Cache Attributes for GCA caches [closed]

[CraigRat]

Do you use cache attributes on other cache listing sites?

Do you find them useful?

Do you want them on GCA caches?

Vote in this poll and leave you comments so we can determine if we should be tagging Geocaching Australia caches with attributes or not!

[GIN51E]

Do you use cache attributes on other cache listing sites?

Yes but only because they are there and available to use

Do you find them useful?

It means i can indicate the cache isn't recommended for kids or has some cliffs nearby without having to mention it in the description, why do i use them? just so no one can have a cry about how the cache was located near a cliff or such

Do you want them on GCA caches?

I don't care, i don't think we need them and would only think about them if there was nothing left to do on the site, in that case I'd put it right at the bottom of the Wiki development list.

[Damo.]

I did use attributes on some of my caches before gc.com introduced them so I suppose I would say yes. I'd also say it's a low priority on the dev list though.

I actually prefer The Selector to gc.com's attributes simply for the reason you can edit the descriptive text.

The cache listing on gca does something funky with the layout though. http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0235

[TeamBeanDare]

I rearly look at the attributes and don't put them on my caches all the time.

Wouldn't bother me if they were on CGA but it would if they were required.

[Richary]

If listing on the other site I put the attributes on because I can. But in reality anything anybody needs to know will be in the text. If you need a 4WD, I will say so (or how far you have to walk otherwise). If the hours were restricted then I would mention that, not that I have placed any like that and so on.

[Snuva]

I use them on the other site because they are there, however they worry me a bit as I think some cachers are putting information into the attributes and therefor not putting some essential information into the cache listing. If GSAK and CacheMate picked up on the attributes, maybe they'd be more interesting. But anything that is essential to know about a cache that doesn't come across to my PDA isn't very useful most of the time.<P>But if saying yes would mean you'll stay off the street and out of trouble, maybe AndiRat would want me to change my vote to 'yes-indeeddy'?

[CraigRat]

But if saying yes would mean you'll stay off the street and out of trouble, maybe AndiRat would want me to change my vote to 'yes-indeeddy'?

I think she'd rather I wasn't on the computer.................

[Snuva]

I think she'd rather I wasn't on the computer.................

I'll change my vote to 'No' then, or distract her with a butter chicken.

[caughtatwork]

I use them on the other site because they are there, however they worry me a bit as I think some cachers are putting information into the attributes and therefor not putting some essential information into the cache listing. If GSAK and CacheMate picked up on the attributes, maybe they'd be more interesting. But anything that is essential to know about a cache that doesn't come across to my PDA isn't very useful most of the time.<P>But if saying yes would mean you'll stay off the street and out of trouble, maybe AndiRat would want me to change my vote to 'yes-indeeddy'?

I doubt that attributes would be mandated and you wouldn't get a silly box saying you haven't added attributes either (maybe).

I think a clever implementation would satsify the paperless requirement.

For a GPX download, the attributes could be turned into text and then added to the bottom of the cache description.

Would be much more useful than an icon on a webpage.

Personally I don't use attributes (and voted as such), but the masses should speak up.

It's YOUR site (metaphorically speaking), so speak up and the developer will listen to all points of view and make or not make change as desired.

[zactyl]

It could potentially pretty up the cache page, and make it look more professional. A novice GCA cache page (no graphics or use of HTML) looks fairly ordinary. So yes, but low priority (and the scales tipped to "don't care").

[swampgecko]

No, why? What's the point with cluttering up the page with info that I don't look at anyway.....

Next people will be asking for "off-spring" waypoints to be supplied as well.

I managed to cache just fine back in the beginning without any of those "nice little extras" like attributes and child waypoints. The gc.com site is dumbing down to the most common denominator, the average yank user. Do people want this site to mirror it in total now?

[president & 1st lady]

If GSAK and CacheMate picked up on the attributes, maybe they'd be more interesting.

I'm with you Snuva!

They are such pretty little icons sitting in the top corner of the cache page. Personally we don't look at them when planing caches because we do that on the laptop in GSAK in front of the TV, but we add them to our pages because they are there and because some cachers do use them. I've tried the selector attributes for one of our GCA caches and it does the job.

I'm a bit 'so what' about attributes.

1st lady

[Geof]

I voted yes but that is to say that they should be available if the cache owner wishes to use them.

Cachers nore the site should demand them.

It could potentially pretty up the cache page, and make it look more professional. A novice GCA cache page (no graphics or use of HTML) looks fairly ordinary. So yes, but low priority (and the scales tipped to "don't care").

Lets keep any of this stuff as low band width as practical. Some sites these days I just close the window and give up on there so embeded with....who knows what .

[CraigRat]

It's now been pushed down the development list due to popular un-demand
(one less thing to code for now, woo hoo!)

Thanks for the great feedback!