Squeezing Your Peeps

[+Mastifflover]

But, I frequently ride without one. It is my choice, I choose to accept it. I don't drive in a car without wearing seatbelts, but do ride without a helmet. I also disagree with a law mandating the use of seatbelts. I just think as an adult I should be able to make the choice.

 

That's nice....so the rest of us get to pay for your lack of responsibility through higher insurance premiums and higher health-care bills.

Funny, my insurance premiums didn't go down when PA enacted a seat belt law.

[+Big Tom]

Now, I told you that story so I could tell you this one. 80% of motorcycle fatalities occur under 25 mph. Be careful and ride safe.

 

That means you should always go real fast!

 

Big Tom

[+4agers]

Well, it is a motorcycle safety course, so of course I have a helmet. Full face, thanks for asking.

 

I actually already have my endorsement, but I felt after 2 years of riding it was about time I learned how to ride. Sounds counterintuitive, but it's not.

As an MSF instructor for over 8 years I'm glad to hear you are taking the course. I have had several very experienced motorcyclists come to class each year to refresh their skills.

 

I consider riding and caching my two passions. It is very cool that you do both.

[+harleycache]

But, I frequently ride without one. It is my choice, I choose to accept it. I don't drive in a car without wearing seatbelts, but do ride without a helmet. I also disagree with a law mandating the use of seatbelts. I just think as an adult I should be able to make the choice.

 

That's nice....so the rest of us get to pay for your lack of responsibility through higher insurance premiums and higher health-care bills.

Thanks for your opinion, you're entitled to it, but actually, we pay higher insurance premiums and health care costs because of lack of responsibility of people who don't drive/ride responsibly and within the speed and traffic laws -- a far higher risk and a far higher percentage of deaths and injuries than my not wearing a helmet .

 

Too far off topic, and there is no right or wrong answer to this any how so I'm done with this thread.

 

I was just congratulating Jeremy for having the good sense to take the MSF (or similar) riding course.

 

[+Sparky-Watts]

But, I frequently ride without one. It is my choice, I choose to accept it. I don't drive in a car without wearing seatbelts, but do ride without a helmet. I also disagree with a law mandating the use of seatbelts. I just think as an adult I should be able to make the choice.

 

That's nice....so the rest of us get to pay for your lack of responsibility through higher insurance premiums and higher health-care bills.

Funny, my insurance premiums didn't go down when PA enacted a seat belt law.

Of course not...it's not the law that makes people wear seatbelts. It's the people who violate the law and common sense and get maimed in accidents that drive up health care and insurance premiums. Harleycache, you may be the safest rider out there, but when an inattentive driver pulls out in front of you and neither of you have enough insurance to cover a life-long head injury, then who pays for it? The rest of us through higher premiums and healthcare costs. Ask me, I know. I was a paramedic, worked the streets and the ER, and my wife works for an insurance company. Not trying to put my opinions off on anyone, but from experience, I just can't see why anyone would willingly ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or ride in a car without wearing their seatbelts. This is completely off-topic, and I apologize to the OP. If anyone would like to continue this discussion through PM or email, feel free. I've got tons of statistics to back up my "opinions", and I'm not shy about sharing them if they will save a life or help to keep medical costs and insurance premiums down for everyone.

[+SeventhSon]

So let me see if I got this straight ... If i wear a helmet and have enough insurance, I can have more caches on my watch list??

 

 

7

[+Stuey]

Now, I told you that story so I could tell you this one. 80% of motorcycle fatalities occur under 25 mph.

Then ride faster and you're in the 20% bracket

[+TFTC]

Now, I told you that story so I could tell you this one. 80% of motorcycle fatalities occur under 25 mph. Be careful and ride safe.

And fast, I guess!

[Nylimb]

These annoyed me enough so that now I won't even consider paying.  The drop from 100 to 50 caches on the watchlist is just one more example.

 

I don't think it's a reasonable and sound business decision when you drive away potential customers.

You've logged more caches than I have on this web site. Does this make you a customer or a potential customer?

Potential, since I'm not paying to use gc.com. As I said, I was planning to become a member: I didn't, and still don't, feel a need for any of the premium services, but I wanted to support the people who make geocaching possible. But then you started making changes to the website. I understand that some were necessary, and some eventually made things better, but the unannounced changes usually hurt more than they needed to.

 

In the present case, I tried to add a cache to my watchlist and was told that I'd reached my limit. I was surprised, but it wasn't a big deal: I figured I could just delete a few that I no longer cared about and then add the new one. But that didn't work. At that point I realized that the watchlist limit had been cut in half, and I'd need to drop about 20 caches before I could add one more.

 

It's not that I think a limit of 50 is unreasonable; I can live with that easily. It's just that the sudden and unexpected reduction was an inconvenience. If you'd announced in advance that the limit was going to change, those of us whose watchlists were larger than 50 could have reduced them at our leisure.

 

And that's my main complaint/suggestion. If you're going to make changes that make the site less useful, I think you should explain, in advance, that you're going to do so and why. Not doing so seems disrespectful of the people who use your site.

 

So for now, I'll support the geocaching community in the ways we all do: By hiding caches, helping to repair damaged ones that I find, answering questions from newcomers, etc. But I won't financially support gc.com unless it starts treating its users with more respect.

[+New England n00b]

In Jeremys defense, though, he did say that was unexpected to him as well - it was unintentional with all the other stuff he has to watch over.

 

Now whether it stays that way or gets changed back... maybe if you asked nicely he'll set you up. He's done it for other requests. Personally, I think he (rather THEY) have all done a good job, considering the amount of interactivity this site has with its user base.

 

Does that mean things couldn't be done better? There is ALWAYS room for improvement, in any endeaver that someone takes. You strive for perfection, you never achieve it.

 

So I hope you'll stay and give a friendly heads up here the website forum when something seems to have changed. It may have been an oversight, and I'm sure they would welcome the postive feedback, even if it is critical... So long as it's a postive tone. You get more bees with honey and water...er yeah... something like that! I never get my quotes right.

Edited March 29, 2004 by New England n00b

[+Sparky-Watts]

In Jeremys defense, though, he did say that was unexpected to him as well - it was unintentional with all the other stuff he has to watch over.

 

Now whether it stays that way or gets changed back... maybe if you asked nicely he'll set you up. He's done it for other requests. Personally, I think he (rather THEY) have all done a good job, considering the amount of interactivity this site has with its user base.

 

Does that mean things couldn't be done better? There is ALWAYS room for improvement, in any endeaver that someone takes. You strive for perfection, you never achieve it.

 

So I hope you'll stay and give a friendly heads up here the website forum when something seems to have changed. It may have been an oversight, and I'm sure they would welcome the postive feedback, even if it is critical... So long as it's a postive tone. You get more bees with honey and water...er yeah... something like that! I never get my quotes right.

Right on!!!!

 

BTW, I heard that 90% of all accidents occur within 5 miles of home......so I moved.

[CoyoteRed]

You don't think it should be the choice of the person affected as to whether they would rather live out the rest of their life as a quadriplegic or die on the spot?

 

I knew someone who was in a motorcycle accident who was wearing a helmet. He lasted another 15 years in what to me would be a miserable existance. He survived basically by being continuously high and/or drunk. His mother had to wait on him hand and foot. Going to the bathroom was a once-a-week, all day affair. He finally died because of complications of being paralized.

 

Even from a financial stand point, how much does it cost to support a bed ridden person for a couple of decades versus paying out life insurance?

 

Yet another issue is the fact helmet cause neck injuries. You're only trading a head injury for a neck injury in many cases.

 

Me, I wear a helmet. Not because I don't want to die in an accident, it has nothing to do with that. Nope, I've been in hit in the face too many times by rocks or huge bugs. Each time I was fortunate enough to be wearing. Having your head rocked back because of some huge bug and staring at bug guts until you can stop and clean it off is a heart pounding reminder--you could have just lost an eye.

