Controlling when a cache goes live.

January 27, 2009

Sometimes if you put out a few caches together, you might want them all to go live at the same time or maybe drip them in one at a time.

At the moment as far as I can tell, they go live when the reviewer passes them. Which could be any time day or night.

Would it be possible to have a tick box on the submission for that tells the reviewer to turn the cache listing invisible again until the owner wants to activate it? Just to stop stockpiling of pre-approved caches maybe give the owner 7 days to activate the listing or it goes live automatically.

This feature would also help organisers who want to make caches available just before or after cache events. Sometimes trying to get the timing right in those circumstances is a nightmare.

22k · January 27, 2009

I could understand the need for the feature if I was dropping a bunch of caches that were time restricted, but for the couple I've needed to regulate I just put a note to the reviewer. Worked just fine for me.

Edited for clarification

Edited January 27, 2009 by BlueDeuce

5.2k · January 27, 2009

Just put something in the Note to Reviewer like "please publish at 4:37am on the 3rd Tuesday" and she'll do her best to accommodate you.

January 27, 2009

Just put something in the Note to Reviewer like "please publish at 4:37am on the 3rd Tuesday" and she'll do her best to accommodate you.

That might work with some reviewers, but I know that it doesn't work with others.

1.6k · January 27, 2009

Just put something in the Note to Reviewer like "please publish at 4:37am on the 3rd Tuesday" and she'll do her best to accommodate you.

That might work with some reviewers, but I know that it doesn't work with others.

Your reviewer controls everything, and remember that all reviewers are volunteers with real lives and jobs. If your reviewer is asleep or at work at 4:37 am on the 3rd Tuesday, then your caches won't get published then.

Your best bet is to ASK your local reviewer about his/her/its preferred method of simultaneous publication. I submitted a cache once but wanted to wait a few days on publication. I didn't check the "ready to go" box, and mentioned the preferred date in a reviewer note. My reviewer asked that I send a separate email to remind him, I did, and he published it on the date I wanted.

January 28, 2009

Your reviewer controls everything, and remember that all reviewers are volunteers with real lives and jobs. If your reviewer is asleep or at work at 4:37 am on the 3rd Tuesday, then your caches won't get published then.

Exactly my point. Wouldn't it be better to automate things and take the burden off the hard worked reviewers?

22k · January 28, 2009

So what you are saying is that you would still use the reviewer notes to communicate any additional information concerning the cache.

Maybe rather than giving the control directly to the owner, the reviewer approves the cache and if requested they could use an option to set the day/time the cache is published/released.

If so, I guess I would ask what the reviewers think of it. Would they agree it helps everyone involved.

21.9k · January 28, 2009

I think that "timed publication" would be a nice feature, but as much as it would help cache hiders and cache reviewers, I recognize that programming resources are best spent elsewhere. Apart from building in the timer and automating the "published" log, it would be important to lock down the cache page so that it couldn't be changed after the reviewer signs off on it. I think owners would find the lockdown inconvenient but sadly, it is necessary.

In the meantime before this idea hits the top of the priorities list, the existing informal system seems to work fine. I have two caches I'm holding for publication tomorrow and two more for Thursday. On a summer weekend, that number can be 10 or 20. It is very satisfying to know that my published logs are setting geocachers off on fun adventures. Just make the arrangements well in advance, as counselled by the listing guidelines. If I'm not available on the desired day, I can hand off the timed publication to another volunteer. This year, I'll be able to publish from my iPhone while I'm out caching!

January 28, 2009

In the meantime before this idea hits the top of the priorities list, the existing informal system seems to work fine.

Well actually it doesn't (not in some parts anyway) otherwise I would never have posed the question in the first place.

8.9k · January 28, 2009

In the meantime before this idea hits the top of the priorities list, the existing informal system seems to work fine.

Well actually it doesn't (not in some parts anyway) otherwise I would never have posed the question in the first place.

