Jump to content

Ignore all Caches from a User

balsenknusperkeks

By balsenknusperkeks
in Website

Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Volvo Man

+Volvo Man

Posted
Posted

This could easily be done in GSAK, or else you could just set up your ignore list, simply by using the all caches hidden by user feature.

 

Seems like alot of work to request GC to do because of a spat, I also don't think its very in keeping with the spirit of geocaching to have such a feature available. I can see a couple of other uses, such as ignoring users caches that have a penchant for poor quality hides, but I still don't think its in the spirit.

Link to comment
edscott

+edscott

Posted
Posted

This could easily be done in GSAK, or else you could just set up your ignore list, simply by using the all caches hidden by user feature.

 

Seems like alot of work to request GC to do because of a spat, I also don't think its very in keeping with the spirit of geocaching to have such a feature available. I can see a couple of other uses, such as ignoring users caches that have a penchant for poor quality hides, but I still don't think its in the spirit.

 

Agree on the "spat" front, but when a particular hider continually puts out garbage caches it would be nice to proactively ignore them.

Link to comment
L0ne.R

+L0ne.R

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why does the "spirit of geocaching" involve maintaining a private database of cache info, rather than being able to effectively filter cache info at the geocaching.com site itself?

 

I agree.

 

I don't get why some people eagerly want folks to buy external software and devices to read that software (e.g. Palm) rather then have the site (the one we pay premium fees to) implement a solution. Maybe they have stock in the external products.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment
JABs

+JABs

Posted
Posted
I would like to see a feature which enables me to ignore all caches from a certain user!

 

Explaination:

I run in troubles wich another cacher. Now i decided not to seek anny of his caches furthermore.

Unfortunately he has >200 caches out there.

It would be great to exclude them all with a single buttonpress. :anibad:

 

 

 

Had the same problem so put all his caches onto my ignore list then made it public with special title.

Link to comment
ChileHead

+ChileHead

Posted
Posted

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

 

I'd never want to ignore all a cacher's caches. Even the worst cache hider has something worthwhile sometimes. I just add individual caches to my ignore list if I don't want to see them.

Link to comment
edscott

+edscott

Posted
Posted

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

 

I'd never want to ignore all a cacher's caches. Even the worst cache hider has something worthwhile sometimes. I just add individual caches to my ignore list if I don't want to see them.

 

I'd use it. Yes, I might ignore an average or maybe even marginally good cache once in awhile but I'll pass on that.. it's sort of like getting your lunch out of a dumpster. :)

Link to comment
Harry Dolphin

+Harry Dolphin

Posted
Posted

I guess I'm old fashioned. I have no problem adding caches to my Ignore List. It doesn't take very long. The problem would be with 'challenge' caches. Two caches on a local challenge would have been put automatically on my Ignore List. (Of course, I could have manually taken them off the list...)

So, I see no probem with the way it's done now.

Link to comment
AZcachemeister

AZcachemeister

Posted
Posted

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

 

I'd never want to ignore all a cacher's caches. Even the worst cache hider has something worthwhile sometimes. I just add individual caches to my ignore list if I don't want to see them.

 

After finding ten 'low budget' (former food container) caches with bad co-ordinates and in pointless locations hidden by one particular hider...

 

I would find this feature helpful.

 

As it is I can search for new caches hidden by them and ignore the caches individually, but since I have no intention of EVER seeking any of their caches, an owner-based ignore feature would be helpful.

Link to comment
cerberus1

+cerberus1

Posted
Posted

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

I would think that it would be at least 200. <_<

 

In case someone's keepin' count...

I'd like to have this feature also.

We're not big on PMO caches. I'd like to ignore the few cachers in this area who have ONLY PMO caches. The only way to place them on the ignore list is to go on the very same page we wanted to ignore (also allowing the CO to "see" we visited - the reason we don't care for them), just to hit the "ignore" buton.

 

I also agree with others that the SITE should provide this option. I shouldn't have to apply outside-the-site programs . The site put this in place and should be able to give us an option.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

 

I'd never want to ignore all a cacher's caches. Even the worst cache hider has something worthwhile sometimes. I just add individual caches to my ignore list if I don't want to see them.

 

After finding ten 'low budget' (former food container) caches with bad co-ordinates and in pointless locations hidden by one particular hider...

 

I would find this feature helpful.

 

As it is I can search for new caches hidden by them and ignore the caches individually, but since I have no intention of EVER seeking any of their caches, an owner-based ignore feature would be helpful.

