Additional Search functions

[Goat6500]

Hello,

 

My friend and I used to really be into caching locally and in travels/vacations. We've cooled it recently and haven't been caching in quite a while, actually. One of our main frustrations, inronically, has been the increase in popularity of GC. We like it in one respect but it also makes it harder to sift through and get the truly 'premium caches'.

 

Now, I don't mean to say we think a lot of caches s*ck, in fact I have yet to find a cache that didn't enlightend or entertain me in some way. However, we have so little time to cache now, we really look to make the most of it and that the caches are real barnstormers, one-in-a-million or one that just makes you think "this is the coolest thing ever!".

 

It'd be great if cachers could rate caches when the log them and then search for the highest ranked but I understand why that's not a good/practical idea. I think I understand most of the premium membership functions that can help by allowing you to search by:

a. terrain/difficulty

b. cache container size/type

c. Premium membership caches

d. Search for caches along a route

 

But are there additional functions in a PM that can help me find the 'premium caches', like:

a. Search by caches with most logs in an area

b Search for caches with most smilefaces or something?

 

Let me know if there is or you have any other ideas to help us. Thanks!

[+Quiggle]

Moving to website forum.

[+StarBrand]

I'd like to see a search by the number of "favorites" bookmarks it appears in.

[+Nachtraaf]

Maybe it is worth thinking about some rating functionality for caches.

(as part of the logging process).

 

Greetings,

Hans

[+Markwell]

This has come up before

[Goat6500]

Dude, if the powers that be are reading this thread, here's my feedback:

 

1.) I think that idea about people selecting "Top Caches" in their profile and being able to search on that is a great one a very practical. As long as it's limited to 5% of their total caches found and a maximum 10. Archived caches fall off their lists automatically. Nobody can possibly get offended or discouraged from that and it should help.

 

2.) I also like the idea to be able to search on what caches people are "watching". It should be simple enough and face it: Nobody watches a cache unless it's awesome and they like hearing about it. They wouldn't put up with all the extra emails. All the data's there. Actually, is everybody certain that isn't a function of the Premium Membership? Again, that's what I was originally asking about in this email.

[Goat6500]

Whoah, I just realized that discusion you linked went on for over 2 years!

 

It was very encouraging as I could see that Jeremy was responding with encouraging comments. However, this has left me confused:

 

So what's the status on this? Is there a"Top 10 caches" thingie in the works or no?

[+Markwell]

As long as it's limited to 5% of their total caches found and a maximum 10

 

I would also state that someone that found 1000 caches could very easily rate 100 of them as their favorite. I wouldn't begrudge that.

 

Right now, I've narrowed it down on my profile link to a bookmark list of 37 caches (10%) with special notation for the top 1% (3 caches).

 

Nobody watches a cache unless it's awesome and they like hearing about it

Not necessarily. I could watch caches that I couldn't find. I could watch caches that someone told me about. I could watch caches that have my travel bug in it...

 

AND

 

With the advent of Bookmark lists, watching is a little like the freebie way of doing it. I can set a bookmark list of a gazillion caches (or many bookmark lists) and get notified when any of the caches on my bookmark list gets logged. I can turn the notification of a list on or off temporarily. I can bulk delete the caches from the list.

 

So the watch list is not really the best determination of the quality of a cache.

 

Actually, is everybody certain that isn't a function of the Premium Membership?

Searching bookmarked or watch list caches is not currently a feature of the site (look at my "Joined" date).

 

So what's the status on this? Is there a"Top 10 caches" thingie in the works or no?

That is a very good question.

 

 

 

Can you hear the crickets chirping?

[Goat6500]

Thanks for the input!

 

There's a limited number of cachers with more than 100 finds so I guess 10% could still work. I couldn't imagine managing a list of more than 10 favorite caches but then again, I have a long way to go before the millenium mark. I would vote for the 10% just so long as implementation is practical.

 

Regarding the "watched caches" search function: Obviously, some people watch caches that they don't consider "cool" but for the most part, that's what people use it for. Something about that cache intrigues them and they don't mind the extra emails regarding it. For example I have 3 active caches right now(for some reason, my profile is showing only 1, WTH?). Two of them only have 4-6 users watching them but one has 37 because, frankly, it kicks butt. We can all debate this till we're blue in the face but the bottom line is the "watched caches" search function is a lot closer to a reality than anything else:

1.) The Data is already in the data tables for GC.com, nobody needs to change what they do on the front-end.

2.) It moderates itself. If you want the extra emails, go right ahead and watch as many caches as you want.

 

Definitely make it a premium function only though. New Cache hiders need some kind of equal opportunity for people to find their caches, but long-term users are getting frustrated and dropping out(like me & my friend). We definitely need this. I'd totally pay the Premium Membership if it had this.

 

NOTE: I did check out Navicache & Terracaching. com. Neat concept and has potential but I still prefer old GC.com and would like to keep my game in one place.

 

Thanks again for everyone's input!

[+The Leprechauns]

There's a limited number of cachers with more than 100 finds so I guess 10% could still work. I couldn't imagine managing a list of more than 10 favorite caches but then again, I have a long way to go before the millenium mark. I would vote for the 10% just so long as implementation is practical.

 

See my bookmarked favorites list, linked in my signature line below. It has 134 entries at present. It started off in 2003 as a "Top 10%" list, but I scaled it back to a limit of 5% as my find count increased. The list is very actively managed (archived caches get removed, judgements are re-evaluated with the benefit of the passage of time, etc.), but I enjoy keeping up with it. It doesn't take a lot of time once the initial setup is done.

 

I receive a lot of compliments and thank-yous from people who have sought out caches from my favorites list. I am a believer in making bookmark lists searchable in v2. And for a ratings system I am a believer in a system that says "this cache was listed on X favorites lists" and allowing premium members to do queries that only return caches that are listed on a favorites list.

 

I believe that 10% is a good cutoff for the size of a favorites list, regardless of a cacher's total find count. If I've found 100 outstanding caches out of 1000, why not share the good news about all of them?

 

By the way, there are more than 28,000 geocachers with more than 200 finds. The number with more than 100 finds is obviously going to be way higher than that. I would not term this a "limited number."

[Goat6500]

Sorry, didn't mean to insinuate that 200+ cachers are "limited" in any way.

 

However, 28K is only 5% of all geocachers out there so, relatively speaking, it's a manageable. It doesn't really matter anyway: Only Jeremy can speak on what's practical or not.

 

I like your Bookmarked caches listing and would like to do something of that for myself. However, for an out-of-towner coming to PA looking for a 'reccomended cache list' to find you, that's kind of a "have-to-know-someone" kinda thing that Terracaching which doesn't appeal to me. Wait, is there a "top 10 cachers in the state" thing or something? Say I'm going on a trip and I need for find the Arizona version of you with a "bookmarked cache listing". How hard would that be? Sorry if this is a dumb question...

 

BTW, where did you get that statistic, the number of cachers with 200+ finds? Is that a Premium Member Function? I'm curious about a few things, to consider getting back into this game again. If it's not publicly available, can you tell me:

 

# of Premium Members

# of Premium Caches

 

Thanks!

[+Markwell]

http://www.cacherstats.com/index.html

This page ranks cachers by finds (unless they've explicitly opted out). Anybody with more than 200 finds is listed and ranked 1-28500, but that's probably too round of a number to make sense.

 

From today's front page page: In the last 7 days, there have been 304015 new logs written by 44144 account holders. So - one public number says that there are 44,144 actively logging cachers. Another page says that there are at least 28,500 accounts that have over 200 finds. If those were the only numbers, that's 64%. Obviously, there are accounts that are not currently logging in the last seven days that have more than 200 finds. There are also accounts that are set up, log once and never come back (many I would presume), etc., etc. Only Jeremy himself could probably tell us what percentage of the cachers have over 200 finds. I would guess if you tracked accounts that are more than 6 months old, and that have logged in to the site "in the last week", that the percentage of those accounts that are over 200 finds is actually growing. That'd really be an interesting stat to check. Wish I could.

