Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
Geocaching HQ

Release Notes (Privacy law compliance) - December 31, 2019

Recommended Posts

Okay, maybe I'm missing something. I thought GClh was a browser script that just changed the way things look on a page, added useful features, etc. None of that involves scraping and it only acts on the single page that's currently being viewed. Am I wrong?

 

On the other hand c:geo is well-known for scraping. It will load up to hundreds of full cache listing pages simply to pull out the relatively small amount of data it needs. That's textbook scraping.

 

Regardless, I'm not sure why we're complaining about an app violating the ToU when it was already violating the ToU...

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

I suspect not, because the developers of c:geo are not collecting any data, and there is no company behind them that is doing so. The only people collecting data are the individual users, so "someone" would have to be making the demand of every indivudual user, not the developers. In these respects c:geo is no different to firefox/chrome/IE all of which have the potential to collect and store that same data offline.  This differs from the API  developers in that it is ultimately Groundspeak that could be held responsible for the behavior of those APIs due to the agreement they have entered into.

 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

 

I guess it's the difference between a browser which views data within the application but does not store for ongoing purposes (ie, cache excepted), and an app which fascilitates downloading and storage of said data for explicit ongoing usage apart from the web page itself.  Such an app isn't a "web browser". It provides other functions on data it downloads and stores.  If I were to use a web browser, I could of course store the temporally downloaded content from within the browser to my own storage locations. That's not the same as a self-contained app. I don't think such apps could defend their functionality merely as another kind of "web browser".

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Okay, maybe I'm missing something. I thought GClh was a browser script that just changed the way things look on a page, added useful features, etc. None of that involves scraping and it only acts on the single page that's currently being viewed. Am I wrong?

 

Could well be, I've never heard of it until now and it was only the comparison with cgeo earlier in the thread that had me thinking they were similar :P  If it literally is just a script that runs on top of a browser, then it's just the same as the helper scripts we run on the desktop (which afaik don't store private data in their own methods). eg, PGC and cachetur.no are authorized to do so. Other greasemonkey/tampermonkey scripts, to my knowledge, don't need to be because they don't store such data in a manner that would otherwise viovate the TOU.  Enhancement scripts aren't the issue.  If GClh is ONLY enhancement scripts, then I don't personally see a problem... If GClh facilitates download of data for personal use, that may depend on whether the web page is loaded and displayed before the content is "parsed", or whether the requested page is silently downloaded and the parsed results are displayed/stored in its place. The latter is scraping. The former, again IANAL, I don't think is considered scraping since the intent of the action - displaying the web page to the user - is still accomplished.

 

Anyway... when it comes to privacy... again, all of this stuff with unauthorized 3rd party services which store (in any manner) data provided by a web page (with implicitly allowed uses) and makes use of said data externally are causing potential problems. But it doesn't affect HQ since they are not authorized and they can't really do anything to stop it.  It would be interesting to see how far someone would take GDPR if they feel HQ should be legally required to actively prohibit unauthorized developers from taking such data. I can't say how it'd be possible apart from removing the website entirely since that's really the nature and function of the internet (which I think was why gdpr gained such notoriety when announced).

 

Where we used to basically say "if you want to stay truly private, don't use the internet", now people can say "I want to stay private, so if you have my data you legally have to remove it"

Share this post


Link to post

As interesting as some of this discussion is, much of it is unrelated to features in this release. General discussions about privacy issues should be directed to other appropriate threads or forums.

 

Please also remember that while limited non-promotional references to unauthorized geocaching applications are generally permitted here, significant discussion of unauthorized applications should be directed to their discussion forums.

 

Thank you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But it doesn't affect HQ since they are not authorized and they can't really do anything to stop it.  It would be interesting to see how far someone would take GDPR if they feel HQ should be legally required to actively prohibit unauthorized developers from taking such data. I can't say how it'd be possible apart from removing the website entirely since that's really the nature and function of the internet (which I think was why gdpr gained such notoriety when announced).

