Is there a way to ignore all a cache owners caches?

[+TheCarterFamily]

I see there is an ignore list for single caches. Is there a way to ignore all caches by a specific user without having to do it one by one?

 

If there isn't a way. Can this be something added?

[+baloo&bd]

I see there is an ignore list for single caches. Is there a way to ignore all caches by a specific user without having to do it one by one?

 

If there isn't a way. Can this be something added?

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=239086

[GermanSailor]

If there isn't a way. Can this be something added?

There is no such option on the GC website. But it can be done by ignoring each geocache individually. Or using GSAK, but that doesn't clean the map or search results.

 

Maybe there is some nice greasemonkey script somewhere!

 

GermanSailor

[+Happy Humphrey]

I know that a small number of cachers would like this feature. But surely it's not cost-effective? You can just spend a bit of time going through the caches in question (which are easy to list) and "ignoring" them. So it might take half an hour if there are quite a few, but so what?

 

Although long-winded, at least this has the advantage that any new caches by the same person are not automatically ignored (after all, they may tire of hiding the type of cache that you don't like and try a new tack) (or is that not the reason you want the feature?).

 

Most people would be scratching their heads to think of the purpose of this if it was implemented, and wondering why some of their subs had been spent on it when there is so much that needs fixing or improving on the site.

[+TheCarterFamily]

I know that a small number of cachers would like this feature. But surely it's not cost-effective? You can just spend a bit of time going through the caches in question (which are easy to list) and "ignoring" them. So it might take half an hour if there are quite a few, but so what?

 

Although long-winded, at least this has the advantage that any new caches by the same person are not automatically ignored (after all, they may tire of hiding the type of cache that you don't like and try a new tack) (or is that not the reason you want the feature?).

 

Most people would be scratching their heads to think of the purpose of this if it was implemented, and wondering why some of their subs had been spent on it when there is so much that needs fixing or improving on the site.

 

That's not the reason I want the feature. It's not the type of cache. If that were the case I'd just ignore based on those caches. I had my find #10 (and others) deleted after three years of geocaching. The cache owner suddenly decided that he didn't feel it was a valid log entry. Which of course screws up my milestone finds for the last three years. geocaching.com's position is, since he is the owner, it's his right.

 

So I'm just boycotting all his caches. Saves any problems in the future.

[+L0ne.R]

I know that a small number of cachers would like this feature. But surely it's not cost-effective? You can just spend a bit of time going through the caches in question (which are easy to list) and "ignoring" them. So it might take half an hour if there are quite a few, but so what?

 

Although long-winded, at least this has the advantage that any new caches by the same person are not automatically ignored (after all, they may tire of hiding the type of cache that you don't like and try a new tack) (or is that not the reason you want the feature?).

 

Most people would be scratching their heads to think of the purpose of this if it was implemented, and wondering why some of their subs had been spent on it when there is so much that needs fixing or improving on the site.

 

Now that power trails are allowed, if someone posts 100 microcaches along a long stretch of road, it's going to take a long time to click on each cache and ignore it.

 

The Carter Family also have a valid reason to want to ignore a cacher. If that cacher has planted a lot of caches it's going to take quite a while to ignore each of his/her caches individually.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Lone R

[knowschad]

I know that a small number of cachers would like this feature. But surely it's not cost-effective? You can just spend a bit of time going through the caches in question (which are easy to list) and "ignoring" them. So it might take half an hour if there are quite a few, but so what?

 

Although long-winded, at least this has the advantage that any new caches by the same person are not automatically ignored (after all, they may tire of hiding the type of cache that you don't like and try a new tack) (or is that not the reason you want the feature?).

Most people would be scratching their heads to think of the purpose of this if it was implemented, and wondering why some of their subs had been spent on it when there is so much that needs fixing or improving on the site.

That's not the reason I want the feature. It's not the type of cache. If that were the case I'd just ignore based on those caches. I had my find #10 (and others) deleted after three years of geocaching. The cache owner suddenly decided that he didn't feel it was a valid log entry. Which of course screws up my milestone finds for the last three years. geocaching.com's position is, since he is the owner, it's his right.

So I'm just boycotting all his caches. Saves any problems in the future.

Have you instead thought about seeing if geocaching.com will reinstate and log your log? (assuming it was a valid log, of course).

 

As for boycotting his caches... do you really think he will care, or even notice?

[+TheCarterFamily]

Have you instead thought about seeing if geocaching.com will reinstate and log your log? (assuming it was a valid log, of course).

 

As for boycotting his caches... do you really think he will care, or even notice?

 

 

The question of valid logs is subjective. If I visit a cache, can see it, take a picture of it, but the container, is in a block of ice... is that a find? or double log entries. Some allow it, some don't. What about if the cache moves locations, is that a new find? some say yes, some say no. Some have special requirements and will delete logs if they feel it's not meeting their special criteria. Geocaching.com told me the cache owner is in charge and they wouldn't reactivate my logs. (even if the guy changes his mind/requirements after 2 years)

 

As for boycotting... sorry didn't mean it the way you took it. I want to avoid going to his caches so I don't waste my time. It has nothing to do with making a statement... just don't want to waste my time visiting his caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

So I'm just boycotting all his caches. Saves any problems in the future.

 

A great solution. Like others though I'm going to have to say you need to do it one at a time as they publish caches.

 

A bozo bin for some few owners would be nice though. It would save a lot of trouble to just ignore the problem hiders and not have to keep it up like a chore.

[+Tequila]

If you can prove you signed the log book, I am very surprised that GS would not re-instate the log and lock the entry to prevent the CO from deleting it again.

 

They have done that for me. In fact, I think the local reviewer can do it. Just make sure you can prove you signed the book.

[+TheCarterFamily]

If you can prove you signed the log book, I am very surprised that GS would not re-instate the log and lock the entry to prevent the CO from deleting it again.

 

They have done that for me. In fact, I think the local reviewer can do it. Just make sure you can prove you signed the book.

 

 

Easier just to avoid his caches.

[+Keith Watson]

Now that ALR's are gone, you should be able to claim the find. If it was a duplicate find, then you are out of luck.

 

As far as ignoring, you will have to do it manually or use something like GSAK and filter it.

[+tozainamboku]

Have you instead thought about seeing if geocaching.com will reinstate and log your log? (assuming it was a valid log, of course).

 

As for boycotting his caches... do you really think he will care, or even notice?

 

 

The question of valid logs is subjective. If I visit a cache, can see it, take a picture of it, but the container, is in a block of ice... is that a find? or double log entries. Some allow it, some don't. What about if the cache moves locations, is that a new find? some say yes, some say no. Some have special requirements and will delete logs if they feel it's not meeting their special criteria. Geocaching.com told me the cache owner is in charge and they wouldn't reactivate my logs. (even if the guy changes his mind/requirements after 2 years)

 

The strike through no longer applies. Per the guidelines

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

...

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

• Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.
  
• Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
  
• Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.
  

If the cache owner is not complying with this guideline, report it to Geocaching.com and you can get your log reinstated. If however he is deleting your log because it was in a block of ice and you couldn't sign it - then the cache owner is just being a jerk and you can't do much about it. If he is deleting your find because you double logged the cache even though you had a good reason then he ist still a jerk, but not as big of one. It's understandable that some people opposed double logging a cache even if there is a good reason to do so.

[GOF and Bacall]

Have you instead thought about seeing if geocaching.com will reinstate and log your log? (assuming it was a valid log, of course).

 

As for boycotting his caches... do you really think he will care, or even notice?

 

 

The question of valid logs is subjective. If I visit a cache, can see it, take a picture of it, but the container, is in a block of ice... is that a find? or double log entries. Some allow it, some don't. What about if the cache moves locations, is that a new find? some say yes, some say no. Some have special requirements and will delete logs if they feel it's not meeting their special criteria. Geocaching.com told me the cache owner is in charge and they wouldn't reactivate my logs. (even if the guy changes his mind/requirements after 2 years)

 

The strike through no longer applies. Per the guidelines

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

...

