Release Notes (Website: Links now point to new search results) - April 20, 2021

[+Boomshanka]

5 hours ago, werla said:

You can bookmark the old search with this URL:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=SDBH-R

 

However, nobody knows how long this will work.

Excellent, this is exactly how I'd like things to stay!

[+Viajero Perdido]

6 hours ago, werla said:

You can bookmark the old search with this URL:

 

Groundspeak should be keeping track of how often these old links are used.  Calculated against the uproar caused just now with making these links less visible, it should be easy to estimate the final uproar when the links actually stop working, period.

 

Likewise, effect on cash flow.

 

The feedback years ago, when the new search was introduced, would make an extra data point for extrapolation.  The current uproar could've been predicted as well.

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Viajero Perdido

[+brendan714]

I was trying to use the new search on my phone to look up my recently found caches.

I gave it an honest try.  I went in to do a couple simple searches. 

WOW it feels like 3 steps backwards from the old search!

 

First and most importantly: Having only one parameter viewable at a time is extremely inefficient and results in a significant loss in functionality. 

 

Let's say I want to find the terrain rating of several caches I found a couple weeks ago.

First I click on my link to All Geocache Finds.

Now I scroll down (scroll, scroll, scroll) to find the cache from a couple weeks ago.  But it's only showing the found date so now I have to click terrain.

Click the 3 dots.  Click terrain.

Now I'm back up at the top again!

Scroll, scroll, scroll back down. Finally found it!  Now how about the difficulty?  Sigh... 

Click the 3 dots.  Click difficulty.

Back at the top.  Scroll, scroll, scroll.  Now when did I find that cache again?  Double sigh...

 

A simple task that used to take me seconds now is a huge chore. 

 

Here's a sample screenshot that shows JUST terrain on my phone:

Also, where's the GC code?  How come the GC code is missing on the mobile version, but not on the desktop version?

I do, however, like that in the mobile version it does not say "Traditional", "Mystery", etc next to the cache icon. 

 

Next, I was surprised that while some caches take up only 2 lines (for both the title and the cache owner), some caches take up a whopping 5 lines!  There's also an additional line added to tell me the cache is PREMIUM (6 lines of text are wasted in the screenshot below to tell me the various caches are premium).  Talk about inefficient!  It doesn't look very good at all, either!  On the old search page, the columns were long enough such that the title and cache owner would ALWAYS fit on 2 lines.

 

Next, I think there's a bug: my found date just disappears after some point?

 

 

And finally, something a little strange, but when I'm at the top of the page, some caches show as 3 lines.  But when I scroll down and the title rows freeze to the top, suddenly some of the caches switch to being 4 lines.  

 

 

It almost makes me sad to see how inefficient and buggy this new system is compared to the old search.

As a tool with the intended use to be searches of recently found and owned caches, I just don't think the functionality is there. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by brendan714

[nykkole]

On 4/24/2021 at 8:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

Basic members can only sort by distance, none of the other column headers, so I presume this means that when a basic member views the hides of another user (this is still possible) the default sort will be by hidden date for them as an exception. Basic users can only see caches found by themselves.  And Premium users can sort by any sortable column.

 

This is correct, Basic members will see their owne find and hides, as well as other players' hides sorted by date instead of distance.

 

On 4/24/2021 at 8:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

However I just tested with a dummy account and the default sort for that basic account viewing its own finds is still by Distance ascending. Hmm... @nykkole?

I can't reproduce the sorting by distance for Basic member account, when I test it consistently sorts by date (FoundDateOfFoundByUser)

[nykkole]

12 hours ago, ChileHead said:

I noticed now if I go to a player's profile that has an apostrophe (') in it, and click on the link to show their finds, I get an Error 500.  I verified this with 4 or 5 different players.

Thanks for reporting this! We are working on a fix.

[+Hügh]

7 hours ago, brendan714 said:

There's also an additional line added to tell me the cache is PREMIUM

 

You bring up a good point. I would assume that most Premium members do not care if a cache is PMO — they can access it regardless. Perhaps the "tag" should only appear for basic members?

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, nykkole said:

On 4/24/2021 at 11:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

However I just tested with a dummy account and the default sort for that basic account viewing its own finds is still by Distance ascending. Hmm... @nykkole?

