[FEATURE] Advanced filter for listing caches

[+Fier]

To give some background, I (like many other cachers) do not engage in the so called 'numbers game' and with the recent explosion of easy-find caches being published, I find it difficult to identify caches that appear to be interesting finds (however one may consider a find to be interesting.)

 

So my idea is to try facilitate both sides of the coin - enable people to filter on GC.com for 'quick finds' or to filter for the opposite. When I refer to a 'quick find' I think the best way to define it (with the information available) is to use a basic algorithm and categorise 'quick finds' to be: 'small' or 'micro', 'traditional' caches with 'difficulty'+'terrain' <= 3.

 

On my count, for every 26 'quick find' cache, there are 23 'not quick find' caches. If we can apply this filter to GC.com's search page and to the PQ function, we will be able to facilitate people wanting quick finds while travelling and those who play the 'numbers game' by ignoring the 'not quick finds' if/when they want to, and also facilitate people like myself who mostly enjoy the multi's, mysteries, and hard traditionals to avoid being troubled with (as I think of them - uninteresting) easy caches on the list of nearby caches.

 

I hope everybody reading this understands that I am not trying to start more debates regarding 'numbers game' or 'should we allow power trails' or 'I hate micros' - I am trying to propose a way that facilitates (a) what my good friends and gaming partners who find maximum reward in finding 'quick finds' than struggle for just a few 'not quick finds', and ( still facilitates what I appreciate about the game.

[+Fier]

funny how my ( b ) became a

That really was no pun intended

[Moun10Bike]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the specifics of what are you asking for. We identify "beginner caches" in search results by highlighting them green, and the criteria for selecting those are very close to what you are calling "quick finds". Beyond that, we have PQs with advanced search capabilities. What additional functionality are you proposing?

[+StarBrand]

Pocket queries will do everything you are asking for - that and I really kind of disagree with your too simplistic definition of a "quick" cache.

[+Fier]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the specifics of what are you asking for. We identify "beginner caches" in search results by highlighting them green, and the criteria for selecting those are very close to what you are calling "quick finds". Beyond that, we have PQs with advanced search capabilities. What additional functionality are you proposing?

 

The 'beginner caches' is a great idea - I suspect that you also include some consideration regarding the number of 'finds' against DNF's (information that I can't trust in an off-line database.)

 

Pocket queries will do everything you are asking for - that and I really kind of disagree with your too simplistic definition of a "quick" cache.

 

My definition of a 'quick cache' is up for debate. Perhaps I should have phrased it in reverse and tried to define a 'veteran cache.' I have put some thought into a better definition but we're limited by the information available. What I find particularly difficult is to include into the 'veteran caches' all caches that have a terrain less than 2 when the difficulty is 3 or greater and visa-versa. Which brings me to me response to both your observations...

 

The pocket queries (and for that matter the normal 'seek a cache' page) do not let me easily ignore all caches that have a combined value of terrain and difficulty being 4 or greater. In GSAK, I filter for all Traditional caches that have a difficulty of 1.5 and terrain of 1.5, then apply a reverse filter. (That helps a lot, but not when I'm on holiday and my PC is at home.) What I do not want to do is filter out all caches that have a difficulty of 2 or less and miss those with a terrain greater than 3 (or visa-versa.) I hope that you can see my angle here - I am trying to find a way to highlight the challenging caches - that's what inspires me to geocache.

 

@Moun10Bike - now that you mention 'beginner' caches, now I've started wondering whether there is a consideration to highlight 'veteran' caches or something similar?

[+Ambient_Skater]

[GASK] helps a lot, but not when I'm on holiday and my PC is at home.

Use a service such as LogMeIn Pro to access your GSAK database at home from a laptop or smartphone.

[Moun10Bike]

After explanation it looks to me as if this request is much the same as this one: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=286168.

[+zsdeng15014]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the specifics of what are you asking for. We identify "beginner caches" in search results by highlighting them green, and the criteria for selecting those are very close to what you are calling "quick finds". Beyond that, we have PQs with advanced search capabilities. What additional functionality are you proposing?

 

The 'beginner caches' is a great idea - I suspect that you also include some consideration regarding the number of 'finds' against DNF's (information that I can't trust in an off-line database.)

 

Pocket queries will do everything you are asking for - that and I really kind of disagree with your too simplistic definition of a "quick" cache.

 

My definition of a 'quick cache' is up for debate. Perhaps I should have phrased it in reverse and tried to define a 'veteran cache.' I have put some thought into a better definition but we're limited by the information available. What I find particularly difficult is to include into the 'veteran caches' all caches that have a terrain less than 2 when the difficulty is 3 or greater and visa-versa. Which brings me to me response to both your observations...

To find 'quick caches,' I think you should add a check-box that says "Quick Find" so that you can override possibilities of an overrated/underrated cache, and of caches that simply take more time than their D/T ratings and size ratings imply.

[+LostCoastNinja]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the specifics of what are you asking for. We identify "beginner caches" in search results by highlighting them green, and the criteria for selecting those are very close to what you are calling "quick finds". Beyond that, we have PQs with advanced search capabilities. What additional functionality are you proposing?

 

The 'beginner caches' is a great idea - I suspect that you also include some consideration regarding the number of 'finds' against DNF's (information that I can't trust in an off-line database.)

 

Pocket queries will do everything you are asking for - that and I really kind of disagree with your too simplistic definition of a "quick" cache.

 

My definition of a 'quick cache' is up for debate. Perhaps I should have phrased it in reverse and tried to define a 'veteran cache.' I have put some thought into a better definition but we're limited by the information available. What I find particularly difficult is to include into the 'veteran caches' all caches that have a terrain less than 2 when the difficulty is 3 or greater and visa-versa. Which brings me to me response to both your observations...

To find 'quick caches,' I think you should add a check-box that says "Quick Find" so that you can override possibilities of an overrated/underrated cache, and of caches that simply take more time than their D/T ratings and size ratings imply.

 

...Or maybe add a multi-tier cache review option? Something like the 5 star Difficulty/Terrain rating system, only for seekers to use after finding a cache. Just a thought.