Jump to content

Feature request: # of users ignoring this cache


Bloodwoosj

Recommended Posts

For several years now there's the possibility to see the number of users watching a cache.

For several reasons people like to watch a cache (there's a coin in this cache I'm following, judging to the logs this seems to be a cache that's very interesting, I'd like to see who is going to be FTF, etc. etc)

 

It would be very nice if one was also able to see the number of people ignoring a cache.

 

On the right hand side of the cache listing this could look a bit like this:

 

12 user(s) watching this cache.

7 user(s) ignoring this cache.

 

Greetz, Bloodwoosj

 

PS, this idea it was not my own, it has been suggested on the Dutch Forum.

I thought it to be fit to bring to your attention on the Groundspeak forum.

Link to post

I vote no...

 

We already have a "regular" request to see who the actual people are that are watching the cache...this comes through and people will want to know who it s that is ignoring the cache...

 

I just don't see a valid reason to know this information...

Link to post

The ignore feature is an option made available to the seeker and it is none of the cache owner's business that someone is ignoring their cache.

 

If that were true, then the number of cachers watching the cache would also not be the cache owner's business, because the watch listing feature is also solely available to the seeker.

 

This statement does not make sense.

Link to post

I don't see how this would be useful.

 

Well, the idea is that if just a few people are watching a listing, but lots (above average) are ignoring the listing, the cache owner might just start thinking why that is...

It is at least one way of showing to the cache owner that his/her cache is not interesting for some (or many) seekers and you may just start thinking why that is.

 

You know, if quality is just elevated a tiny bit by adding this feature, that would be beneficial for geocaching in general.

Link to post

The ignore feature is an option made available to the seeker and it is none of the cache owner's business that someone is ignoring their cache.

 

If that were true, then the number of cachers watching the cache would also not be the cache owner's business, because the watch listing feature is also solely available to the seeker.

 

This statement does not make sense.

 

The Number Watching is irrelevant as well.

Link to post

Sounds like a back-door attempt to have a rough rating system, which TPTB have shown no interest in implementing.

 

As has been pointed out before, many people "watch" through bookmark lists and PQs. Also, a lot of us ignore caches by just ignoring them.

 

(I watch every cache I have found. I ignore caches through GSAK, not through any list here. Just to give you an idea how badly this would act as a rating system.)

Link to post

I don't see how this would be useful.

 

Well, the idea is that if just a few people are watching a listing, but lots (above average) are ignoring the listing, the cache owner might just start thinking why that is...

It is at least one way of showing to the cache owner that his/her cache is not interesting for some (or many) seekers and you may just start thinking why that is.

 

You know, if quality is just elevated a tiny bit by adding this feature, that would be beneficial for geocaching in general.

Sounds like a "Witchhunt" is happening...there are much better ways to "elevate quality" than through public humiliation...

 

Also...there are other reasons for ignoring a cache besides "perceived quality"...

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to post

I don't see how this would be useful.

 

Well, the idea is that if just a few people are watching a listing, but lots (above average) are ignoring the listing, the cache owner might just start thinking why that is...

It is at least one way of showing to the cache owner that his/her cache is not interesting for some (or many) seekers and you may just start thinking why that is.

 

You know, if quality is just elevated a tiny bit by adding this feature, that would be beneficial for geocaching in general.

 

The ignore feature should not be used as a rating system. Just because I choose to remove it from my searches does not mean the cache isn't worth trying for by others.

Link to post

The ignore feature is an option made available to the seeker and it is none of the cache owner's business that someone is ignoring their cache.

 

If that were true, then the number of cachers watching the cache would also not be the cache owner's business, because the watch listing feature is also solely available to the seeker.

 

This statement does not make sense.

 

The Number Watching is irrelevant as well.

 

I believe that is YOUR opinion. Other people might think differently.

Like me, I think the number of people watching a cache says something about the interest in a cache. And I think that the number of people ignoring a cache says something about the non-interest in a cache. If that number increases, I believe it says something about how interesting one's cache is in general.

Link to post

The ignore feature is an option made available to the seeker and it is none of the cache owner's business that someone is ignoring their cache.

 

If that were true, then the number of cachers watching the cache would also not be the cache owner's business, because the watch listing feature is also solely available to the seeker.

 

This statement does not make sense.

 

The Number Watching is irrelevant as well.

 

I believe that is YOUR opinion. Other people might think differently.

Like me, I think the number of people watching a cache says something about the interest in a cache. And I think that the number of people ignoring a cache says something about the non-interest in a cache. If that number increases, I believe it says something about how interesting one's cache is in general.

I believe that is YOUR opinion as well...

 

There are many other reasons to ignore a cache other than YOUR perceived interest (or non-interest as seems to be in this case)...just as there are other reasons a cache is on one's watch list (it isn't always about watching a "great" cache all of the time)...

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to post

Never mind.

 

I just thought that it was all a bit awkward that the number of watching users is given, whereas the number of ignoring users is not.

 

It's not only the aspect of maybe being handy as some sort of rating system, it is silly that this discrepancy between watching and ignoring exists.

 

But it seems that every replier is really afraid of any negative indications it may comprehend.

 

Leave it, bye.

Edited by De Wijngemachtigde
Link to post

Never mind.

 

I just thought that it was all a bit awkward that the number of watching users is given, whereas the number of ignoring users is not.

 

It's not only the aspect of maybe being handy as some sort of rating system, it is silly that this discrepancy between watching and ignoring exists.

 

But it seems that every replier is really afraid of any negative indications it may comprehend.

 

Leave it, bye.

Afraid...no...

 

I would believe that my idea of a great cache is probably different than your idea of a great cache...but I could see this "feature" being abused...

 

I would rather see the "Watchers" number hidden as well...as BlueDeuce said...that number is irrelevant...

Link to post

To me it just makes no sense why the number of people watching a cache is an accepted feature while the number of people ignoring a cache is not accepted.

I agree, there is no sense in it being a kind of rating system. It's not the intention of the number of people watching a cache, neither is it the intention of the number of people ignoring a cache.

And no, revealing which users are ignoring the cache is not the intention either. This would be against privacy policy I guess (however I find it to be strange that PMO-cacheowners can see which users have taken a look at their caches?!).

Someone who wants the world to know they do ignore a certain cache can make a public bookmarklist of his/her caches being ignored.

Just since the ability to see the number of watchers it also would be very nice to see the number of people ignoring a cache. Without numbers being some kind of quality judge, as y'all know: there are lies, damned lies and statistics ;-)

Greetz Bloodwoosj.

Link to post

Sounds like a back-door attempt to have a rough rating system, which TPTB have shown no interest in implementing.

 

As has been pointed out before, many people "watch" through bookmark lists and PQs. Also, a lot of us ignore caches by just ignoring them.

 

(I watch every cache I have found. I ignore caches through GSAK, not through any list here. Just to give you an idea how badly this would act as a rating system.)

 

In my opinion anyone using this as a rating system is using numbers the wrong way.

Neither the number of people watching, nor the number of people ignoring a cache can or shoyld be used as a rating tool.

If people do so anyway, no one can prevent them, but hey, then you could argue why we don't want to abolish the number of people watching a cache...

Link to post

To me it just makes no sense why the number of people watching a cache is an accepted feature while the number of people ignoring a cache is not accepted.

I agree, there is no sense in it being a kind of rating system. It's not the intention of the number of people watching a cache, neither is it the intention of the number of people ignoring a cache.

And no, revealing which users are ignoring the cache is not the intention either. This would be against privacy policy I guess (however I find it to be strange that PMO-cacheowners can see which users have taken a look at their caches?!).

Someone who wants the world to know they do ignore a certain cache can make a public bookmarklist of his/her caches being ignored.

Just since the ability to see the number of watchers it also would be very nice to see the number of people ignoring a cache. Without numbers being some kind of quality judge, as y'all know: there are lies, damned lies and statistics ;-)

Greetz Bloodwoosj.

I completely agree with you that the number of people watching a cache should be removed from the page.
Link to post

Sounds like a back-door attempt to have a rough rating system, which TPTB have shown no interest in implementing.

 

As has been pointed out before, many people "watch" through bookmark lists and PQs. Also, a lot of us ignore caches by just ignoring them.

 

(I watch every cache I have found. I ignore caches through GSAK, not through any list here. Just to give you an idea how badly this would act as a rating system.)

 

In my opinion anyone using this as a rating system is using numbers the wrong way.

Neither the number of people watching, nor the number of people ignoring a cache can or shoyld be used as a rating tool.

If people do so anyway, no one can prevent them, but hey, then you could argue why we don't want to abolish the number of people watching a cache...

Great idea.

Link to post

Sounds like a back-door attempt to have a rough rating system, which TPTB have shown no interest in implementing.

 

I'm sorry if we gave this impression. We have an interest in implementing a good rating system, not a bad one.

Link to post

Sounds like a back-door attempt to have a rough rating system, which TPTB have shown no interest in implementing.

 

As has been pointed out before, many people "watch" through bookmark lists and PQs. Also, a lot of us ignore caches by just ignoring them.

 

(I watch every cache I have found. I ignore caches through GSAK, not through any list here. Just to give you an idea how badly this would act as a rating system.)

 

In my opinion anyone using this as a rating system is using numbers the wrong way.

Neither the number of people watching, nor the number of people ignoring a cache can or shoyld be used as a rating tool.

If people do so anyway, no one can prevent them, but hey, then you could argue why we don't want to abolish the number of people watching a cache...

Just my opinion...but I think there are more people in favor of eliminating the "seeing" of the number of people watching a cache...

 

Another personal opinion...I would rather see that number go away as well (# watching the cache)...Watchers and Ignorers have their own reasons for doing it, I really don't need to know the who, what where, why and how...heck, it really isn't anyone's business of how many...I really have no interest in that information either...

Link to post

Sounds like a back-door attempt to have a rough rating system, which TPTB have shown no interest in implementing.

 

I'm sorry if we gave this impression. We have an interest in implementing a good rating system, not a bad one.

 

Probably my fault for misinterpreting things that have been posted.

 

Very curious how you would do this rating (and if you do, please make it an element in PQ files.)

Link to post

If that were true, then the number of cachers watching the cache would also not be the cache owner's business, because the watch listing feature is also solely available to the seeker.

 

There's a point. Why is it important to list the number of people watching a cache?

 

Here's one reason why listing the number of ignores could be an issue.

I have my own account and we have a team account. We plant with our team account. If I find the cache alone I use this account to record the find. I have placed "ignores" on our hides since I don't want them to come up when I do a search. I would remove the ignores on our hides if they were visible on the page because I think people would interpret it as a sign that the cache was a negative experience for the ignorer.

 

I see the OP's point with regards to an ignore numbers feature serving as a type of feedback system - it might possibly help to improve cache hides. But I'm personally not in favor of a negative-type (stick) rating system. I'm all in favor of an award-type (carrot) rating system and hope we'll see something implemented in the near future (OpinioNate tells us that TPTB are considering it).

Link to post

...It would be very nice if one was also able to see the number of people ignoring a cache....

 

I love it. It would be handy feedback. Ignores tells the opposite information as the watches. Disinterest vs. Active Interest. Both are good feedback for cache owners to have.

 

Even more than the watchlist though you should not see who's ignoring what.

Link to post

...Here's one reason why listing the number of ignores could be an issue.

I have my own account and we have a team account. We plant with our team account. If I find the cache alone I use this account to record the find. I have placed "ignores" on our hides since I don't want them to come up when I do a search. I would remove the ignores on our hides if they were visible on the page because I think people would interpret it as a sign that the cache was a negative experience for the ignorer. ...

 

Good point. I use ignore for that reason in addtion to the "great a nother cache by our local maggot" factor and "ugh, I never want to see this stupid cache come up again on my find list" Which I need to employ more locally as some spots just are no fun to look for a cache in.

Link to post

We can't remove the number without an uproar. For every feature on the site there are 200 or more people who consider it THE feature. You guys know this!

 

We're in the early phases of planning a rating system. To get an idea of the direction in which we're headed you can check this out.

 

Edit: grammar

Edited by OpinioNate
Link to post

We can't remove the number without an uproar. For every feature on the site there are 200 or more people who consider it THE feature. You guys know this!

:P Yeah, we know...it is what makes the forums interesting afterall!!!

 

:P

 

Where is my Pepto...

Link to post

In my opinion anyone using this as a rating system is using numbers the wrong way.

Neither the number of people watching, nor the number of people ignoring a cache can or shoyld be used as a rating tool.

If people do so anyway, no one can prevent them, but hey, then you could argue why we don't want to abolish the number of people watching a cache...

 

I agree, as well.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
Link to post

I vote no...

 

We already have a "regular" request to see who the actual people are that are watching the cache...this comes through and people will want to know who it s that is ignoring the cache...

 

I just don't see a valid reason to know this information...

 

Agreed.

Link to post

The ignore feature is an option made available to the seeker and it is none of the cache owner's business that someone is ignoring their cache.

 

If that were true, then the number of cachers watching the cache would also not be the cache owner's business, because the watch listing feature is also solely available to the seeker.

 

This statement does not make sense.

 

The Number Watching is irrelevant as well.

 

I believe that is YOUR opinion. Other people might think differently.

Like me, I think the number of people watching a cache says something about the interest in a cache. And I think that the number of people ignoring a cache says something about the non-interest in a cache. If that number increases, I believe it says something about how interesting one's cache is in general.

 

Absolutely right De Wijngemachtigde :P

Link to post

The only reason I can see against seeing the number of people ignoring a cache is this:

 

Anytime you implement any sort of number/statistic, people strive to get themselves noticed. I could see some cachers putting in an effort to create caches that people want to ignore just so they can pat themselves on the back for being able to be singled out of the crowd.

Link to post

The Number Watching is irrelevant as well.

 

I do not agree with that. To me, it is useful information.

Seeing a high number on someone else's cache stimulates me to check out why the cache is said to be so interesting.

Seeing a high number on my own cache tells me I have raised interest from a fair number of people.

Link to post

Well, I'm happy to read that there's work being done on a rating system! I look forward to it.

 

Re the original post, I don't agree with the notion that "ignore" will be useful to weed out poor quality caches.

 

I know that many of my owned hides are on ignore lists, I've been told that. I'm not offended, nor do I plan to change those hides to make them appeal to those who currently ignore them.

 

People who don't own boats ignore boat caches. People who don't want to hike miles ignore longer hiking caches. People who don't like working puzzles ignore puzzle caches.

 

These are all good caches >>>for people who like that sort of thing.

Link to post

Well, I'm happy to read that there's work being done on a rating system! I look forward to it.

 

Re the original post, I don't agree with the notion that "ignore" will be useful to weed out poor quality caches.

 

 

I'm sorry, but there's no mention about that in my original post.

There's no intention whatsoever to weed out poor quality this way.

In fact, you will not find anything mentioning quality in my original post.

I just stated that it would be nice if there was something like the number of people ignoring a cache vs. the number of people watching a cache.

Greetz Bloodwoosj.

Link to post

We can't remove the number without an uproar. For every feature on the site there are 200 or more people who consider it THE feature. You guys know this!

 

We're in the early phases of planning a rating system. To get an idea of the direction in which we're headed you can check this out.

 

Edit: grammar

 

AHHH!, interesting!!!

 

But to address the OP:

As a cache owner, I might find this useful input.

 

If more than {some number} of users are ignoring my cache, perhaps I should archive it. :(

OTOH, if more than {some number} of users are ignoring my evil puzzle, I can cackle with glee! :anibad:

Link to post

OP,

 

Sound like a negative rating method to me. One that is entirely unfair.

I ignore podcaches, not because they suck but because they reduce my Mio's run time and I refuse to bring an mp3 player with me.

Yeah yeah yeah, I could transcribe them, but I'm to lazy so... ignore.

Link to post

Bloodwoosj, my apologies, you are correct, neither your original nor follow-up posts expressed any interest in the ignore number beyond curiosity about that number.

Others suggested that it represent a rating in negative terms.

 

In any case, it seems more likely that the watcher number might go away (when a rating system is in use) then that the ignore number will be made visible.

Link to post

I don't see how this would be useful.

 

Well, the idea is that if just a few people are watching a listing, but lots (above average) are ignoring the listing, the cache owner might just start thinking why that is...

It is at least one way of showing to the cache owner that his/her cache is not interesting for some (or many) seekers and you may just start thinking why that is.

 

You know, if quality is just elevated a tiny bit by adding this feature, that would be beneficial for geocaching in general.

 

Except that there are too many reasons to watch or ignore a cache to base quality ratings on this.

I watch some caches that I had a special experience at. I watch some caches simply because they are high traffic and I enjoy seeing that. I watch some caches that I dnf to see if the next seeker finds it. I watch some caches because I help maintain them. Only one of these four motives could be a quality measure.

 

I ignore caches that I helped place, but do not own. Several of them are extreme multis placed by a group for one of its members to find as their 1K celebratory find. They are all excellent caches, and are also on my watchlist. But I ignore them as I don't want them showing up in my PQ's as unfound and needing to be found. I helped hide them, I cannot claim a find on them too. Knowing that I am ignoring those caches will give a very false postive on your attempt at a quality rating.

 

I can only think of 1 cache that I thought so awful that I didn't want to find it or see in my PQ's and decided to ignore. It was placed under a pedestrian bridge near an overnight shelter for residentially challenged men. If you don't get inside by 11, the doors are locked and you are SOL for shelter, so many times they camp under the bridge. I stopped to look once, but the living quarters were occupied. So I drove on, posted a note with my observations, and applied the ignore feature. But other caches seemed to enjoy finding that one presumably when no one was 'home'.

 

Your methodology for location 'better' caches is flawed based on my usage of these features. YMMV

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to post

We can't remove the number without an uproar. For every feature on the site there are 200 or more people who consider it THE feature. You guys know this!

 

We're in the early phases of planning a rating system. To get an idea of the direction in which we're headed you can check this out.

 

Edit: grammar

 

Take all the time you need time planning. As many years as you need, decades if necessary.

Link to post

We can't remove the number without an uproar. For every feature on the site there are 200 or more people who consider it THE feature. You guys know this!

Maybe you could remove it without making it look like it has been removed:

"You are watching this listing with up to 200 or more other users"

 

:(

Link to post

We can't remove the number without an uproar. For every feature on the site there are 200 or more people who consider it THE feature. You guys know this!

:( Yeah, we know...it is what makes the forums interesting afterall!!!

 

;)

 

Where is my Pepto...

 

If you want I'll send you some. I probably owe you a bottle or three. :)

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...