Moratorium update

[+niraD]

A new cache type.

Please, please, please, oh pretty please!

 

But I digress...

[+CanadianRockies]

I have a software development bias as well but, "an updated framework" could be pretty broad.

 

It will almost certainly included changes to the guidelines but could also include:

 

A form element in the submission form which has a link to the mandatory challenge checker (that would not only provide a reviewer information need to confirm that an appropriate checkers exists, but a cacher owner could use it to validate that the finder completed the criteria.)

 

A field in the database for persisting the link to the challenge checker.

 

An attribute which indicates that the "unknown" cache is a challenge cache.

 

A new cache type.

 

At the end of the day, we really have no idea what "an updated framework" entails and it most certainly might require a significant amount of programming.

Assuming the existing code isn't a complete mess, all those modifications should involve a rather minor programming effort.

[+coachstahly]

Assuming the existing code isn't a complete mess, all those modifications should involve a rather minor programming effort.

 

If that's truly the case, then I think they handled this project poorly with regard to time management. 7 months went by before a survey was created to get customer input. I'm assuming/hoping they got reviewer and lackey input in the 7 months prior, and then some more reviewer/lackey input once they heard from their customers. Set a hard date for that extra reviewer/lackey input based on the survey and then it's time to implement what you want to implement. If it's not coding/programming that's causing the delay, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything other than what a moderator has already stated, a possible lack of priority, or procrastination. It's my belief that the new app was a company priority but what else have we seen that really added anything to the experience on the site that would take priority over making their volunteers' jobs easier? I'm guessing that it wasn't the Search page becoming the default home page for each member.

 

I'm not complaining, really. They'll release the information when they're ready. I am pointing out that I believe they lacked proper time management on this project and should be called out because of that. They knew the end date a year in advance and couldn't get it done without needing some extra time. I don't have a big problem with that (it happens) but it certainly doesn't help their customer service image any.

[+bflentje]

Does "an updated framework" imply a significant programming effort? Wouldn't changes to Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines be "an updated framework?"

My software development bias may be showing, but when I read "an updated framework", I assumed that there was software infrastructure that needed to be written and/or rewritten. So yes, I expect it to require a significant programming effort.

 

I have a software development bias as well but, "an updated framework" could be pretty broad.

 

It will almost certainly included changes to the guidelines but could also include:

 

A form element in the submission form which has a link to the mandatory challenge checker (that would not only provide a reviewer information need to confirm that an appropriate checkers exists, but a cacher owner could use it to validate that the finder completed the criteria.)

 

A field in the database for persisting the link to the challenge checker.

 

An attribute which indicates that the "unknown" cache is a challenge cache.

 

A new cache type.

 

At the end of the day, we really have no idea what "an updated framework" entails and it most certainly might require a significant amount of programming.

 

If there is a coding change to the site, I think a very simple but sweet feature would to be add a boolean field to each and every Found It log, to be used as a management tool for COs and to assist in the proper management of logs (virtuals, ECs, and quite possibly, the challenges). Nothing special. Nothing complicated. Just a check box that a CO can check when someone's Found It passes qualification.

 

Or perhaps a three-position dropdown: not reviewed, qualified, not qualified (assuming log isn't deleted).

 

Since it is impossible to review every log as it arrives to my inbox, this checkbox would help me in knowing who I verified as qualifying when I have a moment to sit down and actually do log maintenance.

 

Of course I do not know anything about the Groundspeak database or source code. But my .NET background tells me it could be done with very little effort if it is kept as simple as I've described.

[+MartyBartfast]

If it's not coding/programming that's causing the delay, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything other than what a moderator has already stated, a possible lack of priority, or procrastination.

 

One other possibility is negotiations with project-GC. It's fine for GC.com to say "you must have a checker on project-GC", but what are project-GC.com going to get out of it? Up to now project-GC has been run as a tool for the caching community, but now a profit making company is looking to piggy back on their services so If I was the owner/developer of Project-GC I would be looking for payment or some reciprocal agreement from Groundspeak.

 

It could be this negotiation that's slowing things up.

[+eigengott]

I think they handled this project poorly with regard to time management. 7 months went by before a survey was created to get customer input.

 

A moratorium foremost is a delay or suspension of an activity. Groundpeak hit the brake, stopped new challenge caches and let everybody cool down a bit. I don't see bad time management in this.

 

Apart from that, Groundspeak asked for community input immediately with the start of the moratorium via the User Insights sub-forum: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=331493

Edited May 25, 2016 by eigengott

[+coachstahly]

 

One other possibility is negotiations with project-GC. It's fine for GC.com to say "you must have a checker on project-GC", but what are project-GC.com going to get out of it? Up to now project-GC has been run as a tool for the caching community, but now a profit making company is looking to piggy back on their services so If I was the owner/developer of Project-GC I would be looking for payment or some reciprocal agreement from Groundspeak.

 

It could be this negotiation that's slowing things up.

 

Could be, but the fact that they've already said that a 3rd party checker will be required (and currently that means only PGC), tells me that they've already negotiated that, unless it was re-opened. Certainly a possibility.

[+on4bam]

A moratorium foremost is a delay or suspension of an activity. Groundpeak hit the brake, stopped new challenge caches and let everybody cool down a bit. I don't see bad time management in this.

 

They put a timeframe on the moratorium of one year. We're way past that.

For instance, would you accept a judge to delay lifting your one year driving ban after a conviction? "OK, one year passed but I need more time to give you back your license..."

[+thebruce0]

Keep in mind they're running ASP.net. They're effectively running a software package for the entire website. Hotfixes can be rolled out quick, as long as the changes are also applied to the source code for the next major release. For something like this, when I hear "an updated framework", I take that to mean changes that affect more than just challenge caches, but the entire system (especially primarily the engine underneath the hood that no one but the developers themselves really appreciate, which none of us will ever see), implying there will be a whole lot of testing to ensure the entire application continues to work as expected before compiling and publishing. Whether it's small changes here and there, the reach of the changes may be much broader than say rolling out a hotfix.

 

I really want them to make sure whatever they have planned is well tested, if indeed the reach of the changes affects more than merely challenge caches.

 

I think they also know it's in their best interest to make sure that whatever major update they roll out in the near future doesn't "break" more than it updates. Because forums.

[+narcissa]

A moratorium foremost is a delay or suspension of an activity. Groundpeak hit the brake, stopped new challenge caches and let everybody cool down a bit. I don't see bad time management in this.

 

They put a timeframe on the moratorium of one year. We're way past that.

For instance, would you accept a judge to delay lifting your one year driving ban after a conviction? "OK, one year passed but I need more time to give you back your license..."

 

If we're going to make silly analogies about this situation, it's more like a neighbour telling you that you can't use their car because it's in the shop, but you can use it next week.

 

Then, a week later, you still can't use their car because it's still in the shop. You can't just expect them to let you use it when it's not fixed yet.

[+Team Microdot]

If we're going to make silly analogies about this situation...

 

It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife?

[+coachstahly]

 

A moratorium foremost is a delay or suspension of an activity. Groundpeak hit the brake, stopped new challenge caches and let everybody cool down a bit. I don't see bad time management in this.

 

Apart from that, Groundspeak asked for community input immediately with the start of the moratorium via the User Insights sub-forum: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=331493

 

"What happens during the moratorium?

 

HQ will work with the community and Community Volunteer Reviewers to address shortcomings in the current system, with the goal of adding clarity and retaining what makes challenge caches so much fun for players."

 

The process starts with you. Visit the User Insights forum to tell us what you like and don't like about challenge caches currently. We'll use your feedback to create a survey that will be available later this spring. Once we've gathered data from the community, we'll get to work on building a better framework for challenge caches." (quote from the OP in the link provided)

 

So why aren't they ready one year later to address the shortcomings as they were supposed to be doing during the year long break? What isn't ready to roll out? CanadianRockies doesn't think it's coding so what's left? If it is actually coding, I'd rather they get it right the first time rather than have to continually try to update and fix the problems as they arise.

 

The negotiations with PGC could be a reason, but as I stated previously, the announcement about a checker being needed tells me that they've already addressed that issue. Why would you announce that if you didn't have it locked up already?

 

As to the fact that they asked for input immediately, why, then, would you need a survey as well, 7 months later? Aren't you most likely getting duplicate information? The only thing the survey would do easily is gather the data gleaned from the answers in an easy to see report, rather than picking out individual concepts and ideas from the forum thread started. Turns out the survey was supposed to be ready to go later in the spring. Seems to me that's a time management issue if it comes out 4-5 months later than originally stated. 10 pages of people basically saying the same thing with 4-5 ideas that are feasible to implement, assuming that challenges were to be kept instead of removed from geocaching.

 

I have no problem with them needing more time but I'm not going to give them a free pass and say it's all good.

Edited May 25, 2016 by coachstahly

[+CanadianRockies]

So why aren't they ready one year later to address the shortcomings as they were supposed to be doing during the year long break? What isn't ready to roll out? CanadianRockies doesn't think it's coding so what's left? If it is actually coding, I'd rather they get it right the first time rather than have to continually try to update and fix the problems as they arise.

Just to be clear, I don't know how much (if any) programming is involved in the new challenge cache framework. And while others seem to have speculated that programming issues might be causing the delay, nobody has pointed me to any announcement by Groundspeak that backs up that kind of speculation. I have a difficult time imagining any significant programming effort that might be necessary for the new challenge framework, but that doesn't mean Groundspeak isn't hard at work on such a project and is remaining quiet about it. It seems unlikely but not impossible.

 

As to the fact that they asked for input immediately, why, then, would you need a survey as well, 7 months later? Aren't you most likely getting duplicate information? The only thing the survey would do easily is gather the data gleaned from the answers in an easy to see report, rather than picking out individual concepts and ideas from the forum thread started. Turns out the survey was supposed to be ready to go later in the spring. Seems to me that's a time management issue if it comes out 4-5 months later than originally stated. 10 pages of people basically saying the same thing with 4-5 ideas that are feasible to implement, assuming that challenges were to be kept instead of removed from geocaching.

My big problem with the survey is that a key section asked questions in an ambiguous manner, so a given reply could mean two almost opposite things depending on how the reader interpreted the question. That must have made it very difficult to glean useful information from that important section of the survey. "Let's make better mistakes tomorrow."

[Rock Chalk]

Please direct any further discussion to the newer thread: Return of challenge caches