Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ChriBli said:

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.

Yes, I agree, there seems to be a bug when you map your most recent finds.  The map defaults to show "Sort By: Distance (Far - Near)" rather that defaulting to "Sort By: Found date (New - Old)".

 

Even if I select "Sort By: Found date (New - Old)", the map pops up caches that I found back in 2014, and neglects to show some caches I found last year.  That makes no sense.  Must be another bug.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

Even if I select "Sort By: Found date (New - Old)", the map pops up caches that I found back in 2014, and neglects to show some caches I found last year.  That makes no sense.  Must be another bug.  

It is found date by anyone, not by you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

It is found date by anyone, not by you.

You're right, thanks.

But that still makes no sense.  Why wouldn't "Sort By: Found Date" show MY most recent finds?  I really don't care when a cache I already found was found by somebody else...

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

You're right, thanks.

But that still makes no sense.  Why wouldn't "Sort By: Found Date" show MY most recent finds?  I really don't care when a cache I already found was found by somebody else...

You're right, it doesn't make sense.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to post

Here's an interesting thing.

Whenever I, as a non-paying member, click on to any of these search results I **always** get two PMO caches shown at the top of my search result:

2134373860_ScreenShot2021-05-06at16_06_50.thumb.png.f7fa19e737faac82d7ab82503807783e.png

 

Which is interesting. This always happens - even if, in the case above, the caches are quire distant - unless there are no PMO caches within whatever distance the search uses as its default filter (I tried it on St Kilda to check that). It seems to pick ones with more favourite points, although not necessarily the highest local favourite points totals.

I don't know why it does this. Well, I can have a guess and, well, for me it makes me less likely to. Fwiw.

Perhaps if I knew anything about those caches I might be more interested. Like the size, DT, when they were last found, whether there are NM flags on them etc...

I mean, it's not anything I particularly care about, but I was wondering if it was deliberate or if someone made an error.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, tbbiker said:

And here is the map result when I only click one cache then click the "Map These Geocaches" tab.  Trying to stay positive here, but it is so hard.  So hard...

I'm not sure checking caches in the list is supposed to affect which caches are mapped. The whole list is still mapped. Checking caches seems to be just marking them for addition to a list. You could always add them to a new list, and then go map that....

Link to post
6 hours ago, terratin said:

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.

 

Yep.  We're sorta close to our state's border. When she was a FTF monster, the other 2/3rds got just as many FTFs out of our state.   :)

Thirty miles or so could have us in one of two other states, so we'd have to click on every cache while scrolling...and scrolling...

...just to see where the heck it is.

Time consuming, and just makes no sense (to me), when it showed plain as day before.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep.  We're sorta close to our state's border. When she was a FTF monster, the other 2/3rds got just as many FTFs out of our state.   :)

Thirty miles or so could have us in one of two other states, so we'd have to click on every cache while scrolling...and scrolling...

...just to see where the heck it is.

Time consuming, and just makes no sense (to me), when it showed plain as day before.

We have that very same situation where we live.  We're still frustrated that because we have apostrophes, we can't view even our last 1000 finds or our hides from our profile, much less all of them.  I really miss that and being able to see what state a cache is located in, and when it was last found.  Our membership payment is pretty soon and we'll probably pay, but I'm not feeling like we get the same value as in previous years. :(

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, Trekkin' and birdin' said:

We have that very same situation where we live.  We're still frustrated that because we have apostrophes, we can't view even our last 1000 finds or our hides from our profile, much less all of them.  I really miss that and being able to see what state a cache is located in, and when it was last found.  Our membership payment is pretty soon and we'll probably pay, but I'm not feeling like we get the same value as in previous years. :(

For the time being (until TPTB remove the old code), you can still see your finds here and your hides here (granted, it's not doing it through your profile, but it's better than nothing). It might be worth bookmarking the links.

 

Note to others: those links are specifically for Trekkin' and birdin' s finds and hides; if you want to use something similar, you'd need to add your URLified name to the end of this link fragment for finds: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul= , and, for hides, this fragment: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 5
Link to post
Posted (edited)

I had been to another large forum for years, but never a post was deleted from me because of a criticism!
Whats up? Isn't criticism tolerated if something has been done badly? I am considering no longer paying an annual fee to Groundspeak.

Edited by =m1ch1=
  • Upvote 8
  • Love 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, =m1ch1= said:

Isn't criticism tolerated...


Humour’s not tolerated either.  My post of a Dilbert cartoon was deleted too. 🤷‍♂️

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
2 hours ago, =m1ch1= said:

I had been to another large forum for years, but never a post was deleted from me because of a criticism!
Whats up? Isn't criticism tolerated if something has been done badly?

Were you criticizing the thing that was done? Or were you criticizing the people who did the thing? There's a world of difference, and the forum moderators pay attention to that difference.

 

From the forum guidelines: "4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious, or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated."

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, =m1ch1= said:

I had been to another large forum for years, but never a post was deleted from me because of a criticism!
Whats up? Isn't criticism tolerated if something has been done badly? I am considering no longer paying an annual fee to Groundspeak.

Your post was hidden because half of it was a personal attack against the employees of Geocaching HQ.  If you leave out that part and express your opinion about what you like/dislike in this Release, that would be fine.  See my earlier posts in this thread, responding to inappropriate attacks like yours.

 

1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

Humour’s not tolerated either.  My post of a Dilbert cartoon was deleted too. 🤷‍♂️

Posts that are off-topic or which don't relate to / add value to the discussion of the current Release are also subject to removal.  See the opening post.

Edited by Keystone
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 5
Link to post

Hi Keystone,

Do you think there is a chance we will see any official response to those many constructive comments in this thread? For example regarding missing information in search, 1000 results limit, impossibility to use in smartphone been browser etc. While the user interface might be a matter of personal taste (although most of us think it's harder to read now), there are many other objective facts that are just bugs or service disruptions. 

 

Right now it seems people are wasting time here and HQ is not interested in receiving feedback and is sticking head to sand and waits until the initial complaints are over. 

 

I've emailed HQ yesterday and received no response yet. All of this is taking too long considering this is a paid service. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 3
Link to post

As a volunteer moderator, my role here is simply to moderate the discussion.  I can confirm that this thread is actively monitored by Geocaching HQ, as demonstrated by seven posts by a Lackey to the discussion, and the implementation of at least one requested change.  Speaking unofficially, I doubt highly that the Release will be rolled back as several have requested.  Rather, I would expect that feedback will be taken into account when planning future enhancements - not all of which can come as quickly as the fixes to the default sort order.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:


Humour’s not tolerated either.  My post of a Dilbert cartoon was deleted too. 🤷‍♂️

 

See...

 

On 4/20/2021 at 11:16 AM, Geocaching HQ said:

Any posts in this thread should relate to features in this release. Comments unrelated to the release may be removed. Please direct unrelated comments to other appropriate threads.

 

It's not a matter of not tolerating humour. Your post was not at all related to the features in the release, which is why it was removed.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 3
Link to post
On 5/5/2021 at 2:19 AM, ChriBli said:

 

Maybe this is the improved cross-platform experience?

 

Instead of trying to make something fit your preconceptions, why don't you just read back as suggested. You'll feel a little foolish when you do, I'll predict..

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, tbbiker said:

Just to clarify:  There are A LOT more than, "several" people that have requested a rollback.  How about just about EVERYBODY that has posted on this thread!

I absolutely don’t want a rollback and think the old style pagination was hard to use.

 

That said, I’m generally happy that Groundspeak’s usual non-communication strategy and disregard for missing features hit something a large number of people actually care about; hopefully this backlash is enough to show them that they’re burning through their goodwill for absolutely no good reason.

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post

Thanks for the info, Keystone. At least we know HQ knows about our inputs. I'm not expecting rollback, just restoring the previous functionality in the new design. An maybe improving the design so that it's easier to read 🙂

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Jimrky said:

Instead of trying to make something fit your preconceptions, why don't you just read back as suggested. You'll feel a little foolish when you do, I'll predict..

I have of course read all posts in this thread, including the first announcement from HQ and your first post. I'm not sure which one it is you think should enlighten me or make me feel foolish, but your first post contains exactly the same thing as the second. Neither says anything tangible about how the cross-platform experience has been improved. HQ's announcement mostly speaks about the technical reasons why they are doing this, nothing about cross-platform and no significant improvements of experience.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

I absolutely don’t want a rollback and think the old style pagination was hard to use.

Agreed that not everyone is negative to this, there seems to be a sum total of two people on this thread that are positive. But I think that may be because of a misunderstanding of what the thread is about. This is not about new search vs classic search. That was debated thouroughly in 2015, and although a majority back then did not like the changes of course there were some that did and others that have grown used to the new search since.

 

This thread is about redirecting all links to the new search, with the expressed intention to retire the classic search. This has the unexpected and very unfortunate effect that you will no longer be able to list all your own or someone else's finds. To me it's hard to understand that one would even consider accepting this consequence.

 

When searching for caches to go after, one would of course usually limit the search to a lot less than 1,000 matches. Then someone might find it more convenient to have them in a long list rather than split over a couple of pages. I might even think so myself. But for finds, you want to see them all! And then it has to be pages, it is not reasonable to have a long list of perhaps 10,000 entries. I bet no one will say that they think it is an improvment not to be able to see all their finds.

 

I'm not asking for anythink to be rolled back. I realize this would be difficult for many reasons. I could even live with the links being redirected. But please, please, do not retire the classic search until the new search at least has been augmented with the very neccessities to make it usable for displaying finds and hides. Then there are of course several other drawbacks of the new search that can be fixed at the same time, no rush with that.

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
7 hours ago, ChriBli said:

And then it has to be pages, it is not reasonable to have a long list of perhaps 10,000 entries. I bet no one will say that they think it is an improvment not to be able to see all their finds.

The Discourse forum software has no problems with +10,000 forum posts as a ”single page”. They’re not all loaded at once of course, but you can scroll normally, skip to an arbitrary date (kind of like a video search bar) and the normal browser search is redirected to a special search that includes all the posts in the thread, even the ones not loaded into the browser yet. 
 

That is what the all finds listing should be like.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
38 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

The Discourse forum software has no problems with +10,000 forum posts as a ”single page”.

I'm just assuming that the reason for the 1,000 finds limit is that the Geocaching.com software does have a problem with longer lists. And it also does not have the video search bar thing that could replace the use of pages, to an extent. One would still have to add some kind of ordering number to be able to find someone's 1,500th find for instance. Something that was reasonably easy to do using the numbered pages.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, ChriBli said:

I have of course read all posts in this thread, including the first announcement from HQ and your first post. I'm not sure which one it is you think should enlighten me or make me feel foolish, but your first post contains exactly the same thing as the second. Neither says anything tangible about how the cross-platform experience has been improved. HQ's announcement mostly speaks about the technical reasons why they are doing this, nothing about cross-platform and no significant improvements of experience.

 Hmmm...Have you ever heard of the term "sarcasm"? You might consider my posts in that light. Now do you feel a little foolish? I know I would were I to be you.

 

Have fun caching! 😎

Edited by Jimrky
  • Surprised 2
Link to post

I have not gone through 6 pages of comments, so forgive me if this has already been answered.

I notice that now I can't see "archived" caches in the search, nor can I search by a word in the cache name or description. I'm also not seeing archived caches on any of my lists (map view, etc.) as I did before. I think this is a major deficiency in the new search (in addition to the other cachers' comments about design and white space; it would have been easily possible to revamp the search code yet retain the same results display format). I know of some puzzle caches that will be impacted by this change, and it will also impact the ability of users to place new caches to replace older archived caches that they might have liked. If there is some search option that I am missing, I would like to find out about it. Thanks for any help/assistance.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, jmirish1 said:

I notice that now I can't see "archived" caches in the search, nor can I search by a word in the cache name or description. I'm also not seeing archived caches on any of my lists (map view, etc.) as I did before.

You can see archived caches in find lists and hide lists (yours/other's). See picture. But if you remove "you have found", then "active and archived" disappears as well. You can not apply that filter to a general search. I'm pretty sure this was the way it was before too, althogh I think I saw someone reporting that it was briefly possible to filter for archived with the new search. For some reason I can not understand Groundspeak don't want us to search for archived caches.

 

You can search for a word or part of a word in the cache name though, see the other picture. That's a search for all caches in Uppsala, Sweden that I have not found with "fågel" in the name. Not sure if it was ever possible to search for words in the description, I have never done that.

archived.jpg

filter.jpg

Link to post
3 hours ago, ChriBli said:

You can see archived caches in find lists and hide lists (yours/other's). See picture. But if you remove "you have found", then "active and archived" disappears as well. You can not apply that filter to a general search. I'm pretty sure this was the way it was before too, althogh I think I saw someone reporting that it was briefly possible to filter for archived with the new search. For some reason I can not understand Groundspeak don't want us to search for archived caches.

 

You can search for a word or part of a word in the cache name though, see the other picture. That's a search for all caches in Uppsala, Sweden that I have not found with "fågel" in the name. Not sure if it was ever possible to search for words in the description, I have never done that.

archived.jpg

filter.jpg

That's great, but of course it doesn't really solve the issue. There are multiple reasons you might want to see archived caches, yet not know who hid them, and whether you found them should not matter if the goal is to see what archived caches might be worth resurrecting with new owners/containers/etc.

I guess I'll have to try this out when the time comes. Thanks for the info!

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 5/6/2021 at 5:24 PM, van der Decken said:

For the time being (until TPTB remove the old code), you can still see your finds here and your hides here (granted, it's not doing it through your profile, but it's better than nothing). It might be worth bookmarking the links.

 

Note to others: those links are specifically for Trekkin' and birdin' s finds and hides; if you want to use something similar, you'd need to add your URLified name to the end of this link fragment for finds: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul= , and, for hides, this fragment: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=

 

Thank you!  I do hope TPTB can find a fix, though.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)

I have addition sign / plus sign (+) in my username and that is causing problems in my profile in geocaches tab. Here is couple of examples:

 

First example is from Geocaches tab / Geocaches Owned / Multi-cache.

Link now:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?types=3&a=0&sc=False&owner[0]=orakk%252bj&sort=PlaceDate&asc=False

Working link: 

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&types=3&owner[0]=orakk%2Bj&o=1&a=0&sort=PlaceDate&asc=False&utr=false

 

Second example Geocaches tab / Geocaches Found / Virtual Cache:

Link now:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?types=4&a=0&sc=False&fb=orakk%252bj&sort=FoundDateOfFoundByUser&asc=False

Working link:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&types=4&f=1&a=0&sort=FoundDateOfFoundByUser&asc=False&fb=orakk%2Bj&utr=false

 

In those original links my username is: orakk%252bj. It should be: orakk%2Bj. After that small change everything is working like a charm.

 

Would you please fix this annoying problem.

Edited by orakk+j
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 4/20/2021 at 8:16 PM, Geocaching HQ said:

Other differences to note: 

  • Basic members no longer see all finds from another player.

There exists for now a workaround using the old search but I strongly ask HQ to please reconsider this decision.

I'm currently a BM but I would says the same as a PM which I was for a long time and probaly will become again in the future.

 

I and I guess most BM agree that new and shiny features introduced and developed over the years might only be accessable for paying members. I was not around in the early years but I'm sure access to finds of other members was present from the beginning on and - frankly - it must have been a no-brainer for the then developers to provide this link.

I consider having access to the found history of collegues and so to their recent logs as a vital part of Geocaching which (at least for those who appreciate the declining human aspect of logging) is not just an add-on convenience feature.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 4/21/2021 at 12:15 AM, nykkole said:

Viewing the finds of another player is a Premium member filter option.

There is no logic behind this except that GS may think it helps to convince basic members to go premium. There is however a lot in this update that could have the opposite effect.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2
Link to post
On 4/27/2021 at 3:45 AM, Hügh said:

 

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?

Perhaps the PMO caches should not appear at all in a basic member search? No, wait... then they wouldn't be able to see what they are missing out on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ChriBli said:

Perhaps the PMO caches should not appear at all in a basic member search? No, wait... then they wouldn't be able to see what they are missing out on.

It would also make placing caches much harder - and generate more work for volunteer reviewers I imagine. Given that the caches I place provide value for the company as does the work of reviewers, that would seem to be counterproductive at best.

At least they're clearly marked in the search just now. At one point they appeared on the browse map looking just like every other cache - that was a nightmare.

Edited by Blue Square Thing
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

At least they're clearly marked in the search just now. At one point they appeared on the browse map looking just like every other cache - that was a nightmare.

Wait.. What? In my basic member days, PMO caches were not visible on the browse map. I know that I was sometimes able to exploit a glitch where the browse map seemed to not know who I was and therefore showed everything (all marked as unfound) and I would be able to find the odd PMO cache by looking at the map. Getting actual coordinates was a no-no.

 

Has this changed? Don't get me wrong, I'm all against silly restrictions for basic members, but if it was one restriction that actually made some sense it was to be able to withhold even approximate coordinates of high-value caches from potentially malicious muggles with a free account.

Link to post

Add another vote against this change. When I click to see a list of my owned caches, instead I get a list of all my recent logs. That is clearly a failure in a link. USELESS AND CONFUSING.

 

The list I get has so much wasted space it makes for difficult reading on my phone web browser.

 

I can only hope the developers are hearing what is being repeated so many times here, especially from those who have never posted prior. The dysfunction of this change has upset many users. Surely something can be done to give the same visual  results with the new, safer(?) database system.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, ChriBli said:

Wait.. What? In my basic member days, PMO caches were not visible on the browse map. I know that I was sometimes able to exploit a glitch where the browse map seemed to not know who I was and therefore showed everything (all marked as unfound) and I would be able to find the odd PMO cache by looking at the map. Getting actual coordinates was a no-no.

 

Has this changed? Don't get me wrong, I'm all against silly restrictions for basic members, but if it was one restriction that actually made some sense it was to be able to withhold even approximate coordinates of high-value caches from potentially malicious muggles with a free account.

 

At one point I'm fairly sure they were marked on the browse map - and you'd have to click the icon, click the link and then find out you couldn't read it. Can't remember when exactly - maybe sometimes around 2015 perhaps? I don't think it lasted very long once they realised that it was really easy to zoom in and figure out which tree many caches were hidden in.

I could be wrong and misremembering this, but I'm fairly certain that was the case on the official map.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

The new visual for My Finds (or My Friends Finds) is not a step back, it is several steps back! Why is the country of the find missing now? Why is the date of my find missing? Also the structure is now less compact and much more confusing. The updates here are usually for the better, but this blunder made me think of cancelling my premium membership... Please revert this change or at least complete it with country and date of my find... thank you.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)

The other thing that seems to have changed is the facility to download caches from a search page.  Downloading (as a .loc file) is no longer an option when you check the box by the cache name.  This facility is so useful when a few new caches are published and I don't have any PQs left for the day.  Can we no longer download caches?  

 

I also agree with most of the others, that the new search page is not easy to read and I'd occasionally like to view a few more than the first and last thousands of my 22,500 finds, so please consider reinstating the old functionality - it is well used and well loved.  

Edited by Babsbaby
  • Upvote 3
Link to post

There are lots of pieces of information that many use at some point, and almost never all at once. The old list contained all that information in a compact form. The new search result list, being bulky and spaced out, obviously doesn't have the room to display it all. That's one reason why there's so much pushback. People who are seeing what they use aren't as upset as people who are now missing data they use. The 'less upset' opinions don't outweigh the 'more upset' opinions. The fact is the new interface wasn't built to be as informational as the old layout, and clearly that's a problem here. It can be rectified by providing the option to show more data columns (ie, choosing which to display from all data made available), yet that would be a fix in line with the bulky layout we have now - and it wasn't an issue before.

 

I'm hoping, and expected, that the devs at hq are indeed working on something, and as the silence on these issues is pretty common until/if/when something is rolled out, I don't think we should expect much confirmation that the issues raised are being heard let alone worked on.

Perhaps we should make sure there's at least one post per thread page that provides an "update" of reported issues so that when new people join the thread ranting about something that's been known since page 1 (heh) we can point them to a "what we know so far" sort of guide :)

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to post

Just adding my opinion which it would appear is shared by the majority on here (and caching friends I've chatted to offline). The old search worked well, allowed me to identify target caches based upon information that was speedily accessed and easily viewed.

 

The new search does none of this. Very disappointing

  • Upvote 7
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 5/6/2021 at 5:24 PM, van der Decken said:

For the time being (until TPTB remove the old code), you can still see your finds here and your hides here (granted, it's not doing it through your profile, but it's better than nothing). It might be worth bookmarking the links.

 

Note to others: those links are specifically for Trekkin' and birdin' s finds and hides; if you want to use something similar, you'd need to add your URLified name to the end of this link fragment for finds: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul= , and, for hides, this fragment: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=

 

Thanks. That works for me.

Link to post
18 hours ago, Stínovlas said:

Thank you for the update nykkole, it's very much appreciated.

 

I'd like to emphasize on one detail, that has already been mentioned, but I consider it to be pretty crucial. Pagination is absolutely necessary. You can't ask users that want to list their older finds to scroll down the search results endlessly. Nobody wants to spend 10 minutes scrolling down, while more and more results appear on the same page (and lose all their effort on the page reload). I'm a software developer myself and I believe that adding pagination to the new search interface should be quite easy and it would improve the user experience a lot.

 

I'm looking forward to further updates =o).

I would just like to emphasise that a sensible default plus pagination similar to the old method is essential here. More filters on an ever more complicated screen is really not the answer.  

 

Can I also add that removing white space should also be a high priority. Maybe there should also be an option of a "concise" display that favours the ability to see more items in a given space. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 5/12/2021 at 1:54 AM, nykkole said:

These include the ability to see all of your finds and hides, additional information such as region and country information, and new filter functionality to name just a few.

 

Before we remove the old search results, we will make further updates to the current search results based on the feedback we have received. Although we have no timeline to share at this point, we will keep you updated with release threads as updates are implemented.

I'm very happy to read this. Thank you in advance!😃

Link to post

The new UI/style does have an interface that is paged and more compact than the search results list.

 

Maybe the found/hidden lists could mimick the layout of the Your published hides page. Heck if you're looking at your own profile, why not make that Hides link go to that page? I also keep a bookmark for the page that shows unpublished/archived caches just for completion's sake. 

 

For viewing your own hides, maybe that 'your published hides' list could have an option to include archived caches - then we'd be one big step towards the informative functionality of the old list. 

Make some adjustments for a 'Hides' version as well, and we're back much closer to the old list but with the updated interface (assumedly the goal).

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...