Pocket Queries: Exclude Attribute Not Working

[+BananaForce]

Ok, since we have a good deal on the snow on the ground, I thought I would build a pocket query that excluded any caches that were not winter friendly.

 

The PQ excludes caches, but excludes many more than just non winter friendly caches.

 

When I go back to edit the PQ the exclude attribute is no longer selected.

 

Has anyone else run into this issue? Am I doing something wrong? Or is there a bug in the system?

[+AdventureRat]

Yes, I've run into a similar problem.

 

I have a PQ that selects all of my unfound caches within the 500 closest active caches to my home. Obviously this is a moving target as it's affected by both newly published and archived caches, as well as the disabling and enabling of caches. Whenever I attempt to edit this query to adjust the "Within radius of" amount, it always reverts back to the original value after I save it.

[+Markwell]

It's a known glitch. See here

[+Danbike_Lizbike]

Got the answer, I never deleted any of the queries I had run for the last two years. I went in, cleared out the file, and all is good.

 

Thanks again for your reply.

[+BananaForce]

It's a known glitch. See here

 

Thanks for the link. It appears that it is known glitch from at least Sept 2006.

 

Any ideas when they might consider correcting this?

[+Markwell]

It's a known glitch. See here

I should have read further.

 

Coming up with the data that you're looking for is quite difficult, and probably won't give you the desired results. There's four items to consider:

============================

First, caches can only have up to 10 attributes. If "winter friendly" is not deemed important enough by the owner, the attribute won't be on or off - it will just be ignored. It could be vitally important to say whether or not there's ticks, poison ivy, livestock, whether the cache is under one hour or not, kid friendly, etc. But the fact that it's winter friendly just doesn't make the cache owner's "top 10 attributes" for that cache.

 

Second, since attributes are not required on caches, many users have to attributes. I would be surpprised if 50% of the active caches in the system have any attributes. So there's bad data.

 

Third, you need to consider how to ask the question. Do you want to...

A) include caches that ARE winter friendly (have ), or

B) exclude the caches that ARE NOT winter friendly (have )

The set of data would look like this:

 

I think what you're really looking for is to include the caches where the winter friendly is set to yes. That means that the cacher thought that it was important enough to tell you it was winter friendly.

 

Fourth, the exclusion on PQs is not working as expected (see my referenced post above and this summary of the problem and this test of data).

 

As far as the reset of the attributes on the PQ selection page, I'm not surprised, but I haven't see that before.

 

Edit: (fixed based on subsequent post by alexrudd)

Edited December 28, 2007 by Markwell

[+Markwell]

Any ideas when they might consider correcting this?

Hopefully OpinioNate might post an update...

[+BananaForce]

I think what you're really looking for is to include the caches where the winter friendly is set to yes. That means that the cacher thought that it was important enough to tell you it was winter friendly.

 

Actually no. Like you said, many folks don't actually use the attributes, so I don't want to exclude caches that don't have any winter attributes at all. I'm only interested in excluding caches where the cache owner took the extra effort to say that it was NOT winter friendly.

 

If I used the include winter friendly attribute I would only get the caches that had that attribute.

[+alexrudd]

Third, you need to consider how to ask the question. Do you want to...

A) exclude caches that ARE winter friendly (have ), or

B) include the caches that ARE NOT winter friendly (have )

 

You got those mixed up. He wants to exclude those that ARE NOT winter friendly ()

[knowschad]

I'm starting to think that it would be easier to simply move to a warmer climate!

 

Glad you brought this up, BananaForce. Its been bugging me, too, but I thought that it was simply user error.