Improve Search options

[+elmuyloco5]

I'm finding it quite hard to properly search for a cache in a specific area unless you have it's coordinates, know the cache's name, or it happens to have in the body of the cache's text, the key words you select.

 

We recently placed a cash in the mountains (about 2.5 hours away from us) at a cave. Before we went, we looked up "Sandia Cave", "Sandia Man", and "Sandia Grotto". But the search engine didn't come up with anything (after we placed the cache, the search for "Sandia Man" did come up with one (Sandia Cave Route)....so I'm assuming it was a glitch the first time....but the other key words still haven't brought up anything). Our cache was turned down because there is a cache called "Watermelon Man II" too close to it. But, this cache never came up in any search. When we clicked on the link for "nearby caches that you haven't found" using the coordinates of our cache, it still didn't come up. But, when we use "nearby caches" with our coordinates, it does. So it's basically a cr*pshoot as to whether or not you'll find something.

 

We've disabled our cache, and it's no big deal, but I want to prevent this in the future, because it was a 2.5 hr drive one way to this place. It's not an issue to keep the cache maintained, but it's a little unpractical to drive that far just to get the coordinates for a place, then have to come home and check the coordinates (and as I stated above....be lucky to even get a proper search) and then have to drive back out to place it.

 

This is my suggestion.........could you please place a meta search that works with the cache listings? When you go to place a cache, you would be able to pick a handful of "key words" that would help locate the general area. These keywords don't have to show up in the listing, if you don't want to give it away, but then people could find caches that are in a general area without the cache owner having to "by chance" put those words in their actual posting. I hope this makes sense. It would certainly really help with the more "rural" caches where you can't easily find a zip code, or address. This may not be an issue with Urban caches, but with the more "mountainy" or "off the beaten path" type ones, it really would.

 

A second request would be for a checklist for the cache owner to put whether or not something is an "Urban", "Roadside", or "Trail" cache. I imagine that it's pretty easy to discern what the cache area might be like if you live in a large city, but for us "little town" folk, it can be quite difficult. When I pull up caches in my local area, there are more than 10 pgs. I live in a mountain town, and there are trails running throughout the entire place. Even something that looks to be "in town" can easily be on a couple mile trail into a canyon. While I prefer the canyon type trails, somedays I don't have the time and would love a way to search for just the type of cache I need for that day without having to go through 10 pages hoping the cache owners have included this info in their listing. I'm sure I'm not the only one this could help.

 

Anyway, thanks for the consideration.

[+StarBrand]

Did you try the Google maps option and look at that area? Or the Geocaching KML for Google Earth. Or just a TOPO map to get some rough coordinates to start a search from?

 

If you are a premium member you can run a pocket query with all the caches for an area so when you get there you know where all of them are (save stages of multis and puzzle caches).

 

A little more prep time and you could have avoided the 2nd trip.

[+Prime Suspect]

I'm finding it quite hard to properly search for a cache in a specific area unless you have it's coordinates, know the cache's name, or it happens to have in the body of the cache's text, the key words you select.

 

We recently placed a cash in the mountains (about 2.5 hours away from us) at a cave. Before we went, we looked up "Sandia Cave", "Sandia Man", and "Sandia Grotto". But the search engine didn't come up with anything (after we placed the cache, the search for "Sandia Man" did come up with one (Sandia Cave Route)....so I'm assuming it was a glitch the first time....but the other key words still haven't brought up anything). Our cache was turned down because there is a cache called "Watermelon Man II" too close to it. But, this cache never came up in any search. When we clicked on the link for "nearby caches that you haven't found" using the coordinates of our cache, it still didn't come up. But, when we use "nearby caches" with our coordinates, it does. So it's basically a cr*pshoot as to whether or not you'll find something.

 

We've disabled our cache, and it's no big deal, but I want to prevent this in the future, because it was a 2.5 hr drive one way to this place. It's not an issue to keep the cache maintained, but it's a little unpractical to drive that far just to get the coordinates for a place, then have to come home and check the coordinates (and as I stated above....be lucky to even get a proper search) and then have to drive back out to place it.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. There's no way a keyword search would ever fulfill the function you're looking for.

 

The obvious solution is already there - search by coordinates. Thinking of placing a cache in a general area? Pick some central spot, get its coordinates (Google maps, and others can do that.) Then do a search on those coordinates. Might even want to download a PQ and put in your GPS, so you can actually check the coordinates in the field.

[+elmuyloco5]

Prime Suspect: I'm not sure how computer savvy you are, but it's not ridiculous at all. If you make a blog, or a forum, or website, they ask you to put in keywords that will help direct people that would be interested in your site to you. For example, if I were to make a forum on homeschooling, I would include keywords like "homeschool", "unschooling", "curriculum", etc. That way when someone looked up those words in a search engine, my site would come up. After all, that's 50% of what the site here is.....a search engine, the other half is a database.

 

Quite frankly, with as large as this site is, I'm surprised it doesn't have it. It also doesn't allow you to click on the headers on the page where it lists caches to sort them by different parameters such as "size of cache" or "date placed". Many websites use this form of catagorization. Just shop around online a bit, or go to Ebay, it lets you filter items to make your search more relevant to you. They are fairly simple methods to make your site more user-friendly.

 

I don't just want to place "in my local area". Maybe that's how you choose to do things, but if I know of a neat spot within a decent distance that I'm willing to maintain, than that's my prerogative. But, either way, I don't see how that has anything to do with the search engine needing improvement. Whether or not this cache was 10 ft from my house, or 3000 miles, it's still an issue that I find to be a problem. This IS after all a suggestion area on the forum. And, I most certainly didn't come here to be flamed by anyone. I left a friendly suggestion and should think that any comments I get, should be just as friendly. I'm not here to complain, and I wasn't mad in my posting. I can't say I'm thrilled about having to drive right back out there when I wasn't planning on it, but I'm more concerned about future problems than this particular cache. That's why I brought up the way to solve it to the "powers that be" on the site.

