Pocket Query Malfunction

[+michigansnorkelers]

I just noticed this today.

 

After running a query for winter friendly, 24/7 caches, I decided to add one more attribute, parking available, to narrow down the number of caches. To my surprise, more caches appeared!

 

I looked into the query, made some changes, reran it, and discovered a problem.

 

Here are my results running the same query 4 times. Only the attribute selection has changed.

 

Attribute: 24/7 17 finds

Attribute: Winter 29 finds

Attribute: Parking 32 finds

 

Attribute: 24/7 AND Winter AND Parking 78 finds!

 

Attribute: NONE SELECTED 69 finds!

 

BTW, some of those 78 finds had ONLY 24/7; some had ONLY Winter; some had ONLY Parking; some had a combination of the three.

 

But I wanted ONLY caches that had ALL THREE.

 

I thought I understood pocket queries. Now, I'm very confused.

[+pppingme]

Attribute: 24/7 AND Winter AND Parking 78 finds!

 

Attribute: NONE SELECTED 69 finds!

Go and actually count the results, don't depend on the counts it tells you at top of the listing and don't just count the number of pages it returns, count the actual number of caches... There are NOT 78. Using attributes in PQ's is very very buggy and has been discusses many times.

 

Selecting a single attributed seems to work most of the time, but multiple attributes has never worked that I know of.

[+michigansnorkelers]

Attribute: 24/7 AND Winter AND Parking 78 finds!

 

Attribute: NONE SELECTED 69 finds!

Go and actually count the results, don't depend on the counts it tells you at top of the listing and don't just count the number of pages it returns, count the actual number of caches... There are NOT 78. Using attributes in PQ's is very very buggy and has been discusses many times.

 

Selecting a single attributed seems to work most of the time, but multiple attributes has never worked that I know of.

 

This is really upsetting. If multiple attributes don't work, why are they available in Pocket Queries?

 

This time, I actually ran the PQ, and I can confirm that it didn't work. Just as in the preview, I got some caches with ONLY the 24/7 attribute, some with ONLY the Winter attribute, some with all, etc.

 

So, the bottom line is:

 

POCKET QUERIES WITH MORE THAN ONE ATTRIBUTE DO NOT WORK PROPERLY.

 

IF I WANT A PQ TO SHOW ME CACHES THAT ARE BOTH 24/7 AND HAVE PARKING, I WILL GET A PQ THAT SHOWS BOTH OR EITHER. I WILL HAVE TO SEARCH THE RESULTING PQ TO DISCOVER WHICH.

 

Too bad.

[+ThePropers]

Actually, I think that's exactly how it's supposed to work. It's kindof an "or" rather than an "and" clause. For instance, it's saying give me anything that's 24/7 OR winter OR dog friendly.

 

I think what you're asking for is another option that will give you anything that includes ALL the attributes you selected.

 

Regardless, I think it's working as designed, just not how you want it to.

[+pppingme]

Regardless, I think it's working as designed, just not how you want it to.

Then explain how selecting multiple attributes returns MORE than selecting no attributes...

 

Its broken...

[+ThePropers]

Regardless, I think it's working as designed, just not how you want it to.

Then explain how selecting multiple attributes returns MORE than selecting no attributes...

 

Its broken...

 

Uhm, that's not what I was saying. It's working fine, but your understanding of how it should be working is wrong. However, that's not to say how you WANT it to work is wrong, but that's not how it does work or should work.

 

The point is it's working how it's supposed to, and is not "broken." I think if you want an additional functionality (to only return those caches that include ALL the attributes you selected), a request should be made.

 

Personally I don't use the attributes anyways because I find only about 5% of caches actually use them, and of those, about 0% include everything they should. For instance a cache may be dog-friendly, but someone only selected the 24/7 attribute.

Edited December 23, 2006 by ThePropers

[+pppingme]

Uhm, that's not what I was saying. It's working fine, but your understanding of how it should be working is wrong.

