Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

the layout of the Your published hides page

 

I never knew this page existed before (I don't have many hides), but this is a look I could absolutely get behind. It is in the new style, using similar amounts of space as the new search, but with a load of useful information! Compact D/T/Size, info about TBs, last found, last maintained (could be changed to "found by me"), and the "last 3 logs" is a great design choice. It looks like it even has pagination (if someone with more than 10 hides could confirm the functionality that'd be great). It's only really missing region information. Please, consider mimicking this design! It does have a modern feel and in my opinion it looks quite good.

Edited by pgavlak
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

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 I also keep a bookmark for the page that shows unpublished/archived caches just for completion's sake. 

Even better, it allows you to decide, to an extent, how many caches to show on the page as well. That would be an excellent enhancement and the base of the code is already written.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to post

I'm not at all sure why limiting the number of finds that you can see seemed like a good idea.  It's pretty sad that as a paying member I have to use third party software to see all my finds. I'm sure that plenty of people will come up with ways around this, but why continue to make life hard for your most avid customers.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 5/10/2021 at 8:46 AM, 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.


FWIW when I started thinking about placing caches and was basic you definitely could not see premium caches on a map: first placed cache was rejected for being too close to another cache that we could not see! In fact that did encourage me to pay. 

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

Thank you for all the comments, we are keeping a running inventory of your feedback. 

 

While we are not planning to roll back the changes, we are committed to keeping the old links available for you to access for the time being. We will evaluate the long list of requests from this thread, as well as from other feedback and feature requests we have gathered. 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.

Well, it looks like the old search page is already partly out of business:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/  

 

Some searches still show results as we know it (e.g. by Address), but others redirect to the new search page without showing any results at all, e.g.:

  • by State/Province
  • by Country
  • Cache Starts with
  • by Areacode
  • Found by Username
  • Hidden by Username

Is this intended? 

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Die Batzen said:

Well, it looks like the old search page is already partly out of business:

[...]

Is this intended? 

Absolutely. The purpose of this update is to lock previously free features behind a paywall, and they can't do that as long as the old thing still works.

 

FWIW, I'll not be renewing my premium membership which expires in 1 week.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, Die Batzen said:

Well, it looks like the old search page is already partly out of business:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/  

 

Some searches still show results as we know it (e.g. by Address), but others redirect to the new search page without showing any results at all, e.g.:

  • by State/Province
  • by Country
  • Cache Starts with
  • by Areacode
  • Found by Username
  • Hidden by Username

Is this intended? 

On the bottom on that page you can click on the "advanced search options" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx

There all of the above search criterias can be performed and the result is the good, old paginated list view (unfortunately on some of the results the pagination does not work as intended, eg searching for Multis only work for the first page)

I shudder thinking of the time when *this* page will finally go the way of the dodo......

  • Funny 2
  • Love 1
Link to post

Just one more screenshot to show how bad, ridiculous, illogical, senseless, and conceptless this change is. Please, guys at GC, sit back, take a look at this picture and tell us why in the world 1,000 geocaches are shown where there are 5,652 results.

 

 

gc_09.png

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
On 5/12/2021 at 1:54 AM, nykkole said:

While we are not planning to roll back the changes, we are committed to keeping the old links available for you to access for the time being. We will evaluate the long list of requests from this thread, as well as from other feedback and feature requests we have gathered. 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.

 

8 hours ago, SDBH-R said:

Just one more screenshot to show how bad, ridiculous, illogical, senseless, and conceptless this change is. Please, guys at GC, sit back, take a look at this picture and tell us why in the world 1,000 geocaches are shown where there are 5,652 results.

I think nykkole's latest post shows that Groundspeak has heard our pleas, realized that the new search is unsuitable for listing found/hidden caches (hopefully not just own, but also others) and that there may be some other constructive feedback here as well. So why don't we all just sit back and wait to hear from them again. The old search will remain until then.

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post

There are still problems with these new searches when a user has a plus sign (+) in their nickname.

 

Example:

In profile Geocaches tab / Geocaches Found (All Geocache Finds). When I am trying to look all my find via that all geocache finds link it seems to work ok but it really works only first 50 finds. After first 50 results finds is not in right order even if I am trying to order finds with found on dates button.

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

 

image.png.1786a2735a8036ffa672516635c5047b.png

 

When someone else is trying to see my finds from same link it seems to show only first 50 finds. And same problem is in every users profile when user have plus sign (+) in their usernames.

 

Here is example also from other users profile:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?fb=Tapsa%2BE&a=0&sort=FoundDateOfFoundByUser&asc=False

 

image.png.4ab6c4a99eb99159751aa4a14b9f0972.png

 

I see only first 50 finds.

 

So you managed to fix small part of this problem somehow and now those searches work from profile but problem still exists. I hope that this problem will be fixed properly.

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, orakk+j said:

There are still problems with these new searches when a user has a plus sign (+) in their nickname.

 

🖖

Unfortunately, the plus sign is one of the worst treatable signs in a username. If the lackeys in Seattle had known what they know today, the plus sign and other characters should never have been used in a username. Actually, that should be abolished. I already notice how the storm is catching up with me ... 😓 😂

Maybe you want to change the plus sign, for example into a underscore

_

This is much easier to handle and you don't run the constant risk of something not working for you again. It will stay that way all the time ... 

Edited by 2Abendsegler
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
7 hours ago, orakk+j said:

There are still problems with these new searches when a user has a plus sign (+) in their nickname.


I thought I’d make another attempt at interjecting a bit of humour.  No criticism, implied or otherwise, this time...

 

3BE7DA93-0A3F-47DE-9E3A-B5AE810F6379.png.a7a951b16128f6538c12960ca9ec4f61.png

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 3
Link to post
8 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I thought I’d make another attempt at interjecting a bit of humour.  No criticism, implied or otherwise, this time...

I've spent time cleaning up legacy code that did not sanitize its inputs. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has.

 

It's a lot like accessibility. It's a lot easier if you design it into the code to begin with, rather than trying to retrofit the code later. But even then, it's easy to screw up in subtle ways.

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

Unfortunately, the plus sign is one of the worst treatable signs in a username. If the lackeys in Seattle had known what they know today, the plus sign and other characters should never have been used in a username. Actually, that should be abolished. I already notice how the storm is catching up with me ... 😓 😂

Maybe you want to change the plus sign, for example into a underscore

 

I rather not will change my username. HQ have made decision about usernames and what kind of characters is possible to use in usernames. Now they should remember that decision whenever they are making some changes in their code. Actually they have better way to handle this kind of situations. Every single user have member id number which is unique. They should use that member id  not some random characters which is called username.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, orakk+j said:

I rather not will change my username. HQ have made decision about usernames and what kind of characters is possible to use in usernames. Now they should remember that decision whenever they are making some changes in their code. Actually they have better way to handle this kind of situations. Every single user have member id number which is unique. They should use that member id  not some random characters which is called username.

Well, yes. But while they did make a decision about what characters are possible in usernames, they have since revised that decision.

 

Those characters are no longer allowed in usernames, and usernames with those characters are now grandfathered. Support for grandfathered features can sometimes be unreliable, and may be discontinued.

  • Upvote 4
  • Surprised 1
Link to post

Since the '+' in nicknames works perfectly with the old search , it should also work with any redesigned search. No discussion in my opinion...

  • Upvote 6
  • Funny 4
  • Love 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, orakk+j said:

I rather not will change my username. HQ have made decision about usernames and what kind of characters is possible to use in usernames. Now they should remember that decision whenever they are making some changes in their code. Actually they have better way to handle this kind of situations. Every single user have member id number which is unique. They should use that member id  not some random characters which is called username.

 

Once a wrong decision was made because you certainly didn't know any better. That's why you don't have to live with it any longer and always. Everyone made wrong decisions. You can easily change it by requiring the user to change their name according to the current rules. There is hardly anything left that has such a name. And what the repairs cause over and over again. What nice things could we get there? I don't know why Seattle isn't neglected here, it's going too long.

 

It is not the first time that there are problems with the plus sign. And nothing will change that. It's not because of Seattle either, signs like that always cause problems. And that is no different anywhere else in the world and it will remain so.

 

If you want to live with the problems that such signs cause over and over again, go ahead.

I just wanted to explain the situation at first. But now I would like a little more.

 

A tip to Seattle: don't make your life so difficult, change it!  

For something so unnecessary I have full understanding!

 

Edited by 2Abendsegler
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Today we have whole month since this update. What changed? Only a few things... However many of bad things are still with us. For example when I want to look on my finds I still see "We only show 1,000 geocaches at a time. Try changing your search filters." And evergreen for the end. Wasting space on my monitor. White, white, white...white everywhere. Nobody wants it, but you... In a way, your constant reluctance to listen to the voices of those who pay you is funny. Absurdly funny.

  • Upvote 5
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
23 minutes ago, KulisekW said:

For example when I want to look on my finds I still see "We only show 1,000 geocaches at a time. Try changing your search filters." 

 

You can also see a list of all your finds via https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=2 - the list of all your found logs that is accessible from your "Logs" page, so are other log types, if you just want to browse them. The old search used to be the way to do it from your public profile. Whether that was really the best way to do it can be debated, yet there are other options.

I know the old functionality did not indicate that as much, still, a search interface is not a browse interface. If you want to browse, use the page that was built to do so - see the above link. Expecting that a search interface be rewritten to also allow browsing of 1000s of results is not realistic as that are two very different use cases.

