2 user(s) ignoring this cache.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

Hi,

currently the website shows this statistic for each cache:

[number] user(s) watching this cache.

I'd find it more interesting to find out how many users are IGNORING it. (=Having put it on their ignore list.) What do you think?

geo_tom

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

What do you think?

That it will increase angst and foster witch hunts for "those darn folks who have the nerve to ignore my caches!" (especially for Members Only caches where the owner can then peruse the audit log to see who might ignore him).

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

I, too, think it would be interesting to know how many are ignoring a cache. It wouldn't exactly tell you anything other than the number of ignore lists it is on, but you could establish a sort of an idea depending on the cache.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

Not sure it will happen, but a good thought though.

walks dangerously close to the line of "rating" caches, which some call for, but it seems most do not want because of the potential for abuse.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

I've seen some notes and DNF logs where a cacher comes right out and says the cache is going on their ignore list. I enjoy reading those.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

I had suggested this awhile ago

Pretty much anything perceived as "negative" won't be implemented (at least as far as I've been able to determine).

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

Add to the list the ability to leave anonymous feedback viewable by only the owner and admin. Then you would know why they ignored it.

Anonymous so folks need not fear retaliation. Viewable only by owner or admin to potential abuse like posting spoilers that an owner couldn't hide. It should be for the owner's eyes only anyway.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

If you don't like one of my caches enough to put it on your ignore list but not enough to contact me to let me know why or what is wrong, I guess I really couldn't care less about the fact you are ignoring it.

If the reason was more because you don't like that paticular type, say Puzzle because they are too hard or Ammo Cans because they are so easy to find, knowing you are ignoring them has no impact either.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

If you don't like one of my caches enough to put it on your ignore list but not enough to contact me to let me know why or what is wrong, I guess I really couldn't care less about the fact you are ignoring it.

Yeah, as if there's plenty of honest feedback in cache logs today.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

Add to the list the ability to leave anonymous feedback viewable by only the owner and admin. Then you would know why they ignored it.

Anonymous so folks need not fear retaliation. Viewable only by owner or admin to potential abuse like posting spoilers that an owner couldn't hide. It should be for the owner's eyes only anyway.

The problem is, I could see anonymous feedback as opening a door for somebody to harrass the owner. Say what you like...throw stones...but have no fear that you might be held responsible for your words. I'm afraid that the door would have to swing both ways. I'd like to think that we are all honest, forthright, and upstanding, adult enough to speak our mind and accept what others say, but I know better than that.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

If you don't like one of my caches enough to put it on your ignore list but not enough to contact me to let me know why or what is wrong, I guess I really couldn't care less about the fact you are ignoring it.

If the reason was more because you don't like that paticular type, say Puzzle because they are too hard or Ammo Cans because they are so easy to find, knowing you are ignoring them has no impact either.

To me thats a really really odd thought. If I'm going to ignore a cache (for whatever reason) why would I contact the cache owner??

Thinking of the reason I would ignore a cache, it would seem like either I don't like the cache's location/setup (something that probably won't be changed), or I just don't want to see that puzzle/multi on my nearest right now (so there's nothing to change).

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

I've seen some notes and DNF logs where a cacher comes right out and says the cache is going on their ignore list. I enjoy reading those.

Like this?

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

Seems like another lame attempt to increase the angst level.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

Yeah, I think there are (a) legitimate reasons to ignore a cache and (b ) no way to really tell if it's being ignored because of something YOU did or if it's a generalization (i.e. if I ignore all puzzle caches). Either way it wouldn't help to know how many people are ignoring it. The potential for angst, misunderstandings and hurt feelings outweigh any advantage in knowing this figure anyway.

Why do you want to know? If too many people ignore your cache would you archive it? Would you change the setup in hopes that people will like you^H^H^H the cache again?

Doesn't strike me as worthwhile.

Edited August 30, 2006 by GreyingJay

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

If you don't like one of my caches enough to put it on your ignore list but not enough to contact me to let me know why or what is wrong, I guess I really couldn't care less about the fact you are ignoring it.

