Geocaching Premium members get sneak peek at new Advanced Search

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

One of the greatest desires I have is the ability to do a search, which can be downloaded as a GPX file, of a wide area without power trails.

Oooh!

Yes, that would indeed be fantastic. Also cities (point and radius).

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Did anyone else get the survey?

The thing that is missing at the end is a choice to select use of GPS, Website, AND Smartphone... The way they've asked the question is going to skew results.

Yes I found that question confusing. I use all three, and that didn't seem to be an option. I picked "GPS and Website" as that is primarily what I use. But I do use my smartphone too.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Did anyone else get the survey?

The thing that is missing at the end is a choice to select use of GPS, Website, AND Smartphone... The way they've asked the question is going to skew results.

Yes I found that question confusing. I use all three, and that didn't seem to be an option. I picked "GPS and Website" as that is primarily what I use. But I do use my smartphone too.

I think that's the second such recent survey that has suffered that limitation.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Did anyone else get the survey?

The thing that is missing at the end is a choice to select use of GPS, Website, AND Smartphone... The way they've asked the question is going to skew results.

Yes I found that question confusing. I use all three, and that didn't seem to be an option. I picked "GPS and Website" as that is primarily what I use. But I do use my smartphone too.

I think that's the second such recent survey that has suffered that limitation.

I'd already done the survey before I read this, but from memory I thought the options were "Smartphone" "GPS/Website" and "Smartphone & GPS/Website" and I ticked the last one.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Edit again...

The choices now make sense

Smartphone Only

Combo of smartphone and website/GPS

Website/GPS only

I THINK the original version didn't have "GPS" included in the second option, and they changed it.

Edited February 12, 2015 by redsox_mark

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Looking on the bright side, this seems a positive change of direction from GS.

They took feedback from cachers re a requirement to update the search.

They've done a large scale test (all Premium members).

They're taking feedback on what they've created.

As long as they act on the final feedback before delivery then they seem to be going about it the right way.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

One of the greatest desires I have is the ability to do a search, which can be downloaded as a GPX file, of a wide area without power trails.

Oooh!

Yes, that would indeed be fantastic. Also cities (point and radius).

If I remember correctly, one of the survey questions asked what types of things you'd like to be able to do with the results (e.g., download to GPS). I think one of the options was to add the results to your Ignore List.

If so, then that should make it much easier to ignore certain power trails (keyword) and cities (point and radius).

Edited February 12, 2015 by CanadianRockies

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Edit again...

The choices now make sense

Smartphone Only

Combo of smartphone and website/GPS

Website/GPS only

I THINK the original version didn't have "GPS" included in the second option, and they changed it.

They must have. I took note of it and provided the feedback in the last "Do you have more information you'd like to share?" to that effect. Sounds like they made the change... Which is great!

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Unfortunately, I don't find any of the features useful. I already use the map to select where I'm going and which caches I'll attempt to find. I down load the caches I'm looking for to my GPS receiver and I either find it or not. I really can't see the need to muddy the waters.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Regarding the survey -- I can't finish the thing unless I select three features I like. I really don't like any of them but I would like to provide some imput to the survey. The way it's designed if you can't find anything you like, your input to the survey ends. It just simply isn't wanted.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

If I remember correctly they made a survey as this one for the labcaches also. Did they do something with our input?

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Regarding the survey -- I can't finish the thing unless I select three features I like. I really don't like any of them but I would like to provide some imput to the survey. The way it's designed if you can't find anything you like, your input to the survey ends. It just simply isn't wanted.

There were only two that I wanted to check, so I checked the "Other" box and wrote a comment that the only reason it was checked was to get my count to three. You could do something similar.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

Edit again...

The choices now make sense

Smartphone Only

Combo of smartphone and website/GPS

Website/GPS only

I THINK the original version didn't have "GPS" included in the second option, and they changed it.

They must have. I took note of it and provided the feedback in the last "Do you have more information you'd like to share?" to that effect. Sounds like they made the change... Which is great!

Snap - I did exactly the same!

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

One of the greatest desires I have is the ability to do a search, which can be downloaded as a GPX file, of a wide area without power trails.

Oooh!

Yes, that would indeed be fantastic. Also cities (point and radius).

If I remember correctly, one of the survey questions asked what types of things you'd like to be able to do with the results (e.g., download to GPS). I think one of the options was to add the results to your Ignore List.

If so, then that should make it much easier to ignore certain power trails (keyword) and cities (point and radius).

One of the other questions had a free text field for suggestions for something that might be missing. I added a comment about not being able to filter by attributes. I suppose you could ignore all caches which match a pattern such as "Billy bob nose pickers music series #" but it would be a lot easier to do if one could filter by a power trail attribute.

Posted February 12, 2015 · February 12, 2015

One of the greatest desires I have is the ability to do a search, which can be downloaded as a GPX file, of a wide area without power trails.

Oooh!

Yes, that would indeed be fantastic. Also cities (point and radius).

If I remember correctly, one of the survey questions asked what types of things you'd like to be able to do with the results (e.g., download to GPS). I think one of the options was to add the results to your Ignore List.

If so, then that should make it much easier to ignore certain power trails (keyword) and cities (point and radius).

One of the other questions had a free text field for suggestions for something that might be missing. I added a comment about not being able to filter by attributes. I suppose you could ignore all caches which match a pattern such as "Billy bob nose pickers music series #" but it would be a lot easier to do if one could filter by a power trail attribute.

One of the questions was what other features you would like to see, and one of the tickboxes was to filter by attributes - I ticked that option.

Posted February 13, 2015 · February 13, 2015

One of the greatest desires I have is the ability to do a search, which can be downloaded as a GPX file, of a wide area without power trails.

Oooh!

Yes, that would indeed be fantastic. Also cities (point and radius).

If I remember correctly, one of the survey questions asked what types of things you'd like to be able to do with the results (e.g., download to GPS). I think one of the options was to add the results to your Ignore List.

If so, then that should make it much easier to ignore certain power trails (keyword) and cities (point and radius).

One of the other questions had a free text field for suggestions for something that might be missing. I added a comment about not being able to filter by attributes. I suppose you could ignore all caches which match a pattern such as "Billy bob nose pickers music series #" but it would be a lot easier to do if one could filter by a power trail attribute.

One of the questions was what other features you would like to see, and one of the tickboxes was to filter by attributes - I ticked that option.

I guess I may have missed that tick box for filter by attributes. I answer the survey on my phone late last night I don't remember exactly how the survey was represented. Although there was something in the survey which implied how the Advanced Search might be integrated with the maps or the use of an ignore list I don't think I've seen anything mentioned for how the Advanced Search will be integrated with the rest of the system. Is it just going to replaced the current Advanced Search page. Will it replace the "Seek a cache" form of the current "Hide and Seek a Cache" page. Will it replace pocket queries? Will the filters available on the Advanced Search such as "filter by has corrected coordinates" be integrated on the existing map page. As an addition to what we already have on the site it looks very promising but I'm concerned about what it might replace.

Posted February 13, 2015 · February 13, 2015

I guess I may have missed that tick box for filter by attributes. I answer the survey on my phone late last night I don't remember exactly how the survey was represented. Although there was something in the survey which implied how the Advanced Search might be integrated with the maps or the use of an ignore list I don't think I've seen anything mentioned for how the Advanced Search will be integrated with the rest of the system. Is it just going to replaced the current Advanced Search page. Will it replace the "Seek a cache" form of the current "Hide and Seek a Cache" page. Will it replace pocket queries? Will the filters available on the Advanced Search such as "filter by has corrected coordinates" be integrated on the existing map page. As an addition to what we already have on the site it looks very promising but I'm concerned about what it might replace.

There also was a tick box to integrate the Advanced Search results into the notification system (which has always been poorly implemented).

Posted February 13, 2015 · February 13, 2015

I guess I may have missed that tick box for filter by attributes. I answer the survey on my phone late last night I don't remember exactly how the survey was represented. Although there was something in the survey which implied how the Advanced Search might be integrated with the maps or the use of an ignore list I don't think I've seen anything mentioned for how the Advanced Search will be integrated with the rest of the system. Is it just going to replaced the current Advanced Search page. Will it replace the "Seek a cache" form of the current "Hide and Seek a Cache" page. Will it replace pocket queries? Will the filters available on the Advanced Search such as "filter by has corrected coordinates" be integrated on the existing map page. As an addition to what we already have on the site it looks very promising but I'm concerned about what it might replace.

There also was a tick box to integrate the Advanced Search results into the notification system (which has always been poorly implemented).

There was also a tickbox to be able to download the results of the search, so maybe they're thinking of using it as an add-on/replacement for PQs too.

Posted February 13, 2015 · February 13, 2015

There was also a tickbox to be able to download the results of the search, so maybe they're thinking of using it as an add-on/replacement for PQs too.

If it is a potential replacement, then I hope the beta Advanced Search is significantly enhanced before they make the substitution. Right now, the PQ lets me search for caches in several useful ways (e.g. attributes, multiple states, placement date, found in last week) that I can't with the beta Advanced Search.

Posted February 14, 2015 · February 14, 2015

Using Google Chrome on a PC in Windows 7

Playing with this Advanced Search a bit more -- Has anyone else noticed the Menu Bars only let you select the top 1

or 2 items (if you are really quick) before they disappear while moving mouse pointer downward?

While I generally like the idea of matching with wildcards I find the search is doing this by itself. Well, cool and not cool.

If I search on ROOM I get Room, Broom Mushroom, etc. Doesn't appear to be a way to be literal about the search 'ROOM' gives me the 'ONOZ A DNF' message, so it's looking for the apostrophes/single quotes.

A couple ways to go about this could be:

1. Sort by literal match first then by found anywhere in word

2. Give us some ability to express literally what we would like with [word], 'word' or such and if someone's goofy enough to put [ or ' in a cache name we could escape the search /[ or /' (and then some nut would put /[ in the cache name, but you get the gist of it.

Posted February 15, 2015 · February 15, 2015

Guess I don't understand this new search.

Cache GCZ3GQ

I set up the location as St. Petersburg, FL wit a radius of 10 miles. I enter a user name in the not found by box and hit search. I get 571 for results. not very useful

I also include WOOD in Cache name includes and I get 7 results. Better, but not great.

So why using a cacher name not work?

Posted February 15, 2015 · February 15, 2015

Guess I don't understand this new search.

Cache GCZ3GQ

I set up the location as St. Petersburg, FL wit a radius of 10 miles. I enter a user name in the not found by box and hit search. I get 571 for results. not very useful

I also include WOOD in Cache name includes and I get 7 results. Better, but not great.

So why using a cacher name not work?

I did a search with the location as St. Petersburg, FL with a radius of 10 miles and got 626 results. That tells me that the user name that you entered has found 55 caches within 10 miles of St. Petersburg.

If I add wood in the cache name (without entering a user name in the not found by box) I also get 7 results. That tells me that the user name that you specificed didn't find any caches with wood in the title that are within 10 miles of St. Petersburg. Were you expecting different results?

Posted February 16, 2015 · February 16, 2015

Guess I don't understand this new search.

Cache GCZ3GQ

I set up the location as St. Petersburg, FL wit a radius of 10 miles. I enter a user name in the not found by box and hit search. I get 571 for results. not very useful

I also include WOOD in Cache name includes and I get 7 results. Better, but not great.

So why using a cacher name not work?

I did a search with the location as St. Petersburg, FL with a radius of 10 miles and got 626 results. That tells me that the user name that you entered has found 55 caches within 10 miles of St. Petersburg.

If I add wood in the cache name (without entering a user name in the not found by box) I also get 7 results. That tells me that the user name that you specificed didn't find any caches with wood in the title that are within 10 miles of St. Petersburg. Were you expecting different results?

The filter says *NOT* found by. My expectation is the results would list the caches the user has entered a DNF log. Not sure how you get the user found 55 caches within 10 miles when the results are 626. The number of finds total by this user is 49.

At least with the API when I enter a list of not found by I only get the caches not found by the cachers in the list, not all caches in the area.

I also get 7 with the name wood in the title. But my expectation is that with wood in the title and not found by the user I would get around 1, which is the number of caches the user logged a DNF on with wood in the title.

Posted February 16, 2015 · February 16, 2015

The filter says *NOT* found by. My expectation is the results would list the caches the user has entered a DNF log.

There's the problem. The "not found by" filter means that the user has not logged a Find. It doesn't mean that the user has logged a DNF.

Posted February 16, 2015 · February 16, 2015

Guess I don't understand this new search.

Cache GCZ3GQ

I set up the location as St. Petersburg, FL wit a radius of 10 miles. I enter a user name in the not found by box and hit search. I get 571 for results. not very useful

I also include WOOD in Cache name includes and I get 7 results. Better, but not great.

So why using a cacher name not work?

I did a search with the location as St. Petersburg, FL with a radius of 10 miles and got 626 results. That tells me that the user name that you entered has found 55 caches within 10 miles of St. Petersburg.

If I add wood in the cache name (without entering a user name in the not found by box) I also get 7 results. That tells me that the user name that you specificed didn't find any caches with wood in the title that are within 10 miles of St. Petersburg. Were you expecting different results?

The filter says *NOT* found by. My expectation is the results would list the caches the user has entered a DNF log. Not sure how you get the user found 55 caches within 10 miles when the results are 626. The number of finds total by this user is 49.

As niraD said, "not found by" != DNF and I interpreted it as "show me a list of caches that ???? has not yet found.

571 + 55 = 626. I can't explain why you're seeing 571 if the user only has 49 finds. I would have expected 626 - 49, or 577 caches not yet found.

I know that it has been requested to be able to see caches for which one has posted a DNF but that's not what they implemented.

At least with the API when I enter a list of not found by I only get the caches not found by the cachers in the list, not all caches in the area.

I also get 7 with the name wood in the title. But my expectation is that with wood in the title and not found by the user I would get around 1, which is the number of caches the user logged a DNF on with wood in the title.

The user hasn't found any of the caches with wood in the title, so I would have expected 7. If there are 7 caches with WOOD in the title, *and* are within 10 miles of St. Petersburg, and the user has not found any of them, then there are 7 caches "not found by" that user.

Okay, I did find something related that doesn't seem to make sense to me. If I enter Ithaca, NY in the search box and then enter "NYPaddleCacher, jholly" in the "not found by" box I get a list of caches which includes caches that I have found. It seems to me that the "not found by" box would be useful for generating a list of caches for 2-5 people that want to go out caching together that none of the users have found.

Posted February 16, 2015 · February 16, 2015

Okay, I did find something related that doesn't seem to make sense to me. If I enter Ithaca, NY in the search box and then enter "NYPaddleCacher, jholly" in the "not found by" box I get a list of caches which includes caches that I have found. It seems to me that the "not found by" box would be useful for generating a list of caches for 2-5 people that want to go out caching together that none of the users have found.

Did you actually enter "NYPaddleCacher, jholly" in the not found by input field? Or did you enter the two usernames separately and distinctly?

Posted February 17, 2015 · February 17, 2015

If I enter Ithaca, NY in the search box and then enter "NYPaddleCacher, jholly" in the "not found by" box I get a list of caches which includes caches that I have found.

That sounds like it's doing an OR operation.

I just tried a different way of entering the users in that field. I typed in and selected my name from the suggested usernames, then typed in and selected the name of another cacher. That is, I end up with two separate "user objects" in the field; two usernames each with an "X" beside them. When I checked the results, it's doing an AND operation, and the only caches that are returned are ones that neither have found.

Posted February 17, 2015 · February 17, 2015

I never got the survey (not sure why not, I even checked my junk box) but anyway I just wanted to say that I LOVE the advanced search.

When I first starting using it some of the features or functions did not work for me or was missing but now everything seems to be working! Again, I love it! Great job guys!!!

I would like to echo everyone else that in addition to "Map these results" I would like to PQ these results so I can load them to my GPS It comes in handy if I want to load a whole set of series (like for GeoTrails) or just loading up a bunch of challenges to my GPS.

Thanks!

Edited February 17, 2015 by MersonMonkeys

Posted February 19, 2015 · February 19, 2015

Please, please, please let it be possible to search by cache name only - without having to specify a location.

Let search by cache name be a feature on the front search page. Very often one wants to find a specific cache, mentioned only by name.

Thank you!

I would very much like to see this function. I do like the ability to limit keyword searches by area, but I'd also like to be able to look through all of 'em. (Like you used to be able to do.)

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Please, please, please let it be possible to search by cache name only - without having to specify a location.

Let search by cache name be a feature on the front search page. Very often one wants to find a specific cache, mentioned only by name.

Thank you!

I would very much like to see this function. I do like the ability to limit keyword searches by area, but I'd also like to be able to look through all of 'em. (Like you used to be able to do.)

Since it's just a single form, if you just type in Mingo how is the search engine going to know if you're looking for Mingo the cache or Mingo the city?

Personally, I don't think it would be that useful to search for a cache by name only without a location. If you don't specify a location it's not going to return a list of caches sorted by distance (or tell how far it is from your home location).

Rather than try to use the search form for entering a location or a cache name, what if entering "everywhere" into the form would return every cache (or at least the first 1000) which matched the string in the cache name filter.

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Technically, there are two classes of search - with or without location. This form presumes there is a center point, and does its best to accommodate in cases where there isn't one (state-wide, by region, or whatever; those rules of having at least one of the minimum required parameters to perform the search)

Ideally, IMO there'd be two top-level options, to search from a location, or perform a locationless (no center point) search (which technically could be worldwide or filtered to a specific regional parameter like country or state)

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Ideally, IMO there'd be two top-level options, to search from a location, or perform a locationless (no center point) search (which technically could be worldwide or filtered to a specific regional parameter like country or state)

Well, I suppose this would work, but when people are asking for a search that's without a location, don't they really mean that they don't want to limit the distance from the location? I can't imagine a case where I'd be searching for something in the second tier form when it wouldn't be at least a little useful to see how far it is from some fixed point that I specified such as my home.

This is reminding me how annoying it is that the cache log notification e-mails don't give a direction and distance. If I get a notification and don't immediately recognize the cache name, I have to go to the cache page to see if it's in my neighborhood or 400 miles away. I think that information would be just as useful when I'm searching for something.

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Please, please, please let it be possible to search by cache name only - without having to specify a location.

Let search by cache name be a feature on the front search page. Very often one wants to find a specific cache, mentioned only by name.

Thank you!

I would very much like to see this function. I do like the ability to limit keyword searches by area, but I'd also like to be able to look through all of 'em. (Like you used to be able to do.)

Since it's just a single form, if you just type in Mingo how is the search engine going to know if you're looking for Mingo the cache or Mingo the city?

Because the search box where you enter "Mingo" is labelled "Geocache Name Contains ..."

Personally, I don't think it would be that useful to search for a cache by name only without a location. If you don't specify a location it's not going to return a list of caches sorted by distance (or tell how far it is from your home location).

But I can display the search results on a map, which often is more useful to me than distance if I'm heading in a particular direction.

Rather than try to use the search form for entering a location or a cache name, what if entering "everywhere" into the form would return every cache (or at least the first 1000) which matched the string in the cache name filter.

I think that's basically what they are asking for, without having to take the superfluous step of entering "everywhere" in the "Search Only In..." box.

Edited February 20, 2015 by CanadianRockies

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Please, please, please let it be possible to search by cache name only - without having to specify a location.

Let search by cache name be a feature on the front search page. Very often one wants to find a specific cache, mentioned only by name.

Thank you!

I would very much like to see this function. I do like the ability to limit keyword searches by area, but I'd also like to be able to look through all of 'em. (Like you used to be able to do.)

Since it's just a single form, if you just type in Mingo how is the search engine going to know if you're looking for Mingo the cache or Mingo the city?

Because the search box where you enter "Mingo" is labelled "Geocache Name Contains ..."

When the OP wrote "search by cache name be a feature on the front search page" I assumed that it was the Search form element which is labeled "Search the Millions of geocaches worldwide". What you're talking about is the form element that is used as a filter.

Personally, I don't think it would be that useful to search for a cache by name only without a location. If you don't specify a location it's not going to return a list of caches sorted by distance (or tell how far it is from your home location).

But I can display the search results on a map, which often is more useful to me than distance if I'm heading in a particular direction.

Yes, I know that you can display results on a map, but ordering the results by distance from your home location will tell you which particular direction to head without that extra step. Of course, we don't know how this is going to be integrated with the full site. For example, if use the current hide and seek a cache page or preview pocket query results on a map I get the Map side bar (and the ability to show/hide it) but when the results of the new advanced search are displayed on a map I don't get that side bar, nor can I display one.

Rather than try to use the search form for entering a location or a cache name, what if entering "everywhere" into the form would return every cache (or at least the first 1000) which matched the string in the cache name filter.

I think that's basically what they are asking for, without having to take the superfluous step of entering "everywhere" in the "Search Only In..." box.

theBruce0 described the two different search modes fairly well. When entering something in the "Search for millions of caches" box, the results are going to be within a radius (maxium 30 miles) of "Sea center point that was derived by geocoding a place name. When the "Search Only in" box is used, the results will be within a region defined by the countryID or stateID. Although the "Search Only in" filter will auto-suggest regions as you type, it's the countryID or stateID used for the filter.

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Well, I suppose this would work, but when people are asking for a search that's without a location, don't they really mean that they don't want to limit the distance from the location? I can't imagine a case where I'd be searching for something in the second tier form when it wouldn't be at least a little useful to see how far it is from some fixed point that I specified such as my home.

Well here's a suggestion I posited before the beta release: If no center point is explicitly defined, default the 'distance' to from your home coordinates.

That would allow you to do a 'locationless' search (not the same as restricted to within a defined region), and a location-centric search.

Technically speaking, if someone does a keyword search on the entire database, there really is no way by default to determine a distance; so we'd presume distance would be from home, in case they cared to see that before looking at the cache page. And for example, on a centric search the column header might be "Distance", whereas a locationless search the header may be "Distance from Home" for clarity.

Right now, the default (and only main) search requests a center point. You can enter "Home" to default to home, but it's not necessarily intuitive for someone who just wants to find a cache, anywhere in the world, with a word in the name. And that isn't a possibility unless at least one of the specific minimal filters is supplied. So right now the search is sort of in limbo between the two 'types' of searches.

Location-centric search: Search requests a center point, limit results by Distance; additional search filter options provided

Locationless search: Presume home for distance display, perform search worldwide; additional search filter options provided

Right now: Require center-point; semi-limited search is not allowed (minimum filter required); additional search filter options provided

*shrug*

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Personally, I don't think it would be that useful to search for a cache by name only without a location. If you don't specify a location it's not going to return a list of caches sorted by distance (or tell how far it is from your home location).

But I can display the search results on a map, which often is more useful to me than distance if I'm heading in a particular direction.

Yes, I know that you can display results on a map, but ordering the results by distance from your home location will tell you which particular direction to head without that extra step. Of course, we don't know how this is going to be integrated with the full site. For example, if use the current hide and seek a cache page or preview pocket query results on a map I get the Map side bar (and the ability to show/hide it) but when the results of the new advanced search are displayed on a map I don't get that side bar, nor can I display one.

Often, especially when distances exceed 30 miles, basic directions like NW simply aren't helpful when I'm driving a particular route. Plus, the sort-by-distance method produces lots of extraneous hits that have to be ignored. Display the results on a map, and I can quickly see which caches are near my route and how far away they are from that route. And I easily can ignore all the other hits.

Posted February 20, 2015 · February 20, 2015

Well, I suppose this would work, but when people are asking for a search that's without a location, don't they really mean that they don't want to limit the distance from the location? I can't imagine a case where I'd be searching for something in the second tier form when it wouldn't be at least a little useful to see how far it is from some fixed point that I specified such as my home.

Well here's a suggestion I posited before the beta release: If no center point is explicitly defined, default the 'distance' to from your home coordinates.

That would allow you to do a 'locationless' search (not the same as restricted to within a defined region), and a location-centric search.

That has been suggested by me and others well before we saw the new Advanced search page. Using the current search mechanism, if you use the "Cache starts with" field, or search "by State/Province" or "by Country" the results are not ordered by distance. Ordering the results based on proximity to ones home coordinates (assuming they're set) is something that has been asked for many times in the past.

Technically speaking, if someone does a keyword search on the entire database, there really is no way by default to determine a distance; so we'd presume distance would be from home, in case they cared to see that before looking at the cache page. And for example, on a centric search the column header might be "Distance", whereas a locationless search the header may be "Distance from Home" for clarity.

That's a good point. Currently it shows a directional arrow for the column header, even when the column is empty for each row in the result.

Right now, the default (and only main) search requests a center point. You can enter "Home" to default to home, but it's not necessarily intuitive for someone who just wants to find a cache, anywhere in the world, with a word in the name. And that isn't a possibility unless at least one of the specific minimal filters is supplied. So right now the search is sort of in limbo between the two 'types' of searches.

Location-centric search: Search requests a center point, limit results by Distance; additional search filter options provided

Locationless search: Presume home for distance display, perform search worldwide; additional search filter options provided

Right now: Require center-point; semi-limited search is not allowed (minimum filter required); additional search filter options provided

*shrug*

When (if?) the new advanced search is implemented there will probably be a lot of questions at first but people will eventually figure it out. You're right though about it not being especially intuitive and the location-centric vs. locationless search has confused quite a few people that have tried it.

