No more opting out

4.6k · May 14, 2017

I notice today that I am no longer given the choice to opt out of the new and inferior logging page in favour of the original, much, much better version.

For me this new logging page is a backwards step and there's nothing to suggest that any of the numerous issues repeatedly raised have resulted in any improvements.

I've sincerely never begrudged my Premium Membership fees - until today.

4.4k · May 14, 2017

Submit an empty log, then edit it. AFAIK the old editor is still available there.

Just now as a test, BTW, I hit the Log button and got taken to the classic logging page. And it remembers I wanted to opt out - yay! (They listen.) But I don't dare hit the Try It Now button in case it won't let me back.

Should a user interface cause fear?

6.1k · May 14, 2017

The Opt out is still there for me (top right corner).

4.6k · May 14, 2017

Finished my batch of logs... went to log another one for testing purposes - now it remembers that I opted out and offers me the choice to try the new logging experience :blink:

Unless they make some significant improvements I can't see me ever wanting to switch to that new logging experience.

2.7k · May 14, 2017

So what's wrong with the new logging page? Does it just look different, and therefore it's scary?

3.5k · May 14, 2017

So what's wrong with the new logging page? Does it just look different, and therefore it's scary?

No, it's not "scary" - it's lacking functionality that exists with the 'old logging experience'.

Plenty of deficiencies about the 'new logging experience' have already been noted in other threads. Take a glance at:

ETA: And, it seems that the 'new logging experience' doesn't work quite right: Needs Archived Log

Edited May 14, 2017 by noncentric

1.9k · May 14, 2017

So what's wrong with the new logging page? Does it just look different, and therefore it's scary?

It is very slow to load (or at least it was when I tried it half a dozen times last week) and hangs frequently.....

2.7k · May 14, 2017

I haven't had any issues with logging pages opening or being slow, and I'm using a slow (by today's standards) 4mb/s connection. After reading pages upon pages of complaints, I've come up with a few themes:

1. Loss of functions that used to be there that are no longer there

Formatted preview of the log
Link to bb code reference.
Add coordinates to log

I can see how these features missing can be annoying to someone who uses them on a regular basis, or even for a sparse user like me who won't notice they're gone until I need them.

2. Browser compatibility.

Apparently if you are using Chrome, everything works just fine. With other browsers, some standard features don't always load properly. I have no sympathy for anyone using Internet Explorer. But for users of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, or any other modern up-to-date browser, the site needs to be fully compatible across platforms.

The rest of the complaints seem to be cosmetic. I can sympathise with the criticism of the bubbly and cartoonish look that the site taking. Geocaching.com isn't the only offender in advancing this trend. People complain that the text box for entering a log isn't large enough. On a 13-inch MacBook Pro, it seems large enough for me, and all other monitors I use are larger and higher resolution. I suppose on an 11-inch chromebook that space might become an issue.

In general, I welcome the changes coming to the site. It's a long time coming to update the site from html, xml, and javascript to (what I hope is) html5 and whatever the future holds. But mostly, I welcome any changes that reduce the number of clicks to get the job done. Not all changes to the site have met this criteria, but the new logging page does improve efficiency.

10.1k · May 14, 2017

In general, I welcome the changes coming to the site. It's a long time coming to update the site from html, xml, and javascript to (what I hope is) html5 and whatever the future holds. But mostly, I welcome any changes that reduce the number of clicks to get the job done. Not all changes to the site have met this criteria, but the new logging page does improve efficiency.

Like all modern software, I am finding more clicks necessary.

3.5k · May 14, 2017

I haven't had any issues with logging pages opening or being slow, and I'm using a slow (by today's standards) 4mb/s connection. After reading pages upon pages of complaints, I've come up with a few themes:

The other 'themes' that have come up are (1) the change to reporting NM/NA and (2) taking the user to the cache page, instead of their individual log (where they would then be able to review their entry and add photos w/captions).

In general, I welcome the changes coming to the site. It's a long time coming to update the site from html, xml, and javascript to (what I hope is) html5 and whatever the future holds. But mostly, I welcome any changes that reduce the number of clicks to get the job done. Not all changes to the site have met this criteria, but the new logging page does improve efficiency.

Like all modern software, I am finding more clicks necessary.

+1

More clicks and more scrolling.

4.4k · May 14, 2017

Does it just look different, and therefore it's scary?

Snarky.