I can't reproduce the sorting by distance for Basic member account, when I test it consistently sorts by date (FoundDateOfFoundByUser)

 

Played a bit more... the URL does appear correct, and on closer look the dates do appear to be in descending order, but the sorting indicator is over the Distance column, and the Found On column can't be clicked.

[+Ingabo]

After checking out the new functions myself to see what the new improvements are like and thereafter reading some posts here I am convinced that the geocacher has not been in focus when implementing these changes. It for sure looks like if a non-caching programmer together with some financial function has written the new function specification. For sure it is definitely not influenced by any active geocachers. So many fundamentally wrong ways of thinking in one package. At first I thought the system had been hacked or even hijacked. Everything will get fixed again when back in the hands of HQ again. Instead this is supposed to be a HQ final product. I learned already in school that ; if it aint broke don't fix it. I urge responsible functions at HQ to act and wind everything back to where it was as step one. Then, ask geocachers what they really want before planning any implementation. Why not let a group of people beta test the planned release before launching. That is the way we did in the company where I was working. It had 30 000 employees so this should not be a difficult way for a company which employs perhaps only 1% of these. Do not use all cachers as beta testers. This is just my humble opinion.

[+CatFur]

What happened with "Found by username"? Can't find any way in the new search site how to get information about a friends whereabouts in only one click.

 

The new search site doesn't work in the mobile phone - it's too wide.

 

Sorry but the new search page is not good, www.geocaching.com/seek is so much better and quicker,  I mean WHERE -  because it is now dead. 

 

 

 

 

[+Monway]

Why change something that works?

 

For example, I often use the function on a cache page, hidden by this user.

 

After the update, the caches this user has hidden no longer end up in chronological order from when they were hidden and on a mobile phone it is not possible to see if they have been found or not.

 

Is it meant to click multiple steps and load servers each time?

 

This was just an example.

 

Never repair anything that works!

[+Coland]

I dont know if this has been brought up, but if I click to get the list of the caches that I own and then click to get a map view of them It doesn't work. It then says "No matching results" and no matter what I do I cant get a map view of just my owned caches.

[+Mermaid.Man]

I've not seen this mentioned yet and so I'll add it to the list. On the old search it was possible to click on the number of favourite points and be shown the %FP figure. I liked that feature very much and found it very useful. 

[+dprovan]

On 4/27/2021 at 10:29 AM, Ingabo said:

It for sure looks like if a non-caching programmer together with some financial function has written the new function specification.

I'm curious what possible "financial function" you're imagining. I can't think of any money grubbing that wold lead to these particular decisions.

 

I won't support your other contention because I got banned from the forums a few years ago for suggesting something like that. Apparently suggesting that a programmer that doesn't geocache will somehow not take into account all the considerations a geocacher would is insulting beyond all reason.

On 4/27/2021 at 10:29 AM, Ingabo said:

if it aint broke don't fix it.

It's very, very important for us in this discussion to recognize that it was broken: it used old technology they don't want to support, and for good reason. I don't really know anything about what's going on under the hood, but I'm willing to adopt the assumption that the list had to be reimplemented for reasons I don't need to understand. So I think our useful input is the case that the feature is important enough to implement again. They can make a good case -- at least to themselves -- for ignoring any argument suggesting not doing anything is an option.

[+PlantStrong]

I am very disappointed with the change. Please go back to the original display (Yes, I know there’s a link, but there’s more to it than that).

(1) Visually impaired users such as myself have a much more difficult time sifting and getting meaningful use of the info.

 

(2) When I click on “All Geocache Finds” from my stats page (or someone else’s), it takes me to what looks like a completed “Search” page. One key missing element, in my estimation, is the loss of ability to see when the cache was last found. It only shows when I last found it. I want to see when anyone last found it! I cannot do this any longer by simply displaying the list of caches from the stats page. Before, it showed my find date in green text, and the “last found” date just above that, in the same table cell. That is now GONE with the new “feature”. 

** If there is another way to see “last found” along with the date that I found it, please elaborate. The only way I can see to do that is by putting all of my finds on a watchlist. And I’m not even sure that would work in the same manner. 

 

In conclusion, (1) above is the more important consideration of the two. The grey background and compact format was FAR better than a common search page. 

 

thanks. 

[+Trekkin' and birdin']

On 4/26/2021 at 7:53 AM, ChileHead said:

I noticed now if I go to a player's profile that has an apostrophe (') in it, and click on the link to show their finds, I get an Error 500.  I verified this with 4 or 5 different players.

 

This explains then why I can't click on "all finds" or "hides" and see them listed at all....in any order.  Will we now have to change our caching handle by which we've been known for almost 15 years?

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Would have been better for everyone if Groundspeak asked our input before releasing this Downgrade.

Historically they've always claimed that they ask for and receive lots of input. We here in the forums just have never figured out from whom because it never seems to jive with any prevailing opinions among forum denizens.

 

And, again, my point is that it isn't a downgrade, it's a reimplementation where they made decisions, whether consciously or unconsciously, to not spend the resources to implement features that you consider required but they don't.

 

9 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Still wonder how they greenlight this ''project'' without beta testing.

The accurate take on this is quite different than you think. The things that people are complaining about here are not only beyond beta test, they've been deployed and active for five years. The only thing they did in this release is change some links so they point to the reimplementation instead of the ancient original list code.

 

9 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Following that logic Poquets Queries are going the next to be axed because regular players are only a tiny fraction of geocachers.

I don't exactly follow what you're saying here, but pocket queries are in a very similar state, technologically, and GS initially made some moves that, in my opinion, were intended to move towards getting rid of pocket queries in a similar way. That movement kinda fizzled, I'm guessing because of feedback they got.

[+ChriBli]

15 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's very, very important for us in this discussion to recognize that it was broken: it used old technology they don't want to support, and for good reason.

So there's been advancements in the underlying technology beyond their control, and they want to take advantage of that. That's understandable. And that forced them to reimplement the search function, fine. But I refuse to believe that this new technology should not support things like paginated lists (the lack of which led to the catastophic limit of found/hidden lists), info column, graphic size descriptor or just reasonable information density.

 

So instead of them arguing that the lack of any of the above features are improvements to the user experience, they just say that they couldn't be bothered to implement them again.

[+thebruce0]

One way to look at it is that the underlying system has been improved, but the interface has lost functionality that many used. Ideally, they'll listen to the issues (again ideally, constructively critical ones, not raging insulting angry rants, though they have their appropriate effect) and continue to adjust and/or fix the interface.

Conceptually speaking, if the links imply 'searching' for all cache a user has found or placed, then the link makes sense.

 

But if the link/location context implies an archival list, then the loss of pagination is a very big interface loss for usability's sake. If the server-end of the functionality is in fact better/sleeker/quicker/lighter weight, then finding a way to (re-)implement paging through tens of thousands of chronological records should be on the list of projects to complete over top of the new underlying system. Not because the new code is bad, but because the interface and user experience demands it for its context.

[+redgecco]

Hello HQ, when I recently opened my found caches page, I thought it was a bug.... The lists are gone, it's totally confusing! I can't find old found caches anymore, even with other users. Please undo this change, it brings no benefit at all. 

[+VelkyBobik]

Hello HQ,
as stated last week in this thread, my premium is expiring tomorrow and since you fixed only default sorting so far and obviously focused on that souvenirs task instead, I'm not renewing and I'm also not placing any new caches until you improve functionality of the new search. I've been paying subscription most of my caching "career" I also pay for project-GC, so it's not about the money but I simply feel like as a customer that is very disappointed with the broken service functionality. Since there is no other provider of this service, I just have an option to stop paying you money. 

 

What needs to be fixed:

1) columns have a lots of white space padding -> difficult to quick grasp information about geocaches in the list
2) missing icon of cache size -> text makes impossible to quickly scan for visual guide 
3) missing needs maintenance and trackable icon -> not sure why you removed this, maybe related to point #1 because your table wouldn't fit even to fullHD screens :-)
4) missing rows color banding -> because your table is now unreasonable wide, it's hard to quickly scan over the table because the colums on right are far away from geocache name on the very left
5) even if you think your search is now visually perfect (this is for some strange reason popular approach in many user interfaces in recent years), please add something like "condensed" view where all the white space padding is reduced to possible minimum. On 1920x1200 screen, I was able to see 20 entries of the old design. Now I see 14. 

