Jump to content

What type of caches do you ignore?


Kit Fox

Recommended Posts

The only time I ignore caches is when I find out the cache owner takes great pride in deliberately making "soft coords" for their caches just to "make them a bit more challenging" to find. Many of these same people seem to take pleasure in choosing spots that are full of garbage or obnoxious prickly weeds, too--and then brag about the tough time people have finding their cache.

 

There is nothing particularly creative about posting bad coords on purpose.

 

It would be like telling someone to meet you at 100 Main Street and then watching them try to find you there while you stood at 140 Main street laughing at them.

 

Oh yeah, that's a riot.

 

Nope, ignore cache. :)

Link to comment

PUZZLES!!! I can't stand them (well most of them anyways)! Also, I try to avoid electric boxes, birdhouses, sprinkler head caches etc. Won't hide them and won't seek them.

 

I have far too many puzzles surrounding my home area, a couple of hiders place mainly those.

 

Unless it is specifically stated on the cache page, how would you know if it is hidden in an electrical box, birdhouse, etc? Do you just walk up, get a sense that it could be there, and abort the mission if you get that feeling?

 

YEP...pretty much! If the hider is acting at least somewhat responsible and marks the container (like they should for a cache of these kinds), I will KNOW I'm walking away, if not, I guess I miss out! No biggie to me as I am not out to "win" any kind of speed challenge lol

Link to comment

PUZZLES!!! I can't stand them (well most of them anyways)! Also, I try to avoid electric boxes, birdhouses, sprinkler head caches etc. Won't hide them and won't seek them.

 

I have far too many puzzles surrounding my home area, a couple of hiders place mainly those.

 

Unless it is specifically stated on the cache page, how would you know if it is hidden in an electrical box, birdhouse, etc? Do you just walk up, get a sense that it could be there, and abort the mission if you get that feeling?

 

YEP...pretty much! If the hider is acting at least somewhat responsible and marks the container (like they should for a cache of these kinds), I will KNOW I'm walking away, if not, I guess I miss out! No biggie to me as I am not out to "win" any kind of speed challenge lol

 

I just think of how many times I've walked up and could have sworn it was in the electrical box only to find it elsewhere. Well whatever works for ya. We all play the game differently. :)

Link to comment

328 caches on my ignore list.

 

Most are micros or any cache description that includes the words "easy park and grab"

A few water caches that I probably will never find.

A few puzzle caches that I've given up on solving.

A few caches that I helped hide.

A few caches that I hid, and were adopted by other cachers when I moved away. (I have these on my watchlist)

Recently, any cache with SBUX in the title and any cache that states "look out for muggles!" or uses the phrase "stealth mode"

Link to comment

PUZZLES!!! I can't stand them (well most of them anyways)! Also, I try to avoid electric boxes, birdhouses, sprinkler head caches etc. Won't hide them and won't seek them.

 

I have far too many puzzles surrounding my home area, a couple of hiders place mainly those.

 

Unless it is specifically stated on the cache page, how would you know if it is hidden in an electrical box, birdhouse, etc? Do you just walk up, get a sense that it could be there, and abort the mission if you get that feeling?

 

YEP...pretty much! If the hider is acting at least somewhat responsible and marks the container (like they should for a cache of these kinds), I will KNOW I'm walking away, if not, I guess I miss out! No biggie to me as I am not out to "win" any kind of speed challenge lol

 

I just think of how many times I've walked up and could have sworn it was in the electrical box only to find it elsewhere. Well whatever works for ya. We all play the game differently. :)

 

And there's the problem with those types of hides, people think they're there and then check. Why I avoid them as much as possible!

 

btw...I never said I didn't do an extensive check of the area before walking away, I said I wouldn't check there and, if not findable with my search, will chalk it up to an electric box, a birdhouse or a sprinkler head (whichever fits the situation at hand).

 

Also, of all my hides, I would bet NONE would be mistaken for a cache of any of these types!

Link to comment

I’ve never understood the point of the cache ignore list. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

Using the cache ignore list to hide a cache from myself while viewing search results is like walking through a library and pretending a certain book isn’t on the shelf.

 

I can choose to read the book, or I can choose not to read the book. The book is still right there on the shelf, however, whether or not I pretend it’s not there.

That's the opposite of what using the ignore list is like. If you put it on the ignore list, it is not on the shelf. You don't have to pretend it's not there; it's not there.

 

I think mine are all parking lot micros. Not micros, not parking lots. Parking lot micros. I don't enjoy searching in public places, and micros take that much longer. I must be defective.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
I’ve never understood the point of the cache ignore list. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

Using the cache ignore list to hide a cache from myself while viewing search results is like walking through a library and pretending a certain book isn’t on the shelf.

 

I can choose to read the book, or I can choose not to read the book. The book is still right there on the shelf, however, whether or not I pretend it’s not there.

