attempting to use new search engine

1.7k · July 20, 2015

I have been trying to use the new search engine and keep getting DNF your search produces no results message. For the state of Arizona, using a keyword in the title of the cache, I get no results. I have tried alternative searches using keywords of caches I know exist and get the same message. What am I doing wrong?

2.4k · July 20, 2015

Are you putting something in the very first search box? Don't - leave that blank, and proceed to "Add Filters." On the filters page, select Arizona as the region and your key words.

Putting "Arizona" in the first search box will limit your search to 30 miles' radius around the center point (I think) of the state.

10.1k · July 20, 2015

Your mistake is in trying to use the new search engine. So many extra steps, none of which are intuitive obvious.

Are you putting something in the very first search box? Don't - leave that blank, and proceed to "Add Filters." On the filters page, select Arizona as the region and your key words.

Putting "Arizona" in the first search box will limit your search to 30 miles' radius around the center point (I think) of the state.

Why?!? The old search engine worked well. That's modern geekdom. Add lots more steps, none of which are obvious. "Don't put anything in the search box?" Then why is it there? Too geeky for this curmudgeonly dolphin. But, I keep asking "Why???"

Edited July 20, 2015 by Harry Dolphin

2.4k · July 20, 2015

Well, then, give him a link to the old search. :rolleyes:

10.1k · July 21, 2015

One would think that giving the users an easily usable, intuitive system would make more sense. Or keeping the old one? But, this is the modern world. Add lots of geeky new steps that make no sense, except to modern geeks.

1.1k · July 21, 2015

One would think that giving the users an easily usable, intuitive system would make more sense. Or keeping the old one? But, this is the modern world. Add lots of geeky new steps that make no sense, except to modern geeks.

+1 The old one worked so it had to go. Wish TPTB would set up opinion under your profile where you could select either old or new.

Edited July 21, 2015 by captnemo

3.1k · July 21, 2015

Are you putting something in the very first search box? Don't - leave that blank, and proceed to "Add Filters." On the filters page, select Arizona as the region and your key words.

Also, when you select Arizona in the "Limit Search To..." box, be sure you click on the "United States: Arizona" item that appears below. If you simply type "Arizona" into the box, you'll end up with DNF (and nothing will appear in the "Limit Search To..." box when you return to the Filters page).

15.3k · July 21, 2015

Are you putting something in the very first search box? Don't - leave that blank, and proceed to "Add Filters." On the filters page, select Arizona as the region and your key words.

Putting "Arizona" in the first search box will limit your search to 30 miles' radius around the center point (I think) of the state.

Or, from the very first search box, you could enter "Arizona", and then select "Arizona, United States - regional search" from the menu that appears.

3.6k · July 21, 2015

You can find the old search on the bottom right corner of the New search page. I tend to click and use that more then the new one.

14k · July 21, 2015

Are you putting something in the very first search box? Don't - leave that blank, and proceed to "Add Filters." On the filters page, select Arizona as the region and your key words.

Also, when you select Arizona in the "Limit Search To..." box, be sure you click on the "United States: Arizona" item that appears below. If you simply type "Arizona" into the box, you'll end up with DNF (and nothing will appear in the "Limit Search To..." box when you return to the Filters page).

This. When the new search first came out, entering something into the search box would always conduct a search around a center point (and would default to 10 miles from that point). Now it can be used to specify a "region search" (show caches within a state/country). The difference between search for caches relative to a center point and a search for caches within a regions isn't that geeky.

For those that just suggest "use the old search", it's only a matter of time before the old search goes away. I'm guessing that once we're able to download results via a PQ or other mechanism to download waypoints in bulk we won't see that "Use the Old Search" link. It would probably be a good idea to get used to how the new search works.

19k · July 21, 2015

Are you putting something in the very first search box? Don't - leave that blank, and proceed to "Add Filters." On the filters page, select Arizona as the region and your key words.

Putting "Arizona" in the first search box will limit your search to 30 miles' radius around the center point (I think) of the state.

Or, from the very first search box, you could enter "Arizona", and then select "Arizona, United States - regional search" from the menu that appears.

Yup. That gave me 15,000 results, and I'm in Minnesota!

4.5k · July 21, 2015

The new search is very difficult to use. That little search box up front is useless to me. It may be good for listing every cache in a state but honestly, how often would i want to do that? A person utilizing a search engine should be able use keyword(s) to find specific items, in this case caches. Unfortunately, that isn't the case here.

I have to wonder, is it possible that a competing website has taken Jeremy and planted their own crony in his place? Honestly, some of the things we see come out these days sure make it seem like someone is trying to run the company down.

7.4k · July 21, 2015

I've been using pocket queries to search. You can edit pocket queries and see the results without actually running them. It's kind of a nuisance but it's easier than dealing with that silly search screen.

14k · July 21, 2015

The new search is very difficult to use. That little search box up front is useless to me. It may be good for listing every cache in a state but honestly, how often would i want to do that? A person utilizing a search engine should be able use keyword(s) to find specific items, in this case caches. Unfortunately, that isn't the case here.

I don't think the new search is all that difficult to use once you understand the difference between a proximity search (caches within a specific distance from a set of lat/long coordinates) and a regional search.

A search engine can't use keywords unless the items, in this case caches, are tagged with keywords. There are over 2 million caches listings in the database and none of them have keyword tags.

The new search allows us to find caches with a specific string anywhere in the cache name.

The old search only allows us to find caches which *start with* a specific string.

This could be improved by indexing both the cache name and the short/long descriptions.

Although we can filter pocket query results based on attributes neither the new or old search engines allows us to do so.

The main search box does a lot more than allow you to list every cache in a state. By selecting a state/province or country as a region search it limits the cache listings it's going to search to an area where one might actually go to find geocaches. Listing every cache in a state may not be very useful, but once you start applying filters (including the ability to specify a word in the cache name) it limits the results quickly.

IMHO, the major flaw in the new search is the inability to do anything useful with the results. I can easily get a list of caches with Challenge in the name that I have not found with 5 or more favorite points and a difficulty rating less than or equal to 4 but if I can't download that list as a PQ it's not very useful.

15.3k · July 21, 2015

IMHO, the major flaw in the new search is the inability to do anything useful with the results.

If the new search is generating a smallish list, or if you're culling a smallish list from it by hand, then you can bookmark the caches and then create a bookmark PQ. But that gets unwieldy if you're interested in more than a handful of caches.

4.5k · July 22, 2015

A search engine can't use keywords unless the items, in this case caches, are tagged with keywords. There are over 2 million caches listings in the database and none of them have keyword tags.

Didn't realize that words had to be tagged to be recognized in a search engine. I figured it was more straightforward where it would attempt to match a user's inputted search string to an existing string of characters in a database.

14k · July 22, 2015

A search engine can't use keywords unless the items, in this case caches, are tagged with keywords. There are over 2 million caches listings in the database and none of them have keyword tags.

Didn't realize that words had to be tagged to be recognized in a search engine. I figured it was more straightforward where it would attempt to match a user's inputted search string to an existing string of characters in a database.

Well there are several way to implement a search engine but generally fields in a database are indexed. We may be thinking of keywords in a different way. Currently we can search for words in the cache name which may not include "key" words about the cache. Those keywords might be extracted from the short/long description or derived by attributes. For example, the cache name might not include the word "park" but if the description includes "park", and the descriptions as well as the cache name are indexed, a search for "park" would finds caches which may be in a park but don't have park in the name.

In some systems, keywords are manually added as a separate searchable field but they may be auto-generated as well.

3.2k · July 22, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

Edited July 22, 2015 by edscott

14k · July 22, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

What are you going to do when GS removes the old search. I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

4.5k · July 22, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

What are you going to do when GS removes the old search. I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

I understand that it may not be feasible to support two search engines. Hopefully they'll nix the newer one!

The old search certainly had it's drawbacks but at least it allowed us to search for specific caches. This is primarily what i used it for. For me, a pocket query, with it's nice array of filters, is much better for getting a list of caches that i'm actually interested in.

July 22, 2015

You can find the old search on the bottom right corner of the New search page. I tend to click and use that more then the new one.

Yep - me, too.

Mrs. Car54

6.8k · July 22, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

What are you going to do when GS removes the old search. I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

Maybe quit geocaching.

14k · July 22, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

What are you going to do when GS removes the old search. I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

I understand that it may not be feasible to support two search engines. Hopefully they'll nix the newer one!

The old search certainly had it's drawbacks but at least it allowed us to search for specific caches. This is primarily what i used it for. For me, a pocket query, with it's nice array of filters, is much better for getting a list of caches that i'm actually interested in.

I'll contend that the new search engine is better for searching for specific caches. You can't, for example, find all caches in a region (or within proximity to a location) using the old which contain "Challenge" in the title as you can only search for cache names which start with a specified string. You can't search for caches for which you've corrected coordinates, or added a personal note, or has a minimum number of favorites points with the old search. You can do that with the new search.

If we could create a PQ from the results of a new search, one could enter in the search criteria, and after applying search filters it could produce a PQ in the same manner that "Caches along a route" works. Then we could add additional filters (e.g. on attributes), then run the PQ.

6.8k · July 22, 2015

I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

If they happen to remove the old search, a problem will arise also with all the search commands that are available on cache pages for searching for nearby caches (of a certain type/found/unfound etc) - they all rely on the old search and allow basic members the type of search which is very relevant for hiding caches.

10.1k · July 22, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

What are you going to do when GS removes the old search. I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

Maybe quit geocaching.

Definitely a consideration.

14k · July 22, 2015

I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

If they happen to remove the old search, a problem will arise also with all the search commands that are available on cache pages for searching for nearby caches (of a certain type/found/unfound etc) - they all rely on the old search and allow basic members the type of search which is very relevant for hiding caches.

One would hope that when the basic search is removed that all references to it will be accounted for.

When the new search was introduced, it appeared to me that GS was re-evaluating what features of the site would be available to basic members vs. premium members. The answer to "what does it mean to be a basic member" may not be the same in the future as it is today, and it may mean that basic (non-paying) members won't have the same functionality they enjoy today. It may mean that basic membership only provides basic functionality; just enough to determine if geocaching is something one might enjoy, and not a player level that one might choose for years playing the game.

6.8k · July 22, 2015

I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

If they happen to remove the old search, a problem will arise also with all the search commands that are available on cache pages for searching for nearby caches (of a certain type/found/unfound etc) - they all rely on the old search and allow basic members the type of search which is very relevant for hiding caches.

One would hope that when the basic search is removed that all references to it will be accounted for.

The new search does not provide however a proper replacement with the same functionality not even for premium members.

So it would mean taking away something from those paying customers who have appreciated that functionality and how to make use it for many years. Not a very wise decision.

I also do not think that it is a wise decision to deteriorate the possibilities basic members have to check for nearby caches. IT will

increase the work for the reviewers considerably.

Cezanne

14k · July 23, 2015

I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

If they happen to remove the old search, a problem will arise also with all the search commands that are available on cache pages for searching for nearby caches (of a certain type/found/unfound etc) - they all rely on the old search and allow basic members the type of search which is very relevant for hiding caches.

One would hope that when the basic search is removed that all references to it will be accounted for.

The new search does not provide however a proper replacement with the same functionality not even for premium members.

So it would mean taking away something from those paying customers who have appreciated that functionality and how to make use it for many years. Not a very wise decision.

I am well aware that there are functionality gaps between the old and new search. When I suggest that the old search will go away I am basing that on the assumption that GS won't pull the plug until those gaps are filled. That's why I encourage people to use the new search as much as possible. If we just tell everyone "use the old search" or use GSAK or whatever, the new search isn't going to get as much use as it could and there may be unidentified existing gaps in functionality when the plug is pulled.

I also do not think that it is a wise decision to deteriorate the possibilities basic members have to check for nearby caches. IT will

increase the work for the reviewers considerably.

Cezanne

If GS chooses to redefine what it means to be a basic vs. premium member I would hope that they would make a considerable effort to evaluate the consequences of that decision. There may be a lot of users that are not paying for a premium membership that won't like their decision, and they'll have three options if they don't. The can pay for a premium membership, continue to play the game using a basic membership as GS chooses to define it, or quite playing the game.

6.8k · July 23, 2015

I am well aware that there are functionality gaps between the old and new search. When I suggest that the old search will go away I am basing that on the assumption that GS won't pull the plug until those gaps are filled. That's why I encourage people to use the new search as much as possible. If we just tell everyone "use the old search" or use GSAK or whatever, the new search isn't going to get as much use as it could and there may be unidentified existing gaps in functionality when the plug is pulled.

I think that some limitations e.g. with respect to distance are intended in the new system and that's not an issue of how many people use which system and the issue is well known. Think of something like find the nearest unfound Earth cache in areas with not many such caches. The old system is quite flexible and by adding additional commands to the html command line one gets additional flexibility.

1.5k · July 24, 2015

Huh?

I never have any trouble with the search engine.

Google always works just fine.

3.6k · July 24, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

What are you going to do when GS removes the old search. I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

Then I would use the PQs more or Project GC. What I really don't like is the limited distance on the new one.

6.8k · July 24, 2015

Huh?

I never have any trouble with the search engine.

Google always works just fine.

Google and project-gc can be used for some things the old search cannot do but not so much for what the new cannot do.

So I still think that the old one is more important than the new one as it allows more freedom in distance related searches.

14k · July 24, 2015

I am well aware that there are functionality gaps between the old and new search. When I suggest that the old search will go away I am basing that on the assumption that GS won't pull the plug until those gaps are filled. That's why I encourage people to use the new search as much as possible. If we just tell everyone "use the old search" or use GSAK or whatever, the new search isn't going to get as much use as it could and there may be unidentified existing gaps in functionality when the plug is pulled.

I think that some limitations e.g. with respect to distance are intended in the new system and that's not an issue of how many people use which system and the issue is well known.

I think that the maximum distance for a proximity search is a well known issue. If enough people suggest that it should be increased to 100 miles rather than say "use the old search", GS just might increase that value.

The way I see it, GS does not want to support two different search mechanisms and they want us to use the new one. If we tell that what it's going to take to get us to use the new search engine rather than just tell other to use the old search engine perhaps the new search engine will get improved the point that fewer people with bother with the old one and it'll make it easier to pull the plug on it without a lot of complaints.

Think of something like find the nearest unfound Earth cache in areas with not many such caches. The old system is quite flexible and by adding additional commands to the html command line one gets additional flexibility.

I live in a relatively cache sparse area and it took me about 10 seconds to get a list of ECs in my area (including one 2.6 miles away that I wasn't aware of). The new search is quite flexible but you need to be a PM to take advantage of it's potential.

6.8k · July 24, 2015

I live in a relatively cache sparse area and it took me about 10 seconds to get a list of ECs in my area (including one 2.6 miles away that I wasn't aware of). The new search is quite flexible but you need to be a PM to take advantage of it's potential.

I have looked at the search together with friends who are PMs. We found no way to search for all ECs (or say letterbox hybrids or Wherigos) within say 80km (or more) around a certain EC (Wherigo, letterbox hybrid) with the new search. When looking for rare cache types, 30 miles is not enough. Of course PQs can be used by PMs, but those do not exploit the new search.

Maybe the new search can also be tricked with additional html commands that are nowhere documented while there exist list of special commands for the old search to make out more of it than what is offered by Groundspeak's interface.

Driving 50km and more (some times considerably more) in one direction is something quite normal to me when I want to visit caches that interest me. There are of course unfound closer ones but hardly any of those are attractive for me. For special caches I'm willing to drive much farther.

August 11, 2015

I just had to find a thread on this so I could post a rant - THE NEW SEARCH IS USELESS! WHY DOESN'T Groundspeak LISTEN TO US?

The way it is set up is so counter-intuitive, difficult to use, and restricted, it makes what used to be a fun hobby an exercise in frustration.

So they set up the Summer Road Trip stuff - great! Something to try. However I live out in a rural area, and the 30 mile limit is MUCH TOO LIMITING! Every time I click on the "search for events" I get nothing helpful. One event, which won't happen until after the road trip is over.

I had to crawl through these forums to find where some kind soul had done a link for a Michigan event search and use that. Guess what, over a hundred came up with that search! And last night I was able to get that souvenir with a trip to an event that was 60 miles away. Which the stupid new search would never pull up.

I really hate what has been done to the website. If they take the link to the old search away, I may have to give up my favorite hobby, since the new search discriminates against anyone who doesn't live in an urban area.

Bah humbug, Groundspeak! :mad:

Edited August 11, 2015 by TeamCatalpa

7.3k · August 11, 2015

I just had to find a thread on this so I could post a rant - THE NEW SEARCH IS USELESS! WHY DOESN'T Groundspeak LISTEN TO US?

The way it is set up is so counter-intuitive, difficult to use, and restricted, it makes what used to be a fun hobby an exercise in frustration.

So they set up the Summer Road Trip stuff - great! Something to try. However I live out in a rural area, and the 30 mile limit is MUCH TOO LIMITING! Every time I click on the "search for events" I get nothing helpful. One event, which won't happen until after the road trip is over.

I had to crawl through these forums to find where some kind soul had done a link for a Michigan event search and use that. Guess what, over a hundred came up with that search! And last night I was able to get that souvenir with a trip to an event that was 60 miles away. Which the stupid new search would never pull up.

I really hate what has been done to the website. If they take the link to the old search away, I may have to give up my favorite hobby, since the new search discriminates against anyone who doesn't live in an urban area.

Bah humbug, Groundspeak!

Have you tried using the old search?

1.) http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=50 (choose Michigan)

Go to the Michigan page and choose a local city that best suits you:

http://www.geocaching.com/local/default.aspx?state_id=23

2.) old search for Michigan

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?state_id=23

I'm hoping that they are still working on the new search and increasing those mileage limits.

B.

14k · August 11, 2015

I just had to find a thread on this so I could post a rant - THE NEW SEARCH IS USELESS! WHY DOESN'T Groundspeak LISTEN TO US?

The way it is set up is so counter-intuitive, difficult to use, and restricted, it makes what used to be a fun hobby an exercise in frustration.

So they set up the Summer Road Trip stuff - great! Something to try. However I live out in a rural area, and the 30 mile limit is MUCH TOO LIMITING! Every time I click on the "search for events" I get nothing helpful. One event, which won't happen until after the road trip is over.

I had to crawl through these forums to find where some kind soul had done a link for a Michigan event search and use that. Guess what, over a hundred came up with that search! And last night I was able to get that souvenir with a trip to an event that was 60 miles away. Which the stupid new search would never pull up.

I really hate what has been done to the website. If they take the link to the old search away, I may have to give up my favorite hobby, since the new search discriminates against anyone who doesn't live in an urban area.

Bah humbug, Groundspeak!

Have you tried using the old search?

1.) http://forums.Ground...hp?showforum=50 (choose Michigan)

Go to the Michigan page and choose a local city that best suits you:

http://www.geocachin...spx?state_id=23

2.) old search for Michigan

https://www.geocachi...spx?state_id=23

I'm hoping that they are still working on the new search and increasing those mileage limits.

B.

Finding every event in a state is almost as easy as the old search. Just type in Michigan into the search box and select "Michigan, United States - regional search". Then select "Change Filters" (here is where you can filter by cache type and many other filters..including some that are not available with the old search), click deselect all under "Geocache Types" and select events. Then select Update Search. The results will be sorted based on the distance to your home location (something you can't do with the old search). Click on the Placed On header if you want the results sorted that way.

Note that when you enter a location name in the main search and select a "regional search" the 30 mile proximity limit does not apply. Instead, you will get results within the specified region. Once you get used to the new search and understand the difference between a proximity search and search within a region it's really pretty easy to use. I agree that for a proximity search that 30 miles is way too constraining, especially for someone that doesn't have the luxury of living in a cache dense area (like Seattle, for example).

7.4k · August 11, 2015

I just had to find a thread on this so I could post a rant - THE NEW SEARCH IS USELESS! WHY DOESN'T Groundspeak LISTEN TO US?

The way it is set up is so counter-intuitive, difficult to use, and restricted, it makes what used to be a fun hobby an exercise in frustration.

So they set up the Summer Road Trip stuff - great! Something to try. However I live out in a rural area, and the 30 mile limit is MUCH TOO LIMITING! Every time I click on the "search for events" I get nothing helpful. One event, which won't happen until after the road trip is over.

I had to crawl through these forums to find where some kind soul had done a link for a Michigan event search and use that. Guess what, over a hundred came up with that search! And last night I was able to get that souvenir with a trip to an event that was 60 miles away. Which the stupid new search would never pull up.

I really hate what has been done to the website. If they take the link to the old search away, I may have to give up my favorite hobby, since the new search discriminates against anyone who doesn't live in an urban area.

Bah humbug, Groundspeak!

It's not perfect, but I use Pocket Queries to search instead. You can set up PQs and look at the results without actually running them to get the GPX download. I do all of my searching this way now. The new search function is insane.

5.7k · August 12, 2015

I just had to find a thread on this so I could post a rant - THE NEW SEARCH IS USELESS! WHY DOESN'T Groundspeak LISTEN TO US?

The way it is set up is so counter-intuitive, difficult to use, and restricted, it makes what used to be a fun hobby an exercise in frustration.

So they set up the Summer Road Trip stuff - great! Something to try. However I live out in a rural area, and the 30 mile limit is MUCH TOO LIMITING! Every time I click on the "search for events" I get nothing helpful. One event, which won't happen until after the road trip is over.

I had to crawl through these forums to find where some kind soul had done a link for a Michigan event search and use that. Guess what, over a hundred came up with that search! And last night I was able to get that souvenir with a trip to an event that was 60 miles away. Which the stupid new search would never pull up.

I really hate what has been done to the website. If they take the link to the old search away, I may have to give up my favorite hobby, since the new search discriminates against anyone who doesn't live in an urban area.

Bah humbug, Groundspeak!

Suggestion 1: host your own event and then attend it. That's what I did, and I live in El Paso, where one would expect to find an event from time to time. (One would be wrong, as El Paso for some reason has averaged less than an event a year since 2000.) It's also what I did when none of the 10 Years! events were close enough to Charlottesville, Virginia, where we lived at the time.

Suggestion 2: use the old search page. http://www.geocaching.com/seek

Edited August 12, 2015 by hzoi

6.8k · August 12, 2015

The results will be sorted based on the distance to your home location (something you can't do with the old search).

The old search when used as nearest search does that by default.

Once you get used to the new search and understand the difference between a proximity search and search within a region it's really pretty easy to use.

In any case everything takes longer and involves more clicks/commands etc even if it can be done (which is mostly only the case for PMs).

4.9k · August 12, 2015

[...] In any case everything takes longer and involves more clicks/commands etc [...]

No, you're wrong again. It's just the opposite. Search by region (ie: state or country) and you're done.

Hans

6.8k · August 12, 2015

[...] In any case everything takes longer and involves more clicks/commands etc [...]

No, you're wrong again. It's just the opposite. Search by region (ie: state or country) and you're done.

The description provided by NYPaddleCacher involves much more work than using the old system and doing a nearest unfound search

around a close-by cache of a specific type (that's one click) and not even choosing anything from a drop-down menu.

In fact one would need to create a long list of links/bookmarks to get rid of having to make the same choices over and over again.

August 12, 2015

I've really been trying to use the new search and it still just irritates me no end. It does take a LOT more clicks and is just so counter-intuitive that I can't puzzle it out. When it finally decides to show me some results, the page is hard to read with all the white space.

I do keep falling back on the old search. I just don't have any faith that Groundspeak is going to do the right thing and allow us to continue with it. It's going to be the hard way or the highway, and that's a real shame.

The old system was so simple and intuitive and useful!

Why can't they simply improve the old, instead of dumping it completely? And if they haven't yet figured out that 30 miles is NOTHING to a cacher, well then I doubt they ever will. The default should be no less than 100 miles.

And for those who think we should study and learn and spend tons of time trying to adjust to the new stuff just because it's new and so easy, here's a thought for you to put it in perspective- what if all you've ever driven is an automatic transmission car, and suddenly someone took that away and gave you a standard transmission truck? Logically you shouldn't complain, since it is still transportation, right? Have fun learning how to use the clutch, operate the stick shift and find a parking spot without any guidance or even an instruction manual. :rolleyes:

1.8k · August 13, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

AMEN ...

1.8k · August 13, 2015

I find it much more efficient to go to the old search engine, get the data I want, and go caching.

What are you going to do when GS removes the old search. I just doesn't make sense to support two different search engines so eventually they will remove it.

TRUE THAT ...

1.8k · August 13, 2015

Hmmmmmmmmmm,

Love the analogy from an earlier poster:

" And for those who think we should study and learn and spend tons of time trying to adjust to the new stuff just because it's new and so easy, here's a thought for you to put it in perspective- what if all you've ever driven is an automatic transmission car, and suddenly someone took that away and gave you a standard transmission truck? Logically you shouldn't complain, since it is still transportation, right? Have fun learning how to use the clutch, operate the stick shift and find a parking spot without any guidance or even an instruction manual. "

Perhaps there is a "sit down" in the break room where they evaluate the site to see what is working, then fix it so it appears broken and hide the workings in an easily missed location on the page in an un-highlighted font.

O.K. I am going to put my Nomex on and wait for the flames.

Have a great Geo-Day, Geo Huggggggzzzzzzzzzzz to all.

Edited August 13, 2015 by humboldt flier

3.5k · August 18, 2015

Have been away from the forums for a while. It's interesting to see that there's still discussion, and complaints, about the new search.

I used to have links in my forum signature related to using the new search function, but I've removed those links because it appears the new search has been updated since I created those links. The updated functionality eliminates the most counter-intuitive aspect that existed (leaving the first search box empty). We can now select an entire state/country in the first search box.

This is an improvement. Not sure if more updates are planned or not though, as there hasn't been mention of the 'new search' in the most recent release notes. Hhmmm. That being said, I've actually used the website's 'search' functionality more with the 'new search' than I did with the 'old search'. Most of the things I'd want to search for require filtering cache types, eliminating disabled caches, looking for specific words somewhere in the cache name, etc. Those things that I'm interested in were not available in the 'old search'.

If we just tell everyone "use the old search" or use GSAK or whatever, the new search isn't going to get as much use as it could and there may be unidentified existing gaps in functionality when the plug is pulled.

+1

attempting to use new search engine

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

Join the conversation