Jump to content

Blocking Negative Bookmark Lists


bullit
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Are there any plans to enable a cache owner to block a negative bookmark list from appearing on their cache page? It seems the original intent was to share caches that are cool to visit but now some are using them in other ways that don't seem appropriate.

 

I'm neutral here (really I am), but it seems that Travel Bug "prisons" are not too popular over at the Travel Bug forum. :laughing:

 

Although I remember reading when bookmark lists were new that there was concern they could be used negatively, i.e. "lame caches bookmark" etc...

Link to comment

I prefer that an owner not be able to block a list. If the list is abusive or violates TOS then get TPTB involved.

 

The bookmark list function is a form of feedback, not only to you as the owner, but the rest of the community, as well. I don't like the idea of being able to block lists that you just don't happen to agree with. It's bad enough that some folks will delete logs indiscriminately, let's not extend that to bookmarks.

Link to comment

I agree with CR, bookmark lists should only be able to be edited by the creator of the list. If the creator of the list chooses to make the list known to the public, then that's his/her choice and nobody else should have a say in it.

But the owner of the list does have the option to make the list public and not on the cache page, anyone can view it through there profile. If I didnt know the cacher before I would look at there "list" I would look at there profile.

Cache finders already have a way of leaving feedback with there logs.

Whether negative or positive ,some owners do not want the spot light, the cache owner should have that option.

The cache owner can control anything else on there cache page except this.

Edited by IBcrashen
Link to comment

 

The cache owner can control anything else on there cache page except this.

 

Not really. All the cache owner has "control" over is the description text, and the ability to delete or encrypt logs to the cache. The rest of the page the owner can't do anything about. You can't keep people from logging travel bugs into your cache, or remove the evidence that they were there, can't get rid of the gc.com links, can't change the maps.....Bookmark list can remain under the control of the list owner.

Link to comment

 

The cache owner can control anything else on there cache page except this.

 

Not really. All the cache owner has "control" over is the description text, and the ability to delete or encrypt logs to the cache. The rest of the page the owner can't do anything about. You can't keep people from logging travel bugs into your cache, or remove the evidence that they were there, can't get rid of the gc.com links, can't change the maps.....Bookmark list can remain under the control of the list owner.

 

cache ownere can mark bug as missing removing all evidence on the cache page that it was there. Gc stuff is not cache owners stuff, you sort of have to accept that.

Edited by IBcrashen
Link to comment

I prefer that an owner not be able to block a list. If the list is abusive or violates TOS then get TPTB involved.

 

The bookmark list function is a form of feedback, not only to you as the owner, but the rest of the community, as well. I don't like the idea of being able to block lists that you just don't happen to agree with. It's bad enough that some folks will delete logs indiscriminately, let's not extend that to bookmarks.

 

I agree with CR, bookmark lists should only be able to be edited by the creator of the list. If the creator of the list chooses to make the list known to the public, then that's his/her choice and nobody else should have a say in it.

I agree with CR and IV.

If only feelgood blowsmokeupmybutt bookmarks are allowed, it pretty much defeats the purpose of having them.

Link to comment

I agree with CR, bookmark lists should only be able to be edited by the creator of the list. If the creator of the list chooses to make the list known to the public, then that's his/her choice and nobody else should have a say in it.

Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Oh, and by the way, did I mention yet that I agree strongly? Any flagrant abuses -- if they were to occur, and I have seen no evidence of that yet -- can always be dealt with by site administrators.

Link to comment

 

The cache owner can control anything else on there cache page except this.

 

Not really. All the cache owner has "control" over is the description text, and the ability to delete or encrypt logs to the cache. The rest of the page the owner can't do anything about. You can't keep people from logging travel bugs into your cache, or remove the evidence that they were there, can't get rid of the gc.com links, can't change the maps.....Bookmark list can remain under the control of the list owner.

 

cache ownere can mark bug as missing removing all evidence on the cache page that it was there. Gc stuff is not cache owners stuff, you sort of have to accept that.

 

You can mark a bug missing, and it removes it from the cache page, but there's still the "see the history" link, that shows the bug was there.

 

Bookmark lists are not cache owners stuff, either. Guess you sort of have to accept that.....

Edited by IV_Warrior
Link to comment
You can mark a bug missing, and it removes it from the cache page, but there's still the "see the history" link, that shows the bug was there.

 

Uh oh! I see the potential of TB's being used in an abusive manner!