That's the opposite of what using the ignore list is like. If you put it on the ignore list, it is not on the shelf. You don't have to pretend it's not there; it's not there.

I'm impressed.

 

I only wish my own attempts at self-hypnosis were that effective.

 

When I try to pretend a cache doesn’t exist it never seems to truly go away – other people keep on enjoying it as if it were still there. What’s your secret?

 

Seriously: you see my point, don’t you? If I don’t want to hunt a particular cache, I don’t hunt it. Hiding a cache from myself and pretending it doesn’t exist, once I’ve chosen not to hunt it, doesn’t provide me with any additional value.

 

The only argument I’ve seen that kinda sorta makes any sense to me is that the ignore feature might help those who, unlike me, cache paperless. If there is a handful of caches that keep getting in the way and causing some kind of practical distress when one uses one’s PQ then sure, why not? Put them on ignore. If one finds, however, that that list of undesired caches has gone from handful to hundreds, then it seems to me that some well-chosen wholesale filtering instead would be far more effective than individually cherry-picking hundreds of unwanted listings one at a time.

 

Same with my library analogy. If, for example, I only want to read books on history or science then I can easily use the existing cataloguing system to filter away all the cookbooks, travel books, celebrity biographies and auto maintenance guides. There is no need for me to go through one at a time and hypnotize myself into believing each of those books isn’t there on an individual basis.

 

... but then again I’ve never used a PQ, so I guess I wouldn’t know.

 

All I know is the ignore feature doesn’t do anything for me that I can’t just as easily do otherwise. For example: there are two or three dozen lake caches within a few miles of my house that require watercraft to access. Some even require scuba gear. I have very little interest in seeking those hides, yet even though I see them in the listings every time I call up a search or scan the local map I simply choose not to hunt them, and instead go after something else I prefer. To further pretend that they aren't there via electronic means doesn’t change anything.

 

Once I become aware of a particular cache I can either

(1) do the cache,

(2) not do the cache, or

(3) really really really not do the cache.

 

Some people see that as three options. I see only two ... but then what do I know?

Link to comment

328 caches on my ignore list.

 

Most are micros or any cache description that includes the words "easy park and grab"

A few water caches that I probably will never find.

A few puzzle caches that I've given up on solving.

A few caches that I helped hide.

A few caches that I hid, and were adopted by other cachers when I moved away. (I have these on my watchlist)

Recently, any cache with SBUX in the title and any cache that states "look out for muggles!" or uses the phrase "stealth mode"

 

Wow, it's almost as if I wrote this post myself. :) However, I have seen the term's "park-n-grab" and "stealth" over-exaggerated in the cache descriptions of caches I am actually interested in. Probably a "monkey see, monkey do" thing on the part of the cache placers. The most blatant example, I've seen a regular 300 feet from parking with no trail, next to a scenic babbling brook, with a cache description that calls it a "quick park-n-grab". :)

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
Seriously: you see my point, don’t you? If I don’t want to hunt a particular cache, I don’t hunt it. Hiding a cache from myself and pretending it doesn’t exist, once I’ve chosen not to hunt it, doesn’t provide me with any additional value.

 

Actually it does. When you run a PQ you can filter out caches on your ignore list, giving you more caches of the kind you like to find in your PQ. Most GPS units have a limited capacity for cache waypoints, so why take up that capacity with caches you have no intention of finding?

 

It's more like having a book on your shelf that you don't like and taking it off the shelf and putting in a box in your basement. The book is still in your house, but there is more room on your shelf for the books you do like.

Link to comment
I’ve never understood the point of the cache ignore list. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

Using the cache ignore list to hide a cache from myself while viewing search results is like walking through a library and pretending a certain book isn’t on the shelf.

 

I can choose to read the book, or I can choose not to read the book. The book is still right there on the shelf, however, whether or not I pretend it’s not there.

That's the opposite of what using the ignore list is like. If you put it on the ignore list, it is not on the shelf. You don't have to pretend it's not there; it's not there.

I'm impressed.

 

I only wish my own attempts at self-hypnosis were that effective.

 

When I try to pretend a cache doesn’t exist it never seems to truly go away – other people keep on enjoying it as if it were still there. What’s your secret?

 

Seriously: you see my point, don’t you? If I don’t want to hunt a particular cache, I don’t hunt it. Hiding a cache from myself and pretending it doesn’t exist, once I’ve chosen not to hunt it, doesn’t provide me with any additional value.

 

The only argument I’ve seen that kinda sorta makes any sense to me is that the ignore feature might help those who, unlike me, cache paperless. If there is a handful of caches that keep getting in the way and causing some kind of practical distress when one uses one’s PQ then sure, why not? Put them on ignore. If one finds, however, that that list of undesired caches has gone from handful to hundreds, then it seems to me that some well-chosen wholesale filtering instead would be far more effective than individually cherry-picking hundreds of unwanted listings one at a time.