Exactly, plus it's much easier to un-ignore a few caches versus ignoring hundreds hidden by some of these people I'd like to ignore...
Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

 

I'd never want to ignore all a cacher's caches. Even the worst cache hider has something worthwhile sometimes. I just add individual caches to my ignore list if I don't want to see them.

 

I agree with the first statement that very, very few people whould ever use this feature. But I'd still like it.

The 2nd statement I used to agree with, but then less then a year ago someone not terribly far from either of us came along. I'd love to ignore those now more than 100 placements, (with no end in sight I'm sure) with one click.

 

Other than that, I agree. I can think of someone with about 90 hides, and I only see 7 of them. But there are indeed 7.

 

And boy, double spacing and white space aside, the new release really really hides ignored caches. Now I don't even see them if I were surfing someone else's finds!! That's a first right there.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

 

I'd never want to ignore all a cacher's caches. Even the worst cache hider has something worthwhile sometimes. I just add individual caches to my ignore list if I don't want to see them.

 

I agree with the first statement that very, very few people whould ever use this feature. But I'd still like it.

The 2nd statement I used to agree with, but then less then a year ago someone not terribly far from either of us came along. I'd love to ignore those now more than 100 placements, (with no end in sight I'm sure) with one click.

 

Other than that, I agree. I can think of someone with about 90 hides, and I only see 7 of them. But there are indeed 7.

 

And boy, double spacing and white space aside, the new release really really hides ignored caches. Now I don't even see them if I were surfing someone else's finds!! That's a first right there.

I'm not sure how you guys can draw a conclusion that not many people would use this feature without any providing any data to support that conclusion. The small sample in this and other threads clearly shows the opposite to be true. I also think that as areas get flooded with caches, parsing tools will be something that will be in higher demand. IMO not finding caches hidden by certain people that are playing a different version of the game than you are is a great way to parse. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

I think the number of people who would actually want and use this feature to be too small to make it worth the effort.

 

I'd never want to ignore all a cacher's caches. Even the worst cache hider has something worthwhile sometimes. I just add individual caches to my ignore list if I don't want to see them.

 

I agree with the first statement that very, very few people whould ever use this feature. But I'd still like it.

The 2nd statement I used to agree with, but then less then a year ago someone not terribly far from either of us came along. I'd love to ignore those now more than 100 placements, (with no end in sight I'm sure) with one click.

 

Other than that, I agree. I can think of someone with about 90 hides, and I only see 7 of them. But there are indeed 7.

 

And boy, double spacing and white space aside, the new release really really hides ignored caches. Now I don't even see them if I were surfing someone else's finds!! That's a first right there.

I'm not sure how you guys can draw a conclusion that not many people would use this feature without any providing any data to support that conclusion. The small sample in this and other threads clearly shows the opposite to be true. I also think that as areas get flooded with caches, parsing tools will be something that will be in higher demand. IMO not finding caches hidden by certain people that are playing a different version of the game than you are is a great way to parse.

 

Just my personal observations. I'm a pretty social Geocacher, and I only know a couple of other people who use the ignore list, period. I even hang out with several "numbers cachers" who would never dream of ignoring any cache. And shockingly, they even appear to like me. :unsure:

 

I have a theory (and I could be totally wrong), that TPTB know how few people really use the ignore list, so the ignore all caches by a user feature is a very low priority, if we're even ever going to see it.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)
I have a theory (and I could be totally wrong), that TPTB know how few people really use the ignore list, so the ignore all caches by a user feature is a very low priority, if we're even ever going to see it.
Then, I think you'd be surprised. I use it and know many people that use it all the time. One of the most common uses is when someone won't check on their caches after many DNFs. There are some people that are terrible at maintaiing their caches. I'd ignore all the cache hidden by these people if I could because they waste people's time. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Arrow42

+Arrow42

Posted
Posted

There is a particular cacher in my area who seems to never maintain their caches. He (or she, I guess) keeps placing new ones and occasionally finding them, but it's almost like a 50/50 shot if the cache is missing or in bad shape when I see his name on the GPS.

 

So... I'd be tempted to use a feature like this. Even if I wasnt, it only adds a useful feature to the website with no downside.

Link to comment
knabino

+knabino

Posted
Posted

I would use the ignore user feature as well. Just to be able to ignore 1 psychotic hider would make an extra $5/year worth it to me. When a hider has 100+ owned caches, it would be much handier to click 'ignore user' than to have to go in constantly clicking on their cache pages to hide those.

Link to comment
thedeadpirate

+thedeadpirate

Posted
Posted

Now that it appears that Groundspeak's stance on power trails has changed, I would like to toss my support behind implementing an "ignore all caches by user" feature.

