PQ keyword function

[+CrazyL200]

Just adding my name to the list of folks who would like to see a "keyword" and "by owner" search function added to the PQ facility in order to be able to download a gpx file with a decent amount of info, instead of the current (somewhat limited) amount of info that a .loc file contains obtained from the keyword search function currently available.

 

Hope these will turn up in the next revamp of the site.

 

Is there a list somewhere of likely/potential/proposed changes to the site?

[+Miragee]

You can get the .gpx files in your PQs. Are you not selecting that option for the PQs to be sent to your email address?

 

If you use GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife) to handle all the Pocket Query data, you can do searches by cache owner or by a word in the name, as well as other useful searches. I have more than 3000 caches in my Unfound databases in GSAK on which I can do customized searches, and I also have all my Found caches in a "Found" database in GSAK.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Miragee

[+CrazyL200]

You can get the .gpx files in your PQs. Are you not selecting that option for the PQs to be sent to your email address?

 

If you use GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife) to handle all the Pocket Query data, you can do searches by cache owner or by a word in the name, as well as other useful searches. I have more than 3000 caches in my Unfound databases in GSAK on which I can do customized searches, and I also have all my Found caches in a "Found" database in GSAK.

 

Yes, I use the PQ function quite extensively along with GSAK.

 

It would be good, though, to be able to reduce the size of the PQ file (and therefore number of caches in the PQ) by filtering by keyword (or owner), before running a PQ (or series of PQs) that covers the whole of a country

[+The Leprechauns]

Bookmark lists are an efficient way to get all the caches hidden by a single cache owner, or all caches sharing a related keyword like "Motorway Series" or "Rest Stop." A smart cache owner will prepare such a list and have it appear on all their related cache pages to assist finders in locating other caches of interest.

 

Once you find a bookmark list that you like, you can create a pocket query for that list by clicking the button for that on the bookmark list page.

[+CrazyL200]

Bookmark lists are an efficient way to get all the caches hidden by a single cache owner, or all caches sharing a related keyword like "Motorway Series" or "Rest Stop." A smart cache owner will prepare such a list and have it appear on all their related cache pages to assist finders in locating other caches of interest.

 

Once you find a bookmark list that you like, you can create a pocket query for that list by clicking the button for that on the bookmark list page.

 

Yup, understand all that and I use bookmark lists etc... quite a bit.

 

Just looking for a quick way of building (and maintaining) a new list, that, at the moment, will start off with just over 200 caches, but does get added to from time to time.

 

A key word search from within the PQ function will make this a lot easier, not only from the point of view of building a list, but from the point of view of checking from time to time to see if new ones have been added to the series.

 

Using the current search facility only produces a list, in alphabetical order, and, only available as .loc files, one page at a time. For what I'm trying to do, I need the GPX files, preferably, via an efficient method.

 

Getting the initial list is straight forward, if tedious, but keeping it up to date will be more time consuming, if I have to use the current search methods available.

[+williarc]

 

A key word search from within the PQ function will make this a lot easier, not only from the point of view of building a list, but from the point of view of checking from time to time to see if new ones have been added to the series.

 

Agreed. The OP was not asking for a list of alternatives to narrow down keywords in his searches, but asking for changes to be made to the website itself. As I have seen so far on this forum, whenever anyone suggests a change to be made to the website, everyone merely offers roundabout alternatives to getting the same results that the change would often simplify, and just make more sense in general.

[+CrazyL200]

 

A key word search from within the PQ function will make this a lot easier, not only from the point of view of building a list, but from the point of view of checking from time to time to see if new ones have been added to the series.

 

Agreed. The OP was not asking for a list of alternatives to narrow down keywords in his searches, but asking for changes to be made to the website itself. As I have seen so far on this forum, whenever anyone suggests a change to be made to the website, everyone merely offers roundabout alternatives to getting the same results that the change would often simplify, and just make more sense in general.

 

Exactly why I posted the OP - a change needed, to make things easier and more user friendly.

[+CrazyL200]

And, in this case, add a function that there is no work around for without manually adding (in some cases) several hundred caches to a bookmark list in order to create a PQ.

 

The addition of just one extra search function/parameter, would make the whole thing a lot easier and a hell of a lot quicker.

[+williarc]

And, in this case, add a function that there is no work around for without manually adding (in some cases) several hundred caches to a bookmark list in order to create a PQ.

 

The addition of just one extra search function/parameter, would make the whole thing a lot easier and a hell of a lot quicker.

 

ARE you LISTENING geocaching administrators? This has been a hot topic lately. This is one of several threads asking for the same new features. ARE you LISTENING?

[+tozainamboku]

ARE you LISTENING geocaching administrators? This has been a hot topic lately. This is one of several threads asking for the same new features. ARE you LISTENING?

Perhaps OpioNate will chime in to let you know whether TPTB are aware of these enhancement requests. It amazes me that people who make a suggestion for an enhancement feel that they are entitled to an immediate up or down response from TPTB. Generally, Groundspeak does not respond to enhancement requests because they want to allow the community to discuss the benefits of the enhancement and what alternatives there may be. Enhancement requests will almost always get a lot of suggestion of how to accomplish the same thing using the current capabilities. Don't misread these suggestion as saying your idea is bad. It may be nothing will be done if TPTB feel the workaround isn't too burdensome, or it may be the TPTB are simply waiting until the changeover to the "Project Phoenix" code base before addressing enhancements to the search page.

[+StarBrand]

And, in this case, add a function that there is no work around for without manually adding (in some cases) several hundred caches to a bookmark list in order to create a PQ.

 

The addition of just one extra search function/parameter, would make the whole thing a lot easier and a hell of a lot quicker.

 

ARE you LISTENING geocaching administrators? This has been a hot topic lately. This is one of several threads asking for the same new features. ARE you LISTENING?

This recent posts would indicate that no changes are planned in the near future....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3234210

[OpinioNate]

It's a nice idea, but as far as I know there aren't plans for the Phoenix release to make changes to the filter options in the PQ generator. I will make sure I document this feature in our bug tracker so it isn't forgotten. After things settle down it should be fairly straightforward to add to the current filter options.

 

As for workaround criticisms, usually they are provided by helpful people to encourage a discussion. Otherwise you just have a bunch of "me too" posts after the original post, which is kind of boring.

 

PS - ALLCAPS are generally considered YELLING and will not usually get the kind of response you were hoping for. L2INTERNETS

[+Delta68]

Thanks for the reply OpinioNate

 

[+CrazyL200]

All I was asking was a question about an additional function.

 

If that function is likely to be added.

If there's somewhere that lists any up and coming changes.

 

I understand that in a big organisation, things take time and giving any sort of possible time scale always carries a risk.

 

Thanks to OpinioNate - that's answered my question, and sounds like the extra search function in the PQ generator is fairly easy to implement.

 

Just have to sit back and wait to see if/when the additional function gets implemented.

 

End of topic for me now.

[+williarc]

Yes, Thanks OpinioNate. I'm glad to see a response. And yes, for the record I was yelling, because until your post, I've seen nothing from Groundspeak in the several forums that mention this topic. Also, as you have admitted, this should be a fairly easy feature to implement. However, until I see that change, and a more frequent response from Groundspeak to member's ideas I will be canceling my premium membership. Besides, with the alternatives that everyone has everyone has so generously offered, I now have all of the search options that "I would ever need" right on GSAK. No need to pay! I would encourage anyone who feels like their ideas are merely pushed aside to do the same.

[+Miragee]

Yes, Thanks OpinioNate. I'm glad to see a response. And yes, for the record I was yelling, because until your post, I've seen nothing from Groundspeak in the several forums that mention this topic. Also, as you have admitted, this should be a fairly easy feature to implement. However, until I see that change, and a more frequent response from Groundspeak to member's ideas I will be canceling my premium membership. Besides, with the alternatives that everyone has everyone has so generously offered, I now have all of the search options that "I would ever need" right on GSAK. No need to pay! I would encourage anyone who feels like their ideas are merely pushed aside to do the same.

 

Uh . . . how are you going to update your GSAK database without the Pocket Queries your Premium Membership provides . . . ?

 

Because I get Pocket Queries on a regular basis, I can keep my GSAK database up-to-date. Without the regular PQs, my GSAK database soon becomes stale and full of Archived and Disabled caches I don't want to be searching for . . .

[+StarBrand]

Yes, Thanks OpinioNate. I'm glad to see a response. And yes, for the record I was yelling, because until your post, I've seen nothing from Groundspeak in the several forums that mention this topic. Also, as you have admitted, this should be a fairly easy feature to implement. However, until I see that change, and a more frequent response from Groundspeak to member's ideas I will be canceling my premium membership. Besides, with the alternatives that everyone has everyone has so generously offered, I now have all of the search options that "I would ever need" right on GSAK. No need to pay! I would encourage anyone who feels like their ideas are merely pushed aside to do the same.

Wow!! you expect a lot for $2.50 a month. ($30 per year / 12)

 

BTW - you will need a premium membership to get the PQ data in GPX format necessary to do advanced filters in GSAK........