It seems to me, you're asking for a feature that's already in place. As has been stated, simply email the reviewer and ask about your desire, most (if not all) reviewers are happy to help!! I hide around 20-25 caches for an event every year, I want the caches to be newly published either the day of the event or shortly after (it's a weekend camp/cache event, so even a day or two is fine with my situation). Since I also want to hold my spots, I hide the caches, fill out the submissions and send them in with the request to review and set aside! Our reviewer does the checking, tells me if there's any problems and then asks that I enable the caches just before the day along with any extra requests. Have yet to have a problem!!

January 28, 2009

I think what CC is saying is that while working with your local reviewer may work for most of us most of the time, there are some places where it doesn't. Maybe CC's reviewer has a busier schedule, maybe CC is asking for an odd day/time for publication. CC hasn't filled in those blanks and that's just fine.

I think it would be a nice feature but agree with Keystone that this is not a high priority. Of course I'm fortunate enough that my local reviewer makes the time to work with cachers on things like this and I usually don't care when my cache is published anyway.

21.9k · January 28, 2009

I'm puzzled because (1) the OP only owns one cache, a grandfathered webcam, and hasn't submitted any others under that account, and (2) the reviewers in the United Kingdom -- past and present -- are legendary for their commitment to serving the community's needs. I'd recommend working this out with the OP's reviewer rather than through a complex technological solution. If the reviewers are not helpful for any reason, like refusing to publish caches at 4:00 a.m. once per day for a month, then the cache owner can appeal to Groundspeak.

January 28, 2009

I'm puzzled because (1) the OP only owns one cache, a grandfathered webcam, and hasn't submitted any others under that account, and (2) the reviewers in the United Kingdom -- past and present -- are legendary for their commitment to serving the community's needs. I'd recommend working this out with the OP's reviewer rather than through a complex technological solution. If the reviewers are not helpful for any reason, like refusing to publish caches at 4:00 a.m. once per day for a month, then the cache owner can appeal to Groundspeak.

I hide and hunt caches as a team with my kids under a different caching name. Since 2001 we have hidden over 300 caches. I do know what I am talking about. Thanks for your concern and sarcasm.

Complex technological solution? Not really. It a fairly easy teak to the submission page. Let the programmers decide how far up the "to do" list it can go. I would just like it to be considered.

3.6k · January 28, 2009

Since reviewers are volunteers, cache owners need to understand that they may not be able to release the caches exactly when requested, but most do what they can to help out.

Our reviewer in CT is very accommodating. I hid some caches a couple weeks before I wanted them published. Our reviewer had me submit them normally and then disabled them after reviewing them. I don't know the details of how it worked, but no cachers ever saw them.

Then, when I was ready to have them go live, he told me to check the box that says they're ready to go, and write him a quick note saying they're good to go.

He said he'd release them as soon as he got a chance, but because he was a volunteer, he couldn't guarantee when they'd be released. They were released very quickly after giving the "go ahead."

I'd say speak to your reviewer and see how they want to handle it. You'll find they're very accommodating.

5.2k · January 28, 2009

I would think the likelihood of your reviewer accommodating your request would be dependent on how you ask. If you're nice and friendly, and are willing to work within your reviewer's schedule, than you're more likely to get what you want.

There are lots technical challenges to an automatic solution, and the necessary lockdown that Keystone mentioned would probably garner more forum complaints than we get now about not having an automatic solution :laughing:

It's best to figure out how to work with your reviewer.

8.9k · January 28, 2009

I'm puzzled because (1) the OP only owns one cache, a grandfathered webcam, and hasn't submitted any others under that account, and (2) the reviewers in the United Kingdom -- past and present -- are legendary for their commitment to serving the community's needs. I'd recommend working this out with the OP's reviewer rather than through a complex technological solution. If the reviewers are not helpful for any reason, like refusing to publish caches at 4:00 a.m. once per day for a month, then the cache owner can appeal to Groundspeak.

I hide and hunt caches as a team with my kids under a different caching name. Since 2001 we have hidden over 300 caches. I do know what I am talking about. Thanks for your concern and sarcasm.