If the reason was more because you don't like that paticular type, say Puzzle because they are too hard or Ammo Cans because they are so easy to find, knowing you are ignoring them has no impact either.

To me thats a really really odd thought. If I'm going to ignore a cache (for whatever reason) why would I contact the cache owner??

Thinking of the reason I would ignore a cache, it would seem like either I don't like the cache's location/setup (something that probably won't be changed), or I just don't want to see that puzzle/multi on my nearest right now (so there's nothing to change).

It can't be too odd a thought, since you just restated it. Contacting me because there was some sort of correctable issue is the only reason I would want to know why it was being ignored.

To the OP, I can't see any helpful reason for seeing who ignores it. For that matter, while privacy would not be an issue by any stretch of the imagination, I don't see any reason for seeing who is watching it other than to satisfy my curiosity.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

I like the idea. Very good caches tend to have a lot of "watchers". I wonder if poorly executed caches would attract a large number of "ignorers".

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

I don't see much use for it from my perspective.

I've got many caches on my ignore list. Are they all "bad" caches? I have no idea. I've not been to most of them. There a very few of them I've been near, but because of the location I did not complete them and will not return to. Others liked them, I did not. Does that make them "bad" caches?

Most of those I ignore are there because they are puzzles I have not yet (and may never) solve or are caches I simply have no interest in doing or cannot do (requires scuba or something). Would this info be of any use to an owner? I rather doubt it.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

I like the idea. Very good caches tend to have a lot of "watchers". I wonder if poorly executed caches would attract a large number of "ignorers".

Again, I ask: to what end?

So you put out a cache, and discover that tons of people are ignoring it. What will you do? Archive it? Change it to make it more exciting? (How?) Tuck your tail between your legs and go home? How will this be encouraging to newbie cachers who realize everyone is snubbing them because their nifty hide in the lamp pole wasn't as original as they thought?

Those who want this feature are really asking for a rating system. But using this feature as a rating system is flawed because "I'm ignoring your cache" is not synonymous with "I think your cache stinks", for all the reasons previously stated. It is, however, too easy for the cache owner to make assumptions and equate the two, and that can only lead to negative things.

If I think your cache is poorly executed, there are all kinds of other methods already at my disposal for me to let you know.

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

Seems like another lame attempt to increase the angst level.

gee, why doesn't everybody love my cache

I'm the greatest cacher I know

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

If you don't like one of my caches enough to put it on your ignore list but not enough to contact me to let me know why or what is wrong, I guess I really couldn't care less about the fact you are ignoring it.

If the reason was more because you don't like that paticular type, say Puzzle because they are too hard or Ammo Cans because they are so easy to find, knowing you are ignoring them has no impact either.

To me thats a really really odd thought. If I'm going to ignore a cache (for whatever reason) why would I contact the cache owner??

Thinking of the reason I would ignore a cache, it would seem like either I don't like the cache's location/setup (something that probably won't be changed), or I just don't want to see that puzzle/multi on my nearest right now (so there's nothing to change).

It can't be too odd a thought, since you just restated it. Contacting me because there was some sort of correctable issue is the only reason I would want to know why it was being ignored.

To the OP, I can't see any helpful reason for seeing who ignores it. For that matter, while privacy would not be an issue by any stretch of the imagination, I don't see any reason for seeing who is watching it other than to satisfy my curiosity.

I change my mind, everyone that ignores a cache should contact the owner and let them know. It would be good and helpful if everytime a cache is ignored someone gets an email that says "Hi, I'm ignoring your cache GCXXXX because I forsee time to do a TYPE cache this week", or maybe "Hi, I'm ignoring your cache GCXXXX because it sucks and you should change A B C to make it better".

Posted August 30, 2006 · August 30, 2006

If I think your cache is poorly executed, there are all kinds of other methods already at my disposal for me to let you know.

