Jump to content

New Attribute: Library Cache


animjason
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

As library caches get more popular, this would be a great attribute. It would have a dual purpose, the obvious: library, but also would signify indoors as well. We have a library series where we placed (only a few left to go) a cache in every library in Denver. People love it and it has sparked a renewed interest in finding and placing them. We have a bookmark list but an attribute would be fun too and I am sure there are many others that would want this attribute.

 

libraryattribute.gif

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Eh. As much as I enjoy library caches, they're pretty rare, so I'm not sure they're worthy of an attribute. Besides, one of cool things about a library cache is recognizing it's a library cache. Many I've seen dance around the fact that they're library caches even though any serious look at the description or location normally makes it obvious. I suspect the owners of such caches would not want to spoil the tingle of discovery by marking them with an attribute.

 

If you have a series that you want to make obvious, I'd suggest just starting the names of all of them with "Library".

Link to comment

I love library caches as much as the next cacher but they're rare in this area. I don't think adding an attribute would make that any different, although it would certainly make them easier to find.

 

There's a challenge not far from me and one of the qualifications is to have found ten caches within a library. It's exceptionally challenging for me as at the time I saw it, I had 4 library finds. Now I'm up to 9, but it's taken at least 7 months to track 'em down. Having an added attribute to these caches would've removed all of the fun (for me at least) from qualifying for that challenge.

 

So while I don't abhor the idea, I don't think it's really necessary.

Link to comment

A local cacher wasn't allowed to publish a library cache challenge because there's no metric to determine what is a library cache. She had to publish it as a regular library cache and stress the theme to encourage people to share how many library caches they'd found.

 

Curious to know how that library challenge cache was published, Bill.

 

If there were a library cache attribute, then there'd be a stat metric for the challenge cache.

Link to comment

Eh. As much as I enjoy library caches, they're pretty rare, so I'm not sure they're worthy of an attribute. Besides, one of cool things about a library cache is recognizing it's a library cache. Many I've seen dance around the fact that they're library caches even though any serious look at the description or location normally makes it obvious. I suspect the owners of such caches would not want to spoil the tingle of discovery by marking them with an attribute.

 

If you have a series that you want to make obvious, I'd suggest just starting the names of all of them with "Library".

+1

Link to comment

I don't think it'll happen- not saying it's a bad idea, just that there are others that will happen first. There's lots of people asking for challenge caches and power trails to have their own type, or at least an attribute so people can not/include them in PQ's and such. And these are much more common. There are only a certain number of libraries, so their numbers are limited, unlike a power trail who's potential numbers are virtually unlimited, or a challenge when you could have the same or similar challenges all over.

 

Also challenges are different enough, and powertrails have the support from both those who like them, and who don't, both of whom want ways to sort them. But is a library cache any different than a normal cache? Co-ords take you right to the book, and the cache description tells you what book. Or co-ords take you to the entrance and you solve a puzzle to find the book. Just your average trad/puzzle cache.

 

 

TL/DR

 

Not a bad idea- just other better ideas involving more caches to come first.

Edited by T.D.M.22
Link to comment

There can be any number of caches that make use of a library though. It's only if you have the physical container within the library that the saturation rule would take effect.

So, would the library attribute imply the final is inside the library, or that library access is required?

 

There is, remember, a 'front yard' attribute. But I would think that NOT Front Yard would be more common an attribute than Front Yard (for caches that are close to private yards but ensuring people don't get the wrong idea). And I'd even wager that "Library caches" could be more common than caches actually in private front yards.

Link to comment

There can be any number of caches that make use of a library though. It's only if you have the physical container within the library that the saturation rule would take effect.

So, would the library attribute imply the final is inside the library, or that library access is required?

 

There is, remember, a 'front yard' attribute. But I would think that NOT Front Yard would be more common an attribute than Front Yard (for caches that are close to private yards but ensuring people don't get the wrong idea). And I'd even wager that "Library caches" could be more common than caches actually in private front yards.

 

Depends on the country, over here in the Netherlands there are many front yard caches since a front yard is the easiest place to create a cache because you don't have to arrange permission or walk/cycle/drive a bit to do maintenance. I can't remember ever seeing a NOT front yard icon here.

Link to comment

A local cacher wasn't allowed to publish a library cache challenge because there's no metric to determine what is a library cache. She had to publish it as a regular library cache and stress the theme to encourage people to share how many library caches they'd found.

 

Curious to know how that library challenge cache was published, Bill.

1. Challenge Cache guidelines have evolved over time.

2. Many reviewers are dogs.

If there were a library cache attribute, then there'd be a stat metric for the challenge cache.

That's true. "Cache is inside a library" is not verifiable as a challenge criterion. "Attribute is present" would be. So would "has the word Library in the cache name" but that would also pick up a cache way out in the woods that's called "Backwoods Library Book Exchange."

Link to comment
There is, remember, a 'front yard' attribute. But I would think that NOT Front Yard would be more common an attribute than Front Yard (for caches that are close to private yards but ensuring people don't get the wrong idea). And I'd even wager that "Library caches" could be more common than caches actually in private front yards.

Depends on the country, over here in the Netherlands there are many front yard caches since a front yard is the easiest place to create a cache because you don't have to arrange permission or walk/cycle/drive a bit to do maintenance. I can't remember ever seeing a NOT front yard icon here.

True true, its use would be quite regional.

 

1. Challenge Cache guidelines have evolved over time.

2. Many reviewers are dogs.

1. Indeed. This one was only a couple months ago though ;)

2. Cycling through potential implications of that metaphor... :blink:

:laughing:

 

If there were a library cache attribute, then there'd be a stat metric for the challenge cache.

That's true. "Cache is inside a library" is not verifiable as a challenge criterion. "Attribute is present" would be. So would "has the word Library in the cache name" but that would also pick up a cache way out in the woods that's called "Backwoods Library Book Exchange."

Yep, that was the reason she didn't go with the word-in-title property.

Link to comment

There can be any number of caches that make use of a library though. It's only if you have the physical container within the library that the saturation rule would take effect.

So, would the library attribute imply the final is inside the library, or that library access is required?

 

There is, remember, a 'front yard' attribute. But I would think that NOT Front Yard would be more common an attribute than Front Yard (for caches that are close to private yards but ensuring people don't get the wrong idea). And I'd even wager that "Library caches" could be more common than caches actually in private front yards.

 

Which brings to mind all the "Little Free Libraries" around. Those would, in most cases, carry BOTH the "front yard" and the "library cache" attribute, no?

Link to comment

Attributes aren't typically used to categorize caches. With some exceptions, they're useful for determining special circumstances which could affect whether or not I go after a cache.

 

There's nothing about a Library cache that would warrant either a special attribute or a cache type.

TeamRabbitRun raises a good point.

 

Attributes are currently divided into 5 groups:

-Conditions: Special aspects of the terrain, access information, things that affect the search, and the amount of effort required

-Permissions: What's allowed at or on the way to the cache

-Equipment: Whether any special tools are required

-Hazards: Things to look out for at or on the way to the cache

-Facilities: Nearby amenities or the accessibility of the cache

 

All of these are things that can be used when planning a visit to the cache, either to decide if you want to/can attempt it, or to prepare in advance for the hunt. For the library caches I've found, there have been no special circumstances that were unique to the library-style of cache. When you think about it, library caches aren't really any different from many other caches. The only real difference between them and the majority of caches is that they're inside a building, but that aspect isn't something that would generally need to be known during the planning phase. Tag it with "Recommended for kids", "Not available at all times", "Wheelchair accessible" (if applicable), "Field Puzzle" (if applicable), and any other applicable attributes, and you've pretty much given cachers all the info they need to plan their visit.

 

With this request, and other previous ones like for "Church micros", maybe a new concept of "categories" is required. Each cache would still have its own individual attributes to help with planning, like the ones I suggested above, but then it could also be added to one or more categories to group similar hide-styles together. Sort of like how tags are used in blog posts.

Link to comment

With this request, and other previous ones like for "Church micros", maybe a new concept of "categories" is required. Each cache would still have its own individual attributes to help with planning, like the ones I suggested above, but then it could also be added to one or more categories to group similar hide-styles together. Sort of like how tags are used in blog posts.

 

That one seems like a can of worms. Before long, folks will be clamoring for "bridge", "park", "cave", "river", "mountain" and any number of other classifications or categories.

Link to comment

A local cacher wasn't allowed to publish a library cache challenge because there's no metric to determine what is a library cache. She had to publish it as a regular library cache and stress the theme to encourage people to share how many library caches they'd found.

 

Curious to know how that library challenge cache was published, Bill.

 

If there were a library cache attribute, then there'd be a stat metric for the challenge cache.

 

It wasn't a stand alone qualification for the challenge. I'm assuming the fact that most cachers will list the library hours on the cache page and that's likely the kicker. It's part of this challenge - GC53KHZ

Edited by Traditional Bill
Link to comment

Curious to know how that library challenge cache was published, Bill.

 

If there were a library cache attribute, then there'd be a stat metric for the challenge cache.

It wasn't a stand alone qualification for the challenge. I'm assuming the fact that most cachers will list the library hours on the cache page and that's likely the kicker. It's part of this challenge - GC53KHZ

 

huh, interesting... although there's nothing on that challenge cache page requiring library hours in the descriptions of qualifying caches. It was probably published because there are a bunch of other requirements (so the library item isn't as prominent)

 

But that is an interesting 'metric', library hours in the description... it's about as technically reliable as having "library" in the title, but more likely to indicate an actual library cache.

Link to comment

With this request, and other previous ones like for "Church micros", maybe a new concept of "categories" is required. Each cache would still have its own individual attributes to help with planning, like the ones I suggested above, but then it could also be added to one or more categories to group similar hide-styles together. Sort of like how tags are used in blog posts.

 

That one seems like a can of worms. Before long, folks will be clamoring for "bridge", "park", "cave", "river", "mountain" and any number of other classifications or categories.

 

That could happen, however attributes have been added despite the same danger existing there.

 

I think that for certain cache types classifications would be a very nice thing to be able to search for such caches worldwide.

 

Some examples that come to my mind for which I'd like to be able to search for: orienteering caches (where orienteering maps and/or orienteering posts play a role),

long distance hiking caches, long distance biking caches.

 

None of those are defined via the required tools or certain existing attributes, special D/T ratings etc.

 

Even if cachers used a certain key word in the title, it would be language dependent which is a big issue in Europe with its many languages.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

With this request, and other previous ones like for "Church micros", maybe a new concept of "categories" is required. Each cache would still have its own individual attributes to help with planning, like the ones I suggested above, but then it could also be added to one or more categories to group similar hide-styles together. Sort of like how tags are used in blog posts.

 

That one seems like a can of worms. Before long, folks will be clamoring for "bridge", "park", "cave", "river", "mountain" and any number of other classifications or categories.

 

That could happen, however attributes have been added despite the same danger existing there.

 

I think that for certain cache types classifications would be a very nice thing to be able to search for such caches worldwide.

 

Some examples that come to my mind for which I'd like to be able to search for: orienteering caches (where orienteering maps and/or orienteering posts play a role),

long distance hiking caches, long distance biking caches.

 

None of those are defined via the required tools or certain existing attributes, special D/T ratings etc.

 

Even if cachers used a certain key word in the title, it would be language dependent which is a big issue in Europe with its many languages.

 

long distance...hike_long-yes.gif

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

long distance...hike_long-yes.gif

 

That could be any cache where the start point is at a larger distance from the end point than 10 km.

 

A long distance hiking cache is something which would need at least by >30km in my opinion, like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC18QYC_steirischer-06-graz-mariazell

 

A long distance biking cache would have to been longer, so like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1WGDC_r2-murradweg-graz-radkersburg?guid=796044b8-391d-462d-ba86-b30261105e7c

 

It's very hard to identify such caches in areas one is not familiar with.

So If I'd like to know for example, all hiking multi caches in Europe that cover a distance of more than 50km

this would end up as a serious challenge where I'd got to ask someone in each country.

 

Another example: Picture hunting caches like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4TBM7_stadtbummel-stroll-in-the-town

It would be very nice to be able to search just for that category.

 

Some cachers try to set up bookmarks for certain cache types, but almost all of these lists are restricted to certain regions (often not even at the level of countries).

 

Categorization would be very helpful in those cases for those who seek out certain caches because their nature. Their main concern is not knowing what is needed to log a find for a certain cache, they rather want to select certain caches according to the tasks and the locations. For many of those cachers this is what they enjoy much more than the actual search for a container and so the tasks and the locations play a greater role (or at least a prominent role too) in their selection process than D/T-ratings and certain attributes.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

When searching for 'classes' of caches not explicitly defined, I do google searches for public bookmark lists people have generated themselves. It can be tedious if they're worldwide and you're just trying to look local, but if it's a common 'theme' type of cache, and it's already popular, if you can find one or two caches you know of near you, they may already be listed in someone's themed bookmark list.

 

I think Groundspeak would suggest bookmark lists as well as an alternative to non-explicitly-defined geocache classes/themes.

 

A good starting point for a search like that would be to begin a google search criteria with:

 

site:geocaching.com inurl:bookmarks inurl:view.aspx

then just append whatever terms you want to search for.

eg: site:geocaching.com inurl:bookmarks inurl:view.aspx "library" would ensure you get a list of any publicly accessible bookmark list with "library" in the title. But yeah, that would be worldwide. :P

 

ETA: cross-replied

Some cachers try to set up bookmarks for certain cache types, but almost all of these lists are restricted to certain regions (often not even at the level of countries).

 

I think that's just a task we need to take with a grain of salt given the nature of the pastime. We can't have everything we want handed to us on a platter. To what extent should GS "define" these classes of caches and preferences so we don't have to any work to find what we may like? They'd prefer to provide attributes for caches where it helps the community based on legitimate concerns, not just preferences.

I think public bookmark lists are their go-to answer for that.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

When searching for 'classes' of caches not explicitly defined, I do google searches for public bookmark lists people have generated themselves. It can be tedious if they're worldwide and you're just trying to look local, but if it's a common 'theme' type of cache, and it's already popular, if you can find one or two caches you know of near you, they may already be listed in someone's themed bookmark list.

 

In all my examples there do not exist bookmark lists that are worldwide, they do not even cover e.g. all of Europe.

 

I think Groundspeak would suggest bookmark lists as well as an alternative to non-explicitly-defined geocache classes/themes.

 

Bookmark lists are definitely not a good idea for caches where there exist many hundreds of them, at least not the in way they are implemented.

 

In 2014 I'd expect efficient search methods and not what is available for Bookmark lists.

 

A good starting point for a search like that would be to begin a google search criteria with:

 

site:geocaching.com inurl:bookmarks inurl:view.aspx

then just append whatever terms you want to search for.

eg: site:geocaching.com inurl:bookmarks inurl:view.aspx "library" would ensure you get a list of any publicly accessible bookmark list with "library" in the title. But yeah, that would be worldwide. :P

 

It would be worldwide if everyone would use English titles, yes. Have you thought about the number of languages used in Europe?

In some languages the words at least have some common root (like Bibliothek in German and bibliotheque in French), but consider

könyvtár which is the Hungarian word for library etc

 

 

I think that's just a task we need to take with a grain of salt given the nature of the pastime. We can't have everything we want handed to us on a platter. To what extent should GS "define" these classes of caches and preferences so we don't have to any work to find what we may like? They'd prefer to provide attributes for caches where it helps the community based on legitimate concerns, not just preferences.

I think public bookmark lists are their go-to answer for that.

 

For me a cache that requires a UV-torch, is also just something based on preference. You can argue along the same lines that by searching in the text of the cache description you can find such caches if the UV-torch is mentioned there.

 

As I said it is not about not willing to do work, it is just about that there are no reasonable approaches available to end up with the type of result that would be nice to have.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

In all my examples there do not exist bookmark lists that are worldwide, they do not even cover e.g. all of Europe.

I meant worldwide as in the bookmark lists themselves exist all over the world, not lists that contains caches from all over the world. Thus the difficulty of finding a relevant one to a specific area.

 

In 2014 I'd expect efficient search methods and not what is available for Bookmark lists.

Priority. Bookmark lists are the current answer for very fine search results based on a relatively endless set of user preferences.

I wouldn't expect the ability to search for any class of cache under the sun, just because it may be a type of cache I like.

 

It would be worldwide if everyone would use English titles, yes.

Again, lists that may exist anywhere in the world (change the text phrase to your heart's content), not lists containing caches worldwide.

 

For me a cache that requires a UV-torch, is also just something based on preference. You can argue along the same lines that by searching in the text of the cache description you can find such caches if the UV-torch is mentioned there.

It's preference, it's also an issue regarding being able to complete the cache due to requirement of a specialized tool. Not just preference for a neat experience.

 

Some attributes alert for dangers, some indicate health concerns, accessibility, special tool requirements, property cautions or legal rights, etc. Alerts regarding potential issues, as opposed to just making a preference search easier.

 

I don't think a Library cache attribute falls into issues, necessarily. But the argument could be made that it's a special type of cache that's approved where it wouldn't otherwise, because it is a library cache. But then, that's more an issue of cache creation rather than cache finding (attributes being indicators for the finder's information).

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

In all my examples there do not exist bookmark lists that are worldwide, they do not even cover e.g. all of Europe.

I meant worldwide as in the bookmark lists themselves exist all over the world, not lists that contains caches from all over the world. Thus the difficulty of finding a relevant one to a specific area.

 

But that answers a completely different question. If I'd like to see a list of all (or as many as possible) orienteering caches in Europe because such caches might trigger a visit to a certain place just because of such a cache, the bookmark list approach is not very useful.

The same is true for long distance hiking caches.

 

In 2014 I'd expect efficient search methods and not what is available for Bookmark lists.

Priority. Bookmark lists are the current answer for very fine search results based on a relatively endless set of user preferences.

I wouldn't expect the ability to search for any class of cache under the sun, just because it may be a type of cache I like.

 

What I meant was that bookmark lists are set up in quite clumsy way which does not match modern state of the art.

 

Even if a library category existed, it would of course depend on the cache owners to make use of it and so you never would end with a perfect result.

 

It would be nice however if one could add e.g. certain keywords and then at least some third party tool could offer an efficient search based on the keywords (such as the

very efficient wild card search on project-gc). There still would a language dependency, but in any case it would work better than what is available now.

 

 

It would be worldwide if everyone would use English titles, yes.

Again, lists that may exist anywhere in the world (change the text phrase to your heart's content), not lists containing caches worldwide.

 

But that's not what I find useful, see my examples.

 

I don't think a Library cache attribute falls into issues, necessarily. But the argument could be made that it's a special type of cache that's approved where it wouldn't otherwise, because it is a library cache. But then, that's more an issue of cache creation rather than cache finding (attributes being indicators for the finder's information).

 

I have found only a single library cache and I do not know another one in my country.

However, I like the point of view that has been added to the discussion by addressing the fact that categories would be something nice to have for certain cache types.

 

There are thousands of caches out there - it's nice to be able to select those that one enjoys and not the one which one is able to finish, but does not enjoy.

 

Those enjoying scuba caches, have the advantage that special equipment is needed. Those who enjoy cache types which do not require special equipment are in a less favourable position.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I meant worldwide as in the bookmark lists themselves exist all over the world, not lists that contains caches from all over the world. Thus the difficulty of finding a relevant one to a specific area.

But that answers a completely different question. If I'd like to see a list of all (or as many as possible) orienteering caches in Europe because such caches might trigger a visit to a certain place just because of such a cache, the bookmark list approach is not very useful.

The same is true for long distance hiking caches.

You missed my point: If you search with those parameters, google will show you results that match bookmark lists for caches that could exist anywhere in the world, thus not directly helpful for finding caches in your area; that requires extra work (but less overall) to scan through resulting bookmark lists for ones that are relevant to you. But alternatively, if you know of a cache or few in your area of the type you prefer, then you can check to see if any of those are already in a themed bookmark list, potentially leading you to others of a similar style, that are already in your area.

I said nothing as to whether that was good or bad for you, only that those are options, and are better than nothing, and that IMO that process would be what Groundspeak will respond as sufficient for the time being for cache preference searches.

