Better/More, But SIMPLE, Cache Search Features?

[+TeamHarrison]

OK, the vast majority of us involved in this activity are highly technically capable. We can create Pocket Queries and bend them to our will using any number of easy-for-us-to-use utilities. As easy as it is for me, it isn't so easy for others that are less technical.

 

My wife is far from being non-technical, but finds the existing cache search features here at Geocaching.com to be pretty limited. She can grab a list of results for an area, but then can't do much to search within those results.

 

So... ...are there any plans, ideas, or recommendations to make searching for caches easier for folks that simply do not want to mess with pocket queries and third-party utilities? An example of what my wife asked me how to do, and I didn't have an answer for her (short of pocket queries and third-party utilities), is the ability to search the caches within 60 miles of our coordinates for a certain keyword (Ex. - the word "cemetary").

 

Thanks for your assistance!

[+Prime Suspect]

So... ...are there any plans, ideas, or recommendations to make searching for caches easier for folks that simply do not want to mess with pocket queries and third-party utilities?

What's the point of re-inventing the wheel? If it were done on-line, the same level of complexity would have to be there, as far as the user interface goes. The only difference would be that you don't have to load a PQ file, which is trivial.

[+Cache Heads]

She doesn't need to know how to use 3rd party software to search with a pocket query. She just clicks "create a new query" from geocaching.com/pocket and then she clicks the link to "preview the search on the nearest cache page".

[+TeamHarrison]

What's the point of re-inventing the wheel? If it were done on-line, the same level of complexity would have to be there, as far as the user interface goes. The only difference would be that you don't have to load a PQ file, which is trivial.

 

Not so, IMHO. The addition of a simply checkbox stating something like "Search for Keyword Within Results" and then a field to enter the keyword(s). The query would then be run with the evaluation of the keywords.

 

She doesn't need to know how to use 3rd party software to search with a pocket query. She just clicks "create a new query" from geocaching.com/pocket and then she clicks the link to "preview the search on the nearest cache page".

 

Indeed. She's comfortable generating and viewing pocket queries online, but really wants to further search THOSE results by keywords.

 

Our request is identical to the one mentioned here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=143433. Perhaps they've articulated the issue/request better?

 

Thanks for the replies!

 

[+Prime Suspect]

What's the point of re-inventing the wheel? If it were done on-line, the same level of complexity would have to be there, as far as the user interface goes. The only difference would be that you don't have to load a PQ file, which is trivial.

 

Not so, IMHO. The addition of a simply checkbox stating something like "Search for Keyword Within Results" and then a field to enter the keyword(s). The query would then be run with the evaluation of the keywords.

 

She doesn't need to know how to use 3rd party software to search with a pocket query. She just clicks "create a new query" from geocaching.com/pocket and then she clicks the link to "preview the search on the nearest cache page".

 

Indeed. She's comfortable generating and viewing pocket queries online, but really wants to further search THOSE results by keywords.

 

Our request is identical to the one mentioned here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=143433. Perhaps they've articulated the issue/request better?

 

Thanks for the replies!

 

 

Let's see, you start the program Watcher (free, BTY). It automatically asks for the QP file, as soon as it starts, and it remembers what directory it was in last time, so loading the file requires two mouse clicks.

 

Once the file is loaded, there a large area at the top that says Click to search. Don't have be Stephen Hawking to figure that one out, so you click on it. A window pops up were you can enter what you want to search for, and what parts of the cache description you want to search. Make your selection, and click OK. That's it.

 

When it's that freakin' easy, what's the point of re-inventing the wheel on the website?

[+alexrudd]

OK, if it's so feakin' easy...

 

Have Watcher (or GSAK, or some hired slave looking through PQ's) find me all those caches within 60 miles of the OP's home coordinates that have the word "cemetary".

 

 

Hmm?

 

 

(EDIT: I agree with your point - however there is still a problem with searching by keyword using any means. Additionally, sometimes it isn't possible to use third-party apps.)

Edited September 10, 2006 by alexrudd

[+Cache Heads]

OK, if it's so feakin' easy...

 

Have Watcher (or GSAK, or some hired slave looking through PQ's) find me all those caches within 60 miles of the OP's home coordinates that have the word "cemetary".

There aren't any caches within 60 miles of Tallahassee (don't know OP's adress) that have the word "cemetary" .

 

There are two caches within 60 miles that have the word "cemetery" in their name (Abandoned Pet Cemetery #2 by Kirbert and Cemetery Divide by GeoBain). There are 7 with "cemetery" somewhere within the cache page. This out of the 289 total active caches within 60 miles of OPs city.

 

Took me 30 seconds from creating the PQ to getting the results from GSAK (not weighing in on whether or not GC.com needs more search features, just pointing out how much GSAK rocks )

 

EDIT: suddenly learned how to spell!

Edited September 10, 2006 by Cache Heads

[+Prime Suspect]

OK, if it's so feakin' easy...

 

Have Watcher (or GSAK, or some hired slave looking through PQ's) find me all those caches within 60 miles of the OP's home coordinates that have the word "cemetary".

Hmm?

I don't have the OPs home coordinate, so I did it with my latest PQ. It took all of 30 seconds. It returned 15 results.

 

Freakin' easy.

[+Jamie Z]

I have to say that I agree with the majority of posts here. Although it would be nice to have a simple, online, realtime, search feature, it's just rather computer intensive to have such a thing.

 

Your original request to be able to search for caches using more than the standard search tools is exactly what led to the creation of pocket queries. People commented about how hard it was to locate only easy caches. Or only hard caches. Or search for caches by keyword... things like that. And pocket queries solved that.

 

And as others have pointed out, you don't actually have to use pocket queries to take advantage of the pocket query features. Go to the page to create a pocket query. Enter the criteria that interests you. Submit the query, but don't select a day for it to run. You can "preview" the query which gives you a list of caches just like any other online search. A little known tip: you can also view the images of said search.

 

Jamie

[+TeamHarrison]

Folks, I sincerely do appreciate all of the otherwise helpful replies, but I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. For example, I am VERY comfortable with GSAK, Pocket Queries, and could honestly care less than a poo about caches with the word "cemetary" in them in my area. I was using that as an example. LOL!

 

My main point is that casual users really shouldn't have to use third-party utilities to do keyword searches within the results for a set geographic area. Myself, and others, feel that this is a glaring weakness in the search page here at GC.com.

 

To those with the time or interest in using third-party utilities to infinitely process PQ's, more power to you. I'm actually one of you! LOL!

 

My post is a request for a multi-criteria search solution for casual users.

[+Prime Suspect]

But your request seems to be based on the premise that "casual users" are somehow too inept to use a GPX utility.

 

This all seems like the guy who's trying to turn a screw with a butter knife. When someone offers him a power screwdriver, he refuses it, and instead demands a better butter knife.

[+tozainamboku]

I think people are missing what the OP is asking for. Certainly if you want to be able to create complex queries with flexible combinations ANDing and ORing search criteria, etc. a 3rd party tool that runs offline on a GPX file is the way to go. Building a user interface for this on the website is the biggest problem, with the added load to process following. However the search page now has a capability to search by keyword where the keyword really mean partial cache name. Typing in a popular partial name like "Park" or "Cave" results in hundreds or thousands of hits sorted in no particular order. The OP is asking to be able to restrict the results to caches in a particular area or at least to sort the results by distance from one's home coordinates. It seems that this is a reasonable request and probably not that hard to implement.

[+Tharagleb]

I think people are missing what the OP is asking for. Certainly if you want to be able to create complex queries with flexible combinations ANDing and ORing search criteria, etc. a 3rd party tool that runs offline on a GPX file is the way to go. Building a user interface for this on the website is the biggest problem, with the added load to process following. However the search page now has a capability to search by keyword where the keyword really mean partial cache name. Typing in a popular partial name like "Park" or "Cave" results in hundreds or thousands of hits sorted in no particular order. The OP is asking to be able to restrict the results to caches in a particular area or at least to sort the results by distance from one's home coordinates. It seems that this is a reasonable request and probably not that hard to implement.

 

Agreed. I would like this option also. It would be very nice to be able to find all the caches in Vermont that have a given word in them. This is something I want to do quite frequently. It is particlarly useful when you are just trying to find a local cache and you only remember part of the name.

 

[edit typos]

Edited September 11, 2006 by Tharagleb

[+fizzymagic]

However the search page now has a capability to search by keyword where the keyword really mean partial cache name.

The "keyword" search on the search page is not a keyword search; it is, as you point out, a string search on the cache name. Calling it a "keyword" search is misleading, at best.

 

The keyword search in Watcher appears to be an actual keyword search, though the documentation is not very clear about how it works.

[+alexrudd]

There aren't any caches within 60 miles of Tallahassee (don't know OP's adress) that have the word "cemetary" .

D'oh. My mistake.

This out of the 289 total active caches within 60 miles of OPs city. [emp. added]

 

Took me 30 seconds from creating the PQ to getting the results from GSAK (not weighing in on whether or not GC.com needs more search features, just pointing out how much GSAK rocks )

In this case, he lives in an area with relatively few caches. In Chicago, it takes me 6 PQ's to get everything in 50 miles. No problem if you have an offline database (which I do), but using 6 PQ's for one keyword search with third party utilities is rather absurd. It also only works if you have access to them - want to search at a public computer? Out of luck.

 

However the search page now has a capability to search by keyword where the keyword really mean partial cache name.

The "keyword" search on the search page is not a keyword search; it is, as you point out, a string search on the cache name. Calling it a "keyword" search is misleading, at best.

Agreed. I would like to see this changed even if the other suggestions are not.

[+baloo&bd]

In this case, he lives in an area with relatively few caches. In Chicago, it takes me 6 PQ's to get everything in 50 miles. No problem if you have an offline database (which I do), but using 6 PQ's for one keyword search with third party utilities is rather absurd. It also only works if you have access to them - want to search at a public computer? Out of luck.

 

I truly think this is still easier to do with PQ's.

 

I can get a 125 mile radius of Chicago all caches in 9 or 10 PQ's (490 or less caches per), way more than I or most will ever need. I was lazy, I need to further refine them to only go west of the city. Now that's everything other than events (separate PQ.)

 

Once in GSAK, I can sort practically anyway necessary. To do these types of sorts, GSAK does not have a steep learning curve. In fact, it is very intuitive in this respect. It isn't until you get to the macros and some of the fancier filters that it becomes somewhat of a challenge.

 

I'm not saying what is being asked for is not a nice to have, I just can not see any real effort being spent on something working so well already. GC position has always been, at least in the forum, that the primary purpose of it's information is to be a "live" DB so that the data is not stale, in fact, you can find Jeremy quoted in these forums discussing his views on stale data. I just don't see this going anywhere right now.

[+alexrudd]

I truly think this is still easier to do with PQ's.

 

I can get a 125 mile radius of Chicago all caches in 9 or 10 PQ's (490 or less caches per), way more than I or most will ever need. I was lazy, I need to further refine them to only go west of the city. Now that's everything other than events (separate PQ.)

Easy enough if you maintain the offline database (as we both do - no problem). However, ordering up 9-10 PQ's for a one-time keyword search is rather ridiculous, even ignoring the fact that it would take two days.

I'm not saying what is being asked for is not a nice to have, I just can not see any real effort being spent on something working so well already. GC position has always been, at least in the forum, that the primary purpose of it's information is to be a "live" DB so that the data is not stale, in fact, you can find Jeremy quoted in these forums discussing his views on stale data. I just don't see this going anywhere right now.

Maintaining an offline DB to search by keyword = stale.

Searching by keywords online = fresh

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say, but you seem to be arguing my side. ?

 

If refining the keyword search on the website is a no-go, what's wrong with adding keywords to PQ search parameters?

[+benh57]

I truly think this is still easier to do with PQ's.

I can get a 125 mile radius of Chicago all caches in 9 or 10 PQ's (490 or less caches per), way more than I or most will ever need. I was lazy, I need to further refine them to only go west of the city. Now that's everything other than events (separate PQ.)

Easy enough if you maintain the offline database (as we both do - no problem). However, ordering up 9-10 PQ's for a one-time keyword search is rather ridiculous, even ignoring the fact that it would take two days.

I'm not saying what is being asked for is not a nice to have, I just can not see any real effort being spent on something working so well already. GC position has always been, at least in the forum, that the primary purpose of it's information is to be a "live" DB so that the data is not stale, in fact, you can find Jeremy quoted in these forums discussing his views on stale data. I just don't see this going anywhere right now.

Maintaining an offline DB to search by keyword = stale.

Searching by keywords online = fresh

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say, but you seem to be arguing my side. ?

If refining the keyword search on the website is a no-go, what's wrong with adding keywords to PQ search parameters?

Yeah, alex it does seem like he's arguing your side, but trying to disagree with you. As most try to here for those with ideas.

[THREAD DERAIL]

All this forum (every thread) seems to be is a collection of long-time users explaining why gc.com is perfect as is, and that any new feature suggested would maybe be 'nice', it is not really necessary. Test me out. Go through each suggestion thread, read the responses - each one has, in the first 1-5 reponses, someone explaining why the (perfectly valid) suggestion is not needed. (usually, because some external program does the job)

 

Is that input really required? Let's just call that the 'default answer' and assume that anyone with over 2000 posts will naysay any idea. Will save you the posting effort. This is a gc.com suggestion forum.

 

I would love to have a functional keyword search on the site. The current one is not useful at all. If we're so worried about site load, remove it - it can't be used for any useful purpose really.

 

And why the constant whinging about server load? I've never seen that before on any site... I'm sure there are plenty here who will contribute hardware if Groundspeak is so desparate, even though this is a for-profit company.

[+tozainamboku]

[THREAD DERAIL]

All this forum (every thread) seems to be is a collection of long-time users explaining why gc.com is perfect as is, and that any new feature suggested would maybe be 'nice', it is not really necessary. Test me out. Go through each suggestion thread, read the responses - each one has, in the first 1-5 reponses, someone explaining why the (perfectly valid) suggestion is not needed. (usually, because some external program does the job)

 

Is that input really required? Let's just call that the 'default answer' and assume that anyone with over 2000 posts will naysay any idea. Will save you the posting effort. This is a gc.com suggestion forum.

 

I would love to have a functional keyword search on the site. The current one is not useful at all. If we're so worried about site load, remove it - it can't be used for any useful purpose really.

 

And why the constant whinging about server load? I've never seen that before on any site... I'm sure there are plenty here who will contribute hardware if Groundspeak is so desparate, even though this is a for-profit company.

 

That's a bit harsh. I think the experienced geocachers have all learned the work-arounds for the annoyances of this site. They are trying giving advice to newbies about how to use the work- around. Changes are made here slowly and deliberately. Every time there is a change because people asked for one, there are others who will complain that it was better before the change. Very rarely will they make something a user preference because then they have to document it. It also complicates the code if there are too many preferences.

 

[back On Topic]

1. The keyword search on the search page is not really a keyword search. It a search by partial cache name.

2. I you remember part of a cache name you can use this to find a cache, but if that string is popular you will get a lot of results back. These results are not sorted in any particular order and include caches any where in the world. The OP is asking to limit the results geographically. Another option is to sort by distance from the cacher's home coordinates.

 

Both of these problems should be fixed (even if there is a work-around using third party tools). Perhaps Jeremy could indicate that at least he has put this on his to-do list.

[+budd-rdc]

I think what the OP is asking for is a categorization of all the caches. For example, when one creates a route for Caches Along a Route, one has a choice to put in keywords (Interstate 5, Sacramento, Oakland, etc.) to make them easier to search.

 

No such feature exists within Pocket Queries or in the search feature of GC.com.

 

The problem is, once this feature is implemented, it will be up to the listing owners to input all the keywords necessary to make the caches easier to search. That can be problematic, especially since we already have an example of user error: spelling of "cemetary."

 

Slight off topic: Waymarking has everything categorized. I wonder if GC.com and WM.com can be combined?