How many are ignoring your caches?

[+Hula Bum]

I would love to be able to "opt" in to see how many people are ignoring my caches. Just like how many people are watching. No names, just a number. Something you would select to see, so for those who get their feelings hurt easily they never have to know.

[+Retcon]

I think that's a great idea. In fact, I think reviewers should be able to see the number too.

[+sbell111]

I'm not sure how useful that information would be. Personally, I'm ignoring some local caches because I don't care for puzzles. This keeps them off my 'nearest' list.

 

This morning, I was taking a look at the list of caches in the Calais, France area. Many of them were actually across the channel in Great Britain. If I was a local and had no intention to make regular trips across the channel, I would likely ignore those caches. The fact that I would be ignoring those caches would not be useful to the cache owners.

[Neos2]

I have no objection to being able to see how many are ignoring a particular cache. If someone wanted to see that, it's swell by me. I'm not saying the feature shouldn't exist.

 

But I don't understand what could be learned from it, other than a number, really, and I'd like to hear more about why you want the feature.

 

I ignore caches for a lot of reasons:

• I don't like the way the owner does "soft"cords
  
• they are seasonal and I won't do them for months
  
• I'm saving that one for a milestone
  
• I don't like that kind of cache
  
• I don't have the equipment to do the cache (boat, climbing gear)
  
• It's just too difficult or dangerous for me
  

If I really thought about it, there are probably other reasons. Even if the owners knew I was ignoring the cache for any of those particular reasons, why would they change it?

 

Am I missing something?

[+mini cacher]

that would double the number of weekly posts of people asking "How can I see who is [watching|ignoring] my cache?"

 

But seriously, I suppose that number has as much merit as the watch count. and as many people "for" or "against" it.

[+Renegade Knight]

Too cool. Then I could place a cache and compete for the most ignores.

[+Kealia]

As a cache owner I could see this being useful. It's anonymous feedback that somebody, or some number of people don't like your cache. I'd take action if the number were high enough.

 

I have a number of caches that don't get hit often because of distance, but I'd like to know if my other easier caches are on ignore lists. It would prompt me to do something (archive, change, etc.).

 

I realize that my hides/puzzles, etc. may not be for everybody, but a HIGH number of ignores would trigger something.

[+TrailGators]

Too cool. Then I could place a cache and compete for the most ignores.

You'd have some pretty stiff competition.

[+TrailGators]

I agree it would be a useful feature but only for conscientious cachers that care and are willing to listen to feedback and adapt their hides. There are many people that could care less. That's why I wish we could ignore all the hides from certain cachers.

 

I think ignoring puzzles is a waste of time because they are so easy to filter out using PQs. I think the ignore feature is most handy when the PQ filters do not provide a needed filter.

[+sbell111]

I agree it would be a useful feature but only for conscientious cachers that care and are willing to listen to feedback and adapt their hides. There are many people that could care less. That's why I wish we could ignore all the hides from certain cachers.

The problem is, you have absolutely no idea why those people are ignoring your cache. Your cache might be perfectly fine.

I think ignoring puzzles is a waste of time because they are so easy to filter out using PQs. I think the ignore feature is most handy when the PQ filters do not provide a needed filter.

I understand your opinion, but I disagree with it. There are many times when I just want to enter a ZIP code and see if there are any nearby caches that I want to go after. A perfect example is checking caches near my office. I have no need or desire to build a PQ when I can just type 37243 and hit enter. Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I agree it would be a useful feature but only for conscientious cachers that care and are willing to listen to feedback and adapt their hides. There are many people that could care less. That's why I wish we could ignore all the hides from certain cachers.

The problem is, you have absolutely no idea why those people are ignoring your cache. Your cache might be perfectly fine.

There is usually a good reason why somebody would ignore your cache. If you look at your cache logs you may be able to deduce the reason especially if most of the logs are very brief.

 

I think ignoring puzzles is a waste of time because they are so easy to filter out using PQs. I think the ignore feature is most handy when the PQ filters do not provide a needed filter.

I understand your opinion, but I disagree with it. There are many times when I just want to enter a ZIP code and see if there are any nearby caches that I want to go after. A perfect example is checking caches near my office. I have no need or desire to build a PQ when I can just type 37243 and hit enter.

After you type 37243 and hit enter, the puzzles are the ones with the "?" next to them. I'm not sure how the ignore feature would help you in this scenario.

[+mudsneaker]

As a cache owner I could see this being useful. It's anonymous feedback that somebody, or some number of people don't like your cache. I'd take action if the number were high enough.

 

I have a number of caches that don't get hit often because of distance, but I'd like to know if my other easier caches are on ignore lists. It would prompt me to do something (archive, change, etc.).

 

I realize that my hides/puzzles, etc. may not be for everybody, but a HIGH number of ignores would trigger something.

 

I would be for this feature for the same reason. Its a form of feedback just like being able to see how many are watching a cache.

More watchers means its likely a good cache, more ignores means theres a potential problem.

[+sbell111]

I agree it would be a useful feature but only for conscientious cachers that care and are willing to listen to feedback and adapt their hides. There are many people that could care less. That's why I wish we could ignore all the hides from certain cachers.

The problem is, you have absolutely no idea why those people are ignoring your cache. Your cache might be perfectly fine.

There is usually a good reason why somebody would ignore your cache. If you look at your cache logs you may be able to deduce the reason especially if most of the logs are very brief.

Based on that point of view, you would not need to know if anyone was ignoring it. Brief logs = bad cache, right?

 

Of course, many people ignore caches for many (private) reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the specific cache.

I think ignoring puzzles is a waste of time because they are so easy to filter out using PQs. I think the ignore feature is most handy when the PQ filters do not provide a needed filter.

I understand your opinion, but I disagree with it. There are many times when I just want to enter a ZIP code and see if there are any nearby caches that I want to go after. A perfect example is checking caches near my office. I have no need or desire to build a PQ when I can just type 37243 and hit enter.

After you type 37243 and hit enter, the puzzles are the ones with the "?" next to them. I'm not sure how the ignore feature would help you in this scenario.

You see, if I don't want to go find them (ever), I can ignore them. Related to your point about PQs, there may be some puzzles that you want to look for and others that you don't. Therefore, merely sorting out all puzzles from your PQs won't work. Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I think ignoring puzzles is a waste of time because they are so easy to filter out using PQs. I think the ignore feature is most handy when the PQ filters do not provide a needed filter.

I understand your opinion, but I disagree with it. There are many times when I just want to enter a ZIP code and see if there are any nearby caches that I want to go after. A perfect example is checking caches near my office. I have no need or desire to build a PQ when I can just type 37243 and hit enter.

After you type 37243 and hit enter, the puzzles are the ones with the "?" next to them. I'm not sure how the ignore feature would help you in this scenario.

You see, if I don't want to go find them (ever), I can ignore them. Related to your point about PQs, there may be some puzzles that you want to look for and others that you don't. Therefore, merely sorting out all puzzles from your PQs won't work.

So when you travel you generate a list of local caches and hit the ignore button for every puzzle cache? Of course when you hit ignore, you have to confirm that you really want to ignore that cache (BTW I don't like having to confirm). Anyhow, if the servers are slow this process can take a long time. That seems like a lot of work.

 

I run a separate puzzle PQ and solve the puzzles I feel like solving. Then a create a separate map file with all the final coords for all the puzzles I've solved, and load that into my GPS. Then I simply run my normal PQs without puzzles.

 

Anyhow, if someone was ignoring my puzzles it wouldn't be too hard to figure out why. It also wouldn't be difficult to figure out why a bunch of people were ignoring an LPC at Wally World.

[+sbell111]

My post didn't say anything about traveling. In fact, I discussed looking for caches near my office in my example. Personally, I don't have any use for the ignore list when I'm traveling.

 

Either way, the point of this thread is not to discuss the proper use of the ignore list. It is clear from our posts that people use the ignore list for many different reasons. Therefore, knowing whether people are ignoring it (or how many people are doing so) would not be useful.

[+Hula Bum]

Not useful to you perhaps, but I still would find it useful.

[+flask]

i have no opinon about this.

 

 

 

 

 

(just thought you'd like to know.)

[+sbell111]

Not useful to you perhaps, but I still would find it useful.