It's all been explained at length in other threads, by people who have tried it out.

I don't think I've ever seen so many things functionally wrong with a single web page. At least, not in production on a business site.

6.8k · May 14, 2017

I haven't had any issues with logging pages opening or being slow, and I'm using a slow (by today's standards) 4mb/s connection. After reading pages upon pages of complaints, I've come up with a few themes:

1. Loss of functions that used to be there that are no longer there

Formatted preview of the log

Link to bb code reference.

Add coordinates to log

I can see how these features missing can be annoying to someone who uses them on a regular basis, or even for a sparse user like me who won't notice they're gone until I need them.

2. Browser compatibility.

Apparently if you are using Chrome, everything works just fine. With other browsers, some standard features don't always load properly. I have no sympathy for anyone using Internet Explorer. But for users of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, or any other modern up-to-date browser, the site needs to be fully compatible across platforms.

The rest of the complaints seem to be cosmetic. I can sympathise with the criticism of the bubbly and cartoonish look that the site taking. Geocaching.com isn't the only offender in advancing this trend. People complain that the text box for entering a log isn't large enough. On a 13-inch MacBook Pro, it seems large enough for me, and all other monitors I use are larger and higher resolution. I suppose on an 11-inch chromebook that space might become an issue.

In general, I welcome the changes coming to the site. It's a long time coming to update the site from html, xml, and javascript to (what I hope is) html5 and whatever the future holds. But mostly, I welcome any changes that reduce the number of clicks to get the job done. Not all changes to the site have met this criteria, but the new logging page does improve efficiency.

The one you didn't mention, that impacts me greatly because of the type of caches I most enjoy, is the limit of one photo per log (which I now gather will at some point be extended to 20) and the inability to put captions on photos - without those they're just pretty pictures that don't tell a story. Also the new page doesn't allow any photos to be attached to NM or NA logs which is where they can be most helpful to the CO or reviewer respectively.

And of course the inability to put any meaningful content into NM and NA logs.

2.7k · May 14, 2017

I used the new format recently (on desktop, not app) where I wanted to add a NM. I put the reason for the NM in my Found It log. Then before finishing clicked the appropriate NM box. All done in one step instead of having to write a second NM log. It's quicker in that respect.

Also, with the NM/NA being on the Found It page it may have the effect of finders who have found a maintenance problem seeing it and posting the NM whereas previously they may have recorded the issue in the Found It log but the CO may not read it.

Using Firefox, no delays or hangups.

2.7k · May 14, 2017

The one you didn't mention, that impacts me greatly because of the type of caches I most enjoy, is the limit of one photo per log (which I now gather will at some point be extended to 20) and the inability to put captions on photos - without those they're just pretty pictures that don't tell a story. Also the new page doesn't allow any photos to be attached to NM or NA logs which is where they can be most helpful to the CO or reviewer respectively.

And of course the inability to put any meaningful content into NM and NA logs.

Well, I just put the meaningful content into my log. At first I found that annoying, but I've decided in the end I like not having to create two logs on a single cache to report maintenance.

Pictures... yeah, we can add that to the list of deficiencies. Granted, the upload process is more streamlined - no need to upload images AFTER the log has been posted. So hopefully they'll add the ability to load multiple files at a time, and edit captions right there, because the old process was very long and tedious.

3.5k · May 15, 2017

I used the new format recently (on desktop, not app) where I wanted to add a NM. I put the reason for the NM in my Found It log. Then before finishing clicked the appropriate NM box. All done in one step instead of having to write a second NM log. It's quicker in that respect.

Well, I just put the meaningful content into my log. At first I found that annoying, but I've decided in the end I like not having to create two logs on a single cache to report maintenance.

Some things about NM/NA that you may not have considered: reporting NM/NA for a cache without an accompanying Found/DNF log. The 'old logging experience' allowed cachers to submit such a log by itself, which reinforced the concept of adding a description of the issue (by presenting the cacher with a blank text box). The 'new logging experience' requires cachers to submit a Write Note log so that a canned NM/NA message can be included, and the cacher isn't provided with an input box if they select NM "Other".

See the "New NM/NA system - can I still filter out caches with NMs?" thread, particularly after post #20, for the debate about having NM/NA included with a Found/DNF log vs being separate log actions. That thread also discusses the issue that Reviewers will have to go to the individual cache page and find the Found/DNF/WN log of the cacher that included a NA with their log - rather than getting the NA reasoning in the NA notification email.

