Geocaching Premium members get sneak peek at new Advanced Search

[+MartyBartfast]

its not working again ??

 

Me to, I was getting the 500 error, then it was working about an hour ago, and the 500 error is now back.

[+CanadianRockies]

I fixed it for you again.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

its not working again ??

 

Me to, I was getting the 500 error, then it was working about an hour ago, and the 500 error is now back.

 

A 500 error is almost always going to be something that has gone wrong on the server side so browser differences/version often don't make a difference.

[Ben H]

The bad news: we released a new version of the search page yesterday which unfortunately introduced a bug in loading the root page.

 

The good news: we're working on a fix now and we hope to have it out very soon. The fixed release will include a few much requested improvements. Thanks for your patience!

[+treegje]

Thanks guys

 

its working again , i am in the clouds now

 

sweet sweet sweet

 

I am already hooked to it

 

thanks

[+suchanana]

woohoo... suchalotta fun to finally get the results... wtg Groundspeak

[+6NoisyHikers]

Just a note from a Canadian: Please include our provinces and territories in the first search page parameters. Right now, neither BC or British Columbia works to set a center point. You can, however, choose "Vancouver" as a city and it gives me results in Vancouver, BC. What results do the cachers in Vancouver, Washington get?

 

Being able to default to our home location would be great - maybe just a check box on the first page that says "search from your home coords". I didn't realise I could type HOME in the search box until I read it in this forum.

 

Otherwise, the filters are great. Now we just need to increase the search radius to 20,000km and add a link at the bottom of the results and on the map that says "Create Pocket Query".

 

Edit to add: A center point of "Maple Creek" gave me results in Wisconsin instead of Saskatchewan.

 

More edits: "Maple Creek, SK" gives me results in Saskatchewan, but "SK" gives me results in Slovakia!

Edited March 2, 2015 by 6NoisyHikers

[+MartyBartfast]

Just a note from a Canadian: Please include our provinces and territories in the first search page parameters. Right now, neither BC or British Columbia works to set a center point.

 

Use "Canada: British Colombia"

 

Edit: though doing so is pretty useless as adding a location in the first box limits the search to within 50km of that location, some nominal point in the middle of the area in the case of states/provinces, and for somewhere the size of BC a 50km area in the middle will exclude most of the province. Much better in this case to leave the first box empty and add the above into the "Search Only In" box on the filters.

Edited March 2, 2015 by MartyBartfast

[+Rhodo Dendron]

Fantastic new feature, but could you please, please, please make the result .gpx downloadable?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Fantastic new feature, but could you please, please, please make the result .gpx downloadable?

 

It's not a new feature. Yet. It's still in a user testing phase (with a large number of users) and they've already implemented some improvements based on the feedback they've received.

 

If you noticed, when the search returns a lot of results you'll see "Showing 1000 of 1,884 results" (for example, if you enter Seattle , Washington). The fact it it's showing 1000 results and the maximum number of results for a pocket query is the same is probably not a coincidence.

[+ignatiusreilly]

FYI, I have been getting 500 errors again this morning. Figured you guys know about it but reporting in case you don't.

[+CanadianRockies]

FYI, I have been getting 500 errors again this morning. Figured you guys know about it but reporting in case you don't.

Working for me now.

[Ben H]

We are aware of issues impacting this page and some others and we're working to fix them now. Thanks for your patience!

[+Rainbow Spirit]

I hate the 50km restriction on your search area, is it possible to extend this?

[Rock Chalk]

I hate the 50km restriction on your search area, is it possible to extend this?

 

We've limited the search radius to ensure the best performance on the page. Don't forget you can do some pretty powerful searches by leaving the location box blank (which disables the radius input) and instead selecting a region in the "Search Only In..." filter. That "originless" strategy will let you do good things over a large area.

[+PereSant]

Hi all,

I am caching in Germany. I must say I like this new search feature - most of the time. I am often going with a friend, and now I can search for caches in the specific area we want to visit which both of us haven't found yet. A REAL BIG improvement would be if we could pack those search results into a PQ!

[cezanne]

We've limited the search radius to ensure the best performance on the page. Don't forget you can do some pretty powerful searches by leaving the location box blank (which disables the radius input) and instead selecting a region in the "Search Only In..." filter. That "originless" strategy will let you do good things over a large area.

 

Don't forget that you took away nearly all useful functionality from basic members. Searching for caches in a region is certainly nothing that is fancy and which relates to offering extra features.

It's the most basic thing one might ask for and the functionality is still there, but just not offered via the new search tool.

What has been the idea behind that?

[+GEO-BREIN]

This whole new thing is very troubling for basic members. GS just takes away almost everything for those basic members. You are almost forced to get a premium membership, but maybe that's the whole idea behind this!?!?

[+instep_guy]

A new search feature???? Well carp!

[+NeverSummer]

This whole new thing is very troubling for basic members. GS just takes away almost everything for those basic members. You are almost forced to get a premium membership, but maybe that's the whole idea behind this!?!?

I don't think it took away anything from Basic members. All it did was add an incentive for Premium members. If that incentive is attractive enough, then people may buy into the membership.

 

Not troubling beyond the wish that all features were free. Unfortunately, to pay the bills, Groundspeak has had to find ways to innovate and incentivise membership enrollment. It keeps the lights on... (And the hamsters fed)

[+thebruce0]

And premium membership is really not a big deal (to get). Really not... considering what you get for the price, and for the amount of time you get it...

Edited March 12, 2015 by thebruce0

[+GEO-BREIN]

And premium membership is really not a big deal (to get). Really not... considering what you get for the price, and for the amount of time you get it...

That's not the point. The point is that GS took away features for basic members. Now you are forced to get a premium membership. There are other ways to get money. As if they don't have enough.

[+narcissa]

the functionality is still there

 

[+thebruce0]

And premium membership is really not a big deal (to get). Really not... considering what you get for the price, and for the amount of time you get it...

That's not the point. The point is that GS took away features for basic members. Now you are forced to get a premium membership. There are other ways to get money. As if they don't have enough.

 

Well, of course they have 'enough'. If they didn't they'd go under. But there's a balancing act between offering costly services for free, and providing incentives and benefits for subscribing members - and then there's the added cost of improving and creating new features and products, keeping things fresh. Without knowing the deeper financials, we're free to speculate all we want But the fact of the matter is, again, the benefits of premium membership far outweigh the cost of it; AND you help the organization continue to offer its services - both paid and free - and perpetuate the hobby as it resides on geocaching.com.

Edited March 12, 2015 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

This whole new thing is very troubling for basic members. GS just takes away almost everything for those basic members. You are almost forced to get a premium membership, but maybe that's the whole idea behind this!?!?

I don't think it took away anything from Basic members.

 

Of course it did.

 

We are not talking about the introduction of new features for PMs. That perfectly fine.

 

Have you had a look what the new search tool offers for basic members?

 

If not, please do it before stating something like the above.

 

They degraded the search tool to something absolute useless and that in my opinion does not fit to the old promise of keeping the basic game free.

This has been quite important in the early times for geocaching to develop at all and to become the market leader. It would not happened otherwise in my opinion.

 

 

Not troubling beyond the wish that all features were free. Unfortunately, to pay the bills, Groundspeak has had to find ways to innovate and incentivise membership enrollment. It keeps the lights on... (And the hamsters fed)

 

The new search tool does not seem to be that popular among PMs either. Lots of PMs who never visit the forums bothered to come here because they are so annoyed.

 

Innovation is something different than changing something just for the change.

 

They are better ways to come along with something which looks nicely on phones while not destroying the look on PC screens.

Edited March 12, 2015 by cezanne

[+niraD]

Now that I've actually spent more time using the Advanced Search (better late than never), one thing I find annoying is that there doesn't seem to be a way to change/erase the "Searching near [location]" field without going back to the beginning and starting over. Given that a lot of searches that people want to do require leaving the "Searching near [location]" field blank and specifying only the "Search Only In..." field, it would be a very useful feature to be able to change/erase the "Searching near [location]" field from the Add Filters page.

[+Rainbow Spirit]

How does one follow other cachers find histories on the new layout? It used to be easy to just scroll down on the find/hide page to the bottom and type in a cachers name and it would pop up, how do we do that now?

[+GEO-BREIN]

How does one follow other cachers find histories on the new layout? It used to be easy to just scroll down on the find/hide page to the bottom and type in a cachers name and it would pop up, how do we do that now?

