Release Notes (Website: New Search Map) - April 25, 2019

[+CanUSeeIT 39]

Seriously, has this even been tested?

 

iPad and iPhone, all the latest updates applied. 

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by CanUSeeIT
Added a second image

[+igator210 237]

1 hour ago, CanUSeeIT said:

Seriously, has this even been tested?

 

I have yet to see this issue on any device I've run. I've used the maps on Windows 10 w/ Firefox and Chrome, Mojave w/ Chrome, Chromebook w/ Chrome and  iOS w/ Safari.

[+terratin 344]

I've seen the same yesterday in Opera Desktop version, every time I zoomed out. The map would then not load at all. After coming back half an hour later it was still missing in the area of interest (but loaded elsewhere)

[+igator210 237]

7 minutes ago, terratin said:

I've seen the same yesterday in Opera Desktop version, every time I zoomed out. The map would then not load at all. After coming back half an hour later it was still missing in the area of interest (but loaded elsewhere)

 

With a bit of testing, it appears to be related to the zooming aspect, but so far testing only on my iphone w/ Safari. Don't know why, but if I pan and search, it works fine. If I zoom and search it gets weird.

[+terratin 344]

5 hours ago, igator210 said:

 

With a bit of testing, it appears to be related to the zooming aspect, but so far testing only on my iphone w/ Safari. Don't know why, but if I pan and search, it works fine. If I zoom and search it gets weird.

 

Hmm.. only having the zoom in and out buttoms that's a bit of a bummer. 

[+terratin 344]

5 hours ago, igator210 said:

 

With a bit of testing, it appears to be related to the zooming aspect, but so far testing only on my iphone w/ Safari. Don't know why, but if I pan and search, it works fine. If I zoom and search it gets weird.

 

Hmm.. only having the zoom in and out buttoms that's a bit of a bummer. 

 

Btw, not sure if this is related or not, but the map and cache pages keep on loading. At least the loading page swirl in the browser tab keeps on swirling without stopping. 

[+Viajero Perdido 874]

This should be a five-minute fix, maybe an hour with QA, and I can't imagine any argument for making it work this way on purpose.  (Archived cache, view map; it's been mentioned.)

 

Groundspeak, if you threw us the occasional bone, such as a fix for this, it'd give the impression you're actually listening and fixing things.  At the moment, the usual impression I get is, V1 and done, next!

 

Could you give us the impression our feedback is worth the effort?

 

(This probably belongs in the open-letter thread, but well, is it worth the effort to find that thread now?  I know you're at least monitoring the release note threads...)

[+Viajero Perdido 874]

Also, I've noticed you load enormous full-size images for cacher avatars, only to scale them down to tiny size.

 

You already store small avatars somewhere, right?  You use the icon-sized versions on cache pages.  Why not use the small ones in the list as well?  Data is money; not everyone splurges on "unlimited".

[brendanjw 52]

Hi all,

 

Just a quick note to share that we have added a link to the Browse map the to the header of our website.  We realize that this is an option many geocacher's have requested.  You'll find the link to the Browse map on our Play menu :

 

 

Clicking this link named "View Browse Map" will take you directly the Browse map.

 

Best,

Brendan

 

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by brendanjw

[+Mineral2 308]

10 minutes ago, brendanjw said:

Hi all,

 

Just a quick note to share that we have added a link to the Browse map the to the header of our website.  We realize that this is an option many geocacher's have requested.  You'll find the link to the Browse map on our Play menu :

 

 

Clicking this link named "View Browse Map" will take you directly the Browse map.

 

Best,

Brendan

 

 

I saw this yesterday. Aweseome.

However, its placement does make it look like an afterthought, and for a feature that is so commonly used, putting it at the bottom of the list represents an added inconvenience.

Here's a design thought: Currently the drop-down has Search followed by a separator and then View Map. What if.... directly under Search, you were to move the  View Map, but instead of calling it View Map, it was Search By Map. These are two complimentary search functions, and could be grouped together on the menu. Then have a separator, followed by Browse Map, then a separator and the rest of the options as they have previously existed. It would look like this:

Search

Search by Map

-------------------------

Browse Map

-------------------------

Hide a Geocache

Log a Geocache

Lists

Trackables

...

The Search map could possibly have a new icon in which the magnifying glass is overlayed on top of the map icon. The browse map would simply have the map icon.