Pictures... yeah, we can add that to the list of deficiencies. Granted, the upload process is more streamlined - no need to upload images AFTER the log has been posted. So hopefully they'll add the ability to load multiple files at a time, and edit captions right there, because the old process was very long and tedious.

The new process is quicker if you don't care about captionless photos. If you want to add a caption to your photo, then it's going to require more clicks that negate the clicks you saved by adding the photo when writing the log.

------------------------

Personally, I'd like to at least see the "! Needs Maintenance" message changed to "! Report a Problem", so it's consistent with the official app. See this post.

Also, that "! Needs Maintenance" label at the bottom of the log entry box seems almost like an alert - telling the user that "this cache needs maintenance" . I think it would be more recognizable as an action button if it read "! Report a Problem".

4.6k · May 15, 2017

Finished my batch of logs... went to log another one for testing purposes - now it remembers that I opted out and offers me the choice to try the new logging experience

Unless they make some significant improvements I can't see me ever wanting to switch to that new logging experience.

I see why this happened as it did now - thanks to this post

My first batch of logs was from Drafts - or what I still prefer to refer to as field notes because I don't actually draft any logs via that mechanism.

Logging from drafts it turns out does not offer the opportunity to opt of of the new logging experience.

My subsequent log was from an individual cache page, where me previous choice to opt out of the new logging experience was respected.

4.6k · May 15, 2017

Has anybody else experienced, when logging via the new logging experience that you can't log a NM on a disabled cache?

Seems the only option offered is NA.

Unless it's just me :unsure:

2.6k · May 15, 2017

Has anybody else experienced, when logging via the new logging experience that you can't log a NM on a disabled cache?

Seems the only option offered is NA.

Unless it's just me

I get the same.

I suppose the logic is: As the cache is disabled, it has some issue, and the disabled state reflects that. Hence no need for a NM.

But I can see cases where a NM would be wanted. I found a cache the other day which was disabled by the reviewer as it is too close to another cache. I found it, it was in perfect condition. If I found it broken, I might want to log NM, to report a new maintainance issue.

4.6k · May 15, 2017

Has anybody else experienced, when logging via the new logging experience that you can't log a NM on a disabled cache?

Seems the only option offered is NA.

Unless it's just me

I get the same.

I suppose the logic is: As the cache is disabled, it has some issue, and the disabled state reflects that. Hence no need for a NM.

But I can see cases where a NM would be wanted. I found a cache the other day which was disabled by the reviewer as it is too close to another cache. I found it, it was in perfect condition. If I found it broken, I might want to log NM, to report a new maintainance issue.

In some situations where a cache has been disabled for extensive period by CO with no indication that it's going to be fixed then I'd like to be able to NM it.

Edit - typo.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Team Microdot

May 15, 2017

I did just that yesterday. The cache hasn't been found since Oct 2015 and the owner is inactive since 2013 Nothing there (it was a guardrail cache). Had no problem posting a NA on it. I have an iMac and use the Safari browser.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Wacka

2.6k · May 15, 2017

I did just that yesterday. The cache hasn't been found since Oct 2015 and the owner is inactive since 2013 Nothing there (it was a guardrail cache). Had no problem posting a MA on it. I have an iMac and use the Safari browser.

Was the cache disabled, and did you use the "new logging experience"?

May 15, 2017

Has anybody else experienced, when logging via the new logging experience that you can't log a NM on a disabled cache?

Seems the only option offered is NA.

Unless it's just me

I get the same.

I suppose the logic is: As the cache is disabled, it has some issue, and the disabled state reflects that. Hence no need for a NM.

But I can see cases where a NM would be wanted. I found a cache the other day which was disabled by the reviewer as it is too close to another cache. I found it, it was in perfect condition. If I found it broken, I might want to log NM, to report a new maintainance issue.

It could be that the CO is the only one that would see a different option than NA. They could perform OM to get it out of disabled state and back in play...

2.6k · May 15, 2017

It could be that the CO is the only one that would see a different option than NA. They could perform OM to get it out of disabled state and back in play...

That is something different. Here we were talking about logging (for example) a find with the new system. NM is an option normally, but not if the cache is disabled. The CO is not allowed to log NM.

Yes only the CO has OM logs as an option, that is unchanged.

1.5k · May 15, 2017

So what's wrong with the new logging page? Does it just look different, and therefore it's scary?

I used it for the first time yesterday, seems fine to me.

7.5k · May 15, 2017

Has anybody else experienced, when logging via the new logging experience that you can't log a NM on a disabled cache?

Seems the only option offered is NA.

Unless it's just me

I believe you'll find that's also true if you use the old logging experience. I think it's always been that way. I ran into this way back when I first started geocaching in 2010.

3.5k · May 16, 2017

So what's wrong with the new logging page? Does it just look different, and therefore it's scary?

I used it for the first time yesterday, seems fine to me.

Yeah - it works fine when all I'm doing is logging a Found/DNF/WN without doing anything extra (corrected coords, photos, markdown formatting, NM, NA). Some cachers have run into bugs with certain browser/OS versions.

Has anybody else experienced, when logging via the new logging experience that you can't log a NM on a disabled cache?

Seems the only option offered is NA.

Unless it's just me

I believe you'll find that's also true if you use the old logging experience. I think it's always been that way. I ran into this way back when I first started geocaching in 2010.

True - even with the 'old logging experience', there was no NM option when logging a disabled cache.

4.6k · May 16, 2017

Thanks both for that information

I wonder what the logic is/was behind that configuration choice?

May 16, 2017

And the #1 thing when you opt out that I hate.

7.5k · May 16, 2017

Thanks both for that information

I wonder what the logic is/was behind that configuration choice?

My guess is that the idea is that the problem's already officially on the table, so declared by either the CO acknowledging the problem by disabling it or the reviewer declaring the cache officially non-functional, so it makes no sense to restate it. Of course, this ignores the possibility that some new problem could develop, like the cache being disabled for the season, yet then a landslide hitting GZ making it seem likely it got wiped out entirely.

June 24, 2017

I notice today that I am no longer given the choice to opt out of the new and inferior logging page in favour of the original, much, much better version.

For me this new logging page is a backwards step and there's nothing to suggest that any of the numerous issues repeatedly raised have resulted in any improvements.

I've sincerely never begrudged my Premium Membership fees - until today.

I have to agree with you 100%. Are the changes to allow a "Better Experience" for the app set!

July 1, 2017

Unless they make some significant improvements I can't see me ever wanting to switch to that new logging experience.

I completely agree. I really dislike the new dashboard as well.

July 1, 2017

The new logging page is OK. but I missing the both button vor "needs maintanance" and "needs archive". In last time I found caches there was log some DNF, but the Owner give the agreement for an Found log. It´s not OK for me if there not a logbook or any boxes.

September 3, 2017

All these new "improved designs" are everything else but better. I have to admit that I started writing worse logs, because everything is getting more unclear and confusing and worse.

From year to year overall design is declining. How can that be?

If I could, I would opt out from every of these "improvements" and stay with a useful old version of the site.

Maybe I will completely stop writing logs and just use dots - for the disadvantage of the owners.

2.7k · September 3, 2017

Some people just don't like change. I like the new logging system and most cachers, by now, will have gotten used to it. it is easier e.g. Logging a find that requires a NM only needs one log not two. And when one logs a find or DNF the option to record a NM is right there and increases the chances of a finder logging the problem whereas, in the past, the problem may have been recorded, if at all, in the log which the CO may never read.

2.9k · September 3, 2017

44 minutes ago, colleda said:

Some people just don't like change

This is so true, but nobody like bad change, something you need to get used to. For example slow response and missing preview it is difficult to get used to. Have you already used to missing preview? I can live with the new system. I am apparently one of the few privileged who have access to a computer instead of using tablet or mobile phone only.

Edited September 3, 2017 by arisoft

10.1k · September 3, 2017

1 hour ago, colleda said:

Some people just don't like change.

Ah. The modern techie world. I see this everywhere. What used to be intuitive and one click is now counter-intuitive and three or five clicks. Modern techies! I may be a senior dolphin. But I have no idea how to use the newest pages. It was easy. Now it hurts my brain. Why?!?!? Modern techies!

2.7k · September 4, 2017

There are actually fewer clicks now.

6.8k · September 4, 2017

4 hours ago, colleda said:

Some people just don't like change. I like the new logging system and most cachers, by now, will have gotten used to it. it is easier e.g. Logging a find that requires a NM only needs one log not two. And when one logs a find or DNF the option to record a NM is right there and increases the chances of a finder logging the problem whereas, in the past, the problem may have been recorded, if at all, in the log which the CO may never read.