 

THE LAME CACHE BUG.

 

This is a personal traveler that will only show up in lame caches. If I've found your cache and my TLCB didn't drop in, then your cache isn't lame. However, if it did...

 

So sorry, but the bug has a mind of its own. It's simply his opinion and not that of the owner.

 

It would certainly be one way to get a point across that the cache owner couldn't simply wipe away with a click.

Link to comment

I'd like the ablity to kill the bookmarks that are pointless... the problem is who gets to determine that? What is good / bad, useful / not useful?

I personally couldn't care what caches billybob was FTF on, but somewhere someone might find that info useful or at least intresting enough to read. And perhaps the bookmarks I find useful or interesting are considered a total waste of space by someone else?

 

Maybe there should way for me to ignore certain bookmark lists? That way they can have their list, and I don't have to see that litttle panel everytime I look at the cache page.

Link to comment

I also agree that the bookmarks should not be deleteable by cache owners. If you place cache-trash then you can expect to have it labled as so. If by chance you honestly feel you cache is not as described in the list then you have the option of contacting your area reviewers or GC.Com and lodge a complaint.

 

Maybe build your own list of ignorant cachers. Hmmm then that would make you ignorant and have to add your self to the list.

 

In all honesty any one who makes a lame cache list needs to look at themself in the mirror and ask..."Who made me God?"

Link to comment

I'd like the ablity to kill the bookmarks that are pointless... the problem is who gets to determine that? What is good / bad, useful / not useful?

I personally couldn't care what caches billybob was FTF on, but somewhere someone might find that info useful or at least intresting enough to read. And perhaps the bookmarks I find useful or interesting are considered a total waste of space by someone else?

 

Maybe there should way for me to ignore certain bookmark lists? That way they can have their list, and I don't have to see that litttle panel everytime I look at the cache page.

 

What if all bookmarks had to pass a WOW test. Oh wait, nevermind.

Link to comment
Cache finders already have a way of leaving feedback with there logs.

No, they don't. Owners can (and do) delete logs they don't like.

 

At present, bookmark lists are the only way for people to leave less-than-complimentary feedback on a cache page in a place accessible to the public.

 

Whether they should be able to do so, I don't know.

 

(ETChange: clarified only place on the cache page for publicly-viewable feedback)

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

The OP is not about changing the bookmark list that someone else has created. (I say let them have their fun...)

 

The question is about whether a cache owner can have some control over which, if any, bookmark lists show up on a cache page. Currently that list consists of all public bookmark lists that include that cache, and showing this list is not optional. It might be a relatively simple feature to implement to let the cache owner choose whether any bookmark lists are published on his/her page. I would support such a feature.

 

It would be more complicated to let the cache owner pick which (of several) bookmark lists to show. But such a feature could be neat to have. And the fact that some are using bookmarks list to annoy other geocaches makes it compelling enough to do so. In fact, why not give the cache owner the ability to add any specific bookmark list (even ones where the cache is not included) in that location on the screen. There are lots of caches that are part of groups of caches; this would be a cool way to let cache owners highlight that.

Link to comment

I agree with CR, bookmark lists should only be able to be edited by the creator of the list. If the creator of the list chooses to make the list known to the public, then that's his/her choice and nobody else should have a say in it.

Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Oh, and by the way, did I mention yet that I agree strongly? Any flagrant abuses -- if they were to occur, and I have seen no evidence of that yet -- can always be dealt with by site administrators.

 

Ahem. Hmmm.... I can think of one bookmark list that is offending cache owners.

And, so, I looked for a cache today that had not yet been hidden. I can create a bookmarks list "Caches Not Actually Hidden Until Well After They Were Approved." Hey, I'm miffed! I doubt that anyone would want to see that bookmark, but does it violate any guidelines?

Link to comment

I agree with CR, bookmark lists should only be able to be edited by the creator of the list. If the creator of the list chooses to make the list known to the public, then that's his/her choice and nobody else should have a say in it.

Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Oh, and by the way, did I mention yet that I agree strongly? Any flagrant abuses -- if they were to occur, and I have seen no evidence of that yet -- can always be dealt with by site administrators.

 

Ahem. Hmmm.... I can think of one bookmark list that is offending cache owners.

And, so, I looked for a cache today that had not yet been hidden. I can create a bookmarks list "Caches Not Actually Hidden Until Well After They Were Approved." Hey, I'm miffed! I doubt that anyone would want to see that bookmark, but does it violate any guidelines?

nope

 

freedom - ya gotta love it!