 

[Blue Square Thing 194]

2 hours ago, brendanjw said:

Just a quick note to share that we have added a link to the Browse map the to the header of our website.  We realize that this is an option many geocacher's have requested.  

 

Thank you - I really appreciate that being added. And thanks for letting us know as well.

 

Amongst other things, I use a legacy version of Opera for browsing this site, and it wouldn't even load the search map - so other than copying and pasting from another browser, I had no way to use the tools I'm able to use in the old browser.

[+Mineral2 308]

11 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

 

Thank you - I really appreciate that being added. And thanks for letting us know as well.

 

Amongst other things, I use a legacy version of Opera for browsing this site, and it wouldn't even load the search map - so other than copying and pasting from another browser, I had no way to use the tools I'm able to use in the old browser.

Is there a reason you still use the older browser? It's in your best interest to use as up-to-date of a browser as possible, as older browsers can have security flaws. 

[Blue Square Thing 194]

21 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

Is there a reason you still use the older browser? It's in your best interest to use as up-to-date of a browser as possible, as older browsers can have security flaws. 

 

I can throw an OS map overlay over the top much easier. It's one of only two things I use it for.

[+dprovan 1563]

3 hours ago, brendanjw said:

Clicking this link named "View Browse Map" will take you directly the Browse map.

That's very nice of you, but in my opinion, it still makes no sense for the search map to be the default from that pulldown menu. But since you're intent on pushing the search map, maybe this menu is a logical way to do it, but change the existing "View Map" link point to the logical browse map, but immediately under it have a "Search Map" link to the more specialize map with the search features.

 

I have to admit, the particular implementation you've chosen really confuses me about what you're thinking. The obvious implementation would be to have the two map links next to each other, each with a modified to clarify the difference: "Search Map" and "Browse Map", not "Map" and, way down at the bottom, "Browse Map". It just begs anyone that notices to ask what "Map" is for, if not for browsing. (By the way, I suggest you treat "Search" and "Browse" as verbs, not adjectives: i.e., leave out "View".)

[+thebruce0 2486]

5 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

I saw this yesterday. Aweseome.

However, its placement does make it look like an afterthought, and for a feature that is so commonly used, putting it at the bottom of the list represents an added inconvenience.

Here's a design thought: Currently the drop-down has Search followed by a separator and then View Map. What if.... directly under Search, you were to move the  View Map, but instead of calling it View Map, it was Search By Map. These are two complimentary search functions, and could be grouped together on the menu. Then have a separator, followed by Browse Map, then a separator and the rest of the options as they have previously existed. It would look like this:

Search

Search by Map

-------------------------

Browse Map

-------------------------

Hide a Geocache

Log a Geocache

Lists

Trackables

...

The Search map could possibly have a new icon in which the magnifying glass is overlayed on top of the map icon. The browse map would simply have the map icon.

 

 

Absolutely all of this.  Much better usability and menu design.

[+thebruce0 2486]

You know, part of me is really really curious now about the development cycle and timeline that caused such a delay just to add the link to the menu bar. Is it technical? Is it developmental hierarchy? Is it conflicting opinion? Is it business delaying approval? So many questions... for such a little update. =/

[+hal-an-tow 420]

On 6/12/2019 at 5:44 PM, brendanjw said:

Hi all,

 

Just a quick note to share that we have added a link to the Browse map the to the header of our website.  We realize that this is an option many geocacher's have requested.  You'll find the link to the Browse map on our Play menu :

 

 

Clicking this link named "View Browse Map" will take you directly the Browse map.

 

Best,

Brendan

 

 

Whatever page I am on, 'View Browse Map' takes me directly to the browse map, but  always centred on my home co-ordinates. This is not a great deal of use when I am researching an area away from home, and am looking at the page of a cache there. I want to browse the caches around that cache, not  my home !

  This may be a small concession to the very many people who have asked for the Browse map to be the default when we click on 'view larger map, but' it is really not a practical solution.

[Keystone 3453]

2 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

Whatever page I am on, 'View Browse Map' takes me directly to the browse map, but  always centred on my home co-ordinates. This is not a great deal of use when I am researching an area away from home, and am looking at the page of a cache there. I want to browse the caches around that cache, not  my home !

1.  Use the search map to center on the far away area that you want to browse.  (Or, to "browse the caches around that cache," click on the Geocaching.com map link on that cache page to open a search map centered on that cache.)

2.  Click the "Browse" button at the top right corner of the search map.

3.  You will then be taken to the browse map, but centered on the far away location that you wished to browse.

[+Mineral2 308]

2 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

Whatever page I am on, 'View Browse Map' takes me directly to the browse map, but  always centred on my home co-ordinates. This is not a great deal of use when I am researching an area away from home, and am looking at the page of a cache there. I want to browse the caches around that cache, not  my home !

   This may be a small concession to the very many people who have asked for the Browse map to be the default when we click on 'view larger map, but' it is really not a practical solution.

The reason the map always starts centered on your home location is that the links in the header menu assume a fresh entry to that page. These links don't interact with the content on the page (unlike, say, the View Large Map link on a cache page), so there is no expectation that the site knows you were looking at a cache somewhere else (or even a cache page at all) before moving on to the map. It would be impractical to make the header know the content of the page and try to parse through that to give you a customized link to the next page you plan to navigate to. I don't expect that going to either map from the drop down menu will bring you anywhere but your home location. That's how the header menus have always worked from day 1. 

The reality: if you're looking at a cache and want to see the map around it, click on View Larger Map, and then either switch to browse from the map itself - the location will remain the same, or zoom out and research the area. And in either map, you can use the search bar to set your location on the map.

[+hal-an-tow 420]

8 hours ago, Keystone said:

1.  Use the search map to center on the far away area that you want to browse.  (Or, to "browse the caches around that cache," click on the Geocaching.com map link on that cache page to open a search map centered on that cache.)

2.  Click the "Browse" button at the top right corner of the search map.

3.  You will then be taken to the browse map, but centered on the far away location that you wished to browse.

Which is, of course, precisely what I have done ever since the new and unimproved map appeared, and what I have to do every time, over and over again, and what any worthwhile website functionality response to the irritation caused by the process would address.

 

The search map is useless as a first landing map from a cache page to me, and as this thread proves, to many other folk too. I do not want to wait while it slowly  loads, and I do have to wait, as if I click on 'browse map' as soon as that link appears, it takes me to .... a map centred on home. Aaaargh !  No, it is necessary to watch the sloooowly loading map I don't want until the cache I want appears. At least I've discovered I don't have to wait for the entire blasted map to  load ,  which would waste even more of my life .....

 

8 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

The reason the map always starts centered on your home location is that the links in the header menu assume a fresh entry to that page. These links don't interact with the content on the page (unlike, say, the View Large Map link on a cache page), so there is no expectation that the site knows you were looking at a cache somewhere else (or even a cache page at all) before moving on to the map. It would be impractical to make the header know the content of the page and try to parse through that to give you a customized link to the next page you plan to navigate to. I don't expect that going to either map from the drop down menu will bring you anywhere but your home location. That's how the header menus have always worked from day 1. 

The reality: if you're looking at a cache and want to see the map around it, click on View Larger Map, and then either switch to browse from the map itself - the location will remain the same, or zoom out and research the area. And in either map, you can use the search bar to set your location on the map.

Thanks for explaining the mechanism,  I like to know how things work.  I didn't ever imagine the browse map from the drop down menu could do what I want though. It strikes me as being a sop to all the folk who have complained , a case of 'Look, we have done something !', but without providing what we need , which is

Either the browse map set as the logical, sensible default from ''view larger map', or the ability to select a default choice for ourselves.

 

I tell you what, premium membership would instantly become more attractive if paying it gave a 'toggle map default from 'view larger map' function ...

[+Mineral2 308]

26 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

 

I tell you what, premium membership would instantly become more attractive if paying it gave a 'toggle map default from 'view larger map' function ...

Pocket queries and lists aren't enough incentive?

[+thebruce0 2486]

"View larger map" has the effect of purely and explicitly "View this listing on the Search Map".

Previously, it actually viewed the larger map centered on the cache being viewed from which one would given more information in a wider scope.

The current implementation of that link on the search map is definitively less helpful.  If anything, the "larger [search] map" link should not filter to only show the current cache (and ultimately less detail than in the listing).

 

Once again, the link (or links) above the map thumbnail should effectively be "Browse map here" and/or "Search map here", without filtering the results to only the 1 cache.

 

Showing only the current cache on the search map is entirely redundant informationally (even less helpful away from the full listing and thumbnail which also shows additional waypoints) except for showing a greater map tile area.

 

It honestly makes no sense that "View Larger Map" does what it does currently.

 

ETA: But at least having the 'Browse Map' link in the header is a half step forward. Just needs a bit better implementation.

Edited June 14, 2019 by thebruce0

[+dprovan 1563]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

But at least having the 'Browse Map' link in the header is a half step forward.

Forward? All it does is go back and give us the link that we had before this all started. But I agree it's half a step: to go fully back, we'd need the links on the cache pages that go to the browse map.

[+thebruce0 2486]

Um. It's a "half step" forward because quantitatively it wasn't there before this direct update and now gives people one link to get to the browse map throughout the site which they didn't have before it was added. That's it. You must have missed the whole spirit of my post, choosing to pick out something to disagree with to which I don't disagree in spirit (of course the link was removed prior to all this so it's not additive in the grand scheme, that was irrelevant to my point). Fighting the wrong guy here, man.  I don't disagree with your comment; just that you chose to somehow make it a counterpoint to mine

*sigh* forums.

[+hal-an-tow 420]

2 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

I tell you what, premium membership would instantly become more attractive if paying it gave a 'toggle map default from 'view larger map' function ...

 

Bold added for emphasis

2 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

Pocket queries and lists aren't enough incentive?

I said 'more' .

 

[+sernikk 147]

Since end april nothing has changed. The map still has bugs mentioned above like for eg. cache coordinates not matching with the whole map.

 

Does anyone at HQ cares about it now? Is there any interest in fixing the map, or is it going to be left in this bug-version? I'm asking because, I don't see any responds from people responsible for this.

[+The A-Team 1861]

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 9:44 AM, brendanjw said:

Hi all,

 

Just a quick note to share that we have added a link to the Browse map the to the header of our website.  We realize that this is an option many geocacher's have requested.  You'll find the link to the Browse map on our Play menu :

 

 

Clicking this link named "View Browse Map" will take you directly the Browse map.

 

Best,

Brendan

 

Some cachers requested that. More requested the Browse map to just be the default.

 

Somewhere in one of these discussions, you stated that there were no plans to retire the older Browse map. HQ's collective actions say otherwise:

• Failing (refusing?) to make the Browse map the default in the places where it makes the most sense, making it more difficult to access when needed.
• When a link to the Browse map is added (reluctantly, considering the long time-frame?), it's relegated to the end of the menu and separated from the other map link, making it appear to be a deprecated or otherwise unimportant feature.
• Marketing describing the Search map as "the one map".

When everything is taken together, it certainly looks like you're planning to retire the Browse map at some point. I thought we had made a good enough case that it's very much still needed in some form (whether its current form or an updated replacement), but maybe our case wasn't as strong as we thought.

[+igator210 237]

I'm reluctantly using the search map. It still feels laggy.

 

I can do better searches with PQ's and the browse map,

Edited June 25, 2019 by igator210

[+thebruce0 2486]

Ditto. And right now it's very annoying having to click the "Browse Map" button every time I want to see the map of nearby caches with the current one centered, using "View Larger Map" which itself provides no direct benefit using the Search Map as provided.

[+barefootjeff 3828]

55 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Ditto. And right now it's very annoying having to click the "Browse Map" button every time I want to see the map of nearby caches with the current one centered, using "View Larger Map" which itself provides no direct benefit using the Search Map as provided.

 

Yes, this functionality of "View larger map" seems to be the worst of both worlds. It doesn't show any of the additional waypoints you get on the small cache page map, but doesn't show any nearby caches either (like the browse map used to do). Just what is the search map supposed to be offering in this scenario?

[+hal-an-tow 420]

Why on earth there has been no meaningful reaction from TPTB to the howl of annoyance that is this entire thread I do  not know.

 

It's a simple request :  the overwhelming majority of contributors want the default map that appears when we click see larger map to be the 'browse map'.

 

It is a waste of time and , frankly a stupid arrangement to have to wait every time for the 'search map' to painfully slowly load then click on the link for the 'browse map' you actually want. Even if end users' map selection preference came down as shared 50/50 between the two map types (and it doesn't, does it ? Hands up anyone who would always want to go to the 'search map' ?) surely it makes more sense to have the faster loading map as the default .

 

Do I really have to wait and hope that some smart amateur can come up with yet another add on script for my browser to make this website function in an acceptably efficient manner ?

 

 

[+brendan714 122]

My comments after what has now been a couple months of using the search map:

 

1)  My most important observation about the search map is that I don't usually use the search map.  I use the browse map way more often.  Probably 99 times out of 100 I will use the browse map over the search map.  It's pretty simple really: I need to browse to an area before I can search in more detail.  The browse map really should be the default map.  I think it's about time I invest the time to investigate those browser scripts that can force the browse map to the default as it seems HQ isn't  going to change it back.  

 

2)  The search map is really laggy.  When I zoom, the map takes a good while to catch up.  Panning is slow and laggy.  Clicking on caches takes some lag before the info pops up.  In general, there's just a lot of lag.  Somewhat ironically, the "old" browse map is WAY faster.

 

3)  Let's say I want to search all the T5s in a town.  I zoom out, choose T5s only in the filters, click done and the T5s appear.  Perfect!  When I zoom or pan the map at all, the "search this area" tab appears.  I thought I just searched this area?  Okay, anyway, I can zoom in and look around.  Problem is, if I go outside of my initial search area, I don't even know it!  There's no warning that I'm outside my initial search area.  If I click "search this area" to check if there are any caches my initial search missed, now I've just searched a zoomed in portion.  I have to zoom back out if I want to capture the whole area again.  Very tedious and not very user friendly.  In my opinion, a checkbox to "re-search automatically" would make this map way better.  Or maybe a big red line showing my search area so I know when I'm browsing outside of it?

 

4)  I really wish there was a way to search attributes using the search map (other than making a unique PQ).

 

5)  A little off topic, but I also really wish I could separate out power trail caches and challenge caches.  

 

The way it is now, the search map is a somewhat useful tool.  I like that I can actively search, say, T5 caches on the map.  That's awesome!  But the lagginess of the map and how tedious it is to zoom, re-search, etc, really takes away from it.  It just doesn't feel refined. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by brendan714

[+Mineral2 308]

2 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

5)  A little off topic, but I also really wish I could separate out power trail caches and challenge caches.  

I think this is a general wish-list item for a lot of people. Not just on the search map, but on the search page and PQs. The problem is that as it stands, the system doesn't understand caches in a series and how to treat them differently from a stand-alone cache. Of course, if power trails really aren't your thing, you could search for all caches that include the base name of the power trail and mass add them to your ignore list (I think this works). Then they won't show up. But that does require you to find trails manually and hope the caches have a common name from which to get only them in your search results.

[+niraD 3300]

9 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

The problem is that as it stands, the system doesn't understand caches in a series and how to treat them differently from a stand-alone cache.

Stop. There is a big difference between "caches in a series" and caches in a numbers trail. Please do not equate these very different things.

 

When members have requested a numbers trail attribute/type in the past, some of the responses from Groundspeak have suggested the possibility of a "part of a series" attribute. This is not at all the same thing, and we should not encourage this misunderstanding.

[+Mineral2 308]

5 hours ago, niraD said:

There is a big difference between "caches in a series" and caches in a numbers trail.

From a programming perspective, the difference is not that big. A power trail is simply a type of series, and while I understand that we as humans can differentiate between a series of related themed caches and a power trail, training an AI to tell the difference may be possible, but not going to be easy*. And differentiating between a power trail and geoart is another headache as these can be very similar in attributes needed to classify them.

So... defining a numbers trail. The most obvious is a cache placed every 0.1mi. (or define some range, as not all power trails stick to this distance) along a road or trail. But then what? What if 100 people place a cache independently along a trail about 0.1mi from the last cache? Is that a numbers trail? Do they have to be placed by the same person? Do they have to follow the naming convention of [trailname][0-9*]? Most do follow this convention, but I've seen some that don't. 

*well, now that I think about it some more, it might not be terribly difficult to train an AI to distinguish a power trail from a non-trail. Hmm. Might be a good project to try as I sharpen my Python skills.

[+lodgebarn 92]

17 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

Why on earth there has been no meaningful reaction from TPTB to the howl of annoyance that is this entire thread I do  not know.

 

It's a simple request :  the overwhelming majority of contributors want the default map that appears when we click see larger map to be the 'browse map'.

 

It is a waste of time and , frankly a stupid arrangement to have to wait every time for the 'search map' to painfully slowly load then click on the link for the 'browse map' you actually want. Even if end users' map selection preference came down as shared 50/50 between the two map types (and it doesn't, does it ? Hands up anyone who would always want to go to the 'search map' ?) surely it makes more sense to have the faster loading map as the default .

 

Do I really have to wait and hope that some smart amateur can come up with yet another add on script for my browser to make this website function in an acceptably efficient manner ?

 

 

Sums it up very succinctly, browse map combined with hide my finds and hides should clearly be default. No reaction  by TPTB either means "totally agree but not big enough to accept that this is correct" or "don't care folks are still finding caches and we need to do more new stuff".

[+niraD 3300]

5 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

From a programming perspective, the difference is not that big.

From a programming perspective, the difference between any attribute and any other attribute is not that big. The point of any of them is the meaning attached to the attributes by the people who use them.

 

And the people who (would) use the attribute want a numbers trail attribute, not a series attribute. I've never wanted to find caches that were part of a series, any series. I've wanted to find other caches that were part of a specific series, but the attribute won't help with that. And I don't see any demand for a "part of a series, any series" attribute, while there is clearly demand for a numbers trail attribute.

 

5 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

A power trail is simply a type of series, and while I understand that we as humans can differentiate between a series of related themed caches and a power trail, training an AI to tell the difference may be possible, but not going to be easy*.

The point of an attribute (or type) is that an AI doesn't need to tell the difference. People will do that. Specifically, the cache owners who create numbers trails (and the volunteer reviewers who publish them) will do that.

 

5 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

So... defining a numbers trail. The most obvious is a cache placed every 0.1mi. (or define some range, as not all power trails stick to this distance) along a road or trail. But then what? What if 100 people place a cache independently along a trail about 0.1mi from the last cache? Is that a numbers trail? Do they have to be placed by the same person? Do they have to follow the naming convention of [trailname][0-9*]? Most do follow this convention, but I've seen some that don't.

There are other threads where this has been discussed, and further discussion probably belongs there, not here. I'm not convinced that a rigid, formal definition is needed. If the owner thinks it's a numbers trail, then the owner will add the new attribute (rather than a bogus attribute like Scuba Required for a numbers trail in the Nevada desert). If the community thinks it's a numbers trail, then the owner will receive feedback to that effect. Other attributes work pretty much the same way.

[+hal-an-tow 420]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

There are other threads where this has been discussed, and further discussion probably belongs there, not here.

Dead right.

If this thread devolves into a squabble about trails/series/attributes etc, it lessens the point of it, which is to try and get some action to solve the map problem.

[+thebruce0 2486]

ACK! Ok this is pretty annoying.

 

Please, please allow the search map to view archived caches IF the request is a specific GC.

That is to say: "View Larger Map" does NOT work when you're viewing an archived listing and want to go its location on the map. The old link would center on the location of the archived cache, which is exactly what we've bee 'trained' to expect on clicking that link above the minimap on the listing. Currently it gives an error and centers on your home coordinates. That's not intuitive or friendly. You can't even 'Browse' and go to the location desired.

 

So please, either:

1. Allow us a link to jump to a map view from the coordinates of the cache listing being viewed (eg, "Browse from here"), or

2. Allow the Search Map to do so given a supplied GC code even if it's archived (as it used to do) when clicking "View Larger Map"

 

This was requested long ago but hasn't yet been addressed.

Please address it

 

ETA: I do see that under "For online maps..." the Geocaching.com Map does this. So that's good (that addresses point #1). But "View Larger Map" doesn't and that can still be fixed.

Edited July 16, 2019 by thebruce0

[+CanUSeeIT 39]

On 6/25/2019 at 8:16 AM, hal-an-tow said:

Why on earth there has been no meaningful reaction from TPTB to the howl of annoyance that is this entire thread I do  not know.

 

It's a simple request :  the overwhelming majority of contributors want the default map that appears when we click see larger map to be the 'browse map'.

 

 

 

Since the silence from HQ is deafening, we are left to speculate - so here's my speculation.

 

The current Mystery at the Museum promotion requires filtering features that would've been difficult to implement on the "Browse Map", hence the "Search Map". Clearly it seemed like a good idea when the promotion was being designed, but this tool simply isn't well considered for most other purposes. 

 

I live in hope that after the promotion is over, HQ will be able to go back and pay attention to this (I'm scratching my head trying to think of a polite adjective) "feature", and acknowledge that it was a mistake.

 

Again, I'm speculating that the promotion is part of the decision to leave this unfixed, but with no other information offered, speculation is what we're left with.

