"N users are ignoring this listing"

[+WalruZ]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

[+StarBrand]

Sure - as long as only the cache hider could see it.

[+TrailGators]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

 

I like the idea mainly because it helps me identify caches that I can also ignore.

[+tozainamboku]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

I really don't care how many people are ignoring my puzzles.

[+welch]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

I really don't care how many people are ignoring my puzzles.

Can I come in often and ask how to see who's ignoring my caches?

[+StarBrand]

....

Can I come in often and ask how to see who's ignoring my caches?

 

Oh dear - I must update my text file of standard responses......

 

But we will reserve the honor of asking it first just for you.

[+baloo&bd]

I like the idea mainly because it helps me identify caches that I can also ignore.

 

Which is probably the best argument for not showing the number.

 

People ignore for many, many reasons, many of which has nothing to do with cache or hide quality.

Edited July 18, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+baloo&bd]

dbl post

Edited July 18, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+TrailGators]

I like the idea mainly because it helps me identify caches that I can also ignore.

 

Which is probably the best argument for not showing the number.

 

People ignore for many, many reasons, many of which has nothing to do with cache or hide quality.

I would use that info to filter out the easy urbans that were on a lot of ignore lists. I think we know the reasons why most people would ignore those....

[+Kealia]

This has been brought up a few times before but I can't find the old threads using the SEARCH feature. I agree. As a cache owner, I would want to know as well if people were ignoring my caches.

 

There are a number of reasons to ignore a cache, but there are a number of reasons to watch a cache as well and that number is available.

 

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

[+TrailGators]

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

Yes I know! Now, if we could only keep it higher up on the list so the big kahuna would notice it....

[+baloo&bd]

...

Edited July 19, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+mini cacher]

There are a number of reasons to ignore a cache, but there are a number of reasons to watch a cache as well and that number is available.

both have reasonable interest to reasonable people.. yet only the one is decided worthy of public display... it is odd. I guess the world is too fragile for a "negative" image like "X people are ignoring this cache"

[Mushtang]

If this is shown on the cache page, we'll also get a flood of threads in the forums asking "How can I tell who is ignoring my cache?"

 

There's still a pretty regular number of "How can I tell who is watching my cache?" threads.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

There are a number of reasons to ignore a cache, but there are a number of reasons to watch a cache as well and that number is available.

 

 

Exactly, just because it's on my ignore list doesn't mean it's not worth doing or worth watching. And just because a bunch of people watch it.....

 

Hardly a good rating system eh?

[+StarBrand]

Thus my suggestion that only the owner see this information. Might kick them into improving hides or at least taking a second look if they see a lot of ignores - should not be used as a rating system.

[+TheAprilFools]

I think its a great idea and I think everyone should be able to see it, not just the cache owner. I don't think I would automatically ignore a cache just because lots of other cachers did, but it would be useful information on if I should try and how long should I continue to search if I can't.

[Jeremy]

If your goal is to inform a user that their cache is bad you can just say that directly instead of hiding behind an anonymous statistic on a cache listing. Though being constructive is helpful.

 

Otherwise you don't know what the intent of the ignore was. Some people ignore caches they helped place.

[+StarBrand]

If your goal is to inform a user that their cache is bad you can just say that directly instead of hiding behind an anonymous statistic on a cache listing. Though being constructive is helpful.

 

Otherwise you don't know what the intent of the ignore was. Some people ignore caches they helped place.

Actually my goal was to collect information on my own hides - but point taken.

[+TrailGators]

Thus my suggestion that only the owner see this information. Might kick them into improving hides or at least taking a second look if they see a lot of ignores - should not be used as a rating system.

Why just put this info in the PQ? That way you could use this info to help GSAK filter out things you do't want to find (i.e. all 1/1s or 1.5/1s that are on 3 or more people's ignore lists). Also that way it wouldn't make people look bad, which is the reason that Groundspeak would probablywould never put this info on the cache page. Finally, this would give Premium members another handy feature that many would find useful!

[+Kealia]

If your goal is to inform a user that their cache is bad you can just say that directly instead of hiding behind an anonymous statistic on a cache listing. Though being constructive is helpful.

 

Otherwise you don't know what the intent of the ignore was. Some people ignore caches they helped place.

 

I have no problems saying that a cache was in a bad location, etc. I would like this information as a cache owner as well.