Complex technological solution? Not really. It a fairly easy teak to the submission page. Let the programmers decide how far up the "to do" list it can go. I would just like it to be considered.

Wow, touchy are we?? The only sarcastic remark I've seen thus far is in this post of yours, if you ask your reviewers like this, I can see what the problem is! :laughing:

If you've got the answer, pony up! If it's that easy, offer your solution to the PTB and not just ask for a fix most of us see as not needed!

January 28, 2009

Complex technological solution? Not really. It a fairly easy teak to the submission page. Let the programmers decide how far up the "to do" list it can go. I would just like it to be considered.

I'd prefer the community decide how far up the list it goes. I know it doesn't always work that way but for what it's worth my vote is fix or enhance any number of other things first.

3.6k · January 28, 2009

On a priority scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate it a 1, if that high.

Edit for type ohs.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Skippermark

January 28, 2009

If the reviewers are not helpful for any reason, like refusing to publish caches at 4:00 a.m. once per day for a month, then the cache owner can appeal to Groundspeak.

Wow, touchy are we?? The only sarcastic remark I've seen thus far is in this post of yours, if you ask your reviewers like this, I can see what the problem is!

I took Keystone's comment quoted above as an attempt at sarcasm. If that was not the case then I apologise.

The feature I asked about would be useful to me. Obviously you have no need for it, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

January 28, 2009

I'd prefer the community decide how far up the list it goes. I know it doesn't always work that way but for what it's worth my vote is fix or enhance any number of other things first.

I have no problem with that at all. This branch of the forums is for floating ideas. That is all I did.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!!

2.2k · January 28, 2009

no one expects the Spanish Inquisition................

8.9k · January 28, 2009

If the reviewers are not helpful for any reason, like refusing to publish caches at 4:00 a.m. once per day for a month, then the cache owner can appeal to Groundspeak.

Wow, touchy are we?? The only sarcastic remark I've seen thus far is in this post of yours, if you ask your reviewers like this, I can see what the problem is!

I took Keystone's comment quoted above as an attempt at sarcasm. If that was not the case then I apologise.

The feature I asked about would be useful to me. Obviously you have no need for it, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

Not necessarily a bad idea, just not one I would want TPTB to go into instead of the many other things they could invest their time in...like getting the forums to run smoothly. You're asking for something that is very low on most peoples' list, since you asked, we're chiming in!

Now, if TPTB want to cater to each and every one of our wishes, I have a nice list sitting here...

Edited January 28, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

January 28, 2009

Not necessarily a bad idea, just not one I would want TPTB to go into instead of the many other things they could invest their time in...like getting the forums to run smoothly. You're asking for something that is very low on most peoples' list, since you asked, we're chiming in!

I don't have a problem with chiming. If nobody puts ideas forward things will never advance.

Throw some of yours in the ring.

22k · January 29, 2009

Not necessarily a bad idea, just not one I would want TPTB to go into instead of the many other things they could invest their time in...like getting the forums to run smoothly. You're asking for something that is very low on most peoples' list, since you asked, we're chiming in!

I don't have a problem with chiming. If nobody puts ideas forward things will never advance.

Throw some of yours in the ring.

I think it's perfectly fine that people throw out ideas, even if they've been brought up before. The more individuals who request a feature the more likely it'll be implemented.

Keep in mind that most requests stem from a problem or concern and people will offer alternate solutions. Most advice will carry you through until the upgrade is implemented.

Well, hopefully implemented.

Happy caching is the goal :laughing:

Edited January 29, 2009 by BlueDeuce

January 29, 2009

I think it is a great idea and should be easy to implement from a coding standpoint.

I don't know what the big deal is in listing one idea against any other in level of importance. Each suggestion should stand on its own merit. Either it can be done or it can't. And an addition like this one would not force people to use it, it would just be an option that people could choose to use.

22k · January 29, 2009

I think it is a great idea and should be easy to implement from a coding standpoint.

I don't know what the big deal is in listing one idea against any other in level of importance. Each suggestion should stand on its own merit. Either it can be done or it can't. And an addition like this one would not force people to use it, it would just be an option that people could choose to use.

Priority. Which request would you like them to work on first?

Trust me, it's a long list. Half of which are probably performance/support issues that they are addressing behind the scenes. Just like every other company.

Edited January 29, 2009 by BlueDeuce

January 29, 2009

Performance has nothing to do with a feature request like this. I'm not really going to get into thread bashing... because as I have been informed by Groundspeak, all feedback and suggestions like this have to be posted in the forum. But then when someone posts something everyone attacks them on how it is not needed and there are more important things that need to be fixed.

That's why I simply say, don't compare one to the other. It is either a good idea or it is not... it has nothing to do with the needs of other features.

As for priorty, that is up to the programmers, not us. I am a web designer by trade. I deal in programming issues all day long with clients all over the planet. They all have different needs and different requests. But, sometimes... the easy things to do get thrown in while the big things are getting taken care of. What if they didn't mention the little things along the way? well... they wouldn't get tossed in during the progress.

To act like no one needs to say anything about a small suggestion until everything else is fixed is a bit frustrating. There are those of us who see a need and want to voice an opinion to Groundspeak... and then get told to come here to voice it to the community... but then the community doesn't want to hear it because the bigger issues are not fixed.

It makes for a sticky circle... and from people I have talked to at events... there are a lot of things people would like to suggest, but don't want to be slammed for it.

All I am saying, is this suggestion in this thread sounds like a good one to me. I don't care which one goes first... and I didn't see the OP saying "stop everything and do this first"...

(Remembering now why I don't come to the forums here)

22k · January 29, 2009

(Remembering now why I don't come to the forums here)

I hope you read what I wrote a few posts up.

You asked what the big deal is in listing one idea against any other in level of importance. I'm just saying that not every request is going to be implemented and not every approved request is going to be implemented quickly.

Asking for an upgrade is fine. Asking 'what's the big deal' is going to give you a response why.

Sorry if that's not okay.

Edited January 29, 2009 by BlueDeuce

January 29, 2009

I hope you read what I wrote a few posts up.

I'm not trying to be rude by any means, but I didn't ask for anyone to tell me why. I said I don't know why people insist in telling users their suggestions are not worthy because they are not more important than another suggestion.

It puts users off from coming to the forums. Sorry. I was just trying to explain a position of those of us who are frustrated with the situation. Nothing more.

Now to get back on topic again.

I again say on it's own merit I think that it is a great suggestion.

22k · January 29, 2009

I again say on it's own merit I think that it is a great suggestion.

And I think it would a great option especially for the reviewers.

5.3k · January 29, 2009

.... Now to get back on topic again.

I again say on it's own merit I think that it is a great suggestion.

But EVERYTHING in life has to be prioritized.

Your kids may come to you and say that they want a new computer. But you know that you need a new dishwasher and the car needs new tires and the roof on the house needs replacing.

So, you may think that "it is a great suggestion" to get a new computer, but you also know that it's not going to happen anytime soon because there are several other things that are a greater priority.

And just because your kids come back to you each week and say that they want a new computer, doesn't mean that the new computer is going to move up the priority list.

22k · January 29, 2009

I think that JuggoPop is saying the idea is worth consideration and I agree.

gc.com decides priority, and I'm sure they consider our input.

January 29, 2009

But EVERYTHING in life has to be prioritized.

Your kids may come to you and say that they want a new computer. But you know that you need a new dishwasher and the car needs new tires and the roof on the house needs replacing.

So, you may think that "it is a great suggestion" to get a new computer, but you also know that it's not going to happen anytime soon because there are several other things that are a greater priority.

And just because your kids come back to you each week and say that they want a new computer, doesn't mean that the new computer is going to move up the priority list.

I'm not saying you are wrong in that comment. However, lets take your example and put it in better context in relation to suggestions in this section of the forum.

Say your kids ask for a new computer every week. Do you immediately list all of the budget priorities for the household and tell them that what they ask for is the last thing on the list? Probably not. You explain once that it is not going to happen right away and then everyone in the family knows the situation. And if you agree you tell them, that's a great idea... we'll do it if and when we can.

In this geocaching family, we all know that there are higher items on the list... I just think is in poor taste to throw out the small ideas because some other family member asked for a new computer yesterday.

Try sending a feedback/suggestion to Groundspeak via the feedback link on the site. They tell you to come here. So I think we as a family should find out who wants what and see what we can do about getting them what they ask for... IF it works for the family (ie, good idea) and WHEN it is in budget (ie, where ever it may fall in the list).

I really think this should be a new topic.

***Sorry to the OP for hijacking your thread.***

3.3k · January 29, 2009

This seems like a worthy suggestion for the to do list. I would add that in my experience the current system has worked well. Coordinate with the reviewer for the preferred time of publication. They are happy to work with you.

So, good idea. But the claim that the current system doesn't work falls flat if the OP can't provide any backup to the claim. Any claim seems less credible without verifiable evidence. Especially around these parts.

8k · January 29, 2009

Say your kids ask for a new computer every week. Do you immediately list all of the budget priorities for the household and tell them that what they ask for is the last thing on the list? Probably not. You explain once that it is not going to happen right away and then everyone in the family knows the situation. And if you agree you tell them, that's a great idea... we'll do it if and when we can.

Requesting a feature (or a change) to this site is not like your kid asking for a computer (or a pony). People ask for a feature because they've come across a particular problem and either don't know how to solve it using the existing feature or they find the existing features too cumbersome and want to suggest a better way. Groundspeak asks that suggestions be brought to the forums so they can be discussed. How many geocachers are having the same problem? Are there workarounds that the original poster hasn't tried yet? How critical of a problem is it? What other improvements can be made with this feature? What the 'gotchas' if it is implemented or if it is not implemented carefully. After it is discussed, Groundspeak will decide if it is a change they want to make. It will get added to a list. But they seldom tell us this. Depending on other features and bug fixes going in, it may be given a low priority. Groundspeak always has some long term improvements (that require more work to implement) which they keep promising will be implemented soon and they may not fix a non-critical feature until after those changes since they figure it will be easier to do once the big code change is made.

When anyone requests a feature, they are bound to get a bunch of responses describing how to accomplish the same or similar thing using existing features. Some people may also ask for more information about what you are trying to accomplish. Sometimes the person who requested the feature will think that everyone here is anti-progress and will find fault with any feature requested. In reality this is not the case. People are trying to be helpful and describe how to accomplish the same thing using the current capability. They are trying to get answers to questions I gave above that will enable Grounspeak to decide if this feature should be implemented. Sometimes, the discussion leads to someone creating a third party tool like GPX Spinner, GSAK, itsnotaboutthenumbers, or the many Greasemonkey scripts that have been written.

3.3k · January 29, 2009

Say your kids ask for a new computer every week. Do you immediately list all of the budget priorities for the household and tell them that what they ask for is the last thing on the list? Probably not. You explain once that it is not going to happen right away and then everyone in the family knows the situation. And if you agree you tell them, that's a great idea... we'll do it if and when we can.

Requesting a feature (or a change) to this site is not like your kid asking for a computer (or a pony). People ask for a feature because they've come across a particular problem and either don't know how to solve it using the existing feature or they find the existing features too cumbersome and want to suggest a better way. Groundspeak asks that suggestions be brought to the forums so they can be discussed. How many geocachers are having the same problem? Are there workarounds that the original poster hasn't tried yet? How critical of a problem is it? What other improvements can be made with this feature? What the 'gotchas' if it is implemented or if it is not implemented carefully. After it is discussed, Groundspeak will decide if it is a change they want to make. It will get added to a list. But they seldom tell us this. Depending on other features and bug fixes going in, it may be given a low priority. Groundspeak always has some long term improvements (that require more work to implement) which they keep promising will be implemented soon and they may not fix a non-critical feature until after those changes since they figure it will be easier to do once the big code change is made.

