Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Geocaching HQ

Release Notes (Website only) - April 27, 2017

203 posts in this topic

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

In case you missed it (you seem to only answer to easy to solve issues, so I'm not sure), the change is mostly badly perceived. In this forum, we outlined a lot of (and not just a few) resons why.

As for the blog post, I don't know what others do but I rarely read it. Well now I did. I have the feeling that the comments are not quite positive either, to say the least.

I continue to give my feedback even though I am quite sure it will be ignored.

Oh, wait, I found a tiny bug you can easily handle : the tooltip "file input" for the photo button is not very useful right now.

 

incorporate more robust features

Well, actually remove more fetures would be correct.

 

respond faster to your feedback and any problems

As I already said, and others too in this thread : only as long as the issue is easy to handle. But when it doesn't go your way, you never give any feedback, sorry.

 

fix timezone issues

Looks like ther's still a lot to be done here too (see bug reports)

 

mobile responsive

Responsive is something your new logging page is far from being, sorry. When all I see on my 22" monitor is white, then something is not responsive. When the loading circle doesn't stop looping on my phone, this is not responsive. When a mostly empty page takes 3 to 4 seconds - at best - to load, it's not responsive...

 

Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

What we want and need is not a website that is slower and offers less functionnalities. We could add favorites, it's not something new. Adding the possibility to add photos is good. It was already possible, but not from the logging page. Good idea. Bad implementation ! How come limiting everyone to be able to upload just one image ? If you need to free up storage, start up with old unused images...

 

Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code.

 

Professionnaly, I work with code written in the early 2000s. Guess what ? It's still working ! ( Like the code Groundspeak wrote back then, it's well designed and working pretty well. Must have been done by cachers who knew what other cachers wanted.) But as I need to maintan it and do some evolutions, I confess it sometimes is a pain. But there are changes to be made, which by the way will be done in more modern ways, using newer languages. Then there are people who design how the new things should look like. Others who validate the changes. Then I do the changes. Then someone checks my code, before the change can be properly tested. Then some people do the testing. Then I correct errors, if necessaty... and only once all the tests are OK, the change can be sent to production. With a small target group if necessary. There's a golden rule in the process : changes add something, but never remove anything that had been possible before !

Well, I'm pretty sure it's how you do too. We geocachers are (paying) users, no beta-tester, right ?

 

As a customer, I can't believe how you treat us here ! As a customer, I should expect that the tools I've been using for years won't suddenly be worsened only because it was written a long time ago and your current developpers can's handle that ! Actually, how things are done doesn't interest me and is not my business. The only thing that interests me is the result. Removing functionnalities has nothing to do with old/new code. Increasing loading time has nothing to do with old new/code. Javascipt code that has your pages (map freze, message center freeze, now log page freeze) has nothing to do with old code It has with new code... And I won't even complain (oops, I am) about all that being done because of one of the poorest geocaching applications from the market that I've tested so far. Look at your concurrents/partners (?), it could be instructive. As of now, your release is not thoroughly tested and is not ready for production use. Why not confessing it, do the job, communicate about it and go live back later when it's eventually ready ? You proved with the withdraw of the "challenges" that you could admit when something didn't work out as it should. It's about time you recognise your mistake, isn't it ?

0

Share this post


Link to post

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

This is all well and good, but it doesn't explain why it was necessary in the process to remove so much existing functionality from the logging page. At least some of today's geocachers still want and need to be able to upload more than one photo with their log, or add captions and descriptions, or log meaningful NMs and NAs, or add coordinates, or encrypt their log if it contains unavoidable spoilers.

 

What greater good or enhanced experience does removing these functions achieve?

 

Please, if nothing else, at least tell us why you must spoil the game for us.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post.