I actually dislike the way NMs and NAs are handled now, as the actual log that's supposed to be reporting a problem doesn't contain any information about the actual problem, just that someone "has reported a problem with this cache".

My other gripe with the new logging page is it defaulting to "Found It" as the log type. I've already seen "Found It" logs appear where the description says "I didn't find it today", usually, if the poster notices the mistake, followed few minutes later by the log deletion and the posting of a DNF. Why not start with the log type blank and make people choose the log type? It's only one extra click and would save a lot of mislogging.

3.8k · September 4, 2017

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

I am apparently one of the few privileged who have access to a computer instead of using tablet or mobile phone only.

On the contrary. I do all my logging on my desktop when I'm at home, or laptop if I'm a road trip. I have never logged via phone or tablet.

2.7k · September 4, 2017

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I actually dislike the way NMs and NAs are handled now, as the actual log that's supposed to be reporting a problem doesn't contain any information about the actual problem, just that someone "has reported a problem with this cache".

My other gripe with the new logging page is it defaulting to "Found It" as the log type. I've already seen "Found It" logs appear where the description says "I didn't find it today", usually, if the poster notices the mistake, followed few minutes later by the log deletion and the posting of a DNF. Why not start with the log type blank and make people choose the log type? It's only one extra click and would save a lot of mislogging.

I almost always log from home on desktop.

A "Found It" log gives you four options for noting a problem.

1. Log book full

2. Container damaged

3. Cache should be archived

4. Other (you can describe the problem in your FI log)

A "Did Not Find" log gives 3 choices

1. Cache might be missing

2. Cache should be archived

3. Other (again explained as above 4.)

A "Write Note" has options same as "Found It"

someone "has reported a problem with this cache" is what comes up on the cache page if "Other" is selected.

6.8k · September 4, 2017

54 minutes ago, colleda said:

4. Other (you can describe the problem in your FI log)

I don't understand why it can't prompt for a description of the problem to go in the NM log when you select "other", instead of generating a meaningless NM log and hoping that somewhere buried inside the FI, DNF or note is sufficient information about the problem for the CO to only have to make one trip to the cache.

2k · September 4, 2017

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I actually dislike the way NMs and NAs are handled now, as the actual log that's supposed to be reporting a problem doesn't contain any information about the actual problem, just that someone "has reported a problem with this cache".

My other gripe with the new logging page is it defaulting to "Found It" as the log type. I've already seen "Found It" logs appear where the description says "I didn't find it today", usually, if the poster notices the mistake, followed few minutes later by the log deletion and the posting of a DNF. Why not start with the log type blank and make people choose the log type? It's only one extra click and would save a lot of mislogging.

This one, yes! Both!

As a CO I want to have meaningful NM logs, not look through Found it logs to find out what's wrong. I also notice that people send me messages if something is wrong instead of logging it. Which basically means other cachers are left in the dark of the problems unless I add a log (which one? I can't post a meaningful NM myself, disable it is a possibility of course even if there's no actual reason to disable the cache. Post a note? Nobody reads a note.

2.2k · September 4, 2017

On 5/14/2017 at 6:35 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

Like all modern software, I am finding more clicks necessary.

Had to laugh at this. I encounter it every day. At my current job, one task that I used to accomplish with a red line and my initials now takes 17(!) mouse clicks to achieve.

EVERY time I do it!

2.7k · September 4, 2017

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't understand why it can't prompt for a description of the problem to go in the NM log when you select "other", instead of generating a meaningless NM log and hoping that somewhere buried inside the FI, DNF or note is sufficient information about the problem for the CO to only have to make one trip to the cache.

Does this mean you don't read the Found logs for your caches?

6.8k · September 4, 2017

4 hours ago, colleda said:

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't understand why it can't prompt for a description of the problem to go in the NM log when you select "other", instead of generating a meaningless NM log and hoping that somewhere buried inside the FI, DNF or note is sufficient information about the problem for the CO to only have to make one trip to the cache.

Does this mean you don't read the Found logs for your caches?

Yes I read the logs, it just makes more sense to me to actually place maintenance information in the log pertaining to maintenance instead of making the NM just a flag to say that somewhere else someone might have said something about a maintenance issue. At least if it prompted for information to go into the NM log there'd be a better chance they might actually say something useful for the CO to know before going out there, especially these days when some of the newer cachers struggle to put more than a single emoji in their Found logs.