I'm sure that many people would believe it to be useful. However, if something doesn't give the information that a person believes it to be giving, it is actual worse than not useful. Edited March 12, 2007 by sbell111

[+Retcon]

If I had 30 caches out there, and 29 of them were being ignored by 3 people each (on average, say), and 1 of them was being ignored by 137 people.... I think that information would be useful.

[+TrailGators]

Not useful to you perhaps, but I still would find it useful.

I'm sure that many people would believe it to be useful. However, if something doesn't give the information that a person believes it to be giving, it is actual worse than not useful.

I don't see how you can make a blanket statement that it would not be useful. There are cases that it would be useful and could provide additional data, For example CacherX has a 1.5/1 LPC behind a Wally World near a dumpster. Most of the logs on that cache are very brief. None of them say what a great cache it is but nobody bags on the cache because they are too polite. This cache is also on 5 people's ignore lists. In this case, I think we could safely conclude that this cache is not that well liked. The ignore list count just reinforces the conclusion that the brief logs were implying. So maybe the owner could think about this hide and try hiding his next one so that it gets longer logs and is not ignored by anyone.

[+sbell111]

Not useful to you perhaps, but I still would find it useful.

I'm sure that many people would believe it to be useful. However, if something doesn't give the information that a person believes it to be giving, it is actual worse than not useful.

I don't see how you can make a blanket statement that it would not be useful. There are cases that it would be useful and could provide additional data, For example CacherX has a 1.5/1 LPC behind a Wally World near a dumpster. Most of the logs on that cache are very brief. None of them say what a great cache it is but nobody bags on the cache because they are too polite. This cache is also on 5 people's ignore lists. In this case, I think we could safely conclude that this cache is not that well liked. The ignore list count just reinforces the conclusion that the brief logs were implying. So maybe the owner could think about this hide and try hiding his next one so that it gets longer logs and is not ignored by anyone.

Those five people may prefer not to look for LPCs. They ignore them so they don't have to be bothered with them in the future. (Isn't this why we have the ability to ignore caches?) That doesn't mean that LPCs are bad caches or that the specific cache is bad. Therefore, knowing that the cache is being ignored is not useful.

 

(A voice in my head is saying that TrailGators doesn't like LPCs and has decided not to hunt them any longer. He is, therefore, ignoring them. Perhaps, he would like to spin this issue into yet another way to try to do away with LPCs. I'm skeptical by nature, I guess.)

Edited March 12, 2007 by sbell111

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I'm not sure how useful that information would be. Personally, I'm ignoring some local caches because I don't care for puzzles. This keeps them off my 'nearest' list.

 

This morning, I was taking a look at the list of caches in the Calais, France area. Many of them were actually across the channel in Great Britain. If I was a local and had no intention to make regular trips across the channel, I would likely ignore those caches. The fact that I would be ignoring those caches would not be useful to the cache owners.

I agree. If I put caches on an ignore list, it is almost NEVER because I have anything against the cache, and certainly NEVER because I have anything against the cache hider, but simply because, for other practical reasons, I need to exclude certain caches from the list displayed.

[+TrailGators]

If I put caches on an ignore list, it is almost NEVER because I have anything against the cache, and certainly NEVER because I have anything against the cache hider, but simply because, for other practical reasons, I need to exclude certain caches from the list displayed.

I guess I'm different. I only ignore caches that I most likely wouldn't enjoy. I also don't have anything "against" anyone. I simply don't enjoy certain cachers hides so I ignore their caches.

[+sbell111]

... I simply don't enjoy certain cachers hides so I ignore their caches.

If those cachers were able to see how many people were ignoring their caches, the data would be useless because no matter what they hide, you will ignore it. This data would have no bearing on whether their caches were good.

 

Your's is the perfect example of why this data is not useful.

[+TrailGators]

... I simply don't enjoy certain cachers hides so I ignore their caches.

If those cachers were able to see how many people were ignoring their caches, the data would be useless because no matter what they hide, you will ignore it. This data would have no bearing on whether their caches were good.

 

Your's is the perfect example of why this data is not useful.

