Search Suggestion/modification - keyword by distance

[+Hobbit Taz]

Often i do a search for a portion of the cache name. But if not enough name, I could get several pages of caches found and never fails I get those from multiple states away from me at the top of the list and have to search down through them for the one Im looking for just a couple miles from my home.

 

Addition of a closest to zip code entered box would be even more benefitial (in case you happen to be a few states away from home at the time).

[+Markwell]

Secondary sorts are unfortunately not supported *online*. And - keyword searches are not available on pocket queries ONLINE.

 

Since you are a premium member, there is another possibility. What you can do as a work-around is to gather all of the caches within about 125 miles through the creative use of 5 pocket queries. If you define them correctly (all within 125 miles of Hazelwood, MO and broken down by date placed into five groups), you should be able to get just about all of the 2,443 caches in five GPX files. These files can be loaded into software like GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife) and culled and queried any way you want. There is a keyword search for the names, but you can also search for a string of text anywhere on the cache page (last five logs as well).

 

It's not the quickest way, and you do have to get the caches offline onto your own computer, but it will do what you're looking for.

[+Hobbit Taz]

Thanks Markwell. Yes I do use GSAK, But at times especially when posting a note/find/nofind etc. that I remember the name of the cache but not necessarily have the GC# readily available so in order to find it I either have to enter a good portion of the name (and hope i spell everything the same) and weed through the ones out of the area, or I have to go back to GSAK and seach then enter the number into to pull up that cache, or do a search by another nearby cache etc.

 

Of course if there are many very simular named caches then its a roll of the dice where the one Im looking for falls. For instance. If I search for the "Down by the river" in missouri it not only comes up with 158 listings from all over but there are at least 2 in missouri by the same name and on different pages.

Wouldnt it be easier if they would at least list out in some order (by state, By distance from home, in alpha, etc.)

 

I understand they dont have the ability for you to do a "second Sort" currently, but I think that would be a great feature to add either like many programs by clicking the column or check mark by criteria etc.

But I would hope they could find a way for at least some "Default" order that the list would come out in.

[+Markwell]

It actually does have a default order - alphabetical by name.

[+Hobbit Taz]

It actually does have a default order - alphabetical by name.

 

Yes I do see the Alpha order, But, as a programmer myself, I find thats never a good way to search when it can be avoided. People spell things differently, write them out differently etc.

 

One example of how a Distance sort would be a added benefit.

If I were to go to Texas and on my trip pick up a cache called "Down by the River!" and oops forgot or didnt notice the "!" so when i went to log it or look it up I enter the search "Down by the River", I get

217 entries which this one is on page 6 after "Down by the River II", "Down by the Riverbed", 2 other "Down by the River" caches IN TEXAS, By the way there are about 3-4 pages of just "Down by the River" caches.

 

If it was sorted by distance from a point I enter in Texas, or from my home, or even just sorted by STATE then it would be much easier to make sure I find the correct one.

[+kabsi]

It actually does have a default order - alphabetical by name.

Sorry, but based on my experience I don't think this is a useful sort order, at least not for "keyword search". The reason for this has already been given by "Hobbit Taz".

 

Quite frankly I'd appreciate to be able to select the sort order e.g. to sort results by "distance to home", "last time found", etc. Actually, this feature would make me pay for a premium account

 

I wonder why this has not been implemented yet. Would it put too much stress on the data base engine?

[+Miragee]

With GSAK, you can search by name, by owner, by GC#, or other criteria.

 

Because I use GSAK, I rarely use the Search on the website. I just do a name search in GSAK for a cache, then I can change that cache to the "centerpoint" of the database and find the other caches near that one I am interested in.

 

A double-click on the cache brings up the offline page which I use to access that cache page online.

 

Pocket Queries and GSAK greatly simplify the searches for caches in my area.

[+kabsi]

Because I use GSAK, I rarely use the Search on the website...

As I do not use GSAK, I always use the web frontend to the GC database which I think is a very nice UI.

 

Think about it, we have Google Maps, Web 2.0 and full Javascript/CSS/HTML support in modern browsers. Thus everything can be done online from text editing (writely.com), image management (flickr.com), real-time collaboration (thinkature.com) over RSS aggregation (pipes.yahoo.com) to a complete desktop (eyeos.org).

 

So why should I have to use an externel program when everything can be done online, too?

[+Markwell]

To reduce the friction on the database that causes outages?

[+kabsi]

To reduce the friction on the database that causes outages?

Na, blame the outages on Microsoft's ASP.NET database engine!

[+Hobbit Taz]

To reduce the friction on the database that causes outages?

 

Actually if it is to reduce the Friction to the database being the issue, that brings up another subject but will mention it....

 

Since Ive done some database programming in my real life - It would reduce the work of the database to raise the maximum points allowed in a pocket query also a Query by State (defined box etc - instead of max points in circle). Since it is no more work to the query engine to increase the maximum results and the real "power" eater of any query is the conditional statements then to run the same set of conditions (just changing the center point truely is a waste of computational power.).

 

Besides if a company is to stay in business it better work the systems to match the resource needs of its users not limit the users to make the systems run. I can see it now - Ebay only allows you to place 1 bid a week (too many people want to make bids and it slows up the system - yeah right...

[+Miragee]

Because I use GSAK, I rarely use the Search on the website...

As I do not use GSAK, I always use the web frontend to the GC database which I think is a very nice UI.

 

Think about it, we have Google Maps, Web 2.0 and full Javascript/CSS/HTML support in modern browsers. Thus everything can be done online from text editing (writely.com), image management (flickr.com), real-time collaboration (thinkature.com) over RSS aggregation (pipes.yahoo.com) to a complete desktop (eyeos.org).

 

So why should I have to use an externel program when everything can be done online, too?

The reason I use an external program is because with a very slow dialup connection, it is much easier, and faster, to do most everything offline.

[+Hobbit Taz]

Because I use GSAK, I rarely use the Search on the website...

As I do not use GSAK, I always use the web frontend to the GC database which I think is a very nice UI.

 

Think about it, we have Google Maps, Web 2.0 and full Javascript/CSS/HTML support in modern browsers. Thus everything can be done online from text editing (writely.com), image management (flickr.com), real-time collaboration (thinkature.com) over RSS aggregation (pipes.yahoo.com) to a complete desktop (eyeos.org).

 

So why should I have to use an externel program when everything can be done online, too?

 

Ill have to agree - Im in the middle of a series of logs and "oh was that cache called On the river, by the river, or by the river number 2, or by the river 2"

Guess Ill have to open GSAK look it up there and have it bring up the proper one (and probably have to log in again to log it). Seems a bit round about method.

 

Besides if your going to limit capability so the system runs smoother then why not limit Google Earth queries - Its not very accurate - They dont even display the proper type Icons 1/2 the time - and thier customer service is NILL (even Microsoft does better on that end - oooooo did I say that? )

[+Hobbit Taz]

The reason I use an external program is because with a very slow dialup connection, it is much easier, and faster, to do most everything offline.

 

Ohhh - my condolences and Appologies - That explains your previous statements.

[+tozainamboku]

Since Ive done some database programming in my real life - It would reduce the work of the database to raise the maximum points allowed in a pocket query also a Query by State (defined box etc - instead of max points in circle). Since it is no more work to the query engine to increase the maximum results and the real "power" eater of any query is the conditional statements then to run the same set of conditions (just changing the center point truely is a waste of computational power.).

This is only true if you have unlimited resources (CPU, memory, disk space). Since you don't, a larger PQ has the potential to have to wait to run until enough resources are available and then it may block other PQs from running until it frees up some resources. By limiting the size the PQ, geocaching is reducing time on average that a pocket query will be in the queue to run. Sure it may waste resources to run the same pocket query several times, if that is in fact what is happening. But most people have different settings. Since you can't get a whole state in a PQ, most people center the PQ around their home coordinates and unless two cachers are living in the same house, their home coordinates are likely to be different. Also many people only get PQs for the caches they haven't found. I don't think there is as much duplicate effort going on as you might think. Still, I could see that if there were some daily canned PQs for all the caches in the state (or partial state - I wouldn't want all 41282 caches in California) and you let people sign up to get these in place of the 5 PQs they might be running now that some people would choose this option and which could reduce the load on the PQ servers.

[+kabsi]

Now as you mention Pocket Queris (PQ):

 

For me, PQ it is just another term for "database export".

 

With PQs you export parts of the GC database and import it into another program, e.g. GSAK. Then you process the data or run queries using this program on your PC at home. In this respect, PQs can completely alleviate the stress on the GC database if no filtering is done at all beforehand on the GC server. But I think GC is not giving away their database contents for free - altough they got the data for free. This is a reason I am not willing to pay for their "export function".

 

On the other hand I am more than willing to pay for an excellent web experience. If my search queries put too much stress on the server, I understand this and I am happy to give my share so GC can buy more powerful resources to handle complex search queries of Premium Users.

[+Miragee]

Now as you mention Pocket Queris (PQ):

 

For me, PQ it is just another term for "database export".

 

With PQs you export parts of the GC database and import it into another program, e.g. GSAK. Then you process the data or run queries using this program on your PC at home. In this respect, PQs can completely alleviate the stress on the GC database if no filtering is done at all beforehand on the GC server. But I think GC is not giving away their database contents for free - altough they got the data for free. This is a reason I am not willing to pay for their "export function".

 

On the other hand I am more than willing to pay for an excellent web experience. If my search queries put too much stress on the server, I understand this and I am happy to give my share so GC can buy more powerful resources to handle complex search queries of Premium Users.

I have a slow dialup connection. I would much rather do all the Searching and Filtering offline using my GSAK database. That is a much more efficient use of my time, and the resources of GC.com.

 

$3.00 per month is a very small amount of money to help support the site and get Pocket Queries, which are invaluable to me!

[+kabsi]

I have a slow dialup connection. I would much rather do all the Searching and Filtering offline using my GSAK database. That is a much more efficient use of my time, and the resources of GC.com.

 

$3.00 per month is a very small amount of money to help support the site and get Pocket Queries, which are invaluable to me!

Four years ago I was also limited to 64 KBit/s and this was very detrimental to my web experience.

 

I guess that users with slow dialup connections constitute a minority these days.

[+Miragee]

That is true, but for some of us there is no other alternative, other than the way-too-expensive satellite option.

 

My connection speed right now is a blazingly-fast 24K . . .