 

What I meant was that bookmark lists are set up in quite clumsy way which does not match modern state of the art.

Ok. Sure. I fully don't expect "state of the art" cache searches for any cache style that suits my preference. I don't expect that level of detail handed to me on a silver platter. I want to find caches. I'll favour ones I come across or hear about and make note of them if i want to go for them at some point in the future. That's enough for me.

 

It would be nice however if one could add e.g. certain keywords and then at least some third party tool could offer an efficient search based on the keywords (such as the very efficient wild card search on project-gc). There still would a language dependency, but in any case it would work better than what is available now.

You know what I do?

Use third party tools for that level of searching. Really, it's not that hard or inconvenient. That's sufficient for keyword searching beyond what gc.com offers. I don't see GS prioritizing more than that any time soon.

 

However, I like the point of view that has been added to the discussion by addressing the fact that categories would be something nice to have for certain cache types.

Sure. But like I said, that level of arbitrary searching based on any user's particular preference opens a can of complex worms that I don't foresee GS incorporating any time soon. Because 3rd party tools do it. Efficiently and easily.

 

There are thousands of caches out there - it's nice to be able to select those that one enjoys and not the one which one is able to finish, but does not enjoy.

Use bookmark lists. If there happens to be one you think you'll enjoy that is not listed anywhere, well then you get to discover it! Demanding it be handed to you on a platter is, IMO, demanding too much.

 

Those enjoying scuba caches, have the advantage that special equipment is needed. Those who enjoy cache types which do not require special equipment are in a less favourable position.

Because special equipment is needed. So it can be filtered out so people don't waste time going for a cache they cannot possibly do without knowing beforehand what's needed. It's an Issue, not just a preference.

Link to comment

I meant worldwide as in the bookmark lists themselves exist all over the world, not lists that contains caches from all over the world. Thus the difficulty of finding a relevant one to a specific area.

At least if you track down the page for one cache of the correct type in the area, you can find the list, assuming it's public.

Link to comment

You missed my point: If you search with those parameters, google will show you results that match bookmark lists for caches that could exist anywhere in the world, thus not directly helpful for finding caches in your area;

 

If I search with these parameters, I will find bookmarks lists that are based on English.

 

How should I search for orienteering caches in Europe in that way?

Or for picture hunting caches in Europe?

 

I do know e.g. a bookmark list that contains a number of picture hunting caches in and around Vienna, with some entries for other areas in Austria.

 

I could imagine that probably there existed such a list also for a certain other country (even though it might be quite hard to find if not knowing the right words to search for in the right language).

 

But could I possibly find e.g. as many orienteering caches in Europe (including any third part tool you might exist)?

 

The idea would be to say "Oh, how nice there three such caches in Norway, let's go there for the next vacation".

 

The same applies for long distance hiking caches.

 

Like, oh how nice, there is a really nice long distance hiking cache in Hungary, let's go for it.

 

The approach you suggested does not work for what I have in mind not even with investing much work and whatever third party tools that are around.

 

If someone loves library caches and would be willing to visit a region just because there are a number of nice library caches regardless of which region this is,

how should the bookmark search with a keyword in a particular language ever work?

 

How would you ever find this bookmark list of picture hunting caches in and around Vienna

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=c9a71d26-70d2-476c-a4b4-40a23010dd99

without specifically searching for such caches within Austria and having found one on the list?

 

Such lists might exist in Belgium or France too (just two arbitrary examples) but I will probably never get to know.

 

 

 

that requires extra work (but less overall) to scan through resulting bookmark lists for ones that are relevant to you.

 

I was not referring to that part of the work.

 

But alternatively, if you know of a cache or few in your area of the type you prefer, then you can check to see if any of those are already in a themed bookmark list, potentially leading you to others of a similar style, that are already in your area.

 

I know all caches in my area. I simply look through all newly published and I know all the old ones. That's not what I would use categories for.

 

I said nothing as to whether that was good or bad for you, only that those are options, and are better than nothing, and that IMO that process would be what Groundspeak will respond as sufficient for the time being for cache preference searches.

 

You could declare anything which you do not need as not necessary and what is available as sufficient.

 

What I meant was that bookmark lists are set up in quite clumsy way which does not match modern state of the art.

Ok. Sure. I fully don't expect "state of the art" cache searches for any cache style that suits my preference. I don't expect that level of detail handed to me on a silver platter. I want to find caches. I'll favour ones I come across or hear about and make note of them if i want to go for them at some point in the future. That's enough for me.

 

It's very, very hard to hear about caches in other European countries because there are no European forums across countries and you can count the number of cachers from continental Europe to

come to this forum with the fingers of say at most 4 hands.

 

It would be nice however if one could add e.g. certain keywords and then at least some third party tool could offer an efficient search based on the keywords (such as the very efficient wild card search on project-gc). There still would a language dependency, but in any case it would work better than what is available now.

You know what I do?

Use third party tools for that level of searching. Really, it's not that hard or inconvenient. That's sufficient for keyword searching beyond what gc.com offers. I don't see GS prioritizing more than that any time soon.

 

My comment was if there existed a keyword section on the cache pages, then third party tools could provide a nice tool. Did you read what I wrote?

Third party tools cannot search for something which is not available.

 

 

However, I like the point of view that has been added to the discussion by addressing the fact that categories would be something nice to have for certain cache types.

Sure. But like I said, that level of arbitrary searching based on any user's particular preference opens a can of complex worms that I don't foresee GS incorporating any time soon. Because 3rd party tools do it. Efficiently and easily.

 

No, third party tools don't do it at all at the moment because the data is not available.

Otherwise, of course such a function might exist on project gc within a few weeks at most.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

If I search with these parameters, I will find bookmarks lists that are based on English.

Search for whatever text phrase you want! It's irrelevant. The google parameters will work regarless of language. So don't look for "library", look lor "bibliotheque" or whatever else you want. Sheesh, sometimes it seems like you're arguing just to find something to argue about dry.gif

 

> How should I search for orienteering caches in Europe in that way?

 

"orienteering" "europe" (or other translation, eg)

 

> Or for picture hunting caches in Europe?

 

"picture hunting" "europe" (or other translation, eg)

 

> But could I possibly find e.g. as many orienteering caches in Europe (including any third part tool you might exist)?

 

Ask the COs. Or just look for other bookmark lists.

Use whatever method you find most optimal. I don't care. I'm just suggesting one of many ways to find caches you might want to do.

 

> The idea would be to say "Oh, how nice there three such caches in Norway, let's go there for the next vacation".

 

And then look to see if anyone's bookmarked them in a themed list which could point you to even more caches you want to do in Norway.

 

> The same applies for long distance hiking caches.

 

Filter for attributes first. Sort by favourites if you want.

Google for bookmark lists with "hike" or "hiking" (or whatever translation, eg)

 

> Like, oh how nice, there is a really nice long distance hiking cache in Hungary, let's go for it.

 

Bookmark it. Bookmark others like it.

Share your bookmark list if there aren't other similar ones out there already, so that you can help save someone else the time of searching them out like you may have had to do.

 

> The approach you suggested does not work for what I have in mind not even with investing much work and whatever third party tools that are around.

 

Yep it does. Because I can imagine how I would do it. You just don't like the amount of work that would be required. And that's fine. But I'm of the mind that Groundspeak thinks the amount of work required to find caches you might like to do is acceptable at this time.

 

If someone loves library caches and would be willing to visit a region just because there are a number of nice library caches regardless of which region this is,

how should the bookmark search with a keyword in a particular language ever work?

Exactly as I described. With site: and inurl:. Or come up with some other algorithm if you want. Doesn't matter to me. I was just suggesting one way to make your search easier.

 

How would you ever find this bookmark list of picture hunting caches in and around Vienna

http://www.geocachin...b4-40a23010dd99

without specifically searching for such caches within Austria and having found one on the list?

Search (note the search phrases; and the language)

 

> Such lists might exist in Belgium or France too (just two arbitrary examples) but I will probably never get to know.

 

Change "Österreich" to whatever you want!

 

But alternatively, if you know of a cache or few in your area of the type you prefer, then you can check to see if any of those are already in a themed bookmark list, potentially leading you to others of a similar style, that are already in your area.

I know all caches in my area. I simply look through all newly published and I know all the old ones. That's not what I would use categories for.

If you ignore those, you miss out on potential bookmark lists they're in that could lead to other similar caches in your area.

Please try to understand the concept of themed bookmark lists and what I'm saying.

I know you don't want to do more work, but this is all actually making things easier - just not necessarily as easy as you want it to be.

 

> You could declare anything which you do not need as not necessary and what is available as sufficient.

 

Note I preface all of those points with "IMO" (and if I didn't, then I should have) - Yes, I know that.

 

It's very, very hard to hear about caches in other European countries because there are no European forums across countries and you can count the number of cachers from continental Europe to

come to this forum with the fingers of say at most 4 hands.

?

Irrelevant. Use the caches you know you like, and seek out themed bookmark lists.

Or use Google and find public themed bookmark lists that are located in your area, or contain caches in your area.

Or don't, and keep complaining that the caches you want to find aren't handed to you on a platter.

 

It would be nice however if one could add e.g. certain keywords and then at least some third party tool could offer an efficient search based on the keywords (such as the very efficient wild card search on project-gc). There still would a language dependency, but in any case it would work better than what is available now.

You know what I do?

Use third party tools for that level of searching. Really, it's not that hard or inconvenient. That's sufficient for keyword searching beyond what gc.com offers. I don't see GS prioritizing more than that any time soon.

My comment was if there existed a keyword section on the cache pages, then third party tools could provide a nice tool. Did you read what I wrote?

Third party tools cannot search for something which is not available.

 

Ok, then perhaps there was a misunderstanding due to language. Allowing COs to include keywords - not just words in the title or description - but actually explicit keywords for the cache listings, yes, could make searching easier. When you said keywords, then pointed to project-gc's wildcard search as an example, I went right to the generic context of a keyword search, as in searching for a keyword in available text - not explicit keyword values that could be applied to caches.

 

So now that I understand that, then yes I agree that would be a nice feature. Maybe you should open a feature suggest thread to discuss how that could be productively implemented.

 

> No, third party tools don't do it at all at the moment because the data is not available. Otherwise, of course such a function might exist on project gc within a few weeks at most.

 

See above.

 

Cezanne, you're exhausting :ph34r:

Link to comment

Search for whatever text phrase you want! It's irrelevant. The google parameters will work regarless of language. So don't look for "library", look lor "bibliotheque" or whatever else you want. Sheesh, sometimes it seems like you're arguing just to find something to argue about dry.gif

 

No, my intent is not to argue for its own sake. Of course one can make e.g. 20 separate searches for library caches by doing 20 searches with 20 different languages. Not very practical in my opinion, however.

 

> How should I search for orienteering caches in Europe in that way?

 

"orienteering" "europe" (or other translation, eg)

 

Ask the COs. Or just look for other bookmark lists.

 

 

I stressed Europe due to the many languages around there.

So like above one would need to make 20 or more searches and even when doing that it can easily happen that one is not

choosing the appropriate term. The same applies to the picture hunting example.

The idea would not be to do >50 separate searches that still would not provide you with the results that I have in mind as it is very difficult to find proper search terms in languages one does not know and just uses translation tools and dictionaries.

 

Moreover, of course you will end up with mostly bookmark lists that collect caches with a different topic like e.g. a list of large caches where a single cache on it has something like "near a large library" in the explanation text on the bookmark list.

 

Which COs? I do not know them in advance if I do not know the caches.

 

Use whatever method you find most optimal. I don't care. I'm just suggesting one of many ways to find caches you might want to do.

 

You did not suggest a single method that works for what I have in mind.

Ofg course it is not your job to do som but please refrain from claiming that you suggested many ways for the purpose I mentioned when you have not even mentioned a single one that works for a set of countries with many different languages.

 

 

> The idea would be to say "Oh, how nice there three such caches in Norway, let's go there for the next vacation".

 

And then look to see if anyone's bookmarked them in a themed list which could point you to even more caches you want to do in Norway.

 

> Like, oh how nice, there is a really nice long distance hiking cache in Hungary, let's go for it.

 

Bookmark it. Bookmark others like it.

 

It is about first finding out that there are those three caches in Norway without already looking for caches in exactly Norway.

 

The same applies to the Hungary example: I need to find them first without already having decided to search only for caches in Hungary.

 

Share your bookmark list if there aren't other similar ones out there already, so that you can help save someone else the time of searching them out like you may have had to do.

 

As I said, there is no method to find what I'd like to find available right there. So it's not about bookmarking or any other sort of creating cache lists. It's about finding suitable items in this huge gc.com database without looking at every single cache and translating the texts.

 

Yep it does. Because I can imagine how I would do it. You just don't like the amount of work that would be required. And that's fine. But I'm of the mind that Groundspeak thinks the amount of work required to find caches you might like to do is acceptable at this time.

 

Probably because you would either focus just on the English language or particular countries?

The difference between you and me is certainly not that you are willing to invest more work.

 

Groundspeak is of course free to think whatever they want and to implement whatever they want.

 

My point is just that with what is available at the moment, the search I have in mind cannot be done except by looking at almost all caches worldwide (of course certain cache can be excluded, like events, certain attributes) and translating the text of all those that might be a match if the text is not in a language the searcher can read.

 

> Such lists might exist in Belgium or France too (just two arbitrary examples) but I will probably never get to know.

 

Change "Österreich" to whatever you want!

 

I did not mean to search in a particular country. Search worldwide for all caches of a certain type without using all languages of the world.

 

If you ignore those, you miss out on potential bookmark lists they're in that could lead to other similar caches in your area.

Please try to understand the concept of themed bookmark lists and what I'm saying.

 

Use the caches you know you like, and seek out themed bookmark lists.

Or use Google and find public themed bookmark lists that are located in your area, or contain caches in your area.

Or don't, and keep complaining that the caches you want to find aren't handed to you on a platter.

 

I know how such bookmark lists work, but when I know all caches in my area, then I'm not looking for other similar caches in my area. Sometimes it happens for example that one finds a few Austrian hiking caches on a list of German jhiking caches because the owner of the list spent his/her vacation in Austria. It's extremely rare however that bookmark lists really span many countries and in particular when caches are involved that are in many different languages.

 

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

I told you already it is not about finding caches in my area. I know everything there. I do not need any search method there.

But that approach does not work worldwide.

 

 

Ok, then perhaps there was a misunderstanding due to language. Allowing COs to include keywords - not just words in the title or description - but actually explicit keywords for the cache listings, yes, could make searching easier. When you said keywords, then pointed to project-gc's wildcard search as an example, I went right to the generic context of a keyword search, as in searching for a keyword in available text - not explicit keyword values that could be applied to caches.

 

What I meant is that if there were a keyword section, then a tool like project-gc would soon offer a new search option.

 

If the keywords were chosen from provided lists that could be extended, the thing could become language independent, making it even more helpful. But even if everyone could choose their own keywords without restrictions, it would still be helpful and would help in seeing which terms are used for what in which countries.

Link to comment

Eh. As much as I enjoy library caches, they're pretty rare, so I'm not sure they're worthy of an attribute. Besides, one of cool things about a library cache is recognizing it's a library cache. Many I've seen dance around the fact that they're library caches even though any serious look at the description or location normally makes it obvious. I suspect the owners of such caches would not want to spoil the tingle of discovery by marking them with an attribute.

 

If you have a series that you want to make obvious, I'd suggest just starting the names of all of them with "Library".

 

I've recently been working on posting a cache that is located indoors, though not within a library. Given what I have needed to work through to even give the cache a possibility of fruition, I would hazard the following assumption for placing a library cache today.

 

The main issue is the GPS is required rule. If the cache description tells you the cache is in the library, then you've failed the GPS requirement and it isn't allowed. My experience is that it is nigh impossible to get a traditional cache published indoors today. So I move on to a letterbox, an unknown, multi, etc, something that establishes a coordinate outside from which to start.

 

This is why I would not be surprised if a library cache dances around in the description when it comes to telling you that the cache is actually in the library. You can't say the cache is in the library then have a hint that tells you where to find it on the shelf. I am not saying that all reviewers will stop such things but that is my experience.

Link to comment

Ok, I had written up another response, but I'm starting over and ignoring everything except the one 'new' suggestion about this "keyword" search, because everything else is about opinion, and all I did (or tried to do) was suggest common methods to make searching for the types of caches you want to do easier. Which is apparently still too much work.

 

So, skipping ahead to something more interesting and productive...

 

If the keywords were chosen from provided lists that could be extended, the thing could become language independent, making it even more helpful. But even if everyone could choose their own keywords without restrictions, it would still be helpful and would help in seeing which terms are used for what in which countries.

 

What you have effectively proposed is a duplicate of the existing attributes system. Keywords are not free text entry any more (the way I understood the suggestion initially) as that introduces the language barrier for searching. So basically, it's no different than requesting new attributes that would somehow classify/categorize what type of cache it is. If the 'keywords' are pulled from a language agnostic list of options, not a free text entry, you have created a new list of universal attributes for COs to select from, and users to search by.

 

How I understand it:

Proposed implementation? Groundspeak provides a list of pre-selected keywords (translated to your local/profile language) which can be applied to a cache as a helpful descriptor by which people can also search for caches that meet their preference. These would not be keywords/categories that merit new filterable attributes (potential concerns) as in the existing attribute system, they would just be added there. These would be a separate collection of categories that are merely additional arbitrary descriptors of the type of experience one would expect with the cache. "Library", "Fun hike", "Long hike"... Hey, maybe some of the existing attributes would be better served there - "Scenic View", "Tourist Friendly"...

 

Actuality: Why use is text if the language is irrelevant? Why have to localize all those new text keywords? Images would be more concise and descriptive and easier to implement. Just like attribute icons. So, just add a whole bunch of new attributes, perhaps a new 'class' of attributes, like "Interest" attributes. (don't even want to imagine what GS would think about having to deal with and select from endless 'interest' categories)

 

So we're back at the beginning.

 

A Library cache attribute.

 

#circles

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

What you have effectively proposed is a duplicate of the existing attributes system. Keywords are not free text entry any more (the way I understood the suggestion initially) as that introduces the language barrier for searching. So basically, it's no different than requesting new attributes that would somehow classify/categorize what type of cache it is. If the 'keywords' are pulled from a language agnostic list of options, not a free text entry, you have created a new list of universal attributes for COs to select from, and users to search by.

 

The original keyword idea is indeed based on free text like keywords are used in scientific articles (but there in many areas almost anything of relevance is published in English which makes it easier).

 

The other idea that I mentioned as well is more restricted than free text, but it should not be a duplication of the attributes for multiple reasons.

It should not be about gathering as many attributes etc and the attributes also affect all gps-receivers and third party programs etc

 

 

How I understand it:

Proposed implementation? Groundspeak provides a list of pre-selected keywords (translated to your local/profile language) which can be applied to a cache as a helpful descriptor by which people can also search for caches that meet their preference.

 

That would be the second version, right.

 

These would not be keywords/categories that merit new filterable attributes (potential concerns) as in the existing attribute system, they would just be added there. These would be a separate collection of categories that are merely additional arbitrary descriptors of the type of experience one would expect with the cache. "Library", "Fun hike", "Long hike"... Hey, maybe some of the existing attributes would be better served there - "Scenic View", "Tourist Friendly"...

 

Yes, indeed. Scenic view, tourist friendly are attributes which do not fit into your general explanation for when attributes should be needed.

 

By the way: What I have in mind with long distance hiking caches are not long hikes. 25km is a long hike, but not long enough for a long distance hiking cache which is not a one day cache.

 

Actuality: Why use is text if the language is irrelevant? Why have to localize all those new text keywords? Images would be more concise and descriptive and easier to implement. Just like attribute icons. So, just add a whole bunch of new attributes, perhaps a new 'class' of attributes, like "Interest" attributes. (don't even want to imagine what GS would think about having to deal with and select from endless 'interest' categories)

 

I'm not sure. Personally, I find pictures very misleading and often I have no idea what a picture could mean. But of course that's just a personal preference.

 

When a book is shown, I would not know whether to expect a bookcrossing cache, a puzzle about books, a cache in a library or whatever.

 

And I could not think of an icon for an orienteering cache which does not use colours.

 

I think a lot of the troubles we have with the snowflake icon is that people interpret it differently. For some it's about snow and for some about Winter. Personally, I regard text as clearer and prefer it over pictures.

 

 

So we're back at the beginning.

 

A Library cache attribute.

 

#circles

 

Personally I think the way attributes are handled right now, one needs to take care to do not end up with too many and each new attribute would mean changes in a lot of other software.

 

Descriptors which just help to guide the search would not to be treated in the same manner as there is indeed a difference. The UV torch attribute is something which should be available to those who search for a suitable cache in the field. Searching for all library caches in a country or all long distance hiking caches in Europe is not something that will typically be done in the field and on a GPS-receiver in a paperless way. It also does not guide the search process right at the cache.

 

I think the chances that a library attribute is added are extremely small (I would not mind if they added one). There are not so many library caches and there exist so many other requests for new attributes. Too many to add them to the attribute system as it is now.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'm still not seeing any practical difference between your suggestion and the concept of the "attribute".

 

Whether image or text, it has to be pre-selected categories and language agnostic.

However it's used, it's one or more properties assigned to a listing. It could be used for searching, whether in the field or on the website. Where the search is done is practically irrelevant.

The system for this already exists, and that's the attribute system.

So you're ultimately suggesting a new class of attributes which people can use to better describe their cache in the context of arbitrary caching experiences.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I'm still not seeing any practical difference between your suggestion and the concept of the "attribute".

 

The attributes right now are made available in a list in the submission process.

It would not very practicable to present the average cache hider (many newbies among) with long lists.

They should concentrate on the attributes that exist right now.

 

Moreover, by not turning what I have in mind into attributes one would be more flexible. Not every

addition of a new term would affect many other tools. And it would not push people to use certain attributes just

to end up with having all of them on their score list statistics systems.

The categories should just be helpful in searching for caches. It would not hurt if some are a bit overlapping

e.g.

 

Whether image or text, it has to be pre-selected categories and language agnostic.

 

Not necessarily. The original keyword idea is language dependent, but still would have its merits (not the same as the

other idea).

 

However it's used, it's one or more properties assigned to a listing. It could be used for searching, whether in the field or on the website. Where the search is done is practically irrelevant.

The system for this already exists, and that's the attribute system.

So you're ultimately suggesting a new class of attributes which people can use to better describe their cache in the context of arbitrary caching experiences.

 

That would of course be one possible implementation - not the one that seems the best for me to go, however, but we need not agree on that and I do not believe that GS will implement any of these ideas, so it's not that important.

Link to comment

What you have effectively proposed is a duplicate of the existing attributes system.

Well, yes and no. What I proposed could be implemented as either an extension of the current attribute system, or as a separate new system. It really doesn't matter which as long as the functionality exists, so I don't really see a need to discuss that part further at this point.

 

The point is that the current system isn't adequate. As cezanne has stated at length (and with whom I completely agree), the current toolset, both on this site and 3rd parties, does not allow you to search for cache themes. Bookmark lists may work for small geographical areas, but they're extremely manual and depend on a single person to administer it. They simply don't work for larger geographical areas, across different languages, or if there isn't a person willing/able to administer such a bookmark list. A simple text search of cache listings would return more of the desired results, but would also return many more false-positives, still runs into i18n problems, and depends on specific text to be present on the desired cache listings. If you really, truly believe that the current tools are sufficient, let me know and I'll have a challenge for you to see if they really are. :anibad:

 

How I understand it:

Proposed implementation? Groundspeak provides a list of pre-selected keywords (translated to your local/profile language) which can be applied to a cache as a helpful descriptor by which people can also search for caches that meet their preference. These would not be keywords/categories that merit new filterable attributes (potential concerns) as in the existing attribute system, they would just be added there. These would be a separate collection of categories that are merely additional arbitrary descriptors of the type of experience one would expect with the cache. "Library", "Fun hike", "Long hike"... Hey, maybe some of the existing attributes would be better served there - "Scenic View", "Tourist Friendly"...

 

Actuality: Why use is text if the language is irrelevant? Why have to localize all those new text keywords? Images would be more concise and descriptive and easier to implement. Just like attribute icons. So, just add a whole bunch of new attributes, perhaps a new 'class' of attributes, like "Interest" attributes. (don't even want to imagine what GS would think about having to deal with and select from endless 'interest' categories)

Again, the specific implementation details would need to be hammered out. However, the concept you describe above is exactly how I envisioned such a system. Whether the categories/keywords/attributes/tags/whatever are localized text or images is something the developers at GSHQ would have to decide. Even with images, there'd likely still be some text associated with each (see the current attribute system), so localization would need to occur anyway. The simple text implementation would at least save TPTB from creating a bunch of images. Groundspeak already has a team of volunteer translators, so localizing the text shouldn't be too much work.

 

Do you at least agree that, even if you wouldn't use it, such a concept would be useful for others?

Link to comment
The attributes right now are made available in a list in the submission process.

It would not very practicable to present the average cache hider (many newbies among) with long lists.

They should concentrate on the attributes that exist right now.

So your suggestion is not geared to be useful for new hiders.

Definitely don't see a system like that being implemented.

 

Moreover, by not turning what I have in mind into attributes one would be more flexible. Not every

addition of a new term would affect many other tools.

It's either predefined or it's not.

If it's a predefined list of values, either the list is retrievable somehow via API, or defined (and hard coded in other apps) in a document definition (ala GPX values).

If it's not based on predefined values, other apps need to at least trust the value formatting and display whatever is sent in the data.

If it's free text, then it's not language independent, and any 'list' used to provide values could only merely be considered a list of suggested values, and would be functionally as useful to users as a free text search on listing titles or descriptions; and we can see GS's thoughts on that feature (use a 3rd party app like gsak after importing cache data via API or PQ).

 

And it would not push people to use certain attributes just to end up with having all of them on their score list statistics systems.

There'd be nothing stopping them from doing so. Free text or predefined categories/attributes. If it's a cache property, someone will make a statistic out of it, if Groundspeak doesn't themselves.

 

The categories should just be helpful in searching for caches. It would not hurt if some are a bit overlapping

Owners can either set one, or set more than one. It could be limited to a max count just like the current attributes system.

"Pick up to ten of the best descriptive categories for your cache." eg

 

Not necessarily. The original keyword idea is language dependent, but still would have its merits (not the same as the other idea).

Too many problems with free text keyword entry. Doesn't address the problem you yourself raised with searching across different languages.

 

However it's used, it's one or more properties assigned to a listing. It could be used for searching, whether in the field or on the website. Where the search is done is practically irrelevant.

The system for this already exists, and that's the attribute system.

So you're ultimately suggesting a new class of attributes which people can use to better describe their cache in the context of arbitrary caching experiences.

That would of course be one possible implementation - not the one that seems the best for me to go, however, but we need not agree on that and I do not believe that GS will implement any of these ideas, so it's not that important.

I'm not seeing how a system that doesn't use a predefined list of items (effectively a collection of arbitrary attributes) could be feasible or viable to address all the issues you raised in your search process. These are complex issues that are generally sufficiently dealt with via other means; whether google or 3rd party apps or patience and determination using the website.

 

Don't get me wrong - I certainly see value in providing better geocache searching capabilities. I'd love to just be able to search more quickly and accurately for cache experiences I'd like that aren't defined in the current system.

And I fully believe that the most feasible and viable solution would be a new class of attributes, like 'interest' attributes, and would be a great addition. I don't see it happening any time soon though, as much as I'd love to be hired to create it for them now. :P And I wouldn't want to be the one to decide what categories are 'wow' enough to make official.

Link to comment

As cezanne has stated at length (and with whom I completely agree), the current toolset, both on this site and 3rd parties, does not allow you to search for cache themes. Bookmark lists may work for small geographical areas, but they're extremely manual and depend on a single person to administer it. They simply don't work for larger geographical areas, across different languages, or if there isn't a person willing/able to administer such a bookmark list. A simple text search of cache listings would return more of the desired results, but would also return many more false-positives, still runs into i18n problems, and depends on specific text to be present on the desired cache listings.

I completely agree with all of that. Never denied any of that :anibad:

 

If you really, truly believe that the current tools are sufficient, let me know and I'll have a challenge for you to see if they really are. :anibad:

To accomplish all the above? No, I never said they're sufficient for that. I do believe that the tradeoff of developing a complex search system based on highly subjective, arbitrary properties based on cache experience preferences is far from feasible in Groundspeak's eyes.

 

Again, the specific implementation details would need to be hammered out. However, the concept you describe above is exactly how I envisioned such a system. Whether the categories/keywords/attributes/tags/whatever are localized text or images is something the developers at GSHQ would have to decide. Even with images, there'd likely still be some text associated with each (see the current attribute system), so localization would need to occur anyway. The simple text implementation would at least save TPTB from creating a bunch of images. Groundspeak already has a team of volunteer translators, so localizing the text shouldn't be too much work.

 

Do you at least agree that, even if you wouldn't use it, such a concept would be useful for others?

I already said I'd be all for the addition of more attributes/categories by which we can search for desired experiences. I think anyone not seeing the value in that would be foolish :P

* I don't think a new complex system would be worth developing, or feasible in GS's eyes (since it seems they shy away from free text searches)

* I don't think the priority of adding this level of search ability is anywhere near a priority on GS's todo list, especially since...

* With a little extra effort you can use other methods to try to track down caches that you yourself may find interesting or desirable (google, communicating with cachers/owners, bookmark lists, etc)

* If GS wants to add a wider and more flexible free text search option, great!

 

The main problem is that geocaching preferences are highly subjective. So the chance of developing a system that is more universally accepted and used than criticized or constantly reworked or adjusted is, I would say, highly unlikely. I don't think GS wants to develop anything that will require more maintenance and staff/volunteer attention; at this point in time at least.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

As cezanne has stated at length (and with whom I completely agree), the current toolset, both on this site and 3rd parties, does not allow you to search for cache themes. Bookmark lists may work for small geographical areas, but they're extremely manual and depend on a single person to administer it. They simply don't work for larger geographical areas, across different languages, or if there isn't a person willing/able to administer such a bookmark list. A simple text search of cache listings would return more of the desired results, but would also return many more false-positives, still runs into i18n problems, and depends on specific text to be present on the desired cache listings.

I completely agree with all of that. Never denied any of that :anibad:

 

Actually, the impression I got from your replies to my attempts to explain why I think that the current tool set is not sufficient was a different one.

You told me that if I were willing to invest more work, I could reach the targets I described which envoked my disagreement.

 

I never said that I believe that Groundspeak would provide a system that allows searching for cache themes. None of my arguments was about Groundspeak - everything was about the limitations of what can be done with what is available right now.

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong - I certainly see value in providing better geocache searching capabilities. I'd love to just be able to search more quickly and accurately for cache experiences I'd like that aren't defined in the current system.

And I fully believe that the most feasible and viable solution would be a new class of attributes, like 'interest' attributes, and would be a great addition. I don't see it happening any time soon though, as much as I'd love to be hired to create it for them now. :P And I wouldn't want to be the one to decide what categories are 'wow' enough to make official.

 

What you're describing isn't something new. In fact, I developed a system that basically does what you're describing but in a different domain.

 

A search engine typically indexes several fields associated with an "object". In this case, the object is a geocache listing. The listing has a title field, short and long description, attributes, and for the purposes of discussion it could also contain a keywords field. A search can be executed over any or on a specific field. For example, show me a list of caches with the orienteering field.

 

For the project I recently worked on, the "object" being indexed is a research article or document which also has a title and abstract or overview field as well as about 25 other fields. Initially, the documents do not have anything populated for a keywords field. For that I wrote some code which extracts the title, abstract (and a few other fields) and identifies the most common terms in that text. It then compares those terms to a controlled vocabulary to identify several keywords that might describe what the document is about. The keyword field is editable, allowing someone to add or remove keywords. The controlled vocabulary is also somewhat editable. It's also in 21 different languages. Thus, when a keyword for library is added, it can also add biblioteca (spanish), bibliothèque (french), or Bibliothek (german) in language specific keyword field. The controlled vocabulary is also implemented using something called SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System). In SKOS, each term is concepts and the concepts are hierarchical. Almost every term has a broader and/or narrower term. For example, if I had "rice" as a keyword, a search can be broadened such that it will search for "grains" (because grains is the broader term for rice). It also supports the notion of alternate and preferred terms. The example often used is that swine is an alternate term for pig, thus if one searches for pig it can also return documents with swine as a keyword.

 

This is the kind of search mechanism that will improve discovery but is probably overkill for geocache listings might give you and idea for what is possible.

 

 

Link to comment
What IS a library cache?? <_<:unsure:
I've always heard the term used to describe a cache where at least one stage is located inside a library. Usually the final cache location is inside a library.

What about a cache inside one of those little free library boxes in someone's front yard?

 

Or a puzzle cache where you have to do research in the card catalog at the library, even though the final is a mile away?

 

How about a cache on top of a hill with a great view of the main city library?

Link to comment
What about a cache inside one of those little free library boxes in someone's front yard?
That's a Little Free Library cache, which isn't the same thing as a Library cache.

 

Or a puzzle cache where you have to do research in the card catalog at the library, even though the final is a mile away?
That's a Library cache. Although it's getting harder to create research tasks that must be done in the brick-and-mortar-and-dead-trees library.

 

How about a cache on top of a hill with a great view of the main city library?
Nope. Just as a cache on top of a hill with a great view of the lake isn't a water cache.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...