 

Wearing a helmet should be an individual choice.

[+Sparky-Watts]

You don't think it should be the choice of the person affected as to whether they would rather live out the rest of their life as a quadriplegic or die on the spot?

 

I knew someone who was in a motorcycle accident who was wearing a helmet.  He lasted another 15 years in what to me would be a miserable existance.  He survived basically by being continuously high and/or drunk.  His mother had to wait on him hand and foot.  Going to the bathroom was a once-a-week, all day affair.  He finally died because of complications of being paralized.

 

Even from a financial stand point, how much does it cost to support a bed ridden person for a couple of decades versus paying out life insurance?

 

Yet another issue is the fact helmet cause neck injuries.  You're only trading a head injury for a neck injury in many cases.

 

Me, I wear a helmet.  Not because I don't want to die in an accident, it has nothing to do with that.  Nope, I've been in hit in the face too many times by rocks or huge bugs.  Each time I was fortunate enough to be wearing.  Having your head rocked back because of some huge bug and staring at bug guts until you can stop and clean it off is a heart pounding reminder--you could have just lost an eye.

 

Wearing a helmet should be an individual choice.

Wearing a helmet is an individual choice, same as wearing a seatbelt. In 10 years as a paramedic, I never pulled a seatbelt off a dead person, nor did I ever remove a helmet from a dead or paralyzed person (not that you would remove a helmet if you suspected a spinal injury). I'll go back to my records to see how many low-speed motorcyle deaths I worked (none of them were wearing helmets, I can guarantee that without even looking), and how many high-speed motorcycle accidents I worked that involved spinal injuries of the neck (I'm sure at most one or two, but a lot of them were spinal injuries to the back not associated with helmets). Go ahead, ride without a helmet, there are people who desparately need your organs and will take good care of them. As for me, I can afford to pay higher premiums and healthcare costs.....Darwin is my friend.

 

EDIT: Dang it, CR!!! I told myself I wasn't gonna debate this again in here!!!!

Edited March 29, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

[Laogai]

Now whether it stays that way or gets changed back... maybe if you asked nicely he'll set you up.

Ok, I'll ask nicely:

 

Jeremy, since the cut down of the watch list from 100 to 50 caches was more or less an accident, will you put it up to 100 caches again?

 

PS: Sorry for posting off topic! I don't own a motor bike

[+Sparky-Watts]

 

When moving to the new codebase, I failed to check on the previous exact watchlist limit for non-premium members, and assumed it was 50, so coded that in that way when updating the new watchlist page. As I personally have maybe 10 or so on my own list I guess I just assumed that 50 was an incredibly large number for most people to watch. Considering the volume of emails that 50 caches could potentially create, someone would really have to be into geocaching and, reasonably, would be interested in supporting the web site. Ergo, the shift from the apparent previous limit 100 to 50.

 

As for changing back the 100 watchlist items to 50, is there really a huge number of people watching so many caches?

So, not meaning any offense at this question, if you're surprised by the number of people using even 50 slots on their watchlist, and considering you never paid much attention to the watchlist yourself, why not just give non-members the unlimited number on their watchlist? I mean, if it's something you just weren't aware of, why bother including anything different about it for members only? Just a question, not an attack. Like I said, it isn't a deal breaker for me, I'll eventually get my full membership dues in.

[Jeremy]

[..] why not just give non-members the unlimited number on their watchlist? I mean, if it's something you just weren't aware of, why bother including anything different about it for members only?

It's a safety check for overusing any feature. Emails cost bandwidth. If you watch 50+ caches you get a lot of email. If you want to watch more than that, you should pitch in to support the costs associated with the upkeep of the site. That was the initial intent of the upper limit.

 

Yes, I'll be switching it back to 100 items once I apply another patch to the web site. Probably sometime mid week. So don't go creating myname2 and myname3 to get around the limitation.

