Jump to content

@GC-HQ: Provide cache owners the capability to enlist betatesters to reference unpublished listings


hxdimpf

Recommended Posts

For non-trivial Geocaches it is good and also recommended practice to conduct a "betatest" before the listing gets published. Today this is frequently done by having the listing owner create a PDF from the listing and send that to betatesters. The big disadvantage: The cache data cannot be exported into tools such as Locus Map, tools that show waypoints on the map, tools that can automatically parse formulas and assist with assigning values to variables and calculate the coordinates for the next waypoint. So in essence,  the batatester can't do the real life workflow as he/she would if the listing was published.

 

Suggestion to GC HQ: Please provide a way in the geocache create UI to enlist a set of userids / nicknames (of betatesters) who can reference the listing by its GC-Code while it is still unpublished.

Edited by Keystone
Reference to unauthorized app removed by moderator
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment

I have thought the same idea but I must admit that there are exceptionally few situations where this function is actually needed.

 

If your main concern is about waypoints, you can download them as a GPX file from an unpublished cache and share with your beta testers. For example, Locus Map is able to use this GPX file to update cache details in the app.

Edited by arisoft
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

I have often wished for this function.  It is useful for mysteries that use html comments, hyperlinks or img maps.  This would also be very useful for multis, team caches or powertrais.

 

A good example is wherigofoundation.com where you can add beta testers to your WIG.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Only Admins, reviewers, and COs (only for their own) currently have access to unpublished cache listings and associated data.


Building something like this would require a rework of such security rules and something that would be dynamically set based on user names designated by the CO.  This would then not only need to happen in one place but across the board to avoid player confusion (why does it show here but not there).
 

Based on the needed effort to implement such a thing (backend work on security rules touching various parts of the site & spinning up a new "beta test caches" page) and the small number of use cases (frankly, this is a rather German problem ;)) chances that something like this would be taken on are pretty small.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

Only Admins, reviewers, and COs (only for their own) currently have access to unpublished cache listings and associated data.


Building something like this would require a rework of such security rules and something that would be dynamically set based on user names designated by the CO.  This would then not only need to happen in one place but across the board to avoid player confusion (why does it show here but not there).
 

Based on the needed effort to implement such a thing (backend work on security rules touching various parts of the site & spinning up a new "beta test caches" page) and the small number of use cases (frankly, this is a rather German problem ;)) chances that something like this would be taken on are pretty small.

 

Please elaborate on the topic you put in brackets. Are you implying that betatesting of new geocaches is more or less exclusively practiced in Germany? If that is so, as a platform provider like GC HQ I would strongly advise cache owners to consider betatesting new caches as that would generally improve the quality of what gets published. After all, the reviewers do their work typically from the couch.

 

Would it make a difference if this topic received many upvotes? And one last question: Have you reviewed your position on this with your lead software engineers? They might actually come back saying well it's a piece of cake ....

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 3
Link to comment

First, of course this is a logical and useful idea. But, on the other hand, I'm not at all surprised to see Bl4ckH4wkGER about this being a much bigger effort than an outside observer might guess. So I'll take for granted it's not going to happen in the pure form of simply opening up the pre-publication web page to designated others. So let's go a little deeper into what you want this for to see what kind of solutions are possible.

 

6 hours ago, hxdimpf said:

Today this is frequently done by having the listing owner create a PDF from the listing and send that to betatesters. The big disadvantage: The cache data cannot be exported into tools such as Locus Map, tools that show waypoints on the map, tools that can automatically parse formulas and assist with assigning values to variables and calculate the coordinates for the next waypoint. So in essence,  the batatester can't do the real life workflow as he/she would if the listing was published.

Can you be more specific about what is lost when you send the puzzle in PDF? Why can't you use a better format, perhaps just sending text and pictures without packaging them up in PDF? I have to admit, I have no idea why a tool would be easier to apply to geocaching description on the web than it would to any other format you might send.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, dprovan said:

First, of course this is a logical and useful idea. But, on the other hand, I'm not at all surprised to see Bl4ckH4wkGER about this being a much bigger effort than an outside observer might guess. So I'll take for granted it's not going to happen in the pure form of simply opening up the pre-publication web page to designated others. So let's go a little deeper into what you want this for to see what kind of solutions are possible.

 

Can you be more specific about what is lost when you send the puzzle in PDF? Why can't you use a better format, perhaps just sending text and pictures without packaging them up in PDF? I have to admit, I have no idea why a tool would be easier to apply to geocaching description on the web than it would to any other format you might send.

