A challenge for you.

[+Roman!]

Assuming you do not know the GC code I challenge you to find the August 2000 cache, potters pond in as few clicks as possible and with as little DNF results using only the new search.

 

Kinda knowing what I was doing it took me 37 clicks and 5 DNF results to get the the cache page.

 

(If this is in the wrong forum please move it and accept my sincerest apologies)

Edited April 3, 2015 by Roman!

[+CanadianRockies]

2 clicks and no DNFs. But I've been using the new search page quite a bit lately as I plan our June trip to Yosemite.

 

1. On main search page, I was careful to enter nothing in the search box and simply clicked on "Add Filters."

 

2. I knew which state Potters Pond was located in, so I entered "United States: Utah" in the "Search Only In..." box and "Potters Pond" in the "Geocache Name Contains..." box. Then I clicked on the "Search" button. The search returned 5 results. The one I was interested in was the fourth one down.

 

If there was a way I could bookmark directly to the Search's Filter page, then I would since I rarely ever use the main Search page.

Edited April 3, 2015 by CanadianRockies

[+Roman!]

Not bad, I missed the state thing, only entered the name and tried sorting by date placed then went back to the main search, not filters, then back to filters before figuring out the state thing.

[cezanne]

Assuming you do not know the GC code I challenge you to find the August 2000 cache, potters pond in as few clicks as possible and with as little DNF results using only the new search.

 

I can't do it at all with the new search. First, I would not have known that this cache is located in Utah and second, I could not use the required filter anyway.

 

With project-gc it is exactly one click that is required

http://project-gc.com/?wildsearch=potters%20pond

Their wildcard search does it with one click and without restrictions.

[+AnnaMoritz]

Two clicks.

First click on the new 'Take me back to the old Search'

Second click on 'go' after typing 'potters pond' in 'Cache Starts with'

[+Roman!]

Two clicks.

First click on the new 'Take me back to the old Search'

Second click on 'go' after typing 'potters pond' in 'Cache Starts with'

 

Sorry but I said using only the new search.

[+AnnaMoritz]

Two clicks.

First click on the new 'Take me back to the old Search'

Second click on 'go' after typing 'potters pond' in 'Cache Starts with'

 

Sorry but I said using only the new search.

 

Of course you are lost using _only_ the new search if you don't know which country/state or near xxx or GC-Code. You have to try all Country/state possibilities.

 

Outside the new search there are other one-click ways besides project-gc or using the old search, e.g. typing site:geocaching.com 'potters pond' in your favorite search engine delivers the right geocache.

[the3gmen]

2 clicks

 

I just used a plain old google search.

 

I put the following in the search box.

 

"potters pond" geocache 2000 (click #1 = search)

 

the first link of the results was the one I wanted (second click)

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

2 clicks

 

I just used a plain old google search.

 

I put the following in the search box.

 

"potters pond" geocache 2000 (click #1 = search)

 

the first link of the results was the one I wanted (second click)

 

What he did, but with fewer keywords. Googled "potters pond geocache" and the first result was the cache.

[+Roman!]

Assuming you do not know the GC code I challenge you to find the August 2000 cache, potters pond in as few clicks as possible and with as little DNF results using only the new search.

 

Kinda knowing what I was doing it took me 37 clicks and 5 DNF results to get the the cache page.

 

(If this is in the wrong forum please move it and accept my sincerest apologies)

[Pup Patrol]

 

Apparently it isn't just the cache pages that people don't read.

 

 

 

B.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I don't type anything into the search box, but instead click Add Filters. The only filter I put in is Cache Name Contains = potters pond then I click search. The result is a DNF.

 

This illustrates a serious problem with the search: the cache obviously exists and the name is spelled correctly, but the DNF is being returned presumably because the search wont search without some kind of geographic criteria. That's fine too - name searches on more than 2 million caches could strain the servers, especially with generic names.

 

BUT the search in that situation should not return a generic DNF message; it should return a message to the effect of "You must specify a geographic area for your search." Sorry, Groundspeak, but that is shoddy programming.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Joshism

[+Dame Deco]

Well, I just googled Potters Pond, geocache, August 2000. Had it in one click.

[+Roman!]

Well, I just googled Potters Pond, geocache, August 2000. Had it in one click.

 

How many clicks did it take to get to google?

 

Guess you didn't read the part about using the new search either so I editted it to highlight that fact.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Roman!

[Pup Patrol]

 

 

 

 

B.

[+jellis]

I didn't try because I already found the cache. But yes the new way is a little harder then before especially if you didn't know where the location is.

I liked the original way of searching but I just wished we had "title contains" Keyword and the search go by the distance of the home coords or your choice of location with more then 30 mile distance.

Do you think they are going to tweek the new search because of some of the complaints?

[+Dame Deco]

Well, I just googled Potters Pond, geocache, August 2000. Had it in one click.

 

How many clicks did it take to get to google?

 

Guess you didn't read the part about using the new search either so I editted it to highlight that fact.

 

I never do a ton of extra work when there's an easier way. Even with the old search, I really only used it for generic searches within so many miles of such and such a place. When I want to find a specific kind of Earthcache, or look for a challenge, or something like that--I always use google instead. That actually works for the majority of websites--a google search with your keyword and the name of the website does a far better job than the website's own search engine. It's just one of the ironies of finding things on the internet.

[+niraD]

How many clicks did it take to get to google?

None. There's a search field in my browser's toolbar that uses Google.

 

I like the new search for what it does well. I especially like being able to search for puzzles I haven't solved, for puzzles I've started working on but haven't solved, and for puzzles I haven't started working on.

 

But it isn't the right tool for finding a cache by a specific name, when that cache could be anywhere in the world.

[+Roman!]

How many clicks did it take to get to google?

None. There's a search field in my browser's toolbar that uses Google.

 

I like the new search for what it does well. I especially like being able to search for puzzles I haven't solved, for puzzles I've started working on but haven't solved, and for puzzles I haven't started working on.

 

But it isn't the right tool for finding a cache by a specific name, when that cache could be anywhere in the world.

 

You still have to click in the search field.

[+niraD]

How many clicks did it take to get to google?

None. There's a search field in my browser's toolbar that uses Google.

 

I like the new search for what it does well. I especially like being able to search for puzzles I haven't solved, for puzzles I've started working on but haven't solved, and for puzzles I haven't started working on.

 

But it isn't the right tool for finding a cache by a specific name, when that cache could be anywhere in the world.

You still have to click in the search field.

Not really. My fingers never leave the keyboard:

 

<Command>-T <Tab> site:geocaching.com potters pond <Return>

 

The first click is open the link to the cache that's at the top of the search results.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Assuming you do not know the GC code I challenge you to find the August 2000 cache, potters pond in as few clicks as possible and with as little DNF results using only the new search.

 

Kinda knowing what I was doing it took me 37 clicks and 5 DNF results to get the the cache page.

 

(If this is in the wrong forum please move it and accept my sincerest apologies)

 

Is this really a challenge to see if someone can beat you in clicks, or is it just to highlight again how crappy the new search is?

Everyone pretty well knows that by now (even Groundspeak because they put a link to the old search)

 

Just wondering.

 

I for one don't want to be bothered trying to figure out how it works, because I don't very often ever use even the old search, and have much better results using advanced search on Google!

Edited April 4, 2015 by BC & MsKitty