 

I don't really care if some yoko decides to plant 70 or 500 caches all in a row, but we should have some way of easily ignoring that many caches at once. Doing it one by one is a royal pain in the butt.

 

Power Trail

 

New 'Caches in a Day' Record Imminent?

 

ACKKK! Its contagious!

Link to comment
markandlynn

markandlynn

Posted
Posted

Thinking on this a bit more id like a way to ignore all caches listed in a search, for example in the UK id like to ignore all caches with Motorway Mayhem or Skeg to Ness in the title with one click.

 

Please help us filter these out GC for those after the scenery or history or decent long walks with good views these just clog up your nearest unfounds and pocket queries until you individually click ignore.

Link to comment
L0ne.R

+L0ne.R

Posted
Posted

Now that it appears that Groundspeak's stance on power trails has changed, I would like to toss my support behind implementing an "ignore all caches by user" feature.

 

I don't really care if some yoko decides to plant 70 or 500 caches all in a row, but we should have some way of easily ignoring that many caches at once. Doing it one by one is a royal pain in the butt.

 

Power Trail

 

New 'Caches in a Day' Record Imminent?

 

ACKKK! Its contagious!

 

Another problem is that 500 cache announcements showing up in our cell phones is a pain to deal with. Maybe there should be a limit to the number of caches that one CO can publish per day.....perhaps 25 per day.

 

The CO can post in their description that it's a power trail of 500 caches. Then those who want to wait and do them in one fell swoop know that'll it take 20 days for all 500 caches to be published (if the max is 25 per day).

Link to comment
Tequila

+Tequila

Posted
Posted

I'll add my emphatic "YES" vote to this proposal.

 

The GSAK solution would work, but I'd rather not have them taking up slots in my PQs in the first place, thereby relieving me (and the poor little PQ hamsters) of the need to run more PQs to get the caches I want.

 

What he said.

Link to comment
ranebo2001

ranebo2001

Posted
Posted

I am a noobie on day 2 of geocaching and I am all for that "iggy" option. I wouldn't want to spend most of my day manually ignoring a hider only to find that I no longer have time to go hunting. Just my opinion, thanx for reading.

As that seat belt commercial says: "One click, its that quick" or is that a different commercial? :laughing:

Link to comment
AZcachemeister

AZcachemeister

Posted
Posted

I said 'YES' to this before, and I'm saying 'YES' again.

Two years ago, I wouldn't have understood the problem.

Nowadays there are more and more hiders whose typical style just doesn't jibe with what I want to find.

Given that ignoring ALL of their hides might remove a few gems from my list, the removal of all that dross is much more beneficial.

Link to comment
Westacular

+Westacular

Posted
Posted

I think a big part of the desire for this feature is directly related to the number of power trails that have started appearing.

 

Regardless of ones' opinions on power trails, I think most can accept that they're not for everyone: it's an aspect of the game that many geocachers aren't interested in.

 

The problem is that power trails involve large numbers of caches, which fill up PQs, and there's no efficient and effective way of filtering them out.

 

They usually involve more caches than one should reasonably expect someone to ignore by going through them all one-by-one, and using tools like GSAK doesn't get around the problem of them filling up PQs.

 

Things that would work, to various degrees:

1) adding "power trail" attribute

2) adding the ability to bulk-import a public bookmark list (eg into your ignore list), or the ability to bulk-ignore caches by checking them off on a search page.

3) adding an "ignore all caches from a given user" feature.

 

Any of these options would be much better than the current methods available.

 

Power trails are mostly made of up micro/small caches, with D/T <= 2, and you could filter those out, but:

 

Currently, when defining a PQ, everything has an implicit AND. This means you can't set up one to find everything EXCEPT low-d + low-t micros -- and simply filtering out one of those properties would remove some interesting or unusual caches; e.g., I'd like to still see a D:1.5/T:5 micro cache located at the top of a tree, and also an urban 4/1 micro with an exceptionally clever hide.

 

Even then, things like 1.5/1 micros I don't mind on their own -- they can be a nice break while biking through town, for instance -- but I have no interest in ever spending several hours walking a trail picking up dozens of identical, simple caches every 200m like clockwork.

 

It seems clear that there are many others who feel the same and would love to have a convenient method to ignore this trend.

Link to comment
ADTCacheur

+ADTCacheur

Posted
Posted
I would like to see a feature which enables me to ignore all caches from a certain user!

 

Explaination:

I run in troubles wich another cacher. Now i decided not to seek anny of his caches furthermore.

Unfortunately he has >200 caches out there.

It would be great to exclude them all with a single buttonpress. :P

 

 

 

Had the same problem so put all his caches onto my ignore list then made it public with special title.

I think that's a little too far, especially because since you said you had the same problem as the OP, and his was just a personality conflict... It just seems harsh to post that their caches are horrible to the general public because you don't like the person.

Link to comment
Ed & Julie

+Ed & Julie

Posted
Posted (edited)

I too would use an "Ignore all caches by XXX cacher".

 

Here are several caches in my area who's caching style is 180 degrees from how I play this game. These cachers are prolific hiders with 100's (hundreds and hundreds) of caches placed.

 

Yes, I can filter them out via GSAK, but that doesn't hide the caches from the Groundspeak maps when I do a quick search like an ignored cache is hidden on the maps. Yes, I can try to ignore the caches one at a time, but I find myself ignoring dozens of caches a week (plus the hundreds and hundreds they placed before I hit my "can't-stand-their-style limit.

Edited by Ed & Julie
Link to comment
GOF and Bacall

GOF and Bacall

Posted
Posted
I would like to see a feature which enables me to ignore all caches from a certain user!

 

Explaination:

I run in troubles wich another cacher. Now i decided not to seek anny of his caches furthermore.

Unfortunately he has >200 caches out there.

It would be great to exclude them all with a single buttonpress. :)

 

 

 

Had the same problem so put all his caches onto my ignore list then made it public with special title.

I think that's a little too far, especially because since you said you had the same problem as the OP, and his was just a personality conflict... It just seems harsh to post that their caches are horrible to the general public because you don't like the person.

 

While I would find a "ignore all by finder" option useful I'd not make the list public. That would be unacceptably rude.

Link to comment
JL_HSTRE

+JL_HSTRE

Posted
Posted
Every time this suggestion comes up I put in another vote for it.

It would be great to not have to do this manually.

 

I have not yet had the need to use such a feature, but I have seen enough posts over the 6 months I've been here to agree it seems in enough demand to implement.

Link to comment
N7MFT

+N7MFT

Posted
Posted
I have a theory (and I could be totally wrong), that TPTB know how few people really use the ignore list, so the ignore all caches by a user feature is a very low priority, if we're even ever going to see it.
Then, I think you'd be surprised. I use it and know many people that use it all the time. One of the most common uses is when someone won't check on their caches after many DNFs. There are some people that are terrible at maintaiing their caches. I'd ignore all the cache hidden by these people if I could because they waste people's time.

 

Interesting thing here. I have seen many caches with multiple DNF's. If there are two DNF;s I will not spend very much time looking for it, and I will log as needs maintenance. I have also seen comments on a find that state the cache needs maintenance but no needs maintenance log has been logged. Part of this issue is cachers that do not know how to, or do not care to use the needs maintenance log. Sure it is an extra log but it will save time for other cachers and it will let you know if you were unable to find a cache because it was not there.

Link to comment
GeekBoy.from.Illinois

+GeekBoy.from.Illinois

Posted
Posted

There is a cache hider in my general area which has been the source of this request from several members. This hider is all over the place on their hides. They will give a placement a terrain rating of 2.0 but you have to climb 15 feet up into a tree to find a small bison (almost a nano) that has been placed in a hole they drilled into a living tree. They have another cache with a terrain rating of 1.5 that you are hanging out over a fast flowing river (not a stream) to retrieve and replace the log. Then they have a cache with a terrain of 2.0 or 2.5 that is hidden under a pile of sticks at the base of a tree. Heck, I think they even rated a lamp skirt in a Target parking lot as a terrain 2.0. It would be one thing if their ratings were consistently under what they should be, but to be over/under like theirs tend to be, it makes it nearly impossible to guess what to look for.

 

Add to it facts like this cacher has been banned by Groundspeak on multiple occasions, and that they tend to make their caches PMO so they can keep an eye on who is looking at them. If you view their cache page and do not log their cache, or view it multiple times, they have been known to send harassing emails to people for those actions. This hider also likes to delete logs and flame in forums.

 

All in all, they are people I don't care to associate with. If I hunt their caches, it is sheer accident as I got one in a PQ and didn't see who the owner was before I searched. To a large extent, I agree with the sentiment of other local cachers in that rather than waste a cache slot in my PQ, I would like a way to never see one of their caches downloaded to my PC/GPSr. Yes, I can set ignores on their existing caches, but if they hid a new one, I will still get it until I ignore it. I would rather be able to just set a feature to protect myself from the psychos so I don't have to worry about them at all.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...