How Do I...figure out the Search function?

[+rosebud55112]

I was just curious about how many of the 50 US state names I have accounted for in my finds, so I was using the Play/Search/Filters search function on the site.  Since that would be a lot of searching, I set up the filter to be "Caches I've Found", and Geocache Name Contains fields.  Trying to save myself some time, instead of entering the entire state name into the GNC field, I would just put in the first three letters.  Also saving some time, I thought I'd check for both ND and SD by setting GNC equal to "DAK".

 

My results were two caches I have that each have the word "Dakota" in them, but neither was a "North Dakota" or South Dakota".  Fair enough.

 

Then I checked on both NC and SC by making GNC equal to "CAR".  I got back five caches, each with the word "car" in them.  OK, but then it struck me, that I was pretty sure I did have, in fact both a NC and SC cache.  So I set GNC="CARO", and yep, three caches were returned, including a NC and a SC cache.

 

That didn't make any sense to me, but I thought maybe it was due to "CAR" being a common English word so I tried setting GNC equal to "PEN".  This search returned a single cache called "Penalty Shot".  When I put GNC equal to "PENN", however, I get three cache finds all with the word "Pennsylvania" in them.

 

So why does the three letter search not give all results?  The system isn't just looking only for a three-letter word, since DAK brought back 'Dakota' and PEN brought back 'Penalty', but why didn't CAR bring back my 'Carolina's  or PEN bring back my 'Pennsylvania's?  I realize that the system is only looking at the start of words--no internal strings-- but why were the CAR and PEN searches incomplete?

[+Viajero Perdido]

I see 18 states on the Maps panel of the Statistics tab of your Profile.  Did you know about that handy feature?

 

Groundspeak's search confuses me, so I never use it.

 

EDIT, ah, but that's not what you're asking for, is it?  Okay, how about that GSAK macro to export all your finds to a text file, then text-search for each state name in turn?  Doing that 50 times might be easier than figuring out search.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Viajero Perdido

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

EDIT, ah, but that's not what you're asking for, is it?  Okay, how about that GSAK macro to export all your finds to a text file, then text-search for each state name in turn?  Doing that 50 times might be easier than figuring out search.

 

No need to export. There's a name search field where you can just start typing while the database gets filtered.

 

Maybe Project-GC has some kind of checker that does this too (There might be a challenge requiring state names in the title).

 

[+rosebud55112]

Yes, I use GSAK and I know that I can do that.  However, I was not at the computer where I have my GSAK data stored, so I went with the search function.  My question isn't how do I answer my original question, but why does the Groundspeak search function sometimes return less results than it should, based on input.

[+on4bam]

2 minutes ago, rosebud55112 said:

 My question isn't how do I answer my original question, but why does the Groundspeak search function sometimes return less results than it should, based on input.

 

Then it would have been useful to mention that. Now answers are concentrated on solving the problem not on solving it on the website

 

The search function is one of the things being complained about because so many simple things can't be done.

[+rosebud55112]

3 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

Then it would have been useful to mention that. Now answers are concentrated on solving the problem not on solving it on the website

 

The search function is one of the things being complained about because so many simple things can't be done.

 I did mention that.  Every sentence in my original post that has a question mark is about how/why the system works the way it does.

[+rosebud55112]

I'm sorry on4bam.  As I read my last response now, it seems rather snarky.  It wasn't intended that way.

[+on4bam]

I mean, mention you didn't want other (and better) solutions. You'll never get an explanation why you can't do  things on the website

[+on4bam]

2 minutes ago, rosebud55112 said:

I'm sorry on4bam.  As I read my last response now, it seems rather snarky.  It wasn't intended that way.

no worries ...