 

I disagree. Other companies have dealt with problems like these by sending cease and desist letters. As long as Groundspeak doesn't do anything, I see no reason why people can't hold them liable. But I am not a lawyer either. There are ways for Groundspeak to block c:geo (without blocking legitimate traffic), they would find a way around it probably, so it would be a game of cat and mouse. But I still believe they should do something.

 

13 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:

As interesting as some of this discussion is, much of it is unrelated to features in this release. General discussions about privacy issues should be directed to other appropriate threads or forums.


This release is related to CCPA, yes? One of the requirements are:
 

Quote

(2) Detecting security incidents, protecting against malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity, and prosecuting those responsible for that activity.


So in relation to this change, I am asking: are you prosecuting c:geo for infringing on the rights of your users?

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, 2Abendsegler said:

I said: "I can download all cache listings completely with all the logs. And it's allowed for my personal purpose."

That is the law in Europe in GDPR. And that was starting point for the california thing.

 

Of course, I can not put something of this data into the internet or on other public positions. But I can use it on my private laptop.

 

I am an advocate of my privacy data, but the discussion here would limit my freedom, if it would come trueBut it won't come.

 

Yes, downloading your own data for personal use, or data that is not related to another person is allowed.

Section 2 D ii: "[You agree not to] Use our services, including GPX files, for any purpose other than your personal use without our written permission. "

But other people's data is a different question...

Section 2 D xiv: "[You agree not to] Collect, store, or distribute personal data about other users of our services. "

Additionally, 3A: " We also allow limited use of some of the data available through our services via our API subject to the terms of our API License Agreement. "

 

The privacy policy on authorized developers includes:

Quote

 

Publicly available profile information, geocache and trackable logs (including photos) will be accessible to Authorized Developers and users of their services unless you have opted out of sharing with Authorized Developers in Account Settings.

If you opt out of sharing with Authorized Developers in Account Settings, the users of their services will still be able to see your geocache and trackable logs associated with a particular geocache or trackable (which will include your username and any information that identifies you that you have put into your log) but will not be able to view your profile information.

Additional information such as your home location will be available to Authorized Developers if you use their application and consent to sharing your account information with them.

Authorized Developers use this information to develop their own geocaching-related websites and applications to enhance your geocaching experience and the geocaching experience of other registered Geocaching account owners.

These services are owned and operated by the Authorized Developers and not by us. Authorized Developers will have their own privacy policies in relation to personal information.

 

 

To me this implies that GDPR doesn't extend to data downloaded by 3rd parties (authorized or not). A user wanting to kill their profile will make the profile data disappear from HQ, and no longer visible by API, but any data downloaded to those services will remain adherent to those services' own privacy policies. They will no longer be able to see the user profile, but if they've already downloaded data for their own offline use, that's beyond HQ's influence.

 

I do remember that the TOU has been cited in regards to disallowing the sharing of pocket query data, but I'm not sure where that's drawn from. There is: "You may not share your access credentials with any third party or let anyone else use your account or your access credentials." which relates to being able to execute and generate the pocket query of someone else, which requires being logged in as them. But I'm not positive which clause prohibits sharing of MyFinds PQs with other users. That's been around for many years though.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rock Chalk said:

As interesting as some of this discussion is, much of it is unrelated to features in this release. General discussions about privacy issues should be directed to other appropriate threads or forums.

 

Please also remember that while limited non-promotional references to unauthorized geocaching applications are generally permitted here, significant discussion of unauthorized applications should be directed to their discussion forums.

 

Thank you.

 

Fair enough.

 

Getting back to the CCPA changes, I have the following questions:

-Does CCPA even apply to Groundspeak Inc.?

It only applies if one of the following is true:

--The company has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million

--The company buys or sells the personal information of 50000 or more consumers

--The company earns more than half of its annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information

 

I didn't think they made that much money, and I wouldn't have thought that they'd be buying or selling PI. Have we been wrong and one of these is actually true, or is Groundspeak following the CCPA voluntarily?

 

-If CCPA does apply, why are the actions being taken different than what's required by CCPA?

Nowhere in the CCPA does it say that users should be able to anonymize their voluntarily, publicly-posted information. Request that all of their PI be deleted? Yes, just like GDPR. Keep their account active but anonymize their publicly-posted content? Nope, that isn't in the CCPA. What was the reason for allowing users to hide their logs, which walks back nearly 20 years of logs being public? It wasn't CCPA, and it starts a dangerous decline in the community aspect of caching, so I'd like to know what led to this policy change being enacted?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I do remember that the TOU has been cited in regards to disallowing the sharing of pocket query data, but I'm not sure where that's drawn from. There is: "You may not share your access credentials with any third party or let anyone else use your account or your access credentials." which relates to being able to execute and generate the pocket query of someone else, which requires being logged in as them. But I'm not positive which clause prohibits sharing of MyFinds PQs with other users. That's been around for many years though.

 

2. - D. - ii.

Quote

D. Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. You agree not to:

...

ii. Use our services, including GPX files, for any purpose other than your personal use without our written permission.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

True, I suppose discussion of general TOU/Privacy matters isn't directly related to the updates. Still following the flow of the CCPA (/GDPR) stuff though, it's certainly interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thomfre said:

Wrong. Partners are required to delete data when told to do so by Groundspeak.

 

Wrong, the API can't delete data from my GSAK database which is on my HD.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

Wrong, the API can't delete data from my GSAK database which is on my HD.

 


I'm not wrong. The agreement has this as a requirement. Partners failing to follow the requirement does not affect me being right in this statement.
https://apidevelopers.geocaching.com/apiagreement

Quote

4.8 You must have all permissions required by applicable law to obtain or use any Personal Data.  You agree to the terms of the Data Processing Addendum included at Exhibit E. At the direction of Geocaching HQ, You will remove or delete any Personal Data in an expedient manner

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even know where to find GSAK's TOU or Privacy Policy :P Wanted to find out what it says will happen in a situation such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thomfre said:


I'm not wrong. The agreement has this as a requirement. Partners failing to follow the requirement does not affect me being right in this statement.
https://apidevelopers.geocaching.com/apiagreement

 

I'm not a developer or partner and have no api agreement with anyone.  You know, I can even print a cachelisting with logs and keep it forever even after you demand GS to remove all your data.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I'm not a developer or partner and have no api agreement with anyone.  You know, I can even print a cachelisting with logs and keep it forever even after you demand GS to remove all your data.

Download the GPX data provided by the website.  Store webpages for offline use. That's all your right.

GSAK (or other apps that use the API) gather data facilliated by the API, and as long as it stores data in its own manner and continues to make use of the API, the agreement states that the app must delete data if required to do so. Now if you were to take GSAK's database(s) and parse them out for your own use, then GSAK couldn't delete that data, but that's an action that would be between you and GSAK's (or other app's) Terms Of Use agreement. :P

 

ETA: But I'm not sure I've yet seen anyone show what happens in GSAK in the case of a user deleting their data citing GDPR.  What happens to [deleted user]'s downloaded data in my GSAK?  I mean I'm sure if I were to refresh cache data, any relevant data points would be updated - but would the API also send through a "GDPR ALERT: DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO USER XYZ" and the app would proactively scan all its stored data points for such references?  That's a little different. Than just trickling through updated data that's been directly requested.

 

Plus, what happens now with any updated API developer agreement, since GSAK development has ended? Is Clyde still updating the partner agreement when necessary? What if an update requires a massive code overhaul?  Could gsak eventually die (API access revoked) due to failure to keep updated with API TOU?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Download the GPX data provided by the website.  Store webpages for offline use. That's all your right.

