the bad, bad, bad search on GC :(

[+novw.nl]

I mean, how on EARTH am I going to find "001-The Hog Trial" cache using the search "provided" by Groundspeak

 

I get 21 results:

 

Geocache Name Distance Favorites Size Difficulty Terrain Last Found Placed On Kanona Cemetery Traditional | GC2FXGV by JJTally 5.4km NE 1 Regular 1.5 1.5 01/30/2016 09/28/2010 The Dukes of Decatur Traditional | GC2YA5A by JJTally 5.5km NW 0 Micro 1.5 2.5 11/26/2015 06/15/2011 Just North of the Tornado Traditional | GCVEM6 by shirsch 6.6km NW 1 Regular 2.0 1.5 12/08/2015 04/15/2006 Sappa Park Traditional | GC207YA by JJTally 6.7km NW 0 Micro 1.5 1.5 10/05/2015 10/24/2009 North & Central KS Cemetery Series - Oberlin Traditional | GC59T24 by jaqman07 7.5km NW 0 Micro 2.0 1.5 10/17/2015 07/28/2014 Baseball Fields Traditional | GC2FVVY by JJTally 7.7km NW 0 Micro 1.5 1.5 09/28/2015 09/27/2010 Last Indian Raid Monument Mystery | GC1RKBP by JJTally 7.7km NW 6 Micro 3.5 1.5 09/02/2015 05/20/2009 Oberlin City Park Traditional | GC2FVVR by JJTally 7.8km NW 0 Micro 1.5 1.5 09/28/2015 09/27/2010 Last Indian Raid on Kansas Soil Traditional | GCV725 by DC KS History Buffs 8km NW 5 Regular 1.5 1.0 09/27/2015 04/02/2006 Welcome to Oberlin Traditional | GC2F08K by bordonifamily 8.1km W 6 Micro 2.0 1.0 10/09/2015 09/11/2010 I'm on my way Home Sweet Home Traditional | GC2FTDB by Phil & Verla from OZ 8.2km SW 1 Small 1.0 1.5 01/06/2016 10/02/2010 Centennial Park Traditional | GC2FVVK by JJTally 8.3km NW 0 Regular 2.0 1.5 10/01/2015 09/27/2010 Downtown Oberlin History Mystery | GC2FW5G by JJTally 8.3km NW 5 Regular 3.0 1.0 09/02/2015 09/27/2010 Highway 83 Travelbug Hotel Traditional | GC2FREK by JJTally 8.3km NW 0 Regular 2.5 1.5 09/17/2015 09/26/2010 Manhattan misses our Talley Traditional | GC5E2TP by Semmels123 9km NW 0 Regular 1.5 2.5 10/05/2015 09/20/2014 Gateway Traditional | GC2FRF0 by JJTally 9.1km NW 1 Regular 1.5 1.5 12/29/2015 09/26/2010 Oberlin Municipal Airport Traditional | GC2FRF2 by JJTally 9.3km NW 0 Micro 1.0 1.0 10/18/2015 09/26/2010 Big Timber Cemetery Traditional | GC2FXJK by JJTally 9.7km E 0 Regular 1.5 1.5 01/18/2016 09/28/2010 Vallonia Cemetery Traditional | GC2FXGP by JJTally 11.3km N 0 Regular 1.5 1.5 09/27/2015 09/28/2010 Jackson Cemetery Traditional | GC2FXJ0 by JJTally 12.8km S 0 Micro 1.5 1.5 03/18/2015 09/28/2010 Penn Cemetery Traditional | GC2FW82 by JJTally

 

NONE of these are even vaguely close to what I am looking for!!! I am looking for GC44GQH!!! This search is S.T.U.P.I.D. !!!!! and non functioning!!!! I want a search taht works!!!!

Edited February 13, 2016 by novw.nl

[+novw.nl]

And why am I _always_ brought back to a search parameter of 16km??!! I am paying for 3 milion geocaches, not those that are 16km away!!!