I think many of us understand that old code eventually needs to be replaced, and we're fine with that. That in itself isn't the problem. It's just that when we're given a replacement, it often makes false assumptions about how the members will use it, is missing core functionality, and is riddled with obvious defects that should have been fixed before pushing to production. We're left wondering, "why did they rush this out into production?" Why not solicit the members' feedback, design a system that will best meet those needs while also fitting within your environment, and then fully implement it before rolling it out? Why rush out a poorly-designed and unfinished product? How does that benefit anyone? Would an author sell a blank book to someone and then later write in the story after-the-fact, or would he write the entire book before selling it?

 

Was the code supporting the old logging page within days of becoming fully non-functional? If so, then just tell us. We'll be far more likely to understand and get off your back. Otherwise, why was it so imperative that we be given this unfinished product at this time?

 

Edit to add: I know I'm unlikely to get a response to this, but I felt I needed to post it anyway.

Edited by The A-Team
0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, today i have to log with the new website. Let's see, if there is any improvement:

Pro:

modern style

easy to handle, because there are no more options

 

 

Why is 'modern style' an improvement?

And - how is 'no more options' possibly an improvement?

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

Ok, so the "old code" is to blame? I work as a software developer, and I can fully understand your point. In our team at work, we also have to work with lots of legacy code, often written 10+ years ago by people who have long left the company. But the product is still used a lot by customers, and development of new features is on-going. So from time to time we come to the point, where a certain new feature simply cannot be implemented on top of the existing code base, and things have to be rewritten. But whatever we (developers) do, we are never allowed to drop even a single tiny feature, even if it is (apparently) hopelessly useless. Our Product Manager always comes up with a use case for even the weirdest feature. Therefore, killing existing workflows is a no-go. Always. But with the "new logging" page, you did just that. And not only for a single "esoteric" feature, but for multiple core ones (multiple photos, proper markdown support, meaningful NM/NA). This is what we are criticizing here, and not your need to improve and modernize your code base.

0

Share this post


Link to post

One key thing that I notice about this thread is the sheer number of individual posters.

 

I don't think I've seen a recent thread here that has led so many individuals to post.

 

This leads me to the conclusion that a lot of people care deeply and take very seriously the negative impacts of this new logging page.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But please keep the old logging page up and running until the functionality of the new one is improved to better the old one!

 

+1

In the absence of actually releasing a 'new logging experience' that is the equal of the current one, at least TPTB could do is provide some assurances that when the dust has settled, that the new interface will be better. Not just look better.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
The "one photo only" restriction meant I had to rely on the old edit page to upload additional photos. What will happen when that old edit page goes away?

That (so far) is our biggest issue.

I usually appreciate change, and trying to figure the rest out.

Dyslexic old fart, have to rely on memory, and major changes are trying...

 

Most caches we do, we're the only ones leaving photos. :)

Though most here don't post pics, we do get emails thanking us for ours (COs especially).

- We believe many are simply happy to see they're at least headed in the right direction. :D

This'll really suck if we're limited.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But please keep the old logging page up and running until the functionality of the new one is improved to better the old one!

 

+1

In the absence of actually releasing a 'new logging experience' that is the equal of the current one, at least TPTB could do is provide some assurances that when the dust has settled, that the new interface will be better. Not just look better.

 

It doesn't even look better. Actually quite the opposite :(

0

Share this post


Link to post

that when the dust has settled, that the new interface will be better. Not just look better.

It doesn't even look better. Actually quite the opposite :(

 

I agree.....

0

Share this post


Link to post

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

 

Sorry, but blaming this on "old code" doesn't hold water. Code is written to create features. Features can be recreated with different, newer, better code. What has been delivered is different and missing features. For some unimaginable reason you have chosen to completely change a set of features that worked well, in the name of "fixing old code".

 

Come on.

 

Admit to yourselves that this didn't work. Pull this feature. Put it back the way it was, LISTEN to your USERS!

 

Then come back and try it again.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So this new logging page I encountered after a very enjoyable camping trip, hanging out with old friends and having a great hike in a remote and scenic place. I came home in a pretty good mood. Lots of stress burned off from a week of deadlines and gawd-awful javascript bloated federally mandated data entry.

 

Then I tried to enter the measely few finds I had and found myself audibly cussing at the rearrangement and confusing nature of the new interface.

 

Just think, 3 million geocaches out there, millions of cachers already familiar with the present logging interface and it gets a radical facelift.

 

Sometimes, no matter how prettified, a bad idea is still a bad idea.

 

Opting out until it's forced on me, like so many other daft ideas. :mad:

 

May have to get one of those apps or use GSAK. The Kindergarten approach to customers is getting very tiring.

0

Share this post


Link to post

After clicking on "Needs maintenance" and selecting an option, there is no way to unselect it. So if I type in my log, then accidentally click the "Needs maintenance" text, I have to refresh the page and lose my log in order to submit it?

 

Or is there some way to unselect this after it's been selected?

0

Share this post


Link to post

It was not intuitive at all to me that the date was something I could click on. In my browser it just looks like text until I hover or click on it. Can this be changed to make it look selectable?

0

Share this post


Link to post

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

 

Sorry, but blaming this on "old code" doesn't hold water. Code is written to create features. Features can be recreated with different, newer, better code. What has been delivered is different and missing features. For some unimaginable reason you have chosen to completely change a set of features that worked well, in the name of "fixing old code".

 

Come on.

 

Admit to yourselves that this didn't work. Pull this feature. Put it back the way it was, LISTEN to your USERS!

 

Then come back and try it again.

In my job, when changes are made, existing functionality is maintained in almost all cases. You seem to have the opposite philosophy so it shouldn't be a great surprise when people get very unhappy.

0

Share this post


Link to post

After clicking on "Needs maintenance" and selecting an option, there is no way to unselect it. So if I type in my log, then accidentally click the "Needs maintenance" text, I have to refresh the page and lose my log in order to submit it?

 

Or is there some way to unselect this after it's been selected?

 

Click the existing selected option to unselect it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It was not intuitive at all to me that the date was something I could click on. In my browser it just looks like text until I hover or click on it. Can this be changed to make it look selectable?

 

Many elements on the page have no visual indication they are clickable, so the date isn't special. Is the cache name, 'by' text or cache owners name clickable? All the same color and display treatment. Maybe the new UX goal was to combine Geocaching with those game apps that make you search for hidden items in a picture?

0

Share this post


Link to post

It was not intuitive at all to me that the date was something I could click on. In my browser it just looks like text until I hover or click on it. Can this be changed to make it look selectable?

This was one of my immediate concerns. Everything necessary is hidden. Why? What purpose is served by this compact design?

0

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to focus on mobile design for the GC website because there is an app. No harm in doing a mobile UI well and if you have no app it is critical, but there should be no NEED here to make the pages optimized for a phone. If people NEED to use the website on their phone, that would indicate deficiencies in the app that need to be addressed.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

One key thing that I notice about this thread is the sheer number of individual posters.

 

I don't think I've seen a recent thread here that has led so many individuals to post.

 

This leads me to the conclusion that a lot of people care deeply and take very seriously the negative impacts of this new logging page.

 

What I noticed was none of the Groundspeak fanboys/fangirls that always find some way of praising what was done can come up with a positive spin on this.

 

I don't blame the developers either as they are not deciding what to do here. The blame falls on the product manager or if there is no product manager, the Groundspeak leadership team. Those individuals are responsible for the direction of the site and how to roll out that strategy. Just imagine what the cache page will look like after this approach is applied blink.gif

Edited by Team DEMP
0

Share this post


Link to post

After clicking on "Needs maintenance" and selecting an option, there is no way to unselect it. So if I type in my log, then accidentally click the "Needs maintenance" text, I have to refresh the page and lose my log in order to submit it?

 

Or is there some way to unselect this after it's been selected?

 

Click the existing selected option to unselect it.

 

Yeah, that wasn't working last night on the computer I was on. Selecting the "selected" option kept it selected, and I couldn't get it unselected. I'll have to try and reproduce that.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It was not intuitive at all to me that the date was something I could click on. In my browser it just looks like text until I hover or click on it. Can this be changed to make it look selectable?

This was one of my immediate concerns. Everything necessary is hidden. Why? What purpose is served by this compact design?

 

Wonder if something changed since last night, or if something displays differently with my different computers. Now the date has the drop down "V" indicator next to it. Before it was just a date and the "V" icon would display only when I clicked on it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

 

Sorry, but blaming this on "old code" doesn't hold water. Code is written to create features. Features can be recreated with different, newer, better code. What has been delivered is different and missing features. For some unimaginable reason you have chosen to completely change a set of features that worked well, in the name of "fixing old code".

 

Come on.

 

Admit to yourselves that this didn't work. Pull this feature. Put it back the way it was, LISTEN to your USERS!

 

Then come back and try it again.

In my job, when changes are made, existing functionality is maintained in almost all cases. You seem to have the opposite philosophy so it shouldn't be a great surprise when people get very unhappy.

 

Count me in as a software professional that just can't get his mind around the need for this change.

 

Having worked in software development at the same company for over 20 years, we follow some important rules:

1. Never let your entire customer base be your beta-testers

2. Never (and I mean NEVER) remove functionality (somebody, somewhere is going to be using it and find they can't get along without it)

3. Always obey rule 2

4. Make sure there is a pressing need for changes and that they're not being made on a whim (that just wastes your developers' time as well as your customers')

5. Change for change's sake is never a good idea (which is just a restatement of rule #4)

6. Always respond openly and honestly to customer concerns about the changes (what kind of good will does ignoring your customers build?)

 

Pertinent to the thread: I still don't like the "new logging experience." It is slow, it is ugly, and it removes too many features. And the canned text for NM logs is pretty much useless.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Has the "tell us what you think" option to give feedback disappeared for anyone else? It was there for me two days ago, but not there yesterday.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This discussion is on the topic of the recent update. Posts that stray from that topic or attack the employees will be removed and possibly lead to forum time outs. Please be mindful of your posts and try and make them constructive.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Has the "tell us what you think" option to give feedback disappeared for anyone else? It was there for me two days ago, but not there yesterday.

My first experience with the survey was an immediate Very Negative. I wonder how many more of those they saw, vs how many generally positives or very positives.

 

I was experiencing an elevate blood pressure at the time, so the feedback was likely as honest as I could be. Perhaps they don't like the reviews so chose to turn them off so they could continue on this present path without distraction.

 

Oh, to be a fly on the wall somewhere and see what the feedback amounted to.

 

At some point I should wander over to the "blog" and see what sort of logic resulted in the new interface. I deal with a vendor who has a long track record of thinking they have all the answers and their execution and delivery leave us ripping out wads of our own hair, while they banty about superlatives and throw quotes of notable historical persons about being the change and such. It all has such a familiar feel.

Edited by Keystone
deleted a word to tone down the volume
0

Share this post


Link to post

Another thing that I noticed. After logging a premium only cache I was sent to a "You can't see this listing, since you are not a premium member".

 

Yet another reason to remove this new behavior and open the drafts page after sending a log.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, i don't like the new logging page and can't see any advantages for logging from a computer.

 

I would suggest the following solution: Keep the old logging page for those who log via a computer and the new page for those who log via smartphone. It's distinguishable by the user agent of the used browser.

0

Share this post


Link to post

A "new logging experience" ... Indeed! A negative one!

I wanted to give it a try, but the first thing a came up with was: I can't change the date using Firefox 53.0.

No dropdown, no arrow, no link to a calendar ...

With Chrome 58.0.3029.96 (64-bit) and IE11.0.41 it works. That's really annoying ...

0

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to focus on mobile design for the GC website because there is an app. No harm in doing a mobile UI well and if you have no app it is critical, but there should be no NEED here to make the pages optimized for a phone. If people NEED to use the website on their phone, that would indicate deficiencies in the app that need to be addressed.

The ironic thing is that even though they seem to have tried to optimize it for use on smartphones rather than desktops, they failed there too. For example, on a desktop you can hover over things like the cache or CO names and see that they're clickable, so the lack of useful formatting isn't as big a deal. However, you can't do this on a smartphone. You'd have to poke at things to see if it's "active" or not, with some unknown action resulting if you happen to poke something that does something.

0

Share this post


Link to post

On a previously-found cache, if you click the "Log a new visit" button, the form inexplicably defaults to "Didn't Find It". I would expect that the vast majority of logs submitted after a "Found It" would be notes, so it would make the most sense for that to be the default.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Here's our word for the day:

 

af·ford·ance \ə-ˈfȯr-dəns\ noun 1) the qualities or properties of an object that define its possible uses or make clear how it can or should be used

 

Of course, it sounds like some of the controls on the new logging page are missing functionality in some browsing environments, in addition to missing affordances.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I would suggest the following solution: Keep the old logging page for those who log via a computer and the new page for those who log via smartphone. It's distinguishable by the user agent of the used browser.

It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of the user agents that historically access the logging page, specifically comparing mobile browsers to non-mobile browsers.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I would suggest the following solution: Keep the old logging page for those who log via a computer and the new page for those who log via smartphone. It's distinguishable by the user agent of the used browser.

It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of the user agents that historically access the logging page, specifically comparing mobile browsers to non-mobile browsers.

 

Makes no sense to me to provide a phone friendly view of a web page for logging, drafts, or the cache page when you have an app that would provide all the same features. There's no harm in creating a responsive/mobile friendly web site, but it would be priority #12,643 if you have an app. Make the app robust and make the website robust for non-app devices (aka desktop).

 

This isn't macys.com or time.com that need to support mobile devices where people just randomly come to a site. Logging a cache is an authenticated user and if they are authenticated on a mobile phone they have an app. If they don't have an app because they broke their phone and grabbed their friends, who cares if it is less convenient logging a cache using the desktop web page? Like I wrote above, priority #12,643.

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

Just looked at your cache. If I was reading the cache page and considering looking for the cache, then I would be questioning whether to attempt this cache or not because there is no info at all about what type of problem might exist.

...

 

The ability to add detail to an NM/NA selection is an important aspect. Experienced cachers that know their NM/NA selection creates a separate log entry on the cache page can go through the extra steps to edit their log and add details.

...

 

A very good point, and sadly even though we CAN go back and edit the NM/NA logs many people just won't bother and we're all then on the slippery slope to the bottom.

 

 

Not being able to post a descritption to the NM/NA logs is detrimental to the game - please change it.

 

To add an additional data point...

I've located pretty much all the caches local to me. I grab a local one periodically. My only other caching is when I travel to other cities. When planning these trips, I have limited time to cache, so I go through the past logs when planning. If I see a NM and can't determine what's wrong with it, I don't even load it on the gps. I don't have time to spend additional time tromping or searching... if it says NM and they're talking about a soaked log, I'll try.

Newbie cachers may not realize that they need to go back and update logs. So we'll probably see a bunch of undetailed NMs and NAs...

They really need to fix the logging.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It was not intuitive at all to me that the date was something I could click on. In my browser it just looks like text until I hover or click on it. Can this be changed to make it look selectable?

 

Many elements on the page have no visual indication they are clickable, so the date isn't special. Is the cache name, 'by' text or cache owners name clickable? All the same color and display treatment. Maybe the new UX goal was to combine Geocaching with those game apps that make you search for hidden items in a picture?

I use the website on my iPad - so no mouse to hover. My only option is to touch the screen all over and hope I don't screw it up when I use the "back" arrow.

 

Whey pretty much screwed the pooch on this...

0

Share this post


Link to post

After suppressing my immediate "Change bad! hzoi no like!" reaction, I gave the new logging experience an open minded shot. I think it could use a tweak or two, but honestly, it really isn't all that much different, and overall I found that my logging experience has been neither drastically changed nor irreparably damaged.

 

I definitely want the ability to add more than one photo to my log without having to go back and edit. It doesn't make sense that this limitation exists, when the stated goal was to bring the two logging experiences (online vs app) come together, and one can add multiple photos via the app.

 

I also miss the ability to add a caption to photos without going back and editing. Since the edit log feature appears to use the old logging system's mechanics, is the ultimate intent to do away with the ability to caption photos?

 

I get the distinct impression that Groundspeak is looking at revamping the website, one chunk at a time. If this is the case, it would be nice if there was an entire beta site open so that we could preview the changes all at once, test them out, and comment on their effectiveness.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Makes no sense to me to provide a phone friendly view of a web page for logging, drafts, or the cache page when you have an app that would provide all the same features. There's no harm in creating a responsive/mobile friendly web site, but it would be priority #12,643 if you have an app. Make the app robust and make the website robust for non-app devices (aka desktop).

 

 

There is a reason if you wish to replace some of the app's functionality with web views. You make a compromise of desktop functionality for the sake of one shared view.

0

Share this post


Link to post

... If this is the case, it would be nice if there was an entire beta site open so that we could preview the changes all at once, test them out, and comment on their effectiveness.

 

There is, at https://staging.geocaching.com/ but whether Groundspeak want us to test and feedback on changes is another question.

0

Share this post


Link to post

On a previously-found cache, if you click the "Log a new visit" button, the form inexplicably defaults to "Didn't Find It". I would expect that the vast majority of logs submitted after a "Found It" would be notes, so it would make the most sense for that to be the default.

Wait: You can log a DNF on a cache you already found? How can not finding it after you've found it before make sense when finding it after you found it before doesn't? After you've filed a find and then a DNF, can you then log a second find if you rediscover it?

 

Newbie cachers may not realize that they need to go back and update logs. So we'll probably see a bunch of undetailed NMs and NAs...

It's much worse than that: it's not a case of newbies not realizing they need to track down and update the NM logs: it's GS telling them that this one click is all it takes to report a problem, as if there's no such thing as an NM log. I'm wondering if the goal isn't to eventually get rid of NM logs altogether.

0

Share this post


Link to post

After suppressing my immediate "Change bad! hzoi no like!" reaction, I gave the new logging experience an open minded shot. I think it could use a tweak or two, but honestly, it really isn't all that much different, and overall I found that my logging experience has been neither drastically changed nor irreparably damaged.

As far as I can see, the only substantial change is the one I keep complaining about: the fundamental change to how problems are reported. Except for a couple cosmetic changes -- most of which I only noticed because people complained about them -- the changes appear limited to missing features, so many missing features that this seems more like a proof-of-concept than any kind of test release. The scary part is that it's impossible to tell which features have disappeared because GS hasn't gotten around to implementing them yet and which features disappeared because GS no longer intends to provide them.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Makes no sense to me to provide a phone friendly view of a web page for logging, drafts, or the cache page when you have an app that would provide all the same features. There's no harm in creating a responsive/mobile friendly web site, but it would be priority #12,643 if you have an app. Make the app robust and make the website robust for non-app devices (aka desktop).

 

 

There is a reason if you wish to replace some of the app's functionality with web views. You make a compromise of desktop functionality for the sake of one shared view.

 

Please expand on your topic. If you rely on a web page for your true app, you can't be an offline application. The logging function is supported natively in the app and needs to work offlne.

0

Share this post


Link to post

On a previously-found cache, if you click the "Log a new visit" button, the form inexplicably defaults to "Didn't Find It". I would expect that the vast majority of logs submitted after a "Found It" would be notes, so it would make the most sense for that to be the default.

Wait: You can log a DNF on a cache you already found? How can not finding it after you've found it before make sense when finding it after you found it before doesn't? After you've filed a find and then a DNF, can you then log a second find if you rediscover it?

