When you look at a log book, you can sort for newest, oldest, last found or alphabetically. I'd like an option to sort for distance from *me*. Is that doable?

You can do this in the advanced search tool. If you put in your location and do a search for the boxes that you have found. And you can save the search to use later if you want.

I think that is what you were looking for.

I don't want to do it for boxes *I* have found, I want to do it for boxes someone else has planted. And yes, I realize I could use the advanced search tool for that. It'd just be more convenient if the pull-down sort list in a log book would do it for me.

In fact, it might be worth considering simply doing away with the log book function altogether and simply create a scheme of bringing up search results in its place. IOW, click on someone's log book, and AQ simply performs a search for boxes that boxer has found and brings up the results, rather than generating the log book format. Then, of course, you can sort the results any way that you can sort search results, or you can switch over to view their planted boxes or whatever.

It seems that any search is limited to a 250-mile range. That'd have to change to use it as a log book result; there needs to be no limit whatsoever, you'd want to be able to see every one of the boxes in a log book no matter how far they are from you.

It'd be kinda interesting to see that result. I look up somebody's plants centered on my house in Florida, and it'd show a plant of theirs in California or Canada or Alaska and lists exactly how far away it is.

That would be a good addition to the sort order!

I wouldn't want to get rid of the logbook. I use mine all the time to look up my trackers & events mostly. It's way easier than trying to figure out the search feature.

I have used others' logbooks to log finds/plants that I couldn't find from events, but now so many people have everything private, that usually doesn't work. I have to try several logbooks to find one that is public.

In fact, it might be worth considering simply doing away with the log book function altogether and simply create a scheme of bringing up search results in its place.

It's actually more-or-less the same code that runs both searches and logbooks. Logbooks are just a "special" type of search--one with limited search options, that won't group individual boxes in a series into a single listing, and a few other tweaks.

You can tell this is true by doing a little URL manipulation. For instance, go to https://www.atlasquest.com/people/logbook.html?location=seattle%2C+wa&radius=15&action=plants and it'll show all of your plants near Seattle, WA. (You might not have any, but replace the city with wherever you've planted boxes.)

The advanced search sort options don't work because that's another tweak where the drop down list overrides whatever is in the URL.

It seems that any search is limited to a 250-mile range.

The database will choke if it has to calculate the distances for a search that could potentially return 100,000+ boxes. It's not going to change. I didn't add the limit because I thought it would be fun to create an arbitrary limit--it's designed to help keep the database running quickly.

and it'd show a plant of theirs in California or Canada or Alaska and lists exactly how far away it is.

That reminds me of a box Eidolon once brought to my attention in Vietnam or something and, when searching from Georgia, the box was allegedly located "due north" about 7000 miles or something. He didn't think that seemed correct and thought I should look into it.

But it was correct! I had to pull up Google Earth and look it at with a 3D view to really see that the shortest path to that box in Vietnam (or somewhere in that region) was actually over the north pole!

-- Ryan

I had to pull up Google Earth and look it at with a 3D view to really see that the shortest path to that box in Vietnam (or somewhere in that region) was actually over the north pole!

Your next hike?

The database will choke if it has to calculate the distances for a search that could potentially return 100,000+ boxes. It's not going to change.

That makes sense. However, if there are other search criteria -- such as you're only looking for plants by one particular planter, and it adds up to a coupla hundred boxes or some such -- why couldn't the database calculate the distance for only those boxes?

if there are other search criteria -- such as you're only looking for plants by one particular planter, and it adds up to a coupla hundred boxes or some such -- why couldn't the database calculate the distance for only those boxes?

Theoretically, I could do that, but I don't think it's really worth the time and effort to make something like that work. It's a lot of specialized code so you can see that you have boxes 1,332.5 miles from your house!

The logbook is meant to be a pretty simple, basic logbook. The Advanced Search is meant for--well, more advanced searches. With a lot more options for searching and sorting! But even if has its limitations which are placed there to keep the database running quickly and smoothly.

-- Ryan

That reminds me of a box Eidolon once brought to my attention in Vietnam or something and, when searching from Georgia, the box was allegedly located "due north" about 7000 miles or something. He didn't think that seemed correct and thought I should look into it.

That guy... nothing but trouble...