 

 

+

 

when I https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=site:geocaching.com+%22-+the+hog+trial%22 I get 2160 results, including 2100 logs ::(

Edited February 13, 2016 by Rock Chalk
Removed profanity. Asterisks don't make it okay.

[+Semper Questio]

And why am I _always_ brought back to a search parameter of 16km??!! I am paying for 3 milion geocaches, not those that are 16km away!!!

 

 

+

 

when I https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=site:geocaching.com+%22-+the+hog+trial%22 I get 2160 results, including 2100 logs ::(

 

LMGTFY: http://bfy.tw/4F43

[Pup Patrol]

I mean, how on EARTH am I going to find "001-The Hog Trial" cache using the search "provided" by Groundspeak

 

NONE of these are even vaguely close to what I am looking for!!! I am looking for GC44GQH!!! This search is S.T.U.P.I.D. !!!!! and non functioning!!!! I want a search taht works!!!!

 

I used the new search by first clicking on "add filters".

 

Then I put "Hog Trial" in the field "geocache name contains".

 

Then I limited my search to West Virginia.

 

I got 125 caches containing the words "Hog Trial", a geoart of "?" caches that form the shape of a pig. GC44GQH was the second one on the list.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?kw=Hog+Trial&r=49

 

A friendly bit of advice...you might want to watch your language when posting in the forum.

 

B.

[+HHL]

[...]

 

A friendly bit of advice...you might want to watch your language when posting in the forum.

 

B.

 

+1

Another url with 125 resulting caches (search united states region first, then add filter and add your keyword):

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?origin=United+States&ot=2&g=2&kw=The+Hog+Trial

 

Hans

[+Isonzo Karst]

I mean, how on EARTH am I going to find "001-The Hog Trial" cache using the search "provided" by Groundspeak

 

In addition to the advice about watching your nasty language, I further suggest that using any search engine involves a bit of learning curve.

I assumed that you're searching for a cache in West Virginia, so used that search, and entered, 001-The Hog Trial

 

And here are those results:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?kw=001-The+Hog+Trial&r=49

[+Touchstone]

Just hammering home the above remarks regarding the language. The use of stars (*), pound signs and the like, are pretty irrelevant. It's still a Forum Guideline violation. In addition, this is the "Getting Started" subforum, where the bar on good behavior is set pretty high.

 

Regarding the search function, if I have the exact Title of the Listing, I'll sometimes just go to google. Your Title was the first hit on the list. I tend to use the Search on the website, when I need to use the Filters to find certain groups of caches in an area (i.e. certain size, rating, etc.).

[+HHL]

[...] I am looking for GC44GQH!!! This search is S.T.U.P.I.D. !!!!! and non functioning!!!! I want a search taht works!!!!

 

Here we go:

 

It's not rocket science to just jot down the GCcode into the search filed, isn't it?

 

 

Hans

[+Manville Possum]

Question for the OP, are you planning on visiting the area for the geotour?

[Keystone]

I see that the OP has been a geocacher for several years, and this is not really a "Getting Started" question. I am moving the thread to the Geocaching Topics forum.

[+Walts Hunting]

For that kind of search i use Google. It rwturns the one you want as first listing. No need for all the features of GS when a quick googlemsearch doea the job and is easiee.

[+Dame Deco]

Just google it. I usually do that to find caches. Caches in Bermuda? I google "geocaching in Bermuda." Oldest active caches? Just google that, and tons of bookmark lists come up. I rarely use the search function on geocaching.com.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

[...] I am looking for GC44GQH!!! This search is S.T.U.P.I.D. !!!!! and non functioning!!!! I want a search taht works!!!!

 

Here we go:

 

It's not rocket science to just jot down the GCcode into the search filed, isn't it?

 

 

I don't know the GC code of caches I own, let alone anyone else's cache. I'm also in the camp of using Google to look up a listing. I am aware that if you add enough filters in GS's search engine, you'll probably come up with the cache you're looking for, but talk about needlessly making things more complicated than they need to be.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Yep I always just use google! For me, a lot easier and a lot less frustrating.

 

A google search of GC44GQH gets that cache at the top of the stack in 0.2 seconds! One more click and I'm there.

[Pup Patrol]

when I https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=site:geocaching.com+%22-+the+hog+trial%22 I get 2160 results, including 2100 logs ::(

 

OP wasn't happy with the google search.

 

I assumed that he knew the name of the series (Hog Trial) which makes using the GS search rather simple.

 

I mean, how on EARTH am I going to find "001-The Hog Trial" cache using the search "provided" by Groundspeak

 

I am looking for GC44GQH!!!

 

B.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[+BCandMsKitty]

when I https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=site:geocaching.com+%22-+the+hog+trial%22 I get 2160 results, including 2100 logs ::(

 

OP wasn't happy with the google search.

 

I assumed that he knew the name of the series (Hog Trial) which makes using the GS search rather simple.

 

I mean, how on EARTH am I going to find "001-The Hog Trial" cache using the search "provided" by Groundspeak

 

I am looking for GC44GQH!!!

 

B.

 

Well, I guess if the reason for the OP was just to complain about the GS search engine, you didn't do much of a job at it, since you provided the GC number, and in your google search, the first in the list gets you to the whole power trail, where the one you're looking for is right on top!

Doesn't seem too hard to find to me.

[+noncentric]

I ran the search just fine, and didn't even know what part of the country the cache was in.

• Went to Search page
  
• Started typing "united st..." into the search box, and then selected "United States - regional search" from the drop-down list that appeared
  
• Clicked on "Add Filters" button
  
• Typed "hog trial" into 'Geocache Name Contains' input box
  
• Clicked "Search" button
  
• Clicked "Geocache Name" column name to sort the results and get 001-The Hog Trial to rise to top of results list

Perhaps reading about the search feature and how it works would be more productive than complaining in the forums. The search works, it just needs to be used correctly.

 

Searching with Google is also a viable option. I typed geocaching hog trial into Google and the first result was this page, which is a bookmark list for the series: https://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=1b9ee861-13d8-4835-a496-155a71687816

[cezanne]

The search works, it just needs to be used correctly.

 

It works under a number of restrictions. In this case for example one needs to know the country the cache is located in (which is not always the case when one hears about a cache).

 

In many cases google search and project-gc provide the far better service, and both of them also have the advantage that they offer the full functionality for everyone.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Perhaps reading about the search feature and how it works would be more productive than complaining in the forums. The search works, it just needs to be used correctly.

 

Searching with Google is also a viable option. I typed geocaching hog trial into Google and the first result was this page, which is a bookmark list for the series: https://www.geocachi...96-155a71687816

 

I agree that spending a little more time understanding how the GS search feature works goes a long way to making it more useful.

 

Using Google is certainly a viable option for *some* types of searches. However, if you want to do something like find a list of traditional caches that you have not found with a container size of small or larger Google isn't going to help much. There are lots of things that the GS search feature can do that a Google search will not if you want to apply any of the geocaching filters such as size, difficulty ratings, favorite points, cache type and so on.

 

[cezanne]

There are lots of things that the GS search feature can do that a Google search will not if you want to apply any of the geocaching filters such as size, difficulty ratings, favorite points, cache type and so on.

 

And there are quite a number of cache related search operations Google and/or project-gc can be used for, but which are unfortunately not provided by the GS tool (those are pretty basic operations on a database) and there are things none of the tools provide. The GS search might not be that bad when it comes to filtering, but when it comes to searching, it has quite some weaknesses as search routine over a database (regardless of its size) should not have.

 

For example, Google and/or project-gc can help if one passes a certain location and vaguely remembers that somewhere in the area there exists a cache (multi or mystery the coordinates of which quite could be sufficiently much away such that looking through all unfound caches near the current coordinates is hopeless in cache dense areas). If one vaguely recalls parts of the title and or parts of the username, Google and project-gc (and also a local site for Austrian caches) are helpful (even if the spelling is not fully correct and/or if the parts or not contiguous) while the GS search does not help at all. The same is true for searches that would need to be be world-wide or country-wide for countries like the US and Germany.

Edited February 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+HHL]

[...] The same is true for searches that would need to be be [...] country-wide for countries like the US and Germany.

 

That's wrong. You can search country wide in the US and in Germany. And with some effort and smartness you might even search the entire Europe (actually a GSAK macro is needed as well).

 

 

Hans

Edited February 15, 2016 by HHL

[cezanne]

That's wrong. You can search country wide in the US and in Germany. And with some effort and smartness you might even search the entire Europe (actually a GSAK macro is needed as well).

 

My statement referred to what is directly avaible on gc.com - this excludes the usage of GSAK or any other additional tool. It also excludes downloading PQs or using the GS API.

Edited February 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+HHL]

That's wrong. You can search country wide in the US and in Germany. And with some effort and smartness you might even search the entire Europe (actually a GSAK macro is needed as well).

 

My statement referred to what is directly avaible on gc.com - this excludes the usage of GSAK or any other additional tool. It also excludes downloading PQs or using the GS API.

 

Your statement re searching in the US and Germany stays wrong. Full stop.

 

Hans

[cezanne]

Your statement re searching in the US and Germany stays wrong. Full stop.

 

It might have been imprecise, but it's not wrong except something in the search has changed over the last months. You can search over the whole countries of Germany and the whole country of the US only via a sort of trick which is not well known and which is not intended for general usage by GS (actually there even have been statements here that it is intended by them to restrict the search for Germany and the US due to the server load).

[+HHL]

Your statement re searching in the US and Germany stays wrong. Full stop.

[...] You can search over the whole countries of Germany and the whole country of the US only via a sort of trick [...]

 

Defintely NO and wrong again. Please stop posting these statements based on pure ignorance.

You can search (as I noted before) in the entire US and Germany by just jotting United States or Germany (even parts of their names are working) and do a regional search.

 

Happy Learnig

Hans

 

Edit: typos

Edited February 15, 2016 by HHL

[Cascade Reviewer]

Although I'm sure it was not meant this way, recent posts have become unnecessarily harsh. Please keep the comments civil.

[cezanne]

You can search (as I noted before) in the entire US and Germany by just jotting United States or Germany (even parts of their names are working) and do a regional search.

 

So even if they changed that from what it was like in the beginning (I cannot check it due to the limitations of the new search for basic members and I have no PM around right now) the search still displays only at most 1000 results and this means that even with applying various ways of sorting, you have no control over getting all search results you might have in mind (and actually not even a single one if it's a special one and your search criteria are not precise enough).

 

BTW: If they call it regional search, I find the name confusing and that's certainly also another issue with the search tool - many aspects of it are counterintuitive to many cachers.

Edited February 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+AnnaMoritz]

Aha. What I took from all the friendly answers here how to do a search on geocaching.com only: If you know the cache title, then you have to know the country (no country and name only leads to 'Oh no, a DNF!').

 

Then type 'United Sta' below 'Search the millions of geocaches worldwide.' and select 'United States - regional search' knowing this means 'the whole country', well, not very intuitive for EFL, as you would expect a region to be something like North America or Scandinavia or the Balkans (edit: or parts of one or more countries like 'Pyrenees' 'Region Thayatal') and not whole single countries.

 

And this (US-regional and Germany-regional) works in contrast to what the link 'Need help? Check the FAQ' provided on the search page that leads to https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2015/03/faq-the-new-geocache-search-tool/ 'How do I search for geocaches in a region?' still states today (maybe Groundspeak could update this section, or is this on purpose?):

 

"As of our April 23rd release, you can now search for all geocaches in a region by typing the location into the main search box and selecting “All geocaches in [location name]”. Note: This feature is not yet available for “All geocaches in United States” or “All geocaches in Germany.” You can, however, search by states within these regions."

 

As PM do not try instead United States at 'add filters' under 'Limit search to' as there are only states available (if you don't know which state). Good to know, didn't notice this as for all countries except United States and Germany also the whole county is available. Basic Members can't use this anyway.

 

As PM enter '001-The Hog Trial' below 'Geocache name contains'. Well, as Basic Member this does option is not available.

 

Following the link 'Take me to the old search' on the page of the new search leads to 'Other search options:' 'Cache starts with:' Type '001-The Hog Trial' and press enter. This gives the right cache as there fortunately is only one cache with this name. Also works for Basic Members.

Edited February 15, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+HHL]

[...]

BTW: If they call it regional search,[...]

If you mean by they Groundspeak: No they don't call it that way.

GS calls it: Geocaching Advanced Search

 

Hans

Edited February 15, 2016 by HHL

[+The A-Team]

[...]

BTW: If they call it regional search,[...]

If you mean by they Groundspeak: No they don't call it that way.

GS calls it: Geocaching Advanced Search

 

Hans

Yes, they do:

 

While "regional" may not be the perfect term, I can't think of something that would be any better, and presumably Groundspeak couldn't either. What term would best describe all of the following?

• Country
  
• State
  
• Province
  
• Bundesland
  
• Län
  
• Arbitrary subdivisions (e.g. "Southern England", "Northwest England")
  
• etc.
  

[+HHL]

[....]

Yes, they do:

 

[...]

No, they don't. Your screenshots shows just a resulting subset (vulgo: kind of filter) of the new search. It's not the main title.

 

Hans

[cezanne]

While "regional" may not be the perfect term, I can't think of something that would be any better, and presumably Groundspeak couldn't either. What term would best describe all of the following?

• Country
  
• State
  
• Province
  
• Bundesland
  
• Län
  
• Arbitrary subdivisions (e.g. "Southern England", "Northwest England")
  
• etc.
  

 

While there are certainly different names for the smaller units, I still do not understand the real meaning of regional. Why should the names of the subunits have any implication on how a country wide search is called?

 

In the old search one can search for say the whole country of Germany, or for a certain Bundesland. That makes sense to me. For other countries, the division below the country could be something else, but that does not play a role.

 

By the way, what does the second United States in your picture mean? Does it mean that there are two kinds of searches in the US one can select from when one enters United States? A regional one and another one? What is the difference? How are cachers supposed to understand this sort of stuff?

Edited February 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+The A-Team]

No, they don't. Your screenshots shows just a resulting subset (vulgo: kind of filter) of the new search. It's not the main title.

I think you misunderstood what cezanne was saying earlier. They weren't referring to the name of the entire tool, but rather to the specific "regional search" function within the tool that you had described.

 

You can search (as I noted before) in the entire US and Germany by just jotting United States or Germany (even parts of their names are working) and do a regional search.

...

BTW: If they call it regional search, I find the name confusing and that's certainly also another issue with the search tool - many aspects of it are counterintuitive to many cachers.

[cezanne]

 

No, they don't. Your screenshots shows just a resulting subset (vulgo: kind of filter) of the new search. It's not the main title.

 

 

I did not mean the main title anyway. I meant exactly what the A-Team replied to. I find it confusing if United States regional search is the what one should go for if one wants to search in the whole country.

Edited February 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+HHL]

No, they don't. Your screenshots shows just a resulting subset (vulgo: kind of filter) of the new search. It's not the main title.

 

 

I did not mean the main title anyway. I meant exactly what the A-Team replied to.

 

Next time I will read your posting more accurate.

 

Hans

Edited February 15, 2016 by HHL

[+The A-Team]

Why should the names of the subunits have any implication on how a country wide search is called?

I guess Groundspeak wanted to simplify things and have a single term that covers any country, state, province, etc. search rather than have to code numerous different subunit titles and differentiate them from a country-wide search.

 

In the old search one can search for say the whole country of Germany, or for a certain Bundesland. That makes sense to me. For other countries, the division below the country could be something else, but that does not play a role.

I just took a look at the old tool, and it actually labels the field as "State/Province" (at least when viewing the site in English).

 

By the way, what does the second United States in your picture mean? Does it mean that there two kinds of searches in the US one can select from when one enters United States? A regional one and another one? What is the difference? How are cachers to supposed to understand this sort of stuff?

The second option will search for caches around the specific coordinates of the location named "United States" or whatever you type in the field. This would make more sense for a specific address or name of a town, since the corresponding set of coordinates would be more relevant. The set of coordinates corresponding to "United States" are somewhere in Kansas and generally won't give a user the results they desire.

 

As for the usability of the tool, that's been an ongoing issue since the new tool was being previewed. The addition of the "regional search" option helped somewhat, but the tool still doesn't operate like most other search engines do, which is why so many people have had trouble using it. Personally, I'd consider it more of an advanced filtering tool than a search engine, because the text search field is of limited use.

 

My opinion is that Groundspeak was limited in the type of tool they could provide given their outdated database and performance issues, and this is the best they could do under the circumstances. I hope a database upgrade is near the top of the priority list, because so many things depend on it (e.g. a proper search engine, better map performance/functionality, cache downloading, etc.).

[cezanne]

Why should the names of the subunits have any implication on how a country wide search is called?

I guess Groundspeak wanted to simplify things and have a single term that covers any country, state, province, etc. search rather than have to code numerous different subunit titles and differentiate them from a country-wide search.

 

I could understand that they want to have a unifying term. What confuses me is that they apparently use regional for the country-wide search as this is counter-intuitive and also a radical change to the terminology in the old search tool.

 

If I were presented with two options for United States and I were interested into a country wide search, I'd go for the other option not called regional as I would expect the regional one to ask me in the second step for a choice of the region. The result would be that I ended up with strange search results I could not understand as I never would have come up with the idea that this type of search centres around some artifical centre of a country.

 

I just took a look at the old tool, and it actually labels the field as "State/Province" (at least when viewing the site in English).

 

The subunits yes. But there is the country level and there you can select Germany as a country and then give it a go without selecting a State/Province - the default is "search all".

(Comment: I have never used the site in any other language than English.) That's a much more intuitive approach if I want to search an entire country in my opinion.

 

The second option will search for caches around the specific coordinates of the location named "United States" or whatever you type in the field. This would make more sense for a specific address or name of a town, since the corresponding set of coordinates would be more relevant. The set of coordinates corresponding to "United States" are somewhere in Kansas and generally won't give a user the results they desire.

 

Ah thanks - I would never have guessed that. That seems indeed a strange behaviour for a country.

 

As for the usability of the tool, that's been an ongoing issue since the new tool was being previewed.

 

I have followed the discussions in the beginning.

 

The addition of the "regional search" option helped somewhat,

 

I missed that this change took place.

 

but the tool still doesn't operate like most other search engines do, which is why so many people have had trouble using it. Personally, I'd consider it more of an advanced filtering tool than a search engine, because the text search field is of limited use.

 

I agree. If you read what I've written above in a reply to NYPaddleCacher, I used the term filtering there too.

 

My opinion is that Groundspeak was limited in the type of tool they could provide given their outdated database and performance issues, and this is the best they could do under the circumstances. I hope a database upgrade is near the top of the priority list, because so many things depend on it (e.g. a proper search engine, better map performance/functionality, cache downloading, etc.).

 

While I understand that they suffer from the outdated design of many components of their system, I do not understand some other aspects like why they could not come up with less confusing terms, a better and in particular more up to date documentation etc.