[+Sparky-Watts]

[..] why not just give non-members the unlimited number on their watchlist?  I mean, if it's something you just weren't aware of, why bother including anything different about it for members only?

It's a safety check for overusing any feature. Emails cost bandwidth. If you watch 50+ caches you get a lot of email. If you want to watch more than that, you should pitch in to support the costs associated with the upkeep of the site. That was the initial intent of the upper limit.

 

Yes, I'll be switching it back to 100 items once I apply another patch to the web site. Probably sometime mid week. So don't go creating myname2 and myname3 to get around the limitation.

Fair enough....not being overly computer-savvy, I just didn't consider that part of the issue. Thanks for clearing it up.

[+SquirrelNutKins]

About a year ago I was planning to become a paying member. Then Jeremy started making some of his inconvenient and unannounced changes to the website. These annoyed me enough so that now I won't even consider paying. The drop from 100 to 50 caches on the watchlist is just one more example.

 

I don't think it's a reasonable and sound business decision when you drive away potential customers.

Spoken like a true overprivileged Davisite...

[+Deckyon]

It's funny. I guess I just don't get the use of watch lists besides using them to keep track of my own hides. Hense, even as a premium member, I have 1 in my watch lists, an event cache comming up over the 4th of July... I could probably add the ones closest ot my house, but why? They are already in my found list... Besides, I don't want all that email.

 

I would probably add more to my watch list if I could turn off the email. (or is that already possible, and if not, why not?)

[+Marky]

So for now, I'll support the geocaching community in the ways we all do:  By hiding caches, helping to repair damaged ones that I find, answering questions from newcomers, etc.  But I won't financially support gc.com unless it starts treating its users with more respect.

So, is it just this one incident about the watch list? (Which Jeremey already stated was unintentional and was going to be fixed, by the way.) Or are there some other things that are bothering you? I've been a member for some time and have never felt like I wasn't treated with respect. I'd be interested to hear about other cases where you've felt like you've been treated with disrespect.

 

Jeremey (and all the other folks at Groundspeak) provides a lot of functionality for non-paying members and I aplaud him for that. Ultimately, it is you that gets to decide if Groundspeak is providing a valuable service for the geocaching communtity and whether you want to help support their efforts. I think they do a great job. I don't think I could do better. I choose to support them.

 

--Marky

[+Marky]

It's funny. I guess I just don't get the use of watch lists besides using them to keep track of my own hides. Hense, even as a premium member, I have 1 in my watch lists, an event cache comming up over the 4th of July... I could probably add the ones closest ot my house, but why? They are already in my found list... Besides, I don't want all that email.

 

I would probably add more to my watch list if I could turn off the email. (or is that already possible, and if not, why not?)

The main reason I add caches to my watch list is if I have a DNF on a cache. I like to see if other people find it, or if there are problems that get corrected, etc. Also, some caches, due to the challenges involved in finding the cache, are interesting to watch just because the logs are entertaining.

 

--Marky

[Jeremy]

I would probably add more to my watch list if I could turn off the email. (or is that already possible, and if not, why not?)

The original intent of a watch list was to get emails for caches you want to monitor. Multiple lists for other purposes will be a new feature on the site so you can keep all kinds of lists. With these lists you can decide whether to be emailed or not.

[+Sparky-Watts]

 

Jeremey (and all the other folks at Groundspeak) provides a lot of functionality for non-paying members and I aplaud him for that. Ultimately, it is you that gets to decide if Groundspeak is providing a valuable service for the geocaching communtity and whether you want to help support their efforts.  I think they do a great job.  I don't think I could do better.  I choose to support them.

 

--Marky

Again, this echoes my sentiments pretty well. gc.com is great for not charging folks to play. At the time I started geocaching, there was no way I could have paid to join, and I never would have been able to even start. Just by offering what they do for non-members is enough now to make me want to join, just so that others that are deciding if the hobby is right for them don't have to pay to play, only to find out that perhaps it's not the game for them.....though I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to keep up with the addiction!

Edited March 29, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

[Laogai]

Yes, I'll be switching it back to 100 items once I apply another patch to the web site. Probably sometime mid week.

Thanks!!!

[CoyoteRed]

EDIT: Dang it, CR!!! I told myself I wasn't gonna debate this again in here!!!!

One last poke at this issue and I'm done.

 

If I remember correctly, the first Bike Week after Florida reverted to helmet optional there were far more fatalities of cyclists that wore a helmet than those that did not.

 

While I moved away before the law change, judging from the number of people who wore only the bare minimum helmet, I'd say the majority of riders ride sans helmet. It just ain't cool to ride a Harley while wearing a helmet.

 

What does this all mean? I dunno. Maybe, it means that people who are going to act stupid are likely to wear a helmet. Could be it's the stupidity that gets them killed and not the fact they wear a helmet or not. That doesn't even factor the stupidity of others.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

We don't care for micros so maybe we shouldn't support this site.

 

The nearest unfound cache is miles away -- another reason to not support this site.

 

Caches seem to get traded down rather quickly -- another reason.

 

We don't want to spend gas money (less gas - less geocaching) to help out this site.

 

The rules keep changing -- another reason.

 

We have way too much fun doing caching we don't have time to help support this site!!!

 

How many other lame reasons can we come up with for not supporting our favorite hobby?

 

If you choose not to support this site, that is fine, Just don't try BSing us with these kind of excuses.

 

John

[+New England n00b]

Yes, I'll be switching it back to 100 items once I apply another patch to the web site. Probably sometime mid week.

 

Multiple lists for other purposes will be a new feature on the site so you can keep all kinds of lists. With these lists you can decide whether to be emailed or not.

 

It just keeps getting better!

 

You know, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the background operations of GC.com, but it sure seems like there has been a major leap forward in the quality & feature set of the site since the forums were moved...?

 

Thanks guys!

[Nylimb]

So for now, I'll support the geocaching community in the ways we all do:  By hiding caches, helping to repair damaged ones that I find, answering questions from newcomers, etc.  But I won't financially support gc.com unless it starts treating its users with more respect.

So, is it just this one incident about the watch list? (Which Jeremey already stated was unintentional and was going to be fixed, by the way.) Or are there some other things that are bothering you? I've been a member for some time and have never felt like I wasn't treated with respect. I'd be interested to hear about other cases where you've felt like you've been treated with disrespect.

No, this incident is pretty minor. Last July, there were a lot of changes made to the site without any advance warning. These caused problems for many of us, as discussed in One step forward, two steps back. Eventually the problems were fixed, and, in my opinion, the site is better than it was before.

 

Later, the cache maps were changed to show more detail. Again, an improvement, but at the same time it became impossible to pan the maps unless you were a premium member, which made them less useful than the older ones. Eventually that was changed so everyone can pan the maps, and now they're much better than they were before. See: The new maps

 

There was also the change in the stats page, when the total number of caches found was no longer shown. Eventually, after complaints by many people, the totals returned. See: Total Stats page?

 

As I said earlier, my objection isn't to the changes themselves. I just think things would go more smoothly if they were discussed beforehand. That way the users of the site could point out some of the problems before they occur, and not be surprised and inconvenienced when they do.

Jeremey (and all the other folks at Groundspeak) provides a lot of functionality for non-paying members and I aplaud him for that. Ultimately, it is you that gets to decide if Groundspeak is providing a valuable service for the geocaching communtity and whether you want to help support their efforts.  I think they do a great job.  I don't think I could do better.  I choose to support them.

I agree that gc.com is useful for the geocaching community. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything they do. For now, my disagreements are strong enough so that I choose not to send them money. I hope that can change some day.

[Nylimb]

About a year ago I was planning to become a paying member.  Then Jeremy started making some of his inconvenient and unannounced changes to the website.  These annoyed me enough so that now I won't even consider paying.  The drop from 100 to 50 caches on the watchlist is just one more example.

 

I don't think it's a reasonable and sound business decision when you drive away potential customers.

Spoken like a true overprivileged Davisite...

I'm confused. Could you please explain why you think I'm overprivileged? (I sure don't feel that way.) And what does living in Davis have to do with it?

[Nylimb]

If you choose not to support this site, that is fine, Just don't try BSing us with these kind of excuses.

   

My reasons may not seem important to you, but they are to me. Calling me a liar is inappropriate.

[+New England n00b]

As I said earlier, my objection isn't to the changes themselves. I just think things would go more smoothly if they were discussed beforehand. That way the users of the site could point out some of the problems before they occur, and not be surprised and inconvenienced when they do.

 

The only problem I can see with this is 'The Meeting Effect', for lack of a better term. How do they decide which of the many changes they are working on will affect the users negatively? When they do spend the time to finalize a public change list for discussion, it will take even longer to implement changes. Sometimes those changes need to be done quickly, and cannot wait for the meeting to be over. Other times they may hold up the change queue because one change may require the completion of another change. If that change is held up in comittee, then there is an even longer wait to improve the website.

 

And what if they should decide that a particular feature eats up enough bandwidth that it should only be available to paying users? Put up for discussion, of course everyone will want it free - especially if it was a pre-existing free feature.

 

Change in the site will be inevitable, as in everything in life. "Who Moved My Cheese" is an excellent book to help understand change and deal with it.

 

I'm not saying Jeremy or Groundspeak are perfect - they are human, so of course they will be lacking in certain areas. But then, Groundspeak isn't Microsoft - they probably don't have the money for extra staff and organization to develop change lists, never mind spend the manhours to discuss them.

 

Jeremy, would an 'official' impending change-list (sans discussion) be possible? Perhaps a once-a-month "Here's what is on our plate" sticky post? I believe Nylimb does have a good point in this regard - it would help us prepare for change, even if we disagree with the eventual outcome. Personally, the changes I have seen are only for the better, and I hope to see the site continue in this vein. I'm sure we don't know the half of operating the website & business. Such a list might engender more empathy for Groundspeak when we know a bit of what you all have to deal with?

 

Good luck, and thanks!

 

PS - Get those credit card memberships working!!!!

 

(edit - please forgive spelling errors)

Edited March 30, 2004 by New England n00b

[+Mastifflover]

Jeremey (and all the other folks at Groundspeak) provides a lot of functionality for non-paying members and I aplaud him for that. Ultimately, it is you that gets to decide if Groundspeak is providing a valuable service for the geocaching communtity and whether you want to help support their efforts.  I think they do a great job.  I don't think I could do better.  I choose to support them.

 

--Marky

I have to agree. If this were my website I would have been frustrated a long time ago. I would leave the watchlist at 50 because of this thread. It must take a lot of cojones to get on here and complain about a paring back of a feature that is not essential to geocaching but is still provided free. If Jeremy were truly going to "squeeze his peeps" to try to increase membership I think that he could do a whole lot more that reducing the number of caches that you watch.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

If you choose not to support this site, that is fine, Just don't try BSing us with these kind of excuses.

   

My reasons may not seem important to you, but they are to me. Calling me a liar is inappropriate.

You know...it is really funny...that the people who complain the most...do not pay their way. They sit back & enjoy everything, take what they want & leave a 'Where's George $' here & there or a Mc Toy (example only), while the rest of us who really enjoy the sport, try to upgrade any cache we come to & try to make our caches that we place better & more of a challenge, decide to become paying members...not because of the many features...but because we like the site, the game, & even the surprizes that Jeremy has in store for us...it all just keeps getting better & better....all for only the cost of a good meal out!