Go to your profile, then friends, add new friend. This is the way to look for a different geocacher's profile. At least I think this is the only way.

[+thebruce0]

You can add the name to this url (replace yours)

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?u=Rainbow+Spirit

 

But yes, the user search ability seems to be missing now too...

[knowschad]

I hate the 50km restriction on your search area, is it possible to extend this?

 

Don't forget you can do some pretty powerful searches by leaving the location box blank (which disables the radius input) and instead selecting a region in the "Search Only In..." filter. That "originless" strategy will let you do good things over a large area.

 

That's good to know, but only a few of us that read this thread are likely to know that. It is not intuitive. Even what you say there is not completely clear to me.

 

When I go to the Find a Cache page, I am immediately faces with a large "City, state, coorinates, GC Code.." box. That is very handy and nice to be able to use one input box for multiple criteria. But the sense is that I must put *something* there before "adding filters".

 

If I put, say, a zip code in that box and then hit Add Filters, without first clicking the magnifying glass next to the input box, my zip code is ignored and I am "searching without location". If I do hit the search icon, then click Add Filters, I now see that Searching near <zip code> bit in the upper-left (if I know to look for it)

 

And how does that then relate to the Search Only In... input box, if at all?

 

Something is sorely missing here if you have this much confusion. Our local geocaching forum and Facebook pages are full of questions about this as well. I don't think it is just a matter of people not liking change. I think that this is non-intuitive and can easily give misleading results if used wrong.

 

Nice attempt, but not ready for prime time.

[knowschad]

We've limited the search radius to ensure the best performance on the page. Don't forget you can do some pretty powerful searches by leaving the location box blank (which disables the radius input) and instead selecting a region in the "Search Only In..." filter. That "originless" strategy will let you do good things over a large area.

Don't forget that you took away nearly all useful functionality from basic members. Searching for caches in a region is certainly nothing that is fancy and which relates to offering extra features.

 

That, to me, is the most egregious part of this whole thing! I have been a PM for 10 years. I almost did not renew this year. Even though I have financially supported this site for ten years, you would strip me of basic functionality that I have had over that period? That makes me very angry.

[knowschad]

Now that I've actually spent more time using the Advanced Search (better late than never), one thing I find annoying is that there doesn't seem to be a way to change/erase the "Searching near [location]" field without going back to the beginning and starting over.

And hitting the back arrow does not take you back to the main search screen, either. It takes you back to your profile page where you must once again select Find Caches from the dropdown menu.

[+coachstahly]

People have been used to something that was provided free of charge, had functionality, and was relatively easy to use. Those basic members now have something that is less. You shouldn't take away something that they've come to rely on and give them something less in return. NO ONE would be happy about that. It would be similar to all us having access to relatively high speed internet, and then suddenly those that can afford the going rate still get it while those who can't are returned to AOL dial up speed because that's what's provided for free. That concept has a name (I was researching net neutrality) but I can't recall it offhand.

[+Walts Hunting]

On the other side of the coin. If you are not paying for something I don't there is a vested right to keep it. GS is a business that has held the price line for forever. People spend a great deal of money for this hobby, equipment gas vehicle maintenance, supplies, etc. Spending $30 a year for the source sounds pretty cheap to me.

[+coachstahly]

On the other side of the coin. If you are not paying for something I don't there is a vested right to keep it. GS is a business that has held the price line for forever. People spend a great deal of money for this hobby, equipment gas vehicle maintenance, supplies, etc. Spending $30 a year for the source sounds pretty cheap to me.

Agreed. I'm not debating the cost, only the fact that something basic users used to have is no longer as viable as it used to be.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

If I put, say, a zip code in that box and then hit Add Filters, without first clicking the magnifying glass next to the input box, my zip code is ignored and I am "searching without location". If I do hit the search icon, then click Add Filters, I now see that Searching near <zip code> bit in the upper-left (if I know to look for it)

 

And how does that then relate to the Search Only In... input box, if at all?

 

If you think of "Search Only In" as a filter it makes a little more sense. For example, try this:

 

Enter Buffalo, NY into the search box and click on the magnifying glass.

 

Now go to "Add Filters" and select "United States: New York" for the "Search Only In" filter and click Search.

 

Click the "Map These Results" link and you'll see caches that are within 10 miles of Buffalo, NY but only those that are in New York that won't require an international border crossing.

 

 

 

[+gcstraggler]

Haven't read through all 4+ pages yet - so maybe already addressed? I type in caches I haven't found - search my home state (California) - 10 mile radius and less than 50% of possible caches are shown in the results - i.e. the closest shown is 2.1 miles away - but 1/2 dozen or more - that I haven't gone looking for yet are less than 2 miles away - and none of them show on the results page.

However, if I search specifically on "placed by" the caches do show on the results page (but then caches placed by others don't).

Edited March 13, 2015 by gcstraggler

[knowschad]

 

If I put, say, a zip code in that box and then hit Add Filters, without first clicking the magnifying glass next to the input box, my zip code is ignored and I am "searching without location". If I do hit the search icon, then click Add Filters, I now see that Searching near <zip code> bit in the upper-left (if I know to look for it)

 

And how does that then relate to the Search Only In... input box, if at all?

 

If you think of "Search Only In" as a filter it makes a little more sense. For example, try this:

 

Enter Buffalo, NY into the search box and click on the magnifying glass.

 

Now go to "Add Filters" and select "United States: New York" for the "Search Only In" filter and click Search.

 

Click the "Map These Results" link and you'll see caches that are within 10 miles of Buffalo, NY but only those that are in New York that won't require an international border crossing.

 

OK, I see, but you just made my point for me. Thank you. That is not intuitive. You had to explain it, and I know that you were one of those in the beta test thread, so you have worked extensively with it to figure these things out.

[+coachstahly]

There's no way I consider this intuitively easy to figure out. Play with it for a bit to see what it can do, then yes, it becomes easier. Most first time users seem to find it non user friendly and are less likely to come back to use it again. I'd almost rather have the filters open first instead of the opening page. At least you can make some determinations from there about what you're looking for.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

If I put, say, a zip code in that box and then hit Add Filters, without first clicking the magnifying glass next to the input box, my zip code is ignored and I am "searching without location". If I do hit the search icon, then click Add Filters, I now see that Searching near <zip code> bit in the upper-left (if I know to look for it)

 

And how does that then relate to the Search Only In... input box, if at all?

 

If you think of "Search Only In" as a filter it makes a little more sense. For example, try this:

 

Enter Buffalo, NY into the search box and click on the magnifying glass.

 

Now go to "Add Filters" and select "United States: New York" for the "Search Only In" filter and click Search.

 

Click the "Map These Results" link and you'll see caches that are within 10 miles of Buffalo, NY but only those that are in New York that won't require an international border crossing.

 

OK, I see, but you just made my point for me. Thank you. That is not intuitive. You had to explain it, and I know that you were one of those in the beta test thread, so you have worked extensively with it to figure these things out.

 

You're right. IMHO, one of the biggest fails is that it *does* need an explanation, and there isn't one that can easily be found. I think I figured it would after a bout of writing unit test and was in the "what if I try this" mindset.

 

 

[+mudwhore]

This new search page is,awful! Very cumbersome. New Cachers will give up on this quickly I am sure. Already huge complaints on our geocaching sites. Two steps backwards.

[+thebruce0]

If you think of "Search Only In" as a filter it makes a little more sense. For example, try this:

 

Enter Buffalo, NY into the search box and click on the magnifying glass.

 

Now go to "Add Filters" and select "United States: New York" for the "Search Only In" filter and click Search.

 

Click the "Map These Results" link and you'll see caches that are within 10 miles of Buffalo, NY but only those that are in New York that won't require an international border crossing.

 

Or for more fun, type Buffalo, NY for the origin, and Search Only In Canada - Ontario. You'll get all the caches within the search radius from the Buffalo, NY centerpoint but only caches in Ontario, not New York

Edited March 13, 2015 by thebruce0

[knowschad]

BUG REPORT:

 

I just tried mapping the results and learned that the map comes up without the side panel or means to toggle it. I would call that a bug. I had to open up one of the caches shown on the map, and go to the maps from that cache page to get the side panel.

 

Could somebody please try to confirm that for me? I'm using Firefox, if that matters.

[+coachstahly]

I get the same thing on my Mac at home. I'm a bit surprised because when I map my PQs, I get a side panel to show, albeit a slightly different one than the one I get when I just use the main map.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

BUG REPORT:

 

I just tried mapping the results and learned that the map comes up without the side panel or means to toggle it. I would call that a bug. I had to open up one of the caches shown on the map, and go to the maps from that cache page to get the side panel.

 

Could somebody please try to confirm that for me? I'm using Firefox, if that matters.

 

MAGOR bug. I have reported that several times. What's odd is that the page URL is the same but when called from the advanced search page it passes in an argument which hides and doesn't provide the control to toggle the side panel. If it did, there's a link on that panel called "Save as Pocket Query" that could be really useful.

 

I also asked quite a while ago if any of the filters in the new search (e.g. caches with corrected coordinates) would be integrated into the map page. Never heard a response.

 

 

[+jaylous1]

The 30 mile maximum search range really blows! Is there any way to get back to the 200 mile range?

[+niraD]

Now that I've actually spent more time using the Advanced Search (better late than never), one thing I find annoying is that there doesn't seem to be a way to change/erase the "Searching near [location]" field without going back to the beginning and starting over.

And hitting the back arrow does not take you back to the main search screen, either. It takes you back to your profile page where you must once again select Find Caches from the dropdown menu.

Argh!

 

Yeah, the normal back button is broken. You can clear the Add Filters popup by selecting the X in the top right corner of the popup, or by hitting the ESC key. But the normal browser back functions take you back to whatever page you were on before you selected Play > Find a Cache.

 

And given how critical it is to clear the main search field (for many of the searches that users want to do), it should be possible to clear that field from within the Add Filters popup.

 

And ideally, the results page should detect when the user got no results and probably intended a search with the main search field left blank, and offer to repeat the search with the main search field left blank.

[+MartyBartfast]

Now that I've actually spent more time using the Advanced Search (better late than never), one thing I find annoying is that there doesn't seem to be a way to change/erase the "Searching near [location]" field without going back to the beginning and starting over.

And hitting the back arrow does not take you back to the main search screen, either. It takes you back to your profile page where you must once again select Find Caches from the dropdown menu.

Argh!

 

Yeah, the normal back button is broken. You can clear the Add Filters popup by selecting the X in the top right corner of the popup, or by hitting the ESC key. But the normal browser back functions take you back to whatever page you were on before you selected Play > Find a Cache.

 

And given how critical it is to clear the main search field (for many of the searches that users want to do), it should be possible to clear that field from within the Add Filters popup.

 

And ideally, the results page should detect when the user got no results and probably intended a search with the main search field left blank, and offer to repeat the search with the main search field left blank.

 

When you've done a search the "Filters" button changes to "Change Fiters" and clicking it brings the filters page back up with the current filters already filled in, which you can then change and resubmit. Or is that not what you're looking for?

[+niraD]

When you've done a search the "Filters" button changes to "Change Fiters" and clicking it brings the filters page back up with the current filters already filled in, which you can then change and resubmit. Or is that not what you're looking for?

As a general rule, I'd like web developers to stop breaking the basic browser UI. Things like the back button, keyboard scrolling, and other keyboard navigation should just work. But this isn't the first web site to break such things.

 

More specifically, I want to be able to go back and fix the main search field when I realize that the search I've created is wrong. If I enter something in the main search field and hit "Add Filters", then there's a good chance that I'll want to go back to the beginning and clear the main search field. There's even a chance that I'll want to enter something different in the main search field. Either way, the back button takes me all the way back to whatever page I was on before I brought the search page up.

[+CanadianRockies]

The new search page also took some functionality away from Premium Members.

 

I used to be able to go the the basic search page, click on the link to map the nearest caches to my home, see every cache in the Calgary area, and hide the ones I had found. I could move the map to the right, and the screen would be repopulated with unfound caches from the mountains west of Calgary. Then I could find a good hiking route for the day.

 

To find a route now, I must center the search around a place in the mountains. If I don't see any interesting hiking routes among the 1,000 displayed unfound caches on that map, then I have to find another location to center on. That isn't nearly as convenient as the dynamic map from the "good ol' days."

 

ETA: With the old "Advanced Search" page, it was easy to find the oldest caches in a state/province. Not easy at all anymore.

Edited March 14, 2015 by CanadianRockies