+thumper369 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I noticed there was some talk about this subject on this post Attributes as a searchable, but I did not see a post dedicated to it. When I create a query and try to exclude an attribute, it excludes any caches that do not have any attributes. Is there a way around this? Or do we know when it will be fixed? What I am trying to accomplish is I have a search created for Small Regular and Large caches that are listed as Kid Friendly. I have another query that has the other sizes and is kid friendly. I want a third query that includes all sizes but excludes the kid friendly results so my results are not duplicated. What I end up with is excluding some that I want to be in the results because they do not have any attributes. In the short run is there a way to query for caches that have no attributes? Link to comment
+thumper369 Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 can anyone suggest a different area on the forums to post this? This must be the wrong place as no one has responded. Link to comment
+Markwell Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 This is the right area, but remember - this is a discussion board, not a chat. It may take a while to get a response. I'll see if I can duplicate your issues. Which attribute are you trying to exclude? Link to comment
+weathernowcast Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 This is the right area, but remember - this is a discussion board, not a chat. It may take a while to get a response. I'll see if I can duplicate your issues. Which attribute are you trying to exclude? I agree Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 It looks like to me the Attributes aren't provided as part of the cache information in a PQ. I'm I correct? Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) I believe thumper369 noticed the same behavior for excluding attributes that I did: If I exclude a positive attribute it excludes any cache with no attributes. If I exclude a negative attribute it excludes any caches that do not have at least one negative attribute. For example, if I want to exclude caches that allow dogs, it excludes caches caches with no attributes set but seems to include any cache with at least one attribute, including both with dogs allowed and dogs not allowed. If I want to exclude caches with no dogs allowed it excludes any cache except those that have at least one negative attribute, including no dogs allowed. At least that's the way preview works. I did not schedule the PQ to see what gets returned in the GPX file. Edited October 31, 2006 by tozainamboku Link to comment
+thumper369 Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 I believe thumper369 noticed the same behavior for excluding attributes that I did: If I exclude a positive attribute it excludes any cache with no attributes. If I exclude a negative attribute it excludes any caches that do not have at least one negative attribute. For example, if I want to exclude caches that allow dogs, it excludes caches caches with no attributes set but seems to include any cache with at least one attribute, including both with dogs allowed and dogs not allowed. If I want to exclude caches with no dogs allowed it excludes any cache except those that have at least one negative attribute, including no dogs allowed. At least that's the way preview works. I did not schedule the PQ to see what gets returned in the GPX file. Yes, this is what is hapening. I want to have two searches. One that includes Kid friendly (currently working) and one that excludes Kid Friendly (currently works but also excludes caches with no atributes). The result is 2 good queries with expected results, but missing any caches with no atributes, theirfor not covering all caches. Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 This is a known limitation of the attribute search feature that has been acknowledged by the site developers in prior threads on the subject. Hopefully improvements are on their to-do list. Link to comment
Recommended Posts