 

Here is my 'tip' ....Quit your complaining. If you like the site or not....it is only small change to become a member & I do not feel it is appropriate for the people who are not members to ask for 'special features' If you want them.....then act like it. Simple!

 

Also...my other half did not call you a liar......this issue seems to be VERY important to you.....You are just making excuses for not becoming a member.

 

I do think I might be leaning more towards the this thought......a 'non-paying whiner'....

 

Get a life & go caching. The great outdoors is waiting...it will make things LESS important.

 

Shirley

Edited March 30, 2004 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[+beejay&esskay]

 

Jeremy, would an 'official' impending change-list (sans discussion) be possible? Perhaps a once-a-month "Here's what is on our plate" sticky post?

A list like this would also keep the multiple postings of "Jeremy, how about this feature".

 

I think Jeremy once responded to a request like this with a "no" because he was afraid the list would become a commitment, engendering more complaints.

 

However, he does occasionally respond to specific questions with a "I'm working on it and plan to do it ..."

 

Could (at least) these replies be collected and posted?

[+bons]

I just think things would go more smoothly if they were discussed beforehand. That way the users of the site could point out some of the problems before they occur, and not be surprised and inconvenienced when they do.

Actually, I've seen it both ways here and NOT telling the users has been, by far, the easier route. Telling people simply seems to result in two things:

 

1) Fear. Because people don't actually know what's going to happen they seem to imagine the worst and react off of it. I would have hated to have seen the reaction if Jeremy handled the changing of the "My cache page" by telling people more in advance.

2) Complaining that X isn't done yet.

 

I'm sorry, but the users of this site have a lot of people whose mission in life seems to either complain or react in fear. Not much can be done about those people who complain, because they'll get you coming or going, but you can deal with fear by simply not telling anyone anything.

 

Some people say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. My experience tells me that the squeaky wheel is the first one to get thrown in the trash.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Some people say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. My experience tells me that the squeaky wheel is the first one to get thrown in the trash.

 

My feelings exactly! And yes, that has been my experience. In this day and age of expendable parts, no one is buying grease anymore, they are just replacing the parts. I also have to agree that Jeremy and the Frog Troop are doing what is in both their best interests and the interests of the users by not announcing changes ahead of time. We have enough of these "They Changed My xxxxx Without Telling Me First" threads, just imagine the number of preemptory strikes J and the Troop would get if he announced every little nuance of the change prior to doing it. And, he has already said that he didn't do this on purpose, it was simply an oversight, and he has said he is going to fix it, so, to quote Clara Peller, "Where's the Beef?"

[+Mastifflover]

Congrats on your new premium account Sparky!

[+Sparky-Watts]

Congrats on your new premium account Sparky!

Thanks! It was an anonymous donation...so, when I get the money saved up that I was going to use for my premium account, I'm going to do the same for someone else...."pay it forward", as it were!

[+Stunod]

Cool Sparky...you're officially a "member" now.

[+New England n00b]

Good point... I hereby retract my request for a change list. I can see 'teh horrur' it'd bring... As if it isn't bad enough around here sometimes.

 

And congrats, Sparky... From "Squeezing Your Peeps" to Member!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Sparky-Watts]

Good point... I hereby retract my request for a change list. I can see 'teh horrur' it'd bring... As if it isn't bad enough around here sometimes.

 

And congrats, Sparky... From "Squeezing Your Peeps" to Member!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+The Cheeseheads]

I would probably add more to my watch list if I could turn off the email.  (or is that already possible, and if not, why not?)

The original intent of a watch list was to get emails for caches you want to monitor. Multiple lists for other purposes will be a new feature on the site so you can keep all kinds of lists. With these lists you can decide whether to be emailed or not.

Now that you bring this up...

 

Here's something I'd like to see implemented:

 

Allow me to add caches, TBs or other people to a watchlist. For any of them, I can select either "email notification", "web notification", or "no notification" for when something happens to one of them.