 

waiting for the DPM bookmarks

Link to comment

Bookmark lists are great when used in a positive way; caches along a route, caches in a park or caches with great camo. When used incorrectly, lame caches for example, they can be very negative. There are examples of this scattered through the forums.

 

So here's where I'm coming from:

 

My cache has been stuck on Criminal's public TB prison list for having rules. I don't know Criminal, haven't ever met him or exchanged emails with him and looks like he lives about a 1000 miles away from this cache but for some reason my cache got on his list.

 

Keep in mind that in its two incarnations this cache has had over 300 visits with no complaints(that I recall) about TB rules. I keep a close eye on this cache and if I see bugs that are stranded I go get them and move them on. I also haven't ever received a complaint about a TB being stuck in my cache from a TB owner. So yes it does have rules but it does say that if you can help a bug with its goals there are effectively no rules (he conveniently leaves this point out on his list).

 

These "rules" were put in place on my previous cache mostly because a few local cachers used to go around gathering up all the bugs and jeeps and coins in the area. So people would come along and find TB caches empty. These people are gone now so I suppose they are redundant but if Criminal had just pointed out the thread to me and said "hey the general consensus is that there should not be rules on TB caches" I would have read it and said hey that sounds interesting. That seems like a good way of dealing with his particular issue instead of creating a list of caches that casts them in a negative light with no debate on the issue.

 

I look at some of these bookmark lists as cache page graffiti... any person in the world who has no clue who you are or how good your caches are can slap a this cache sucks bookmark list on your cache. Or "hey world I got FTF on this cache".... I don't think this usage of the lists was the original intent. The logs cover all of this; if it is a lame cache you'll see negative logs and people can read the logs to see who was FTF with no need to write it in stone on a cache page.

 

I think owners should have a say what lists are displayed to stop the negative usage of lists from propagating. The lists can still exist so if someone is interested in one person's opinions they can easily look up their lists.

Link to comment

Bookmark lists are great when used in a positive way; caches along a route, caches in a park or caches with great camo. When used incorrectly, lame caches for example, they can be very negative. There are examples of this scattered through the forums.

<snip>

 

Bookmarks have an option where the bookmark creator can add his opinion about a cache. I've found this information to be very useful when viewing bookmarks of both, what you have termed, the positive and negative variety.

Link to comment

I for one like the ability to see negative. If it's just one bookmark, then I'd probably ignore it and figure that person has their own personal reasons, but a whole bunch, hmmm.

 

I say keep it the way it is, and for the cache owner, if it's a isolated thing blow it off, if it's not, ask yourself why that might be (not talking specifically about your situation Bullit).

Link to comment

Bullit,

Some people (which I won't name because it might get me warned again) are just bitter, sad people. they spend most of their time on the computer criticising how other people play this game. They should go out and enjoy the outdoors and life like you do.

Besides motogrrl (who bullit and I knew), I know of two other people from another internet board I am on (football related) who have died recently. This has instilled in me a feeling to go oiut and enjoy life, because you never know when it may end. It's too short to be so bitter like some people are.

This is the view some people that post a lot on these forums should have.

Edited by Wacka
Link to comment

I think the best way to eliminate negative bookmark list feedback is to hide every cache with the goal of having it make someone's "favorite caches" bookmark list.

 

Jeremy's prior opinion on the subject: let the feedback speak for itself, unless it's in violation of the TOU. He did indicate at one point that if there were an option to block bookmarks, it would be all or nothing -- you wouldn't be able to block a negative bookmark while keeping the positive reviews. I don't know if his opinion has changed, but because this has been discussed a few times before, I thought I'd summarize that history.

 

Wacka, you ought to take your own advice, if you meant it seriously. Why bother with that post if it takes away from pursuits you find more rewarding? As it stands, you've just made a veiled attack in a forum whose guidelines say that people with 10 posts or 1000 posts are both entitled to the same respect from other posters.

Link to comment

Bullit,

Some people (which I won't name because it might get me warned again) are just bitter, sad people. they spend most of their time on the computer criticising how other people play this game. They should go out and enjoy the outdoors and life like you do.

Besides motogrrl (who bullit and I knew), I know of two other people from another internet board I am on (football related) who have died recently. This has instilled in me a feeling to go oiut and enjoy life, because you never know when it may end. It's too short to be so bitter like some people are.