If its working fine, then can you explain why selecting multiple attributes would return MORE than selecting NO attributes??

 

In any case, selecting NO attributes should return the maximum number of caches, however, selecting multiple attributes (setting aside the OR vs AND argument) should always return fewer (unless all the caches just happen to have the selected attributes, unlikely, but still would never return more).

[+michigansnorkelers]

Uhm, that's not what I was saying. It's working fine, but your understanding of how it should be working is wrong.

If its working fine, then can you explain why selecting multiple attributes would return MORE than selecting NO attributes??

 

In any case, selecting NO attributes should return the maximum number of caches, however, selecting multiple attributes (setting aside the OR vs AND argument) should always return fewer (unless all the caches just happen to have the selected attributes, unlikely, but still would never return more).

 

Yeah, that's what confuses me even more.

[+ThePropers]

Uhm, that's not what I was saying. It's working fine, but your understanding of how it should be working is wrong.

If its working fine, then can you explain why selecting multiple attributes would return MORE than selecting NO attributes??

 

In any case, selecting NO attributes should return the maximum number of caches, however, selecting multiple attributes (setting aside the OR vs AND argument) should always return fewer (unless all the caches just happen to have the selected attributes, unlikely, but still would never return more).

 

I just reread the original post and apologize for the confusion. I must've missed the "selecting no attributes" section of it.

[+ThePropers]

Just wanted to follow up:

 

I just set up a PQ similar to yours:

 

No Attributes: 74

24/7: 17

Winter: 34

Parking: 50

 

24/7, Winter, AND Parking: 101

 

Those are all previewed numbers. However, when I actually ran the pocket query (with all 3) and opened the file, I only got 58 (despite the preview showing 101).

 

Maybe it's only the preview functionality that's broken? I haven't gone through the PQ results to verify that I have what I need, nor did I go through the preview to see what was in there that's not in the PQ.

 

My first guess is that the preview is returning stuff it should not, and the PQ results are probably correct. That's of course based off my experience that selecting no attributes usually results with the preview matching the results.

Edited December 24, 2006 by ThePropers

[+michigansnorkelers]

Just wanted to follow up:

 

I just set up a PQ similar to yours:

 

No Attributes: 74

24/7: 17

Winter: 34

Parking: 50

 

24/7, Winter, AND Parking: 101

 

Those are all previewed numbers. However, when I actually ran the pocket query (with all 3) and opened the file, I only got 58 (despite the preview showing 101).

 

Maybe it's only the preview functionality that's broken? I haven't gone through the PQ results to verify that I have what I need, nor did I go through the preview to see what was in there that's not in the PQ.

 

My first guess is that the preview is returning stuff it should not, and the PQ results are probably correct. That's of course based off my experience that selecting no attributes usually results with the preview matching the results.

 

I'm curious if your PQ results indeed show all 3 attributes for every cache. Mine did not.

[+ThePropers]

I'm curious if your PQ results indeed show all 3 attributes for every cache. Mine did not.

 

Nope, but they all have at least one of the three, which is how I believe it should work.

 

However, it should not be previewing as 101 found if the PQ file only returns 58.

 

EDIT: Just checked the preview further, and even though it says 101, it's really returning 63, but with 5 repeats, which makes 58 caches, which is what the PQ file contains.

So it appears that the PQ is generating correctly, but the preview count is all screwed up (maybe it's counting how many of those 3 attributes it found, rather than the unique caches?) and it's also returning a few repeats in the preview.

 

I do think the PQ itself is generating the correct file though. Every cache in it has at least one of the attributes I selected, and I don't think it's supposed to only include those caches with all 3 of those attributes. At least I don't believe so.

 

It seems like the problem lies with the preview logic to me.

Edited December 24, 2006 by ThePropers

[+michigansnorkelers]

I'm curious if your PQ results indeed show all 3 attributes for every cache. Mine did not.

 

Nope, but they all have at least one of the three, which is how I believe it should work.

 

However, it should not be previewing as 101 found if the PQ file only returns 58.

 

EDIT: Just checked the preview further, and even though it says 101, it's really returning 63, but with 5 repeats, which makes 58 caches, which is what the PQ file contains.

So it appears that the PQ is generating correctly, but the preview count is all screwed up (maybe it's counting how many of those 3 attributes it found, rather than the unique caches?) and it's also returning a few repeats in the preview.

 

I do think the PQ itself is generating the correct file though. Every cache in it has at least one of the attributes I selected, and I don't think it's supposed to only include those caches with all 3 of those attributes. At least I don't believe so.

 

It seems like the problem lies with the preview logic to me.

 

I really appreciate the time and effort you've put into checking this out.

 

So, now my question remains. What would be the easiest way to end up with what I was after; a database of caches with ONLY all 3 attributes.

 

One idea is to run THREE PQs. One for each attribute. Then, load them into a program such as GSAK and merge them through an "AND" logic function to save only those caches that appear in each database. I think it can be done. However, that means using up three of the five allowed daily PQs.

 

Looks like a question for another tread?

[+ThePropers]

I really appreciate the time and effort you've put into checking this out.

 

So, now my question remains. What would be the easiest way to end up with what I was after; a database of caches with ONLY all 3 attributes.

 

One idea is to run THREE PQs. One for each attribute. Then, load them into a program such as GSAK and merge them through an "AND" logic function to save only those caches that appear in each database. I think it can be done. However, that means using up three of the five allowed daily PQs.

 

Looks like a question for another tread?

 

Since the GPX file doesn't contain the attribute info (see this thread) it appears that might be an option (perhaps the only option). Of course, I don't know how to accomplish this in GSAK, but I'm sure it's possible since my knowledge of that is only slightly above beginner.

 

The other option is to post a feature request and hope everyone doesn't shoot it down and TPTB think it's something that would be useful.

 

Of course, I would like to see them fix the preview logic.

[+michigansnorkelers]

You're not gonna believe this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I've heard that GSAK was great because of the support, but .... WOW!

 

I posted the above questions in the GSAK forums. I just got a reply.

 

THEY TOOK MY SUGGESTIONS AND JUST CREATED A MACRO TO DO THIS, WITH AS MANY PQs AS DESIRED!

 

For those with GSAK, you might want to check it out.

 

http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=...amp;#entry21409

 

I just ran the Macro, using the following three queries.

 

Dogs allowed

Parking available

Winter accessible

 

It ran FLAWLESSLY and generated EXACTLY what I was looking for! 108 caches that fit all three criteria! Took about 5 seconds! Now, I'm going geocaching with my dog!

 

 

On top of this, I ran across another neat macro to make your geocaching more efficient. For example, enter "15" and the macro searches for the next 15 closest caches in a row. You never know where you'll end up, but it will be the shortest drive between caches.

 

http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=1447

[+The Leprechauns]

It would still be nice to have attributes included in pocket queries when the namespace is updated, and also for the attribute search features to be updated the next time when the pocket query generator is fine tuned. Not everyone uses GSAK.

[+michigansnorkelers]

It would still be nice to have attributes included in pocket queries when the namespace is updated, and also for the attribute search features to be updated the next time when the pocket query generator is fine tuned. Not everyone uses GSAK.

 

I agree! We can only run 5 PQs per day, and I had to use up three of them to get this accomplished. If I wanted to search with more attributes I would have a problem.

 

At least there is now a way to accomplish this through GSAK.

 

As you mention, not everyone uses GSAK. I wonder if this can also be accomplished through other programs. If so, maybe it could be posted here too.

 

But, I sure hope they tweak the PQ attributes to accomplish this instead.

 

Merry Christmas and Happy Geocaching New Year Everyone!