Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
RedHunters

Feature Request: Pocket Queries

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I use PQs a lot and they are very helpful but the function has not been updated since years.

Therefore would suggest two additional filters:

1) "has corrected coordinates"

2) "has more than X favorite points"

 

thx in advance

Stefan

  • Helpful 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would also add:

3) "has Personal Cache Note"

4) "has more than X% Favorite points"

 

Note that the search function for caches with a Personal Cache Note has a reported bug, where it continues to include caches where the owner has erased the Personal Cache Note. It would be nice not to incorporate this bug into the PQ system.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, sure, OK, I see the advantage of those features, but to me they pale compared with the annoying behavior of scrolling up to the top of the PQ list every time I click on a day-of-the-week to run one of the PQs in the list. I rarely run only a single PQ, and I have to scroll down over and over for each one of them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, dprovan said:

I mean, sure, OK, I see the advantage of those features, but to me they pale compared with the annoying behavior of scrolling up to the top of the PQ list every time I click on a day-of-the-week to run one of the PQs in the list. I rarely run only a single PQ, and I have to scroll down over and over for each one of them.

I ctrl/cmd click each check box and it turns it on in a new tab. When I'm done, the most recent tab has all of the queries checked. But yes, the PQ list page needs to turn on/off pocket queries without a page refresh, or at the very least, allow for multiple checks with a submit button at the top AND bottom of the list (perhaps at the top with the days of the week, with those headers being sticky as we scroll down).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Mineral2 said:

But yes, the PQ list page needs to turn on/off pocket queries without a page refresh, or at the very least, allow for multiple checks with a submit button at the top AND bottom of the list

 

Tampermonkey an GCLh (in Firefox) to the rescue 😎

I just click a maximum of 10 PQ in the highlighted column (today) without refreshing the page.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Tampermonkey an GCLh (in Firefox) to the rescue 😎

I just click a maximum of 10 PQ in the highlighted column (today) without refreshing the page.

I wish Groundspeak would learn from the various hacks people use to fix their user interface, and update their user interface so those hacks aren't needed any more. But that should be a separate thread, I suppose...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

 

Tampermonkey an GCLh (in Firefox) to the rescue 😎

I just click a maximum of 10 PQ in the highlighted column (today) without refreshing the page.

Well, that works (in Chrome too). However, there are a few other changes that GCLh makes that I'm not so fond of. It will take me some time to figure out how to customize it without breaking it, being that I'm not a javascripter. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, niraD said:

I wish Groundspeak would learn from the various hacks people use to fix their user interface, and update their user interface so those hacks aren't needed any more.

Don't hold your breath. It's been like that as long as I care to remember. In fact Greasemonkey and later Tampermonkey have hardly been used for anything else but the GC site.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/10/2019 at 2:21 PM, RedHunters said:

Hi,

 

I use PQs a lot and they are very helpful but the function has not been updated since years.

Therefore would suggest two additional filters:

1) "has corrected coordinates"

2) "has more than X favorite points"

 

thx in advance

Stefan

 

I would be glad to have "has corrected coordinates" as a filter.

 

Today I maintain several regional LISTs with my solved mysteries.

Then I exclude the mysteries from the regional query and do the second query from the regional list.

The additional filter 1) would be helpfull and I could drop all the lists.

 

Regards, teddy.66

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/10/2019 at 2:21 PM, RedHunters said:

Hi,

 

I use PQs a lot and they are very helpful but the function has not been updated since years.

1) "has corrected coordinates"

2) "has more than X favorite points"

 

Especially the "has corrected coordinates" is hardly missing! I use GPX a lot, because I'm often in areas with none or at least very, very bad internet.

 

This property must go into the GPX file itself!

 

The benefit of GPX files, which are technically only XML files, are, that they can be enhanced easily. Just another property, that's it. If an importing software can't handle this new property, it simply ignore it. Groundspeak may also create a new GPX version - just to be sure - so that users can select.

 

"Number of favorite points" would also be great.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Flachmann said:

Especially the "has corrected coordinates" is hardly missing! I use GPX a lot, because I'm often in areas with none or at least very, very bad internet.

 

This property must go into the GPX file itself!

 

The benefit of GPX files, which are technically only XML files, are, that they can be enhanced easily. Just another property, that's it. If an importing software can't handle this new property, it simply ignore it. Groundspeak may also create a new GPX version - just to be sure - so that users can select.

 

"Number of favorite points" would also be great.

Yes, this would be great. But it also requires that Garmin also update its filtering abilities to utilize this information. For API apps, this information is available through API downloads. Though I agree that if Garmin were to make changes, it would be in response to Groundspeak adding this data to the GPX files first.

Edited by Mineral2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see why Groundspeak needs to wait for Garmin, or other vendors.

 

GPX is a specialised XML file. So, new properties and attributes are simply ignored by the reading software. We already have a lots of attributes in the GPX (XML) that are not important for Garmin, or other vendors, at all. So logically they are simply ignored during import. Of course, vendors need to enhance their import jobs, if the want to make use of the new properties / attributes. But as long as they don't these new items are simply not available.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Flachmann said:

So, new properties and attributes are simply ignored by the reading software.

In theory, yes.

 

And in theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they aren't.

 

In the past, when Groundspeak has added properties and attributes to the GPX format, it has broken devices and software that assumed the previous version of the GPX format. Groundspeak needed to continue to provide the old version of the GPX format for those who needed it.

 

If (when?) they update the GPX format again, they will need to continue to provide the old versions as well.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, niraD said:

In theory, yes.

:rolleyes:  True, sadly bad coding always is an issue. :unsure:

 

But this also could easily be handled by a "format selector" (like it was available in the past for GPX versions 1.0 and 1.1). That selector simply offers to either create GPX' (old) 1.1 format, or (new) 1.2 format (or whatever version it might get). That way GPX for old devices could get their format, and better coded devices or utilities could use the new format.

 

But waiting for another company like Garmin to support something that does not exist results in simply "never".

 

Edited by Flachmann

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I wish I worked at Groundspeak so I could learn of all the behind-the-scenes stuff the public aren't privy to that actually does inhibit the implementation of many of these suggestions, and that the staff and developers at the company all love and wish they could implement the great suggestions posted in the forum over the years...

Then I wake up.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would love to add three feature request regarding pocket queries to the once in the starting post ("corrected coordinates" and "favorite points"):

 

1) I would love to have more than 1000 caches in my pocket queries .....

than I would not need to split them up (and "paste" them together) any more and I believe that 1000 are not up to date any more.

The standard amound of 500 could stay the same.... but lets say 5000 should be possible....10000 would be nice .... but I could understand.

 

2) What about "My Finds" ..... why is that Pocket Query handled so differently?

I would love to have it run scheduled lets say once a week.....

 

3) and have the result available through the API ....

RIght now it us not available in GSAK or Looking4Cache.

There must be some kind of filter....

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mapsoft said:

2) What about "My Finds" ..... why is that Pocket Query handled so differently?

I would love to have it run scheduled lets say once a week.....

 

"My Finds" can list archived caches you once found, so it's special.  Other search functions don't show archived caches.

 

If you require large areas of caches beyond PQ limits, helper software such as GSAK is probably better than trying to piece together thousands of results manually.  Most cachers actually need just a cache or two, so having a limit is good.  The limit means you think more carefully about the area to load.  If the limit becomes higher, everybody love-loves to click them buttons, and we all then use the higher limits (yet still go hunt a couple of caches).  You'd then be back here asking why the server is so slow.  :anicute:

 

 

Edited by kunarion
Went to change my name to an unpronounceable character.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, kunarion said:

If you require large areas of caches beyond PQ limits, helper software such as GSAK is probably better than trying to piece together thousands of results manually.  Most cachers actually need just a cache or two, so having a limit is good.  The limit means you think more carefully about the area to load.  If the limit becomes higher, everybody love-loves to click them buttons, and we all then use the higher limits (yet still go hunt a couple of caches).  You'd then be back here asking why the server is so slow


I'm wondering when the last time the PQ server hardware was given an upgrade. Is it running from the same server as the API? Or the website? Or to put it another way, PQ limits were originally placed as to not overload the server. But these days, PQs seem to run pretty quickly which indicates any of the following: The servers can now handle a higher load and are being underutilized; Pocket queries are being used in less demand than in the past. Remember when you'd turn on a PQ and it might be a few hours before the results came back? These days we're "lucky" if we have to wait more than five minutes. So maybe it's not inconceivable to increase the size of a PQ, and/or increase the number that can be run in a single day.

My guess is that @Mapsoft already uses GSAK or iCaching to "paste" PQ results together. But even if they aren't, for those of us that do, increasing these limits would be useful for those of us that simply like to keep a large area of caches on our GPS, and keep them up to date on a weekly basis.

However, until the limits are improved, the workaround for an area greater than what a single PQ would cover is to utilize Project-GC's tool to define PQ's by date placed. This is useful in areas packed with caches because only the queries containing the most recent dates need to be updated regularly when using GSAK or iCaching. The rest can be updated via the API because it's unlikely that new caches will appear with an older "hidden on" date. Thus the API will pull in recent logs and update the availability status, while the PQ's filtering recent dates will do the same while also pulling in new hides. So, for an area like Denver, which has over 10,000 caches in a 30 mile radius, the 11 PQ's only need to be run once, and after that, only the most recent 2 or 3 PQs be run weekly freeing up your PQ limit to be used on other areas, extending your weekly updates to cover up to Ft. Collins and down to Colorado Springs, or keep the mountain areas up to date. The API's full limit being increased to 16,000 sure helps with this methodology.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see reasons why there has to be a limit, but I would like to see the way the limits are implemented changed. So rather than being allowed to run 10 PQs a day each with a limit of 1000 caches, just limit me to 10,000 caches a day but I can slice-n-dice it any way I wish, so 1x10,000, or 1x3000+1x7000, 10x1,000, etc. - pretty much the same way the API limits downloads.

 

And just getting this in here, in case there's some plan on the drawing board back at GCHQ : -

 

 

Please don't take PQs away, and if you're thinking of changing the functionality significantly please seek the views of the paying customers beforehand.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/11/2019 at 7:36 PM, on4bam said:

Tampermonkey an GCLh (in Firefox) to the rescue 😎

 

Probably a simpleton's question, but how do I get/use "GCLh"? Sounds to be a useful feature for PQs.

 

I have Greasemonkey (Firefox) and Tampermonkey (Chrome) installed, but tbh don't know what I'm supposed to do with them!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PlasmaWave said:

Probably a simpleton's question, but how do I get/use "GCLh"?

 

Have you tried to put GClh in your favorite search engine? Should be the first result you see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, thebruce0 said:

Two comments, one was helpful, can you spot the difference?  :laughing:

 

Yes, one comment handed a solution on a silver platter, the other made sure that someone made an effort and learned something  at the same time. It irks me (another thread, I know) that people take time to write a post asking questions that could be answered in less time by using one of the many search facilities on the net. The moment I get paid to give lengthy and complete answers, I will do so, until then I will give a hint so people can find answer in their own time.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post

One comment provided an informative, relevant link. The other spent time informing someone how to use another source to get information, which typically comes off condescending.  ("Hey can you tell me how to get to XYZ street?"  "Sure. Have a phone? Turn it on, open google maps, and type XYZ street. There you go!"  "....thanks.")

Anyway, back on topic...

 

 

9 hours ago, PlasmaWave said:

Probably a simpleton's question, but how do I get/use "GCLh"? Sounds to be a useful feature for PQs.

 

GC Little Helper is a powerful browser extension with many features to enhance the website. Install it along with Geocaching Map Enhancements to boost your gc web productivity exponentially :P

Edited by thebruce0
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've found that the GCLH browser extension for chrome is less useful than the tampermonkey script, which is hosted on Github for the most up to date version. Installing scripts from GitHub is not super intuitive. I ended up having to copy and paste the raw code of the script into a new script made directly in Tampermonkey. 

I have to agree with @on4bam here. Search engines have been around for over 20 years, and when people don't know about or how to use them, we've failed as a society. It was just up this thread that GCLH was introduced in response to one of my posts.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 11:36 AM, on4bam said:

Tampermonkey an GCLh (in Firefox) to the rescue 😎

I just click a maximum of 10 PQ in the highlighted column (today) without refreshing the page.

 

So I simply stuck GCLH into Google and admittedly got a series of unrelated results. So I simply added "geocaching" to my search query (search: GCLH geocaching) and found out all about the GC Little Helper. 

Ok, I admit that when it comes to technology, I'm a bit more intuitive at solving problems than others. When I read that the original GCLH script was defunct, and that userscripts.org was defunct (it's been that long since I used greasemonkey), I had to figure out an alternative. I found the chrome extension, which I have since discovered doesn't work wellanymoree - either it doesn't work with newer versions of chrome, or it doesn't play with updates to the website. But the GCLH II script does. It's just hosted on GitHub rather than a one-click install repository. So after some searching on Google for how to install userscripts from GitHub, I gave up and went for the manual installation approach. That required some extra knowledge that I can understand the average user not having. 

In general, yes, I am annoyed by people who can't or won't take the time to search for simple solutions to common problems. But I also understand that some problems don't always present solutions upon an immediate google search. This seems like a topic for another thread to expand upon in non-geocaching related topics.

I think we can do a better job at teaching search engine skills without coming off as condescending.

Edited by Mineral2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

Search engines have been around for over 20 years, and when people don't know about or how to use them, we've failed as a society.

Absolute, I don't disagree that people should know how to use a search engine today. The condescending assumption in those very words is that such a user does not know how to use a search engine.  ... ... c'mon son!   No, there are plenty of reasons why someone could simply ask a simple question in a discussion forum, hoping for a direct, informative response from someone knowledgeable, in a helpful, friendly manner. Just like asking for directions.

This is a HUGE irk of mine, when people take their own time to tell people "I won't type a quick informative response, I'd rather I'll tell you to google that for yourself, while assuming that you don't know how or condescendingly implying that, which usually takes longer than simply providing that quick helpful reply in the first place"

Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent... again. :P

 

 

I had the original GCLH extension installed a while back as well, but haven't had it for a while, making heavy use of Project-GC's extension along with GME and some of my own script tweaks. I just tried installing GCLH2 in Greasemonkey on firefox, and it doesn't seem to be actively changing anything. That may be because it's Greasemonkey and not Tampermonkey, but I'm not too bothered.  I just wish HQ would implement some of the more popular tweaks that so many of these user scripts are adding -- to the front end of the website, for useful functionality and visual esthetic that doesn't even require backend server code. :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mineral2 said:

So I simply stuck GCLH into Google

 

First result in Startpage search engine.

 

GClh_search.jpg.3bb9014e3129bb41affe94e0d3dd689c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

That may be because it's Greasemonkey and not Tampermonkey, but I'm not too bothered.

I think that is correct. GCLH II apparently does not work with greasemonkey and requires tampermonkey.

 

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The condescending assumption in those very words is that such a user does not know how to use a search engine.  ... ... c'mon son!

So, ok. Perhaps it's a stretch to assume that people don't know that Google exists and how to type text in the box and click search. But it's not unrealistic to assume that people are searching the wrong terms to get relevant results that answer the questions they seek. Even in the forums, we get questions being asked that are non-specific, or not even relevant to the answer the poster is looking for. If a person needs instruction on how to nail two boards together, it's much more efficient to type "How to nail boards together" in Google and get your answer instantly than to go to a forum and make someone else effectively do the same thing. That's what ends up happening. Someone asks how to do something, and we answer either by looking it up and reporting back what we find in our search results, or reporting back from our own memory because we've spent so much time looking up the answer to that question in the past. It's fundamentally different than coming to the forums to ask "What's the best hammer and nail to use to nail two boards together?" In this case, the forum is invaluable because you're likely to get opinions based on real-world experience as opposed to review sites that give you what is the equivalent of an advertisement. And, of course, if you do google "How to nail boards together" and get stuck following any number of instructions that you found in the process, forums can be helpful for clearing up any misunderstandings. But, it's best to come to the forum detailing specifically what set of instructions you are following and which step you are having trouble with rather than asking a the generic "How do I nail two boards together."

Again, maybe we should open up a dedicated thread talking about condescending tone around answering simple and frequently asked questions, why it happens, and how to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

But it's not unrealistic to assume that people are searching the wrong terms to get relevant results that answer the questions they seek.

Except the assumption was - you'll get all the information you want by searching for one keyword. In a tone that implied they don't know how to use a search engine. That's my pet peeve. Not educating people on how to best use a search engine for optimal results, which wasn't the case here. And when it comes to 'annoyance' of people asking a simple question instead of googling first, um, well I had no problem adding a bit of friendly guidance. If I were only copying and pasting the result of the search, then sure, it would be annoyance because "anyone could have done that". Instead we can choose to engage and be helpful instead of off-putting and assuming "my time" is more valuable. If it is, then just don't reply. Let someone else do the work if they wish. LMGTFY can be funny when used properly, but it's condescending, insulting, and demeaning when someone may have had a real intention to ask a human and engage with potentially knowledge people first-hand, than ask a robot which may not (as we see above) provide the best answer immediately.

Gah. Okay. Stepping away, because it's lunch time and I'm hangry now :P

 

9 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:
28 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That may be because it's Greasemonkey and not Tampermonkey, but I'm not too bothered.

I think that is correct. GCLH II apparently does not work with greasemonkey and requires tampermonkey.

Good to know. And that is of course what the description of the script does say for installation - only speaking of tampermonkey, not greasemonkey. heh

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

First result in Startpage search engine.

 

3rd, and only result on the first page of a Google search. But hey, it is there. But adding "geocaching" to the search specifies the context and ensures relevant results.

319905499_ScreenShot2019-11-05at9_40_52AM.png.a973c4f0e49e4e3050855a5745654b27.png

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

3rd, and only result on the first page of a Google search. But hey, it is there. But adding "geocaching" to the search specifies the context and ensures relevant results.

 

Yup, I find Startpage gives me less "irrelevant" results when searching and it doesn't track me all over the place. I only use google for reverse image searches because that's where Startpage lacks power. But we're veering off track here.

OTOH maybe it would help some people if there was a thread about searching skills (and maybe add some hints on how to ask questions and include crucial info so answering can be done without guessing)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Genuine thanks for the informative and helpful replies, also support particularly from 'thebruce0'.

 

To be honest I was taken-back by some of the responses - yes, I have heard of search engines so am not a complete idiot! Valuable lesson learned though: be very wary of asking an innocent question here ... but, how to know what questions will not irk some contributors?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PlasmaWave said:

To be honest I was taken-back by some of the responses - yes, I have heard of search engines so am not a complete idiot! Valuable lesson learned though: be very wary of asking an innocent question here ... but, how to know what questions will not irk some contributors?

 

Point taken. My answer was not meant "look it up idiot" but as "have you looked it up?".  With a simple "search results didn't point me in the right direction"  I would have given more info.

My (short) post is what I do with questions that leave too much info out.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...