Pocket Query Not Returning Desired Results?

[+Team Geo Supremo]

okay, so in an attempt to streamline downloading waypoints within my area, i decided to sign up, and ran a pocket query. the only parameters i loaded were that i did not want caches that were mine, nor caches that i've found. i asked for all within a 100mi radius. this resulted in 100 caches, but did not list some 20 that were closer to me than others that were listed. i ran a manual search, turned up 120 caches, including the ones closest to me.

 

i think i am able to answer one of my questions in that if i increase the # of caches for the qurey to report, i should get all of them, but my second question is that, apart from the parameters entered, how does the pocket query determine what results to report? i would have thought it would report closest caches 1st, but this is obviously not the case. the preview does not seem to indicate they are sorted by name, distance from home co-ord's, date placed, difficulty, waypoint name, or even last found. are they totally random within the 100 miles chosen?

 

i'm proabably missing the obvious, but thanks for any input that would help me find the results i want from the pocket queries.

 

team geo supremo

[+webscouter.]

I would guess that you have one to many parameters checked. The easiest way for us to tell though is for you to create a link to your pocket query. If you click on the edit query link and copy and paste the URL into your post we can click on it and it will bring up the query with your selections on it. Then someone can tell you what you have selected that is bringing you the "incorrect" results.

[+bigdog999]

when you setup the pocket query, there are various options that allow you to filter the caches you want to see. I have mine set for 200 caches from my location and filtered for easier ones (I'm new to this), and the result is based on distance from my location (zipcode).

[+Tharagleb]

Make sure you select "Postal Code" or some other center. In that case the preview will show you the closest ones first. If you select just the state/province, say, then the results are sorted by placement date, most recent first.

 

Edit: Added "province".

Edited April 26, 2005 by Tharagleb

[+Team Geo Supremo]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for the replies. As mentioned, the only parameters I had was that I filtered out my own, as well as caches found. I'd like to create a link, but it was a one time query that is now deleted. I would have thought it would have searched based on my home co-ordinates. I wonder if that can be an added feature. My postal code was not found, so I think that the database needs to be updated as well. I ran another query, and entered my home co-ords, bumped up to 130 waypoints, and seem to have gotten better results.

 

Hey Groundspeak, if you're reading, please note above suggestions. Keep up the great work!!

 

M.

[+Night Stalker]

Postal code is not always the best way to go anyway. Sometimes the postal code covers to large an area or the center is not where you want it to be. Using your home coordinates will give you much better results.

 

[+Markwell]

I think I understand this: There were more than 100 caches that fit your criteria. Your query would have returned 120 caches if you didn't have the 100 cache limit. The problem isn't with criteria, it's with too many results.

 

The obvious solution to this specific problem is to increase the number of caches in the PQ to 500 (the upper limit). The PQ will only return the actual results that match the criteria, so it will return only 120.

 

But your broader question is what happens when the number of caches meeting the criteria is greater than the number of allowed caches to fill the PQ. Since 500 is the maximum limit, what happens when there are 550 caches that match the criteria.

 

I've heard several theories. Some say the radius will be the limiting factor (it will throw out the farther ones). Some say it starts filling with the earliest caches placed and throws out the later ones.

 

Without a response from the almighty database designers, or some empirical testing, I'm not sure what the real answer is. But I think I've clarified your question a little.