+colema19 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 So there's attributes to include and attrbitues to exclude, but each one has 3 states, greyed out, selected, and crossed out. So is crossing out an attribute in attributes to include, the same result as selecting that attribute in attributes to exclude? Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Not really - for example you have caches that are marked as kid friendly and not kid friendly (crossed off icon). You could choose to search for those that are marked either. When you exclude you are looking for the complete abscence of the icon - whether regular or crossed out. Might end up meaning the same thing but is really a bit different. Link to comment
+The Cheeseheads Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 If I selected the above for a pocket query, here's what I'd be asking for: Include any caches where the owner has stated that dogs are allowed. Include any caches where the owner has stated that the cache is not available 24/7. Don't consider any other attributes when determining what caches to include. Exclude any caches where the owner has stated that the cache is not winter-friendly. Exclude any caches where the owner has stated that I might find cows. Don't consider any other attributes when determining what caches to exclude. Clear as mud? Link to comment
+Allanon Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Why is there a 'cows' attribute? Link to comment
+The Cheeseheads Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Why is there a 'cows' attribute? Wisconsin caches are always getting "moogled"... Link to comment
+Stunod Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Why is there a 'cows' attribute? Wisconsin caches are always getting "moogled"... That's a bunch of bull. An utter lie... Link to comment
+Markwell Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 You would think that would be the logical way for it to work, right? No so much. I searched for caches around my home within 10 miles. There are 316. Using the "include attributes" I found that 24 of them had the Handicapped Icon attribute on it. Also, 13 of them have the "NOT handicapped icon". That leaves 279 with no reference to the handicapped attribute, either handicapped yes, or handicapped no. When I try to run a pocket query excluding the handicapped icon (which would mean caches that do NOT have the "handicapped yes" icon, I should get 292 caches, those with nothing and those with the "handicapped not". Instead, when I preview the results, it says that there are "500 caches" that match my criteria. The first page (that usually has 20 caches) has three caches. The second page has 4. I paged through all 25 pages, and there were no more than six caches on any one page, and no fewer than 3. If I total all of the cache counts on all 25 pages, I get 106 caches. But when paging through I noticed that it's not even 106. Some of the same caches appeared on different pages of the previewed results. Then I opened up some of the cache pages, and found that some of them had the handicapped yes attribute (for example GCVC9E). The system included some caches that I specifically told the PQ to exclude. OK, how about the exclude "not handicapped"? I should get 303 (279 blank + 24 "handicapped yes"). It says when I preview the results, it says that there are 98 caches that match my criteria. It appeared to have the right number of pages (5), and the right number of caches on each page. But I opened up the first five, and found that one of them (GCVJAW) clearly had the "Wheelchair Not" attribute. Again, it included an attribute that I specifically excluded. So - it appears that the Include attribute works just fine, but the exclude is completely unreliable? Link to comment
+Markwell Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 And of course there's still a problem that you can include and exclude "not" symbols that are not available to cachers. Take a look at these icons: Access or parking fee, Climbing gear, Boat, Scuba gear, May require wading, May require swimming, Needs maintenance, Watch for livestock, Cliff / falling rocks, Hunting, Dangerous area, Thorns, Snakes, Ticks, Public transportation You can only mark them "present" not with the "not" like you can for Wheelchair. So there is no "Not Boat" or "Not Scuba Gear." Yet, you can choose to exclude or include the "Not Scuba Gear" attribute. To be correct in the system, users should only be able to include and exclude the attributes that can be set to a cache. OR - if someone did try to do a query to include "Not Scuba Gear" - the query interface should turn back an error. Link to comment
+Markwell Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) And just for clarification, here's what I would have expected: No attributes selected - 316 results Include the Handicapped Yes Icon - 24 results Include the Handicapped No Icon - 13 results Exclude the Handicapped Yes Icon - expected 292 caches (actual results were "over 500" and spotty with strange page results, and included handicapped yes caches) Exclude the Handicapped No Icon - expected 303 caches (actual results were 98, and included handicapped no caches) Edited February 8, 2007 by Markwell Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) Why is there a 'cows' attribute? Cows = There may be free roaming livestock. Sometimes it might mean don't wear red, but usually just means watch where you step So - it appears that the Include attribute works just fine, but the exclude is completely unreliable? Yep. Edited February 8, 2007 by tozainamboku Link to comment
+colema19 Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share Posted February 9, 2007 Thanks for the explanations. I think I understand it now, although it seems needlessly complex to me. Link to comment
Recommended Posts