attributes limited to ten?

[+JL_HSTRE]

When entering the information for my first cache today, I went to the Attributes page and checked off everything that applied.

 

I then got the notice: "You are limited to a maximum of 10 attributes per listing."

 

Why does this limit exist? Yes, certain attributes are less relevant to some caches than others due to the Difficulty & Terrain ratings. But why shouldn't you be able to select (positively or negatively) every relevant attribute?

[+Lil Devil]

Because then some yahoo would just start selecting every single attribute just because he can. Just select the most relevant ten.

[+Markwell]

I've maintained that the limit is problematic from the first day. To make them truly relevant, I would think that every cache would have a yes/no for every attribute. Here's why...

 

Let's say there's a cache that has all of these attributes assigned:

• Available at all times
  
• Recommended for kids
  
• Takes less than an hour
  
• Scenic view
  
• Available during winter
  
• Parking available
  
• Poison plants
  
• Stroller accessible
  
• Wheelchair accessible
  
• Ticks
  

But let's also that that this park has a strict NO DOGS policy. Because the cache owner has to choose which ten THEY think are most important, the owner has to eliminate some information. If I'm searching to exclude caches that don't allow dogs (because my dogs are going with me) this cache would NOT be excluded. Therefore, the lack of the ability of the cache owner to choose as much information as possible as an attribute to the cache is a hindrance on the effectiveness of the attributes listed.

 

If someone in central Illinois wants to indicate that scuba gear is not required on a cache that's in the middle of a prairie forest preserve, how does that hurt or clutter up the data? Admittedly, many of the attributes are obvious, but if we're searching by attribute I believe every cache should be forced to state "yes", "no" or "not telling" on each possible attribute - so we know exactly the reliability of the attributes added.

 

But that's just MY opinion.

 

On the flip side, I can't think of any cache that I own that uses more than four or five attributes, and I rarely search exclusively by attributes other than a in a "foot note" aspect. Attributes also aren't fully in use. I recently checked on caches in the GONIL area recently and found that if you exclude the Needs Maintenance attribute, 31% of the caches had NO attributes assigned.

 

Since the searching is unreliable because of limits imposed by the website, and unreliable because of the lack of uniformed use, I've simply gone to looking at them like the owner providing parking coordinates or encrypted hints: these are helpful pieces of information, but not a sole reliable means of ascertaining whether or not I"m going to hunt for a cache.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Markwell

[+Prime Suspect]

I think the limit of 10 is about right. Too many more, and it just become noise that people will ignore.

[+dfx]

i always found it strange that the number of attributes is limited to 10, when the page layout has room for 12.

[+Avernar]

i always found it strange that the number of attributes is limited to 10, when the page layout has room for 12.

One if the extras is for the Needs Maintenance icon.

[+power69]

i always found it strange that the number of attributes is limited to 10, when the page layout has room for 12.

One if the extras is for the Needs Maintenance icon.

whats the other one for?

[+Avernar]

i always found it strange that the number of attributes is limited to 10, when the page layout has room for 12.

One if the extras is for the Needs Maintenance icon.

whats the other one for?

Just to make the grid symmetrical?

[+Prime Suspect]

i always found it strange that the number of attributes is limited to 10, when the page layout has room for 12.

One if the extras is for the Needs Maintenance icon.

whats the other one for?

Symmetry, and "reserved for future use".