Some of these cachers have hundreds of hides. I was just looking at one cacher that has over 350 hides that loves to hide LPCs. But I'm not going to sit here are click ignore and then click the confirm button for everyone of their caches. It would take forever. So instead I'll go through and ignore all their 1/1s and 1.5/1 caches. This still takes a long time but it is effective way of ignoring tons of LPCs or similar caches. So this data would be useful to them. But I doubt they will use it.

[+ePeterso2]

I'm sure that the "Ignore by User" and "Ignore by Type" feature has already been suggested at some point in the past?

[+Hula Bum]

Honestly, just because it is not useful to you sbell, doesn't mean that you can tell ME that it's not useful for me. If it's not useful to you, then don't use it, but please don't tell me what will or won't work for myself or others for that fact.

[+TrailGators]

I'm sure that the "Ignore by User" and "Ignore by Type" feature has already been suggested at some point in the past?

I'm sure it has and I'm sure it was poo-pooed by the same people that love to follow every idea around like a black cloud.

[+tozainamboku]

If I put caches on an ignore list, it is almost NEVER because I have anything against the cache, and certainly NEVER because I have anything against the cache hider, but simply because, for other practical reasons, I need to exclude certain caches from the list displayed.

I guess I'm different. I only ignore caches that I most likely wouldn't enjoy. I also don't have anything "against" anyone. I simply don't enjoy certain cachers hides so I ignore their caches.

I put this cache on my ignore list because it has 11 additional waypoints that take up too much room in my GPS when I am not going to look for this cache. I've set up my PQs to only return caches that are not on my ignore list. If I decide to go back and try to find this again, I will take the cache off my ignore list and run a fresh PQ to load into my GPS. I suspect that this cache may be on a lot of ignore list because some people are just never going to look for a 4.5 star terrain cache. I hope this hider wouldn't use the count of how many cachers are ignoring the cache as feedback as to how many people wouldn't enjoy the cache and decide to place something else.

[+TrailGators]

If I put caches on an ignore list, it is almost NEVER because I have anything against the cache, and certainly NEVER because I have anything against the cache hider, but simply because, for other practical reasons, I need to exclude certain caches from the list displayed.

I guess I'm different. I only ignore caches that I most likely wouldn't enjoy. I also don't have anything "against" anyone. I simply don't enjoy certain cachers hides so I ignore their caches.

I put this cache on my ignore list because it has 11 additional waypoints that take up too much room in my GPS when I am not going to look for this cache. I've set up my PQs to only return caches that are not on my ignore list. If I decide to go back and try to find this again, I will take the cache off my ignore list and run a fresh PQ to load into my GPS. I suspect that this cache may be on a lot of ignore list because some people are just never going to look for a 4.5 star terrain cache. I hope this hider wouldn't use the count of how many cachers are ignoring the cache as feedback as to how many people wouldn't enjoy the cache and decide to place something else.

I think someone that hid a 4.5 terrain cache would know why people are ignoring their cache. Apply the same example to a 1/1 micro.....

[+flask]

you can already ignore by user and ignore by type if you use GSAK. granted, not everyone does, but it's a nifty little piece of software and it works very smoothly.

[+TrailGators]

you can already ignore by user and ignore by type if you use GSAK. granted, not everyone does, but it's a nifty little piece of software and it works very smoothly.

If I were macro savvy I could use GSAK more effectively than I do. I need to figure out how to write a macro that automatically filters out all caches for CacherX, CacherY, CacherZ, etc, that are 1/1 or 1.5/1 micros.

[+baloo&bd]

I think someone that hid a 4.5 terrain cache would know why people are ignoring their cache. Apply the same example to a 1/1 micro.....

 

I'm not tozainamboku, but since you asked here....

 

For whatever reason there are a number of people who see micro and erroneously automatically associate it with a poor hide. Many of them hit ignore, regardless of the quality of the hide. Others may try to find it a number of times and, because micros can be much more difficult than ammo cans, decide to give up and hit ignore.

 

Neither example is something that reflects on the quality of the hide. The latter maybe the rating, but not the quality. As to the former, it may be one of the magical "wow" sites everyone thinks a cache should be at, however it's a micro so automatically ignored.

 

I also just can't see the value beyond _partially_ satisfying curiosity.

[+flask]

I'm sure that the "Ignore by User" and "Ignore by Type" feature has already been suggested at some point in the past?

I'm sure it has and I'm sure it was poo-pooed by the same people that love to follow every idea around like a black cloud.

 

hey, them's fightin' woids.

 

i'll bet you mean me in that group, but i think you'll find that while it's usually the same people who come down on the same side of the same issue every time (oddly, the discussions seem to re-open periodically), people regroup and reconsider for every issue.

 

there is not one person i can think of here who loves to shoot down every new idea. each of us has ideas we like and ideas we don't. it's unfair to categorize people who don't like this idea as the people who don't like every idea.

 

i'm really trying hard here and i can't think of a single one of the regulars who doesn't like all of the ideas.

 

in case you're trying to figure out my bias (and we all have them) i don't like any new idea that involves ratings of any kind, nor do i like any idea that diminishes anonymity. i'm for most ideas that involve making the site easier to navigate, or increases map utility.

 

my hackles are raised every time someone phrases the debate in terms of people being against are just contrarians.

 

i don't see how this particular idea would be useful; i don't care how many people are ignoring my caches. i think that some people are kind of hoping that hiders with caches that get ignored widely will see the number of ignores and mend their ways. i think people who hide lame caches (and lameness is subjective) don't hide them because they don't know better; they hide them because they like them.

 

that said, i don't see how this would interfere one bit in my enjoyment of the game.

 

so i just don't care.

[+flask]

you can already ignore by user and ignore by type if you use GSAK. granted, not everyone does, but it's a nifty little piece of software and it works very smoothly.

If I were macro savvy I could use GSAK more effectively than I do. I need to figure out how to write a macro that automatically filters out all caches for CacherX, CacherY, CacherZ, etc, that are 1/1 or 1.5/1 micros.

 

you don't actually need a macro.

 

oh. i see. you're talking about doing all that at ONCE. yeah, i see what you're getting at.

[+TrailGators]

I think someone that hid a 4.5 terrain cache would know why people are ignoring their cache. Apply the same example to a 1/1 micro.....

 

I'm not tozainamboku, but since you asked here....

 

For whatever reason there are a number of people who see micro and erroneously automatically associate it with a poor hide. Many of them hit ignore, regardless of the quality of the hide. Others may try to find it a number of times and, because micros can be much more difficult than ammo cans, decide to give up and hit ignore.

 

Neither example is something that reflects on the quality of the hide. The latter maybe the rating, but not the quality. As to the former, it may be one of the magical "wow" sites everyone thinks a cache should be at, however it's a micro so automatically ignored.

 

I also just can't see the value beyond _partially_ satisfying curiosity.

I don't see a micro and erroneously automatically associate it with a poor hide. I'll note who hid the poor hides that I have found or have been told about. IMHO micros have a bad reputation because there so many poor or pointless hides that are micros. Edited March 12, 2007 by TrailGators

[+baloo&bd]

I don't see a micro and erroneously automatically associate it with a poor hide. I'll note who hid the poor hides that I have found or have been told about. IMHO micros have a bad reputation because there so many poor or pointless hides that are micros.

 

You'll note I never said you, however you would have to agree that there are many who would do exactly like I listed and have even stated as much in these forums. This would render the information useless.

 

I've seen a good many lame "non-micro" hides, so micros do not have the corner on poor and pointless.

 

Would it affect anyone adversely, maybe but not to the point of being noticeable. However look at some of the issues raised by the anonymous "4 people are watching your cache" message. Why spend time on another feature that some will just find a way to be insecure about?

[+TrailGators]

oh. i see. you're talking about doing all that at ONCE. yeah, i see what you're getting at.

Yep! I run a couple PQs each week and it would be nice to hit a button and have GSAK do it automatically!

[+ClydeE]

oh. i see. you're talking about doing all that at ONCE. yeah, i see what you're getting at.

Yep! I run a couple PQs each week and it would be nice to hit a button and have GSAK do it automatically!

 

Version 7 makes this quite easy in the macro language because you can have "and" and "or" relationships with your filters.

 

So all you need to do is set up all your required filters in the GUI and save them (so that you can access them by name in the macro)

 

So let is say you have set up and saved two filters and saved them as "Filter1" and "Filter2". The macro code to find the union (or relationship) of these two filters is:

 

Filter Name=Filter1 
Filter Name=Filter2 Join=or

 

If you really want the intersection (those caches that only exist in both filters) then replace Join=or with Join=and

 

Now just allocate this macro to a button on your tool bar and it is only one mouse click away!

 

There is also a ready made macro that will allow you to select the filters to combine which you can find here

 

 

If you really want to get carried away with filter relationships, GSAK also supports other joins:

 

 

For more information see the FILTER macro command in the help file or online here http://gsak.net/help/hs21050.htm

Edited March 12, 2007 by ClydeE

[+Hula Bum]

I guess the real question is for those that have the power, is this something that would be hard to do? I see lots of benefits to it, as do others I've talked to.

The beauty of it is it's anonymous and if you don't see a benefit don't opt in to it, no problem. For those of us who think it would be helpful it would be nice to have the option.

[+TrailGators]

oh. i see. you're talking about doing all that at ONCE. yeah, i see what you're getting at.

Yep! I run a couple PQs each week and it would be nice to hit a button and have GSAK do it automatically!

 

Version 7 makes this quite easy in the macro language because you can have "and" and "or" relationships with your filters.

 

So all you need to do is set up all your required filters in the GUI and save them (so that you can access them by name in the macro)

 

So let is say you have set up and saved two filters and saved them as "Filter1" and "Filter2". The macro code to find the union (or relationship) of these two filters is:

 

Filter Name=Filter1 
Filter Name=Filter2 Join=or

 

If you really want the intersection (those caches that only exist in both filters) then replace Join=or with Join=and

 

Now just allocate this macro to a button on your tool bar and it is only one mouse click away!

 

There is also a ready made macro that will allow you to select the filters to combine which you can find here

 

 

If you really want to get carried away with filter relationships, GSAK also supports other joins:

 

 

For more information see the FILTER macro command in the help file or online here http://gsak.net/help/hs21050.htm

Thanks Clyde!

[+sbell111]

Honestly, just because it is not useful to you sbell, doesn't mean that you can tell ME that it's not useful for me. If it's not useful to you, then don't use it, but please don't tell me what will or won't work for myself or others for that fact.

It's not my intention to insult you. It's just that the knowledge of whether people are ignoring a cache, or not, will not give you the information that you want it to. In that way, it is not useful.

[+TrailGators]

Honestly, just because it is not useful to you sbell, doesn't mean that you can tell ME that it's not useful for me. If it's not useful to you, then don't use it, but please don't tell me what will or won't work for myself or others for that fact.

It's not my intention to insult you. It's just that the knowledge of whether people are ignoring a cache, or not, will not give you the information that you want it to. In that way, it is not useful.

Sometimes it will give useful info and sometimes it won't. Examples have been given for both cases already.

[+Hula Bum]

I just don't understand how you know what is useful to ME?????

[+sbell111]

I just don't understand how you know what is useful to ME?????

Perhaps you can convince me that I'm wrong.

 

Why would this information be useful to you?

[+mini cacher]

I don't think that info is any more or less useful than the watch count. they are the same thing. if there is one count, there really is no real reason why the other couldn't be there.

[+baloo&bd]

I don't think that info is any more or less useful than the watch count. they are the same thing. if there is one count, there really is no real reason why the other couldn't be there.

 

Good point. Having said that, the watch count is pretty much worthless as well.

[+sbell111]

I don't think that info is any more or less useful than the watch count. they are the same thing. if there is one count, there really is no real reason why the other couldn't be there.

Good point. Having said that, the watch count is pretty much worthless as well.

I suspect that the watch number is only still there to avoid the drama that removing it would cause.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm sure that the "Ignore by User" and "Ignore by Type" feature has already been suggested at some point in the past?

I'm sure it has and I'm sure it was poo-pooed by the same people that love to follow every idea around like a black cloud.

 

Awesome! And since I ignore those posters, and only see their avatar's, I would enjoy it very much if they could change their avatar to a black rain cloud for me.

[+Retcon]

Seeing a short log could indicate to you that your cache isn't very good. It could also indicate to you that the person who logged it was busy, or never logs anything.

 

I think therefore we should remove being able to view logs. They don't give us any solid information about our caches, so are useless.