GSAK (or other apps that use the API) gather data facilliated by the API, and as long as it stores data in its own manner and continues to make use of the API, the agreement states that the app must delete data if required to do so. Now if you were to take GSAK's database(s) and parse them out for your own use, then GSAK couldn't delete that data, but that's an action that would be between you and GSAK's (or other app's) Terms Of Use agreement. :P

 

 

Glad you're beginning to the point. I can import data from PQ's in GSAK. Logs/users are added each time PQs are run and downloaded, now what do you think happens if at any time you have GS delete your data? All logs remain intact but your new logs will not be included, your old logs however will remain in the database forever. There's no way they can be deleted unless I do it myself.

You can't even ask me to remove your data as you don't know I have it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, downloading your own data for personal use, or data that is not related to another person is allowed.

That is not complete. I can save for example a cache listing with all the logs data are showing me of the website for personal use. This data are allowed of the user, that's why I can see them. If I look to the website or save the website to my hard drive for later looking, is up to me.

 

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

I thought GClh was a browser script that just changed the way things look on a page, added useful features, etc.

This is the main functionality, yes. 

But sometimes an other webpage is loaded in the background. Example: In order to be able to display further information about a selected cache on the older map during the pop-up, the cache listing of the selected cache must be load.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not an API developer. I don't know what they are required to do per agreement with HQ. That's what I'm up for learning. Not your opinion on it, but what API partners are required to do (and how) in case it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 2Abendsegler said:

But sometimes an other webpage is loaded in the background. Example: In order to be able to display further information about a selected cache on the older map during the pop-up, the cache listing of the selected cache must be load.

This is scraping. If the cache listing is not displayed, but the script loads it in the background merely to gather additional data from the source html that's not provided by the displayed map, that is against the TOU.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

I'm not an API developer. I don't know what they are required to do per agreement with HQ. That's what I'm up for learning. Not your opinion on it, but what API partners are required to do (and how) in case it happens.

That's why I gave the non-+api example. Just a GPX (PQ) import will get me all data. It doesn't have to be imported in API partner software. Basecamp will do nicely  and there's no way the data deleted by GS will be deleted by any software someone uses to keep the GPX data (it may even be a GPS holding the logs).

 

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, on4bam said:

That's why I gave the non-+api example. Just a GPX (PQ) import will get me all data. It doesn't have to be imported in API partner software. Basecamp will do nicely  and there's no way the data deleted by GS will be deleted by any software someone uses to keep the GPX data (it may even be a GPS holding the logs).

 

Correct, if they are not an API partner storing data in their own manner for external use, then the privacy requirement to delete a user's data is irrelevant anyway, since there was no agreement between the unauthorized or non-API-enabled app. But an official API Partner with data storage and management has agreed to adhere to requirements to delete a user's data. That's how I understand it from what's been mentioned here.  Of course, once that data is beyond the app's scope, obviously it can't do anything about it; which would be why the TOU you agree upon when installing the app will most likely include clauses about how you make use of its data (just like the website's TOU includes clauses about how we use data we may personally retrieve from their services). If we personally break the TOU, then the developer is free from accountability (and you take on the risk of bearing any potential legal consequences).

Share this post


Link to post

Yup.

And sadly it extends to many activities beyond just geocaching.  It's an online / tech world nightmare. :blink:

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yup.

And sadly it extends to many activities beyond just geocaching.  It's an online / tech world nightmare. :blink:

It all started out about protecting key data like Address, Email, Phone, Financial info which I totally agree with. There is no way on this earth that logging a cache forms part of this. Organisations are encouraged to be paranoid and invent ever more ridiculous ways to make you click more buttons. And let me also add that the more sites you keep havng to click buttons for the less likely you are to read anything just click it to make the pain go away.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

If only a moderator would remove all those off topic posts about the non-approved browser-app. That would save future readers well over 10 minutes of reading in this thread, and keep things here on the topic as started.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the content is relevant, some is not. But yes a cleanup would be welcome

Share this post


Link to post

After the last Release I cannot change or delete logs. When will this issue be fixed ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

The most important issue is now you can refuse non-essential cookies. Tracking and advertising cookies are not "needed" on a website and are a bigger problem for privacy than having your logs or even statistics shown.