Posted February 25, 2015 · February 25, 2015

On another note, overall I have really liked the new feature. If it could be un-tethered from location, it would be very helpful for finding caches by name without needing/wanting to have a radius search

Posted February 25, 2015 · February 25, 2015

On another note, overall I have really liked the new feature. If it could be un-tethered from location, it would be very helpful for finding caches by name without needing/wanting to have a radius search

I also think it's a significant improvement. The only way a find cache by name search would work that is not tethered to a location would be to limit the results. Currently we only get 1000 of n results. How many results do you think you'll get if you just enter "park" in the search by name field? If it's not tethered to a location (and doesn't use your home location for ordering results) a map view of the results isn't going to help much as you'll just see 1000 caches on the map all over the world. Just using "park" and limiting it to Canada shows 1000 of 3656 results. I didn't count the icons on the map, but I'm assuming that it's only displaying 1000 caches, which means that somewhere in Canada there are 2656 caches that are now showing up and some of them could be close to home.

Edited February 25, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

Posted February 25, 2015 · February 25, 2015

On another note, overall I have really liked the new feature. If it could be un-tethered from location, it would be very helpful for finding caches by name without needing/wanting to have a radius search

I also think it's a significant improvement. The only way a find cache by name search would work that is not tethered to a location would be to limit the results. Currently we'll the 1000 of n results. How many results do you think you'll get if you just enter "park" in the search by name field? If it's not tethered to a location (and doesn't use your home location for ordering results) a map view of the results isn't going to help much as you'll just see 1000 caches on the map all over the world. Just using "park" and limiting it to Canada shows 3656 results. I didn't count the icons on the map, but I'm assuming that it's only displaying 1000 caches, which means that somewhere in Canada there are 2656 caches that are now showing up and some of them could be close to home.

Barf! Yeah, I guess a refined search is helpful, but sometimes you might need those 3k of results to keep you busy for a day...or 10! :laughing:

Posted February 25, 2015 · February 25, 2015

Yeah that's why they implemented the minimal set of parameters required to perform a search. Those would be the ones that reduce the initial search group to a vastly smaller amount than the entire database. Can't remember where those filter options were listed, but earlier in the thread. Set one of those parameters, and you don't need a center point location to search from.

Posted February 25, 2015 · February 25, 2015

Yeah that's why they implemented the minimal set of parameters required to perform a search. Those would be the ones that reduce the initial search group to a vastly smaller amount than the entire database. Can't remember where those filter options were listed, but earlier in the thread. Set one of those parameters, and you don't need a center point location to search from.

As you mentioned earlier, you don't need a center point location if you specify a "Search Only in" location, but that's not going to give you a worldwide search.

If you select yes for "has Corrected Coordinates" and don't specify a search location (to generate a center point) or specifiy a location in the "Search only in" field you'll see all caches worldwide for which you've used the corrected coordinates feature. The same thing goes for "has Personal Geocache note". However, if you select "no" or "all" for both of those fields it won't give you any results.

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

is the Advanced Search for premium members page down ??

greetings from Belgium

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

is the Advanced Search for premium members page down ??

greetings from Belgium

It seems to be. Same thing here.

500 - Server Error

We're sorry, your request has resulted in an error.

If you feel that the page you are looking for should be available, please let us know. Otherwise, you may continue to use the site through its navigation, or browse the links below:

Visit the Geocaching.com Home Page

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

is the Advanced Search for premium members page down ??

greetings from Belgium

It seems to be. Same thing here.

500 - Server Error

We're sorry, your request has resulted in an error.

If you feel that the page you are looking for should be available, please let us know. Otherwise, you may continue to use the site through its navigation, or browse the links below:

Visit the Geocaching.com Home Page

Hi folks. Thanks for reporting your issues.

We released an update to the Advanced Search sneak peak page yesterday. Could you please try clearing your browser cookies and reloading. Let us know if that does not correct the error. Thanks!

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

Still the same here with me

500 - Server Error

We're sorry, your request has resulted in an error.

If you feel that the page you are looking for should be available, please let us know. Otherwise, you may continue to use the site through its navigation, or browse the links below:

Visit the Geocaching.com Home Page

Greetings

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

I clean the cookies

And tried with Firefox and internet explorer

i also shut down the computer en start up again

Unfortunately the Same probleem

I hope it will be solve quick, I am already hooked to it :rolleyes:

Greetings from Belgium

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

It's working for me.

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

Thanks guys

its working again , i am in the clouds now

sweet sweet sweet

Thanks Greetings from Belgium

Posted February 28, 2015 · February 28, 2015

its not working again ??

Geocaching Premium members get sneak peek at new Advanced Search

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment