Max# Attributes - Why?

[+Juicepig]

Wouldn't it be better if we could put as many attributes as possible on the cache page? They are restricted to a small box to the side of the cache page and out of the way already..

 

I find myself always trying to figure out which 10 are "most" applicable.

 

For instance, In the summer time, why waste attribute space with a winter friendly attribute when you could advertise a picnic spot nearby.

 

Ah, c'est la vie..

Edited February 4, 2008 by Juicepig

[+StarBrand]

Some logical limit needed to be imposed I suppose. Some cachers would try and choose everything or at least too many. In doing such you dilute the meanings of the attributes.

[+Juicepig]

Some logical limit needed to be imposed I suppose. Some cachers would try and choose everything or at least too many. In doing such you dilute the meanings of the attributes.

 

I realize that, but what is the harm really? Attributes are only really useful for pocket queries in my opinion. Maybe only show the first ten, and have a "more" pulldown like the TBs

 

If I went to a cache in the middle of the city i might see a cache with the "no horseback riding!" attribute, and think to myself.. "I could probably get a horse down here if i REALLY tried.."

 

in fact.. might spice up the log entries as well

[+Markwell]

I think that indeed users need to be able to select as many attributes as possible, but they need to be truly applicable to the cache.

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

Let's say that there's a cache out there that has this wonderful scenic view (1), but it takes about 75 minutes to get there (2) and is a significant hike(3). It's available in winter (4), not recommended at night (5), has parking available (6), and camping available (7). There is a telephone nearby to the main trailhead (8), but there's an access fee (9). Finally, dogs aren't allowed in the park (10). That's 10 attributes. But let's say that the cache is also one of the best caches in the area for kids to take a hike and learn some history while seeing this magnificent cache. So the owner wants to choose "Kid Friendly". To do that, the owner might have to discard one of the other attributes as being not important enough information. For our scenario, let's say that it's the "Scenic View" attribute.

 

If the PQ selector is working correctly, and I'm looking for caches that are kid-friendly (without looking at terrain), I'll pull up all the caches that have "kid-friendly" as an attribute, and I would get this ficticious cache. But if another cacher comes by and looks for caches with a scenic view, because the owner had to discard one of the attributes, it won't turn up.

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

The whole idea of having a 1:∞ relationship is that you could have as many child records (attributes) to the parents (caches) as needed, and then search for the "parents" of a "child".

 

Similar scenario:

Let's say someone comes up with a database of the menus at Burger King restaurants that lists the specialty items that each particular restaurant serves (like the Italian Chicken sandwich), but it only lists 5 specialty sandwiches per restaurant. You can search this database to find the restaurants that serve the particular sandwiches they want.

 

If there's a restaurant that serves 12 specialty sandwiches, and the list is limited to 5, that's 7 sandwiches that aren't listed. If this rogue restaurant chooses their five and one that is discarded HAPPENS to be the Italian Chicken sandwich, when users search for restaurants that have Italian Chicken sandwiches, this restaurant is not on the list. That's not good.

 

Knowing databases, and how things are usually structured, there should be no increase in load to have additional attributes on a cache. If that is indeed true, then the owners should be able to choose as many attributes as possible to best describe the cache, and GC should also be encouraging owners to have as many attributes as applicable.

 

Otherwise, it's just bad data.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Markwell

[+Prime Suspect]

Wouldn't it be better if we could put as many attributes as possible on the cache page? They are restricted to a small box to the side of the cache page and out of the way already..

 

I find myself always trying to figure out which 10 are "most" applicable.

 

For instance, In the summer time, why waste attribute space with a winter friendly attribute when you could advertise a picnic spot nearby.

 

Ah, c'est la vie..

Because, unfortunately, a lot of people don't ask themselves "is this really information people need to know?" For example, a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Houston doesn't really need a No Snowmobiles Allowed attribute. But people will check it, if you give them unlimited attributes.

 

You only have to take a look at the abuses of the "Selector" icons, which sometimes take up 90% of a cache page.

[+Juicepig]

Because, unfortunately, a lot of people don't ask themselves "is this really information people need to know?" For example, a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Houston doesn't really need a No Snowmobiles Allowed attribute. But people will check it, if you give them unlimited attributes.

 

10+ attributes! If there are more, then a little expansion window like they have for coins and bugs. - That is what I am asking for, and I still can't see a reason why NOT, but plenty of reasons for.

 

Every feature can be abused if you give people a will and a way. The same people that would abuse this system would likely need the "no snowmobile attribute", otherwise they might try it, citing that noone told them they couldn't.

 

As for the selector icons.. well thankfully I have only run into a handfull of caches with owners that think they are a good idea (uhhhg... *shudder*) - I am not looking to clutter the webpage!! Only make Queries a bit more useful!

Edited February 4, 2008 by Juicepig

[+Prime Suspect]

The same people that would abuse this system would likely need the "no snowmobile attribute", otherwise they might try it, citing that noone told them they couldn't.

Please leave Peter out of it.

 

[+Lil Devil]

I think 10 is more than enough. I'd rather see cache owners focus on the 10 most important rather than inundate me with every possible option, which we all know 90% of them would do.

[+Ambrosia]

I think that indeed users need to be able to select as many attributes as possible, but they need to be truly applicable to the cache.

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

Let's say that there's a cache out there that has this wonderful scenic view (1), but it takes about 75 minutes to get there (2) and is a significant hike(3). It's available in winter (4), not recommended at night (5), has parking available (6), and camping available (7). There is a telephone nearby to the main trailhead (8), but there's an access fee (9). Finally, dogs aren't allowed in the park (10). That's 10 attributes. But let's say that the cache is also one of the best caches in the area for kids to take a hike and learn some history while seeing this magnificent cache. So the owner wants to choose "Kid Friendly". To do that, the owner might have to discard one of the other attributes as being not important enough information. For our scenario, let's say that it's the "Scenic View" attribute.

 

If the PQ selector is working correctly, and I'm looking for caches that are kid-friendly (without looking at terrain), I'll pull up all the caches that have "kid-friendly" as an attribute, and I would get this ficticious cache. But if another cacher comes by and looks for caches with a scenic view, because the owner had to discard one of the attributes, it won't turn up.

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

The whole idea of having a 1:∞ relationship is that you could have as many child records (attributes) to the parents (caches) as needed, and then search for the "parents" of a "child".

 

Similar scenario:

Let's say someone comes up with a database of the menus at Burger King restaurants that lists the specialty items that each particular restaurant serves (like the Italian Chicken sandwich), but it only lists 5 specialty sandwiches per restaurant. You can search this database to find the restaurants that serve the particular sandwiches they want.

 

If there's a restaurant that serves 12 specialty sandwiches, and the list is limited to 5, that's 7 sandwiches that aren't listed. If this rogue restaurant chooses their five and one that is discarded HAPPENS to be the Italian Chicken sandwich, when users search for restaurants that have Italian Chicken sandwiches, this restaurant is not on the list. That's not good.

 

Knowing databases, and how things are usually structured, there should be no increase in load to have additional attributes on a cache. If that is indeed true, then the owners should be able to choose as many attributes as possible to best describe the cache, and GC should also be encouraging owners to have as many attributes as applicable.

 

Otherwise, it's just bad data.

 

Because, unfortunately, a lot of people don't ask themselves "is this really information people need to know?" For example, a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Houston doesn't really need a No Snowmobiles Allowed attribute. But people will check it, if you give them unlimited attributes.

 

10+ attributes! If there are more, then a little expansion window like they have for coins and bugs. - That is what I am asking for, and I still can't see a reason why NOT, but plenty of reasons for.

 

Every feature can be abused if you give people a will and a way. The same people that would abuse this system would likely need the "no snowmobile attribute", otherwise they might try it, citing that noone told them they couldn't.

 

As for the selector icons.. well thankfully I have only run into a handfull of caches with owners that think they are a good idea (uhhhg... *shudder*) - I am not looking to clutter the webpage!! Only make Queries a bit more useful!

 

I agree wholeheartedly!

[+Western Mass Clan]

in fact.. might spice up the log entries as well

 

Somehow I doubt that very much. It still puzzles me how somebody could read a very well done cache description, go on a great great hike, be treated to great views, solve a very challenging puzzle, or have a fun filled afternoon pursuing a very thoughtfully placed cache and then, after all that, type ... "Found it. TFTC!"

 

Considering the amount of thought and work I go into placing a cache, I always find logs like that very disappointing - borderline insulting in some cases. At the very least they're of zero use to anybody else who wants to learn more about other cacher's experiences with a cache. Anyway, this mini-rant really belongs in a different thread. Of course, considering that "itsnotaboutthenumbers.com" lists me as the 2nd wordiest cacher in the world EVERYBODY (save 1) has shorter logs than me.

 

IMHO I don't think the addition of more cache attributes will make a lick of difference in the quality of online logs. Some cachers are simply lazy when it comes to logging.

 

Peace,

 

Matt

 

EDIT: grammar

Edited February 5, 2008 by Western_Mass_Clan

[+KidRipley]

I agree with the drop down menu idea.

 

Here in NJ we seem to need more of th "NO..xxx..." buttons (sadly)

 

Maybe even tweek an icon or 2, like the TICK one to ticks and/or mosquitos.

 

As for "...read the description..." how many logs have you read that someone has left a "I should have printed out..." or " I shoulda read the cache page..."

[+Juicepig]

in fact.. might spice up the log entries as well

Somehow I doubt that very much.

 

well i was just kidding we need to see more people on their snowmobiles getting parking lot micros though.. it's a lost art!

 

(again.. kidding..)

[CacheNCarryMA]

My guess is that it has to do with the architecture of the database used to store cache info. It's more efficient to put a limit on that sort of peripheral info.

[+Markwell]

My guess is that it has to do with the architecture of the database used to store cache info. It's more efficient to put a limit on that sort of peripheral info.

I seriously doubt that. I design and maintain databases for a living, and I doubt that the limit was imposed because it would be more efficient.

[+Lil Devil]

My guess is that it has to do with the architecture of the database used to store cache info. It's more efficient to put a limit on that sort of peripheral info.

Actually the decision to limit attributes on the cache page was made after a meeting Jeremy had with the volunteers. The main meeting was over and we were all sitting around quaffing our malted beverages of choice. Here's how the discussion went, to the best of my fuzzy memory. The names of the volunteers have been changed to protect the guilty.

 

Jeremy> The forums have been quiet lately. We need some sort of controversy to stir things up.

Dopey> You could ban virtuals.

Happy> He already did that, silly.

<everyone raised their mug in cheer>

Sneezy> How about doubling the size of the ads on the cache pages?

Doc> Or add more ads, like those Googley ones or something.

Grumpy> Speaking of ads, how about banning commercial cache listings. Those are getting our of hand lately.

Bashful> You know those new attribute thingies that you're working on? You could limit them to like, five per cache or something.

Happy> <giggling> hahaha how about just one?

Sleepy> You could reduce the number of caches allowed in a Pocket Query.

Grumpy> Oooh oooh I know! You could remove the ability to search for archived caches.

Sneezy> How about taking away the ability to change one's username?

Jeremy> Those are all good ideas. Since it's timely, I think I'll limit the number of attributes for now, but I've made a note of everything else for when the forums get boring again

 

At this point a some music started and a, uhhh, lady came out wearing a Signal costume which started molting or something. It was quite fun to watch.

[+Prime Suspect]

My guess is that it has to do with the architecture of the database used to store cache info. It's more efficient to put a limit on that sort of peripheral info.

Actually the decision to limit attributes on the cache page was made after a meeting Jeremy had with the volunteers. The main meeting was over and we were all sitting around quaffing our malted beverages of choice. Here's how the discussion went, to the best of my fuzzy memory. The names of the volunteers have been changed to protect the guilty.

 

Jeremy> The forums have been quiet lately. We need some sort of controversy to stir things up.

Dopey> You could ban virtuals.

Happy> He already did that, silly.

<everyone raised their mug in cheer>

Sneezy> How about doubling the size of the ads on the cache pages?

Doc> Or add more ads, like those Googley ones or something.

Grumpy> Speaking of ads, how about banning commercial cache listings. Those are getting our of hand lately.

Bashful> You know those new attribute thingies that you're working on? You could limit them to like, five per cache or something.

Happy> <giggling> hahaha how about just one?

Sleepy> You could reduce the number of caches allowed in a Pocket Query.

Grumpy> Oooh oooh I know! You could remove the ability to search for archived caches.

Sneezy> How about taking away the ability to change one's username?

Jeremy> Those are all good ideas. Since it's timely, I think I'll limit the number of attributes for now, but I've made a note of everything else for when the forums get boring again

 

At this point a some music started and a, uhhh, lady came out wearing a Signal costume which started molting or something. It was quite fun to watch.

 

Was there a dwarf telling you "That gum you like is coming back in style"?

[+Juicepig]

My guess is that it has to do with the architecture of the database used to store cache info. It's more efficient to put a limit on that sort of peripheral info.

Actually the decision to limit attributes on the cache page was made after a meeting Jeremy had with the volunteers. The main meeting was over and we were all sitting around quaffing our malted beverages of choice. Here's how the discussion went, to the best of my fuzzy memory. The names of the volunteers have been changed to protect the guilty.

 

Jeremy> The forums have been quiet lately. We need some sort of controversy to stir things up.

Dopey> You could ban virtuals.

Happy> He already did that, silly.

<everyone raised their mug in cheer>

Sneezy> How about doubling the size of the ads on the cache pages?

Doc> Or add more ads, like those Googley ones or something.

Grumpy> Speaking of ads, how about banning commercial cache listings. Those are getting our of hand lately.

Bashful> You know those new attribute thingies that you're working on? You could limit them to like, five per cache or something.

Happy> <giggling> hahaha how about just one?

Sleepy> You could reduce the number of caches allowed in a Pocket Query.

Grumpy> Oooh oooh I know! You could remove the ability to search for archived caches.

Sneezy> How about taking away the ability to change one's username?

Jeremy> Those are all good ideas. Since it's timely, I think I'll limit the number of attributes for now, but I've made a note of everything else for when the forums get boring again

 

At this point a some music started and a, uhhh, lady came out wearing a Signal costume which started molting or something. It was quite fun to watch.

 

wow.. i never knew charter-member-only pub nights existed!

[+Prime Suspect]

wow.. i never knew charter-member-only pub nights existed!

No reason you would.