[+3 Hawks]

Yes, Thanks OpinioNate. I'm glad to see a response. And yes, for the record I was yelling, because until your post, I've seen nothing from Groundspeak in the several forums that mention this topic. Also, as you have admitted, this should be a fairly easy feature to implement. However, until I see that change, and a more frequent response from Groundspeak to member's ideas I will be canceling my premium membership. Besides, with the alternatives that everyone has everyone has so generously offered, I now have all of the search options that "I would ever need" right on GSAK. No need to pay! I would encourage anyone who feels like their ideas are merely pushed aside to do the same.

Wow!! you expect a lot for $2.50 a month. ($30 per year / 12)

 

BTW - you will need a premium membership to get the PQ data in GPX format necessary to do advanced filters in GSAK........

 

Time to back track a bit before that bridge burns all the way down.

[+williarc]

once again a valid request goes completely un-noticed. I have no motivation to support a website that doesn't listen to the suggestions of it's users.

[+Markwell]

once again a valid request goes completely un-noticed.

 

Hmmm...

 

You must have missed this statement:

It's a nice idea, but as far as I know there aren't plans for the Phoenix release to make changes to the filter options in the PQ generator.

 

Not listening and giving no answer -and- listening and answering "not right now" are two very different things.

 

If you choose not to support the website because they said no, that's one OK, but don't blame it on them "un-noticing" a request.

[+The Leprechauns]

A child can say to their parent, "I want a pony! I want a pony!"

 

I can tell my daughter "NO" ten times in a row, and she will still ask again, 'cause kids are like that.

 

If, on the 11th try, I simply don't answer her, this does NOT mean that the pony will be arriving soon. Nor does it mean that I am unaware of her equine feature request.

Edited January 29, 2008 by The Leprechauns

[+TheBeanTeam]

A child can say to their parent, "I want a pony! I want a pony!"

 

I can tell my daughter "NO" ten times in a row, and she will still ask again, 'cause kids are like that.

 

If, on the 11th try, I simply don't answer her, this does NOT mean that the pony will be arriving soon. Nor does it mean that I am unaware of her equine feature request.

 

:cry:I WANT A PONY!!!!

Edited January 29, 2008 by TheBeanTeam

[+The Leprechauns]

:cry:I WANT A PONY!!!!

[+paleolith]

Basically, advanced search and pocket query should be the same -- same user interface, same capabiities. A PQ should be just an advanced search results sent by email. Some envelope of options or capabilities restricts non-premium members (of course platinum members are never restricted). The current system approximately corresponds to PMs get email results and several additional search criteria, but cannot combine those criteria with the keywords available in advanced search. Unifying the search would make it easier on users and easier to decide what should require payment.

 

Edward

[+The Leprechauns]

Basically, advanced search and pocket query should be the same -- same user interface, same capabiities. A PQ should be just an advanced search results sent by email.

Since pocket query search results can be previewed online -- without even using up one of the 5 daily e-mailed files -- I think we're already there.

 

I use the preview feature several times per week to do some sort of specialized search, and then I study the results online. I have saved queries that are months and years old, which I preview regularly, but which have never been "run."

[+Markwell]

...I think we're already there

 

Not quite, but I had made the suggestion a while ago. Yes, it's true that the PQ selector can be a very neat tool for doing advanced searches, but there are some features that are available on the advance search page that aren't available in PQs.

 

You cannot search for caches hidden by a particular user (this thread)

You cannot search for caches found by a particular user.

You cannot search for caches with a keyword.

 

...I really like the idea that any criteria that can be done on the advanced seek page could be done on the PQ page, not only...

"hidden by user" but also

"keyword" and

"found by user" (with the possibility of breaking up the find dates by ranges like the placed dates).

 

The first two are asked for MANY times, but the last one would also make it so that people could do the "find caches that neither of us have found" query without violating TOU.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Markwell

[+CrazyL200]

...I think we're already there

 

Not quite, but I had made the suggestion a while ago. Yes, it's true that the PQ selector can be a very neat tool for doing advanced searches, but there are some features that are available on the advance search page that aren't available in PQs.

 

You cannot search for caches hidden by a particular user (this thread)

You cannot search for caches found by a particular user.

You cannot search for caches with a keyword.

 

...I really like the idea that any criteria that can be done on the advanced seek page could be done on the PQ page, not only...

"hidden by user" but also

"keyword" and

"found by user" (with the possibility of breaking up the find dates by ranges like the placed dates).

 

The first two are asked for MANY times, but the last one would also make it so that people could do the "find caches that neither of us have found" query without violating TOU.

Exactly the point

[+Markwell]

But you missed my point.

 

I can wait patiently for something that complex to be implemented correctly and when there aren't problems with the existing stuff on the website.