 

Starbrand: I couldn't use Google Maps because the road that it is placed on is not well marked. If you look up "Sandia Man Cave" in Google Maps, it doesn't come up. It's a very remote cave that I think the national forest doesn't really promote much to keep the traffic down. There are several caches along the road that goes by it (it's about 25 miles long) with many trails leading from various spots. Even the actual parking lot for the area is unmarked and I had to leave a pic in my cache listing to help people find where to park for the thing (the only sign that talks about the cave in the area is 5 miles away at the turn off). So, without finding an actual cache to start with and then searching through the tons that are on all the hiking trails, I had no way of knowing if there was another too close by.

 

The reviewer for my cache tried the same methods I used to locate it and found what I was saying to be correct. The main issue here is that the search engine on this site doesn't bring up the Watermelon cache when I click on the "nearby caches that I haven't found". WHich of course, I hadn't found or I would've known that it was in the same area as the one I placed. But, it does show up when you use the link to "nearby caches". Unfortunately, that only works if you have the coordinates.....which if I had them prior to the 2.5 hr drive, it wouldn't have been an issue.

 

The only cache that I was eventually able to locate with the search engine was .3 miles away, and therefore within the site guidelines. But, again, the search engine glitched on the first day I tried it and didn't come up with that cache either. Honestly, I wouldn't have tried to place one if I had known any were there, as I would've just looked for those myself and hid mine another day somewhere else.

 

Another issue we found was that when you go to post your cache, since it hasn't been approved, you can't map it. When I went and took the coordinates from the other caches and double checked them on Google Maps (this is after I placed the cache), Google measured it as half the distance that Geocaching.com did. That can make a huge difference in whether or not you can place a cache. It just comes down to there needing to be some standard by which you can measure things. Whatever the reviewers utilize to measure the distance out, needs to be available to the rest of the site members. Otherwise, you can clearly see what problems can arise.

 

Again, I'm not trying to complain. I'm just suggesting a way to make the site better. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The owners can choose to fix it or not, but I have a feeling that alot of other people run into the same problems I have. The way things are set up work quite well for the urbanites. It's easy to find a cache for 2nd and Broadway in a city. But for wilderness type areas, sometimes you don't have distinct landmarks.

[+Markwell]

I dunno - Sandia Man Cave brought up some stuff for me...

 

Google Maps Results. From there, I found this page talking about the Sandia Mountains and this portion talking specifically about the Sandia Man Cave. Using that narrative, I kind of zoomed in on this area of the map, which (if you look at the web address), has the coordinates of 35.277857, -106.409369. Put those in the search engine on geocaching.com/seek and limit it to 3 miles, and I got these results.

 

Fourth one on that list is Watermelon Man II at 1.6 miles away.

 

So, with Google Maps and the information on the web, I was able to find the general location of where you proposed to put a cache, and see what caches were already in the area, right?

[+Markwell]

And I would say that your "nearby caches I haven't found" is a bug, and should be reported to the site - but now knowing that, you can use the methods I described above to get a general location of the area with coordinates and even view the results here on the Google Map feature.

[+mtn-man]

Prime Suspect: I'm not sure how computer savvy you are... <snipped>

I guess you haven't clicked any of the links in his signature line, did you?

 

Google does not search keywords anymore. They search site content only, FYI. Search sites are moving away from keywords now. Keywords are so outdated and useless. I don't even add them to my personal site at all, but if you google "mtn-man", guess who comes up first.

 

Your best bet is what StarBrand suggests, the Geocaching.com Google Maps, not just Google Maps. A link is on all cache pages, but you have to choose the second link that is labeled "Geocaching.com Google Maps". You can zoom in and out and scroll around and if there are caches in the area, they show. No matter about roads or density, they show. Here is an example from the cache you are too close to.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/gmnearest.a...;lng=-106.40553

 

They are great for pre-hiding searches. Like he says, they don't show puzzle or multi stages, but if there are multicaches in the area they would show and you would know that you need to find them first to stay away from the stages of those caches. It is a great tool for hiding and seeking both.

Edited August 29, 2007 by mtn-man

[+elmuyloco5]

WHen I type in "sandia man cave" into the keyword search on geocaching.com this is what I get http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...&submit4=Go

 

Which, as I stated in my above posts, I got after I placed the cache. The first day I looked it up, I received a msg saying nothing was found under that keyword. I'm sure it was just a glitch. But again......it's not the issue. It was plenty far away. It was another one that wasn't. If you think about it, the issues I had don't just hurt the searcher when it comes to hiding a cache. If a search engine doesn't pull up complete and proper info, the searcher also cannot SEARCH for the caches either.

 

The thing is, I said I see a problem on THIS SITE's search engine, not GOOGLE's. There is a search engine on here for a purpose. I shouldn't have to go use a gazillion other sites to find the info I need to post with THIS site. I know that you aren't the owners of the site, so maybe it's just easier for you to do what you need to do to get your info, but without people bringing up the issues they have with the site, then it will never improve. What if were all just content to use candles? We wouldn't have electricity if someone didn't try to find a better way. I know my search request isn't equal to electricity, but the point is, the site asked for suggestions and I gave one. If they didn't want them, they wouldn't ask for them.

 

I made the comment to PS because he said that it was ridiculous and couldn't be done.....it's BEEN done and IS done on lots of sites (whether or not it's considered an older form of searching). Not to mention, if it's so old and useless, then why did Geocaching.com have a Keywords search at all??? My issue was that the owner of the cache is not able to make their OWN list of keywords to be utilized by the search engine to help others locate their cache listing. I figured maybe he wasn't computer savvy....not saying that I am....just that I simply knew that. It wasn't a shot at him in any way, it was merely said because I didn't know if he was or not. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I needed to check out people's signature lines in order to respond to them. I wasn't interested in his links, so why would I look at them? This isn't meant as rude, but it appears as if everyone, with the exception of the first reply is trying to be rude to me. I came on here, in the SUGGESTION section mind you, to make just that. I appreciate help, but there's no reason to be snippy about things. I stated the issue I had, why I thought it was a problem, and how I saw it could be fixed. I'm truly perplexed why anyone would feel the need to get on here and tell me I'm ridiculous or slam me for not looking at people's sig links. If you don't want to help, then please, just refrain from posting.

 

I'm not on here argue with anyone, I have better things to do with my time. I just posted a suggestion, and I'm leaving it at that. You all can argue your points as much as you like. The fact of the matter is, other people find the search functions on this site to be lacking and difficult to navigate. Try using the "search forums" button and type in the word "search", you will see mulitple threads on the first few pages alone about my issue and others with the search functions.

Edited August 29, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+StarBrand]

Please keep in mind when using this site that it is a geo-location based site and as such will work best if you try and use it in terms of geo-location.

 

One of the great flaws of keyword searching is one of context. My keywords may or may not have anything to do with the listing page. You are assuming that ALL the caches placed in that area would use the area name as a keyword.

 

Not sure why your searches are not working as intended but they do work very well for the rest of us.

[+tozainamboku]

What Geocaching.com calls a keyword search on the hide and seek page is not a keyword search. It is a partial string match of the cache name. Geocaching.com should change what they call this on the search page so that it doesn't confuse people who are used to a keyword search being something else.

 

On Waymarking.com, categories have tags and when you do a keyword search for categories on Waymarking.com it seems to be using the tags

[+Prime Suspect]

Prime Suspect: I'm not sure how computer savvy you are, but it's not ridiculous at all.

I've been designing and writing software since Disco was in style (the first time). I know a few things about computers. Probably a few more than you. But that's just a guess.

 

If you make a blog, or a forum, or website, they ask you to put in keywords that will help direct people that would be interested in your site to you. For example, if I were to make a forum on homeschooling, I would include keywords like "homeschool", "unschooling", "curriculum", etc. That way when someone looked up those words in a search engine, my site would come up. After all, that's 50% of what the site here is.....a search engine, the other half is a database.

Keywords will never be any better than helping you find some of the caches in an area. As you found out, when checking for nearby caches, that's not even remotely good enough. Proof of that is the current rise of GeoTagging - adding actual coordinates to things like on-line photos, because keywords just don't cut it when it comes to dealing with location.

 

However, all caches are already GeoTagged. Generally speaking, puzzles won't be more than 2 miles away, and cache stages are usually not more than a few hundred feet from the posted coordinates. And traditionals (which make up 93% of all caches*), are right on target.

 

Quite frankly, with as large as this site is, I'm surprised it doesn't have it. It also doesn't allow you to click on the headers on the page where it lists caches to sort them by different parameters such as "size of cache" or "date placed". Many websites use this form of catagorization. Just shop around online a bit, or go to Ebay, it lets you filter items to make your search more relevant to you. They are fairly simple methods to make your site more user-friendly.

I can sort and search on all those thing. I just open an appropriate Pocket Query file in a nifty little program called Utopia, which I wrote (see my first paragraph above). Since I don't make Utopia available to the general public anymore, other people make do with programs like GSAK, or Watcher. Works great! Really, really great! You can slice and dice the data to your heart's content.

 

Of course, if you choose to only use the free, 1st tier lever of this site, that's not an option. But you still have the ability to search by coordinates, download .loc files, and load them into your GPSr so you can check for nearby caches in the field.

 

 

* 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[+mtn-man]

I guess I don't understand how you would think a keyword search would give you all caches in an area. If you don't search by coordinates, you really are not searching for all caches, just ones that might have that name. Part of geocaching is thinking up cool names for caches. Many of those cool names do not have anything to do with anything in the area. Of my 69 hidden caches, 75 percent of the names of the caches have nothing to do with anything you can Google regarding the area.

[+Miragee]

I would never think of using a "Keyword" search if I had a location in mind. I would look at my Mapsource maps and get the coordinates of the spot. Then, I would do a Search based on those coordinates.

 

Whenever I go out to place a cache, I put all the caches in that area that I have Found, have Not Found, and Own, into my GPSr. Unless there is a Puzzle cache or a Multi-waypoint, or Final, nearby (and in a remote area that is unlikely), I can be assured a cache I place will not run into Proximity issues.

 

If you become a Premium Member, you can get Pocket Queries that are specific to your caching preferences. If you like to get out and hike a bit, you can specify Terrain '2.5' and above caches. Google Earth is also your friend for figuring out whether a cache is in an urban area or in a city park or on a mountain trail.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Miragee

[+elmuyloco5]

I'm not saying to "name" a cache by an area. Let me give you an example......

 

Say I want to place a cache on the Los Conchas Trail in the Jemez Mountains. I can call my cache "elmuyloco5's cache", but as I'm logging this cache in for the first time, I can choose to put in keywords that help describe the area that my cache is placed (and by this, I don't mean where the "actual" thing is placed, but the pathway...trail...etc.). For the fake one above I would choose to use the words "Jemez Mountains, East Fork Trail (because the trail above is on a chunk of this trail), Los Conchas, etc. etc." with whatever words would help describe this place. These keywords don't have to be visible, but used by the search engine. Then when someone else comes and wants to find a cache on the East Fork trail, for example, mine would pull up. Or if you were looking for Los Conchas Trail, it would find it. Does that make more sense? That way someone doesn't have to have coordinates to search. Yes, coordinates are the best method, but if you don't have them, or can't obtain them prior to placing your cache, this method makes sense.

 

I tried to explain that I couldn't get the coordinates off of Google Maps. Yes, I understand that one of you found coordinates by looking through websites about the Sandia Cave, but I'm sorry, I'm a busy homeschooling mom of three, I don't have the kind of time to search all over the web to see if someone by chance happens to have coordinates that I can use. Maybe this doesn't seem like much for you to do, but to me it's impractical, and a little ridiculous considering that's what this site should be able to help you do. If I want to find out if Bass Pro carries an item I need, I don't go around the web looking for other people's sites hoping that they mention that the item I'm looking for is at Bass Pro. I would go to Bass Pro and search.

 

I know you feel that "everyone" is happy with it, but I've read over 15 posts just in the last 30 min. of people who aren't. Maybe my "method" isn't the best answer. I'm just suggesting it as "one" way that I know of. I'm sure the techies out there may have a better method. I'm new to this, and new to this site, but it hasn't taken me long to read how unhappy people are about the usability of the site. This may be one of the only places to do this sort of thing now, but in the future it won't be. They can either work to make their users happier, or eventually fade away.

 

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Charles Darwin

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not saying to "name" a cache by an area. Let me give you an example......

 

Say I want to place a cache on the Los Conchas Trail in the Jemez Mountains. I can call my cache "elmuyloco5's cache", but as I'm logging this cache in for the first time, I can choose to put in keywords that help describe the area that my cache is placed (and by this, I don't mean where the "actual" thing is placed, but the pathway...trail...etc.). For the fake one above I would choose to use the words "Jemez Mountains, East Fork Trail (because the trail above is on a chunk of this trail), Los Conchas, etc. etc." with whatever words would help describe this place. These keywords don't have to be visible, but used by the search engine. Then when someone else comes and wants to find a cache on the East Fork trail, for example, mine would pull up. Or if you were looking for Los Conchas Trail, it would find it. Does that make more sense? That way someone doesn't have to have coordinates to search. Yes, coordinates are the best method, but if you don't have them, or can't obtain them prior to placing your cache, this method makes sense.

 

I tried to explain that I couldn't get the coordinates off of Google Maps. Yes, I understand that one of you found coordinates by looking through websites about the Sandia Cave, but I'm sorry, I'm a busy homeschooling mom of three, I don't have the kind of time to search all over the web to see if someone by chance happens to have coordinates that I can use. Maybe this doesn't seem like much for you to do, but to me it's impractical, and a little ridiculous considering that's what this site should be able to help you do. If I want to find out if Bass Pro carries an item I need, I don't go around the web looking for other people's sites hoping that they mention that the item I'm looking for is at Bass Pro. I would go to Bass Pro and search.

 

I know you feel that "everyone" is happy with it, but I've read over 15 posts just in the last 30 min. of people who aren't. Maybe my "method" isn't the best answer. I'm just suggesting it as "one" way that I know of. I'm sure the techies out there may have a better method. I'm new to this, and new to this site, but it hasn't taken me long to read how unhappy people are about the usability of the site. This may be one of the only places to do this sort of thing now, but in the future it won't be. They can either work to make their users happier, or eventually fade away.

 

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Charles Darwin

I think everyone understands what you are saying. But this is not the way the site currently works. For the purpose you initially gave - searching for caches in a specific area - the site provides some tools that work better than a keyword search would work even if there was one. If you know the coordinates of the area you can put in the coordinates and show the nearest caches. If you have and address or a zip code you can search for caches nearest that address or zip code. And you can select Searching with Google Maps and get a map that you can pan and zoom to the area you want and see the nearby caches on a map. The experience you had where a cache didn't turn up in a search is either a bug on the site or more likely user error (maybe you entered the wrong coordinates)

 

If you are asking for the ability to look for a cache on a particular trail or 4x4 route, or in a particular park, there is no efficient way to do that now. Using the maps you might be able to zoom in to see the road or trail or park and find caches that way. Premium members can upload the coordinates for a route and search for caches along a route. The site has a limited function for premium members to search for caches based on the attribute icons that appear on the right side of the cache page. So a premium member could search for hiking caches or ones where 4 wheel drive is recommended. I personally think the attribute search is not very useful and would have prefered a keyword/tag system instead. Cache owners could enter a set of keywords or tags for each cache with a lot more flexiblity than the current set of attributes and these could be searched for in a more intuitive manner than the current attribute search. So I agree, a nice enhancement would be to implement keyword/tags on cache pages (and get rid of the poorly implemented attributes while they're at it )

[+Prime Suspect]

I'm not saying to "name" a cache by an area. Let me give you an example......

 

Say I want to place a cache on the Los Conchas Trail in the Jemez Mountains. I can call my cache "elmuyloco5's cache", but as I'm logging this cache in for the first time, I can choose to put in keywords that help describe the area that my cache is placed (and by this, I don't mean where the "actual" thing is placed, but the pathway...trail...etc.). For the fake one above I would choose to use the words "Jemez Mountains, East Fork Trail (because the trail above is on a chunk of this trail), Los Conchas, etc. etc." with whatever words would help describe this place. These keywords don't have to be visible, but used by the search engine. Then when someone else comes and wants to find a cache on the East Fork trail, for example, mine would pull up. Or if you were looking for Los Conchas Trail, it would find it. Does that make more sense? That way someone doesn't have to have coordinates to search. Yes, coordinates are the best method, but if you don't have them, or can't obtain them prior to placing your cache, this method makes sense.

 

While there might be some usefulness in being able to add keywords to a cache, they would NEVER fulfill the use you want to put them to - locating all caches in an area, for new cache placement purposes. You seem to think that everyone is going to be absolutely consistent in entering what county, town, street, park, business parking lot, etc. that a cache is located in. It's just ridiculous to think that's going to happen.

 

I tried to explain that I couldn't get the coordinates off of Google Maps. Yes, I understand that one of you found coordinates by looking through websites about the Sandia Cave, but I'm sorry, I'm a busy homeschooling mom of three, I don't have the kind of time to search all over the web to see if someone by chance happens to have coordinates that I can use. Maybe this doesn't seem like much for you to do, but to me it's impractical, and a little ridiculous considering that's what this site should be able to help you do. If I want to find out if Bass Pro carries an item I need, I don't go around the web looking for other people's sites hoping that they mention that the item I'm looking for is at Bass Pro. I would go to Bass Pro and search.

 

Did you think of posting "Hey, how do I get coordinates from Google Maps?" It's pretty easy.

 

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Charles Darwin

 

"Everyone has a scheme that will not work"

- Howe's Law

[+mtn-man]

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Charles Darwin

Funny that you would quote this. People in this topic are suggesting a better way for you to accomplish your goals, but you don't seem to be "responsive to change" in your thinking. You are dead set on keyword searches, even though you are being told that there are much better and more efficient ways to accomplish your goals.

 

I am a bit confused myself though. Are you trying to say that you are trying to use Google Maps to derive coordinates for a hidden cache? If yes, that isn't allowed. You are required to go to the location and get the exact coordinates. I just wanted to clarify if that is what you are saying.

[+tozainamboku]

I think everyone understands what you are saying.

I take it back.

 

There are those that post you shouldn't make suggestions for new features in this forum because all you get is a bunch of people poopooing your idea and telling you how you should be doing it.

 

Again, if you are just trying to find if there are any caches already in a specific area the best way to do it to search for nearest caches or use the Geocaching Google Maps option to view a map of the area see where the caches are. True that a puzzle cache may be show several miles from where it actually is - but it will almost always be less than two miles - and a multi will only show the first waypoint so you don't know if the final might be right where you were planning to place a cache. But a keyword search isn't going to help there either.

 

If you are trying to find a cache in specific park or on a specific trail, the Geocaching Google Map is probably the best way to go as well. But I do see that allowing cache hider to add tags may give a useful search capability that we don't have. The hider could add the keyword "cave" to indicate a cache in or near a cave, or "underwater" for underwater caches (not just SCUBA required the the current attribute allows). Of course, it would be up to the hider to add the tags so there would be no guarantee that you would get all of the cave caches or underwater caches. And you might get a cache that is not in or near a cave or not underwater if a hider just decides to add those keywords for some other reason.

[+Miragee]

I think everyone understands what you are saying.

<snip> Of course, it would be up to the hider to add the tags so there would be no guarantee that you would get all of the cave caches or underwater caches. And you might get a cache that is not in or near a cave or not underwater if a hider just decides to add those keywords for some other reason.

We have cache hiders around here who cannot spell even the simplest words in their cache descriptions, and who do not know how to use the Shift key. Some of their cache descriptions are in ALL CAPS; others are all lower case. including new sentences.

 

I doubt very seriously if those people will even know what a new "Keyword" thing is even for. In fact, I don't even know what "Keywords" I would use for several of my caches . . .

 

Searching GC.com by coordinates, using Google Earth, and utilizing Pocket Queries are all better ways to find caches in an area, IMHO.

[+elmuyloco5]

I think everyone understands what you are saying.

I take it back.

 

There are those that post you shouldn't make suggestions for new features in this forum because all you get is a bunch of people poopooing your idea and telling you how you should be doing it.

 

If you are trying to find a cache in specific park or on a specific trail, the Geocaching Google Map is probably the best way to go as well. But I do see that allowing cache hider to add tags may give a useful search capability that we don't have. The hider could add the keyword "cave" to indicate a cache in or near a cave, or "underwater" for underwater caches (not just SCUBA required the the current attribute allows). Of course, it would be up to the hider to add the tags so there would be no guarantee that you would get all of the cave caches or underwater caches. And you might get a cache that is not in or near a cave or not underwater if a hider just decides to add those keywords for some other reason.

 

Thank you. That's EXACTLY what I'm getting at. Sure, nothing is perfect and most everything is left up to the abilities of the person posting, but it would make things better than they are. I appreciate your politeness as I have the member who replied first to my post.

 

Mtn-mn: I'm not disregarding others suggestions. The suggestions I've gotten have basically ended up one of three ways:

 

1. The person clearly didn't understand the issue I was detailing and kept telling me to put in coordinates. Well that's great, but if you don't HAVE them, as I said I didn't.....it's a mute point.

 

2. The person wanted me to search all over the web for a site that might have coordinates. That's too much of a PITA for me, and quite frankly, I would think that Geocaching.com would rather I be able to find what I need right at their site where I can click on their affiliate links and so on, instead of going to other people's sites. It's more profitable for them that way. So, I think they would tend to agree that a change might be in order if enough people are finding this to be an issue. Which, from my very limited glance around these forums suggests.

 

3. The person wanted me to pay money to get my info. But, from what I can see, the problems that I had will not be corrected using that method.

 

It's not an unwillingness to change in me. If I had heard a solution that work for my needs, I would have been more than happy to have used it. However, none of you have given me one. Sorry if that upsets you. To be honest, I didn't think anyone would even reply to my suggestion. It was directed towards the individuals that have some say as to making changes to site. I didn't post it so every Tom, Dick, and Harry could come on here and tell me all the reasons my ideas stink. I don't mind people's suggestions or replying to let the site owners know that they have experienced the same issue. But, the rudeness isn't needed. This is a suggestion forum for the people who run the site.....that's who my post was intended towards. Thank you though, for showing me just why forums like this aren't for non-combative type people like me.

[+Markwell]

never mind... not worth the effort I put into the reply of trying to work within the current system.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Markwell

[+mtn-man]

Gotcha.

 

Still, I am a bit unclear though. Are you trying to say that you are trying to use Google Maps to derive coordinates for a hidden cache rather than going to the actual site and taking them at the exact location you want to hide the cache? I am just trying to get my arms around this.

[+StarBrand]

....1. The person clearly didn't understand the issue I was detailing and kept telling me to put in coordinates. Well that's great, but if you don't HAVE them, as I said I didn't.....it's a mute point.

You really don't need the coordinates to move the center point of the geocaching google maps to an area near the trail and then pan the map over the area you are interested in. All the local caches should show up.

 

From there - select any of the existing caches. Then click on the show all nearby caches. Should give you a list of everything there within 50 miles.

 

Use Google Earth to point your cursor at the area to obtain coordinates to use in the search. Use a nearby town as the center point of a search. Find some way to get a list of caches in that general vicinity. It should only take a few moments. then use the provided tools.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are not getting fine enough detail on the map to locate the precise area? If so my best suggestion is to load all of the area local caches into your GPSr so that you can pinpoint those when you are onsite. Also, you could download those caches (even as a non-PM) and then use your favorite mapping program to plot them out. Maybe something like National Geographics topo maps.

 

If (as mtn-man is guessing) you are trying to pinpoint an exact location for your cache to be placed, based on maps alone, Please don't try that. Get on scene and use the known locations in your GPSr to steer clear of the 528 foot rule. With or without any keywords you will still have to do that.

[+elmuyloco5]

Starband:

 

No, I wasn't trying to do what Mtn-mn suggested.

 

Here's what happened. Maybe I didn't explain the situation clearly in the beginning:

 

I was going down to show my kids the Sandia Man Cave (about 2.5 hrs from me). We had driven down the road about 6 months ago, but it was in the dead of winter and couldn't go to the cave for all the ice and snow. We only knew where the turn of for it was (which is 5 miles down the road). We didn't know which of the parking areas or trails led to it, as none of them are marked for the cave, or pretty much anything else, for that matter. This is a little known cave with very little traffic on it. There's nothing advertising this place. It's just simply not well known. Which is exactly why we thought this would be wonderful place to hide a cache so more people could visit it.

 

So, I began my search on the internet. I didn't have coordinates and no, I couldn't get a close enough view of a street to gather any better info. So I went to Geocaching.com and used a keyword search to look up "Sandia Man", "Sandia Cave", "Sandia Man Cave", "Sandia Grotto", "Sandia Mountain Cave", and possibly a few others. Literally NOTHING came up. So, next, I went to Google to search for the tramway that goes up the other side of the mountain. It goes up to a restaurant, so I knew it would have a zip code. I got that and used the search on Geocaching.com to look it up by zip code. Well, I live in NM, next to Alaska, the least populated state in the US. We have few zip codes and they cover an enormous area. This brought up way too many pages to look through, but I glanced through several looking for anything that would point to the mention of a "Cave" or something else that would work. The Sandia Mountains have soooooo many caches, it's ridiculous to look through all of them. I was left to believe, given the fact that the area is not well known there, that there wasn't one. What else could I believe as the search engine was too limited to give me any other info.

 

So we went to the mountains, and had to call the Ranger Office to help us figure out which gravel offset to park in. It took 5 rangers to even know what we were looking for, so you can see.....it really isn't well known. Finally one of them knew of a particular sign (empty, but has a picture of a hand picking up liter and some "lovely" phrases graffitied on it). So, we placed the cache. When we came home, my husband posted the cache while I looked once more on my computer. This time the phrase "Sandia Man" brought up the Sandia Man Route. I assumed there must have been a glitch the night before. I checked their coordinates against our cache's on Google and got that it was more than .3 miles away....so we were ok. I even looked at the Sandia Man Route cache and clicked on the link for "caches nearby that we haven't found". Made sense, as we hadn't found any there....so why wouldn't any others show up. None did for around the area.

 

Then, we get a letter from the reviewer saying that we were too close to one called Watermelon Man II. Sure enough we are, but none of the search methods I used on Geocaching.com brought this cache up. It only brings it up if I click on the link in Sandia Man Route that is "nearby caches". Well I used the link "nearby caches that I haven't found" cause I hadn't found any. This also happened when our reviewer went to try the same thing.

 

Now, I'm not complaining about our reviewer. Very nice guy, infact. He's been polite and helpful. Nor am I angry that my cache can't be placed. I'm not angry at all. I'm not pleased that I have to go back so soon, but such is life. I just want to prevent this from happening in the future. I feel that the method I described, while not perfect, would certainly aid in stopping this from happening to others. So, I saw there was a place to list a suggestion, and that's simply what I did. I feel, wholeheartedly, that I did everything that I could reasonably do with the poor searching functions that I had available. I do not think that you should have to go visit every site prior to placing a cache. For people putting it in a 10 mile radius of their homes, or within a city area they travel to on a daily or weekly schedule, sure this would be acceptable. But I live in a tiny town, in the middle of the mountains, in a very unpopulated state that requires lengthy drives to get just about anywhere. This site should be user friendly for the masses, and that includes us "rural folk".

 

I wasn't trying to be rude or inconsiderate of anyone suggestions. They simply just wouldn't work for my situation. I'm not sure if the posters didn't understand my OP clearly, or if they didn't fully read it, but the "suggestions" I was given weren't even relevant. And, I didn't appreciate the brash nature of their statements either. You don't have to agree with my difficulty on the site. You don't have to think that my idea is fabulous. But you don't have to be rude either. I wasn't rude in what I was saying. I didn't come on here and start trashing the site. I just see a problem and would like to suggest a possible fix. I hope this makes more sense now.

[Keystone]

I have no problem pulling up the Watermelon cache when I follow the method you described. This is true regardless of whether I click on the link for all nearby caches, or on the link for caches I haven't found.

 

Of course, with Watermelon being a multicache, if I clicked on one of the links for "of this type," then any search based off of a traditional cache would not pull up a multicache in the search results. Just guessing at a possible explanation.

 

Uncanny that your cache would be hidden 92 feet away from another one. It happens more often than you'd think, as geocachers gravitate towards good hiding places.

[+elmuyloco5]

Keystone:

 

Actually, the reason you're able to find it, may be that they've fixed it by now. The reviewer I had, also encountered the same problem and said he was going to report it. So, it may be that they have fixed that issue. It was a clear glitch with their links, not sure why though as I never heard back about it. Unfortunately, it was only one part of the problem though. And, you are certainly correct in using the "cache of the same type" wouldn't have shown it. But we retried the link we were using over and over, so we were using the one I listed. I'm glad to hear it's been fixed though!

[+StarBrand]

I'm about as rural as things get around here. Like I said my best suggestion is to use some form of mapping software to get coordinates and then load all the local area caches in the unit before heading out to avoid the conflict. My hidden caches are spread across a very wide area in very remote rural areas. I have always had to take care to hide them. I do sympathize with the lack of detail in mapping programs and arial/sat photos for rural areas.

 

BTW - Wyoming has the least population followed by North Dakota then Alaska and then South Dakota and Nebraska and finally New Mexico. I cache mostly in Nebraska and Wyoming.

[+elmuyloco5]

Hmmmm....NM actually advertises it that way. Oh well.....still....very rural. Wyoming is so beautiful, by the way. Very envious. Although NM is quite pretty too.

 

Just to answer something I forgot up above that you mentioned.......yes, in hindsight, it would have been best to find any caches in the large area around it so that I would see if I stumbled across one as I was out there. We are admittedly very new to this. And if we had known it could be an issue, we would have prepared better for it. I just feel that in this day and age, you shouldn't have to go out to the site to find out what else is nearby, ya know? With some simple fixes here, it would solve most all of those issues. Of course, nothing is 100%, but the closer we get to it, the better.

 

Could you suggest some software? I have a Magellan Meridium Platinum.

 

I was looking around on the site today as we are preparing to take a 3 day GC trip (our state is doing a GC Challenge for every county in the state). Quite fun, and educational to take kiddos out. Anyhow, I was making the route on Google maps and then coming back to GC.com to find caches along that route that we could also go on. Google could easily find some state parks and wilderness areas just by searching the name, but GC.com can't (I used both the keyword and the address bar.....thought maybe it would take a park name like it will on Google).

 

It got me thinking, if those maps on GC.com that you look for other area caches, are powered by Google, wouldn't it be just as easy for them to utilize the search functions of Google so you would be more likely to search for a local landmark by name? It would have to be an exact name, and it wouldn't have helped me looking for the Sandia Man Cave (as Google Maps can't find it either), but it would definately be more comprehensive than the search method they have in place, and probably wouldn't take much to change. I still think the keyword search, or tags if that's what they're called, is a great idea and would solve alot of searching problems. But I would be thrilled to see them at least implement the Google search capabilities.

Edited August 30, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+elmuyloco5]

Just wanted to add to Keystone that I also checked again on the links. They have indeed fixed that issue! Good to see!

 

Still hoping they fix the search capabilities though!

[+tozainamboku]

Just wanted to add to Keystone that I also checked again on the links. They have indeed fixed that issue! Good to see!

 

Still hoping they fix the search capabilities though!

I don't think the search capabilities are broken. But you could ask for an enhancement to help geocachers find certain caches when they don't have coordinates for an area.

 

From what I understand now, you were going to visit Sandia Man Caves and wanted to see if there were any caches nearby. You typed in various combinations into the keyword search and found nothing. The problem here is that keyword search is not keyword search by only a search of cache title by partial name. So you would only find caches that had names with a what ever you entered as part of the cache name. As it turns out cache (GC9612) Sandia Man Cave Route has Sandia Man Cave in the title. If you entered Sandia cave or Sandia man caves it would not match. The "keywords" you enter must match a part of the cache name exactly. When your husband entered Sandia Man or Sandia man cave he found this cache. As it turns out Watermelon Man 2 is a play on words - Sandia being watermelon in Spanish. But the keyword search wouldn't know this. Cache names often are related to the location of the cache but not always and cachers will often change the name slightly to make a pun or something. When you placed your cache you now had links to view all nearby caches that you haven't found and a link to find nearby caches of this type that you haven't found. I think that Keystone is probably right that when you first clicked you selected caches of this type. Watermelon Man 2 did not show up because it is a multicache. Later you used the other link and found the cache.

 

Perhaps what the site needs is a full text search to find caches that have some particular words in either the cache description or the logs. For now you can go to Google and enter a site specific search. For example I entered: Sandia Man Cave site:geocaching.com

and got the following results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=S...amp;btnG=Search

Watermelon Man 2 still does not show up but there are some other caches nearby. You could select one of them and then view nearby caches from that page.

 

I can understand a newbie's frustration in not being able to figure out how to find caches on the geocaching.com site. A common reaction of newbies is that the site must be broken because it didn't work the way they expected. If you come to this forum, expect the regulars to give you advice on how to accomplish what you are trying to do using existing capabilities. Your ideas for how the site should work may still be valid and a worthy enhancement to make. Perhaps what is needed is a tutorial that explains what the various search options really do. But please stop asking to fix something that isn't broken.

Edited August 30, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Miragee]

<snip>

Could you suggest some software? I have a Magellan Meridium Platinum.

 

I was looking around on the site today as we are preparing to take a 3 day GC trip (our state is doing a GC Challenge for every county in the state). Quite fun, and educational to take kiddos out. Anyhow, I was making the route on Google maps and then coming back to GC.com to find caches along that route that we could also go on. <snip>

If you are going on a trip, you should spend $3.00 for a one-month Premium Membership which will give you access to Pocket Queries. They are invaluable.

 

As to software, I use GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife) on my PC to filter, slice, and dice the many caches I get from a number of PQs. From GSAK you can send the waypoints to your GPSr. If you have a PDA, you can Export in the correct format for your Palm or PPC. I use Cachemate on my older Palm M500.

 

From GSAK you can Export .gpx files to view in either your mapping software or in Google Earth. It is indispensible for me.

[+elmuyloco5]

I don't think the search capabilities are broken. But you could ask for an enhancement to help geocachers find certain caches when they don't have coordinates for an area.

 

From what I understand now, you were going to visit Sandia Man Caves and wanted to see if there were any caches nearby. You typed in various combinations into the keyword search and found nothing. The problem here is that keyword search is not keyword search by only a search of cache title by partial name. So you would only find caches that had names with a what ever you entered as part of the cache name. As it turns out cache (GC9612) Sandia Man Cave Route has Sandia Man Cave in the title. If you entered Sandia cave or Sandia man caves it would not match. The "keywords" you enter must match a part of the cache name exactly. When your husband entered Sandia Man or Sandia man cave he found this cache. As it turns out Watermelon Man 2 is a play on words - Sandia being watermelon in Spanish. But the keyword search wouldn't know this. Cache names often are related to the location of the cache but not always and cachers will often change the name slightly to make a pun or something. When you placed your cache you now had links to view all nearby caches that you haven't found and a link to find nearby caches of this type that you haven't found. I think that Keystone is probably right that when you first clicked you selected caches of this type. Watermelon Man 2 did not show up because it is a multicache. Later you used the other link and found the cache.

 

Perhaps what the site needs is a full text search to find caches that have some particular words in either the cache description or the logs. For now you can go to Google and enter a site specific search. For example I entered: Sandia Man Cave site:geocaching.com

and got the following results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=S...amp;btnG=Search

Watermelon Man 2 still does not show up but there are some other caches nearby. You could select one of them and then view nearby caches from that page.

 

I can understand a newbie's frustration in not being able to figure out how to find caches on the geocaching.com site. A common reaction of newbies is that the site must be broken because it didn't work the way they expected. If you come to this forum, expect the regulars to give you advice on how to accomplish what you are trying to do using existing capabilities. Your ideas for how the site should work may still be valid and a worthy enhancement to make. Perhaps what is needed is a tutorial that explains what the various search options really do. But please stop asking to fix something that isn't broken.

 

UGH. This will be a rant, but it's getting tiring. I really thought that I had explained this thing fully this time. I DIDN'T say the search capabilities were BROKEN. I said they were LIMITED. The link from Sandia Man Route that is titled "nearby caches that I haven't found" had a glitch. Even the reviewer had the same issue I did with that link. He reported it and it was fixed. I said I was glad to see that they had fixed it. I DID NOT click on the wrong link. I used the link several times. You see, as I said in my post (if you read through it fully) that I used the link titled "caches that I haven't found" and nothing came up. AND I also used the link that said "caches nearby". The first link DID NOT show Watermelon Man, the SECOND link did. I NEVER clicked the "caches of this type" link AT ALL. If my reviewer found the same problem, AS I STATED, gee that would make me think that it wasn't MY ERROR, but in fact......THE SITES! And to clarify again, incase you didn't read the whole post, I only had the opportunity to use those two links AFTER I posted my hide because the first day I searched NOTHING came up at all.

 

I did state that I was still hoping they would "fix" the search capabilities. By that, I meant the LIMITEDness of them, not that they were broken somehow. Sorry if that confused you.

 

Yes, I understand that it will only search for keywords within the NAME of the cache. That is why I suggested that they allow the owner to place KEYWORDS/ tags that would help describe the area the cache is placed to make the search capabilities MORE comprehensive. It's not that I'm ignorant of how the system works, it's that I think it needs to be IMPROVED upon! Hence, why I came here to make a SUGGESTION. Once I finally found the Watermelon Man, I understood the play on words. However, I am not fluent in Spanish, so would not know that unless I read the cache (which did not turn up in my original searches).

 

I never asked for anyone's assistance.....if you really read through my OP, the only question in there is asking if they would add a meta search. I don't mind the help, I only minded the manner in which the "help" was given. If everyone had been polite and honestly wanted to help see if I was misusing the site, it would have been no problem. But I had members telling me I was ridiculous, laughing at my responses and made it more than clear with their comments that they NEVER actually READ everything I wrote. This started as a suggestion to the site owners and turned into a ridiculous back and forth of "he said, she said". ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS MAKE A SUGGESTION! Geez, you all make it impossible to do that. If you don't agree with the suggestion, why do you even reply? The owners will decide whether or not to improve the search engine. And even if they do improve it, you don't have to utilize that capability, so why do you all care so much?

 

I may be a newbie, but I'm not here complaining because I somehow think the site is BROKEN. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I merely made a SUGGESTION, which must somehow be taboo with the "elders" of the forums. Sorry that you don't like to see your little site change, but things will need to improve to keep up with the different and changing needs of it's users. Or those users will simply leave and use other sites that will form in the future.

 

To those of you that HAVE been polite, I thank you. I appreciate the suggestions and will definately look into the software option for the future.

 

To those of you who HAVE NOT, please just stop writing. You either just don't "get" what I was trying to suggest and the problems I was having, or you disagree with the changes. While, I don't mind you disagreeing, if that's the way you feel, why not just reply that you don't agree? Why does the rudeness exist in your reply? I started this thread very politely and am ending it frustrated and upset with the attitudes I have witnessed on here. Maybe these "ignorant" newbies would be less "ignorant" if those with experience on here were more polite and helpful. I say this not just because of the response I've had, but to what seems to be the general response that newbies are given on this site in a whole.

 

Miragee: thanks for the links, I will be checking those out!

Edited August 30, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[Keystone]

Note that you can do a site-specific Google search using the box provided on the Geocaching.com homepage. This often returns better results than a string search on cache names.

[+StarBrand]

Note that you can do a site-specific Google search using the box provided on the Geocaching.com homepage. This often returns better results than a string search on cache names.

.....and thats is why they pay you the big bucks. I am always forgetting about that feature. It indexes site listings in a far better way then keywords ever could.

[+elmuyloco5]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that......I'll have to go look for it now!

 

I went and checked it out. I had seen that before but thought it was to be used for content on articles and that sort of thing, not for locating caches. I typed in the Sandia "names" but only the one still came up. Unfortunately, it wouldn't have changed anything for this particular issue, but it will give me another option in the future to try to narrow things down more. I appreciate you mentioning it.

Edited August 30, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[knowschad]

I'm surprised that nobody had yet pointed out that simply entering SANDIA returns all caches where the name begins with SANDIA. That would not have been a perfect solution to finding all caches in that area, but it helps.

[+Team Taran]

As a librarian I agree that the search options available for non premium members are limited. It is important to remember that this is always going to be true. If the site developed a list of subject headings as used by your local library people would fail to use the standard vocabulary. If we adopted tagging you would have people using so many synonyms caches would be missed. I might suggest that as suggested above when dealing with keyword searching less is more. Choose the one most unusual word that might retrieve the information you need and once you have coordinates in the general area switch to geographic searching.

Team Taran

[+Markwell]

I wasn't trying to be rude or inconsiderate of anyone suggestions. They simply just wouldn't work for my situation. I'm not sure if the posters didn't understand my OP clearly, or if they didn't fully read it, but the "suggestions" I was given weren't even relevant. And, I didn't appreciate the brash nature of their statements either. You don't have to agree with my difficulty on the site. You don't have to think that my idea is fabulous. But you don't have to be rude either. I wasn't rude in what I was saying. I didn't come on here and start trashing the site. I just see a problem and would like to suggest a possible fix. I hope this makes more sense now.

I'm sorry if you thought that people that were trying to show you how well the system DOES work, and those that were trying to give you suggestions of how you could have accomplished your goals within the current system weren't helping you. If I was one that you thought came across as rude, I'm sorry. I was indeed trying to help you accomplish what you were trying to do - and I was trying to prove that it COULD be done.