Jump to content

How many are ignoring your caches?

Hula Bum

By Hula Bum
in Website

Followers 3

Recommended Posts

sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
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!
You're correct. It is little different than the rating system issue. In fact, the problems with this suggestion is very similar to the problems with a ratings system. The primary difference, in my opinion, is that a ratings system can be tailored to concentrate on positive issues. This suggestion, merely is concerned with negative issues.
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
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....
:unsure:
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?

Oh c'mon! :P Because they don't enjoy certain types of urban caches like LPCs, dumpster caches, etc.
Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted (edited)

But if I take those negative issues as you call it and use them to make my cache(s) better, then what's bad about it?

I believe the issue it that some number of geocachers will ignore a cache because they perceive there to be some problem with the cache. The fact that they ignored the cache doesn't tell me what they think is wrong with the cache. A short log doesn't tell me what they think is wrong with the cache. If I'm a cache owner and one of my caches has a lot of ignores it doesn't provide me any information about why it's being ignored. I can't correct the problems if I don't know what they are. Beyond that, it doesn't tell me that there may be another group of cachers who would enjoy the cache just as it exists.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
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....
:unsure:
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?
Oh c'mon! :P Because they don't enjoy certain types of urban caches like LPCs, dumpster caches, etc.
Apparently you want to know why they would ignore an urban cache for reasons other than that they think that they won't like it. The easy answer is that they are not interested in doing it for any other reason.

 

I realize that you were not in love with my 'France' answer, but it is a real issue. Not too long ago, someone started a thread regarding trouble they were having in their area. They lived in a location that was seperated from another by a body of water and they didn't want caches on the other side showing up on their searches. Both land masses were in the same US state. One perfectly fine way to handle it is to ignore those caches.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
"Any other reason" is not an answer. Give me some common plausible reasons......
In the very same post, I gave you a plausible reason.

 

BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in

The France reason? <_< I asked for "common" reasons....
I suspect is that you really want reasons that fit into your argument and that you won't be happy no matter what the other uses are.
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in
That was posted a while back. When it was originally posted I tried it out on a "My Finds" PQ and it really didn't work all that well. Events all showed up on the top of my list because I tend to write longer logs on events. I also like to write down everyone I was with in my logs. So whenever I was with a larger group those caches showed up higher on the list than the others. Hardly any my favorite caches showed up at the top of my list. I have learned that there really is no good way to avoid a crappy cache until you run into it. The ignore count would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps if GSAK used the ingore count with the log length it would provide more finely tuned results for the bottom of the list. I would "opt" in on that. You can "opt" out.
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
"Any other reason" is not an answer. Give me some common plausible reasons......
In the very same post, I gave you a plausible reason.

 

BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in

The France reason? <_< I asked for "common" reasons....
I suspect is that you really want reasons that fit into your argument and that you won't be happy no matter what the other uses are.

Just as I thought, your argument is a house of cards because you don't have any common plausible reasons. France is the best thing you can come up with....
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in
That was posted a while back. When it was originally posted I tried it out on a "My Finds" PQ and it really didn't work all that well. Events all showed up on the top of my list because I tend to write longer logs on events. I also like to write down everyone I was with in my logs. So whenever I was with a larger group those caches showed up higher on the list than the others. Hardly any my favorite caches showed up at the top of my list. I have learned that there really is no good way to avoid a crappy cache until you run into it. The ignore count would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps if GSAK used the ingore count with the log length it would provide more finely tuned results for the bottom of the list. I would "opt" in on that. You can "opt" out.
I was just trying to help you out.
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
"Any other reason" is not an answer. Give me some common plausible reasons......
In the very same post, I gave you a plausible reason.

 

BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in

The France reason? <_< I asked for "common" reasons....
I suspect is that you really want reasons that fit into your argument and that you won't be happy no matter what the other uses are.
Just as I thought, your argument is a house of cards because you don't have any common plausible reasons. France is the best thing you can come up with....
I'm pretty sure that the OP in the thread that I mentioned lived in Maryland.

 

I was looking for that thread when I ran across thise one.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in
That was posted a while back. When it was originally posted I tried it out on a "My Finds" PQ and it really didn't work all that well. Events all showed up on the top of my list because I tend to write longer logs on events. I also like to write down everyone I was with in my logs. So whenever I was with a larger group those caches showed up higher on the list than the others. Hardly any my favorite caches showed up at the top of my list. I have learned that there really is no good way to avoid a crappy cache until you run into it. The ignore count would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps if GSAK used the ingore count with the log length it would provide more finely tuned results for the bottom of the list. I would "opt" in on that. You can "opt" out.
I was just trying to help you out.

Thanks, but I have honestly tried every possible way that has been brought up in the forums. The best way I have found is to use people's must-do/favorite lists. I have yet to find a crappy cache when I have done that. So whenever GS launches the awards system that will truly be a giant step in the right direction. <_<
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)
"Any other reason" is not an answer. Give me some common plausible reasons......
In the very same post, I gave you a plausible reason.

 

BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in

The France reason? <_< I asked for "common" reasons....
I suspect is that you really want reasons that fit into your argument and that you won't be happy no matter what the other uses are.
Just as I thought, your argument is a house of cards because you don't have any common plausible reasons. France is the best thing you can come up with....
I'm pretty sure that the OP in the thread that I mentioned lived in Maryland.

 

I was looking for that thread when I ran across thise one.

That situation is not frequent occurance for most cachers. I'm originally from Maryland. If I still lived in Maryland I could do one of two things without having to resort to constantly ignoring caches that popped up across the bay. I could create a PQ that was centered so it only pulled caches on my side of the bay. I could also simply delete caches that were across the bay in Mapsource before uploading to my GPS. This takes a few quick seconds. There are other ways too. So the fact that there are much easier ways to filter out these caches than ignoring them lowers the frequency of occurance even further. So this is not a common reason why people would ignore 1/1 urbans. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Neos2

Neos2

Posted
Posted (edited)

But if I take those negative issues as you call it and use them to make my cache(s) better, then what's bad about it?

I believe the issue it that some number of geocachers will ignore a cache because they perceive there to be some problem with the cache. The fact that they ignored the cache doesn't tell me what they think is wrong with the cache. A short log doesn't tell me what they think is wrong with the cache. If I'm a cache owner and one of my caches has a lot of ignores it doesn't provide me any information about why it's being ignored. I can't correct the problems if I don't know what they are. Beyond that, it doesn't tell me that there may be another group of cachers who would enjoy the cache just as it exists.

Indeed, that is exactly the thing I want to know. If I'm a cache owner and all I have is a number, I really don't have anything to say that my cache is being ignored for any "negative" reasons....for all I know everyone is ignoring it because they are saving it to do for a milestone!

 

I really don't think *many* people will ignore any one particular cache, since people like/dislike such a variety of caches, but even if "some number of" cachers decide to ignore your cache, what do you do next? How are you going to decide why they are ignoring it?

 

How many people have to ignore it before you discern a problem? 3? 5? 10? 20?

 

If you have four caches, all different, and they each have the same number of people ingoring them, what is the problem? How do you fix it?

 

If one is a really short and fun multi, one is a clever mystery, one is a medium hike to a well-stocked ammo can, and one is a micro near a fascinating historic area, but they all have 35 ignores on them, is there a problem? What if all the logs are glowing recommendations but there are still 35 ignores?

 

If you and another guy both have ammo cans out in the same park and your has 10 ignores, but his has only 2, does that mean there is something wrong with your hide? Is it time to change your deodorant or get a new method of camouflaging your can?

 

What if his cache is a micro and yours is an ammo can but yours has more ignores? Does it mean folks in your neighborhood hate ammo cans, or have they just decided to boycott your caches? Should you put out a micro even if you don't like them?

 

Do you have to please all the people all the time? Is it OK if some people don't like your caches?

Edited by Neos2
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
"Any other reason" is not an answer. Give me some common plausible reasons......
In the very same post, I gave you a plausible reason.

 

BTW, Doc Ditto just posted something that I bet you would be interested in

The France reason? <_< I asked for "common" reasons....
I suspect is that you really want reasons that fit into your argument and that you won't be happy no matter what the other uses are.
Just as I thought, your argument is a house of cards because you don't have any common plausible reasons. France is the best thing you can come up with....
I'm pretty sure that the OP in the thread that I mentioned lived in Maryland.