This is the view some people that post a lot on these forums should have.

 

This is a conversation about bookmarks and the only thing you have contributed so far has nothing to do with bookmarks. If you do have an opinion to add about bookmarks we would like to hear it. However, "go out and enjoy the outdoors" adds nothing to this conversation and even threatens to bring it off topic.

Link to comment

Bookmark lists are great when used in a positive way; caches along a route, caches in a park or caches with great camo. When used incorrectly, lame caches for example, they can be very negative. There are examples of this scattered through the forums.

 

So here's where I'm coming from:

 

My cache has been stuck on Criminal's public TB prison list for having rules. I don't know Criminal, haven't ever met him or exchanged emails with him and looks like he lives about a 1000 miles away from this cache but for some reason my cache got on his list.

 

Keep in mind that in its two incarnations this cache has had over 300 visits with no complaints(that I recall) about TB rules. I keep a close eye on this cache and if I see bugs that are stranded I go get them and move them on. I also haven't ever received a complaint about a TB being stuck in my cache from a TB owner. So yes it does have rules but it does say that if you can help a bug with its goals there are effectively no rules (he conveniently leaves this point out on his list).

 

These "rules" were put in place on my previous cache mostly because a few local cachers used to go around gathering up all the bugs and jeeps and coins in the area. So people would come along and find TB caches empty. These people are gone now so I suppose they are redundant but if Criminal had just pointed out the thread to me and said "hey the general consensus is that there should not be rules on TB caches" I would have read it and said hey that sounds interesting. That seems like a good way of dealing with his particular issue instead of creating a list of caches that casts them in a negative light with no debate on the issue.

 

I look at some of these bookmark lists as cache page graffiti... any person in the world who has no clue who you are or how good your caches are can slap a this cache sucks bookmark list on your cache. Or "hey world I got FTF on this cache".... I don't think this usage of the lists was the original intent. The logs cover all of this; if it is a lame cache you'll see negative logs and people can read the logs to see who was FTF with no need to write it in stone on a cache page.

 

I think owners should have a say what lists are displayed to stop the negative usage of lists from propagating. The lists can still exist so if someone is interested in one person's opinions they can easily look up their lists.

Do I get to weigh in on this? First of all, you are making an assumption that the TB Prison bookmark is negative. I have two lists, one of TB Hotels that have no limits, and one of TB Hotels with. The purpose was to see what the ratio was, good vs. bad. It’s running better than 2 to 1 in favor of the good hotels.

 

The owner of a TB prison might consider being on the appropriate list to be negative, however, the owner of a TB might see the list as positive.

 

These "rules" were put in place on my previous cache mostly because a few local cachers used to go around gathering up all the bugs and jeeps and coins in the area. So people would come along and find TB caches empty.

 

I find this the most disturbing thing in your entire post. You are placing a lot of importance on keeping TBs in your cache, albeit with good intentions, so that people other than the hated ‘locals’ can retrieve them. Do you really think the owner of the TB cares who moves it? Do you think they want their TB being held as a pawn in some local political squabble? No, they paid money for the tag so that their bug would move. I commend you for being a conscientious TB hotel owner, but by setting arbitrary rules you create a paradigm that other cache hiders emulate.

 

Read some of the examples, many think it’s ‘proper etiquette’ to trade TBs. This is contrary to the history of TBs as well as the stated policy of Groundspeak.

 

Now go read some of the examples off the other list. They have no rules and yet there is tremendous TB throughput as well as bugs being left in the cache.

Link to comment

Bookmark lists are great when used in a positive way; caches along a route, caches in a park or caches with great camo. When used incorrectly, lame caches for example, they can be very negative. There are examples of this scattered through the forums.

 

So here's where I'm coming from:

 

My cache has been stuck on Criminal's public TB prison list for having rules.

<snip>

Do I get to weigh in on this? First of all, you are making an assumption that the TB Prison bookmark is negative. I have two lists, one of TB Hotels that have no limits, and one of TB Hotels with. The purpose was to see what the ratio was, good vs. bad. It’s running better than 2 to 1 in favor of the good hotels.

 

The owner of a TB prison might consider being on the appropriate list to be negative, however, the owner of a TB might see the list as positive.

 

Let me see if I understand. You, bullit, have a problem with your travel bug prison cache being listed in a bookmark list of travel bug prison caches :D . Whats next? Someone having a fit because their micro cache is listed in a bookmark of micro caches.

