Groundspeak Portal

the blue quasar:

Okay here is my real question... is it that I'm not the US that I don't have a map?  I know you said that above but here is really why I am asking... I've visited a few Waymarks on the US side of the border and I thought maybe I would at least see New York lit up.

The other item I would like to bring up is something I hear from Geocachers all the time whenever I bring up Waymarking... "It too hard to find things"  now, this I don't understand because I've at this so long but is this improved for those that are new to Waymarking?  I have no problem at all, but new people just don't see to get it.  Maybe a linky to demonstrate how to find things with a flash kinda thing would be a good addition.

BQ

For now, the answer is yes, because you are not in the US, you don't get a map of the US.  We didn't really think people in Europe, South America or even Canada would find it that interesting to see a blank map of the U.S. sitting on their profile page.  If you can come up with a compelling argument that can prove otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

As for the new waymarkers and the recent update, the main thing we have done is that we have tried to make more clear the difference between categories and waymarks.  When a user searches for waymarks now, they are actually seeing waymarks, and searches for categories are showing them categories.  There is also a page specifically devoted to waymarks and one for categories.  Both of these pages contain specific definitions of the terms, and are dedicated to helping you find the kind of thing you are looking for.

Also, while we are indeed giving more functionality to advanced users, we wanted to not confuse the new users by having all the advanced info right out in the open.  This is why you have to actually open the filter (the blue bar above the waymark and image searches) in order to change the search parameters.  Hypothetically, you shouldn't need to use the filter unless you are doing some pretty specific searches.  Therefore, we try to keep that out of the new users' first look at the site.

I'm sure there still is a whole lot more we could do to make the site inviting for the new guy, but it's not an easy concept to teach, particularly to those who are so accustomed to doing the geocaching thing.  Waymarking is definitely related to geocaching, but the focus in waymarking is clearly much more geared towards the posting of waymarks, and the focus in geocaching is geared toward the logging of caches.  This is hard to communicate to new waymarkers.  I think we've taken a few positive steps with this update, but there's always more to do.  If you have any good ideas about what we could do to help introduce new users, we'd love to hear them.

bootron:

the blue quasar:

Okay here is my real question... is it that I'm not the US that I don't have a map?  I know you said that above but here is really why I am asking... I've visited a few Waymarks on the US side of the border and I thought maybe I would at least see New York lit up.

The other item I would like to bring up is something I hear from Geocachers all the time whenever I bring up Waymarking... "It too hard to find things"  now, this I don't understand because I've at this so long but is this improved for those that are new to Waymarking?  I have no problem at all, but new people just don't see to get it.  Maybe a linky to demonstrate how to find things with a flash kinda thing would be a good addition.

BQ

For now, the answer is yes, because you are not in the US, you don't get a map of the US.  We didn't really think people in Europe, South America or even Canada would find it that interesting to see a blank map of the U.S. sitting on their profile page.  If you can come up with a compelling argument that can prove otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

As for the new waymarkers and the recent update, the main thing we have done is that we have tried to make more clear the difference between categories and waymarks.  When a user searches for waymarks now, they are actually seeing waymarks, and searches for categories are showing them categories.  There is also a page specifically devoted to waymarks and one for categories.  Both of these pages contain specific definitions of the terms, and are dedicated to helping you find the kind of thing you are looking for.

Also, while we are indeed giving more functionality to advanced users, we wanted to not confuse the new users by having all the advanced info right out in the open.  This is why you have to actually open the filter (the blue bar above the waymark and image searches) in order to change the search parameters.  Hypothetically, you shouldn't need to use the filter unless you are doing some pretty specific searches.  Therefore, we try to keep that out of the new users' first look at the site.

I'm sure there still is a whole lot more we could do to make the site inviting for the new guy, but it's not an easy concept to teach, particularly to those who are so accustomed to doing the geocaching thing.  Waymarking is definitely related to geocaching, but the focus in waymarking is clearly much more geared towards the posting of waymarks, and the focus in geocaching is geared toward the logging of caches.  This is hard to communicate to new waymarkers.  I think we've taken a few positive steps with this update, but there's always more to do.  If you have any good ideas about what we could do to help introduce new users, we'd love to hear them.

If I was to be totally honest with you and OpinioNate {which would be a switch from my usual lying my @$$ off } I would have to say that I have no interest in a map of where I've been Waymarking.  I already know.  I don't see this as a long-term useful feature for anyone. 

What I would rather see in a map is a coloured coded state/province or country based upon the number of active Waymarks in it.  Kind of like a Population Map using different hues for the degree of activity.