 

Same with my library analogy. If, for example, I only want to read books on history or science then I can easily use the existing cataloguing system to filter away all the cookbooks, travel books, celebrity biographies and auto maintenance guides. There is no need for me to go through one at a time and hypnotize myself into believing each of those books isn’t there on an individual basis.

 

... but then again I’ve never used a PQ, so I guess I wouldn’t know.

 

All I know is the ignore feature doesn’t do anything for me that I can’t just as easily do otherwise. For example: there are two or three dozen lake caches within a few miles of my house that require watercraft to access. Some even require scuba gear. I have very little interest in seeking those hides, yet even though I see them in the listings every time I call up a search or scan the local map I simply choose not to hunt them, and instead go after something else I prefer. To further pretend that they aren't there via electronic means doesn’t change anything.

 

Once I become aware of a particular cache I can either

(1) do the cache,

(2) not do the cache, or

(3) really really really not do the cache.

 

Some people see that as three options. I see only two ... but then what do I know?

I see what you're saying, but I don't follow it to the same conclusion. We have "I'm not interested; don't show me that again" vs "I'm not interested; I'm just going to slide my eyeball over that one next time you show it to me". I prefer not having the caches I don't plan to ever do show up on my radar. It's noise in my searches when I'm planning. I don't wish them removed from existence; I don't derive joy from ignoring them. I just have no need to know about them.

 

And like I said, I don't ignore micros as a whole, just parking lot micros. I don't know of a tool other than the ignore list to filter those from searches.

 

It's more like having a book on your shelf that you don't like and taking it off the shelf and putting in a box in your basement. The book is still in your house, but there is more room on your shelf for the books you do like.

Thanks, Brian. I was going to add something about the librarians running ahead of me and hiding books, but that makes more sense.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
I’ve never understood the point of the cache ignore list. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

Using the cache ignore list to hide a cache from myself while viewing search results is like walking through a library and pretending a certain book isn’t on the shelf.

 

I can choose to read the book, or I can choose not to read the book. The book is still right there on the shelf, however, whether or not I pretend it’s not there.

That's the opposite of what using the ignore list is like. If you put it on the ignore list, it is not on the shelf. You don't have to pretend it's not there; it's not there.

I'm impressed.

 

I only wish my own attempts at self-hypnosis were that effective.

 

When I try to pretend a cache doesn’t exist it never seems to truly go away – other people keep on enjoying it as if it were still there. What’s your secret?

 

Seriously: you see my point, don’t you? If I don’t want to hunt a particular cache, I don’t hunt it. Hiding a cache from myself and pretending it doesn’t exist, once I’ve chosen not to hunt it, doesn’t provide me with any additional value.

 

The only argument I’ve seen that kinda sorta makes any sense to me is that the ignore feature might help those who, unlike me, cache paperless. If there is a handful of caches that keep getting in the way and causing some kind of practical distress when one uses one’s PQ then sure, why not? Put them on ignore. If one finds, however, that that list of undesired caches has gone from handful to hundreds, then it seems to me that some well-chosen wholesale filtering instead would be far more effective than individually cherry-picking hundreds of unwanted listings one at a time.

 

Same with my library analogy. If, for example, I only want to read books on history or science then I can easily use the existing cataloguing system to filter away all the cookbooks, travel books, celebrity biographies and auto maintenance guides. There is no need for me to go through one at a time and hypnotize myself into believing each of those books isn’t there on an individual basis.

 

... but then again I’ve never used a PQ, so I guess I wouldn’t know.

 

All I know is the ignore feature doesn’t do anything for me that I can’t just as easily do otherwise. For example: there are two or three dozen lake caches within a few miles of my house that require watercraft to access. Some even require scuba gear. I have very little interest in seeking those hides, yet even though I see them in the listings every time I call up a search or scan the local map I simply choose not to hunt them, and instead go after something else I prefer. To further pretend that they aren't there via electronic means doesn’t change anything.

 

Once I become aware of a particular cache I can either

(1) do the cache,

(2) not do the cache, or

(3) really really really not do the cache.

 

Some people see that as three options. I see only two ... but then what do I know?

 

KBI, when I bring up the closest caches in my area, the first several pages are mostly puzzles. Since I don't like puzzles, I can place them on my ignore list and then no more of those pesky question marks clogging up my search! SURE, they still exist, but I don't have to deal with them.

Link to comment
Seriously: you see my point, don’t you? If I don’t want to hunt a particular cache, I don’t hunt it. Hiding a cache from myself and pretending it doesn’t exist, once I’ve chosen not to hunt it, doesn’t provide me with any additional value.

 

Actually it does. When you run a PQ you can filter out caches on your ignore list, giving you more caches of the kind you like to find in your PQ. Most GPS units have a limited capacity for cache waypoints, so why take up that capacity with caches you have no intention of finding?

 

It's more like having a book on your shelf that you don't like and taking it off the shelf and putting in a box in your basement. The book is still in your house, but there is more room on your shelf for the books you do like.

