Jump to content

Bookmark Lists On Cache Pages Are A Bad Idea


cezanne
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I could not find a thread devoted solely to the topic mentioned in the title, so I decided to open a new one.

 

I feel that the option which is now offered to owners of bookmark lists to include them into the cache description of every cache which is listed in these lists, is a very bad idea since the owner of the cache who is effected by the display of such lists has no means of removing this link.

 

There are several reasons why the owner of a cache listing might be very unhappy with bookmark lists displayed on his cache page.

 

An apparent one is that the display of the bookmark lists might mix with the display of the cache description. Another, more important one is that in this way the owner of a cache listing loses the control of what is displayed on his page. Things liks terrain ratings, waypoints etc are neutral things added by gc.com, but bookmark lists can be added by any PM and can be named in any way the owner of the bookmark list might wish.

 

Some bad examples have been brought up in other threads already like "The most sucking caches" etc, but I would also feel annoyed by more personal and less negative bookmark lists, like "List of FTFs of cacher X" and "List of STFs of cacher Y" etc.

 

I also have a serious concern regarding multi caches and mystery caches (which in my country add up to about 60% of all caches, in some regions their relative frequency is even higher). Take for example a multi-cache which is hidden near a view tower or in a cave or some other sort of well identifiable object where the owner wishes that the searchers do not get to know in advance where the cache ends. If such caches are listed in bookmark lists with titles like "Cave caches" etc, this is extremely unfortunate for the owner of that respective cache. Unlike the case of logs, he has no chance at all to change the labeling of his cache which constitutes a big spoiler.

 

I suggest that either bookmarks disappear from cache pages at all or that the owner of a cache page gets notified when a new bookmark list becomes is going to be displayed on his cache page and gets the chance to block this display before it becomes effective (alternatively, one could offer an option for cachers to block any display of bookmark listings on their cache pages).

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I could not find a thread devoted solely to the topic mentioned in the title, so I decided to open a new one.

it’s pinned on top of this forum. :(

 

happy hunting - the old fashioned way (trads only, exceptions may appear)

Actually, the pinned topic doesn't address the new feature of bookmark lists being shown on cache pages. I hadn't considered that the name of my bookmark list could in and of itself be a potential spoiler. We haven't made any of our lists shared (yet), but I'll have to keep this concern in mind if we do.

 

Mrs. Car54

Link to comment

That list falls right under the travel bug list and has no greater efect on the cache page that travel bug list. The cache owner should not assume much (if any) control over how a page is laid out. The cache creation form collects data (some of which can be in HTML format) and stores it in the database to be displayed later. TPTB have total control over where on the page that data is inserted.

 

That being said, I don't know why we need the bookmarks lists on the page. I don't think I find that information very useful. But perhaps others do. I would be interested to know why others find the info useful... perhaps it would be useful for me as well.

Link to comment

I commented on this yesterday, in another thread. I think that cache owners should be allowed to block specific bookmark lists from appearing on their cache page. Perhaps the OP suggestion is a good one. When someone adds a cache to a public, shared bookmark list (or makes a bookmark list public/shared) the cache owner is notified. The owner can then accept/reject whether the bookmark appears on the cache page or not.

Link to comment
I could not find a thread devoted solely to the topic mentioned in the title, so I decided to open a new one.

it’s pinned on top of this forum. :(

No, it is not as has already been remarked by someone else. I was addressing an aspect which resulted from the very recent change which took place on gc.com.

 

The topic I am addressing has been discussed by some posters in the middle of the discussion on the necessity to log onto the site to see coordinates, but this topic does not fit into that thread. Moreover, there no one mentioned the spoiler aspect which came up as a major concern within the Austrian geocaching community.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
That being said, I don't know why we need the bookmarks lists on the page. I don't think I find that information very useful. But perhaps others do. I would be interested to know why others find the info useful... perhaps it would be useful for me as well.

I was just reading a couple of posts in the Midwest forum that mentions an innovative use of the bookmark on the cache page feature.

 

In Indiana, we have a whole series of cemetery caches (please don't veer off on this topic). Most of them follow a naming convention of " Indiana Spirit Quest #xxx". Folks who really enjoy the series have been asking for an easy way to run a pocket query that would capture the entire series. Until now, it couldn't really be done.

 

However, we now have a local cacher who is expending the time needed to assemble all the ISQ caches into a series of shared, public bookmark lists. If I understand correctly, folks can then run a PQ on the bookmark lists.

 

I think that's an example of how this new feature can be useful.

 

Mrs. Car54

Link to comment
That being said, I don't know why we need the bookmarks lists on the page.  I don't think I find that information very useful.  But perhaps others do.  I would be interested to know why others find the info useful... perhaps it would be useful for me as well.

I haven't gotten into the bookmarks yet. Actually haven't seen a page yet that has been bookmarked. Anyway, lets say I like Wal-Mart parking lot micros. I find one and see it is in mini cacher's public bookmark list of WallyWorld micros. So through little effort of my own, I am able to get a list of lots of Wal-Mart micros compiled quite generously by mini cacher. I can then search these micros to my heart's content. I do see how the lists could be abused though. I wouldn't want my cache to be on geognerd's "Suck List." Being on a list like that could work two ways. Some cachers will say "Oh, someone says it sucks, so I won't go there." But others (myself included) would be tempted to visit the cache to see why someone says it sucks.

 

Edit: Co-worker distracted me, so Car 54 beat me to the punch. Sorry for the repeat of opinion.

Edited by geognerd
Link to comment

I have coded my favorite caches bookmark list (see link below) to be "public" and "shared," so it is appearing on the cache pages for those caches which made the list. After just a few days, I've already received e-mails from cache owners who not only had no idea that their cache had made my list, but they weren't even aware of the bookmark list feature! They were very flattered that their cache was featured as one of the top 70 caches found by someone who has nearly 1600 finds.

 

Now, if I constructed a shared list called "caches that suck," the mailbox would read differently. I don't plan on doing that because I think it's rude, and I will make my opinion of the cache known to the owner in a polite log or e-mail. Others may not take the same approach, however, as is their right. In that case, the cache owner who is aggrieved because their soggy gladware cache is on someone's "worst ever" list has the option of down-rating the bookmark list. The owner could also write to the bookmark list owner and ask them to take their cache off the list, or revise the description to eliminate spoilers, etc. If the request is ignored, the cache owner has the choice of deleting the "found it" log for the bookmarker.

 

Showing bookmark lists on cache pages is an indirect way to implement a "cache ratings" feature. I rather like it. When people travel to Pittsburgh, they tell me that they use my favorite caches list to help plan their caching. When I am in unfamiliar territory, I would likewise want to plan my trip to include some of the area's great caches, as recognized by leading geocachers in that city on their favorites list. Without that guidance, it's rather a matter of chance to stumble across a gem of a cache in the middle of a series of forgettable park and grabs.

Link to comment

I like bookmark lists. I like them a lot.

 

Yes, there is roiom for abuse. That is true for a lot of features of this site. If one of my caches show up on a "Caches that suck" list, then I will look at the cacher's reasoning. Heck, it might suck. If that cache is on 6 different people's "Caches That Suck" lists, then maybe I should pull and archive it.

 

If it get personal, such as "Caches that belong to people that suck", then there should be a way to draw the attention of admnistrators.

 

Overall, I still like the fact that lists show up on the page. Let's giove it chance before we put this feature on the "Things about the GC site that suck" list.

Link to comment

I'm not questioning the usefullness of bookmark lists themselves.. just why they need to be listed on the cache page. I guess it just makes it easier to find people's shared bookmark lists. The idea of the "series" bookmark list sounds useful. But we'll have to see if more lists are made like that.

 

A cache being on a couple bookmark lists won't make me want to visit it any more or less. Its kind of hard to go from "these three cachers I don't know liked this cache enough to bookmark it" to "this cache must be worth my visit"

 

I agree with CR:

Mayhap a compromise be reached by changing the list to a link something like "This cache on 3 bookmark lists."

Edited by mini cacher
Link to comment
That being said, I don't know why we need the bookmarks lists on the page. I don't think I find that information very useful. But perhaps others do. I would be interested to know why others find the info useful... perhaps it would be useful for me as well.

We have two uses that you might find interesting...

 

We have one for different loops of caches (most useful orders for out of towners). You can check out an example on Kaskey's Puzzle page.

 

The other I have is for couch potato caches, caches you can do from home. If you find one couch cache, this will allow you to find others like it.

Link to comment
Mayhap a compromise be reached by changing the list to a link something like "This cache on 3 bookmark lists."

 

I disagree with removing it completely.

This seems like an ideal compromise.

 

The cache can still appear on bookmarks, the cache owner's page isn't polluted with another big list of things semi related to the cache (i.e., the old TB/Geocoine lists that would take over pages), and people who want to see the lists can access them.

 

Not to trivialize the work that went into it, but it could even be done in whatever version of DHTML/DOM you like, so that the list is ust "hidden" until opened. Then the only seeming code change would be to wrap the Bookmark list in a DOM/DHTML object that hides/unhides, so no new pages needed to be pulled up.

Link to comment

Adding to odragon's observation..

 

If I am visiting Tulsa and find a cache I like, it would be helpful to easily get to the "Tulsa Area Favorites" or "poison oak covered caches" instead of seeing that "this is cache is on 5 lists". I wouldn't know if they were good lists, or bad lists.

Link to comment

The idea was the "this cache is on 5 lists" would be a link to see the 5 lists. And you still don't know ifthe lists are good or bad. People have all sorts of reasons for making lists... people you don't know.

 

I guess this was the easy way to allow people to make their lists more visible. You already could share your list, but if no one knew it was there they would never see it.

Link to comment

All interesting observations. Because the general design of the internet allows changes on the fly, we'll continue to keep it this way until we notice any real abuses of the feature. From there we'll try enforcement and, barring that, drastic measures like replacing the text to counting bookmark lists. Although we did anticipate some abuse of the feature (which we will address when it happens), the benefits IMO far outweigh the drawbacks of listing these items on the site.

 

It's one reason why "share" didn't mean to show it on the cache page. Only public ones will show up, which means the bookmark list creator will have to make a concious decision to show them on those pages.

Link to comment
All interesting observations. Because the general design of the internet allows changes on the fly, we'll continue to keep it this way until we notice any real abuses of the feature. From there we'll try enforcement and, barring that, drastic measures like replacing the text to counting bookmark lists. Although we did anticipate some abuse of the feature (which we will address when it happens), the benefits IMO far outweigh the drawbacks of listing these items on the site.

 

It's one reason why "share" didn't mean to show it on the cache page. Only public ones will show up, which means the bookmark list creator will have to make a concious decision to show them on those pages.

Only because I am too lazy to look it up. If a cacher does make a "Caches that suck" list that contains all and only gladware containers in the area, would this be covered suffeciently in the TOS to be able to take action?

Link to comment
...the benefits IMO far outweigh the drawbacks of listing these items on the site.

Since lists could already be shared, what further benefit does this have beyond just making the list more visible? I've never tried looking for a bookmark list. Does "share" just make it accessable if you know where it is? And now "public" makes it more visible? I don't see very many drawbacks or benefits.. I'm kind of nuetral. At least its a small section off to the side that really doesn't change how the cache page looks much.

Link to comment
Only because I am too lazy to look it up.  If a cacher does make a "Caches that suck" list that contains all and only gladware containers in the area, would this be covered suffeciently in the TOS to be able to take action?

I think it is a bit unfair to allow people to list caches they really like yet prevent people from listing caches they really dislike.

Edited by mini cacher
Link to comment
Only because I am too lazy to look it up.  If a cacher does make a "Caches that suck" list that contains all and only gladware containers in the area, would this be covered suffeciently in the TOS to be able to take action?

I think it is a bit unfair to allow people to list caches they really like yet prevent people from listing caches they really dislike.

Yes, I would have to agree there. A line does need to be defined, since a list could be made "Caches owned by cachers that suck" is clearly offensive, and some folks would take offense to being on the "caches thatsuck" list. Hopefully the community can keep it under some sort of control.

Link to comment
All interesting observations. Because the general design of the internet allows changes on the fly, we'll continue to keep it this way until we notice any real abuses of the feature.

How do you classify the spoiler aspect for multi caches and mystery caches? For example, it is extremely annoying for the hider if he does not want the people who have not yet visited the cache to know where it is hidden. It is tiresome to have to start a correspondence of the owner of the bookmark list, ask him for deletion of the cache from the list and hope that he will do so. In such cases it would not even help to ask for the help of an admin (regardless of the fact that I guess that you will not be willing to intervene anyway).

Bookmark lists used in this way have the potential to spoil the fun for a large number of geocachers.

 

I am not at all happy about the fact that the differences between the situation in the US (for example, many traditionals and short multi caches) and the situation in many European countries (often many multi caches and long ones) is hardly taken into account by gc.com.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Since lists could already be shared, what further benefit does this have beyond just making the list more visible?  I've never tried looking for a bookmark list.  Does "share" just make it accessable if you know where it is?  And now "public" makes it more visible?

Until this week's design changes, there was absolutely no way of knowing about the existence of a shared bookmark list unless the bookmark list's owner took an affirmative action such as:

  • Put a link to the bookmark list in a forum thread
  • Put a link to the bookmark list in their forum signature line
  • Link to their bookmark lists on their profile page
  • Send an e-mail to a friend saying "here, look at this bookmark list for the caches we'll want to do on our trip."

At present there's no way to search for shared bookmark lists, or to call up a list of all of Joe Geocacher's shared bookmark lists.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment
Since lists could already be shared, what further benefit does this have beyond just making the list more visible? I've never tried looking for a bookmark list. Does "share" just make it accessable if you know where it is? And now "public" makes it more visible? I don't see very many drawbacks or benefits.. I'm kind of nuetral. At least its a small section off to the side that really doesn't change how the cache page looks much.

Before the only way you could find a shared list was if someone give you the link. There was no way to see them otherwise. This way at least gives the option to see some of them if they're relavient to the cache. A good one a local cacher created was night caches.

Link to comment
Until this week's design changes, there was absolutely no way of knowing about the existence of a shared bookmark list unless the bookmark list's owner took an affirmative action... (snip)... At present there's no way to search for shared bookmark lists, or to call up a list of all of Joe Geocacher's shared bookmark lists.

I can only assume there was a good reason for that in the first place.

 

I've pretty much only used bookmarks for my own benefit. I see others use them in different ways.

Edited by mini cacher
Link to comment

I have an idea. How about giving a cache owner the option of whether or not to allow their cache to be placed in a public bookmark list? Maybe a check box somewhere on the page where you edit your cache details. It would be like how some websites (such as geocaching.com) allow you to check a box that prevents your e-mail address from being displayed. I would like being able to opt-out of being included in a public bookmark. This would still allow users to add whatever caches they want to their own personal private bookmark lists.

Link to comment
… At present there's no way to search for shared bookmark lists, or to call up a list of all of Joe Geocacher's shared bookmark lists.

there’s a simple solution: make bookmarks searchable. each cachepage should have a link »search nearby bookmarks«. that would be a smooth way for planning trips to more unknown regions.

the bookmarks itself could tagged by the owner’s coord.

 

happy hunting from hamburg - the old fashioned way (trads only, exceptions may appear)

Link to comment

I've pretty much only used bookmarks for my own benefit. I see others use them in different ways.

I would just like to add for clarification that my point is not the existence of bookmark lists (they are certainly very convenient for many purposes) and not even the existence of public bookmark lists (some of the examples mentioned in this thread make perfect sense also to me), but the fact that a cache owner has no influence on the bookmark lists that are displayed on his cache page and he has no means to take any actions if it is not a case of clear abuse.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
The owner could also write to the bookmark list owner and ask them to take their cache off the list, or revise the description to eliminate spoilers, etc.  If the request is ignored, the cache owner has the choice of deleting the "found it" log for the bookmarker.

The owner of the bookmark list might have knowledge about the cache from someone else - so it is not even necessarily the case that there is a "found it" log to be deleted. Moreover, I regard it as bad style to delete a "found it" log. From my point of view, it is gc.com who causes the problem by not offering the cache owner a possibility to block the display of bookmark lists.

 

As the practical side is regarded, I would not like to have to check all my cache pages every single day to see if someone has added one of my caches to a bookmark list which I do not wish to be displayed on my cache page.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I just looked at a couple of my caches that I include on some bookmark lists, and my bookmark lists show up on the page even though the bookmark lists are not set to share...is this a function of both the cache and the bookmark list being mine, or is it a bug.

 

I made the lists to share with people visiting, but haven't used them...is it easy to delete them?

 

nfa-jamie

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
I just looked at a couple of my caches that I include on some bookmark lists, and my bookmark lists show up on the page even though the bookmark lists are not set to share...is this a function of both the cache and the bookmark list being mine, or is it a bug.

 

I made the lists to share with people visiting, but haven't used them...is it easy to delete them?

 

nfa-jamie

If I understand it all correctly...

If you have an non-shared, non-public list, then you (and only you) will see it on the cache page.

Link to comment

If I understand it all correctly...

If you have an non-shared, non-public list, then you (and only you) will see it on the cache page.

Correct. Of course as it seems to scare a lot of people we'll be making it more obvious that only you can see it.

Link to comment
I just looked at a couple of my caches that I include on some bookmark lists, and my bookmark lists show up on the page even though the bookmark lists are not set to share...is this a function of both the cache and the bookmark list being mine, or is it a bug.

 

I made the lists to share with people visiting, but haven't used them...is it easy to delete them?

 

nfa-jamie

If I understand it all correctly...

If you have an non-shared, non-public list, then you (and only you) will see it on the cache page.

Thanks for the helpful info Moose Mob!

 

I like the bookmark lists, but don't like posting links to them on caches that are on the lists. It seems as though they might add clutter or content to cache listings that the cache owner might not want, and that they have no control over. I would prefer to see "7 lists link to this cache" similar to the watchlist; with a link to a page listing those bookmraks if people really want to see them.

 

nfa-jamie

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
Of course as it seems to scare a lot of people we'll be making it more obvious that only you can see it.

I would like to take this oppurtunity to thank Jeremy for recognizing this. While no one could really call this a bug or anything "wrong", it does show how a couple programmers might have a totally different idea of something than the general users. What made perfect sense to them as they programmed it might not be so obvious to the users. More important than getting something "right" the first time is the willingness to see it from others' points of view and make adjustments when the situation calls for it.

 

I actually look forward to seeing how the bookmark list feature evolves as the lists start to get more public notice.

Link to comment
Actually I didn't remember making that feature available at all. It's funny when you code something and surprise yourself later.

bump

what about making bookmarks searchable?

just an idea.

 

happy hunting - the old fashioned way (trads only, exceptions may appear)

Link to comment
Actually I didn't remember making that feature available at all. It's funny when you code something and surprise yourself later.

bump

what about making bookmarks searchable?

just an idea.

I'm not even sure why that would work. The home coordinates of a user is irrelevant to most bookmark lists. What would be better is if the bookmark list was somehow related to the items on the list, perhaps like listed on the cache page itself? Oh, right :(

Link to comment
Take for example a multi-cache which is hidden near a view tower or in a cave or some other sort of well identifiable object where the owner wishes that the searchers do not get to know in advance where the cache ends. If such caches are listed in bookmark lists with titles like "Cave caches" etc, this is extremely unfortunate for the owner of that respective cache.

 

Has this happened? Given the large number of multis in the region and hence (presumably) the understanding of them, is this likely to happen?

 

I have made my bookmarked lists shared and public. I did take a look at them and make sure there was nothing in the comments section that might upset a cache owner. My lists are basically to help cachers plan their adventures in the forest. The lists are geographically organized: caches on one side of the river, caches along a trail, caches along a forest road on the other side of the river. It can be difficult to understand which caches work together with the river winding through the landscape.

Link to comment

It would be more complicated but Amazon uses their "bookmarks" as a suggestion for finding other things of interest (similar to how it's being used here, but in a more heuristic manner).

 

Instead of necessarily putting all lists that the cache is a member of, what about lists containing a significant number of similar style caches.

 

Sort of like the "I see you're looking at a mystery cache....here's a list of bookmarks for other mystery caches" (even if those bookmark files don't actually include that particular cache).

 

EDIT: Meant to add that this would remove the ability to "label" a cache in the bookmark list, because you wouldn't necessarily *know* that your list would heuristically come up in the suggested bookmarks based on the cache's attributes AND you'd never want a list that said "Caches that Suck" to come up on someone's cache simply because it contained items that seemed to be similar to their cache (lol, imagine if your own "caches that suck" list were suggested by your own cache).

Edited by ju66l3r
Link to comment
Take for example a multi-cache which is hidden near a view tower or in a cave or some other sort of well identifiable object where the owner wishes that the searchers do not get to know in advance where the cache ends. If such caches are listed in bookmark lists with titles like "Cave caches" etc, this is extremely unfortunate for the owner of that respective cache.

 

Has this happened? Given the large number of multis in the region and hence (presumably) the understanding of them, is this likely to happen?

 

 

Yes, it has happened already in several cases I am aware of (that was the reason why I started this topic here), and it would have happened even much more frequently if the number of bookmark lists which are public so far, were larger (this number will certainly increase during the next months as they become more well known and also due to the increase in the number of PMs in Europe). In the cave case, we had a considerable number of requests to the owner of the list (from different cache owners) to remove certain caches from the list.

 

Cave caches are, however, just one example for several cases that show up in reality and are not constructed.

 

As the understanding is regarded, one of the problems is that many cachers are not able to recall clearly what they know because they have visited a cache and what's part of the cache description. Moreover, sometimes recommendations for certain caches are made at geocaching events etc

In this way, it can happen very easily that caches will become members of certain lists although this will eventually end up in spoilers.

 

 

I have made my bookmarked lists shared and public. I did take a look at them and make sure there was nothing in the comments section that might upset a cache owner. My lists are basically to help cachers plan their adventures in the forest. The lists are geographically organized: caches on one side of the river, caches along a trail, caches along a forest road on the other side of the river. It can be difficult to understand which caches work together with the river winding through the landscape.

 

You are right. I do not have objections against such lists (they can even be very useful indeed) except the case where for example a mystery cache lies along a certain trail and which is not known from the cache page and cannot be guessed from the starting coordinates (we have mystery caches where the startinf coordinates are quite far from the cache because the puzzles might become too easy if the area is known beforehand).

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
… I'm not even sure why that would work. The home coordinates of a user is irrelevant to most bookmark lists. …

you’re right about the owner coords. most bookmarks i know are dealing with recommendable caches in a certain region. so, give the bookmarkholder the possibility to enter relevant coords to his bookmark. that should solve the search problem from a cachepage or a viewed bookmark.

 

regards hans.

happy hunting.

Link to comment

I'm slightly worried (but only slightly - it can be changed :blink:) about scalability. The list of TBs in a cache is now limited to 3 by default - very sensible - but what happens if a really great, popular cache appears on 20 or more bookmarks ? This could happen for, say, a big event cache.

 

Doubtless it will get sorted out if the problem arises, and it must be a pain to add a new feature only to have curmudgeonly carping about what happens when you scale it up by a factor of a thousand. But I bet when the five-character waypoint names were devised, nobody thought that the six-character ones would run out five years later!

Link to comment
I have an idea.  How about giving a cache owner the option of whether or not to allow their cache to be placed in a public bookmark list?

I haven't seen any replies to this, and it seems like an excellent answer to the problems that have been posed on this thread. Anyone see anything wrong with this approach? I think it should be an opt-out thing (default is that a cache can be listed on a public bookmark list), but if a cache owner really wants to be a hermit, it lets them.

Link to comment
I have an idea.  How about giving a cache owner the option of whether or not to allow their cache to be placed in a public bookmark list?
Anyone see anything wrong with this approach?

Nothing wrong with it, but the idea needs a lot more meat on it.

 

What happens when a "hermit" cache is added to a bookmark list and then the list is made public? Is the cache removed from the list automatically or is the "public" status denied until the list owner removes the cache?

 

What happens if a cache is on a public list and then the cache owner decides to exclude it from public lists? Does the cache just get removed from the list or is the list made unpublic until the list owner removes it?

 

What happens when a list owner tries to add a "hermit" cache to their public list? I imagine some sort of error message, I guess.

 

Maybe "hermit" caches are on the public lists but only the list owner (and maybe cache owner) can see it in the list. It gets filtered out for everyone else. Kind of like when any of your lists (public or not) show up on caches you've bookmarked. At least then if the list owner has the list for more personal use, it is complete for them... but others don't see the caches that cache owners excluded.

Link to comment
It would be more complicated but Amazon uses their "bookmarks" as a suggestion for finding other things of interest (similar to how it's being used here, but in a more heuristic manner).

 

Instead of necessarily putting all lists that the cache is a member of, what about lists containing a significant number of similar style caches.

I think I suggested something like this way back here. My idea was to limit this to lists of favorite caches and to list caches that occured on anybody's public favorite list that also included this cache. Note Jeremy's reply to my post immediately following it. Don't say Jeremy doesn't keep his word (or is that a different thread?) :blink:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...