. And especially once the Intro app becomes more robust. For now, I use the paid app almost exclusively (when not using my GPSr), so the appeal of MC isn't as great to me as it likely will be further down the line.

 

That is very interesting! I must say though, that it does not fit what I hear from other geocachers (not those that post to the forums). Do your statistics also include the source of the messages and the length of time the users of the MC have been active geocachers? In other words... are the majority of those users new accounts that are using the intro app, or have a significant portion of your long-term members come to accept it and prefer it to email?

So far near me, one likes this feature.

I'd bet most are intro users clicking on that, "message this owner", 'cause they probably don't know there is another method.

Link to comment

I'm going to buck the system and reveal that I actually like the message center. I think the disconnect is with people who do not use their smartphone for caching. My problem with the MC is that last I checked, they only offer it for the intro app and not the paid app. I found it quite convenient when testing it in the intro app.

 

If they could figure out a way to allow people to email to a special address and then have that integrate with the MC so not app users could use it easily, I think we'd see a lot less complaints.

 

I'm an old timer, but I have switched to primarily using my phone and it's a nice addition, imho.

 

I do not cache with my phone generally, and when I do, I use the app that I actually paid money for, silly me.

 

I use the app I paid for too. I'm not following...

Edited by GeoBain
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...
×
×
  • Create New...