[+Mineral2 308]

5 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:

Again, I'm speculating that the promotion is part of the decision to leave this unfixed, but with no other information offered, speculation is what we're left with.

 

On 6/25/2019 at 5:16 AM, hal-an-tow said:

the overwhelming majority of contributors want the default map that appears when we click see larger map to be the 'browse map'.

Let's not speculate. Instead let's recognize that to us, the regular forum users, it feels like the majority of users want the default map to be the browse map. Of course, the proportion of complaints on this thread probably aren't representative of users on the whole - there are many people who don't use the forums in the first place, and of those that do, it's usually to complain or point out when things go wrong rather than praise when something goes right. 

The powers that be have access to a treasure chest of website usage data that can provide a more reliable insight into user behavior such as to how many people are using the browse map vs search map, and how much time is spent using each. We don't really know if a statistical majority of users actually prefer that the browse map be the default. I suspect that the majority don't care because they're running hardware capable of handling the search map without the lag that those of us restricted to older hardware are facing. But then, maybe not. Or they simply don't use the website, a phenomenon that is becoming more common. 

Mystery at the Museum likely did take some focus from the developers away from other site design, and I suspect that Mystery at the Museum was designed specifically to promote the search and filtering tools and show users that they are there there and how to use them. Or maybe just to show off what their new system can do. It's a neat concept and I'm glad to see something different from the leaderboard points-based challenges. 

On the other hand, much of the complaints do come from users who are set in their ways and are simply annoyed that their workflow has been mildly interrupted. It's possible that HQ is waiting to make any changes based on reactionary feedback to see if we simply become used to the new system enough to accept its merits. I would certainly like the browse map to be the default. But... to me, the problem isn't the UI design of the search map itself, but that the map is simply slow and resource intensive. If the developers can lighten it up and get it working faster, I probably wouldn't care as much either.

[+thebruce0 2486]

7 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

The powers that be have access to a treasure chest of website usage data that can provide a more reliable insight into user behavior such as to how many people are using the browse map vs search map, and how much time is spent using each. We don't really know if a statistical majority of users actually prefer that the browse map be the default. I suspect that the majority don't care because they're running hardware capable of handling the search map without the lag that those of us restricted to older hardware are facing. But then, maybe not. Or they simply don't use the website, a phenomenon that is becoming more common.

 

I was with you until your suspicion about the majority.  I suspect the majority don't care because they'll use whatever they're given without providing feedback, let alone offering ideas to help improve it. The issues with the new map go beyond merely the occasional user who might be running old hardware, or experiences slowdown. There are legitimate usability concerns with the map/links that have nothing to do with hardware speed or capability.

But then I was right back with you for the last statement about the web use phenomenon

 

9 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

On the other hand, much of the complaints do come from users who are set in their ways and are simply annoyed that their workflow has been mildly interrupted. It's possible that HQ is waiting to make any changes based on reactionary feedback to see if we simply become used to the new system enough to accept its merits. I would certainly like the browse map to be the default. But... to me, the problem isn't the UI design of the search map itself, but that the map is simply slow and resource intensive. If the developers can lighten it up and get it working faster, I probably wouldn't care as much either.

 

I'm with you, except for the bolded. Are you sure about that absolute claim?  From what I've seen here, there do seem to be some 'grumps' who just don't like change or don't really have a solid argument other than 'I don't like it', but I wouldn't count those concerns expressed as "much of the complaints". Some, maybe, at most. OTOH there has been a good amount of discussion (albeit in some cases more emotionally annoyed, but rather at the feedback/dev process than the usability concern itself) which has been all but productive, to our knowledge (we can't see behind the veil), in improving the system.

 

But per your first comments, yes there is a whole load of use data we don't have access to, so it's easy for the forum to become an echo chamber. At the same time, the forum is also a treasure trove of informed input and feedback.  We can't assume the opinions expressed here (positive or negative) accurately represent the global community, but HQ shouldn't simply discount the input provided here because of that fact.  I don't think they do, but sometimes it doesn't feel that way.

[+K13 1034]

In that load of data to which we don't have access, the redesign has forced more use of the Search Map. When clicking the View Larger Map you get the Search Map. When clicking to view a map of a Search you have done, you get the expected Search Map.  I suspect the phone app uses the Search Map exclusively.

I think you only get the Browse Map when you actively click on it, thus its usage will be less. (Maybe also when you map a PQ, but I'm not sure.)

 

My issue with the Search Map is that it is extremely 'laggy' and as some have reported after testing, very resource-intensive when open.

[+CAVinoGal 661]

2 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

Let's not speculate. Instead let's recognize that to us, the regular forum users, it feels like the majority of users want the default map to be the browse map.

I would be happy if we could select our own default map.  I would choose the Browse map, yes, but we should have the option, I think.

 

I did use the (now) default search map during the recent promo, and could get used to it, possibly.  Still, I keep toggling back to the browse map on the computer.  On my phone, I did a whole lot more filtering the past week or so than I have done before, thanks to the promo.

[+dprovan 1563]

3 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

On the other hand, much of the complaints do come from users who are set in their ways and are simply annoyed that their workflow has been mildly interrupted.

I'm sure that's what GS thinks. But I'm not seeing people complain because it's different. I'm seeing people explain why it doesn't work as well for what they need it for.

 

The mystery promo was very cleverly designed to show us what it the search map could be used for, but, nevertheless, that's not what I use the map for except when I was doing that part of the promotion.

[+Harry Dolphin 1166]

7 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The mystery promo was very cleverly designed to show us what it the search map could be used for, but, nevertheless, that's not what I use the map for except when I was doing that part of the promotion.

 

Yes,  I only go to the new dashboard or browse caches for the promo.  I do not like them!  Then I switch back to the more usable pages.

[+The A-Team 1861]

4 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

On the other hand, much of the complaints do come from users who are set in their ways and are simply annoyed that their workflow has been mildly interrupted.

Yes, that's typically the reaction to changes on this site. Since we've seen from experience that this type of reaction isn't helpful, those of us who feel there are issues have tried to describe in detail why we feel there's an issue and how those issues could potentially be overcome, rather than just post another "oh noes, things changed!"

 

As for the feedback from the forums, I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

There are a number of forum regulars who are very familiar with the site and the history behind many features. It's easy to dismiss them as a small group that may not be representative of the whole membership, but the reality is that their experience and familiarity makes their feedback very valuable and HQ would be wise to take notice. I'm not saying that the forum regulars should be catered to, but their feedback should be strongly considered, especially when there are so many that agree on certain points. If HQ are the leaders of this group, then think of the forum regulars as the wise elders.

[+Mineral2 308]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't think they do, but sometimes it doesn't feel that way.

I know that HQ watches the forums and that they do take our suggestions seriously. Aside from the occasional reply from a lackey, I have seen many suggestions through these threads make it into production. It sometimes takes a few years, sometimes a few weeks. It really depends on whether the lackeys reading this agree with our suggestions or if they require some extra convincing.

I don't mean for my last post to come off as blind support for the new search map. I know it has problems and have expressed that here. And for the most part, I agree with most of you that the Browse Map should be the default, or that it should be at least made into a preference. But I've also seen what appears to be a lot of backlash to the search map by people who haven't really taken the time to explore what it is and how it can potentially make workflows better - you know, once the kinks are worked out and a few "missing" features added. Honestly, the idea of the browse map is wonderful - it finally brings some functionality to the site that Opencaching.com had years ago - and I'll go on record that Opencaching, when it was in service, had a better website interface than Geocaching.com, a consequence of having a large company with lots of resources to back it up. But... Geocaching.com was (and is) a more established cache listing service, and was overall a better community. So.. I'm all for the new search map, but yes, it's not perfect and we should definitely point out where improvements need to be made.

[+The Jester 578]

I will admit I tired the search map for the promo, but stopped when it would freeze and I'd have to close the window.  I used the search list to find the caches with particular jewel clues, but transfered that to GSAK and mapped that data with S&T.  Besides, the search map didn't allow me to tell which cache had which clue when I was looking to plan a route to collect what was needed.  I would have to search for each type of jewel individually and could map that set, but I needed to see where each type of jewel was in relationship to other types so I could plan.   So the search was helpful, but the map wasn't.

 

It seemed that the map mostly froze when I used the mouse wheel to zoom in or out, I'm using a Windows 7 machine with IE.

[+arisoft 824]

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

It seemed that the map mostly froze when I used the mouse wheel to zoom in or out, I'm using a Windows 7 machine with IE.

 

IE is not the best tool for using modern web sites, please consider upgrading. I am using Windows XP and Firefox and the search map works without freezing. It is just extremely slow to load until I switch to Google map layer which works much faster.