It is quite difficult for me to figure out where other people are having trouble since for me it seems so easy to use the tools we have.  Sometimes I think the 'locational search' using home coordinates can actually push people away because they see items that they think "Why would I want to see that?" instead of searching for "Show me some 'these'".  A two-tiered search area that was based upon keyword first and location second then they could enter things like "Fish" or "Grave" etc... and instantly see Categories and/or Waymarks that apply.   Showing both would allow them to decide if they like the items they can participate in.  I know there are ways to do this, it just doesn't seem as obvious.

BQ

So what does one recommend as a side dish for crow?

I decided to look around more and looked at the new WAYMARKS tab.  And why not, let's try a search.

Exactly what I suggested in the post above already exists.  So I entered "Fountain" on the left and a Postal Code of "L0R 1B0" and let the site do it's magic.

BEAUTY EH?!

So I guess the last paragraph of my previous post serves no purpose other than showing that I shot from the hip aas well as from the lip. 

Or maybe you added that in between posts, based upon my suggestion.... I'm going with that one, since I can't bring myself to believe I was wrong (that's my wife's job to point it out to me)

BQ

edit: Tried again using "Neon" and "Seattle".... WOW, that is wicked!

BIG BUG (like the size of the one in the featured waymarks):
When submitting or reviewing waymarks, none of the existing waymarks within a mile are showing up. I suspected this yesterday after a waymark was approved for something that I knew was already submitted. So just for fun and to verify for myself, I created a new NY Historical Marker with the exact same coordinates as one I created over a year ago. Sure enough, I didn't get notification of any within a mile when creating it (there's probably about 10), nor did I get any when I tried to review and approve/deny it.

opinionate:

Hit <shift> + <refresh> to clear your browser cache if you have formatting issues

This did not help.  The HTML formatting is now present in the "description" of the acceptable waymarks, but still not in the Submission Instructions section.

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

Hit <shift> + <refresh> to clear your browser cache if you have formatting issues

This did not help.  The HTML formatting is now present in the "description" of the acceptable waymarks, but still not in the Submission Instructions section.

We did not restore HTML to the "visit requirements" section of the category details on purpose. Some people were abusing this feature by including advertisements (effectively defacing every waymark in the category).

opinionate:

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

Hit <shift> + <refresh> to clear your browser cache if you have formatting issues

This did not help.  The HTML formatting is now present in the "description" of the acceptable waymarks, but still not in the Submission Instructions section.

We did not restore HTML to the "visit requirements" section of the category details on purpose. Some people were abusing this feature by including advertisements (effectively defacing every waymark in the category).

Okay...is there a way I can format the long description?  Now it just looks like one giant, smushed-together, run-on paragraph.  I certainly wouldn't want to post to my previously-formatted categories as they sit, because now they look like the designers / owners were fairly careless with their writeup and didn't bother to see how it looked.

Rayman:

BIG BUG (like the size of the one in the featured waymarks):
When submitting or reviewing waymarks, none of the existing waymarks within a mile are showing up. I suspected this yesterday after a waymark was approved for something that I knew was already submitted. So just for fun and to verify for myself, I created a new NY Historical Marker with the exact same coordinates as one I created over a year ago. Sure enough, I didn't get notification of any within a mile when creating it (there's probably about 10), nor did I get any when I tried to review and approve/deny it.

Yep Thanks for posting this one Rayman.
I got caught by it.
Just make sure and check nearest waymark list before approving until it is fixed.

I am also still getting redirected to the Main Waymarking page in my Trail of Tears group.

TRAIL OF TEARS

Rayman:

BIG BUG (like the size of the one in the featured waymarks):
When submitting or reviewing waymarks, none of the existing waymarks within a mile are showing up. I suspected this yesterday after a waymark was approved for something that I knew was already submitted. So just for fun and to verify for myself, I created a new NY Historical Marker with the exact same coordinates as one I created over a year ago. Sure enough, I didn't get notification of any within a mile when creating it (there's probably about 10), nor did I get any when I tried to review and approve/deny it.

Sean is hot on the trail of this one today. You might want to exercise caution until it's fixed.

GEO*TRAILBLAZER 1:

I am also still getting redirected to the Main Waymarking page in my Trail of Tears group.

TRAIL OF TEARS

Sean will look into this today. Sorry it's taking so long GEO.

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

Hit <shift> + <refresh> to clear your browser cache if you have formatting issues

This did not help.  The HTML formatting is now present in the "description" of the acceptable waymarks, but still not in the Submission Instructions section.

We did not restore HTML to the "visit requirements" section of the category details on purpose. Some people were abusing this feature by including advertisements (effectively defacing every waymark in the category).

Okay...is there a way I can format the long description?  Now it just looks like one giant, smushed-together, run-on paragraph.  I certainly wouldn't want to post to my previously-formatted categories as they sit, because now they look like the designers / owners were fairly careless with their writeup and didn't bother to see how it looked.

 

The HTML only works in the "Expanded Description" area and none of the others.  I checked my Coin-Op Binoculars category and the images are still there of the two styles but after it switches to "Instructions for Posting a Waymark in this Category" everything reverts to a 'no format' format.

Hopefully this can be altered to make our Categories all pretty again. Several of my Categories have/had links to external sites that provide more information on locations (Like Subway and Dairy Queen) and were not intended to be for promotional commercial uses but as tools for locating franchise locations for accurate data of addresses and such.  In other Categories like "Canadian National Historic Sites" there is a link that accesses a database that all Waymarks must exist on to be included, and I know that the "Ontario Heritage Properties" and "Ontario Historic Plaques" has the same requirements.  There must be others like that out there that don't pop to mind.

BQ

If you are at geocaching.com and select the find nearest waymark it takes you to the category page without showing the nearest waymarks like it used to. Map shows that you have a center point but the search results are not showing.

Chapeau for lots of work. Majority looks fine.

The Google Map is zoomed out far to much for a waymark. I liked the standard "entry"-zoomfactor in the previous edition much better. Could the present "Google-map-view-zoom-factor" be a slip of the programmers? I'll appreciate a restore for this item very very much.

Barjon

Edit: Is it possible to define a zoomfactor (per user), which is 'remembered'? This for the standard map in the upper right corner. It would be nice to have my own defined zoomfactor.

TheBeanTeam:

If you are at geocaching.com and select the find nearest waymark it takes you to the category page without showing the nearest waymarks like it used to. Map shows that you have a center point but the search results are not showing.

This will be investigated, thanks.

barjon:

Chapeau for lots of work. Majority looks fine.

The Google Map is zoomed out far to much for a waymark. I liked the standard "entry"-zoomfactor in the previous edition much better. Could the present "Google-map-view-zoom-factor" be a slip of the programmers? I'll appreciate a restore for this item very very much.

Barjon

Edit: Is it possible to define a zoomfactor (per user), which is 'remembered'? This for the standard map in the upper right corner. It would be nice to have my own defined zoomfactor.

Remembering your zoom level is too complicated to be practical, but what we can do is zoom the map according to various circumstances. For instance, if you are just browsing around the site randomly (with no location set) we'll keep the map zoomed out so you have some sense of where in the world the waymark is. However, if you do set your location and then view a waymark we'll assume you are doing it from the position of someone who already knows generally where the waymark is, and zoom the map down to the city/street level.

the blue quasar:

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

Hit <shift> + <refresh> to clear your browser cache if you have formatting issues

This did not help.  The HTML formatting is now present in the "description" of the acceptable waymarks, but still not in the Submission Instructions section.

We did not restore HTML to the "visit requirements" section of the category details on purpose. Some people were abusing this feature by including advertisements (effectively defacing every waymark in the category).

Okay...is there a way I can format the long description?  Now it just looks like one giant, smushed-together, run-on paragraph.  I certainly wouldn't want to post to my previously-formatted categories as they sit, because now they look like the designers / owners were fairly careless with their writeup and didn't bother to see how it looked.

 

The HTML only works in the "Expanded Description" area and none of the others.  I checked my Coin-Op Binoculars category and the images are still there of the two styles but after it switches to "Instructions for Posting a Waymark in this Category" everything reverts to a 'no format' format.

Hopefully this can be altered to make our Categories all pretty again. Several of my Categories have/had links to external sites that provide more information on locations (Like Subway and Dairy Queen) and were not intended to be for promotional commercial uses but as tools for locating franchise locations for accurate data of addresses and such.  In other Categories like "Canadian National Historic Sites" there is a link that accesses a database that all Waymarks must exist on to be included, and I know that the "Ontario Heritage Properties" and "Ontario Historic Plaques" has the same requirements.  There must be others like that out there that don't pop to mind.

BQ

We have the same thing with the Indiana Historic Markers and Michigan Historic Markers Categories; they had links in there to the external databases where all the markers were cataloged.  Taking away those links has made it exponentially harder for our waymarkers to find the historic markers and I think ultimately will hurt those categories.

PAWSitraction:

We have the same thing with the Indiana Historic Markers and Michigan Historic Markers Categories; they had links in there to the external databases where all the markers were cataloged.  Taking away those links has made it exponentially harder for our waymarkers to find the historic markers and I think ultimately will hurt those categories.

I don't understand. HTML was returned to the expanded description. Where else would you have it be allowed?

opinionate:

PAWSitraction:

We have the same thing with the Indiana Historic Markers and Michigan Historic Markers Categories; they had links in there to the external databases where all the markers were cataloged.  Taking away those links has made it exponentially harder for our waymarkers to find the historic markers and I think ultimately will hurt those categories.

I don't understand. HTML was returned to the expanded description. Where else would you have it be allowed?

To be honest, I don't usually use it in the expanded description - the majority of the actual "how to post" information is what I need formatted.  I would really like the "Instructions for Posting A Waymark" to be HTML formattable, but if I need to move all / most of that information to the Expanded Description, I can do that.

opinionate:

GEO*TRAILBLAZER 1:

I am also still getting redirected to the Main Waymarking page in my Trail of Tears group.

TRAIL OF TEARS

Sean will look into this today. Sorry it's taking so long GEO.

Not a problem at all.

I always ask but seldom thank you all for your hard work.

I have all the time you need.
I got an answer so I know your working on it.

Thanks again for all the great stuff.

I am well pleased.

Rayman:

BIG BUG (like the size of the one in the featured waymarks):
When submitting or reviewing waymarks, none of the existing waymarks within a mile are showing up. I suspected this yesterday after a waymark was approved for something that I knew was already submitted. So just for fun and to verify for myself, I created a new NY Historical Marker with the exact same coordinates as one I created over a year ago. Sure enough, I didn't get notification of any within a mile when creating it (there's probably about 10), nor did I get any when I tried to review and approve/deny it.

This is fixed now.

I'll have to get used to it. There's a formatting bug on Safari, though - you can see it at http://img.geocaching.com/user/57b19c4f-0639-45e3-9e13-f77bfc588e31.jpg - note the Search button overlapping with the Newest Waymarks thing.

Sounds like a good solution! When focussed to 1 specific WM, the map should be zoomed in to "the old" level. I think that's what you mean by city/street level.

Thanks! WM gets better and better!

Barjon.

Edit: I browsed and tried the solution. It's fine! Thanks!

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

PAWSitraction:

We have the same thing with the Indiana Historic Markers and Michigan Historic Markers Categories; they had links in there to the external databases where all the markers were cataloged.  Taking away those links has made it exponentially harder for our waymarkers to find the historic markers and I think ultimately will hurt those categories.

I don't understand. HTML was returned to the expanded description. Where else would you have it be allowed?

To be honest, I don't usually use it in the expanded description - the majority of the actual "how to post" information is what I need formatted.  I would really like the "Instructions for Posting A Waymark" to be HTML formattable, but if I need to move all / most of that information to the Expanded Description, I can do that.

I don't typically add links in the posting requirements section, however, I do use the unordered list tag to organize the requirements in a way that makes it simple for users to know what I'm asking for in a quick glance.  One of my pet peeves is having to dig through tons of text to find what the group is asking for.  Hopefully html will be returned to this section.  If not, I need to go back and reorganize those sections so they make sense without html.

hikenutty:

PAWSitraction:

opinionate:

PAWSitraction:

We have the same thing with the Indiana Historic Markers and Michigan Historic Markers Categories; they had links in there to the external databases where all the markers were cataloged.  Taking away those links has made it exponentially harder for our waymarkers to find the historic markers and I think ultimately will hurt those categories.

I don't understand. HTML was returned to the expanded description. Where else would you have it be allowed?

To be honest, I don't usually use it in the expanded description - the majority of the actual "how to post" information is what I need formatted.  I would really like the "Instructions for Posting A Waymark" to be HTML formattable, but if I need to move all / most of that information to the Expanded Description, I can do that.

I don't typically add links in the posting requirements section, however, I do use the unordered list tag to organize the requirements in a way that makes it simple for users to know what I'm asking for in a quick glance.  One of my pet peeves is having to dig through tons of text to find what the group is asking for.  Hopefully html will be returned to this section.  If not, I need to go back and reorganize those sections so they make sense without html.

I also have links, example photos and tags in categories that I helped create in the Instructions for Posting a Waymark in this Category: and the Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category: sections.

I think the ability to use HTML tags for these sections is important in that they help to "purdy up" the page when HTML is used.

Am enjoying the few updates I've used thus far.  One thing I really like is the waymark views counter.  I don't care for the ones some people put on the waymark pages.  Besides, I remember at least one category that didn't allow them.

Well this is probably old news and may or may not be related to the update but I stumbled across a new feature to me at least that I think is great.
I was searching from the map center and decided to click on one of the red markers on the map to recenter the page and low and behold the information for that waymark shows up below the map. Very cool.

Thanks for all the hard work and thought you put into your sites.