Feature Request - User Block List

[+curnew]

There are a couple of users in our area that have been vandalizing geocachers for specific users.

Although there has been no proof, it has been very obvious who this person is.

 

I would like a feature where I can create a list of users who CAN NOT view our owned caches.

 

Sort of like the opposite of the Ignore list but for cache owners.

 

(eg: the user went and scratched the final cords to our puzzle multi INTO the first way point)

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff

[+flask]

oh, man. that's not gonna fly.

 

while i can sympathize with your frustration, a "feature" like this could easily devolve into blocking peopel from looking for your caches just because you don't like them.

 

top o' which, there's nothing to stop people from creating new accounts.

[GOF and Bacall]

We can't get 'em to give us an ignore all caches by user option. This one is very unlikely to happen. Good luck though.

[+curnew]

oh, man. that's not gonna fly.

 

while i can sympathize with your frustration, a "feature" like this could easily devolve into blocking peopel from looking for your caches just because you don't like them.

 

top o' which, there's nothing to stop people from creating new accounts.

 

I agree, however, if someone doesn't like you, what's to stop them from muggling all of your caches?

 

It's more unlikely that someone will not create a new account and then pay for a premium membership just to muggle them.

[+pppingme]

All it would take is for the user to create another account, cache no longer hidden...

[+curnew]

All it would take is for the user to create another account, cache no longer hidden...

 

Just to clarify, this feature would only work if the cache was a "Subscriber Only" cache.

[+pppingme]

All it would take is for the user to create another account, cache no longer hidden...

 

Just to clarify, this feature would only work if the cache was a "Subscriber Only" cache.

Info isn't that hard to find on PM (sub only) caches. I've documented here in the forums before how you don't even have to be logged in to find the coords for a PM cache.

 

Also, I think you'd be surprised how many people actually have 2 pm accounts so they can pull more pq's and things like that.

[+NMHacker]

I definitely think some kind of solution should be offered.

I imagine this is a rare occurrence, but I'm sure Jeff isn't the only person in the world who's had trouble like this.

 

I see no reason not to add the functionality that any subscriber can choose to ban any other user(s), who are either paid subscriber or not.

 

...Of course, to make it more fully useful, it'd be nice to have the ability to see a list of all users who have recently viewed your caches. This would help to find & ban users who may be creating a new account every time you ban them.

 

I know this is a lot of programming, but would surely prove useful to many.

 

..My 2¢

 

-Adam

[+curnew]

...Of course, to make it more fully useful, it'd be nice to have the ability to see a list of all users who have recently viewed your caches.

 

This functionality is already present, but the cache has to be a subscriber only cache.

 

[+pppingme]

...Of course, to make it more fully useful, it'd be nice to have the ability to see a list of all users who have recently viewed your caches. This would help to find & ban users who may be creating a new account every time you ban them.

Of course there are probably 1/2 dozen ways to view a cache page without actually going to the cache page.

 

Google caches them, they are in PQ's, non pm pages can be viewed without being logged in (minus coords), coords for any cache can be figured out without being logged in or viewing the page, oh, and as already mentioned, what your asking for is already there for "pm" caches.

[+gearhedd]

You are all forgetting on key thing here.... the cache is owned by the cache owner in this case Jeff. We should have the right and tools to allow our caches to stay safe and limit those we want to find the cache if we believe they are destroying them. If there was proof they might be kicked out of geocaching but until the proof is there. I'm hoping this is an isolated problem...

 

Some things we can do now:

Subscribers Only... does limit some... even if there is a way around it.

Multi Caches... some stay away from them

Puzzle Cache... some people can't solve them

 

Is it not better to have a way to block someone, then to excuse them publically without proof. Only the cache owner and "guilty party" would know.

 

The problem I see is they would use a friends account that is in good standings to log the cache. I believe there is a way to log the cache even if your not a PM... or blocked which is similar in this case. I believe if a friend who is a PM logs the cache and keeps it on the PM only cache page and then logs off and you log on, you are then able to log the cache.. I might be wrong here but that is what I have heard.

[+K0BKL]

When I had caches, I would archive them if they were vandalized.

I no longer have caches of my own now.

[+curnew]

When I had caches, I would archive them if they were vandalized.

I no longer have caches of my own now.

 

I would hate for it to come to that. Shutting down all our caches seem a little drastic, but might be nessisary.

 

ps: Kinda odd how the o-rings on all the bison tubes of a whole series can go 'missing' after less then 10 finders?

 

Jeff

[+Prime Suspect]

You are all forgetting on key thing here.... the cache is owned by the cache owner in this case Jeff. We should have the right and tools to allow our caches to stay safe and limit those we want to find the cache if we believe they are destroying them. If there was proof they might be kicked out of geocaching but until the proof is there. I'm hoping this is an isolated problem...

GC.com will NEVER let the site turn into a bunch of private caching cliques, which is exactly where your ideas are heading. You're wasting your breath. List them elsewhere, if you're that bothered.