 

Yes, of course I can and will but before I do: Is there a process for submitting ideas for new functions, a process that includes a formal review by GC HQ technical / business development? Is a post to this forum necessary and sufficient?

 

Back to the topic at hand: First of all, it is not just about a puzzles and with puzzle I mean something you have to solve at home in order to get the coordinates for an outdoor location where you might find a physical object with a logbook. Consider a Multi cache with a set of stages. As a beta tester I want to apply the exact same workflow as I would with for real, published cache. That means I would fetch that object into the tool of my choice. Those tools typically operate on the GC Live API, fetching the object via its "referenceCode". This will work if the owner does it, but it will fail if I do it as a beta tester. So my beta test can by definition not be done in the same way as it could once the listing got published.

 

In the tool of my choice I want to:

  • Review all aspects of how the listing is rendered (first on the website and also in the tool)
  • See the list of waypoints and for each:
    • The Type
    • The Prefix
    • The Lookup
    • The name
    • The coordinate
    • Some of the above (type, prefix, lookup, name) define the order in which waypoints are listed in the tool. Frequently this is messed up. You don't see that on a paper printout.
    • The description, which may in many cases contain a formula for calculating the coordinates for the current or for the next stage
    • I want to parse those formulas automatically semi-automatically, or via copy / paste, depending on the capabilities of my tool. Frequently these processes fail because the owner had forgotten to put terms into brackets or by just missing "(xxxxx) / 1000". Yes, this could theoretically also be seen in the PDF but the devil is in the detail. It is hard to exaxtly see whitespace or special characters. The PDF might look ok and still the tools will fail later after the publish
    • While outdoors and walking the stages, answering questions, determining values for variables, I want to see those in my tooling and not on a printout. I want to enter the value of a found variable into my tool and I want it to solve that formula for me, giving me coordinates to the next stage of final. All this is what I do for "real caches" too.
  • Create track by referencing the waypoints

Essentially I would do exactly the same as for a published cache and in addition I would document all my findings, perhaps even do all this together with the owner such that (s)he gets live feedback. Most of this does not work with a paper printout of a listing.

 

Of course I could ask the owner, please use tool <xyz> on your account and create some magic gpx out of it such that I can import into tool <abc> ..... Some cache owners for which I did beta tests would have not the slightest idea of what I was talking about in the sentence above.

 

Now let me be specific wrt PDF: I also review how a listing renders on the platform. This is more a matter of style and layout and it may not be obvious but a lot of this cannot be seen on a paper printout. Had I access to the real listing I could do "Ctrl-U" to look at the page source (btw: insome cases this is required in order to solve a mystery) and analyze what the cache owner has done. Recently I did a beta based on the PDF and I couldn't see that the listing in fact was totally messed up. I saw this only after the publish and I felt it was not appropriate after the facts to throw darts at the listing. Some cache owners write their listings usng MS Word, using many fonts, bold, italic .... different sizes, multiple colors, then they export the results as HTML and copy/paste that into GC.com's cache listing editor. Needless to say that the result can't be anything else than a mess. Had I seen that while the listing was still unpublished I could have provided valuable help, perhaps by directly pointing at the HTML mess.

 

I am spending the time elaborating on all this because Groundspeak goes great lengths in establishing and maintaiing quality standards for the caches listed on their platform. Think about all the work voluntary reviewers are doing. What they are doing before a cache gets publshed and all they're doing during the lifetime of the cache up to the point where they might need to be archived because the don't comply with the established  quality standards anymore. One aspect in this direction should not be underestimated: Thoroughly conducted beta tests by experienced geocachers who play that cache as if it would be real. An end to end test, from the puzzle at home up to the point where "hints" can be evaluated for usefulness and ultimately the appropriateness of the hiding spot can be investigated and last not least the quality of the cache container and logbook

  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, arisoft said:

If your main concern is about waypoints, you can download them as a GPX file from an unpublished cache and share with your beta testers.

 

Cachly can import from GPXes, too. So can a bunch of other apps. 

 

Alternative solution; why not adopt the listing to your beta tester? If you trust them enough to beta test you can probably trust them not to screw up your listing... you can always delete the note that says "this listing was transferred from..." and it'll appear as if nothing happened. 

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Hügh said:

 

Cachly can import from GPXes, too. So can a bunch of other apps. 

 

Alternative solution; why not adopt the listing to your beta tester? If you trust them enough to beta test you can probably trust them not to screw up your listing... you can always delete the note that says "this listing was transferred from..." and it'll appear as if nothing happened. 

You can adopt unpublished caches? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hügh said:

 

Cachly can import from GPXes, too. So can a bunch of other apps. 

 

Alternative solution; why not adopt the listing to your beta tester? If you trust them enough to beta test you can probably trust them not to screw up your listing... you can always delete the note that says "this listing was transferred from..." and it'll appear as if nothing happened. 

interesting approach ... but then, to save a lot of back and forth. If owner and beta tester share *that* level of trust, why not just share the password of the owner's account

Link to comment
2 hours ago, hxdimpf said:

Is there a process for submitting ideas for new functions, a process that includes a formal review by GC HQ technical / business development? Is a post to this forum necessary and sufficient?

 

Yes, you have posted your suggestion in the correct place.  And, you've already received a response - one which I know to be accurate from a technical perspective.  Most suggestions don't receive a response.  Reading your reaction to HQ's response, I can better understand why that is the case.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

Yes, you have posted your suggestion in the correct place.  And, you've already received a response - one which I know to be accurate from a technical perspective.  Most suggestions don't receive a response.  Reading your reaction to HQ's response, I can better understand why that is the case.

Are you refering to the response from @Bl4ckH4wkGER ? Is he authoritatively representing Groundspeak with respect to if and how the game could be improved in the proposed way? Or is it perhaps you, who authoritatively represents Groundspeak in that manner? 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

If you look at Bl4ckH4wkGER's forum profile, you will see that he is a forum Admin and Moderator. If you click through to his Geocaching.com profile, you will see that he is a Lackey (an employee of Geocaching HQ). He is from Germany and thus has a unique perspective on the geocaching scene in that country relative to the global scene.

 

I am a volunteer, serving in an unpaid capacity since 2003.  Over the years behind the scenes, I've learned a little bit about how the website functions.

 

I hope that these additional facts are helpful to you.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
6 hours ago, hxdimpf said:

interesting approach ... but then, to save a lot of back and forth. If owner and beta tester share *that* level of trust, why not just share the password of the owner's account

That, to me, seems to be the simpler solution.  How many "beta-testers" does one need on a cache?  One trusted friend, or if not THAT trusted, use the adoption. (I didn't know you could adopt out unpublished listings either - always new things to learn!)

 

I really don't see the need for someone having access to the actual unpublished listing all that often - and the coding to make that available to non-cache owners is obviously going to be quite involved, and likely not going to be used enough to make it worth the time and coding effort to make it happen.  Provide your beta tester with the waypoints, puzzle links, etc and let them have at it.

 

9 hours ago, hxdimpf said:

Some cache owners write their listings usng MS Word, using many fonts, bold, italic .... different sizes, multiple colors, then they export the results as HTML and copy/paste that into GC.com's cache listing editor. Needless to say that the result can't be anything else than a mess. Had I seen that while the listing was still unpublished I could have provided valuable help, perhaps by directly pointing at the HTML mess.

CO's can preview their cache pages before publication - and see that their copy/pasted Word doc is a mess when it's moved to the geocaching platform.  Or do they not preview the pages first?  Why do they need a beta tester to have access to their unpublished cache page to see that?

 

Granted, I'm not in Germany.  I do see there are tools one can use to beta test multi caches and puzzles  without allowing non cache-owners access to unpublished cache pages.  Keep those accessible only to the CO who created the page.  The "workaround" suggested by @Hügh (adoption) or sharing your account password for those relatively (seemingly) rare occasions it's needed makes more sense than recoding the unpublished cache page access.

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, hxdimpf said:

interesting approach ... but then, to save a lot of back and forth. If owner and beta tester share *that* level of trust, why not just share the password of the owner's account

 

You can use different account for a shared cache description. This is the way how teams can co-operate when creating a new cache listing.

 

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Keystone said:

If you look at Bl4ckH4wkGER's forum profile, you will see that he is a forum Admin and Moderator. If you click through to his Geocaching.com profile, you will see that he is a Lackey (an employee of Geocaching HQ). He is from Germany and thus has a unique perspective on the geocaching scene in that country relative to the global scene.

 

I am a volunteer, serving in an unpaid capacity since 2003.  Over the years behind the scenes, I've learned a little bit about how the website functions.

 

I hope that these additional facts are helpful to you.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I definitely appreciate the work you are doing. I didn't know how the process for suggesting features worked. I am more used to the issues process on github.