 

I was looking for that thread when I ran across thise one.

That situation is not frequent occurance for most cachers. I'm originally from Maryland. If I still lived in Maryland I could do one of two things without having to resort to constantly ignoring caches that popped up across the bay. I could create a PQ that was centered so it only pulled caches on my side of the bay. I could also simply delete caches that were across the bay in Mapsource before uploading to my GPS. This takes a few quick seconds. There are other ways too. So the fact that there are much easier ways to filter out these caches than ignoring them lowers the frequency of occurance even further. So this is not a common reason why people would ignore 1/1 urbans.
You can use any solution you want to handle that problem and otherm people are free to use the solution that they like best. That's my point.

 

BTW, many people don't like the 'delete them from MapSource' option because it doesn't allow them to maximize their PQs.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
The bottom line is that you never came up with any "common" and "plausible" reasons that people would ignore 1/1 urban caches.
Clearly, you are not going to be happy with any answer I give you. Rather than continuing to go around and around, I'm going to go cast some rocks.

 

While I'm gone, your welcome to check out the uses given by other posters to this thread such as Mr T, Retcon, Neos, and B&BD. I think Retcon even gave a version of the 'France' usage in his list.

 

If that isn't satisfying to you, you could always go back and take a look at the other threads that have requested this feature. Perhaps you will find uses there that you approve of.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
The bottom line is that you never came up with any "common" and "plausible" reasons that people would ignore 1/1 urban caches.
Clearly, you are not going to be happy with any answer I give you. Rather than continuing to go around and around, I'm going to go cast some rocks.

 

While I'm gone, your welcome to check out the uses given by other posters to this thread such as Mr T, Retcon, Neos, and B&BD. I think Retcon even gave a version of the 'France' usage in his list.

 

If that isn't satisfying to you, you could always go back and take a look at the other threads that have requested this feature. Perhaps you will find uses there that you approve of.

I wasn't asking for ones I would approve of I was asking for common reasons that would make using ignore counts useless for filtering our poor urban 1/1 caches. You were the one that confidently made the statement that it would not work. Just because a tiny fraction of the population lives near a bay and that some of them "might" use the ignore feature is hardly a major reason that would make this feature useless for the rest of the country. Is it that hard for you to think of a good reason? You spoke with such confidence. It seems like with that kind of confidence you would have numerous common and plausible examples....I guess not....
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted (edited)
The bottom line is that you never came up with any "common" and "plausible" reasons that people would ignore 1/1 urban caches.
Clearly, you are not going to be happy with any answer I give you. Rather than continuing to go around and around, I'm going to go cast some rocks.

 

While I'm gone, your welcome to check out the uses given by other posters to this thread such as Mr T, Retcon, Neos, and B&BD. I think Retcon even gave a version of the 'France' usage in his list.

 

If that isn't satisfying to you, you could always go back and take a look at the other threads that have requested this feature. Perhaps you will find uses there that you approve of.

I wasn't asking for ones I would approve of I was asking for common reasons that would make using ignore counts useless for filtering our poor urban 1/1 caches. You were the one that confidently made the statement that it would not work. Just because a tiny fraction of the population lives near a bay and that some of them "might" use the ignore feature is hardly a major reason that would make this feature useless for the rest of the country. Is it that hard for you to think of a good reason? You spoke with such confidence. It seems like with that kind of confidence you would have numerous common and plausible examples....I guess not....
I finished casting the georocks.

 

Did you have a chance to go back and take a look at those posts and possibly the old threads. I'm sure that you'll like something there. Let me know what you think. In the mean time, I'm going to work on painting some acorns and pinecones.

 

BTW, what do you think about the 'negativity' issue in light of TPTB's comments in the 'ratings' threads?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)
BTW, what do you think about the 'negativity' issue in light of TPTB's comments in the 'ratings' threads?
I think there are ways to be positive and accomplish goals. The awards system is a positive approach.

 

Edit: By the way, if I had been debating this from the other side I would have brought up that point a long time ago. <_<

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
BTW, what do you think about the 'negativity' issue in light of TPTB's comments in the 'ratings' threads?
I think there are ways to be positive and accomplish goals. The awards system is a positive approach.

 

Edit: By the way, if I had been debating this from the other side I would have brought up that point a long time ago. <_<

Really, how about here, here, and here. Interestingly, you qouted the first instance, but didn't reply to it.
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)
BTW, what do you think about the 'negativity' issue in light of TPTB's comments in the 'ratings' threads?
I think there are ways to be positive and accomplish goals. The awards system is a positive approach.

 

Edit: By the way, if I had been debating this from the other side I would have brought up that point a long time ago. :unsure:

Really, how about here, here, and here. Interestingly, you qouted the first instance, but didn't reply to it.

Two of those were in response to Hula Bum so I didn't pay attention to those because we were having a separate discussion. The one response was to me was the first of a double post by you. The second post was your sarcastic "?" comment that caught all of my attention. So I missed seeing the first post completely. Anyhow, I think we got caught up in the debate as to whether or not it would work and not whether or not they would do it. I think I showed that it would help us weed out crappy 1/1s even though I'll admit that they would never do it. Anyhow, I will keep ignoring caches. I will also ask friends which ones they have run across that I should add to my list. All I really need to know is who is hiding them and I can ignore all the 1/1 or 1.5/1 caches that person hides. <_< Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
It sounds as if you have a workable, if not optimal, solution.
It's the best solution at the moment. Give me more time and I'll think of a better one. <_< I've turned it into a game to see how many caches in a row, I can find without getting burned by finding a crappy one. I call this game Geocaching Minesweeper. :unsure:
Link to comment
Retcon

+Retcon

Posted
Posted
The bottom line is that you never came up with any "common" and "plausible" reasons that people would ignore 1/1 urban caches.
Clearly, you are not going to be happy with any answer I give you. Rather than continuing to go around and around, I'm going to go cast some rocks.

 

While I'm gone, your welcome to check out the uses given by other posters to this thread such as Mr T, Retcon, Neos, and B&BD. I think Retcon even gave a version of the 'France' usage in his list.

 

If that isn't satisfying to you, you could always go back and take a look at the other threads that have requested this feature. Perhaps you will find uses there that you approve of.

Clarification: While I said that it was remotely possible that many people are ignoring your cache not because it's a stinking pile of geotrash, but instead for some unrelated reason, it's far more likley that a cache with a large number of ignores (compared to nearby caches) needs some TLC.

 

Note, in the case of the England/France thing, or the bay mentioned in some other thread, *all* caches in the area would have inflated ignore counts. If every cache in the area has 5 ignores, the average ignore for the area is 5. Someone who ignores based on location (other side of the bay) inflate the average along with the specific counts, so it doesn't make any cache stand out as a potential problem.

 

As an aside, what is so wrong with listing something negative? I mean, come on, are we not adults? This makes me think of when I was in grade school and they gave out ribbons for 17th place so everybody got a ribbon. If your cache totally sucks, I *want* you to know it. If my cache totally sucks, I surely want to know it so I can try harder. If the only feedback I get is flowery goodness, how can I improve?

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
As an aside, what is so wrong with listing something negative? I mean, come on, are we not adults? This makes me think of when I was in grade school and they gave out ribbons for 17th place so everybody got a ribbon. If your cache totally sucks, I *want* you to know it. If my cache totally sucks, I surely want to know it so I can try harder. If the only feedback I get is flowery goodness, how can I improve?
I agree with you. I would not be bothered in the least if I had a cache that was being ignored. But I would try to understand why and try to do something about it. I've done the same thing by reading people's logs on my caches. However, TPTB have made it clear that they are not going to implement anything that steps on toes.

 

The funny thing is that TPTB are ignoring the kinds of caches that we are talking about. Did you ever notice how none of these caches/locations are ever featured in the photo banner on the main page? :laughing:

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
I see the rating system as very different, as it's something other people would see about my cache (although I was for that too). This is something that only I will see as the owner, too very different things.
Others suggested that they wanted to see the ignore numbers so they could decide which caches to find. If you only see your ignore caount, you couldn't compare it to anything to decide whether there is an issue. That would make it not useful, in my opinion, as a measure of anything about your cache.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...