Jump to content

Ignore List enhancement

TrailGators

By TrailGators
in Website

Followers 4

Recommended Posts

TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

I really like the ignore list and I have been using it more lately. I have noticed that the caches that I am ignoring are hidden by the same people whose caching style is a lot different than mine. Some of these people have hundreds of caches, so it would take a very long time to ignore all of their caches one by one. Therefore I was wondering if an enhancement could be made to the site to give us the ability to visit someone's profile and hit an ignore button that allows us to ignore all of that person's caches with one click?

 

Since the ignore list is a bookmark list, we could always go back and un-ignore any cache that was recommended. Thanks. :D

crawil

crawil

Posted
Posted

Ditto!!

 

I, too, have a cacher that I would not mind removing their hides from my PQ list. Last time I checked, 97 of the 500 caches closest to me that I have not yet found were hidden by this single cacher. I really don't want to have to go through the ignore procedure that many times!

Isonzo Karst

+Isonzo Karst

Posted
Posted

The Bozo Bin! wonderful.

 

In the meantime, I hope you know that GSAK has a "placed by" filter.....

Filter on all caches where placed by = BozoBoy, then delete all the waypoints in the filter. Slick. Not the same as ignore, but a workaround for the present.

sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted

The Bozo Bin! wonderful.

 

In the meantime, I hope you know that GSAK has a "placed by" filter.....

Filter on all caches where placed by = BozoBoy, then delete all the waypoints in the filter. Slick. Not the same as ignore, but a workaround for the present.

You can even automate this with a macro.

TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You can even automate this with a macro.
Please discuss the GSAK option in another thread. I am aware of this but the point of this thread is to discuss an enhancement to the ignore feature. I think this feature will be much easier for everyone to use; plus it eliminates these caches from your PQs. :D
The Jester

+The Jester

Posted
Posted
You can even automate this with a macro.
Please discuss the GSAK option in another thread. I am aware of this but the point of this thread is to discuss an enhancement to the ignore feature. I think this feature will be much easier for everyone to use; plus it eliminates these caches from your PQs. :)

Bringing up a current workaround has nothing to do with adding or not adding a new feature. Until such time as this feature is added, someone was pointing out a way you can accomplish much the same thing.

 

You can add such a feature if enough people ask, but I've yet to find anyone that I would use it on. I really pity those of you who need this feature.

Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted
You can even automate this with a macro.
Please discuss the GSAK option in another thread. I am aware of this but the point of this thread is to discuss an enhancement to the ignore feature. I think this feature will be much easier for everyone to use; plus it eliminates these caches from your PQs. :)

Bringing up a current workaround has nothing to do with adding or not adding a new feature. Until such time as this feature is added, someone was pointing out a way you can accomplish much the same thing.

 

You can add such a feature if enough people ask, but I've yet to find anyone that I would use it on. I really pity those of you who need this feature.

 

Wow. Bitter are we? If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, other than mocking the majority of it's participants, ignore it. Put me down in favor of the feature. And above, all, Pity me. :)

markandlynn

markandlynn

Posted
Posted
You can even automate this with a macro.
Please discuss the GSAK option in another thread. I am aware of this but the point of this thread is to discuss an enhancement to the ignore feature. I think this feature will be much easier for everyone to use; plus it eliminates these caches from your PQs. :)

Bringing up a current workaround has nothing to do with adding or not adding a new feature. Until such time as this feature is added, someone was pointing out a way you can accomplish much the same thing.

 

You can add such a feature if enough people ask, but I've yet to find anyone that I would use it on. I really pity those of you who need this feature.

 

I accept your pity many thanks for offering it its nice to know you are thinking of me.

 

I would love this feature as well.

Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted

I don't presently use the Ignore feature, but I can see how this would be useful for people who cache differently than I do, so put me down as being in favor of this enhancement. thumbsup.gif

Kealia

+Kealia

Posted
Posted (edited)

Count me in as well. I have a couple of hiders who caches I have not enjoyed and I'd like to be able to ignore them en masse as well.

 

As a tangent, I'd like to also like to bump this thread and tie them together.

 

I think it might be helpful to see how many people are ignoring your cache since you can see how many people are watching your cache. It doesn't need to be shown to the public, just the cache owner.

 

Sorry, not trying to hijack your thread, but I see the two requests working together.

Edited by kealia
Kabuthunk

+Kabuthunk

Posted
Posted (edited)

You can add such a feature if enough people ask, but I've yet to find anyone that I would use it on. I really pity those of you who need this feature.

You pity people who choose not to go after some geocaches? Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

 

But yeah... added thought to the topic. Having a few other options while ignoring might be nice as well. For example, the ability to:

 

Ignore all MICRO caches only, hidden by X user.

Ignore all caches by X user placed after/before Y date.

 

Just a thought. I've found two caches by one of the people I would have set to ignore that I found fun... well... because they weren't his film-canister-in-a-forest series. Pretty much... any of their caches started somewhere in and after January of '06 were all the film-canister series. So yeah, the ability to just kinda scrape THOSE out of my PQ would be nice.

 

So yeah, added options above may be of value.

Edited by Kabuthunk
Nazgul

+Nazgul

Posted
Posted

I came to the forums today specifically to ask for this feature, even though it's been requested before, because I could really use it!!! It would be a huge timesaver, and it would automate things for me since the hider that got me thinking about it again has suddenly gotten more prolific lately.

 

Please please please!

Hula Bum

+Hula Bum

Posted
Posted

Another vote for "please, please, please". It would would make things much easier and faster.

 

How many votes do we have to get to make it happen?! ;)

TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
  • Author
Posted

How many votes do we have to get to make it happen?! :P

 

Just one.

 

His --> d8694a01-3296-482a-864d-963873e38ba9.jpg

I haven't seen him in the forums for a long time. Based on his responses in the past, I don't think this idea would step on any toes. I don't think there would be a significant amount of resistance to it. I do think it is useful to all types of cachers. What I don't know is how hard it would be to implement.....So I'm crossing my fingers! Oh yeah, I almost forgot....PLEEEEEASE!!!! ;)
Guyute1210

Guyute1210

Posted
Posted

I'd use it...there are a couple people around me that like to hide caches I don't much care for, but they do occationally hide something I might like, so being able to ignore all from user X that are all micro sized (or anyother size) would be great!

sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
How many votes do we have to get to make it happen?! :lol:
Just one.

 

His --> d8694a01-3296-482a-864d-963873e38ba9.jpg

I haven't seen him in the forums for a long time. Based on his responses in the past, I don't think this idea would step on any toes. I don't think there would be a significant amount of resistance to it. I do think it is useful to all types of cachers. What I don't know is how hard it would be to implement.....So I'm crossing my fingers! Oh yeah, I almost forgot....PLEEEEEASE!!!! :)
Of course, in the past he has shown some amount of reluctance to implement features that duplicate what third party software already does. Since this is easily done with GSAK, I doubt that it will be very high on TPTB's list.
Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted

Depending on how this would be implemented, I could see it being a benefit to the Site, as opposed to keeping things the way they are for the cacher to sort all the data later using GSAK or another Third Party Software program.

 

If the several hundred caches placed by "cacher x" and "cacher y" and "cacher z"' are eliminated from the PQs in the first place, the cacher, with those cache-hiders on their "Ignore List," will be requesting fewer PQs for their area. One 500-cache PQ will now cover a much wider area. :)

 

That would cut down on server load . . . wouldn't it? :lol:

TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Depending on how this would be implemented, I could see it being a benefit to the Site, as opposed to keeping things the way they are for the cacher to sort all the data later using GSAK or another Third Party Software program.

 

If the several hundred caches placed by "cacher x" and "cacher y" and "cacher z"' are eliminated from the PQs in the first place, the cacher, with those cache-hiders on their "Ignore List," will be requesting fewer PQs for their area. One 500-cache PQ will now cover a much wider area. :)

 

That would cut down on server load . . . wouldn't it? :lol:

Yes it would! :lol:
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted

Depending on how this would be implemented, I could see it being a benefit to the Site, as opposed to keeping things the way they are for the cacher to sort all the data later using GSAK or another Third Party Software program.

 

If the several hundred caches placed by "cacher x" and "cacher y" and "cacher z"' are eliminated from the PQs in the first place, the cacher, with those cache-hiders on their "Ignore List," will be requesting fewer PQs for their area. One 500-cache PQ will now cover a much wider area. :)

 

That would cut down on server load . . . wouldn't it? :lol:

Unless cachers x,y, & z are briansnat-like placers, it will only change the coverage distance a tiny amount.

Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted

I don't understand . . . :lol:

 

Around here, although I don't think I would do it, I can think of several prolific, more-than-100-hides cachers who, if I "Ignored" all their caches, making it so their caches were no longer included in my PQs, it would take far fewer PQs to adequately cover the area I cache in.

TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
I don't understand . . . :rolleyes:

 

Around here, although I don't think I would do it, I can think of several prolific, more-than-100-hides cachers who, if I "Ignored" all their caches, making it so their caches were no longer included in my PQs, it would take far fewer PQs to adequately cover the area I cache in.

One of the people I want to ignore has hidden over 350 caches... Edited by TrailGators
Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted
I don't understand . . . :blink:

 

Around here, although I don't think I would do it, I can think of several prolific, more-than-100-hides cachers who, if I "Ignored" all their caches, making it so their caches were no longer included in my PQs, it would take far fewer PQs to adequately cover the area I cache in.

One of the people I want to ignore has hidden over 350 caches...

yikes.gifbigeyes.gif:blink::mad:

 

I think I know who you are talking about. Their territory is just out of my territory, so I haven't had the "pleasure" of looking for their caches yet . . . :rolleyes:

Stunod

+Stunod

Posted
Posted
How many votes do we have to get to make it happen?! :rolleyes:
Just one.

 

His --> d8694a01-3296-482a-864d-963873e38ba9.jpg

I haven't seen him in the forums for a long time. Based on his responses in the past, I don't think this idea would step on any toes. I don't think there would be a significant amount of resistance to it. I do think it is useful to all types of cachers. What I don't know is how hard it would be to implement.....So I'm crossing my fingers! Oh yeah, I almost forgot....PLEEEEEASE!!!! :blink:
Of course, in the past he has shown some amount of reluctance to implement features that duplicate what third party software already does. Since this is easily done with GSAK, I doubt that it will be very high on TPTB's list.

 

Yeah...I wish he would move forward on the "caches along a route" suggestion.

 

Or maybe the pocket query that returns all my finds.

 

Or those little stat banners.

TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
  • Author
Posted
How many votes do we have to get to make it happen?! :rolleyes:
Just one.

 

His --> d8694a01-3296-482a-864d-963873e38ba9.jpg

I haven't seen him in the forums for a long time. Based on his responses in the past, I don't think this idea would step on any toes. I don't think there would be a significant amount of resistance to it. I do think it is useful to all types of cachers. What I don't know is how hard it would be to implement.....So I'm crossing my fingers! Oh yeah, I almost forgot....PLEEEEEASE!!!! :blink:
Of course, in the past he has shown some amount of reluctance to implement features that duplicate what third party software already does. Since this is easily done with GSAK, I doubt that it will be very high on TPTB's list.

 

Yeah...I wish he would move forward on the "caches along a route" suggestion.

 

Or maybe the pocket query that returns all my finds.

 

Or those little stat banners.

Thanks Stunod! I agree, they have rolled out some new kewl features. I really can't wait until the awards thing is rolled out. :blink:
ar_kayaker

+ar_kayaker

Posted
Posted

I'd use this feature. We have a local cacher who has made it his mission in life to place a lamp-post micro in every parking lot across the state (or so it seems after finding the umpteenth one in a day)

 

I'd love to ignore his hides. I even toyed with making a public bookmark list for "Should Be Ignored" and bookmarking all of them on it.

 

AK

TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'd use this feature. We have a local cacher who has made it his mission in life to place a lamp-post micro in every parking lot across the state (or so it seems after finding the umpteenth one in a day)

 

I'd love to ignore his hides. I even toyed with making a public bookmark list for "Should Be Ignored" and bookmarking all of them on it.

 

AK

I think this is more tactful than those kinds of bookmark lists. There's already been some angsty threads about people doing that... :anicute:
benh57

+benh57

Posted
Posted

I think a more general ignore filter would be useful. Allow ignoring of caches meeting an arbitrary query condition including size, owner, type, etc.

gnbrotz

+gnbrotz

Posted
Posted

I think a more general ignore filter would be useful. Allow ignoring of caches meeting an arbitrary query condition including size, owner, type, etc.

 

That's what pocket query filters are for. Set up the queries to exclude sizes and types you don't like, then you never have to see caches that don't interest you. The only time I visit a cache page online is to log it.

Recdiver

+Recdiver

Posted
Posted (edited)

I can see this feature potentially being very useful. Another vote for "AYE!" (But only if it's not too much trouble for TPTB.)

Ditto.

 

edit to add - That I don't currently use the ignore feature however I can see how this would be useful and I can see using it in the not so distant future.

Edited by Recdiver
gnbrotz

+gnbrotz

Posted
Posted

Yeah, but with the current PQ setup, you can't exclude caches that are placed by a certain person. If that feature were added to the PQ setup, I'd be happy

 

Agreed. It makes sense to me to have the "exclude by owner" as an ignore list feature, but I don't see the point in expanding it to include things such as size and type which can already be controlled through pocket queries.

sargenv

+sargenv

Posted
Posted

On another note and maybe as an addition, there have been times when I wanted to run a pocket query on just one cache hider or maybe one or two.. I too have to run several PQ's and then use software to pick and choose the ones I want. If the pick/unpick specific people could be implemented at the same time or as an "include/uninclude" feature, I think it would have some merit.

 

Vince

crawil

crawil

Posted
Posted

On another note and maybe as an addition, there have been times when I wanted to run a pocket query on just one cache hider or maybe one or two.. I too have to run several PQ's and then use software to pick and choose the ones I want. If the pick/unpick specific people could be implemented at the same time or as an "include/uninclude" feature, I think it would have some merit.

 

Vince

 

If you only want hides from a specific hider, go to their profile, click the Geocaches tab, click List of items owned (All Cache Hides), and download the loc files.

Pablo Mac

+Pablo Mac

Posted
Posted (edited)

It would be nice to be able to ignore cachers who send out trackable items and state "'Discovered it' logs will be ruthlessly deleted without warning or exception."

Edited by Pablo Mac
sargenv

+sargenv

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I knew about the loc file options, but since you want to exclude people's gpx files, why can't there be a toggle for including only specific people? We have several toggles when we edit attributes in creating hides, a toggle for including/excluding seems natural to me as opposed to JUST an exclusion. I'd rather have that info as a gpx file since I am a subscriber. If they are going to put in the effort in coding, this addition should not be that much more to add.

 

Vince

sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
It would be nice to be able to ignore cachers who send out trackable items and state "'Discovered it' logs will be ruthlessly deleted without warning or exception."
It wouldn't surprise me to see that those trackables end up mysteriously disappeering.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...