Two things: one, it's not about a cache being poorly executed, but simply a cache that you don't want to do for whatever reason. Folks can leave, "I'm ignoring this cache because I don't have a boat." What's wrong with that?

Two, all of the avenues open to us to date leave you wide open for retaliation. Cache owners have the power to delete all of your logs and there's not much you can do about it. Of course, you might be able to get TPTB involved, but they're likely to restore said logs only if the deletions were egregious.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

If you don't like one of my caches enough to put it on your ignore list but not enough to contact me to let me know why or what is wrong, I guess I really couldn't care less about the fact you are ignoring it.

Yeah, as if there's plenty of honest feedback in cache logs today.

I'm guilty of having a "brutally honest bookmark."

I like the idea. Very good caches tend to have a lot of "watchers". I wonder if poorly executed caches would attract a large number of "ignorers".

Great analogy. The best caches always have a large number of cache watchers, and multiple "Top cache" bookmarks. Edited August 31, 2006 by Kit Fox

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

If you don't like one of my caches enough to put it on your ignore list but not enough to contact me to let me know why or what is wrong, I guess I really couldn't care less about the fact you are ignoring it.

If the reason was more because you don't like that paticular type, say Puzzle because they are too hard or Ammo Cans because they are so easy to find, knowing you are ignoring them has no impact either.

To me thats a really really odd thought. If I'm going to ignore a cache (for whatever reason) why would I contact the cache owner??

Thinking of the reason I would ignore a cache, it would seem like either I don't like the cache's location/setup (something that probably won't be changed), or I just don't want to see that puzzle/multi on my nearest right now (so there's nothing to change).

Shaw, no kidding Welch.

"I am ignoring your cache, but it's important to me that you know I am ignoring it."

"Please tell me if you are ignoring me"

Apparently we need an ignore button for people ignoring our caches and the option to not let people know we are ignoring them.

whack.

Edited August 31, 2006 by BlueDeuce

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

I like this idea, of course I'm also one that would like to see a rating system. While subjective I still think it would help form a pattern for me.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

I like this idea, of course I'm also one that would like to see a rating system. While subjective I still think it would help form a pattern for me.

I'm all for knowing which caches I might like, this doesn't do that. Well of course if knowing which ones to avoid will lead me to good caches it might, but I'd rather try a different approach. Let's start by telling me the good ones.

Edited August 31, 2006 by BlueDeuce

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

<snip>

hopes that people will like you^H^H^H the cache again?

<snip>

GreyingJay, thanks for making me feel old. :lol:

Someone reading over my sholder asked what the ^H's ment and not only could I explain them without having to google it but in the middle of reminiscing about my BBS days I noticed that they had wandered off.

Back on topic now.

I don't know why the watchlists havn't gone away completly yet. Since the bookmark feature was added watchlists seem redundant.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

I'm looking at this from the cache hunters point of view, not the owners. My free time for caching is limited. When deciding on which caches to hunt, a cache that has a large number of watchers will get my attention. Usually the logs on these caches are full of accolades. I'd likely be inclined to go for that cache. If I saw a cache with a large number of people ignoring it, I'd likely pass on it as well.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

I've seen some notes and DNF logs where a cacher comes right out and says the cache is going on their ignore list. I enjoy reading those.

Like this?

Logs like this make me wish we could search another cacher's DNFs. I think being able to see someone else's DNFs is a more useful feature than seeing the number of people ignoring a cache.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

[

I change my mind, everyone that ignores a cache should contact the owner and let them know. It would be good and helpful if everytime a cache is ignored someone gets an email that says "Hi, I'm ignoring your cache GCXXXX because I forsee time to do a TYPE cache this week", or maybe "Hi, I'm ignoring your cache GCXXXX because it sucks and you should change A B C to make it better".

Do you bother to read any of this stuff before replying?

I never said I wanted someone to contact the owner before ignoring.

To make it simpler, if there is a problem with the cache that has caused the ignore, tell the owner. Otherwise, there would be no purpose for knowing who, or for that matter how many, are ignoring the cache.

Edited August 31, 2006 by baloo&bd

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

Otherwise, there would be no purpose for knowing who, or for that matter how many, are ignoring the cache.

You mean no purpose useful to you.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

You mean no purpose useful to you.

OK, I'll bite (even though you appear to be playing devils advocate on this one).

What useful purpose could there be for knowing how many are ignoring the cache? Even with names?

Now if they left comments, possibly that could be useful, however like most other things, people would leave either no comment or cookie cutter comments like "ignored".

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

Otherwise, there would be no purpose for knowing who, or for that matter how many, are ignoring the cache.
You mean no purpose useful to you.

No purpose other than to ratchet up the angst level.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

There are plenty of other legitimate reasons to ignore a cache other than the fact that it's lame.

Let's say, hypothetically, that I've cleared out all my nearby caches, except for four of them--1) a virtually unsolvable puzzle cache, 2) a cache 75 feet under water, 3) a cache on an island, and 4) a cache that requires rapelling gear...

Then I'm going to ignore those caches if 1) I don't like puzzles, 2) I don't have scuba gear, 3) I don't have a boat, and 4) I'm afraid of cliffs. So there's no point in them showing up on my unfound list, in my queries, etc., since I'm never going to attempt to find them.

This says nothing negative about any of these caches, which I'm sure would be great adventures if I ever had the impetus to attempt them. So what good does it do the cache owner, or anyone else, to know that I've got them on my ignore list?

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

Do you bother to read any of this stuff before replying?

I never said I wanted someone to contact the owner before ignoring.

To make it simpler, if there is a problem with the cache that has caused the ignore, tell the owner. Otherwise, there would be no purpose for knowing who, or for that matter how many, are ignoring the cache.

I just want you to know I'm going to start ignoring. Nothing personal about your posts I just ain't into reading them this week. Later.

welch

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

So what good does it do the cache owner, or anyone else, to know that I've got them on my ignore list?

I was just thinking about this and I figure if it's a puzzle cache then a lot of "I'm ignoring this cache because the puzzle is too hard" may just be a challenge to others. Same with some other caches that some folks simply can't or won't get for whatever reason.

This goes along the same lines as those lonely caches. I love those. I wonder if they are still there. What's in them? What kind of shape are they in?

Some caches with high ignore numbers will be a good challenge while others would simply be candidates for archival. But you won't know which is which unless you knew the reason for placing it your ignore list.

Posted August 31, 2006 · August 31, 2006

It's certainly not an absolute, and is subjective, but as stated by someone else... I pay attention to caches that have lots of watchers, figure there might be a reason. And just the same would be the case for ones that would be ignored. At the very least I think it would cause me to pause and read about the cache and the logs before going out for it, which could save me time and angst. 1 or 2 watchers ignoring is one thing, but you see 20 on there and at least for me, I'm going to wonder why.

Posted September 1, 2006 · September 1, 2006

People have their own, personal, reasons for ignoring caches. One cacher I know got really sick a while back due to a tick bite. He told me that he doesn't look for any caches in the woods any more, except during winter. If I were him, I would certainly ignore all of those caches so they didn't get in my way during the dreadfully long tick season.

It helps no one to know that he would be ignoring these caches.

Posted September 2, 2006 · September 2, 2006

My current ignore list are all island caches hidden on several local lakes. I would like to attempt them but I need to get a raft, canoe, boat or whatever first. Meanwhile I also have the same caches on my watch list. If water levels get low enough to walk then off I go. This very thing did happen a couple of years ago on a local island cache.

Anyway, owners will see one watch and one ignore from me. What will the tell them? :huh:

Posted September 2, 2006 · September 2, 2006

My current ignore list are all island caches hidden on several local lakes. ... I also have the same caches on my watch list.

You do realize you can set your ignore list to "Notify me when items on this list are logged" right? :huh:

2 user(s) ignoring this cache.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment