How many are ignoring your caches?

[+TrailGators]

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.

 

[+sbell111]

[+TrailGators]

Here's another "stretch" argument:

 

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.

This afternoon, I was looking at the list of caches around Dover, England. I noticed that many of them were ~20 miles across the channel in France. If I was a local and had no intention to make regular trips across the channel, what would do? Hmmmmm..... I know! I would make a Pocket Query that was centered somewhere northwest of Dover so those French caches didn't get loaded into my GPS! This solution takes no effort and it totally solves my problem! Ignoring scores of caches in France would take way too much effort.

 

Now which scenario is more likely? The path of least resistance perhaps.....

[+sbell111]

Here's another "stretch" argument:

 

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.

This afternoon, I was looking at the list of caches around Dover, England. I noticed that many of them were ~20 miles across the channel in France. If I was a local and had no intention to make regular trips across the channel, what would do? Hmmmmm..... I know! I would make a Pocket Query that was centered somewhere northwest of Dover so those French caches didn't get loaded into my GPS! This solution takes no effort and it totally solves my problem! Ignoring scores of caches in France would take way too much effort.

 

Now which scenario is more likely? The path of least resistance perhaps.....

You keep assuming that everyone uses the tools of the website exactly like you do (and likes the same caches as you, but that's a different thread). Since people do not follow the TrailGators' guide to life, people will use the ignore feature for ways that you do not, apparently, approve of. That's OK.

[+TrailGators]

Here's another "stretch" argument:

 

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.

This afternoon, I was looking at the list of caches around Dover, England. I noticed that many of them were ~20 miles across the channel in France. If I was a local and had no intention to make regular trips across the channel, what would do? Hmmmmm..... I know! I would make a Pocket Query that was centered somewhere northwest of Dover so those French caches didn't get loaded into my GPS! This solution takes no effort and it totally solves my problem! Ignoring scores of caches in France would take way too much effort.

 

Now which scenario is more likely? The path of least resistance perhaps.....

You keep assuming that everyone uses the tools of the website exactly like you do (and likes the same caches as you, but that's a different thread). Since people do not follow the TrailGators' guide to life, people will use the ignore feature for ways that you do not, apparently, approve of. That's OK.

I never said that I don't approve. People are free to do things the hard way.

 

Anyhow, this is your argument: Because there might be one person in France that has not learned an efficient way to filter out caches across the channel in England, he might spend time ignoring all those caches over in England. Therefore, the ignore count will never give any useful insights for some of the caches out there.

Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I guess you've discounted all the other ways that people use the ignore list that differ from your method, also.

Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+Hula Bum]

Once again, if you don't want to use it don't, hence the option to "opt" in.

[+sbell111]

Once again, if you don't want to use it don't, hence the option to "opt" in.

I guess you missed this post.

[+TrailGators]

I guess you discount all the other ways that people use the ignore list that differ from your method, also.

Did I say that? Anyhow, does this mean you have some better scenarios that involve more than 0.000001% of the population of geocachers? Do you have any that a well-written PQ won't easily solve? Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Hula Bum]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

[+TrailGators]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

Actually, I'm on point. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why an ignore count couldn't be useful to some people. It would be very useful to me. I would like to know which urban caches are being ignored the most.

[+mini cacher]

You keep assuming that everyone uses the tools of the website exactly like you do

is that you kettle? or are you pot?

[+sbell111]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

Actually, I'm on point. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why an ignore count couldn't be useful to some people. It would be very useful to me. I would like to know which urban caches are being ignored the most.

The reason that it won't work for what you want it to do is that people ignore caches for many, many reasons. Many of which have nothing to do with whether a cache is good.

 

You reply to every reason people use the ignore feature with some alternative way to do what they are doing just fine. That expectation that you are the arbiter of how everyone else should use this tool is what is pointless. You are not going to change their behavior just because you want the tool to be used only for your purpose.

Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

You keep assuming that everyone uses the tools of the website exactly like you do

is that you kettle? or are you pot?

I'm not expecting everyone to use the ignore feature the same way. I am pointing out that since people do not use it the same way, knowing how many people are ignoring a cache is not useful. Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+mini cacher]

You keep assuming that everyone uses the tools of the website exactly like you do

is that you kettle? or are you pot?

I'm not expecting everyone to use the ignore feature the same way. I am pointing out that since people do not use it the same way, knowing how many people are ignoring a cache is not useful.

no.. but you are expecting someone to justify to *you* why *they* would find a feature handy... just because *you* think the feature would be useless. Not everyone uses the site like you... and they shouldn't have to justify to you why they use it the way they do.

[+Hula Bum]

Like gator says...

If you look at a dozen urban caches all a tenth of a mile apart-

eleven of them have 15 ignores and number 12 has 50, it tells me something-

 

Sure all caches are going to have some ignores for various reasons, but if there is one (or 2 or 20) that is WAY higher it might be worth taking a look at. Sure, some are too self absorbed to think that anything could be wrong with one of their caches, but some of us would use it like feedback and think about it.

 

If you are confident enough you could also talk with fellow cachers about it, and if all their caches have much lower numbers than you it would also tell you something.

 

It's not for everyone as some people just can't handle the criticism as it might be seen, but some might actually take it and try to make their caches better, or remove ones all together.

[+Hula Bum]

You keep assuming that everyone uses the tools of the website exactly like you do

is that you kettle? or are you pot?

I'm not expecting everyone to use the ignore feature the same way. I am pointing out that since people do not use it the same way, knowing how many people are ignoring a cache is not useful.

no.. but you are expecting someone to justify to *you* why *they* would find a feature handy... just because *you* think the feature would be useless. Not everyone uses the site like you... and they shouldn't have to justify to you why they use it the way they do.

 

Thank You. I don't know why it's any more my duty to explain to him why it's useful for me than his duty to explain why it's not (which I never demanded of him).

[Neos2]

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.

I still don't "get" what it is you would learn from knowing how many people were ignoring your caches or someone elses caches.

 

Let's play a game. Say you have a cache--nothing special, just an ammo box in the woods, average woodsy terrain and hide difficulty that has been there for two years with 200 finds.

 

50 people are watching it and 50 people are ignoring it. What does that 'tell' you?

 

OK, now make it a new hide, in the city, say a lock'n'lock in a park with only 5 finds. 20 people are watching it and 20 people are ignoring it. What does that 'tell' you? Does it say something different if next week 100 people are ignoring it, but no one else has gone to look for it? What if 20 people go look for it, and 20 more are ignoring it but 19 more are watching it? And the next week, another 20 go find it but no one new is watching it or ignoring it.

 

None of that means anything at all to me--and I like statistics and numbers and trends and charts and graphs and things like that!

 

Beside all of the above, I think that with GSAK and PQs that can be filtered, it would be the very rare cache that would have more than a handful of people ignoring it anyway.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I just really, really, really don't see what use it will be to the cache owner or anyone else to know how many people don't want to "see" that cache.

[+sbell111]

You keep assuming that everyone uses the tools of the website exactly like you do

is that you kettle? or are you pot?

I'm not expecting everyone to use the ignore feature the same way. I am pointing out that since people do not use it the same way, knowing how many people are ignoring a cache is not useful.

no.. but you are expecting someone to justify to *you* why *they* would find a feature handy... just because *you* think the feature would be useless. Not everyone uses the site like you... and they shouldn't have to justify to you why they use it the way they do.

 

Thank You. I don't know why it's any more my duty to explain to him why it's useful for me than his duty to explain why it's not (which I never demanded of him).

My post was clear. I was trying to find the middle ground with you. I don't know why I bothered.

[+TrailGators]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

Actually, I'm on point. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why an ignore count couldn't be useful to some people. It would be very useful to me. I would like to know which urban caches are being ignored the most.

The reason that it won't work for what you want it to do is that people ignore caches for many, many reasons. Many of which have nothing to do with whether a cache is good.

 

You reply to every reason people use the ignore feature with some alternative way to do what they are doing just fine. That expectation that you are the arbiter of how everyone else should use this tool is what is pointless. You are not going to change their behavior just because you want the tool to be used only for your purpose.

I would like to know which urban caches are ignored the most. First you spend all your time defending crappy caches and now you are a roadblock to people trying to find different ways (besides your easy peasy way) to weed out the crappy caches. Then you have the arrogance to tell me that this feature will not be useful to some of us. Who the heck are you?

[+sbell111]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

Actually, I'm on point. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why an ignore count couldn't be useful to some people. It would be very useful to me. I would like to know which urban caches are being ignored the most.

The reason that it won't work for what you want it to do is that people ignore caches for many, many reasons. Many of which have nothing to do with whether a cache is good.

 

You reply to every reason people use the ignore feature with some alternative way to do what they are doing just fine. That expectation that you are the arbiter of how everyone else should use this tool is what is pointless. You are not going to change their behavior just because you want the tool to be used only for your purpose.

I would like to know which urban caches are ignored the most. First you spend all your time defending crappy caches and now you are a roadblock to people trying to find different ways (besides your easy peasy way) to weed out the crappy caches. Then you have the arrogance to tell me that this feature will not be useful to some of us. Who the heck are you?

First, you tell me that my 'easy peasy' way doesn't work for you because you have no interest in looking at the cache page for each cache before you look for it and then you fight hard for a 'feature' that would require you to look at each page and still only give you questionable results.

 

(BTW, the 'easy peasy' method does not require you to look at every cache page, just the last subset of maybes. Also, another reason this won't worrk for you is because everyone doesn't think the same caches are 'crappy'.)

Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

Actually, I'm on point. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why an ignore count couldn't be useful to some people. It would be very useful to me. I would like to know which urban caches are being ignored the most.

The reason that it won't work for what you want it to do is that people ignore caches for many, many reasons. Many of which have nothing to do with whether a cache is good.

 

You reply to every reason people use the ignore feature with some alternative way to do what they are doing just fine. That expectation that you are the arbiter of how everyone else should use this tool is what is pointless. You are not going to change their behavior just because you want the tool to be used only for your purpose.

I would like to know which urban caches are ignored the most. First you spend all your time defending crappy caches and now you are a roadblock to people trying to find different ways (besides your easy peasy way) to weed out the crappy caches. Then you have the arrogance to tell me that this feature will not be useful to some of us. Who the heck are you?

First, you tell me that my 'easy peasy' way doesn't work for you because you have no interest in looking at the cache page for each cache before you look for it and then you fight hard for a 'feature' that would require you to look at each page and still only give you questionable results.

Just like chess you need to think a few moves ahead. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best. Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

Actually, I'm on point. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why an ignore count couldn't be useful to some people. It would be very useful to me. I would like to know which urban caches are being ignored the most.

The reason that it won't work for what you want it to do is that people ignore caches for many, many reasons. Many of which have nothing to do with whether a cache is good.

 

You reply to every reason people use the ignore feature with some alternative way to do what they are doing just fine. That expectation that you are the arbiter of how everyone else should use this tool is what is pointless. You are not going to change their behavior just because you want the tool to be used only for your purpose.

I would like to know which urban caches are ignored the most. First you spend all your time defending crappy caches and now you are a roadblock to people trying to find different ways (besides your easy peasy way) to weed out the crappy caches. Then you have the arrogance to tell me that this feature will not be useful to some of us. Who the heck are you?

First, you tell me that my 'easy peasy' way doesn't work for you because you have no interest in looking at the cache page for each cache before you look for it and then you fight hard for a 'feature' that would require you to look at each page and still only give you questionable results.

You need to be intuitive sometimes. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best.

I suspect that that is not going to happen for the same reason as it hasn't happened with the watch list.

 

Edited to add that it probably won't happen also because it concentrates on the negative, rather than the positive.

Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+Hula Bum]

I understand that if I was telling you that something will work for you I should have to explain why, but why should I have to explain to you why something will work for me and who are u to tell me that it won't?

[+TrailGators]

Hey, stop taking my thread off topic! (just kidding! banter away, it's pointless, but entertaining as I see it gator.)

Actually, I'm on point. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why an ignore count couldn't be useful to some people. It would be very useful to me. I would like to know which urban caches are being ignored the most.

The reason that it won't work for what you want it to do is that people ignore caches for many, many reasons. Many of which have nothing to do with whether a cache is good.

 

You reply to every reason people use the ignore feature with some alternative way to do what they are doing just fine. That expectation that you are the arbiter of how everyone else should use this tool is what is pointless. You are not going to change their behavior just because you want the tool to be used only for your purpose.

I would like to know which urban caches are ignored the most. First you spend all your time defending crappy caches and now you are a roadblock to people trying to find different ways (besides your easy peasy way) to weed out the crappy caches. Then you have the arrogance to tell me that this feature will not be useful to some of us. Who the heck are you?

First, you tell me that my 'easy peasy' way doesn't work for you because you have no interest in looking at the cache page for each cache before you look for it and then you fight hard for a 'feature' that would require you to look at each page and still only give you questionable results.

You need to be intuitive sometimes. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best.

I suspect that that is not going to happen for the same reason as it hasn't happened with the watch list.

 

Edited to add that it probably won't happen also because it concentrates on the negative, rather than the positive.

A watchlist count would be worthless. It would only tell you which people love getting tons of email and also which people haven't learned to use bookmarks yet... Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I understand that if I was telling you that something will work for you I should have to explain why, but why should I have to explain to you why something will work for me and who are u to tell me that it won't?

I honestly don't care if you do or not.

 

You stated that this would be useful to you. I stated that I didn't think it would be useful and explained why. I then asked you to explain why you thought it was useful and offered that I was willing to change my mind. Instead, I got jumped on. Keep your reasons to yourself, for all I care.

[+sbell111]

You need to be intuitive sometimes. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best.

I suspect that that is not going to happen for the same reason as it hasn't happened with the watch list.

 

Edited to add that it probably won't happen also because it concentrates on the negative, rather than the positive.

A watchlist count would be worthless. It would only tell you which people love getting tons of email and also which people haven't learned to use bookmarks yet...

As worthless as an ignore count. Heck, probably more so since a watchlist tends to be used by people who found and liked the cache or want to find it in the future. Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

You need to be intuitive sometimes. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best.

I suspect that that is not going to happen for the same reason as it hasn't happened with the watch list.

 

Edited to add that it probably won't happen also because it concentrates on the negative, rather than the positive.

A watchlist count would be worthless. It would only tell you which people love getting tons of email and also which people haven't learned to use bookmarks yet...

As worthless as an ignore count.

Ahhhh why don't you go over France and ignore some caches in England... Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Retcon]

Let's play a game. Say you have a cache--nothing special, just an ammo box in the woods, average woodsy terrain and hide difficulty that has been there for two years with 200 finds.

 

50 people are watching it and 50 people are ignoring it. What does that 'tell' you?

 

*snip the rest for berevity*

You're looking at it all wrong. On one singular cache the numbers don't mean anything. Let's play a different game that matches the real world better.

 

Say you have 20 caches. They're nothing special, just ammo boxes in the woods, average woodsy terrain and hide difficulty, some a bit harder some a bit easier, of various sizes. They've all been around for a year or two and each have between 100 and 300 finds.

 

19 of them have about 5 watching and 5 ignoring. 1 of them has 1 watching and 25 ignoring.

 

What does that tell you?

 

It tells me that people MAY NOT like that cache. It tells me to critically look at it and see if it's possibly bad. Perhaps its not. Perhaps it's just fine. But perhaps it's too close to a playground, or a nursery school. Perhaps they put a busy gas station in next door. Or perhaps it's on the other side of a big body of water and people are ignoring it to keep it off their list (In which case, I can safely say it's okay). The information, however, was useful in that it caused me to think about the viability of my hide. Which, I think, cannot be bad.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Retcon

[+Miragee]

You need to be intuitive sometimes. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best.

I suspect that that is not going to happen for the same reason as it hasn't happened with the watch list.

 

Edited to add that it probably won't happen also because it concentrates on the negative, rather than the positive.

A watchlist count would be worthless. It would only tell you which people love getting tons of email and also which people haven't learned to use bookmarks yet...

As worthless as an ignore count. Heck, probably more so since a watchlist tends to be used by people who found and liked the cache or want to find it in the future.

I hate to jump in here, but I don't use my Watchlist for that at all . . . I use Bookmarks for that.

[+sbell111]

You need to be intuitive sometimes. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best.

I suspect that that is not going to happen for the same reason as it hasn't happened with the watch list.

 

Edited to add that it probably won't happen also because it concentrates on the negative, rather than the positive.

A watchlist count would be worthless. It would only tell you which people love getting tons of email and also which people haven't learned to use bookmarks yet...

As worthless as an ignore count.

Ahhhh why don't you go over France and ignore some caches in England...

Was there any purpose at all to this post?

[+Retcon]

You need to be intuitive sometimes. Once the feature was added, it could also be added as a PQ filter or just added to the GPX file where I could create a custom filter in GSAK that takes out any 1/1 caches that were on X people's ignore lists. I'd have to experiment with X to see what value worked best.

I suspect that that is not going to happen for the same reason as it hasn't happened with the watch list.

 

Edited to add that it probably won't happen also because it concentrates on the negative, rather than the positive.

A watchlist count would be worthless. It would only tell you which people love getting tons of email and also which people haven't learned to use bookmarks yet...

As worthless as an ignore count.

Ahhhh why don't you go over France and ignore some caches in England...

Was there any purpose at all to this post?

It made me laugh, is that purpose enough?

No, probably not.

[+TrailGators]

As worthless as an ignore count.

Ahhhh why don't you go over France and ignore some caches in England...

Was there any purpose at all to this post?

It made me laugh, is that purpose enough?

No, probably not.

"That does not compute!"

"That does not compute!"

 

Yes it was a joke. Sbell you really need to lighten up. Accept the fact that there are people that honestly think and feel that knowing the ignore count would give them some more insight into what their fellow cachers think about certain types of caches. Obviously, it would be understandable why some people would ignore higher terrain caches, puzzle caches or virtuals. So the ignore count would not be useful for caches like those. However, when you look at easy urban caches why people would be ignore them? Almost every geocacher has the mental and physical capacity to do a 1/1 or 1.5/1 urban cache. So an ignore count for those caches would be indicative of a cache that was not enjoyed by the people that ignored those caches. This is the reason why I ignore them. Face the fact that there are many urbans that are not fun to a significant percentage of cachers. Because there are people that have urban cache tastes a lot like mine, it would be very useful to share information on which urban caches that we all are ignoring, so I can add those to my own ignore list.

[+Hula Bum]

I would even go one step farther gator. I think that if you have a bunch of puzzle caches and most have 5-10 ignores, but one has 30, that should tell you something. It's all about the anomalies as I see it.

[+tozainamboku]

Yeah sbell111, accept the fact that some people might want to use the ignore count.

• A cacher wants to use his ignore list to ignore caches he doesn't want to spend time looking for.
  
• The cacher could look at every cache page and read logs to make that determination, but hat would take too long.
  
• The cacher could use PQs to filter to a subset of caches that they are more likely going to want to ignore. That may still take to long (for example if PQ were returning all 1/1 caches).
  
• sbell111 is right that there are as many reasons for ignoring a cache as there are cachers who have ignored it. Still if a cache has 10 people ignoring it, it is more likely that someone is ignoring that cache for the same/similar reason that the cacher would want to ignore it than if only 1 person is ignoring the cache.
  
• So the cacher would like to get a PQ that includes the number of people ignoring each cache. Then he would sort the list in GSAK in descending order of number of people ignoring the cache. The cacher would begin at the top of list and read the cache page to decide whether to ignore the cache or not. The cacher would continue down the list as far as he likes or has time to do. There would still be caches he would like to have ignored on his list, but he will have increased the probably of finding "lame" caches in the subset of caches he did review.
  