 

Regardless...

 

Many feel about the favorites list is that it is far too subjective to be meaningful, and that all caches would be listed as "average" eventually. Others feel that an aggregated recommendation would not only allow best caches to be given some recognition, it might encourage more thought-out placement.. Jeremy indicated that he'd love to implement the "if you liked this cache you might also like this one" kind of logic that Amazon uses.

 

But I doubt that any of this will happen soon. I made the original suggestion in April of 2002 - 5½ years ago. At that time, the Chicago area represented by GONIL had 96 caches. Now the Chicago area represented by GONIL has 3,135 caches. The problem has not lessened.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Markwell

[Goat6500]

Ah, the cacherstats.com I think will allow me to do what I need.

 

Someone can easily search through, by state, cachers with a favorites Bookmark list and more, or less, find the Premo-caches. And if they don't have one, you can always just ask.

 

Thanks everybody!

[ehn]

Speaking about additional Search functions: I have for a long time been bothered by the fact that I cannot find a way to narrow down my search below country level. Since I live in Europe I cannot use the Zip code field, or any other field as far as I have been able to make out. Pls correct me if I am wrong...

For Sweden I get close to 9000 caches, and of course I want to be able to narrow it down to the town or area I am visiting. Right now that is an almost impossible job to do. Could you please help out, either by directing me as how to do this, or improving the search function to accept international zip codesor the like?

 

Thanks in advance!

[+Markwell]

Have you tried using the address?

 

If that doesn't work, you can use maps.google.com and find the central location for the search, then using the "link to this page", you'll see the decimal lat/lon in the URL. Use those coordinates as a center of a search.

[+eagsc7]

Thanks for the input!

 

There's a limited number of cachers with more than 100 finds so I guess 10% could still work. I couldn't imagine managing a list of more than 10 favorite caches but then again, I have a long way to go before the millenium mark. I would vote for the 10% just so long as implementation is practical.

 

Regarding the "watched caches" search function: Obviously, some people watch caches that they don't consider "cool" but for the most part, that's what people use it for. Something about that cache intrigues them and they don't mind the extra emails regarding it. For example I have 3 active caches right now(for some reason, my profile is showing only 1, WTH?). Two of them only have 4-6 users watching them but one has 37 because, frankly, it kicks butt. We can all debate this till we're blue in the face but the bottom line is the "watched caches" search function is a lot closer to a reality than anything else:

1.) The Data is already in the data tables for GC.com, nobody needs to change what they do on the front-end.

2.) It moderates itself. If you want the extra emails, go right ahead and watch as many caches as you want.

 

Definitely make it a premium function only though. New Cache hiders need some kind of equal opportunity for people to find their caches, but long-term users are getting frustrated and dropping out(like me & my friend). We definitely need this. I'd totally pay the Premium Membership if it had this.

 

NOTE: I did check out Navicache & Terracaching. com. Neat concept and has potential but I still prefer old GC.com and would like to keep my game in one place.

 

Thanks again for everyone's input!

I'll just say this real quickly. I had that same view of Navicache and Terracaching.com a couple years ago. Now I don't. When I have practically every cache listed on the Geocaching.com website in the local area(25 Miles from the house is over 675 Caches) and I have practically all of them. I need something to do besides wait at the computer for a FTF cache. Wth the two sites, I can still go out and cache at Quality Caches for the entire day. Get in on it Early.

 

Ohh yeah, there are some people out there that Dual-list the caches, but the Terra or Navi will have more requirements. Why visit places more than once with the way gas prices are now?

 

The Steaks

[+eagsc7]

Another great search option would be Archived Caches... I want to see what people have done in the past thats gone to the way side for one reason or another...

 

The Steaks