Link to comment

I personally side with the people who agree that cache owners shouldn't be able to block lists from their cache pages, but in cases where the feature has the potential for abuse, why not let the community have a say...

 

Each bookmark list has a link that lets users rate it (I think only PMs can rate lists). Second, look at a cache that appears on multiple lists, and you'll see that not all are listed on the page (just like TB's, except that I believe the page shows far fewer bookmark lists than trackables). Maybe a feature could be introduced where a bookmark list with a high number of negative ratings isn't shown on cache pages, but is only visible by clicking the "more" link below the list. Many of the more controversial lists seem to gather a number of negative ratings anyway, so this could encourage people who feel strongly either way about these lists to vote for/against them.

Link to comment

Maybe a feature could be introduced where a bookmark list with a high number of negative ratings isn't shown on cache pages, but is only visible by clicking the "more" link below the list.

 

I like this. What would be the useful rating that would put it on the cache listing? Over 60%? It already sorts for usefulness.

Link to comment

Maybe a feature could be introduced where a bookmark list with a high number of negative ratings isn't shown on cache pages, but is only visible by clicking the "more" link below the list.

 

I like this. What would be the useful rating that would put it on the cache listing? Over 60%? It already sorts for usefulness.

 

I'd suggest the bookmark show on the cache page, unless

  • It's been rated by 5 or more people.
  • It has a "useful" percentage of less than 50%.

This would allow unrated bookmark lists to show up, (I suspect the vast majority of bookmark lists are unrated) and the purely negative bookmark lists will quickly aquire a "not useful" rating from annoyed cache owners that will push them off the cache page.

 

It might also make sense to use a link separate from the current "more" link -- "Low ranked bookmarks", or something.

 

grnbrg.

Link to comment

 

I'd suggest the bookmark show on the cache page, unless

  • It's been rated by 5 or more people.
  • It has a "useful" percentage of less than 50%.

 

This is pretty fair. If there are less than 5 ratings it shows up. If 5 ratings or more the usefulness needs to be above 50% to be shown on the page. Thanks!

Link to comment

 

I'd suggest the bookmark show on the cache page, unless

  • It's been rated by 5 or more people.
  • It has a "useful" percentage of less than 50%.

 

This is pretty fair. If there are less than 5 ratings it shows up. If 5 ratings or more the usefulness needs to be above 50% to be shown on the page. Thanks!

How about cleaning up the "scuba gear required" attribute, then, Jeremy? I am still maintaining the list, but the bookmark list I was instructed to make in lieu of the attribute being cleaned up will be useless under this plan. More than 50% of the attribute is abuse, and it seems they don't like being called on it.

 

(Unintended consequences of a nice idea.)

Link to comment

First of all, you are making an assumption that the TB Prison bookmark is negative. I have two lists, one of TB Hotels that have no limits, and one of TB Hotels with. The purpose was to see what the ratio was, good vs. bad. It’s running better than 2 to 1 in favor of the good hotels.

 

Prison sounds negative to me. If you had named the Prison List "TB Hotels with limits" we wouldn't be discussing this.

Link to comment

 

I'd suggest the bookmark show on the cache page, unless

  • It's been rated by 5 or more people.
  • It has a "useful" percentage of less than 50%.

 

This is pretty fair. If there are less than 5 ratings it shows up. If 5 ratings or more the usefulness needs to be above 50% to be shown on the page. Thanks!

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

Another option would be that the cache owner can check a box on the listing that says display all bookmarks or consolidate as a "more" link on the page.

 

It'd also be nice to see a thumbs up / thumbs down next to each bookmark on the list instead of having to open the list to see the rating.

Link to comment

First of all, you are making an assumption that the TB Prison bookmark is negative. I have two lists, one of TB Hotels that have no limits, and one of TB Hotels with. The purpose was to see what the ratio was, good vs. bad. It’s running better than 2 to 1 in favor of the good hotels.

 

Prison sounds negative to me. If you had named the Prison List "TB Hotels with limits" we wouldn't be discussing this.

 

Negative or not Travel Bug PRISON is the name that has become common useage for TB "hotels" with restrictions. A "Hotel" you're free to leave when you want. (any cacher that comes along can grab the bug) A "prison" you're not. (TB has to wait for a cacher with a travel bug to trade to come along....or whatever other silly rules are put on the cache)

 

If you don't like your Prison being on the list, drop the rules and make it a hotel, and I'm sure Criminal will move it to the appropriate list.

