I did an update tonight which basically pulls the table in the database that recorded finds into four different tables. One for actual found boxes, but also now for attempted boxes, found (but unlisted) boxes, and attempted (but unlisted) boxes. Makes things more efficient for the most part. Or at least that's my hope. Now when you view your logbook for attempts, AQ only has to sort through attempted records to find all your stuff instead of *all* finds and attempts.

For the most part, there's not much in terms of visible change. Just the way things in the background work a bit differently. But it's a pretty serious change in the background. If you find any bugs--particularly in regards to viewing finds, recording finds, deleting finds, and so forth, please let me know. I'll fix it in the morning when I wake up again. =)

The one visible change as a result is the list of finds on a box. There's now a link from each box in a series that takes you to the find page. I have a hunch that some people might not like the extra link to get to the finds (not an extra click, though, since you had to click on the "Show Finds" button anyhow to see the finds). The reason for this particular change isn't so much a change in the database structure, but rather the showboxinfo.html page is consistently one of the most heavily hit page on Atlas Quest and I wanted to make generating that page a bit more efficient. It seemed like a terrible waste of resources to have AQ query the database for finds when the person viewing the page never even elects to view them! This way, AQ will only have to query the finds on a box if the person actually WANTS to see them. (Since I was mucking around with the part of the code that dealt with finds, it seemed like a good time to do this as well, even though it's not directly related to the database change.)

So it's an efficiency thing, and not really intended for discussion. To those who do not like the change, I apologize in advance. It's just part of those tweaks and changes I constantly do to keep the website up and running fast. In the long run, that's a good thing. =)

Anyhow, if there are any bugs that show up tonight, I'll fix them when I wake up in the morning. *yawn* Night night, all.

-- Ryan

Quote

The one visible change as a result is the list of finds on a box.

So long as we can see a list of finds and attempts I don't mind how we do it, although it took me quite a while to realise where the link was, and I was specifically looking for it. I didn't realise 'details' meant 'show all finds'. Once found it is as easy as the old way.

Something that I think is probably a glitch, though perhaps you intend it to be this way, is on the mystery boxes. The list of finds and attempts say 'undisclosed' even though I am looking at my own boxes. Previously, on my own boxes, I could see all the names. I would be sad not to know who found my own boxes.

YT

Quote

Anyhow, if there are any bugs that show up tonight, I'll fix them when I wake up in the morning. *yawn* Night night, all.

It seems the PFX count totals in the profile have only P, not F or X. And therefore ribbons are gone too.

...which I assume also impacts the ability to view F restricted box listings?

Quote

the showboxinfo.html page is consistently one of the most heavily hit page on Atlas Quest and I wanted to make generating that page a bit more efficient. It seemed like a terrible waste of resources to have AQ query the database for finds when the person viewing the page never even elects to view them! This way, AQ will only have to query the finds on a box if the person actually WANTS to see them.

Makes a tremendous amount of sense.

I didn't see where "show all finds" went to. Then I read YT's post and I still didn't see it because I was looking for a prominent button in the spot where it used to be or in the right hand button column. Then I re-read your post and finally noticed the "Details" link. I'm so used to the term "show all finds", the word "details" doesn't mean "all finds" to me. I expect when I click on something named "details" I'd get the clue details. I would prefer "show all finds" or "all finds" or even just "finds".

Lone R

what about "attempt details"
i know it says it after you click on the link,
but maybe use it as the clicky button instead of just details.
i mean, i don't care either way, but you know.
throwing in my quarter.

rockin and rappin in the granite state
david (team new hampshire)
http://teamnewhampshire.blogspot.com

Quote

I would prefer "show all finds" or "all finds" or even just "finds".

Me too! Just looks nicer!

ahahhhhhh!!!!!

Where's my ribbon????

My F count says 0!!!!

Has the world ended????

I'm afraid to go outside .....

So . . . . why don't we have ribbons anymore?? . . . . I LIKE ribbons. . . % {

BTW, the "Details" looks very tidy.

I'm also seeing F0 on everyone's profiles. All their statistics are still listed on the chart, but they don't translate to the PFX count.

Ummmm Ryan..... what happened? Everything's changed! I can't adapt! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Any way we can get our F Counts and ribbons back?
MW

Quote

Any way we can get our F Counts and ribbons back?

I think when Ryan wakes up the ribbons will return.

MC

He left a detailed message about 15 messages up from yours
LL/ZZ

Found a bug:

Yesterday when I ran a search of all my UNfound boxes at Stone Mountain, there were 16 or 17 listings. Now there are only 9. Since I remembered what a couple of those were, I searched for them by name... they're still on AQ and haven't changed, but they're not showing up in the search results as noted above.

One of them is a 5-box series of which I've found three, but it's always shown up before.

Hmmm...

Steve

Yesterday when I ran a search of all my UNfound boxes at Stone Mountain, there were 16 or 17 listings. Now there are only 9. Since I remembered what a couple of those were, I searched for them by name... they're still on AQ and haven't changed, but they're not showing up in the search results as noted above.

One of them is a 5-box series of which I've found three, but it's always shown up before.<./i>

That would be the "F Count" thing I mentioned earlier this morning. You have no finds, therefore you cannot qualify for restricted boxes. That is the only bug I have seen, but it snowballs. No F showing on the PFX line (which is what is used for all the internal calculating), therefore no ribbons, missing from Hall of Fame and no F restricted boxes. Actually, it is kinda neat, look at the Hall of Fame for Finders. I wonder how those two slipped through the cracks?!?

http://www.atlasquest.com/people/halloffame.html

Quote

That would be the "F Count" thing I mentioned earlier this morning. You have no finds, therefore you cannot qualify for restricted boxes.

Well, that sounds plausible, but I can still find the box if I do a search for it by name. Do a Basic Search for "kitties" and you'll see what I mean.

I had no idea there were F-count restrictions on those boxes. But then... I guess I wouldn't know...

'tis a strange brew...

Well, that sounds plausible, but I can still find the box if I do a search for it by name. Do a Basic Search for "kitties" and you'll see what I mean.

You can find the box details, but note the "No Clue Provided" info instead of a link to the clue. Hence, F restriction.

Quote

I didn't realise 'details' meant 'show all finds'. Once found it is as easy as the old way.

Good point. I changed the link to now read "Show Finds".

Quote

The list of finds and attempts say 'undisclosed' even though I am looking at my own boxes.

Whoops! =) It should be fixed now.

Quote

It seems the PFX count totals in the profile have only P, not F or X.

Yep, that's a problem. Got it fixed. *nodding*

Quote

it is kinda neat, look at the Hall of Fame for Finders. I wonder how those two slipped through the cracks?!?

Those sneaky little......

The Hall of Fame "problem" is just an artifact of everyone's F-count going to 0. Soon as I fixed that problem, it also fixed the Hall of Fame problem.

Quote

Well, that sounds plausible, but I can still find the box if I do a search for it by name.

That's the only place you can actually pull up boxes with F-count restrictions, and even then the clues are still inaccessible. The reason is that some people will still give out clues for boxes they've listed as F-count restrictions and I needed a way to allow them to record finds on it.

Such boxes can't be searched for except explicitly by name. =)

-- Ryan

Quote

You can find the box details, but note the "No Clue Provided" info instead of a link to the clue. Hence, F restriction.

Uh-huh. But... since when has the F-count restriction been a factor in Saved Advanced Searches?

I can find this box if I start a new advanced search of Atlanta and include the name. I can also find it in the City Directory for Atlanta.

I would think that the search would still show you that the box was there. I mean, isn't the objective of the F-count restriction to hide the CLUE?

Quote

I mean, isn't the objective of the F-count restriction to hide the CLUE?

Oh, I used to do that, but too many people got upset and complained about not being able to access clues they didn't qualify for. They don't complain as much when they don't realize that there are clues they can't access. =)

So unless people search by the box by name (presumably, that means they already know the box exists), it doesn't show up in search results unless they can access the clues too.

-- Ryan

Quote

when I ran a search of all my UNfound boxes at Stone Mountain, there were 16 or 17 listings. Now there are only 9.

Can you send me the names of the boxes that showed up before but aren't showing up now? And what search are you running? (You can post the URL for the search results, or if it's a favorite search, tell me which one.)

If I had to guess, I'd say AQ is probably hiding boxes that you listed as attempted finds, so double check that you aren't hiding attempted finds.

-- Ryan

I found another one.

http://www.atlasquest.com/people/profile.html?gMemberId=1143

--Both the profile and logbook show 2 plants but the grid shows 20

Quote

Can you send me the names of the boxes that showed up before but aren't showing up now? And what search are you running?

They're all back now!

Quote

Both the profile and logbook show 2 plants but the grid shows 20

Tricky, tricky.... Turns out, they're both right. Kind of. =)

The person has listed 20 boxes, but most of them are postdated. So they aren't counting towards the official count and they won't show up in the logbook, but they still were being counted on the profile grid. I change it so postdated boxes no longer show up on the profile grid and the numbers should match a bit more.

If you find any other cases where the numbers don't seem to be adding up correctly, let me know. =)

-- Ryan

Quote

Quote

I didn't realise 'details' meant 'show all finds'. Once found it is as easy as the old way.

Good point. I changed the link to now read "Show Finds".

Thanks Ryan! :)

Quote

Oh, I used to do that, but too many people got upset and complained about not being able to access clues they didn't qualify for. They don't complain as much when they don't realize that there are clues they can't access. =)

So, now, those of us who don't keep an online logbook can no longer even write a personal email to the placer and request an F count restricted clue? Now I really feel like chopped liver. Sheesh! Funhog

Quote

So, now, those of us who don't keep an online logbook can no longer even write a personal email to the placer and request an F count restricted clue?

It certainly makes it more challenging, but it's still possible to stumble onto them. I thought you enjoyed the thrill of getting a hard-to-find clue. =) Don't want to be spoon-feeding people and make everything easy in this hobby.

Quote

Now I really feel like chopped liver. Sheesh!

You know, one of the reasons I made this change was because you complained to me when you couldn't access clues. Heckled me quite a bit about that, in fact. No hard feelings--you weren't the only one--many people were guilty of that. But I just couldn't take it anymore. I needed to preserve my sanity. It doesn't matter what criteria is used to restrict clues. Everyone who doesn't qualify complains to me when they can't get a clue they know is there. I also would get lots of mail from people who restricted clues complaining of people harrassing them to get clues they didn't qualify for. Some people who post restricted clues don't mind handing them out to anyone who asks, but others want to enforce the restriction and some finders don't seem to take 'no' very well. So then it still ended up as a complaint I had to deal with.

I personally would prefer having restricted clues tell people exactly what the restriction is--gives people something to strive for, I figure--but it just caused too many problems. I tried it and it didn't work. *shrug*

Don't worry too much about it, though. The vast majority of boxes on AQ have no restrictions at all. You're missing far more boxes from people that refuse to list their boxes online at all than you are from restricted boxes.

-- Ryan

Quote

Quote

Oh, I used to do that, but too many people got upset and complained about not being able to access clues they didn't qualify for. They don't complain as much when they don't realize that there are clues they can't access. =)

So, now, those of us who don't keep an online logbook can no longer even write a personal email to the placer and request an F count restricted clue? Now I really feel like chopped liver. Sheesh! Funhog

Funhog, you were saying on the big list that:

Quote

I really see the F count restriction quite
differently from a WOM clue. With those, no one has any idea that
there is a letterbox inexistence. If I don't know about a hidden clue,
I don't have any idea that I may or may not be permitted to find that
letterbox.

How is being unable to see which box has a restriction different from WOMs? If you don't know about a hidden clue (either WOM or f-count) then you don't have any idea that you may or may not be permitted to find that letterbox.

One thing you could do is go on your local board and ask if any owner of WOM or f-count restricted clues would be willing to share with you.

Perhaps I'm in the minority in my opinion (that is often the case so I'm used to it!) but to me, the box belongs to the person who plants it. If the planter wants to restrict the finds to people named Fred - that's their choice (although I really don't think you should add that as an AQ option, Ryan!) If I'm looking for boxes and find one with an f-count restriction that I don't meet, then I just assume the planter had a reason and let it go. There are a bazillion other boxes out there for me to find. I don't put restrictions on the boxes I plant - my choice. Some people do elect to use that option - and when they do, I'll respect the choice and wait on the box until I meet the requirements. I certainly don't think it is a personal insult - or that they intended to exculde me because only people with higher f-counts were "good" enought to find the box. I just assume there was a reason and it didn't have anything to do with me as a person or boxer!

G4