Jump to content

Need Maintenance Logs


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I logged a DNF on a cache. When the cache page came back I notice a whole string of DNFs on the cache. I thought the CO probably is not paying too much attention to DNFs on his caches so a Needs Maintenance log might get his attention. But there is not a Needs Maintenance Log option available anymore. Once you have logged a cache the only options available to you for another log on that cache are Found, Didn't Find, and Note.

 

It seems if you do not click on that Needs Maintenance option at the bottom of a new log, you are precluded from ever posting a Needs Maintenance log on a cache. If that is true, then WHY?

Link to comment

I logged a DNF on a cache. When the cache page came back I notice a whole string of DNFs on the cache. I thought the CO probably is not paying too much attention to DNFs on his caches so a Needs Maintenance log might get his attention. But there is not a Needs Maintenance Log option available anymore. Once you have logged a cache the only options available to you for another log on that cache are Found, Didn't Find, and Note.

 

It seems if you do not click on that Needs Maintenance option at the bottom of a new log, you are precluded from ever posting a Needs Maintenance log on a cache. If that is true, then WHY?

 

You can do a Note log and add the NM to that.

Link to comment

I've opted out (still using the old log in) and don't have that issue.

Noticed some with issues in the forums, checked myself and you seem to be correct.

- I simply don't want to deal with issues when I'm supposed to be having fun. :)

 

Couldn't you delete your log, and use the opt out (for now) too?

Link to comment

If I understand correctly, to use the new system I need to 1) delete my log and 2) create a new log and click on the Need Maintenance button, to post a Needs Maintenance log. It seems like a lot of extra work to solve a problem that did not exist before the new system.

 

Maybe cerberus1 is right, the old system is better for those that want to have fun.

Link to comment

If I understand correctly, to use the new system I need to 1) delete my log and 2) create a new log and click on the Need Maintenance button, to post a Needs Maintenance log. It seems like a lot of extra work to solve a problem that did not exist before the new system.

 

Maybe cerberus1 is right, the old system is better for those that want to have fun.

 

You don't need to delete your DNF log, but you can if you prefer. You do need to create a new log (it can be a Note); in either the new DNF or the new Note, you click on the NM button. This is hardly any more work than posting a separate NM log.

Link to comment

If I understand correctly, to use the new system I need to 1) delete my log and 2) create a new log and click on the Need Maintenance button, to post a Needs Maintenance log. It seems like a lot of extra work to solve a problem that did not exist before the new system.

 

Maybe cerberus1 is right, the old system is better for those that want to have fun.

 

You don't need to delete your DNF log, but you can if you prefer. You do need to create a new log (it can be a Note); in either the new DNF or the new Note, you click on the NM button. This is hardly any more work than posting a separate NM log.

 

I agree. It's just different.

Link to comment

I agree. It's just different.

If it's just different, then it's a complete waste of time.

 

But, really, this thread's a good example of how it's different: the OP understands perfectly well that he wants to report a problem, but the interface confuses him because it doesn't let people report a problem, it only lets them check a box while they're doing something else.

Link to comment

I have tried to report a problem with a cache twice with this new interface. The first time I knew about the problem before I started logging my main cache and noticed the Needs Maintenance button on the bottom of the log form. I pressed it and after I finished my main logging that a Need Maintenance log was created with a generic message. I clicked on the new log and discovered it was editable so I could describe what the problem was. So in this respect the new interface is an improvement over the old.

 

But in the second attempt to report a problem with a cache I did not know of the problem until after I had finished logging the cache. I discovered then that I could not create a Need Maintenance log nor go back to the already created log and add the need maintenance option. As pointed out by others in this thread, my only option in the new interface are to delete my existing log and start over logging, or to create an empty note log to use the Need Maintenance button to create a Need Maintenance log. So in this respect the new interface is a step back from the old interface and less intuitive.

 

In my opinion this is good reason for having a Needs Maintenance log that is independent of any other log already created instead of having to create another log at the time you want to create a Needs Maintenance log. It appears that little thought was given to the consequences of this change. As a software developer for over 30 years I must remind you young whippersnappers that good developers think first, code last. Hasty changes will always come back to bite you.

Link to comment

I have tried to report a problem with a cache twice with this new interface. The first time I knew about the problem before I started logging my main cache and noticed the Needs Maintenance button on the bottom of the log form. I pressed it and after I finished my main logging that a Need Maintenance log was created with a generic message. I clicked on the new log and discovered it was editable so I could describe what the problem was. So in this respect the new interface is an improvement over the old.

Except the email the CO gets will be the original generic NM, not your edited version. They'll then have to go to the cache page on the website, hopefully after you've finished your edit, to try to figure out what the problem is. From the COs perspective, this is not an improvement on the old separate logs.

Link to comment

Assuming that the above reply is correct, then this change to how Needs Maintenance logs are handled is a poorly thought out solution to a non-problem.

 

Good developers analyze the problem at hand to determine what exactly is the problem that needs to be solved. They don't just take somebody's word that this is the problem. Then they consider possible solutions to the real problem and work through the implications of each to find the one with the best cost/benefit ratio. Then they implement the winning solution.

 

Of course you have to have the guts to say no to your boss when he wants you to do something that will not work. But then, snowflakes do not have any guts.

Link to comment

Technically it was extra work because either A] two systems are running in tandem and we're jumping between them or B] the wrong system was used first which made extra work to use the new system.

* This is not a condoning of the new system, only making note that the 'extra work' is due to a temporary system development status.

** It should still be possible to post an independent NM log with the new method; this needs to happen.

Link to comment

It's just a new process. Like anything else once you've done it a few times it's not a problem.

The justification for the new process was "streamlining". If you're conceding it's no easier to use than the old process, then you should be willing to go back and think about higher order factors beyond ease of use. That's where I see this new process failing miserably: it's just not true that all that's required to report a problem is to check a box after you've described your visit.

 

The old process forced one to say, "I want to report a problem" which naturally leads to "and the problem is..." The new process encourages people to think about whether their experience was acceptable, and check a box if it wasn't. Sure, in some cases, people will realize they should actually explain the problem, but in other cases, the CO will be left to sift through the log trying to figure out what they're complaining about.

Link to comment

...but in other cases, the CO will be left to sift through the log trying to figure out what they're complaining about.

 

We talk like cache ownership is such a burden; that reading logs is annoying.

Don't most COs enjoy reading each email log that comes through?

Link to comment
We talk like cache ownership is such a burden; that reading logs is annoying.

Don't most COs enjoy reading each email log that comes through?

Well, there have been semi-regular posts by new COs who are desperate to turn off the flow of email alerts when people log their newly published caches.

 

But I think that's a separate issue. The issue dprovan is describing is that the old system encouraged those who posted NM logs to include text that described what maintenance was required. Whereas the new system encourages those who check the NM flag to consider their work done, when they may or may not have described clearly in their log what maintenance was required.

 

And as another issue, it now becomes harder for cache owners to pull up the email notifications of all the NM logs to see what maintenance needs to be done, because the NM logs contain only boilerplate text. To get any detail, the CO must sift though the other logs to find the base log that generated the NM log, and then sift through the text of that log to figure out what maintenance is required.

Link to comment
We talk like cache ownership is such a burden; that reading logs is annoying.

Don't most COs enjoy reading each email log that comes through?

Well, there have been semi-regular posts by new COs who are desperate to turn off the flow of email alerts when people log their newly published caches.

 

But I think that's a separate issue. The issue dprovan is describing is that the old system encouraged those who posted NM logs to include text that described what maintenance was required. Whereas the new system encourages those who check the NM flag to consider their work done, when they may or may not have described clearly in their log what maintenance was required.

 

And as another issue, it now becomes harder for cache owners to pull up the email notifications of all the NM logs to see what maintenance needs to be done, because the NM logs contain only boilerplate text. To get any detail, the CO must sift though the other logs to find the base log that generated the NM log, and then sift through the text of that log to figure out what maintenance is required.

 

In my case, I can't relate. Since 2002 I have only kept active about 10-15 cache hides at a time. I've never had a list of NMs that I needed to sort out. I guess we're taking pity on the numbers-style cachers with dozens and 100s of hides. I suppose, since Groundspeak helped create this problem, Groundspeak could come up with a model which streamlines things for for-the-numbers hiders who have so many they can't keep up with what NM goes with which of their caches in need of attention.

Link to comment

So far I still have not heard an answer to my basic question: Why are Need Maintenance Logs no longer available independently from all other logs? What was the perceived problem that this change was supposed to correct? Or was this change just done on a whim for no good reason?

 

My opinion is there was no good reason that NM and NA logs were removed. I understand the perceived streamlining of doing it at one time but otherwise, no good reason.

I use my app (Cachly) to log these independently. You can still use the old logging page which supports distinct logs.

Link to comment

So far I still have not heard an answer to my basic question: Why are Need Maintenance Logs no longer available independently from all other logs? What was the perceived problem that this change was supposed to correct? Or was this change just done on a whim for no good reason?

In the podcast about it a few weeks back, the developer they interviewed said they were surprised that their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs or didn't understand them, and this is the result.

Link to comment

...but in other cases, the CO will be left to sift through the log trying to figure out what they're complaining about.

We talk like cache ownership is such a burden; that reading logs is annoying.

Don't most COs enjoy reading each email log that comes through?

I was not suggesting reading the logs would be a burden or that the CO's wouldn't do it. I was pointing out that it will be harder for them to figure out what they need to correct, and that's assuming the person posted the log actually said somehwere what the problem was and didn't just click "Needs Maintenance" thinking it was like a thumbs down. Of course I assume the CO will immediately want to fix the problem as quickly as possible, and I'm pointing out that not encouraging a clear report focused on the problem will make that less likely to happen.

Link to comment

So far I still have not heard an answer to my basic question: Why are Need Maintenance Logs no longer available independently from all other logs? What was the perceived problem that this change was supposed to correct? Or was this change just done on a whim for no good reason?

In the podcast about it a few weeks back, the developer they interviewed said they were surprised that their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs or didn't understand them, and this is the result.

 

Am I understanding you right that because a test audience did not use a feature the developers decided to delete the feature? What a flimsy excuse. If that is true, then I must question what are the qualifications of the developers at HQ? It does not sound like there is an experienced, adult developer in charge. Just a bunch of snowflakes that do not know what they are doing. Heaven help us if this is a portent of the future of software development in the U.S.

Link to comment

So far I still have not heard an answer to my basic question: Why are Need Maintenance Logs no longer available independently from all other logs? What was the perceived problem that this change was supposed to correct? Or was this change just done on a whim for no good reason?

In the podcast about it a few weeks back, the developer they interviewed said they were surprised that their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs or didn't understand them, and this is the result.

 

Am I understanding you right that because a test audience did not use a feature the developers decided to delete the feature?

 

Where I work we regularly use test audiences to see how they use our website. That information often helps us re-work features to hopefully make it easier to navigate and use the site. We re-test again after implementation. It's a continuous thing.

 

The way I see it is they didn't get rid of the feature, just put it in a different place. It's not perfect but neither was the other method. Personally, I thought it was confusing to have two separate logs, but when explained to me, with regards to how the site worked, it made sense. This new re-work isn't perfect either, but it makes some sense. I think the bigger problem is: "their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs". I wonder if the new re-work makes them less afraid to use Needs Maintenance. Probably not NM, but I bet it will have no affect on the use of Needs Archive. No one wants to be 'that guy'.

Link to comment

So far I still have not heard an answer to my basic question: Why are Need Maintenance Logs no longer available independently from all other logs? What was the perceived problem that this change was supposed to correct? Or was this change just done on a whim for no good reason?

In the podcast about it a few weeks back, the developer they interviewed said they were surprised that their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs or didn't understand them, and this is the result.

 

Am I understanding you right that because a test audience did not use a feature the developers decided to delete the feature?

 

Where I work we regularly use test audiences to see how they use our website. That information often helps us re-work features to hopefully make it easier to navigate and use the site. We re-test again after implementation. It's a continuous thing.

 

The way I see it is they didn't get rid of the feature, just put it in a different place. It's not perfect but neither was the other method. Personally, I thought it was confusing to have two separate logs, but when explained to me, with regards to how the site worked, it made sense. This new re-work isn't perfect either, but it makes some sense. I think the bigger problem is: "their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs". I wonder if the new re-work makes them less afraid to use Needs Maintenance. Probably not NM, but I bet it will have no affect on the use of Needs Archive. No one wants to be 'that guy'.

In a way it does, if I try to wrap myself around their line of thinking, because it takes the onus off the logger to come up with appropriate wording for an NM that won't "offend the CO"; instead they just select Container might be missing, Log is full, Container is damaged or Other and leave it at that. The fact that these convey little or no information to the CO is immaterial, since the team's job description is to produce a new logging page, not look after COs.

Link to comment

So far I still have not heard an answer to my basic question: Why are Need Maintenance Logs no longer available independently from all other logs? What was the perceived problem that this change was supposed to correct? Or was this change just done on a whim for no good reason?

In the podcast about it a few weeks back, the developer they interviewed said they were surprised that their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs or didn't understand them, and this is the result.

 

Am I understanding you right that because a test audience did not use a feature the developers decided to delete the feature?

 

Where I work we regularly use test audiences to see how they use our website. That information often helps us re-work features to hopefully make it easier to navigate and use the site. We re-test again after implementation. It's a continuous thing.

 

The way I see it is they didn't get rid of the feature, just put it in a different place. It's not perfect but neither was the other method. Personally, I thought it was confusing to have two separate logs, but when explained to me, with regards to how the site worked, it made sense. This new re-work isn't perfect either, but it makes some sense. I think the bigger problem is: "their test audience were either afraid to use the existing NM/NA logs". I wonder if the new re-work makes them less afraid to use Needs Maintenance. Probably not NM, but I bet it will have no affect on the use of Needs Archive. No one wants to be 'that guy'.

In a way it does, if I try to wrap myself around their line of thinking, because it takes the onus off the logger to come up with appropriate wording for an NM that won't "offend the CO"; instead they just select Container might be missing, Log is full, Container is damaged or Other and leave it at that. The fact that these convey little or no information to the CO is immaterial, since the team's job description is to produce a new logging page, not look after COs.

 

In the old way of doing Needs Maintenance, the logger did not have to say anything useful in the log. All that was required was something as simple as a single character in the log to be accepted. But the old way did allow the logger the option of saying something useful to the CO. I have checked the new NM logs and all the logs show are one of the canned responses, nothing more.

 

The desire not to possibly offend people is being taken to a ridiculous extreme. If you are such a snowflake that you cannot face criticism, or give constructive criticism, then you should not be participating in the game of life, much less geocaching. You should hole up in your "safe place" until you die! And that goes for the software developers at HQ also.

Link to comment

I am closing this thread due to the disrespectful tone used towards Geocaching HQ's developers who worked on the new logging flow, and because the discussion has ranged well beyond the scope of a "How do I...?" question.

 

Legitimate criticism of the new logging workflow (or any other change) is welcome, and the best place to do that is in the Release Notes for the change in question. If the Release Notes for that change are closed, then a thread should be opened in the correct forum section (depending on whether the Release Notes related to the website or the official app used by the forum poster).

 

The OP is warned that further criticism and name-calling directed towards the developers may result in additional action beyond locking his thread. Criticize the work, not the person doing the work.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...