12 Slots for 10 Attributes

July 17, 2009

In the weekly cache notification e-Mail this week, it had the reminder about setting your cache attributes. So I decided to edit them for my cache. That's when I noticed that on the cache page, there are 12 slots for attributes. The site only lets me add 10, so what is the point of the 2 unused slots? It just looks bad.

Thank you

July 17, 2009

I know you shouldn't clutter up your pages with attributes that arn't needed and I tend to only use 3 -5, but I has struck me as strange that there is space for the extra 2 and have wonderd why this is.

18.9k · July 17, 2009

At least one of them is to add a "needs maintenance" icon if necessary.

3.3k · July 17, 2009

I happen to be in posession of a frog memo that discusses this particular point. It would seem that certain Lackeys felt there was not yet enough ambiguity in the game so it would be a good idea to add extra, unuseable attribute boxes to cache pages just to annoy and frustrate cachers who desire everything to be precise and completely defined. They must have been correct.

1.5k · July 17, 2009

At least one of them is to add a "needs maintenance" icon if necessary.

Indeed. You can actually have 11 attributes, so long as one is the Needs Maintenance icon. Otherwise the limit is 10.

July 17, 2009

when attempting to add attributes yesterday, the system refused to accept my edits because I exceeded the 10 attribute limit. This particular cache has many, many more that 10 relevant "attributes" and wouldn't you know it, one I wasn't able to use, 4x4 accessibility, was pointed out almost immediately, in another post on this forum. So, what do I do... uncheck Kid Friendly? Parking available? Public Restrooms? Camping nearby? how do you go about determining which 10 are relevant?

July 17, 2009

At least one of them is to add a "needs maintenance" icon if necessary.

Indeed. You can actually have 11 attributes, so long as one is the Needs Maintenance icon. Otherwise the limit is 10.

#12 = "Placed by a Platinum Member" ?? :lol:

18.9k · July 17, 2009

....

#12 = "Placed by a Platinum Member" ??

shhhhhh :lol: - you shouldn't know that........

8.9k · July 17, 2009

How do you go about determining which 10 are relevant?

The idea is to choose the ones that are the MOST relevant. Is "Camping Nearby" going to be more of a determining factor in hunting the cache than "Kid Friendly"?

My personal opinion when these first came out was that for this to be truly useful, a couple of things should happen - cachers should be allowed to put as many attributes on the cache as applied rather than limiting them. I could easily conceive of a cache that has the following attributes:

However, with 13 possible attributes, the owner would have to prioritize them and max it at 10. I would also envision the owner saying "Ticks, Thorns, Snakes and Poison plants need to be on there. It only takes less than an hour, and people surely want to know that. There is parking available, but it has a fee - so best to put those two on. This is a really gorgeous view, that needs to be on. And it's available all times and during the winter. Well that's 10 - the stealth required, recommended for kids and picnic tables are just fluff." Of course other owners of the same cache might prioritize the attributes differently.

But when someone comes along specifically querying for caches that are recommended for kids, since the owner couldn't put this on the cache as an attribute, it would get missed. :lol:

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

The other problem with the attributes is that they're still not included in the GPX file. Searchers could easily use GSAK or some other offline tool to refine their searches: caches that are kid friendly and have the "stealth required" set to "no" OR "stealth required" is ignored. Right now that would be two different searches on Geocaching.com PQs.

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

Unfortunately, attributes have been around on Geocaching.com for almost five years (since Jeremy's first announcement in Nov 2004). Many, MANY caches still don't have any attributes. The attributes are limited in number. The attribute PQ search just got fixed last year. The attributes are still not included in the GPX file.

So...

I just tend to ignore the attributes (but put them on my caches).

Edited July 17, 2009 by Markwell

3.9k · July 17, 2009

For people with the elusive Spinal Tap membership, the number of basic icons goes up to 11, plus the NM space makes 12.

8k · July 17, 2009

Attributes were ill conceived from the start.

Several third party site were available that would generate a image file with attributes which you could post one your cache page. These provided a rich selection of icons and sometimes even allow the users to add additional information. If you didn't like the icons from one of these sites you could always try another one - or make your own graphic.

Several people suggested that if these attributes were part of the Geocaching.com site one could search based on attributes. I'm not sure that searching on attributes helps in more that a few niche cases (probably less than 200 geocachers regularly use this feature ) Mostly the attribute were being used to put important information that you needed to know when you went searching for a cache in one place on the cache page in a format that could be easily scanned.

So the site decided to select what they felt were the most important icons and make them part of the cache data. They followed one of the existing sites which had yes and no version for some of the attribute. So for some attributes you could have the positive attribute, the negative attribute, or no attribute at all. For other attributes there was only a positive attribute. So you either have the attribute or you didn't. This structure made searching for attributes difficult to implement. Did you want to find caches that had the no poison plants attribute or the caches that didn't have a poison plants attribute (either positive or negative). When you started putting together combinations of attributes it became even more confusing. It took months for the programmers at Geocaching.com to come up with a way to search for attributes in the pocket query. And I'm not sure if it still doesn't work right. All that work for a feature that is regularly used by less than 200 cachers.

Finally the attributes are still not part of the GPX file for the cache. If the attributes were in the GPX file perhaps third party tools would be developed to make them more useful at least to provide essential information when hunting caches in the field.

If instead of trying to build this system on top of the attribute icons that were copied from the older third party sites, Groundspeak had thought a bit more about what they were trying to do they may have come up with something workable. I would have preferred a simpler tag system. Allow the cache owner to provide some number of tags for their cache. The tags would be listed on the pages where the attributes are now showing. (You could even create icons to show in place of the more popular tags). Searching for tags (or even a combination of tags would be much simpler. dogs allowed and no dogs allowed would be two separate tags so you wouldn't have the confusion of what you meant (has a no dogs allowed tag or does not have a dogs allowed tag). If someone wants a new attribute they just put what they want in the tag. IMO, Groundspeak should scrap the attribute system they have now an replace it with something that works.

8.9k · July 17, 2009

I disagree that the existing system needs to be scrapped.

As of now, the pocket queries do work, even if they're confusing for the yes/no as you mentioned with the poisonous plants. It's also confusing for the non-computer and logic-problem people when you say "to get the caches regardless of attributes, just leave the attributes blank"

But I think three simple enhancements would fix all of the issues I have:

(1) - Include the attribute data in the GPX (both pocket query and direct download)

(2) - Allow users to add as many attributes as they feel appropriately describe their cache

(3) - Change the attribute selection on the PQ list to be a smarter interface:

Each of the attributes with the Yes/No setting would get five options: Doesn't Matter (default), Include Yes, Exclude Yes, Include No and Exclude No. The attributes with Yes setting only, would get three options: Doesn't Matter (default), Include Yes, Exclude Yes. The selection process would look like this:

From an end user, you'd still have to explain that including the dogs not allowed is different than excluding the dogs allowed, but at least this is a better option.

5k · July 17, 2009

How do you go about determining which 10 are relevant?

The idea is to choose the ones that are the MOST relevant. Is "Camping Nearby" going to be more of a determining factor in hunting the cache than "Kid Friendly"?

My personal opinion when these first came out was that for this to be truly useful, a couple of things should happen - cachers should be allowed to put as many attributes on the cache as applied rather than limiting them. I could easily conceive of a cache that has the following attributes:

However, with 13 possible attributes, the owner would have to prioritize them and max it at 10. I would also envision the owner saying "Ticks, Thorns, Snakes and Poison plants need to be on there. It only takes less than an hour, and people surely want to know that. There is parking available, but it has a fee - so best to put those two on. This is a really gorgeous view, that needs to be on. And it's available all times and during the winter. Well that's 10 - the stealth required, recommended for kids and picnic tables are just fluff." Of course other owners of the same cache might prioritize the attributes differently.

But when someone comes along specifically querying for caches that are recommended for kids, since the owner couldn't put this on the cache as an attribute, it would get missed.

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

The other problem with the attributes is that they're still not included in the GPX file. Searchers could easily use GSAK or some other offline tool to refine their searches: caches that are kid friendly and have the "stealth required" set to "no" OR "stealth required" is ignored. Right now that would be two different searches on Geocaching.com PQs.

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

Unfortunately, attributes have been around on Geocaching.com for almost five years (since Jeremy's first announcement in Nov 2004). Many, MANY caches still don't have any attributes. The attributes are limited in number. The attribute PQ search just got fixed last year. The attributes are still not included in the GPX file.

So...

I just tend to ignore the attributes (but put them on my caches).

Let me get this straight. Getting to the cache exposes you to ticks, snakes, poison plants and thorns, and you also want to label it as "Kid Friendly". You must have some really tough kids.

140 caches and I have only bumped up against the ten attribute limit once. All but two have the "snake" icon, most have the "poison plant" and most have the "more than an hour".

I have found the most important attributes for my caches are Snakes, ticks, dogs (dis)allowed, bikes (dis)allowed, bathrooms, phones, and picnic tables.

(edit content, grammar)

Edited July 17, 2009 by Don_J

24.7k · July 17, 2009

...Let me get this straight. Getting to the cache exposes you to ticks, snakes, poison plants and thorns, and you also want to label it as "Kid Friendly". ...

That's normal around here. If you expose your kids to it, then they know how to deal with it.

8.9k · July 17, 2009

Let me get this straight. Getting to the cache exposes you to ticks, snakes, poison plants and thorns, and you also want to label it as "Kid Friendly". You must have some really tough kids.

My boys (both scouts) have no problem in knowing how to avoid ticks, snaks, poison plants and thorns. It's usually their dad that has the problems. :anicute:

July 17, 2009

IMO I think (as much as I rspect him) what Markwell is proposing is quite confusing, it loooks like the proposel is to have a choice to of 2 option to exclude and 2 option 2 include, and if an attribute were to have only a yes setting you could exclude it but it only has a yes option?? I admit that I am realy missing something here and don't quite understand it myself.

I also think that the current attribute system would work if pepole would appropreatly set them for instance in a city you don't normaly need to set an attribute for no snakes (at least here anyway) or in a countryside park I wouldn't have thought it neccersey to set an attribute saying that it is kid friendly as these thing are normaly disignd for kids. I also relise that these thing can differ depending on what country you are in and again in the UK you would not need to set an attribute for no snowmobile required.l

As far as not being included in the GPX file that would be handy with my Oregon but do most cachers cahe with GPSr's like the Etrax range and carry paper printouts if they wish? But yes it would be nice for them to be included in a GPX file.

Just my own thoughts and if I understood Markwell suggestion better I might change them.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Wintonian

8.9k · July 17, 2009

IMO I think (as much as I rspect him) what Markwell is proposing is quite confusing, it loooks like the proposel is to have a choice to of 2 option to exclude and 2 option 2 include, and if an attribute were to have only a yes setting you could exclude it but it only has a yes option?? I admit that I am realy missing something here and don't quite understand it myself.

While it sounds confusing, these are actually the choices you have right now for the PQ selector.

Ignore Available in Winter:

Include Available in Winter "Yes":

Include Available in Winter "No":

Exclude Available in Winter "Yes":

Exclude Available in Winter "No":

The problem is that with the current select, you can do this:

Include AND Exclude Available in Winter "Yes" (no possible results):

Include Available in Winter "Yes" AND Exclude Available in Winter "No" (no possible results):

Include AND Exclude Available in Winter "Yes" (no possible results):

There's one more combination, but I'm tired of screen shots. You get the idea: the selector of attributes to include and exclude allows for mutually exclusive criteria on the attributes (as well as the other mutually exclusive criteria on the pocket query). By using the interface I have above with 5 selections for the ones that have a yes/no setting and three selections for the ones with "yes", it eliminates the problems with the interface that are already there.

BUT, all this is a moot problem, since I would never rely on the attributes, since not that many people use them!

July 17, 2009

Right! that sort of boils down to the fact that the whole PQ selection procces is complicated, I as a newbee when selecting my first PQ understood that this was a 'AND' function and thought that I could get results for; 'I have found' AND 'have not found' thinking I would get both.

As these think work in 'AND', 'OR' and 'NOT' ways that is the obviouse way to put it on the PQ page.

As we are talking about attributes, I think therefore we need possibly radio buttons with the options of; 'caches must have this attribute', 'caches must not have this attribute' and 'caches don't need to have this attribute.

It seem to me that as well as the options given and the formating of them the title/ discription for those options is just as important so that pepole can understand what they are selecting and that it meets thier needs and to do that you need to think like someone who dosn't know anything about computers apart from turning them on and what type of cheese to feed the mouse. :anicute:

8k · July 18, 2009

I would still argue that we change to a tag like 'Winter' and to 'No Winter'. Then allow search the following searches

Tag='Winter' - returns caches with 'Winter' tag

Tag='No Winter' - returns caches with 'No Winter' tag

Tag~='Winter' - returns caches that don't have the Winter tag but may have 'No Winter'

Tag~='No Winter' - returns caches that don't have the 'No Winter' tag but may have the 'Winter' tag

Tag='Winter' OR Tag='No Winter' - returns caches that have either the 'Winter' or 'No Winter' tag

Tag~='Winter' AND Tag~='No Winter' - returns caches that have neither the 'Winter' or the 'No Winter' tag.

July 18, 2009

What we want then is a PQ system that will allow us to have:

Avalibe in winter

Not avalibe in winter

Both avalibe in winter and not avalibe in winter

Not winter tag set

Avalibe in winter and not tag set

Bot avalibe in winter and no tag set

Even if you explain it in non technical terms I feel that may still confuse

So how about (and this may confuse even more but should be taken in the context of a compleat PQ page overhall.)

3 options

Cache is avalibe in winter

Cache is not avalibe in winter

I don't mind if the cache is avalibe in winter or not

Plus an option for advanced settings allowing you to set:

Avalibe in winter

Not avalibe in winter

Both avalibe in winter and not avalibe in winter

No winter tag set

Avalibe in winter and no tag set

Bot avalible in winter and no tag set

Along with ofher options to keep the PQ page simple and user friendly on it's main page with those requireing the extra filtering able to go to the advanced options

Do pepole understand what I'm driving at?

Edited July 18, 2009 by Wintonian

2.2k · July 18, 2009

(probably less than 200 geocachers regularly use this feature )

:anicute: Well, I got the reference! But I don't think you'd get much of a howl of rage if GS suddenly "stopped supporting" this feature. As I was reading this thread I realized that I NEVER use the attributes to prepare for a cache hunt, although I try to put meaningful one on my own caches. Sometimes I even think about constructing a cache that will qualify for a certain attribute. "Wheelchair" is an obvious one, but sometimes a small change can make a cache "stroller accessable" and I know there is at least one local cacher who looks for these. Most of mine get ticks, thorns and poisonous plants as a default. All of my soon to come kayak caches will have the "Bathrooms nearby" icon

I guess I've been lucky in that of my 2100 finds, most of the cache pages have been enough information about what to expect.

If there was a separate icon for chiggers I might watch out for those!

2.2k · July 18, 2009

(probably less than 200 geocachers regularly use this feature )

:anicute: Well, I got the reference! But I don't think you'd get much of a howl of rage if GS suddenly "stopped supporting" this feature. As I was reading this thread I realized that I NEVER use the attributes to prepare for a cache hunt, although I try to put meaningful one on my own caches. Sometimes I even think about constructing a cache that will qualify for a certain attribute. "Wheelchair" is an obvious one, but sometimes a small change can make a cache "stroller accessable" and I know there is at least one local cacher who looks for these. Most of mine get ticks, thorns and poisonous plants as a default. All of my soon to come kayak caches will have the "Bathrooms nearby" icon

I guess I've been lucky in that of my 2100 finds, most of the cache pages have been enough information about what to expect.

If there was a separate icon for chiggers I might watch out for those!

2.2k · July 18, 2009

(And before you pedantic grammarians jump on me, I know I used the subjunctive tense improperly. I did it on purpose. I hate that snooty piece of work! :anicute:

12 Slots for 10 Attributes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment