Bug with PQ preview and ignored caches

[+pppingme]

If I create a PQ (that does NOT have "are not on my ignore list" checked), and I put a cache on my ignore list, the cache does not show up on the PQ preview or google map preview (the bug) but it is included in the final PQ that gets emailed to me (as expected).

 

For reference, this is a straight forward PQ with no options selected except a date range, I'm not filtering out founds, ignored, or anything, there are no check boxes or options selected on the form except date range, search radius, alternate email, and zip results, although I can duplicate the bug without a date range selected as well.

[+pppingme]

This is still an issue.

[+AstroDav]

I think maybe people are a bit confused as to exactly what you are trying to do....I am a little bit too. If the caches on your ignore list are showing up on your pocket querys, & you don't want them to, then just select the "Not on my ignore list" option that you mentioned. This will include only the caches which you aren't ignoring. By leaving the box blank, then you are not setting any filters for the query, thus, you'll get all caches within the other guidelines you set.

 

Kinda like if you don't want caches you have already found to show up, but then you don't check the box beside "caches I haven't found" (or something similar to that)....then you're gonna get them anyway in the query, because you didn't set that filter for it.

 

You have to tell the pocket query exactly what you want & what you don't want, or it won't know. At least I think that answers what you are wanting to do.

[+pppingme]

No, there's no confusion.

 

I WANT them to show up in certain PQ's, so I don't check the box.

 

The breakdown is that on pq previews they don't show (the bug, I didn't ask that they be filtered out), but they ARE in the final pq's that get emailed (as expected, since I didn't choose to filter them out).

 

When you get two different sets of results from the same search criteria, that's a bug, even if you don't understand why I'm trying to use a particular filter.

[Keystone]

I think the change was introduced in response to complaints from people who didn't want to see ignored caches showing up on Geocaching.com Google maps.

[+tozainamboku]

I think the change was introduced in response to complaints from people who didn't want to see ignored caches showing up on Geocaching.com Google maps.

I believe this is true. The implementation that was chosen to hide ignored caches on the Geocaching.com Google maps seems to be always hide ignored caches. This is not particularly useful as there are some cases where a geocacher may want to see the ignored caches on the map. The obvious example is when a cacher is going to place a cache and wants to find an area were there are no caches within 500 feet. I bet the reviewers get a kick out of denying someone's cache because there is a cache on their ignore list within 500 ft. It would have been much better to add a check box on the map (Hide ignored cache) and only hide these caches when you check the box. If you must, leave it checked by default. As it is now if you create a PQ from your Ignore list you can't view it on Google maps (you get a message that no caches are returned). I hope that Groundspeak takes the time to go back and fix this and get it right.

Edited October 16, 2009 by tozainamboku

[Keystone]

I bet the reviewers get a kick out of denying someone's cache because there is a cache on their ignore list within 500 ft.

I get a kick out of publishing caches. There is no pleasure in denying a cache, except for knowing that I'm enforcing the guidelines.

 

Any reviewer who gets a kick out of denying caches is doing the job for the wrong reason.

[+AstroDav]

I bet the reviewers get a kick out of denying someone's cache because there is a cache on their ignore list within 500 ft.

I get a kick out of publishing caches. There is no pleasure in denying a cache, except for knowing that I'm enforcing the guidelines.

 

Any reviewer who gets a kick out of denying caches is doing the job for the wrong reason.

 

And I wish that ALL of them had the attitude that you mention about publishing caches. Unfortunately, all of them AREN'T like that. There's at least 3 that I've known, or read several reports about, that seem to get the kick out of proving how they are in a position to determine which caches get approved based on their OWN criteria....sometimes made up on the spot, regardless of what Groundspeak guidelines say.

 

It happens, regardless if some don't won't to accept that it does. And I'm in no way implying anything about you here, so please don't take it that way. But probaly over 50% of us that have hid a cache have had the misfortune of this occuring, or at least know some other hider who has.

 

Sad thing is, there's really no good cure for it. I'm the LAST person who would want more written guidelines on placement of caches. I think the current guidelines pretty well cover most situations as they are. But we unfortunately have just a few who take advantage of their authority.