 

So to close on this, let me summarize what I have learned:

  • I have made a suggestion for a new feature, have explained it here in this channel (which happens to be the right channel for this purpose)
  • You and/or Bl4ckH4wkGER's have investigated the proposal and it is within your roles / capacity at Geocaching HQ to make an assessment and accept or reject the proposal
  • You and/or Bl4ckH4wkGER's have decided to rejeqct it based on:
    • small number of use cases
    • considered too much software development / testing effort

Thank you  very much for all the time and effort you're spending. Now that I know the process, I might submit more feature suggestions in the near future. Eventually, one of those might actually make it into production.

 

best regards,

hxdimpf

Link to comment
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

You can use different account for a shared cache description. This is the way how teams can co-operate when creating a new cache listing.

 

 

You mean, a 3rd account, some sort of a work-account for developing the listing and the real CO and the Betatester would share the password for that account? Then, once it is ready and the betatest done, the listing would be transferred to the real CO, who then submits it into formal review? That is actually an approach that might be sufficient except that this work-account would most certainly not be a premium account. Don't know how that would hamper the process then.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hxdimpf said:

Don't know how that would hamper the process then.

 

You can switch it to Premium after transferring it to your own account. Or, you could create it using your own, transfer it to the group, and then transfer back. 

Link to comment
On 9/29/2021 at 12:38 PM, hxdimpf said:

In the tool of my choice I want to....

Thanks for the detailed explanation. More power to you if you want to do that and can find beta testers willing to do all that work. Personally, I think it's overkill, beyond anything I would consider a geocache beta test, and way beyond anything I would ask anyone to do for me. Do you have professional geocache beta testers where you are? I've never seen a geocache that would require this level of scrutiny, so I suppose that's why I can't imagine it.

 

Geocaches don't have to be perfect. The detailed problems your beta tester is looking for are just bugs that, as a CO, I would have no trouble fixing after publication. The fact is, most of what your beta tester finds that you missed will be something caused by the difference in your equipment, so it's just as likely more, similar problems will be found after publication by still others using still different equipment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Thanks for the detailed explanation. More power to you if you want to do that and can find beta testers willing to do all that work. Personally, I think it's overkill, beyond anything I would consider a geocache beta test, and way beyond anything I would ask anyone to do for me. Do you have professional geocache beta testers where you are? I've never seen a geocache that would require this level of scrutiny, so I suppose that's why I can't imagine it.

 

Geocaches don't have to be perfect. The detailed problems your beta tester is looking for are just bugs that, as a CO, I would have no trouble fixing after publication. The fact is, most of what your beta tester finds that you missed will be something caused by the difference in your equipment, so it's just as likely more, similar problems will be found after publication by still others using still different equipment.

 

Actually it is the other way around. Frequently I find myself in the position of a Betatester for other COs. And in that case it is me suffering from not being able to play that cache as if it was real. I spend a lot of effort to prepare my tooling "manually" with all sorts of circumventing the real workflow and the more often I do this the more I am getting reluctant accepting further beta test requests. Why is it me to help establishing a certain quality level for others?

 

Perhaps the problem is my own quality standards. As a CO I own roughly 170 geocaches, which got close to 100k logs, most of them very positive. Not a single one was ever disabled. If I get a NM, I go fix it next day.

 

There is actually one question unanswered in this thead: It was at least mentioned twice by different GC HQ employees or affiliates that this whole beta testing thing seems to be a topic limited to Germany. Can anybody shed some light into this thought? Aren't we playing that game world wide? Of course, if it is indeed more  or less limited to Germany, I understand the "small number of use cases" and the rejection of the proposal for this very reason.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hxdimpf said:

this whole beta testing thing seems to be a topic limited to Germany. Can anybody shed some light into this thought?

It's not something I've come across in the UK, though that doesn't mean nobody's doing it.

 

I have heard of people giving a puzzle to their friends to test/check for functionality, and also people sometimes ask others to test Wherigo cartridges before publication, but neither of these require what you're asking for.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hxdimpf said:

It was at least mentioned twice by different GC HQ employees or affiliates that this whole beta testing thing seems to be a topic limited to Germany.

 

I disagree; although I've only beta-tested a few times in the ten years I've been caching. Last week, for example, I checked on a series of about a dozen hides on a hiking trail near us. I was sent a gpx of all the waypoints and that worked just fine since we could load it into our caching apps of choice...

 

(Then again, they knew that there was an issue with one of the caches. Since it was on a huge hike perhaps they didn't feel like going again.)

 

Puzzle caches are different, though. Though I haven't hidden any myself I've had a hand in making many. 

Edited by Hügh
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

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...