Link to comment

 

I'd suggest the bookmark show on the cache page, unless

  • It's been rated by 5 or more people.
  • It has a "useful" percentage of less than 50%.

 

This is pretty fair. If there are less than 5 ratings it shows up. If 5 ratings or more the usefulness needs to be above 50% to be shown on the page. Thanks!

If the rating goes above 90% the bookmark owner can delete the cache in question at his or her option. Yeah, I like that. :laughing::rolleyes:

Link to comment

If the rating goes above 90% the bookmark owner can delete the cache in question at his or her option. Yeah, I like that. :laughing::rolleyes:

 

This I must object to. The implication is that if 90% of people rating a bookmark list agree with the bookmark owner he can decide which caches to archive. You may have people who like this kind of cache and find the bookmark useful for finding the caches they like. If they like finding needle-in-the-haystack micros they may give a good rating to a needle-in-the-haystack micros bookmark list. If they like hunting in stealth mode they may like a too many muggles bookmark list. I'm sure a lot of numbers chasers would find Criminal's bookmark list of caches where the owner will let you log a smiley when you didn't find the cache useful. I don't really care what kind of caches Criminal or anyone else doesn't like or even if he wants to embarass cache owners who have lax requirements for logging a find on their caches, but I don't want him to decide which caches I can hunt. BTW, 90% of the people in Salem thought those people were witches.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Negative or not Travel Bug PRISON is the name that has become common useage for TB "hotels" with restrictions.

 

Positive vs Negative casting of caches is the whole point of the thread. Criminal even calls them good caches and bad caches. Bad is also a negative term.

 

This isn't only about my cache, this pertains to all the negative bookmark lists out there.

Link to comment

If the rating goes above 90% the bookmark owner can delete the cache in question at his or her option. Yeah, I like that. :D:(

 

This I must object to. The implication is that if 90% of people rating a bookmark list agree with the bookmark owner he can decide which caches to archive. You may have people who like this kind of cache and find the bookmark useful for finding the caches they like. If they like finding needle-in-the-haystack micros they may give a good rating to a needle-in-the-haystack micros bookmark list. If they like hunting in stealth mode they may like a too many muggles bookmark list. I'm sure a lot of numbers chasers would find Criminal's bookmark list of caches where the owner will let you log a smiley when you didn't find the cache useful. I don't really care what kind of caches Criminal or anyone else doesn't like or even if he wants to embarass cache owners who have lax requirements for logging a find on their caches, but I don't want him to decide which caches I can hunt. BTW, 90% of the people in Salem thought those people were witches.

Exactly, and human nature is to complain first and accept the good without comment. If someone's bookmark is relevant but unpopular, it will be voted down. The people who like it, think it’s relevant, and believe in it will most likely never comment so.

Link to comment

Positive vs Negative casting of caches is the whole point of the thread. Criminal even calls them good caches and bad caches. Bad is also a negative term.

 

This isn't only about my cache, this pertains to all the negative bookmark lists out there.

 

However, you brought your cache and his list into play.

 

If you read the guidelines, and subsequent intent, of travel bugs, they are suppose to "travel". Putting any type of restriction on, especially turning them into trade items, is just flat out wrong (or negative).

 

The funny part of the whole thing is, by putting these rules in place, you are actually encouraging people who otherwise may have left a bug or two to take them all or even come back and get bugs they may not have otherwise. When you said you did this to prevent the "locals" from gathering them up, you never mentioned if they were moving them along or holding and/or keeping them. If they were being moved, ther was no harm in their gathering them up.

 

I do not believe there should be a rating or caches owners should have any control over the lists. I believe now if you feel that a list violates policies, there is already a remedy at contact.geocaching.com. I think everyone understands that a list is simply the opinon of the list owner and few them that way.

Link to comment

 

This would allow unrated bookmark lists to show up, (I suspect the vast majority of bookmark lists are unrated) and the purely negative bookmark lists will quickly aquire a "not useful" rating from annoyed cache owners that will push them off the cache page.

 

Nope, rating has one major problem... people with too much time on their hands can rate something over and over and over in order to achieve their desired outcome. This won't work because, sooner or later, someone who thinks a bookmark their cache appears on is negative, will spend the few minutes to neg-rep the bookmark out of existence.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...