[+curnew]

I know... but it never hurts to ask

[+sbell111]

ps: Kinda odd how the o-rings on all the bison tubes of a whole series can go 'missing' after less then 10 finders?

Depending on the weather, that's really not that odd, at all. This is especially true when you consider that you are using generic 'bison' tubes that frequently have substandard o-rings.

 

You are all forgetting on key thing here.... the cache is owned by the cache owner in this case Jeff. We should have the right and tools to allow our caches to stay safe and limit those we want to find the cache if we believe they are destroying them. If there was proof they might be kicked out of geocaching but until the proof is there. I'm hoping this is an isolated problem...

GC.com will NEVER let the site turn into a bunch of private caching cliques, which is exactly where your ideas are heading. You're wasting your breath. List them elsewhere, if you're that bothered.

Agreed. Edited January 8, 2010 by sbell111

[+DanOCan]

You are all forgetting on key thing here.... the cache is owned by the cache owner in this case Jeff. We should have the right and tools to allow our caches to stay safe and limit those we want to find the cache if we believe they are destroying them.

 

You may own the cache container, but gc.com owns the listing service. They give you three choices:

- List it for all members

- List it for premium members

- List it somewhere else

 

I don't like this idea because gc.com would simply de-evolve into a series of caches where people only let their friends hunt. When you put a cache out there for the world to find, you take your chances.

[+9Key]

When I had caches, I would archive them if they were vandalized.

I no longer have caches of my own now.

 

I would hate for it to come to that. Shutting down all our caches seem a little drastic, but might be nessisary.

 

ps: Kinda odd how the o-rings on all the bison tubes of a whole series can go 'missing' after less then 10 finders?

 

Jeff

Not odd at all here in Texas. I replace the substandard o-rings that some with the tubes with a #7 size o-ring from the hardware store. You can buy a little box of them for $2. Well worth the cost to keep your bison's dry.

 

Ok - returning you back on topic!~

[+curnew]

When I had caches, I would archive them if they were vandalized.

I no longer have caches of my own now.

 

I would hate for it to come to that. Shutting down all our caches seem a little drastic, but might be nessisary.

 

ps: Kinda odd how the o-rings on all the bison tubes of a whole series can go 'missing' after less then 10 finders?

 

Jeff

Not odd at all here in Texas. I replace the substandard o-rings that some with the tubes with a #7 size o-ring from the hardware store. You can buy a little box of them for $2. Well worth the cost to keep your bison's dry.

 

Ok - returning you back on topic!~

 

The issue is that other bison tubes that I purchased in the same batch and have been in the field for more then 3 months with over 50 finders are still fine. I just found it odd that after this cacher visited this series, all the orings are missing. It seems very odd.

[+BlueDeuce]

There are a couple of users in our area that have been vandalizing geocachers for specific users.

Although there has been no proof, it has been very obvious who this person is.

 

I would like a feature where I can create a list of users who CAN NOT view our owned caches.

 

Sort of like the opposite of the Ignore list but for cache owners.

 

(eg: the user went and scratched the final cords to our puzzle multi INTO the first way point)

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff

 

Raising the bar in this manner is not going to do it. These people are doing it for attention and setting up the system to ignore them is not gonna do it.

 

Your community needs to ignore their antics so the problem cacher learns that their efforts have been wasted and don't invoke a reaction.

 

And/Or the targeted people need to make their caches difficult enough that the bad cachers will have to work for it. Most won't want to and will move on to easier drama games.

Edited January 9, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+power69]

oh, man. that's not gonna fly.

 

while i can sympathize with your frustration, a "feature" like this could easily devolve into blocking peopel from looking for your caches just because you don't like them.

 

top o' which, there's nothing to stop people from creating new accounts.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. oh would the FTF hounds HATE THAT!!!!!!!!

"place hounds on block", wait for SOMEONE ELSE to log ftf THEN remove the block!

never happen but nice to think about[as a hider]

[+power69]

All it would take is for the user to create another account, cache no longer hidden...

 

Just to clarify, this feature would only work if the cache was a "Subscriber Only" cache.

never underestimate the power of anger. it wouldn't be beyond some to pay another $30 to be able to continue "git back" at hider they don't like.

[+northernpenguin]

There are so many ways a feature like this could be twisted into an abusive tool. No, I don't think I'd like to see a feature like this built.

 

There are a lot of times geocaching devolves into politics, and the last thing we need is a way to enable even deeper divides between some of the players. I can just imagine it now - an event cache that bans anyone outside a specific group from attending....

[+ReedKyCacheFinders]

When I had caches, I would archive them if they were vandalized.

I no longer have caches of my own now.

 

If we all did this, Then whats the point of owning a GPSr, Much less being a PM on geocaching. There would be no more caches to find.

I'm sure we all have gone thru this one time or another & maybe not thinking it was vandalized??

 

Just my 3 cents

[+Tree Toad]

I too sympathise with you. I have had 30* go missing. I just quit placing them :>(