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

• Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.
  
• Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
  
• Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.
  

If the cache owner is not complying with this guideline, report it to Geocaching.com and you can get your log reinstated. If however he is deleting your log because it was in a block of ice and you couldn't sign it - then the cache owner is just being a jerk and you can't do much about it. If he is deleting your find because you double logged the cache even though you had a good reason then he ist still a jerk, but not as big of one. It's understandable that some people opposed double logging a cache even if there is a good reason to do so.

 

Some caches still have an added requirement and yet do not break the rules.

[+Tequila]

...

So I'm just boycotting all his caches. Saves any problems in the future.

 

A great solution. Like others though I'm going to have to say you need to do it one at a time as they publish caches.

 

A bozo bin for some few owners would be nice though. It would save a lot of trouble to just ignore the problem hiders and not have to keep it up like a chore.

 

I like the idea too. Maybe they could label the button "Bozo Bin".

 

In the meantime, while it may take a bit of time to ignore the caches individually, once you have done it, you are finished. Well worth the effort. I have lots of caches on my Ignore List.

 

Not sure if you indicated why the CO deleted you log but if they did it 3 years after you logged it, 'Bozo Bin" fits.

[+Keith Watson]

...

So I'm just boycotting all his caches. Saves any problems in the future.

 

A great solution. Like others though I'm going to have to say you need to do it one at a time as they publish caches.

 

A bozo bin for some few owners would be nice though. It would save a lot of trouble to just ignore the problem hiders and not have to keep it up like a chore.

 

I like the idea too. Maybe they could label the button "Bozo Bin".

 

In the meantime, while it may take a bit of time to ignore the caches individually, once you have done it, you are finished. Well worth the effort. I have lots of caches on my Ignore List.

 

Not sure if you indicated why the CO deleted you log but if they did it 3 years after you logged it, 'Bozo Bin" fits.

 

I think posters should here the whole story before starting the name calling.

[+Tequila]

By all means post it.

[+ArcherDragoon]

If you can prove you signed the log book, I am very surprised that GS would not re-instate the log and lock the entry to prevent the CO from deleting it again.

 

They have done that for me. In fact, I think the local reviewer can do it. Just make sure you can prove you signed the book.

 

 

Easier just to avoid his caches.

I take it that you didn't sign the logbook than...

 

(While I keep in mind that limited info has been presented...)

 

And...while, yes, you do bring up a couple examples of what is/isn't a find...you do have to (at times...and within reason and in line with present guidelines) go with what the cache owner constitutes as a find on their caches...Block of Ice...sure, I would most likely allow it, but I would understand if another cache owner doesn't...Cache Moves...depending on how far I moved the cache (someone else moves it...sorry, you are most likely out of luck)...sure...other owners...I would understand if they didn't...Double Entries...if I catch them...I will delete them...but not before sending an email to the cacher explain he/she may have made a mistake and give them time to correct it...

 

I have spotted a cache and had to leave without getting a find because I was not properly prepared...but, it made the return visit and eventual find that much easier...

[knowschad]

The question of valid logs is subjective. If I visit a cache, can see it, take a picture of it, but the container, is in a block of ice... is that a find? or double log entries. Some allow it, some don't.

Actually... not that is not a subjective question. If you signed the logbook, you have a 100% iron-clad right to a Found It log.

 

If, however, you took a picture of the cache encased in a block of ice, or some of the other scenarios that sometimes occur... then it is up to the cache owner to allow or disallow the find. Most will allow it (actually, I have never seen one that didn't, nor have I ever disallowed a find like that) but the "rules" do state that you must sign the log.

 

So... I ask again... was your log valid?

[+TheCarterFamily]

I'm a little lost at what irrelevance my 10-15 or so deleted logs have to getting a feature to ignore a cache owners caches? I think I'm lost here. I've already had discussions with GC.com and they sided with the cache owners, and made recommendation for me to handle these cases (aka ignore list). So really end of discussion, isn't it?

 

Besides, my issue and the reason for ignoring a cache owner's caches, is not what's allowed and what's not. It's the time frame. Knowing you've logged something against the wishes of the cache owner a few days after the visit I can correct. Deleting the log years after... I'm not in a position to even remember the log entry, nor would it still exist in the log book, of some caches. Also over the years, I've resigned a few log books. When tracking back via my own personal DB of my logs I found that the log was deleted.

 

At this point I've deleted my personal DB, stats pages, and just really don't care about the numbers of validity of the log entries any more. I was just enquiring about an easier way to ignore the caches where my logs go missing, that way I don't have revisit years later.

 

Although I think I've got my answer.

[knowschad]

I'm a little lost at what irrelevance my 10-15 or so deleted logs have to getting a feature to ignore a cache owners caches? I think I'm lost here. I've already had discussions with GC.com and they sided with the cache owners, and made recommendation for me to handle these cases (aka ignore list). So really end of discussion, isn't it?

Besides, my issue and the reason for ignoring a cache owner's caches, is not what's allowed and what's not. It's the time frame. Knowing you've logged something against the wishes of the cache owner a few days after the visit I can correct. Deleting the log years after... I'm not in a position to even remember the log entry, nor would it still exist in the log book, of some caches. Also over the years, I've resigned a few log books. When tracking back via my own personal DB of my logs I found that the log was deleted.

At this point I've deleted my personal DB, stats pages, and just really don't care about the numbers of validity of the log entries any more. I was just enquiring about an easier way to ignore the caches where my logs go missing, that way I don't have revisit years later.

Although I think I've got my answer.

I hear you. You are right that we lost focus of your request and focused on your reason for it. Sorry. And yeah, it does suck to get several years of your milestones messed up, although many of the stats programs will still let you preserve them for the sake of your stats page. Check into that.

 

 

As for a feature like that being added, don't hold your breath. There are MANY other features with a MUCH broader audience that have not yet been implemented even after years of requests. I suspect the bookmark route is going to be your only avenue.

[GOF and Bacall]

If it were up for a vote, and I know this isn't a democracy, I'd vote for this feature. It would not be that hard to implement, would it?

[+cerberus1]

If it were up for a vote, and I know this isn't a democracy, I'd vote for this feature. It would not be that hard to implement, would it?

 

If you're making the motion, I'll second it .

I'm not big on all the "extras" on this site (and hardly know how to use 'em), but this is one I'd love to see in place.

I DO use the ignore button, but like others have said - at over 100 caches, gotta be something easier.

[knowschad]

If it were up for a vote, and I know this isn't a democracy, I'd vote for this feature. It would not be that hard to implement, would it?

I can't think of a single user who's caches I would want to eliminate totally. There are times, however when I will use GSAK filters to eliminate a particular cacher's hides, but that functionality already exists.

[GOF and Bacall]

If it were up for a vote, and I know this isn't a democracy, I'd vote for this feature. It would not be that hard to implement, would it?

I can't think of a single user who's caches I would want to eliminate totally. There are times, however when I will use GSAK filters to eliminate a particular cacher's hides, but that functionality already exists.

I am aware of that functionality. I would still like to see it on the GC site. Perhaps while they are looking to make some Greasemonkey scripts "obsolete" they could think about doing the same with this GSAK tool.

[+Keith Watson]

I don't think anyone could give a valid reason for ignoring all caches from a specific user other than one cacher having personal issues with another cacher. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Groundspeak to add a feature based solely because you or anyone else that doesn't agree with cache owner, and Groundspeak for that matter, on what constitutes a valid find.

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't think anyone could give a valid reason for ignoring all caches from a specific user other than one cacher having personal issues with another cacher. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Groundspeak to add a feature based solely because you or anyone else that doesn't agree with cache owner, and Groundspeak for that matter, on what constitutes a valid find.

 

I know of a couple of cachers that I would put on such a list. One prolific hider that has never hid a cache I have any interest in finding. One who has problems locating a cache in the same park as the coordinates. And yes, even one who would be my choice as guest of honor at funeral. But no, I am not holding my breath. Then again, you never know what options they'll give us and this one isn't going to change anyone else's caching experience.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I still wouldn't support the feature. All it seems to consist of is a quick way of making all caches by a particular user disappear from your view of the database. We already have a slow way of achieving the same, and for these highly unusual circumstances it seems enough (bearing in mind that this would hold up many other features that would be much more widely used).

 

So the "bozo" cacher has 100 hides. Just ignore them a few at a time until they're all gone. If they are so prolific that they frequently hide 100 at a time, then it'll be a bit tedious. But if the reward is so great, then it'll be worth it.

[+Tequila]

I don't think anyone could give a valid reason for ignoring all caches from a specific user other than one cacher having personal issues with another cacher. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Groundspeak to add a feature based solely because you or anyone else that doesn't agree with cache owner, and Groundspeak for that matter, on what constitutes a valid find.

 

Not everything is about conflict.

 

There are lots of valid non-confrontational reasons to ignore a certain person's caches.

 

I know of at least 6 cachers who ignore my caches because they don't like to solve complex puzzles or they don't want to have long hikes, or both. I am fine with that.

 

There are two local cachers that I automatically ignore. All of their caches are quick drive ups, usually in a mall parking lot; which doesn't interest me. And in one case, the cacher has a long record of messing up the coordinates. When I see one of their caches published, I immediately ignore it. Nothing confrontational about it.

 

Having said that, I agree with others that it won't likely happen. And as HH just pointed out, it doesn't take that long to ignore the caches one at a time, even if the CO has a hundred caches.

 

Fortunately, there are very few (probably only one) cache owners who would delete a log after 3 years.

[+Keith Watson]

Fortunately, there are very few (probably only one) cache owners who would delete a log after 3 years.

 

If the log was bogus, it doesn't matter how long it was there for. a bogus log is a bogus log. If the log was valid, then Groundspeak would put it back and lock it. I know that the only logs I have ever deleted or asked the finder to delete are logs that must be deleted according to the guidelines.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Keith Watson

[+TheCarterFamily]

I still wouldn't support the feature. All it seems to consist of is a quick way of making all caches by a particular user disappear from your view of the database. We already have a slow way of achieving the same, and for these highly unusual circumstances it seems enough (bearing in mind that this would hold up many other features that would be much more widely used).

 

So the "bozo" cacher has 100 hides. Just ignore them a few at a time until they're all gone. If they are so prolific that they frequently hide 100 at a time, then it'll be a bit tedious. But if the reward is so great, then it'll be worth it.

 

Just to bring some perspective here:

 

The method to do something like this with an GC.com "illegal" script would be to have a small database, or text file containing the cache owner's names. Then have a cron job to monitor that hits the users caches page "http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=TheCarterFamily&submit4=Go" then grep the page for the GCXXXXX code. Then we'd need a way to automate the submitting of the ignore cache. (This is only for illustration purposes!)

 

Another method would be to setup an alert near the home base of the cache owner, then just monitor the e-mail account these alerts are sent to for the keywords. Then again automate the submitting of the ignore cache.

 

So adding this feature to the geocaching.com pages shouldn't be that much work to accomplish at all. Realistically it would require on table containing owner, and who to ignore. Then have a script run say nightly that scan's for that users caches and inserts them into the ignore cache table.

 

At the moment I'm fine with the manual method, it just would be a nice to have.

[+cerberus1]

Tequila makes a valid point, that it's not ALL about conflict.

Sorry, Keith Watson, but he's shown a few very good examples.

 

If I used Happy Humphrey's way, I would CREATE conflict...

I'm not big on PMO caches. After having a run-in with a cacher in the past, I no longer care to do them.

No "pqs" here, I may click on a cache three or more times before deciding it fits my time frame and head out to it. I was questioned repeatedly when I'm hittin' one, almost a creepy stalker thing .

There's a number of cachers who together, have well over a hundred PMO hides, that I'd like to ignore.

 

I need to log on the PMO hide first, allowing to CO to "see" I logged in.

If I were to click on the ignore button on over a hundred PMO hides, not attempting any, how long do you think it'd take before COs start e-mailing asking what gives ? - especially when they ALL know I don't do them.

And hopefully none come up missing in the mean time.

All could be taken care of with a simple "ignore cacher" button.

Right now, they just clog up my search pages.

[+Keith Watson]

Tequila makes a valid point, that it's not ALL about conflict.

Sorry, Keith Watson, but he's shown a few very good examples.

 

If I used Happy Humphrey's way, I would CREATE conflict...

I'm not big on PMO caches. After having a run-in with a cacher in the past, I no longer care to do them.

No "pqs" here, I may click on a cache three or more times before deciding it fits my time frame and head out to it. I was questioned repeatedly when I'm hittin' one, almost a creepy stalker thing .

There's a number of cachers who together, have well over a hundred PMO hides, that I'd like to ignore.

 

I need to log on the PMO hide first, allowing to CO to "see" I logged in.

If I were to click on the ignore button on over a hundred PMO hides, not attempting any, how long do you think it'd take before COs start e-mailing asking what gives ? - especially when they ALL know I don't do them.

And hopefully none come up missing in the mean time.

All could be taken care of with a simple "ignore cacher" button.

Right now, they just clog up my search pages.

 

First of all, can we drop the "conflict" when referring to my response please. I never used the word conflict. I said personal issues. In your case, it would seem you don not like PMO caches, so you would like to ignore all caches by a cacher because they placed a lot of PMO caches. That would be a personal issue with another cacher solely based on the fact they are placing PMO caches.

 

If you don't like PMO caches, then ask for a way to ignore them or block them.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Keith Watson

[+ArcherDragoon]

I'm a little lost at what irrelevance my 10-15 or so deleted logs have to getting a feature to ignore a cache owners caches? I think I'm lost here. I've already had discussions with GC.com and they sided with the cache owners, and made recommendation for me to handle these cases (aka ignore list). So really end of discussion, isn't it?

Besides, my issue and the reason for ignoring a cache owner's caches, is not what's allowed and what's not. It's the time frame. Knowing you've logged something against the wishes of the cache owner a few days after the visit I can correct. Deleting the log years after... I'm not in a position to even remember the log entry, nor would it still exist in the log book, of some caches. Also over the years, I've resigned a few log books. When tracking back via my own personal DB of my logs I found that the log was deleted.

At this point I've deleted my personal DB, stats pages, and just really don't care about the numbers of validity of the log entries any more. I was just enquiring about an easier way to ignore the caches where my logs go missing, that way I don't have revisit years later.

Although I think I've got my answer.

I hear you. You are right that we lost focus of your request and focused on your reason for it. Sorry. And yeah, it does suck to get several years of your milestones messed up, although many of the stats programs will still let you preserve them for the sake of your stats page. Check into that.

 

 

As for a feature like that being added, don't hold your breath. There are MANY other features with a MUCH broader audience that have not yet been implemented even after years of requests. I suspect the bookmark route is going to be your only avenue.

In my opinion...I don't see it as us questioning the motives of the OP...I saw it as folks trying to help the OP with getting his logs back...

 

I honestly didn't see people arguing against what the OP put in as a request...but, in the mean time, folks were trying to help with what is currently the "work-around" for the situation...and trying to help get logs back my...at least...trying to get you to recall anything that may be helpful in getting your logs reinstated...

[+Tequila]

 

I honestly didn't see people arguing against what the OP put in as a request...but, in the mean time, folks were trying to help with what is currently the "work-around" for the situation...and trying to help get logs back my...at least...trying to get you to recall anything that may be helpful in getting your logs reinstated...

 

You are correct. Most of us empathize with the OP.

 

And everyone agrees that the odds of the functionality being offered is slim. Fortunately, programs like GSAK offer alternatives. And, while possibly time consuming, there is a manual process to achieve what he needs.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Tequila

[GOF and Bacall]

I still wouldn't support the feature. All it seems to consist of is a quick way of making all caches by a particular user disappear from your view of the database. We already have a slow way of achieving the same, and for these highly unusual circumstances it seems enough (bearing in mind that this would hold up many other features that would be much more widely used).

 

So the "bozo" cacher has 100 hides. Just ignore them a few at a time until they're all gone. If they are so prolific that they frequently hide 100 at a time, then it'll be a bit tedious. But if the reward is so great, then it'll be worth it.

 

Would you have a problem with it if it was offered? Say they were working on something else and saw a way to add the feature with little effort.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't think anyone could give a valid reason for ignoring all caches from a specific user other than one cacher having personal issues with another cacher. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Groundspeak to add a feature based solely because you or anyone else that doesn't agree with cache owner, and Groundspeak for that matter, on what constitutes a valid find.

 

Not everything is about conflict.

 

There are lots of valid non-confrontational reasons to ignore a certain person's caches.

 

I know of at least 6 cachers who ignore my caches because they don't like to solve complex puzzles or they don't want to have long hikes, or both. I am fine with that.

 

There are two local cachers that I automatically ignore. All of their caches are quick drive ups, usually in a mall parking lot; which doesn't interest me. And in one case, the cacher has a long record of messing up the coordinates. When I see one of their caches published, I immediately ignore it. Nothing confrontational about it.

 

Having said that, I agree with others that it won't likely happen. And as HH just pointed out, it doesn't take that long to ignore the caches one at a time, even if the CO has a hundred caches.

 

Fortunately, there are very few (probably only one) cache owners who would delete a log after 3 years.

 

What, the entire Carter Family wasn't present for the finds? When I hear 3 year old logs were deleted, the first thing that pops into my head is Geo-drama. And my experience is that both Groundspeak Lackey's and/or reviewers respond by telling the involved parties to ignore each others caches. The fact that we've seen 2 different "can we ignore all caches by a player?" threads in two weeks is only a logical reaction by the deletees, in my opinion.

 

On the bright side, with the recent changes to the website, ignored caches are really ignored. The only way you can see them anywhere on the website now is by surfing your own ignore list. You can't even see them in other people's cache finds. I also agree that once you are surfing the offending cachers hides (like say via the "find other caches hidden by this user" link on one of their cache pages), the whole thing can go pretty fast.

[+Keith Watson]

I have never heard the expression Geo-drama before but I can understand it and have experienced it. If you don't another cacher and get a feature added to ignore all their caches, then what's next? How about blocking a cacher from seeing your hides. That way you can block cachers from finding your caches if you don;t approve of the way they cache.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Keith Watson

[GOF and Bacall]

I have never heard the expression Geo-drama before but I can understand it and have experienced it. If you don't another cacher and get a feature added to ignore all their caches, then what's next? How about blocking a cacher from seeing your hides. That way you can block cachers from finding your caches if you don;t approve of the way they cache.

 

While it looks like the flip side of the coin it is not the same. Ignoring someones caches only effects me. If I ignore all your caches it doesn't change your ability to cache. If I was to block you from seeing my caches it would limit your caching. While the second would not be fair the first already exists. All we would like is to take some of the work out of it.

[Mr.Yuck]

I have never heard the expression Geo-drama before but I can understand it and have experienced it. If you don't another cacher and get a feature added to ignore all their caches, then what's next? How about blocking a cacher from seeing your hides. That way you can block cachers from finding your caches if you don;t approve of the way they cache.

 

Well, even though this thread (and the other recent one started by a German) are about ignoring all hides of people you have "Geo-drama" issues with, and it seems to be the company line to tell combatees to ignore each other's caches, I believe it was Tequilla who said that most ignoring of caches happens because the caches just don't jive with someone's personal caching preferences.

 

Personally, I'm ignoring the remaining (good) hides of a guy who has ticked me off one too many times, and I'm sure he doesn't even know it. But other than that, all my ignores are caches I'm just not interested in, park-n-grab micros, or puzzles I've given up on. And I have to believe the overwhelming majority of ignores fall into those two latter categories. I really don't think they'd ever offer an option to block other players from seeing your cache hides.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have never heard the expression Geo-drama before but I can understand it and have experienced it. If you don't another cacher and get a feature added to ignore all their caches, then what's next? How about blocking a cacher from seeing your hides. That way you can block cachers from finding your caches if you don;t approve of the way they cache.

 

Well, even though this thread (and the other recent one started by a German) are about ignoring all hides of people you have "Geo-drama" issues with, and it seems to be the company line to tell combatees to ignore each other's caches, I believe it was Tequilla who said that most ignoring of caches happens because the caches just don't jive with someone's personal caching preferences.

 

Personally, I'm ignoring the remaining (good) hides of a guy who has ticked me off one too many times, and I'm sure he doesn't even know it. But other than that, all my ignores are caches I'm just not interested in, park-n-grab micros, or puzzles I've given up on. And I have to believe the overwhelming majority of ignores fall into those two latter categories. I really don't think they'd ever offer an option to block other players from seeing your cache hides.

 

But it has been asked for.

[+bittsen]

If it were up for a vote, and I know this isn't a democracy, I'd vote for this feature. It would not be that hard to implement, would it?

I can't think of a single user who's caches I would want to eliminate totally. There are times, however when I will use GSAK filters to eliminate a particular cacher's hides, but that functionality already exists.

 

I have two cachers who I entirely eliminate from my searches. And, yeah, with GSAK it's easy.

[+bittsen]

I don't think anyone could give a valid reason for ignoring all caches from a specific user other than one cacher having personal issues with another cacher. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Groundspeak to add a feature based solely because you or anyone else that doesn't agree with cache owner, and Groundspeak for that matter, on what constitutes a valid find.

 

I can. You never know which one of their caches is one that is listed incorrectly. You can never know, ahead of time, which one is the "evil hide" which is just another name for a PIA cache. And, none of their hides has shown to be worth the hassle involved.

 

Some cachers just place crappy caches and make you work for them. There are plenty of caches out there if you just put those cachers on ignore.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have a really great reason to add an ignore all from user feature.

 

 

 

Just mess'n witch ya.

[+Tequila]

I don't think anyone could give a valid reason for ignoring all caches from a specific user other than one cacher having personal issues with another cacher. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Groundspeak to add a feature based solely because you or anyone else that doesn't agree with cache owner, and Groundspeak for that matter, on what constitutes a valid find.

 

I can. You never know which one of their caches is one that is listed incorrectly. You can never know, ahead of time, which one is the "evil hide" which is just another name for a PIA cache. And, none of their hides has shown to be worth the hassle involved.

 

Some cachers just place crappy caches and make you work for them. There are plenty of caches out there if you just put those cachers on ignore.

 

That is what I do and the CO doesn't even know it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think posters should here the whole story before starting the name calling.

 

Ok, Ok here is the whole story. I used to have a piece of software for reading newsgroups. It had a Bozo Bin where you could put certain posters who never contributed anything worth reading. Once in the Bozo Bin it worked like the "ignore user" feature in these forums.

 

Ever since I've like the term "Bozo Bin" for this feature wherever it's been requested. That includes for ignoring cache owners.

[+Tequila]

...I think posters should here the whole story before starting the name calling.

 

Ok, Ok here is the whole story. I used to have a piece of software for reading newsgroups. It had a Bozo Bin where you could put certain posters who never contributed anything worth reading. Once in the Bozo Bin it worked like the "ignore user" feature in these forums.

 

Ever since I've like the term "Bozo Bin" for this feature wherever it's been requested. That includes for ignoring cache owners.

 

Perfect. You should copyright it. LOL.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have not found it time consuming to use the 'ignore cache' function on those COs' whose caches I wish to ignore. And there were hundreds of caches involved. The problem of 'ignore cacher' arises with challenge caches. One, or more, hid caches in that series. And I did want to do that series despite the ignored cachers.

I am happy with the present system. I review my GPX files, and if I find a new cache by one of those cachers, I hit 'ignore cache'. Easy enough.