 

The email notification is what we have now. The web notification would either bring up a popup window when I enter GC.com saying something like "The following items on your watchlist have new logs" or something like that. I could also go to the watchlist and it would be sorted in date order by the last time logged with a little icon showing new logs since the last time I checked.

 

No notification would just be for things I have a casual interest in, but don't want to be constantly reminded about, such as "I wonder where that TB I logged last summer is now?"

[+harleycache]

 

As I said earlier, my objection isn't to the changes themselves.  I just think things would go more smoothly if they were discussed beforehand.  That way the users of the site could point out some of the problems before they occur, and not be surprised and inconvenienced when they do.

Yeah, this happened to me. I was going to get a new Ford F-150, then they had the gall to change the body style without consulting us consumers first!

 

[+rusty_tlc]

...

Here's something I'd like to see implemented:

 

Allow me to add caches, TBs or other people to a watchlist. ...

I had thought about being able to add people to my watchlist a few months back.

A local cacher ws closing on the 1K mark and I wanted to e-mail them a congradulation note when they hit 1000 caches. As I pondered this I realized that a lot of folks wouldn't like to be watched that way.

 

Don't look for this feature soon.

[+harleycache]

Sparky, welcome to premium land!!

 

[+rusty_tlc]

 

As I said earlier, my objection isn't to the changes themselves.  I just think things would go more smoothly if they were discussed beforehand.  That way the users of the site could point out some of the problems before they occur, and not be surprised and inconvenienced when they do.

Yeah, this happened to me. I was going to get a new Ford F-150, then they had the gall to change the body style without consulting us consumers first!

 

I work in manufacturing. We do notify customers when we make a significant change, that is one that affects the way they use a product. Our customer base is fairly small.

 

Somewhere between us and Ford lies GC.com. To date I have rarely seen any changes to this web site that couldn't be figured out within a few seconds. Those that did (printerfriendly version of cache page) were corrected very soon after they were brought up.

 

Overall the level of service from GC.com is more personel than I would expect.

[+Runaround]

Pre-announcing changes seems to bring out all the people who automatically assume they have veto power over everything.

 

Most large corporations do survery some users before making a change, normally good paying customers who bring repeat business. The feedback is used to to adjust upcoming product changes. The few fringe or potential customers who will be put off is fairly small and usually not enough to impact the decision process.

[Jeremy]

I pass most changes through the reviewers before releasing to the public. In many cases it goes through several revisions before you see the final.

 

Oversights, like 50/100 watchlist items are often not caught until they are used by the community, so releasing changes before they happen wouldn't have affected this particular case.

 

I also hesitate to announce new changes to the site except in general terms, since things are in constant flux throughout the development cycle.

[Nylimb]

If you choose not to support this site, that is fine, Just don't try BSing us with these kind of excuses.

   

My reasons may not seem important to you, but they are to me. Calling me a liar is inappropriate.

You know...it is really funny...that the people who complain the most...do not pay their way. They sit back & enjoy everything, take what they want & leave a 'Where's George $' here & there or a Mc Toy (example only),

I hope you're not suggesting that I'm in that category. I'm not. I won't take something from a cache if I don't have something of equal or greater value to trade for it.

while the rest of us who really enjoy the sport, try to upgrade any cache we come to & try to make our caches that we place better & more of a challenge,

Likewise. I've often made repairs to damaged caches that I've found. And I too try to make the caches I hide interesting and challenging. Based on people's logs for them, I think I've succeeded.

Also...my other half did not call you a liar......this issue seems to be VERY important to you.....You are just making excuses for not becoming a member.

He said 'BSing' rather than 'lying'. Different word, same meaning.

 

Yes, this is important to me. You've made a public accusation against me which I know to be false. I suppose you really believe what you said, but I don't understand why. So I'll ask: Why do you think that my stated reasons for not being a member are not my real reasons?

[+beejay&esskay]

So I'll ask: Why do you think that my stated reasons for not being a member are not my real reasons?

Veering sharply into personal arguments that shouldn't be done here.