Now that you mention it, that doesn't make much sense, does it?

0

Share this post


Link to post

After suppressing my immediate "Change bad! hzoi no like!" reaction, I gave the new logging experience an open minded shot. I think it could use a tweak or two, but honestly, it really isn't all that much different, and overall I found that my logging experience has been neither drastically changed nor irreparably damaged.

As far as I can see, the only substantial change is the one I keep complaining about: the fundamental change to how problems are reported. Except for a couple cosmetic changes -- most of which I only noticed because people complained about them -- the changes appear limited to missing features, so many missing features that this seems more like a proof-of-concept than any kind of test release. The scary part is that it's impossible to tell which features have disappeared because GS hasn't gotten around to implementing them yet and which features disappeared because GS no longer intends to provide them.

And their refusal to say which is which is causing a lot of unnecessary anxiety as some of that lost functionality will have a substantial impact on the enjoyment I get from caching.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Wait: You can log a DNF on a cache you already found?
I don't see why not. I've returned to the site of high-difficulty caches, where it has taken me some effort to find the cache again even though I had already found it. If I had stopped searching earlier, then I would not have found the cache on my return visit.
0

Share this post


Link to post

Makes no sense to me to provide a phone friendly view of a web page for logging, drafts, or the cache page when you have an app that would provide all the same features. There's no harm in creating a responsive/mobile friendly web site, but it would be priority #12,643 if you have an app. Make the app robust and make the website robust for non-app devices (aka desktop).

 

 

There is a reason if you wish to replace some of the app's functionality with web views. You make a compromise of desktop functionality for the sake of one shared view.

 

Please expand on your topic. If you rely on a web page for your true app, you can't be an offline application. The logging function is supported natively in the app and needs to work offline.

An excellent point. Unless of course the intention is that the geocaching of the future be confined to urban hides and carried out exclusively on connected phones.

 

Yet in that scenario the low contrast text doesn't make much sense. Geocaching is an outdoor activity, right, with lots of ambient light and reflections off the screen? Surely the last thing you need in that situation is low contrast text. It's as if it's all about looking cool and functionality is irrelevant. Sigh.

 

The stony silence from HQ on what their intentions are with the logging page functionality is fast becoming infuriating. At the beginning of this thread I was lampooned for suggesting that feedback on the drafts version of this page had been ignored, yet a week on and we're yet to see anything that suggests otherwise.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wait: You can log a DNF on a cache you already found? How can not finding it after you've found it before make sense when finding it after you found it before doesn't? After you've filed a find and then a DNF, can you then log a second find if you rediscover it?

 

Stop! Stop! You're making my head hurt!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Wait: You can log a DNF on a cache you already found?

I don't see why not. I've returned to the site of high-difficulty caches, where it has taken me some effort to find the cache again even though I had already found it. If I had stopped searching earlier, then I would not have found the cache on my return visit.

You argument convinces me that there are cases where it makes sense to log a cache again, whether a DNF or a find. That doesn't explain why your successful search for that high-difficulty cache can't be logged as a find even though that same search's failure can be logged as a DNF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Wait: You can log a DNF on a cache you already found?
I don't see why not. I've returned to the site of high-difficulty caches, where it has taken me some effort to find the cache again even though I had already found it. If I had stopped searching earlier, then I would not have found the cache on my return visit.
You argument convinces me that there are cases where it makes sense to log a cache again, whether a DNF or a find. That doesn't explain why your successful search for that high-difficulty cache can't be logged as a find even though that same search's failure can be logged as a DNF.
Logging a Find when you revisit a cache is frowned upon, and is viewed as a lame attempt to pad your find count.

 

Logging a DNF when you revisit a cache is entertaining, and is viewed as amusing since many people think you should be able to find a cache that you've found before.

 

The same goes for logging a DNF when you visit your own cache.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What would be a better solution, is to allow multiple logs of any type, but only count one 'Found it' per cache. After all, you can search for a cache more than once..... if you want to.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15