Edited February 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+novw.nl]

I _only_ knew "hog trial" (ia, not ai...)and it is completely impossible to locate it: I expect a search to find me a name if I give it a search frase.

 

 

I mentioned the gc code only to point out the cache I am looking for is a real cache. In gc search it is IMPOSSIBLE to find a cache if you only know the name. I mean "hog trial" and the first hit is "Kanona cemetery"??!! Are you kidding me? No hog, no trial. Nothing vaguely resembling my search. Even on the listing of that cache there is no mention of "hog" or "trial". The search is giving out random results.

 

Only if I dig deep, deep, deep into the bowels of the search I am able to find a cache. And that is plain stupid. When I type "pietjepuk", the least I should get is any/all cache names that contain "pietjepuk" in their title. Whether that cache is in the Netherlands or on Greenland. Nothing more, nothing less. If the results are 10000 caches, than, and only than, should I be asked to start filtering.

 

I do not want, nor should I need, to get into filers, and states and search circles and whatever. The search is bad. Unless you are a computer wizz that understands filters on top of filters on results that have been filtered.

 

Question for the OP, are you planning on visiting the area for the geotour?

 

Yes.

Edited February 17, 2016 by novw.nl

[+Manville Possum]

 

Question for the OP, are you planning on visiting the area for the geotour?

 

Yes.

 

Here is a handy bookmark for the Hatfield McCoy GeoTrail. There are several great caches in the area. The River of Blood caches in Matewan are lot's of fun if you like kayak caches.

 

I use the search feature by typing in the name to the nearest town, and sometimes it still turns up that Kona Cemetery cache in Kansas.

[+The A-Team]

I do not want, nor should I need, to get into filers, and states and search circles and whatever. The search is bad. Unless you are a computer wizz that understands filters on top of filters on results that have been filtered.

It really isn't that bad if you know what you're doing, but I agree that it isn't intuitive and can be unusable for someone new to it.

 

The more I think about it, it would probably be best if the tool was renamed to reduce confusion. It should be called the "Location Finder" tool, because that better describes the function of the primary text field. An added benefit of the "Location Finder" tool is that you can search for caches around or within these locations, but that isn't the primary function. Using such a name would help prevent people from making the natural assumption that it will act like a typical search engine.

[+HHL]

I _only_ knew "hog trial" (ia, not ai...)and it is completely impossible to locate it: I expect a search to find me a name if I give it a search frase. [...]

 

Which part of "City, state, coordinate, GC code ..." do you NOT understand?

You'll have first to choose a region and then, by hitting the Add filters button, your keyword.

 

Hans

[+Mudfrog]

For that kind of search i use Google. It rwturns the one you want as first listing. No need for all the features of GS when a quick googlemsearch doea the job and is easiee.

It's pretty sad that an outside search engine like google works better to find caches than the search engine on geocaching.com.

[+noncentric]

For that kind of search i use Google. It rwturns the one you want as first listing. No need for all the features of GS when a quick googlemsearch doea the job and is easiee.

It's pretty sad that an outside search engine like google works better to find caches than the search engine on geocaching.com.

Google works better for some types of searches, like the OP's search that is based on the cache name. But if someone wants to search for something else, then Google doesn't work so well. Even when searching on a cache name, the Google results are not always good.

 

NYPC noted this in his post #19 above:

Using Google is certainly a viable option for *some* types of searches. However, if you want to do something like find a list of traditional caches that you have not found with a container size of small or larger Google isn't going to help much. There are lots of things that the GS search feature can do that a Google search will not if you want to apply any of the geocaching filters such as size, difficulty ratings, favorite points, cache type and so on.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Why should the names of the subunits have any implication on how a country wide search is called?

I guess Groundspeak wanted to simplify things and have a single term that covers any country, state, province, etc. search rather than have to code numerous different subunit titles and differentiate them from a country-wide search.

 

I could understand that they want to have a unifying term. What confuses me is that they apparently use regional for the country-wide search as this is counter-intuitive and also a radical change to the terminology in the old search tool.

 

I think that the use "regional" makes sense here. A region, in this case is not synonymous with "country" but refers to a geographic region. It's a specific area bounded by some geopolitical boundary (country/state/province border). The site recognizes many geographic regions that are not counties. More importantly, a regional search is in contrast with a proximity search. A proximity search will return a list of caches within a specified radius of a specific center point, while a regional search will return a list of caches that are within a specific bounded area. If you think of it in mathematical terms, a proximity search is based on the distance from a point, while a regional search search is bounded by the area (or region) of a polygon.

 

I just took a look at the old tool, and it actually labels the field as "State/Province" (at least when viewing the site in English).

 

In the old search, even though the label was shortened to "State/Province" other geographical regions were represented as well (e.g. German Bundesland). If you look at the terms used to describe administrative units which make up a country, the use of region is probably more common than any other.

 

 

The addition of the "regional search" option helped somewhat,

 

I missed that this change took place.

 

The ability to search within a region by using the "Limit Search To..." filter has been there since the new Search was released. Improvements were made several months ago to recognize place names entered into the "main search box" and give the user the option of using the location for a proximity search or as a regional search. For awhile, it would not allow a regional search for the U.S. or Germany but that feature was added as well

 

but the tool still doesn't operate like most other search engines do, which is why so many people have had trouble using it. Personally, I'd consider it more of an advanced filtering tool than a search engine, because the text search field is of limited use.

 

I agree. If you read what I've written above in a reply to NYPaddleCacher, I used the term filtering there too.

 

"Filtering" in a search/browse interface Is actually quite common, probably more so than a search engine which does not use it. If you've used Amazon, a travel broker service (e.g. expedia, kayak, trivago....) or almost any online retail web site you've used "filtering" to narrow down results.

 

My opinion is that Groundspeak was limited in the type of tool they could provide given their outdated database and performance issues, and this is the best they could do under the circumstances. I hope a database upgrade is near the top of the priority list, because so many things depend on it (e.g. a proper search engine, better map performance/functionality, cache downloading, etc.).

 

While I understand that they suffer from the outdated design of many components of their system, I do not understand some other aspects like why they could not come up with less confusing terms, a better and in particular more up to date documentation etc.

 

Personally I don't think that the database itself is the biggest issue for implementing a "proper" search engine. Many search engines do not actually search a database directly, but search an "index" of a data store. One of the most popular search engines these days is something called Solr. With Solr, an index can be created from data in a database or other sources. When a search is execute, the search is on the on index, not on the database itself. Solr is very fast and very scalable (I know of a site which has indexed 300+ million documents).

 

I disagree that the terms are confusing but they could definitely use better documentation. I've suggested that rather than include those canned search at the bottom of the search page the community would be better served by creating a bunch of screen casts that show how to create those searches.

[+Mudfrog]

For that kind of search i use Google. It rwturns the one you want as first listing. No need for all the features of GS when a quick googlemsearch doea the job and is easiee.

It's pretty sad that an outside search engine like google works better to find caches than the search engine on geocaching.com.

Google works better for some types of searches, like the OP's search that is based on the cache name. But if someone wants to search for something else, then Google doesn't work so well. Even when searching on a cache name, the Google results are not always good.

 

NYPC noted this in his post #19 above:

Using Google is certainly a viable option for *some* types of searches. However, if you want to do something like find a list of traditional caches that you have not found with a container size of small or larger Google isn't going to help much. There are lots of things that the GS search feature can do that a Google search will not if you want to apply any of the geocaching filters such as size, difficulty ratings, favorite points, cache type and so on.

I definitely realize this. I'm thankful that filters are available for us to use for narrowing down caches we want to look for. These are a great help with many of my searches. But i do find myself wanting to look up single caches by name and it seems silly that i can't do that from the initial search box that comes up.