Now that makes sense.

 

Like I said: I don't cache paperless, therefore the ignore feature does me no good. If the ignore feature helps you to make the most of your PQ capacity – AND if it does so more effectively than only using filters – then it obviously provides you value, and you should use it.

 

Beyond that, I see no use – but again, I’m no expert on paperless, so don’t listen to me. I’m only talking about my own experience.

 

The mere existence of the ignore feature certainly doesn’t hurt anything; therefore I also see no reason to be against it. I am not anti-ignore; I just don’t see any use for it myself.

Link to comment
Like I said: I don't cache paperless, therefore the ignore feature does me no good. If the ignore feature helps you to make the most of your PQ capacity – AND if it does so more effectively than only using filters – then it obviously provides you value, and you should use it.

 

It has little to do with paperless. If you load PQs to your GPS like many of us do, then the ignore feature can be helpful.

 

Even if you don't, it can reduce clutter on the search screen. If you decide you don't care for multis, or puzzles, or caches hidden by Briansnat, why even have them show up on your nearest cache search? Especially if most of the caches near your home coordinates are multis, or puzzles, or hidden by Briansnat.

Link to comment

I ignore ALL caches EXCEPT when......

 

Given my own personal happiness in cache finding criteria, NO cache of any type is off the menue if if the cache:

 

#1 Is conveniently located to where I am at the moment and I'm in sufficient frame of mind for cache finding and have the time. I don't often waste gas just to find caches willy-nilly, but the occasional smiley just for the heck-uv-it is always a welcome diversion.... Even if it's the dreaded LPC. :lol:

#2 Has sufficient word of mouth to warrant the expenditure of my quality time and gas. :lol:

#3 Without word of mouth, the cache page and logs have piqued my interest and it isn't too far outta my way. :D

#4 On my MUST DO list for which, I'd be willing to take quite a detour or even plan an outing around... See also #s 2 & 3. :D

 

These criteria keep me happy with my cachin' activity, but reduce my finds to an average of 100 to 125 a year. :lol:

 

No. I have never used the ignore feature. Might as well stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and shout, "LalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaAAAAAaaaaa!" Same difference. :lol:

 

The fact that a cache exists that I don't care to ever find doesn't harsh my cachin' buzz in the slightest. I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on...

This seems to be a new theme for you--being entertained by those who care about this hobby.

 

No. I have never used the ignore feature. Might as well stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and shout, "LalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaAAAAAaaaaa!" Same difference. :rolleyes:

Isn't that exactly what you do if you don't participate on other geocaching sites? "Lalalalal! Those other caches don't exist!" Groundspeak ignores them. That's the reason they can publish a cache right next to a terracache. They've done it. My terracache existed long before the geocache was published only a short distance away.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

The fact that a cache exists that I don't care to ever find doesn't harsh my cachin' buzz in the slightest. I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't believe anyone in this thread has said they mind if a given cache exists. I don't care if there's a cache attached to every stop sign in the state. I'm not going to look for them, though, and not having them appear when I do a search makes planning a cache run much easier.

 

I really don't understand the mockery of people taking responsibility for their own fun, as has been so often argued should be done in these forums.

Link to comment

The fact that a cache exists that I don't care to ever find doesn't harsh my cachin' buzz in the slightest. I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't believe anyone in this thread has said they mind if a given cache exists. I don't care if there's a cache attached to every stop sign in the state. I'm not going to look for them, though, and not having them appear when I do a search makes planning a cache run much easier.

 

I really don't understand the mockery of people taking responsibility for their own fun, as has been so often argued should be done in these forums.

 

You hit the nail on the head. Whenever someone complains that they dislike a certain type of cache, a certain group is quick to tell them "Well then don't hunt them!" When we use tools provided to improve our fun quotient, we get ridiculed yet again. :lol:

Link to comment

Since the the advent of the ignore list, i'm curious as to what type of caches you choose to ignore...

 

I ignore caches that I helped place that would show up on my closest list.

I also ignore caches that I suspect are place by any sock puppet incarnation of our cache maggot.

Any single cache that stands out as worthy of being ignored. These are rare caches. I may not have any on my ignore list.

 

That's about it.

Link to comment

Seems like several people have their reasons for using ignore lists or ignoring certain caches once on the scene.

 

I fall into the "don't ignore" camp. I have to wonder if those that fall into the other camp also can be described as:

 

* Has large number of finds

* Lives in a cache rich area

* Has a large amount of time to go geocaching

 

For those that have a large number of finds I suspect that it's easier to ignore caches than for those that may not have been caching long. While there are many that will state that they are "not in it for the numbers" I suspect that most, at one time, had goals (for some it might be 1000 finds) the wanted to reach. Once a goal has been met it would be a lot easier to start ignoring caches for whatever reason.

 

For those living in a cache rich area it would be a lot easier to ignore certain types of caches when there are lots of unfound caches still within a reasonable proximity to ones home coordinates. As it is, I already drive about 15 miles before I get get to the nearest unfound cache. If I started ignoring caches it would be driving a much greater distance just to find a cache. I have this thing about trying to find every cache within a minimum distance from my home coordinates (currently at just over 14 miles). If I ignored any caches I couldn't say that I found every caches within XX miles.

 

I have no idea how much time geocachers in general have available to go geocaching. In my case, I *usually* have maybe 2-3 hours on one of the weekend days that I can go out. If something new comes up I might be able to grab it after work, but only if it's within 5 miles or so from home, and then only if it's in the right direction of where I travel. With a limited amount of time to spend geocaching, and the closest caches around 1/2 hour drive or so from home that often limits the amount of time I'm actively going from cache to cache to an hour or so a week. If I started ignoring caches, at some point I wouldn't have enough time to find *any* geocaches (except for new ones closer to home) in the amount of time I have available to me.

Link to comment
The fact that a cache exists that I don't care to ever find doesn't harsh my cachin' buzz in the slightest. I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on...

This seems to be a new theme for you--being entertained by those who care about this hobby.

(Coyote: You quoted Snoogans out of context. I modified your quote, re-inserting and bolding the part you edited out.)

 

Your response is clearly a straw man.

 

Snoogans didn’t say he was "entertained by those who care about this hobby." He said he is entertained by those whose "cachin' buzz is harshed" by the mere existence of a cache they don’t care to ever find.

 

There is a huge difference – unless, of course, one believes that the ONLY people who are allowed to claim they "care about the hobby" are the people who are irrationally tortured over the mere awareness that a cache exists somewhere that may not entertain them. Is that the way you see it?

 

No. I have never used the ignore feature. Might as well stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and shout, "LalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaAAAAAaaaaa!" Same difference. :rolleyes:

Isn't that exactly what you do if you don't participate on other geocaching sites? "Lalalalal! Those other caches don't exist!" Groundspeak ignores them. That's the reason they can publish a cache right next to a terracache. They've done it. My terracache existed long before the geocache was published only a short distance away.

Are you suggesting that every caching website which chooses not to list every listing from every other caching website is doing something inherently wrong?

Link to comment

Seems like several people have their reasons for using ignore lists or ignoring certain caches once on the scene.

 

I fall into the "don't ignore" camp. I have to wonder if those that fall into the other camp also can be described as:

 

* Has large number of finds

 

For those that have a large number of finds I suspect that it's easier to ignore caches than for those that may not have been caching long. While there are many that will state that they are "not in it for the numbers" I suspect that most, at one time, had goals (for some it might be 1000 finds) the wanted to reach. Once a goal has been met it would be a lot easier to start ignoring caches for whatever reason.

 

I have just over 1300 finds. I've been to enough parking lots, homeless encampments, and caches hidden in full view of homeowners. I got turned off on this type of cache, so I generally don't hunt for them anymore. There are plenty of scenic caches waiting for me to go find them.

 

 

Lives in a cache rich area

 

For those living in a cache rich area it would be a lot easier to ignore certain types of caches when there are lots of unfound caches still within a reasonable proximity to ones home coordinates. As it is, I already drive about 15 miles before I get get to the nearest unfound cache. If I started ignoring caches it would be driving a much greater distance just to find a cache. I have this thing about trying to find every cache within a minimum distance from my home coordinates (currently at just over 14 miles). If I ignored any caches I couldn't say that I found every caches within XX miles.

 

Once I stopped being a "radius slave" my geocaching became more fun.

 

Has a large amount of time to go geocaching

 

I have no idea how much time geocachers in general have available to go geocaching. In my case, I *usually* have maybe 2-3 hours on one of the weekend days that I can go out. If something new comes up I might be able to grab it after work, but only if it's within 5 miles or so from home, and then only if it's in the right direction of where I travel. With a limited amount of time to spend geocaching, and the closest caches around 1/2 hour drive or so from home that often limits the amount of time I'm actively going from cache to cache to an hour or so a week. If I started ignoring caches, at some point I wouldn't have enough time to find *any* geocaches (except for new ones closer to home) in the amount of time I have available to me.

 

I have very little free time for geocaching. I prefer to spend what little time I have finding caches that entertain me most. I'm perfectly content making a 9 hour hike, and finding three caches like I did they day I found #1100. I don't enjoy finding the maximum number of geocaches per hour because most time, caches conducive to this are the most unappealing to me.

Link to comment
My ignore list includes parking lot caches, housing tract (including apartment complexes) caches, and trashy area hides. I derive zero pleasure from these caches, so I don't bother hunting them.

What I find interesting is that you try to force this same agenda on others and talk down upon people that hide those types of caches. The whole idea about the ignore feature is that it only affects you and the caches you wish to make invisible. While you may not like those caches, others do and others may not be capable of that 9hr hiking trek. The scope of Geocaching is broad enough to allow seekers to search for the caches they want to find. Let them play the game the way they want to and you do the same.

Link to comment

There is nothing on my ignore list. I do skip caches that don't interest me. If I get there and see that it's in an unappealing area I'll get back in my car without searching, or won't even get out of my car. Unappealing to me includes most parking lots, homeless encampments, residential neighborhoods, guardrails in non-descript places, apartment complexes behind strip malls, litter strewn lots, etc.

Pretty much my thinking. Add those for which there is not any safe parking, I don't park on the highways to hunt a micro on a fenceline.

Link to comment
My ignore list includes parking lot caches, housing tract (including apartment complexes) caches, and trashy area hides. I derive zero pleasure from these caches, so I don't bother hunting them.

What I find interesting is that you try to force this same agenda on others and talk down upon people that hide those types of caches. The whole idea about the ignore feature is that it only affects you and the caches you wish to make invisible. While you may not like those caches, others do and others may not be capable of that 9hr hiking trek. The scope of Geocaching is broad enough to allow seekers to search for the caches they want to find. Let them play the game the way they want to and you do the same.

 

I have no idea why you would launch into that "lecture" over what you quoted. Unless that's a personal messgae for KF from something else he's said in the past. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
My ignore list includes parking lot caches, housing tract (including apartment complexes) caches, and trashy area hides. I derive zero pleasure from these caches, so I don't bother hunting them.

What I find interesting is that you try to force this same agenda on others and talk down upon people that hide those types of caches. The whole idea about the ignore feature is that it only affects you and the caches you wish to make invisible. While you may not like those caches, others do and others may not be capable of that 9hr hiking trek. The scope of Geocaching is broad enough to allow seekers to search for the caches they want to find. Let them play the game the way they want to and you do the same.

 

The topic was "What type of caches do you ignore?"

 

I gave up on being honest in my logs (for caches I found distasteful) well over a year and a half ago. I avoid these caches now. Everyone is entitled to hide caches within the guidelines that they see fit. I'm just as entitled to avoid them, and have an opinion of their existance.

 

If you derive pleasure from caches I dislike, good for you.

Link to comment
I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on...

This seems to be a new theme for you--being entertained by those who care about this hobby.

 

:lol: So... I don't care, because I choose to consider all caches on the menue and not use the arbitrary ignore feature..... :rolleyes:

 

You go ahead and believe what you wanna believe. :rolleyes:

 

I tryyyy not to take myself or this activity too seriously. It's something I do for FUN and relaxation. :D

 

No. I have never used the ignore feature. Might as well stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and shout, "LalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaAAAAAaaaaa!" Same difference. :lol:

Isn't that exactly what you do if you don't participate on other geocaching sites? "Lalalalal! Those other caches don't exist!" Groundspeak ignores them. That's the reason they can publish a cache right next to a terracache. They've done it. My terracache existed long before the geocache was published only a short distance away.

 

Funny. Isn't it mutual? :lol:

 

I use terracaching.com to to get around the totally necessary, but none the less arbitrary .1 rule.

 

I would not be happy if gc.com started a new .1 rule from all tc & n caches. :lol:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
The fact that a cache exists that I don't care to ever find doesn't harsh my cachin' buzz in the slightest. I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on...

This seems to be a new theme for you--being entertained by those who care about this hobby.

(Coyote: You quoted Snoogans out of context. I modified your quote, re-inserting and bolding the part you edited out.)

 

Your response is clearly a straw man.

 

Snoogans didn’t say he was "entertained by those who care about this hobby." He said he is entertained by those whose "cachin' buzz is harshed" by the mere existence of a cache they don’t care to ever find.

 

There is a huge difference – unless, of course, one believes that the ONLY people who are allowed to claim they "care about the hobby" are the people who are irrationally tortured over the mere awareness that a cache exists somewhere that may not entertain them. Is that the way you see it?

 

No. I have never used the ignore feature. Might as well stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and shout, "LalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaAAAAAaaaaa!" Same difference. :rolleyes:

Isn't that exactly what you do if you don't participate on other geocaching sites? "Lalalalal! Those other caches don't exist!" Groundspeak ignores them. That's the reason they can publish a cache right next to a terracache. They've done it. My terracache existed long before the geocache was published only a short distance away.

Are you suggesting that every caching website which chooses not to list every listing from every other caching website is doing something inherently wrong?

 

I find the boldened part to be a bit abrasive. Just because YOU don't believe in using the ignore button doesn't mean the ignore button has no use! What is so irrational about opting NOT to have question mark after question mark (as is my case) show up when I wish to use the "closest to home" function? Since my computer crashed and I needed to buy a new one, I cannot download caches to GPS (software and or GPS recognition problems I have yet to figure out). No PQs, no loading multiple caches. So, I use the "closest to home" search often!