6) when I go over profile -> geocaches -> all geocache hides ->  map these geocaches, I get a blank map with error "No matching results". This is obviously a bug.

7) revert the option to see ALL geocache finds. Recently I needed to troubleshoot a bug in a challenge checker (366 calendar grid) and I had to go over one of my friend's finds all over the caching years to really get to see what he found on one particular day over all of the years. For a person with more than 1000 finds, this is impossible with your new search. 

8) use a different visual styling for a disabled and archived hide. Right now they look the same except for the tiny text. Makes no sense not to use a different color or crossed text or whatever to allow people to quickly distinguish between these two significantly different geocache states.

9) fix the search appearance on smartphones. Somebody posted screenshots in this thread before. It's completely useless now to see all the needed D/T/Size/Placed/Found colums, not even talking about sorting according to these

10) cache distance direction icon was also much more convenient to read where the cache direction in the real world is

 

What is unrelated and also missing: as I proposed this February, you should improve functionality of adding/removing caches from a list, more about that here:
https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/360327-feature-request-remove-cache-from-a-bookmark-directly-on-cache-page/&tab=comments#comment-5872950

 

Once you fix most of this I'd be more than happy to subscribe again. Thanks.

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention I'd be delighted to be in group of test users that provide feedback before you release your changes to the rest of the users.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by VelkyBobik

[+CCFwasG]

On 4/21/2021 at 12:36 PM, terratin said:

A question to developers: why would a dev team decide to reduce functionality and make changes completely contrary to what people need? Why add so much bloody whitespace? It's the same with every improvement of this site again and again: people lose functionality and the layout is messed, information available without scrolling reduced. I really wonder why the team doesn't learn from previous backlash.

100% agree. I used to be able to look at a list of caches hidden (ie a CO's list) and it showed what state (U.S.) they were in as well as whether they have any trackables, and if they have a needs maintenance tag. I used this functionality all the time, almost once a day. Now gone. And agree that the extra white space is just so inefficient it is almost ridiculous. Add me to the listed of displeased premium members who will actually target fewer caches without this info. The changes hurt COs more than anyone, IMHO.

 

[+Walkman10]

I do not like the new surch, I miss a Placed where!!!!!!!!!!!

[+jy09]

I haven't seen if it was reported elsewhere, but the display on pocket queries maps no longer works.

[+ChriBli]

On 4/28/2021 at 10:56 PM, Coland said:

I dont know if this has been brought up, but if I click to get the list of the caches that I own and then click to get a map view of them It doesn't work. It then says "No matching results" and no matter what I do I cant get a map view of just my owned caches.

Same here, on W10 / Chrome 90. Mapping the list of caches I've found works on the same machine.

[+thebruce0]

8 hours ago, jy09 said:

I haven't seen if it was reported elsewhere, but the display on pocket queries maps no longer works.

There are a few threads in the Website forum already discussing the PQ map issue.

[+Jimrky]

On 4/29/2021 at 9:45 AM, thebruce0 said:

One way to look at it is that the underlying system has been improved, but the interface has lost functionality that many used. Ideally, they'll listen to the issues (again ideally, constructively critical ones, not raging insulting angry rants, though they have their appropriate effect) and continue to adjust and/or fix the interface.

Conceptually speaking, if the links imply 'searching' for all cache a user has found or placed, then the link makes sense.

 

But if the link/location context implies an archival list, then the loss of pagination is a very big interface loss for usability's sake. If the server-end of the functionality is in fact better/sleeker/quicker/lighter weight, then finding a way to (re-)implement paging through tens of thousands of chronological records should be on the list of projects to complete over top of the new underlying system. Not because the new code is bad, but because the interface and user experience demands it for its context.

 

Or, as I said days ago: Thank you for improving the cross-platform experience. And sincere thanks for bringing back functionalities when the furor becomes too much. ?

[+dbox]

I am very disappointed by this change. The function I use most is now only crippled.
I would like to know if there is any added value for the geocacher - please, forum participants, tell me, maybe I missed something.
All disadvantages have already been explained in detail in the previous 5 pages, no advantages were found. The worst, by the way, is the limitation to 1000 caches and the scrolling, scrolling, scrolling....(instead of pages), especially on mobile phones not practicable.

Good thing that I use GSAK at least for my own finds (unfortunately more than 1000 ;-). By the way, GSAK is a software that has only implemented functionality that the customer (geocacher) has requested. Groundspeak should do the same. I haven't heard anyone complaining about the old sorting in any way, everything was fine.

 

The only sense behind this action I see is the adjustment of the outdated programming. But then please update the underlying source code and do not change the functionality also.
And now you are tinkering with the software so you can mitigate the bad features a bit. But the best (and most honest) way to do would be to scrap the whole change and tick it off as a bug. The geocachers would thank you for it!

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by dbox

[+ChriBli]

21 hours ago, Jimrky said:

Or, as I said days ago: Thank you for improving the cross-platform experience. And sincere thanks for bringing back functionalities when the furor becomes too much. ?

I've been trying to look up what the buzzword "cross-platform experience" means, but I didn't really get it. I'm pretty sure improving it doesn't mean messing up the experience for desktop users so it gets as bad as for mobile users though. And if I've understood the previous posts right, mobile users are not happy about the changes either.

[+THE CASTOFFS]

1 hour ago, dbox said:

I am very disappointed by this change. The function I use most is now only crippled.
I would like to know if there is any added value for the geocacher - please, forum participants, tell me, maybe I missed something.
All disadvantages have already been explained in detail in the previous 5 pages, no advantages were found. The worst, by the way, is the limitation to 1000 caches and the scrolling, scrolling, scrolling....(instead of pages), especially on mobile phones not practicable.

Good thing that I use GSAK at least for my own finds (unfortunately more than 1000 ;-). By the way, GSAK is a software that has only implemented functionality that the customer (geocacher) has requested. Groundspeak should do the same. I haven't heard anyone complaining about the old sorting in any way, everything was fine.

 

The only sense behind this action I see is the adjustment of the outdated programming. But then please update the underlying source code and do not change the functionality also.
And now you are tinkering with the software so you can mitigate the bad features a bit. But the best (and most honest) way to do would be to scrap the whole change and tick it off as a bug. The geocachers would thank you for it!

 

 

 

Absolutely bang on. If the code's broken, fix it, that's none of our business and I'm not interested in it. However I am interested in the user interface, the part of the site that I use and see (and pay for) which was fine until this update. I'm sure it must be possible to fix the code without anybody even noticing. Best thing would be just put it back as it was and put the whole matter to bed. And please, next time, to save a lot of frustration and keyboard bashing, ask before making such a drastic change. I understand that the new search has been available for ages and I have tried it a couple of times before hitting the 'Take me back' button. There must be metrics that show how many (premium) members use which search function and this would probably have given an idea of the reaction to the change before implementing it. 

[Blue Square Thing]

A, presumably, Unintended Consequence.

I was about to write a message to an relatively inexperienced cacher who has had an issue finding one of my caches - to encourage her and so on. She's so close to it.

As part of that I wanted to recommend a couple of other local caches that I thought, based on her note on my cache, she might enjoy. But I can't see which one's she's done - or tell what her find pattern might have been. So I didn't bother making any recommendations.

I did write the note because I like to add value. I guess Groundspeak might even benefit from that. But it is a shame that I'm now unable, using Groundspeak's platform, to check things like that anymore - and I suppose it would be better if I was able to continue to add value.

[Blue Square Thing]

Oh, and the lack of pagination is a fairly hilarious UI failure by the way. Talk about Unintended Consequences.

[+thebruce0]

9 hours ago, THE CASTOFFS said:

I'm sure it must be possible to fix the code without anybody even noticing.

As a webapp developer I can tell you that's not always the case. If rewriting the base code from the ground up to be an improved server experience, sometimes the interface simply can't be recreated to 'mimic' the old way - at least not easily, quickly, or cheaply.  What needs to be done in such a case is an use case analysis of the features and functionality people want or need the most, and prioritize the new UI design around that, and then go through the testing and release process. Designing what one might think is a UI improvement (whether or not the underlying code is improved) and releasing without heavy user testing is a VERY risky move... 

[+THE CASTOFFS]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As a webapp developer I can tell you that's not always the case. If rewriting the base code from the ground up to be an improved server experience, sometimes the interface simply can't be recreated to 'mimic' the old way - at least not easily, quickly, or cheaply.  What needs to be done in such a case is an use case analysis of the features and functionality people want or need the most, and prioritize the new UI design around that, and then go through the testing and release process. Designing what one might think is a UI improvement (whether or not the underlying code is improved) and releasing without heavy user testing is a VERY risky move... 

I've never really got into that side of things so thanks for the insight.

[+Jimrky]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:30 AM, ChriBli said:

I've been trying to look up what the buzzword "cross-platform experience" means, but I didn't really get it. I'm pretty sure improving it doesn't mean messing up the experience for desktop users so it gets as bad as for mobile users though. And if I've understood the previous posts right, mobile users are not happy about the changes either.

 

Follow it back to the original post. I'm sure you'll get the gist. And if not...well, what's life without a little mystery? ?

Edited May 2, 2021 by Jimrky

[+=m1ch1=]

When can we expect to get the old list back?

Nobody wants the new one. 

[+brendan714]

I was on my mobile device trying to look at my recent finds and some recent finds by one of my friends. 

Not only does the new list/search remove a ton of useful functionality, but it looks really bad on mobile too...

Check out the screenshots below to see what I mean - overflow characters in the title and CO name are pushed onto a new line.

Also, when I click the map button to map my finds, it takes me to a zoomed out map of the entire world that doesn't show any geocaches. Another bug?  I would kind of expect it to map my last 1000 finds...

 

[+thebruce0]

And, it looks like they removed the ability to adjust the "archived" search option that popped in with the new links.  Now the "Active and Archived" filter parameter is locked for only the Hides/Finds special search result function.

 

That's very unfortunate. Not sure why they'd remove that. The worldwide search for Archived geocaches was super fast and informative. It didn't need to plot results on the map (and it didn't). I would love to see that archived parameter make a return, even if it is a 'hidden' (url querystring only) parameter. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by thebruce0

[+ChriBli]

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And, it looks like they removed the ability to adjust the "archived" search option that popped in with the new links.  Now the "Active and Archived" filter parameter is locked for only the Hides/Finds special search result function.

So I guess someone realized that there are in fact different requirements for a hides/finds list compared to general search results. I hope this will be extended to bringing back pagination/no limit to the hides/finds lists (even if that would make them non-mappable, which is of course a useless feature anyway).

[+ChriBli]

On 5/3/2021 at 1:37 AM, Jimrky said:

Follow it back to the original post. I'm sure you'll get the gist. And if not...well, what's life without a little mystery? ?

 

11 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Not only does the new list/search remove a ton of useful functionality, but it looks really bad on mobile too...

 

Maybe this is the improved cross-platform experience?

[+ChriBli]

11 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Also, when I click the map button to map my finds, it takes me to a zoomed out map of the entire world that doesn't show any geocaches. Another bug?  I would kind of expect it to map my last 1000 finds...

Me too. Not that there's ever a reason to map one's own finds (let alone someone else's), but there seems to be some limit on how many caches that are shown on the map that is different from the 1,000 limit. If I zoom in on an area, more caches start to appear.

 

When I map my 1,000 latest finds, I get a map of the world with a dot in California and one in Mauritius. Notably none in Sweden where I have the bulk of my finds. If I start zooming in on the Stockholm area, more caches start to show up, but no matter how much I zoom I don't get the finds nearest my home. Turns out that even though I had my finds list sorted on latest first, so I should have seen my latest 1,000 finds, when I map it the sorting is far - near. So the map shows my 1,000 farthest finds. Weird.

[+dbox]

17 hours ago, =m1ch1= said:

When can we expect to get the old list back?

Nobody wants the new one. 

They are fixing it or they are ignoring us.

An answer would be polite...

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, tbbiker said:

Bring back this:

 

Yes, please!   Even if it looks a bit different, I could get used to that, as long as the information is all there - CO/GCCode/Location, the info column, and the Found by User and Last found comparison specifically.  I used those bits of info a LOT....

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, tbbiker said:

I'm still not using the new search results page to view the caches that I found and will be highly annoyed if the link to the old search stops working.  It's funny, you never realize how much you like something until it's gone. 

 

Bring back this:

 

Yep.  Simple.

And notice that this format at least tells you what state you're looking at ?  This "new" one only has mileage.  A big step back IMO.

[+pgavlak]

I want to add my name to list of cachers displeased by this change. I understand the desire towards unifying all search processes in one system, but I believe the "All finds"/"All hides" pages to be deserving enough of a special treatment. Like others here, I didn't realize they were considered a search at all! Apart from my personal issues with the new design (entirely subjective opinions, but it's crazy how it occupies double the space while displaying *less* information), I believe it's missing a bunch of features loved by many, which have been pointed out multiple times in the course of this thread. Being able to map my finds, and easily filter them are nice added features, but I don't think the loss of other information is worth it. Keeping all of the previous features while adding these would've probably been a praised change! The old style pages have a lot of available horizontal space that could be used for this.

The most egregious change change probably is the "endless scroll" feature - many cachers now have thousands of caches that simply don't appear in the *All finds* page! A simple pagination would solve a big part of the complaints - or even a toggle to switch back to the old version while new features are being worked on. It saddens me how Groundspeak seems to make changes against the wishes/opinions of so many very experienced/dedicated cachers - I believe the great majority of these are displeased with the changes. 

PS. The new format barely even has space for ads ;D

[+Mermaid.Man]

56 minutes ago, pgavlak said:

It saddens me how Groundspeak seems to make changes against the wishes/opinions of so many very experienced/dedicated cachers

Unfortunately I don't believe that the changes are being made to accommodate this subset of cachers. 

[+cyrext]

Please give us the old search (found caches page) back!

[+terratin]

17 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep.  Simple.

And notice that this format at least tells you what state you're looking at ?  This "new" one only has mileage.  A big step back IMO.

 

Well, we all know that geocaching is a totally local game. No need to go to other states or countries.
Seriously, this is a huge step backwards. Especially with Covid, and being close to borders that we can't cross this would be fairly useful information to have.

[+werla]

16 hours ago, pgavlak said:

- many cachers now have thousands of caches that simply don't appear in the *All finds* page!

 

 

And that's exactly the point I don't understand at all: Newbies as well as players who only play occasionally and have less than 1000 finds can see all of them. On the other hand, long-time players who play often and with enthusiasm and therefore have several thousands of finds, should see only a fraction of all caches they have found? And does that mean premium members are from now on expected to pay for no longer being able to track the entire course of their caching history? Is that the way to treat loyal customers? I am very disappointed.

---

 

Feedba

[+ChriBli]

On 4/20/2021 at 8:16 PM, Geocaching HQ said:

You’ll now get all the benefits from the new search, such as:

• Mapping search results (this was not possible for all results in the old search)

 

On 4/24/2021 at 12:23 AM, nykkole said:

We have updated the default sorting for viewing

• Your finds [..]

to be “Found On” [..] 

Based on the above, I believe this to be on topic: If I view my own finds, I get them sorted with my most recent find on top, followed by the 999 previous ones. Next to the list, there is a button that says "Map These Geocaches". I would then expect the caches in the list to get mapped. However, the map shows my 1,000 finds that are the most distant from my home coordinates, so a completely different set. I can change the sort order (and thereby the selection of caches), but my found date is not an option. Sorting on "Found date" shows the 1,000 caches that were most recently found by anyone.

[+little-leggs]

On 5/5/2021 at 2:49 PM, tbbiker said:

I'm still not using the new search results page to view the caches that I found and will be highly annoyed if the link to the old search stops working.  It's funny, you never realize how much you like something until it's gone. 

 

Bring back this:

PLEASE please , please can someone at Ground Speak see sence and do the right thing and admit that the latest round of up-dates and no good , and the users ( us ) don't like them and would mush perefer eveything to be put back to as it was , ( as above )

ps- TRACKABLE ..... I lik eto see where to find TRACKABLES , the new search doesn't show TB , the old did , I know this screen shot hasn't any but the ( Info ) colume is there