 

I think most of us realize that it's not a "rating system" per se, but if I come across a cache that a lot of people are watching, I tend to look it over. The same could be true for a cache a lot of people are ignoring.

 

I've seen caches that are in BAD spots that have a lot of watchers. I assume this is to see how people log their find, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

It just seems that if we can see one side, it would be nice to see the other as well.

[+TheAprilFools]

If your goal is to inform a user that their cache is bad you can just say that directly instead of hiding behind an anonymous statistic on a cache listing. Though being constructive is helpful.

 

Otherwise you don't know what the intent of the ignore was. Some people ignore caches they helped place.

 

Personally I don' t think ignoring a cache necessarily means that its bad, just impossible to find. Examples of caches I have ignored, one is out in the bay and you need a kayak or small boat to get, and I don't own one. The other is in a fence covered with ivy (picture a very long wall of ivy), its close to home, I tried twice, it was painful, tedious and gave me a rash, I did not want to try that one again.

[+Prime Suspect]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

It would be a bogus number anyway. A lot of people ignore caches via their GPX reader, rather than using the system's ignore function.

[+TrailGators]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

It would be a bogus number anyway. A lot of people ignore caches via their GPX reader, rather than using the system's ignore function.

But would they still do it that way if this feature happened?

[+sbell111]

I like the idea mainly because it helps me identify caches that I can also ignore.

Which is probably the best argument for not showing the number.

 

People ignore for many, many reasons, many of which has nothing to do with cache or hide quality.

Agreed. No thanks.

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

Yes I know! Now, if we could only keep it higher up on the list so the big kahuna would notice it....

He probably knows that this can already be done throught GSAK, so it isn't that huge of a priority.

[+TrailGators]

I like the idea mainly because it helps me identify caches that I can also ignore.

Which is probably the best argument for not showing the number.

 

People ignore for many, many reasons, many of which has nothing to do with cache or hide quality.

Agreed. No thanks.

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

Yes I know! Now, if we could only keep it higher up on the list so the big kahuna would notice it....

He probably knows that this can already be done throught GSAK, so it isn't that huge of a priority.

GSAK can remove all those caches from the nearest caches to your home coords in your profile page? GSAK can remove those from the Google Map views of the caches in your area? I didn't know that....

[+sbell111]

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

Yes I know! Now, if we could only keep it higher up on the list so the big kahuna would notice it....

He probably knows that this can already be done throught GSAK, so it isn't that huge of a priority.

GSAK can remove all those caches from the nearest caches to your home coords in your profile page? GSAK can remove those from the Google Map views of the caches in your area? I didn't know that....

There's many, many things that you can do in GSAK that can't be done on the site. Since these things can still be accomplished, there is little reason to give them high priority on an already full task list. Edited July 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+Miragee]

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

Yes I know! Now, if we could only keep it higher up on the list so the big kahuna would notice it....

He probably knows that this can already be done throught GSAK, so it isn't that huge of a priority.

GSAK can remove all those caches from the nearest caches to your home coords in your profile page? GSAK can remove those from the Google Map views of the caches in your area? I didn't know that....

There's many, many things that you can do in GSAK that can't be done on the site. Since these things can still be accomplished, there is little reason to give them high priority on an already full task list.

This is true.

 

GSAK has a "Last 2 DNF" filter by Default, but any other filter you set up can be saved to that list for easy access.

 

You can do a filter for a particular cache Hider. Save that filter.

 

You can do a filter to remove all the Micros from your Export/Send. Save that filter.

 

You can set a filter to remove all the "Difficulty '3'" and above caches (good for "road trip" caching). Save that filter. (This one tripped me up when I went on a road trip with some other cachers. Fortunately they had the caches I had eliminated from my database . . . It took me a while to realize why they weren't in my GPSr, however . . . )

 

I don't use the Searches on the site, so I never worry about caches that show up in my "Nearest" searches, or on the maps. I do everything from GSAK. If I want to see where particular caches are, I do a filter in GSAK, Export in the format for Google Earth, and open the file to look at the cache locations there.

 

I have very little use for the Ignore feature. But, I would probably be hurt if I saw there were a bunch of people Ignoring my caches, even if the reason was because they didn't want to see there was a cache out in the hills on a hiking trail . . .

[+TrailGators]

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

Yes I know! Now, if we could only keep it higher up on the list so the big kahuna would notice it....

He probably knows that this can already be done throught GSAK, so it isn't that huge of a priority.

GSAK can remove all those caches from the nearest caches to your home coords in your profile page? GSAK can remove those from the Google Map views of the caches in your area? I didn't know that....

There's many, many things that you can do in GSAK that can't be done on the site. Since these things can still be accomplished, there is little reason to give them high priority on an already full task list.

I also didn't know that you managed all the tasks/priorities for Groundspeak. I guess you learn something everyday...

[+sbell111]

As a side note, there is also a "movement" to add the ability to "ignore all caches by <hider name>".

Yes I know! Now, if we could only keep it higher up on the list so the big kahuna would notice it....

He probably knows that this can already be done throught GSAK, so it isn't that huge of a priority.

GSAK can remove all those caches from the nearest caches to your home coords in your profile page? GSAK can remove those from the Google Map views of the caches in your area? I didn't know that....

There's many, many things that you can do in GSAK that can't be done on the site. Since these things can still be accomplished, there is little reason to give them high priority on an already full task list.

I also didn't know that you managed all the tasks/priorities for Groundspeak. I guess you learn something everyday...

Way to twist my post to your choosing, rather than address the issue (which is off-topic to this thread, anyway). Edited July 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I like using the ignore feature. It's much more satisying to make certain caches permanently vanish from all my online geocaching pages. It really clears up my maps so I can more quickly spot potential targets. Since Groundspeak implemented the direct dump into the GPS from the cache page feature, now I can browse an online map and then click a few times to get the few caches I want into my GPS and then hit the road.

 

The OPs feature request would help me when I'm browsing through caches. If I came across one that I wasn't sure about and I noticed that it was on a few ignore lists, then that would help me to ignore it.

Edited July 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I have very little use for the Ignore feature. But, I would probably be hurt if I saw there were a bunch of people Ignoring my caches, even if the reason was because they didn't want to see there was a cache out in the hills on a hiking trail . . .

Why would you be hurt if people had different tastes than you?

[+TheAprilFools]

I have very little use for the Ignore feature. But, I would probably be hurt if I saw there were a bunch of people Ignoring my caches, even if the reason was because they didn't want to see there was a cache out in the hills on a hiking trail . . .

Why would you be hurt if people had different tastes than you?

On caches I tried to find and disliked so much I added them to the ignore list, I also posted a fairly blunt DNF that would probably hurt there feelings more. I am sure that ppl who place caches on tops of mountains, places you need a boat to get to or any other difficult location will not be alarmed by the number of cachers who ignore there cache.

[+Miragee]

I have very little use for the Ignore feature. But, I would probably be hurt if I saw there were a bunch of people Ignoring my caches, even if the reason was because they didn't want to see there was a cache out in the hills on a hiking trail . . .

Why would you be hurt if people had different tastes than you?

'Cause I spend time on most of my cache pages . . . If someone is completely Ignoring my caches, they'll never even accidentally see that cache page again.

 

And, what if they have a friend visiting from out-of-town who would like to go for a hike? If my caches are on their Ignore List, they won't know about them to recommend them.

 

And, besides, I'm sensitive like that . . . who wants to be "Ignored."

[+TrailGators]

I have very little use for the Ignore feature. But, I would probably be hurt if I saw there were a bunch of people Ignoring my caches, even if the reason was because they didn't want to see there was a cache out in the hills on a hiking trail . . .

Why would you be hurt if people had different tastes than you?

On caches I tried to find and disliked so much I added them to the ignore list, I also posted a fairly blunt DNF that would probably hurt there feelings more. I am sure that ppl who place caches on tops of mountains, places you need a boat to get to or any other difficult location will not be alarmed by the number of cachers who ignore there cache.

I agree. Add puzzle caches to that list too. We constantly hear how some people don't like those. Anyhow, I can only think of one reason why people would ignore a 1/1 cache. But I'm sure that the people that hide those already know that some people won't like those types of caches. So why would they be offended by something they already know?

[+Prime Suspect]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

It would be a bogus number anyway. A lot of people ignore caches via their GPX reader, rather than using the system's ignore function.

But would they still do it that way if this feature happened?

Yes, because it allows you to turn on/off the ignore feature without having to change and regenerate the PQ. Why would you want to do that? In order to check for nearby caches when you want to place a new one.

[+TrailGators]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

It would be a bogus number anyway. A lot of people ignore caches via their GPX reader, rather than using the system's ignore function.

But would they still do it that way if this feature happened?

Yes, because it allows you to turn on/off the ignore feature without having to change and regenerate the PQ. Why would you want to do that? In order to check for nearby caches when you want to place a new one.

I only ignore urbans and I only place non-urbans unless they are in an urban park. Anyhow, it would be very easy to run a PQ of all your ignored caches to check that.

[+WuffPack]

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

 

I follow a couple of rules that seem to make good sense here and work for me:

Take time to hide quality caches.

Take time to write a good cache listing.

Monitor the comments that your finders are putting into their logs.

Monitor the number of finds per day, per week, and the trend of people finding it.

Keep track of the DNFs and the reasons for them.

When there is no interest in your cache... for any reason... figure it out and fix it or archive it.

 

If you hide a 1/1 and nobody is even looking for it, you have a problem. As a cache placer, my responsibility is make sure that I have added value to the sport by placing a cache that provides some interest to the participants in my area. I can tell very quickly if I have hidden a lame cache either because it is too easy or too hard. I think you can get more information from just paying attention than using some arbitrary 'ignore' statistic.

 

Additionally, just because 5 people are ignoring a cache does not mean that I would ignore it until I checked it out myself. I tend to think that I can form my own opinions rather than trying to figure out why someone else chooses not to see a cache on their searches.

[+Prime Suspect]

Currently a cache page shows how many users are watching the cache.

 

I think it might be nice to also see how many users are ignoring the cache.

 

Reason? If enough people use the ignore button on caches they don't like, and cache listers can see that number, perhaps those who hide undesirable caches will catch a clue...

It would be a bogus number anyway. A lot of people ignore caches via their GPX reader, rather than using the system's ignore function.

But would they still do it that way if this feature happened?

Yes, because it allows you to turn on/off the ignore feature without having to change and regenerate the PQ. Why would you want to do that? In order to check for nearby caches when you want to place a new one.

I only ignore urbans and I only place non-urbans unless they are in an urban park. Anyhow, it would be very easy to run a PQ of all your ignored caches to check that.

My point was that you would already have that information available to you,without having to create or generate another PQ.

[+TrailGators]

My point was that you would already have that information available to you,without having to create or generate another PQ.

I understand that but I don't run PQs or GSAK to ignore caches. I simply click on nearest caches in the area that I'm looking in on the GC site. Then I look at an aerial map of that area to see where all the caches in that area are located. I can quickly click through the cache pages and read the page and the logs and decide which ones to ignore. However it's very tough to judge some caches because the typical log these days is not very informative plus most people are too nice to give their honest opinions. I'm the same way. I want to ignore them without hurting anyone's feelings. Anyhow, if I saw that some people were ignoring an urban cache, it would give me more info to base my decision to ignore it upon. So it's not meaningless info if you use is properly.

 

Another idea would be to be able to share ignore lists with just the people on your friends list and be able to add selected caches from their ignore list to your own ignore list with a single button press. So this would save you from having to read through all the same cache pages that your friends have already read. Teamwork is a good thing!

[+WuffPack]

Another idea would be to be able to share ignore lists with just the people on your friends list and be able to add selected caches from their ignore list to your own ignore list with a single button press. So this would save you from having to read through all the same cache pages that your friends have already read.

 

I like this idea.. Your ignore list becomes my watchlist. No longer do I have to taste the food since I someone to do that for me. If it passes the smell test, then maybe I could go look for it.

 

Remember people, half the journey is getting there, not what you do with it when you find it. Be honest in your logs. If you looked and did not find, or looked and did not like what you found, please say so in a nice way. THAT is how we get better at this game... not just refusing the invitation to the party.

[+Draghkar]

You can of course also wonder why ppl ignore.. so i vote for a mandatory field where ppl need to tell why they ignore the cache..

 

that way we can learn from it...

[+Glenn]

You can of course also wonder why ppl ignore.. so i vote for a mandatory field where ppl need to tell why they ignore the cache..

 

that way we can learn from it...

 

Ignore: All of Draghkar's caches.

Reason: So that he can learn.

 

But seriously what do you expect to learn? That some people don't like doing puzzle cache? That some people won't hunt any micro sized caches?

[+welch]

All I want to know is "How do I find out who is ignoring my caches?"

 

(Also are there any lawyers out there that can help me trademark this question? I figure if I charge a small fee to next 5,000 people that ask this question it could really help suppliment the cost of my geocaching addiction...)

[+mini cacher]

you can debate the usefulness of the "ignore" and/or "watch" features all you want. You can argue about all the different reason why a person should/would/could use those features. You can argue about all the ways GSAK can do things that site doesn't need to. We all know that everybody uses the site and the information and features in different ways. But the one thing that nobody wants to address is why you can see one number and not the other. The rest is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Edited July 28, 2007 by mini cacher

[+tozainamboku]

But the one thing that nobody wants to address is why you can see one number and not the other. The rest is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

That's easy to answer. It's historical. The watch list has existed far longer than the ignore list. TPTB decided long ago to put the number of people watching a cache on the cache page. Whenever it has been suggested that this number be removed, or when it got removed during a website upgrade recently, there was a huge outcry from the community who claim that the watch list count is useful in deciding if a cache is interesting or not. Of course, many people believe that the ignore list count would be equally useful in determine whether or not a cache is worth doing. More information, it is argued, is better than less.

 

There are a couple of other differences between the watch list and the ignore list. Both premium and not premium members can add a cache to their watch list. Howeve, only premium members can ignore a cache. Premium members can also use bookmark lists instead of the watch list to get notification when a cache is logged. Why not just have one number - This cache is on N bookmark lists?

 

There is a cost involved with adding features to website. TPTB probably look at the request here and decide what benefit cachers would get from a feature. Unless there are some good arguments in threads like this on how knowing the number of people ignoring a cache is going to significantly improve your geocaching experience it's probably not going to happen.

[+mini cacher]

Unless there are some good arguments in threads like this on how knowing the number of people ignoring a cache is going to significantly improve your geocaching experience it's probably not going to happen.

... and even with some good arguments for something... it's still probably not going to happen... speaking historically of course...

[+Prime Suspect]

Unless there are some good arguments in threads like this on how knowing the number of people ignoring a cache is going to significantly improve your geocaching experience it's probably not going to happen.

... and even with some good arguments for something... it's still probably not going to happen... speaking historically of course...

You're right. The trend seems to be towards not showing information of this type. It's more likely that the watchlist number would go away, rather than the ignore number being displayed.

[+mini cacher]

Unless there are some good arguments in threads like this on how knowing the number of people ignoring a cache is going to significantly improve your geocaching experience it's probably not going to happen.

... and even with some good arguments for something... it's still probably not going to happen... speaking historically of course...

You're right. The trend seems to be towards not showing information of this type. It's more likely that the watchlist number would go away, rather than the ignore number being displayed.

I find it humorous that some say not to display it because the many reasons why people ignore a cache makes it a useless number... while others say not to display it because apparently "information of this type" has some sort of magical power that needs to be bottled up to protect the world.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm not sure that the caches on my watch list or the caches on my ignore list are relevant to anyne but me.

The caches on my watch list are mostly ones that I have not found, or forgot to remove from the list after I did find it. Not sure why other people put them on their watch list. For all I know he cacher died after putting it on his/her watchlist, and forgot to remove it beforehand. I have no idea why on of my caches has fifteen watchers. Maybe they like to see the pcitures. Who knows?

Caches that I have put on my ignore list might or might not have anything to do with my perceived quality of that cache (not having found any of them). I don't do cemetery caches. My personal preference having nothing to do with the quality of the cache. If I do not succeed in talking my sister into renting kayaks this summer. the kayaking caches will go on my ignore list. That is not to say that they are not great caches, but rather that they are not in my capability. There are a few cachers whose caches I choose not to hunt for. The ones that I have done I consider to be a waste of time, so I'll ignore all of them.. Who know? Maybe they'll actually put out a great cache! And I'll miss it. But I'm not holding my breath. Yes I even threw a hissy fit one day! And put a lot of one cache owner's caches on my ignore list. This is not to say that they are not great caches. Just that I, personally, have chosen not to seek them.

The only value to either list is the value that I, personally, put on it.

So, to answer OP, the major difference between the two is that anyone can watch a cache, but only premium members can ignore a cache.