I know that sbell111 has said before that the cacher could just ignore a bigger set of caches that include the caches the cacher wants to ignore and just look for the remaining caches. After finding all those caches, he could then worry about finding caches in the big igonore set. The problem is that the cacher does want to look for 1/1 urban caches, just not ones that he would think are lame. This requires looking at the cache pages and logs. The request here is for a way to sample within the big set of 1/1 urban caches for caches that have a higher probability of being caches he wants to ignore.

 

I think this whole issue is due to paperless caching. Before I went paperless, I would spend some time looking at the caches I planned to find that day and print out the pages for those caches. I found very few lame caches because this process of deciding what to print out caused me to filter out those caches. With paperless caching, people are looking for different ways to filter out caches. My guess is the best way to bring back the experience of when you started geocaching is to throw away GSAK and your PDA and cancel your premium membership because PQs are not the answer.

Edited March 14, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

I would even go one step farther gator. I think that if you have a bunch of puzzle caches and most have 5-10 ignores, but one has 30, that should tell you something. It's all about the anomalies as I see it.

True but even in that case of a puzzle cache being ignored there are other plausible explanations and that is their argument. However, they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

[+tozainamboku]

I would even go one step farther gator. I think that if you have a bunch of puzzle caches and most have 5-10 ignores, but one has 30, that should tell you something. It's all about the anomalies as I see it.

True but even in that case of a puzzle cache being ignored there are other plausible explanations and that is their argument. However, they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

While I can see using the ignore count as possibly useful in determining whether you want to look for a cache, I hope that this isn't used to decide that your cache is getting negative feedback and you should archive it. There really is no way to determine why someone is ignoring your cache. Any anomalies in the ignore count are probably due more the number of geocachers in the area than anything else. I personally find it unreasonable to hide caches to try to please the most people. All my cache involve hikes and I'm sure some people ignore them just for that reason. If someone wants to hide caches just for people who want to increase their numbers and may even prefer caches in parking lots because you can drive to them, they shouldn't archive them just because some group thinks these are worthy of being ignored.

[+TrailGators]

I would even go one step farther gator. I think that if you have a bunch of puzzle caches and most have 5-10 ignores, but one has 30, that should tell you something. It's all about the anomalies as I see it.

True but even in that case of a puzzle cache being ignored there are other plausible explanations and that is their argument. However, they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

While I can see using the ignore count as possibly useful in determining whether you want to look for a cache, I hope that this isn't used to decide that your cache is getting negative feedback and you should archive it. There really is no way to determine why someone is ignoring your cache. Any anomalies in the ignore count are probably due more the number of geocachers in the area than anything else. I personally find it unreasonable to hide caches to try to please the most people. All my cache involve hikes and I'm sure some people ignore them just for that reason. If someone wants to hide caches just for people who want to increase their numbers and may even prefer caches in parking lots because you can drive to them, they shouldn't archive them just because some group thinks these are worthy of being ignored.

That's not the purpose. Some people like LPCs and some don't. We all know this. Those that don't like them sometimes ignore them. So this info could be useful to others that don't like LPCs. I already said that the feature wouldn't be useful for hiking caches since there is another plausible reason that people would be ignoring those and that is that they are not capable fo doing them.

[+sbell111]

While I can see using the ignore count as possibly useful in determining whether you want to look for a cache, I hope that this isn't used to decide that your cache is getting negative feedback and you should archive it. There really is no way to determine why someone is ignoring your cache. Any anomalies in the ignore count are probably due more the number of geocachers in the area than anything else. I personally find it unreasonable to hide caches to try to please the most people. All my cache involve hikes and I'm sure some people ignore them just for that reason. If someone wants to hide caches just for people who want to increase their numbers and may even prefer caches in parking lots because you can drive to them, they shouldn't archive them just because some group thinks these are worthy of being ignored.

That's not the purpose. Some people like LPCs and some don't. We all know this. Those that don't like them sometimes ignore them. So this info could be useful to others that don't like LPCs. I already said that the feature wouldn't be useful for hiking caches since there is another plausible reason that people would be ignoring those and that is that they are not capable fo doing them.

That's not your purpose, but it is one that was suggested earlier in this thread.

[+sbell111]

... My guess is the best way to bring back the experience of when you started geocaching is to throw away GSAK and your PDA and cancel your premium membership because PQs are not the answer.

That can't be true because today the answer to every question is 'pocket queries'.

[+TrailGators]

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

[+sbell111]

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Do I understand correctly that you are not buying your own argument?

[+TrailGators]

While I can see using the ignore count as possibly useful in determining whether you want to look for a cache, I hope that this isn't used to decide that your cache is getting negative feedback and you should archive it. There really is no way to determine why someone is ignoring your cache. Any anomalies in the ignore count are probably due more the number of geocachers in the area than anything else. I personally find it unreasonable to hide caches to try to please the most people. All my cache involve hikes and I'm sure some people ignore them just for that reason. If someone wants to hide caches just for people who want to increase their numbers and may even prefer caches in parking lots because you can drive to them, they shouldn't archive them just because some group thinks these are worthy of being ignored.

That's not the purpose. Some people like LPCs and some don't. We all know this. Those that don't like them sometimes ignore them. So this info could be useful to others that don't like LPCs. I already said that the feature wouldn't be useful for hiking caches since there is another plausible reason that people would be ignoring those and that is that they are not capable fo doing them.

That's not your purpose, but it is one that was suggested earlier in this thread.

So should we stop people from writing short logs or giving feedback about the cache in their log because it might cause people to archive their caches? Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Do I understand correctly that you are not buying your own argument?

 

Stall tactic. Answer my question:

 

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

[+sbell111]

So should we stop people from writing short logs or complaining about caches because it might cause people to archive their caches?

While it would be nice to be able to turn off some cachers whine gene, I don't think that it's going to happen. That being said, I don't see the benefit of adding a feature that dwells on negativity. Based on the posts from TPTB in the various 'ratings' threads, I think they will agree with me on this point.

[+sbell111]

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Do I understand correctly that you are not buying your own argument?

Stall tactic. Answer my question:

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Ummm, you didn't pose a question.

 

One way to identify questions is that they often end with one of these: '?'.

Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Do I understand correctly that you are not buying your own argument?

Stall tactic. Answer my question:

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Ummm, you didn't pose a question.

 

One way to identify questions is that they often end with one of these: '?'.

What is another common plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one?

[+Hula Bum]

If we're hoping for turning off the "whine" gene, can we do it for the "argue just to be difficult" gene too??!!

 

This is a little different than the rating system and negativity issues as it's each cachers choice as whether they want to see it or not, so the negativity thing doesn't really hold up here. I don't see it as negative and therefore I would opt in. You may, so you don't have to, see, everyone's happy!

Edited March 14, 2007 by Hula Bum

[+sbell111]

True but even in that case of a puzzle cache being ignored there are other plausible explanations and that is their argument. However, they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

and plenty of other reasons. Many of which were given by posters in this very thread.

... Some people like LPCs and some don't. We all know this. Those that don't like them sometimes ignore them. So this info could be useful to others that don't like LPCs. I already said that the feature wouldn't be useful for hiking caches since there is another plausible reason that people would be ignoring those and that is that they are not capable fo doing them.

I suspect that you would find that LPCs have fewer people ignoring them. It's just as easy to log the find and move on.

[+sbell111]

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Do I understand correctly that you are not buying your own argument?

Stall tactic. Answer my question:

they refuse to give me another plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one....

Ummm, you didn't pose a question.

 

One way to identify questions is that they often end with one of these: '?'.

What is another common plausible explanation for a 1/1 urban cache being ignored by several cachers besides the obvious one?

Just so we're on the same page, what's the obvious one?

 

(Edited to mention that I'm leaving the office for a lunch meeting. I'll try to read your answer when I come back this afternoon.)

Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111