Now all of a sudden, because of a CA law, things are changing at GS while all this should have been done when GDPR  was introduced.

 

 

Edited by on4bam

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

Lawmakers believe otherwise.  The ability to opt out of data selling/data sharing with third parties is a cornerstone of many privacy laws, current or proposed, including CCPA.

The ability to opt out of data selling is what CCPA is about. Most API partners I know about doesn't pay anything for the data. The law is meant to protect consumers from tracking and targeted ads, not from partner applications. So CCPA doesn't actually cover official partners (maybe it covers Project-GC, but not the rest).

 

GDPR allows sharing too, as long as proper written agreements are in place - and that is the case for official partners. So I'm starting to think this entire change is rushed, just to err on the safe side, instead of actually doing what the law require.

When it comes to tracking, cookies and selling data, that should have been handled a long time ago. GDPR has been in effect for a while now. I'm surprised that Groundspeak has been allowed to ignore this for so long without getting fined.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed a silly result of the changes today.

I used the API to get newly published caches in GSAK. A few caches had "opted-out user" as "placed by..." instead of the name of the cacher. Opening the cache webpage show the username just fine so I used the splitscreen option with cachelist and online page, copied the username and edited the cachedata replacing "opted-out user" with the cacher's name. I then locked the fields so they will not be "updated" by a next API refresh.

It can even be easier to fill in the real username, just downloading the GPX file from the website and importing into GSAK solves the "opted-out user".  Privacy, yeah sure, the cacher's name can be seen everywhere except via API. I guess I'll just filter on "opted-out user" after an API update and put their caches on a list. Then a PQ from that list will probably overwrite the username... :ph34r:

 

  • Funny 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, on4bam said:

I noticed a silly result of the changes today.

Yes, that result is pure nonsense. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post

What have you done in the new release? Today I found two processes that no longer work. 

1. When I go to my public profile or to the public profile from a friend, I only can see the profile-tab, no geocaches, no photo, no statistic ...

2. Yesterday I go to a geocaching event and I log this morning. Now I saw that my log-entry have the wrong date and I want to change it. When I click on "View and Change log", I get the log-entry but I can't change or delete it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Can you guys at Geocaching HQ please fix the log editing/correction function problem that cropped up around the time of the last system update.

Otherwise it will build up a legacy of incomplete, illegible entries; especially as many put a lot of effort into delivering a clear story or message for log owners and future cachers.

Many thanks. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

A new bug for me:

 

I cannot use the Advanced Search page https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx in Seamonkey on Windows 10. I am trying to map caches hidden by a particular owner, but when I click on the dropdown arrow to change the default By: By Postal Code, I am redirected to Geocaching 101, https://www.geocaching.com/guide/

 

Intermittent problem. This happened the first time and not the second.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Little Bug:

 

Both buttons "Edit log" and "Delete log" have no function, nothing happens with a click. After about 3 seconds both buttons work with a click. If there is no function, the button should not be selectable, that is the least. Nobody knows that you still have to wait. And maybe 3 seconds are certainly too long these days

Unbenannt.JPG.da1e7d2c6b62a6fc13742b5314f00609.JPG

 

PS: Maybe you can apply for an exemption not to have to implement the GDPR yet? I mean, it should have been implemented long ago anyway. Why not wait until you can provide a system that is not a disaster?

 

[Edit]

Firefox 71.0 (64-Bit) Win 10

Edited by 2Abendsegler
complement browser and system
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, 2Abendsegler said:

Both buttons "Edit log" and "Delete log" have no function

Not true. They work within a second. At least without rubbish code fragments on my side. :P

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HHL said:

Not true. They work within a second. At least without rubbish code fragments on my side. :P

Well, my dear, as so often you are ignoring the constant changes on the webpages. I know this is difficult to understand, so I'm telling you. Nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2020 at 5:56 PM, lodgebarn said:

This whole topic would be a good motivating factor for giving up completely, what a fuss about finding a few boxes for fun.

Highlights how rubbish the modern world has become.

 

Yeah...  Though I might not mind so much if it was happening anywhere else...

One good thing about it is some locals here are finally upset enough that they're viewing the forums on this latest.      :)

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, 2Abendsegler said:
1 hour ago, HHL said:

Not true. They work within a second. At least without rubbish code fragments on my side. :P

Well, my dear, as so often you are ignoring the constant changes on the webpages. I know this is difficult to understand, so I'm telling you. Nice day.

Oh no, it still doesn't work. Maybe you should turn off your blockers, my dear. For example with blocking of cookiebot.com does it run, but without not. 

Quote

Highlights how rubbish the modern world has become.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't posted in this thread in several days, so I doubt if anyone will even read this, but all of this is just a mess!! My original problem was that I went to log in a few days ago and got the screen that insisted I needed to Accept Cookies basically (as I interpret it) to do ANYTHING in the website. As I say - MY interpretation.

 

I don't "speak" technology, so all these posts about Seamonky, javascript (yes, I'm the last person on earth that doesn't have a grasp on that), disable cookiebot (do I even HAVE cookiebot?), AP1, scraping data, tampermonkey mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to me. They might as well be talking the finer points of brain surgery! I just don't understand that kind of speak. I'm not referring specifically to the things I mentioned above; those are just examples of terms that everyone else gets, but do not go into my head. :blink:

 

Plus, how would I know the difference between "Functional, Analytical, and Advertisement" cookies?? Nothing on the internet - or most technological things - ever has a name that gives any clue to an idiot like me what the heck they are! So, I wouldn't know which ones to allow and which ones to block, let alone HOW to block them!

 

See, my problem is that I DESPISE installing things or downloading things or anything like that. In the process, the thing invariably either asks me a question that I MIGHT know the answer to if I even understood the question, or it tells me to ("do something") then click "Okay" - but there IS no "Okay"! Maybe there's "Yes", but how do I know whether that means "Okay"? Especially if there are 1 or 2 other buttons to choose from!

 

I HATE technology! But I didn't start it, it hated me first! I'm just hating it back. :wacko::P

 

Anyway, I guess I'm just an imbecile. And I just used to enjoy this fun game/hobby but if it's going to require taking a bunch of computer courses to figure out how to even GET to the website, then it's more work than I wan't to do! That makes me sad.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

@zookeepertx
It is always good to put the feet up and wait a bit. The problems will be solved over time and the pages will work as before. I mean, you don't have to understand everything of the thousand things you mentioned. Many of us, including myself also, don't understand everything. Wait a bit, the time will come again, that it's just about caching.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

For the most part, when it seems like a button or link isn't working when you load a page, it's likely due to delayed loading and application of scripts which used to be started almost immediately. Even if the browser implies the page has finished loading, things may still be happening in the background. It's quite annoying, and numerous times I've waiting up to 5 seconds, clicked a link, and been taken somewhere else instead of having its function actually happen, because its functional script hasn't been loaded and executed yet.

 

This asynchronous script-loading has got to get fixed. So many threads are popping up with people having technical UI issues that seem to me to all be related to this delayed-loading of UI scripts, and not an actual bug with that page's main functionality.  (Especially that "I Agree" button on the cookie/policy popups)

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

For the most part, when it seems like a button or link isn't working when you load a page, it's likely due to delayed loading and application of scripts which used to be started almost immediately. Even if the browser implies the page has finished loading, things may still be happening in the background. It's quite annoying, and numerous times I've waiting up to 5 seconds, clicked a link, and been taken somewhere else instead of having its function actually happen, because its functional script hasn't been loaded and executed yet.

 

This asynchronous script-loading has got to get fixed. So many threads are popping up with people having technical UI issues that seem to me to all be related to this delayed-loading of UI scripts, and not an actual bug with that page's main functionality.  (Especially that "I Agree" button on the cookie/policy popups)

I find it rather nostalgic, reminds me of Netscape on my 9600 dial-up modem :o

  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

when it seems like a button or link isn't working when you load a page, it's likely due to delayed loading and application of scripts

 

I'm seeing this effect in Chrome and Brave.  Functions I've tested seem to work, except for the first try, when they may ignore the button click.  Everything loads slowly now.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a quick fix I just implemented because I'm getting so annoyed by the edit coordinate link reloading the page if clicked before the scripts have run to give it its actual edit-coordinates functionality.

 

I noticed the BUTTON element receives an attribute the moment it gets its event functionality. So in my Greasemonkey script (Firefox) I inserted 2 lines of CSS which change its colour to indicate its functional status.
 

#uxLatLonLink { color:red; }
#uxLatLonLink[data-hasqtip] { color:green; }

As soon as the page loads the posted coordinates display as red.  As soon as the clickable functionality is added, they turn green. That could also be used as an indicator that all the other 'buttons' on the page that do the incorrect thing until the scripts have finished executing are then also ready to be clicked.

 

If you don't already have a CSS insertion script running in your browser for gc.com, I'm sure there are tutorials somewhere for each of the addons available.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Update: Another thing I just noticed upon implementing this CSS indicator...

 

ETA: Retracted. Maybe it just took longer for the scripts to apply the button modifiers, but now it seems it's finishing the modifications on tabs that I've let sit for longer in a background tab. Even so...

 

Loading assets can be done asynchronously, but UI-modifying scripts should not be deferred until the page is actively viewed and being interacted with and taking multiple seconds to apply.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Here's a quick fix I just implemented because I'm getting so annoyed by the edit coordinate link reloading the page if clicked before the scripts have run to give it its actual edit-coordinates functionality.

 

I noticed the BUTTON element receives an attribute the moment it gets its event functionality. So in my Greasemonkey script (Firefox) I inserted 2 lines of CSS which change its colour to indicate its functional status.
 


#uxLatLonLink { color:red; }
#uxLatLonLink[data-hasqtip] { color:green; }

As soon as the page loads the posted coordinates display as red.  As soon as the clickable functionality is added, they turn green. That could also be used as an indicator that all the other 'buttons' on the page that do the incorrect thing until the scripts have finished executing are then also ready to be clicked.

 

If you don't already have a CSS insertion script running in your browser for gc.com, I'm sure there are tutorials somewhere for each of the addons available.

 

I've been using the Personal Cache Note feature for monitoring the script loading. Once I see the "Click here to enter a note" text get populated, then I know the scripts have finally loaded.

 

In addition to the many features I posted earlier that are affected by the script loading on a cache listing, I've since noticed that the GC code dropdown and the GPX download feature are both also affected. Basically, everything I've wanted to use lately has been affected. :laughing:

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I've been using the Personal Cache Note feature for monitoring the script loading. Once I see the "Click here to enter a note" text get populated, then I know the scripts have finally loaded.

Side note: Man, I still wish one click would auto-focus the text entry box there, and the entire box would have the effect, not just the text proper. Maybe I should just custom-script all that too...  :ph34r:

Edited by thebruce0
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I still wish one click would auto-focus the text entry box there

 

On which note...  It's always been a UI bug that you need to click twice*, grr, to finally enter your text.  No good reason for twice.  Groundspeak, once you've put out the fires and had a well-deserved beer, could you please fix this?

 

(* Click, try to type, frown, click again, type.)

 

Edited by Viajero Perdido
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

×
×
  • Create New...