The other thing is that, when looking at potential caches to attempt, if I see one with an outstanding red wrench it used to be relatively easy to scroll down through the logs looking for the NM to see whether the issue is likely to impact my search, but that now potentially becomes three-step process - find the NM log, find the FI/DNF/Note from the person who logged it and finally read through everything else in that log to find the bit relating to the cache issue.

Finally, I have to ask what is the benefit of taking maintenance information out of the NM/NA logs and burying it in the other log types? How is that making the caching experience better?

September 5, 2017

GC little helper enhances cache pages in such a way that you can click the NM log type symbol (the red wrench) to filter out and conveniently see just these logs. That is becoming useless.

3.7k · September 5, 2017

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes I read the logs, it just makes more sense to me to actually place maintenance information in the log pertaining to maintenance instead of making the NM just a flag to say that somewhere else someone might have said something about a maintenance issue. At least if it prompted for information to go into the NM log there'd be a better chance they might actually say something useful for the CO to know before going out there, especially these days when some of the newer cachers struggle to put more than a single emoji in their Found logs.

The other thing is that, when looking at potential caches to attempt, if I see one with an outstanding red wrench it used to be relatively easy to scroll down through the logs looking for the NM to see whether the issue is likely to impact my search, but that now potentially becomes three-step process - find the NM log, find the FI/DNF/Note from the person who logged it and finally read through everything else in that log to find the bit relating to the cache issue.

Finally, I have to ask what is the benefit of taking maintenance information out of the NM/NA logs and burying it in the other log types? How is that making the caching experience better?

Yeah...I do wish they'd combined them somehow. Like so:

9k · September 5, 2017

On 9/3/2017 at 7:45 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

Ah. The modern techie world. I see this everywhere. What used to be intuitive and one click is now counter-intuitive and three or five clicks. Modern techies! I may be a senior dolphin. But I have no idea how to use the newest pages. It was easy. Now it hurts my brain. Why?!?!? Modern techies!

Not so much modern techies, just bad modern design... there's plenty of good modern techies and designers

On 9/4/2017 at 2:25 AM, barefootjeff said:

I don't understand why it can't prompt for a description of the problem to go in the NM log when you select "other", instead of generating a meaningless NM log and hoping that somewhere buried inside the FI, DNF or note is sufficient information about the problem for the CO to only have to make one trip to the cache.

This process was suggested and desribed in extensive discussion before this new logging feature was rolled out. All about making a single logging flow, instead of posting a Find/DNF, and then posting a separate NM/NA, do it all on the same page. The problem is some people don't like having to write a separate log with maintenance issues, because that's part of the experience they write in their main log. So we seem to have two main thought processes at either end of the spectrum:

1) Everything goes in the main log and there's just a flag for NM. Downside, entire log has to be read to find out any details.

2) Two separate logs posted. Downside, the same maintenance details might be included in both logs.

Of course there's the (old) middle ground of every log having to be posted manually independently, which makes people consider the context of the log text they're composing. That worked for 17 years. Downside, lots of NM don't get posted because it's another log to post, and much just gets dropped into the main log.

There's no pleasing everyone =P

Seems they took the middle ground - Single main log, with the flag which posts a canned second log. The next best compromise towards #2 is allowing the user to add more specifics in the text of NM log once the type is selected. I honestly don't see why not to allow this, rather than forcing people to have to go back and edit.

Single workflow: Compose a log, provide any (custom) maintenance concerns which get posted to a second log, hit save.

Edited September 5, 2017 by thebruce0

3.5k · September 6, 2017

I had an idea that I posted a couple months ago. In the 'new' logging experience, a blue box appears above the log entry box once an NM/NA canned option is selected. That blue box says to add details about the issue to the found/dnf/wn log. My idea is to have that blue box be a text entry box, so loggers can enter the issue in that blue box and then that entered text would be added to the NM/NA canned log entry.

9k · September 6, 2017

Yep, of the various options that could be employed, I favour the 'additional information' entry box to expand on NM/NA, within the same log submission page, and two logs are posted when the form is submitted. The mechanics of the entry box, *shrug*... at the least it would be like selecting to add additional coordinates (which, inconveniently, isn't available in the new logging form), but showing the additional entry box in some fashion. (please not a postback)

No more opting out

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