Now, the above does not work for other player's finds and that is something we pledged to address down the road. Thank you for your consideration.

  • Helpful 3
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

I know the old functionality did not indicate that as much, still, a search interface is not a browse interface. If you want to browse, use the page that was built to do so - see the above link. Expecting that a search interface be rewritten to also allow browsing of 1000s of results is not realistic as that are two very different use cases.

I think the difference between a search interface and a browse interface may not be obvious to everyone. I think most people just want to be able to see a list, ordered by their own found date, of all their (and other's) found caches. Yeah, and hidden as well, although that is usually far less.

 

As I have also pointed out before, searching for caches to go after and listing of found caches ARE to very different use cases. I didn't expect both use cases to be handled by the same search interface. I didn't even consider listing my found caches a search. I mean, does listing my found caches involve searching through all the world's caches for the ones that my account has found? I would have imagined that there was a already a list tied to my account of the caches I found, in the correct order. Even so, there should be nothing preventing presenting these two very different searches differently.

 

And if it has to be the same, then it was better before! Even for the use case of finding caches to go after, very few people seem to prefer the new search. But I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that nykkole's last post means that this has been understood now, and that the old search will stay available for the time being. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

 

You can also see a list of all your finds via https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=2 - the list of all your found logs that is accessible from your "Logs" page, so are other log types, if you just want to browse them. The old search used to be the way to do it from your public profile. Whether that was really the best way to do it can be debated, yet there are other options.

I know the old functionality did not indicate that as much, still, a search interface is not a browse interface. If you want to browse, use the page that was built to do so - see the above link. Expecting that a search interface be rewritten to also allow browsing of 1000s of results is not realistic as that are two very different use cases.

Now, the above does not work for other player's finds and that is something we pledged to address down the road. Thank you for your consideration.

 

Thank you for pointing that out: it's really helpful and much appreciated. I'll admit to not understanding that the other method was a search, but I can see there is a distinction. Much appreciated that this method exists.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

You can also see a list of all your finds via https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=2 - the list of all your found logs that is accessible from your "Logs" page, so are other log types, if you just want to browse them.

About that. When I do that, the list starts out nicely with one row per entry. After a while however, it apparently encounters a cache name that is a bit longer, and then it turns into this:log.jpg.7f3eafec80a18b23486479464c04de84.jpg

 

For some reason it doesn't break the long cache name, it breaks the date of ALL entries in the list. Yeah, I know the list produced by the old search also had two lines per entry, but it contained a lot more info and it didn't break the date.

 

The most serious problems are of course still that you can't do this for another player's finds, that the list takes literally minutes to load even for my humble find count and that browsing it using the scroll bar is virtually impossible during this time, and that finding out what I logged on a specific date four years ago is painful to say the least, and that I can't even think of a way to figure out what my find #1234 was.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post

Another consequence of the refusal to allow basic members to see list of the caches other people have found.

 

I have an earthcache. It's pretty remote and barely gets any visits. So when I get a log that might look a little, well, dodgy, it's helpful to be able to take a look and get an idea whether the cacher was in the vague area on that day. As opposed to getting answers from photos while they're sat in Dusseldorf, Hamburg or Leipzig, say.

 

Now of course it's impossible for me to tell. So I guess that's any benefit of the doubt out of the window then...

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to post

Today I went to try a filtered search. All I can say is, I have always had an English language version of Geocaching.com so when I saw this my reaction...

W H A T  ? ? ? ?

 

Search filters 052621.jpg

Link to post

@CCFwasG I am unable to reproduce what is shown in your screenshot on the latest versions of Chrome (v 91.0.4472.77) or Firefox (v 88.0.1) on Windows.

When reporting potential bugs, please always share essential information like your OS, browser, and steps to reproduce the issue. Thanks.

Link to post
On 5/20/2021 at 8:09 PM, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

You can also see a list of all your finds via https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=2 - the list of all your found logs that is accessible from your "Logs" page, so are other log types, if you just want to browse them.

Yes, it works that way somehow. But there is the same issue with scrolling and scrolling and scrolling - instead of simple pages with 20 entries

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)

Not sure if someone brought this up: But if we'll have to stick to this partial downgrade for longer, can you please make the results copy-and-pastable in Firefox?

 

It would be nice to collect the GC-Codes without having to open the listing or manually typing them.

 

Thanks.

Edited by famerlor_dragon
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 5/26/2021 at 1:06 PM, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

@CCFwasG I am unable to reproduce what is shown in your screenshot on the latest versions of Chrome (v 91.0.4472.77) or Firefox (v 88.0.1) on Windows.

When reporting potential bugs, please always share essential information like your OS, browser, and steps to reproduce the issue. Thanks.

I can't reproduce either... it is gone. Sorry. I use both Firefox & Chrome on Windows 10 depending which is working better, usually Chrome is slower. FWIW. 

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...