 

Personally, I find it irrational to NOT use the ignore button when I'm obviously not going to search for those caches. Sure, I know the cache still exists, but I don't have to look at the cache in my searches if I so choose! I find it irrational that some can't understand why this feature is useful and would take jabs at others who do.

Link to comment

Since the the advent of the ignore list, i'm curious as to what type of caches you choose to ignore.

 

My ignore list includes parking lot caches, housing tract (including apartment complexes) caches, and trashy area hides. I derive zero pleasure from these caches, so I don't bother hunting them.

 

So far I've never used the ignore list, maybe someday... I've got a long life of caching ahead of me I hope... But in the 7 1/2 years I've cached so far I've never found a cache that wasn't worth looking for, I've always said I'll look for any cache and unless something major happens I don't see that changing. I try to look at it this way, The hider obviously thought it was a good idea, so I'm just grateful they gave me something to find.

Link to comment
The fact that a cache exists that I don't care to ever find doesn't harsh my cachin' buzz in the slightest. I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on...

This seems to be a new theme for you--being entertained by those who care about this hobby.

(Coyote: You quoted Snoogans out of context. I modified your quote, re-inserting and bolding the part you edited out.)

 

Your response is clearly a straw man.

 

Snoogans didn’t say he was "entertained by those who care about this hobby." He said he is entertained by those whose "cachin' buzz is harshed" by the mere existence of a cache they don’t care to ever find.

 

There is a huge difference – unless, of course, one believes that the ONLY people who are allowed to claim they "care about the hobby" are the people who are irrationally tortured over the mere awareness that a cache exists somewhere that may not entertain them. Is that the way you see it?

 

I find the boldened part to be a bit abrasive. Just because YOU don't believe in using the ignore button doesn't mean the ignore button has no use! What is so irrational about opting NOT to have question mark after question mark (as is my case) show up when I wish to use the "closest to home" function? Since my computer crashed and I needed to buy a new one, I cannot download caches to GPS (software and or GPS recognition problems I have yet to figure out). No PQs, no loading multiple caches. So, I use the "closest to home" search often!

 

Personally, I find it irrational to NOT use the ignore button when I'm obviously not going to search for those caches. Sure, I know the cache still exists, but I don't have to look at the cache in my searches if I so choose! I find it irrational that some can't understand why this feature is useful and would take jabs at others who do.

My "jab" was not at those who use the ignore feature.

 

And it wasn’t a jab. It was a question. I was asking CoyoteRed to verify his clearly implied premise that a cacher can’t claim to be a true supporter of the game unless that cacher is unduly distressed by the mere existence of caches they don’t like.

 

CoyoteRed’s strange assertion (and my resulting question) had nothing to do with the ignore feature. He was off-topic and so was I. I knew my question was off-topic, but curiosity got the best of me.

Link to comment
I find the boldened part to be a bit abrasive. Just because YOU don't believe in using the ignore button doesn't mean the ignore button has no use!

Agreed.

 

You must have missed this post:

 

The mere existence of the ignore feature certainly doesn’t hurt anything; therefore I also see no reason to be against it. I am not anti-ignore; I just don’t see any use for it myself.
Link to comment

I have a few caches on my ignore list, most of them from one particular hider. I'm not a fan of "needle in a haystack" hides with cutesy hints. I'm sure some people enjoy these types of caches and that's great for them, but there just not my cup of tea and I'm happy to be able to ignore them.

Edited by 9Key
Link to comment

I’ve never understood the point of the cache ignore list. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

Using the cache ignore list to hide a cache from myself while viewing search results is like walking through a library and pretending a certain book isn’t on the shelf.

 

I can choose to read the book, or I can choose not to read the book. The book is still right there on the shelf, however, whether or not I pretend it’s not there.

 

Using your anology the ignore list would fine tune what you see on the shelf. When you looked the books you read would have nice checks on them. The books you don't want to read (if any) wouldn't be there once you flagged them. It would let you focus on the books you might want to read.

 

Reality is it's a tool that fits well with how some people use the site and doesn't fit well with how others use the site. For the former it's great. For the latter the ignore list is ignored.

Link to comment

I still have zero caches on my ignore list. There's just not anything about a cache that makes me want to ignore it. I must be defective, but I've been able to find something enjoyable about every cache I've searched for.

 

I agree. The only ones I have considered adding to an ignore list (which I don't use) is ones I went out after, and they either aren't what they said (a multi listed as a traditional, etc), or aren't there, haven't been for a while, and the owner seems uninterested in maintaining them lke they are supposed to.

Link to comment

Hey KF! Long time no see.

 

I ignore caches that are known to be missing and are not being maintained, caches that have been disabled forever, a couple of puzzle caches that I have no idea of solving, caches in restricted areas, caches in area with hostile neighbors / cops, anything that requires rock climbing equipment or a boat. When I lived the Antelope Valley I ignored all the caches along the Rowher Flats / Texas Canyon truck trail because I don't own a 4x4 or a high clearance vehicle and because the area is closed to public access.

Edited by supertbone
Link to comment

Once a goal has been met it would be a lot easier to start ignoring caches for whatever reason.

Ironically, I started using the ignore button when I was at around 100 finds. It wasn't until I got near 6 or 7 hundred that I stopped using it, relying on PQs to avoid those voids of creativity spewed out by the hopelessly uninspired.

 

What I find interesting is that you try to force this same agenda on others and talk down upon people that hide those types of caches.

Yeah Kit, quit trying to force your evil agenda on us! We see the violence inherent in the system! Quit repressing us!

:lol::lol::rolleyes::D:D:lol::rolleyes::D:lol:

Link to comment

Puzzle caches !! When they get published and I get the email on it, I always check out the cache page. If I have to spend more than about 1-2 minutes on it, it's history. Usually. They ought to have a separate website for puzzle caches, maybe puzzaches.com or something. :D

 

None on my ignore list are due to who the cacher is, its difficulty, its container, its location, or anything other than whether or not its some kind of cute little puzzle that was slipped into the geocaching community.

 

Apparently not too many people really like puzzle caches. They do not generate anywhere near the amount of cacher traffic like real geocaches do. That's not to allege that most geocachers can't figure out the puzzle, its just that they don't care to.

 

Puzzle caches, bah-humbug !! :D

Link to comment
I was asking CoyoteRed to verify his clearly implied premise that a cacher can’t claim to be a true supporter of the game unless that cacher is unduly distressed by the mere existence of caches they don’t like.

That's a long stretch from what I said. Also, completely misses the point where I thought his statement was part of a new trend for him. You know, the part where he's "entertained" by the actions of others. The context was irrelevant beyond that which was source of his entertainment. Never mind trying to apply mutual exclusivity to my notion which implies no such thing--thus the reason I quoted the way I did.

 

Why do you always try to read way too much into what is actually said? Oh, wait...

Link to comment
Apparently not too many people really like puzzle caches. They do not generate anywhere near the amount of cacher traffic like real geocaches do

There are those who would argue that the number of visits a cache receives each year is not a valid measurement of that cache's quality.

The lamest P&G film canister is going to generate more logs than those caches which require a modicum of effort.

I'd much rather see 1 lengthy log a year, expressing the finder's experience at my cache, than 100 logs saying "TNLNSL TFTC".

Puzzles and multis require more work than simply stepping out of your Prius and popping open a film canister.

Link to comment

Since the the advent of the ignore list, i'm curious as to what type of caches you choose to ignore.

 

I only have seven on my ignore list.

 

Most are famous for awful coords or locations (100% briars or ticks), or involve an all-day venture to get only the one cache.

 

One or two are there just because it seems like a good place for them.

Edited by WebChimp
Link to comment

<snip>

 

Apparently not too many people really like puzzle caches. They do not generate anywhere near the amount of cacher traffic like real geocaches do. That's not to allege that most geocachers can't figure out the puzzle, its just that they don't care to.

 

<snip>

 

Maybe that's true, maybe not. But the logs I get from cachers on my puzzle caches are a lot more cheerful and appreciative then the logs I get on one of my few PnGs. ('Quick find. SL. TFTC') And I certainly enjoy reading those logs a lot more as well!

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Apparently not too many people really like puzzle caches. They do not generate anywhere near the amount of cacher traffic like real geocaches do. That's not to allege that most geocachers can't figure out the puzzle, its just that they don't care to.

 

<snip>

 

Maybe that's true, maybe not. But the logs I get from cachers on my puzzle caches are a lot more cheerful and appreciative then the logs I get on one of my few PnGs. ('Quick find. SL. TFTC') And I certainly enjoy reading those logs a lot more as well!

 

Simple then, don't hide P&G's! lol Not a lot of people leave TNLN logs on my many caches, and none are puzzles! (that I recall, but I could be off on this)

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Apparently not too many people really like puzzle caches. They do not generate anywhere near the amount of cacher traffic like real geocaches do. That's not to allege that most geocachers can't figure out the puzzle, its just that they don't care to.

 

<snip>

 

Maybe that's true, maybe not. But the logs I get from cachers on my puzzle caches are a lot more cheerful and appreciative then the logs I get on one of my few PnGs. ('Quick find. SL. TFTC') And I certainly enjoy reading those logs a lot more as well!

 

Simple then, don't hide P&G's! lol Not a lot of people leave TNLN logs on my many caches, and none are puzzles! (that I recall, but I could be off on this)

Link to comment

I ignore any cache without an adventure out in nature somewhere with some distance to it. I want to be taken somewhere I have never been and want to bushwack some if possible. I want caches with really good logs that people are impressed with. A good puzzle is fine if I am in the mood for it, but sometimes I work the puzzle and forget the cache. The best ones have many trails to come back and explore, rock features, history, views, some picture taking ops. Get me out there. !!!!!!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...