When anyone requests a feature, they are bound to get a bunch of responses describing how to accomplish the same or similar thing using existing features. Some people may also ask for more information about what you are trying to accomplish. Sometimes the person who requested the feature will think that everyone here is anti-progress and will find fault with any feature requested. In reality this is not the case. People are trying to be helpful and describe how to accomplish the same thing using the current capability. They are trying to get answers to questions I gave above that will enable Grounspeak to decide if this feature should be implemented. Sometimes, the discussion leads to someone creating a third party tool like GPX Spinner, GSAK, itsnotaboutthenumbers, or the many Greasemonkey scripts that have been written.

I am so glad you are out there so you can say all the things I would if I had your talent for summing up the relevant points. Thanks for the post. I would have written much the same if I could.

7.2k · January 29, 2009

Requesting a feature (or a change) to this site is not like your kid asking for a computer (or a pony).

He he. I was *so* going to say that I wanted a pony. :laughing:

Wow, lots of discussion. Let me say this. Reviewers have asked for this already. It is already on the list somewhere. I am perfectly willing to wait until it bubbles up the list. It would make sense that site performance comes first though. For example, I would want pocket queries worked on before this. For now, just try to work with your reviewer. We won't always time it perfectly, but we will give it a shot.

2.8k · January 29, 2009

I'd prefer the community decide how far up the list it goes. I know it doesn't always work that way but for what it's worth my vote is fix or enhance any number of other things first.

I have no problem with that at all. This branch of the forums is for floating ideas. That is all I did.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!!

no one expects the Spanish Inquisition................

8.9k · January 29, 2009

Performance has nothing to do with a feature request like this. I'm not really going to get into thread bashing... because as I have been informed by Groundspeak, all feedback and suggestions like this have to be posted in the forum. But then when someone posts something everyone attacks them on how it is not needed and there are more important things that need to be fixed.

That's why I simply say, don't compare one to the other. It is either a good idea or it is not... it has nothing to do with the needs of other features.

As for priorty, that is up to the programmers, not us. I am a web designer by trade. I deal in programming issues all day long with clients all over the planet. They all have different needs and different requests. But, sometimes... the easy things to do get thrown in while the big things are getting taken care of. What if they didn't mention the little things along the way? well... they wouldn't get tossed in during the progress.

To act like no one needs to say anything about a small suggestion until everything else is fixed is a bit frustrating. There are those of us who see a need and want to voice an opinion to Groundspeak... and then get told to come here to voice it to the community... but then the community doesn't want to hear it because the bigger issues are not fixed.

It makes for a sticky circle... and from people I have talked to at events... there are a lot of things people would like to suggest, but don't want to be slammed for it.

All I am saying, is this suggestion in this thread sounds like a good one to me. I don't care which one goes first... and I didn't see the OP saying "stop everything and do this first"...

(Remembering now why I don't come to the forums here)

Now you're remembering that you don't like the forums...why? Because people will tell you the truth?

Yes, a good idea, as has been said throughout the thread, just not one most of us will agree is needed right away! Blue Duece has explained this quite well as has several others, but you seem to say "to hell with priorities, this one was asked for and they should get right on it"??

The idea of asking in the forums is to figure out if there is a problem and if it's serious or just a hassle type problem. Since many here have already stated this problem has a workaround, and an easy one at that, I think the priority of this problem will be low (as many have already pointed out). The PTB are asking whether the majority feels the same way and we're mostly saying..."not today, but maybe soon"!

You see these remarks as attacks, well, OK! Since the OP asked, we answered and now we're all mean and rude because we spoke our minds? Should we have all have just said "YES, please hurry" even though we don't agree this is needed right away?

I kind of like the idea of the PTB having requests run through the masses like this, makes me feel that we have a say in how things are done (even if it's a very small say)...it also shows how important any one request might be! Since the fix does affect us all (when one request is taken over another, then we must wait for our other requests to be implemented...and some have been here a bit longer than others), I'm glad peple will speak their minds! That includes people bringing up ideas!!

8.9k · January 29, 2009

Requesting a feature (or a change) to this site is not like your kid asking for a computer (or a pony).

He he. I was *so* going to say that I wanted a pony.

Wow, lots of discussion. Let me say this. Reviewers have asked for this already. It is already on the list somewhere. I am perfectly willing to wait until it bubbles up the list. It would make sense that site performance comes first though. For example, I would want pocket queries worked on before this. For now, just try to work with your reviewer. We won't always time it perfectly, but we will give it a shot.

Give that dog a bone...and a pony!

January 29, 2009

Here is an examlpe:

In Norway there has become a tradition of having one cache released every day in december before christmas. (Known as Xmas caches series).

This year it was four groups in various parts of the country doing this, meaning 24 * 4 plus a few caches.

The reviewer managed to publish all the caches on the requested day. Well done.

With the feature proposed by the OP this extra work could easily have been removed from the reviewer's workload.

It would take one checkbox extra in the edit listing page saying: Hide this listing up to 10 days or so after publish.

Plus an extra entry in the Navigation frame in the cache listing saying: Release hidden cache.

Working much like the archive option. Once selected the option would be gone.

I'm for it.

January 29, 2009

I'm not going to respond to every one of these comments where I'm being miss quoted... its funny how now I am the guy that wants it now, when I never said that at all...

actually I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't want to see people respond with any timeframe. Don't put anything in a list of importance. Just say if you want it or not and let GS figure out if it is worth doing and when to install the change (if any).

I'm not the one asking for computers or ponies either... I was clearifying that just because a user asked for a suggestion doesn't mean that user wants it at the top of the list.

You all might want to read my previous posts again.

January 29, 2009

I'm not going to respond to every one of these comments where I'm being miss quoted... its funny how now I am the guy that wants it now, when I never said that at all...

actually I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't want to see people respond with any timeframe. Don't put anything in a list of importance. Just say if you want it or not and let GS figure out if it is worth doing and when to install the change (if any).

I'm not the one asking for computers or ponies either... I was clearifying that just because a user asked for a suggestion doesn't mean that user wants it at the top of the list.

You all might want to read my previous posts again.

OK, I'll do that.

I have a pony for you. Where would you like me to send it? :laughing:

2.1k · January 29, 2009

In some very rare circumstances it is helpful for us to know how users would prioritize site changes, but as JuggoPop rightly points out we usually make those decisions ourselves.

It is *always* helpful to have counterpoints and workarounds posted following a feature request. If someone doesn't like your idea it isn't the same as them not liking you. The reason we ask people to post here instead of emailing us ideas is because the discussion is valuable. It is just too bad that you need thick skin to do it.

I'll also point out that the number one rule of working with web developers is you never make assumptions about how easy or quickly a task can be completed. As a non-programmer I have been laughed at many times for suggesting something is easy. Seemingly simple tasks can oftentimes take weeks to code. That probably goes double for any solution requiring automation.

January 29, 2009

In some very rare circumstances it is helpful for us to know how users would prioritize site changes, but as JuggoPop rightly points out we usually make those decisions ourselves.

It is *always* helpful to have counterpoints and workarounds posted following a feature request. If someone doesn't like your idea it isn't the same as them not liking you. The reason we ask people to post here instead of emailing us ideas is because the discussion is valuable. It is just too bad that you need thick skin to do it.

I'll also point out that the number one rule of working with web developers is you never make assumptions about how easy or quickly a task can be completed. As a non-programmer I have been laughed at many times for suggesting something is easy. Seemingly simple tasks can oftentimes take weeks to code. That probably goes double for any solution requiring automation.

Excellent post. Thank you.

As OP I am happy for this thread to be closed now.

1.4k · January 29, 2009

I'm not going to respond to every one of these comments where I'm being miss quoted... its funny how now I am the guy that wants it now, when I never said that at all...

actually I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't want to see people respond with any timeframe. Don't put anything in a list of importance. Just say if you want it or not and let GS figure out if it is worth doing and when to install the change (if any).

I'm not the one asking for computers or ponies either... I was clearifying that just because a user asked for a suggestion doesn't mean that user wants it at the top of the list.

You all might want to read my previous posts again.

The OP seemed very satisfied with the answer posted by Opino-Nate. I hope you'll take another look at this post too and feel better about the responses given. I thought many of the responses were on point and constructive even if a priority opinion was added.

The fact remains that a pretty good workaround exists that a would more than likely solve this concern today and this is going to have a direct effect on priority. It's just as important as it being a good or bad idea as far as I am concerned.

I'm just glad that Groundspeak acknowledges that their site has room for improvement and I've been very encouraged to see the constant improvement over the past 4-5 years. The fact that they value the discussion here is even more encouraging.

2.9k · January 30, 2009

Its a nice idea and one i would like to see on the list of things to add to the website.

i am also happy with the current workaround

A point to note here is that in the UK until fairly recently we went from 3 uk reviewers to one and publication times etc were (understandably) very very variable

the fact that it would make a reviewers workload easier is an added benefit.

as for telling GSP what its priorities are only they can decide and it is probably the subject for another thread ?

8.9k · January 31, 2009

I'm not going to respond to every one of these comments where I'm being miss quoted... its funny how now I am the guy that wants it now, when I never said that at all...

actually I'm saying exactly the opposite. I don't want to see people respond with any timeframe. Don't put anything in a list of importance. Just say if you want it or not and let GS figure out if it is worth doing and when to install the change (if any).

I'm not the one asking for computers or ponies either... I was clearifying that just because a user asked for a suggestion doesn't mean that user wants it at the top of the list.

You all might want to read my previous posts again.

Let me re-word it for you then...Sure, a good idea. I hope they add this to the growing list of things we'd all like done. is this better for you? No priority, no dismissal of the idea as being needed in the future, just an agreement and hoping it's added to the list....in it's rightful queue in line hopefully.

8.9k · January 31, 2009

In some very rare circumstances it is helpful for us to know how users would prioritize site changes, but as JuggoPop rightly points out we usually make those decisions ourselves.

It is *always* helpful to have counterpoints and workarounds posted following a feature request. If someone doesn't like your idea it isn't the same as them not liking you. The reason we ask people to post here instead of emailing us ideas is because the discussion is valuable. It is just too bad that you need thick skin to do it.

I'll also point out that the number one rule of working with web developers is you never make assumptions about how easy or quickly a task can be completed. As a non-programmer I have been laughed at many times for suggesting something is easy. Seemingly simple tasks can oftentimes take weeks to code. That probably goes double for any solution requiring automation.

I dont think thick skin is needed (at least as far as this topic went), but one shouldn't feel every post opposing their idea is an attack! I'm not talking about the OP here either, the OP seems content with the answers he/she has heard. I noticed Juggo opened another thread and right off brought a nice "attitude" with him in there...WOW! Just because some disagree doesn't mean we're bad people.

February 8, 2009

This is actually something that I would have thought would have been in the reviewers toolkit already. Groundspeak depends for its existence upon the goodwill of its reviewers (and hiders). If I can get a Pocket Query on a particular day, why couldn't a reviewer have a check-box-and-date entry to publish on a certain date? With all the special caches placed on Christmas, New Years Day, Valentines Day, cacheversaries, Groundhog's Day, first of the month, and then all those caches placed for events.... Ugh! Those are events that are probably already placing time-pressure on their lives. I think it would do a great deal to relieve(or redistribute) the workload of those whose unpaid effort contributes to GS's bottom line.

I too would prefer that every third page on GC.com didn't time out, but that's likely a cost issue requiring extra hardware and CoLo investment.

I also thought that some of the naysayers in this thread were extremely rude in their dismissiveness. That's been a tradition here since at least 2001-2002 or so, though. :lol: (Back when the pages were green and nobody was a charter member. I'm a long-time lurker, first-time poster)

Edited February 8, 2009 by Markle2k

Controlling when a cache goes live.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment