Ignore List Question

February 1, 2010

Recently I received a found notification for a cache on my watchlist. I then looked at the finder's public profile to see what other caches he found that day. I was surprised to see that the cache for which I received the notification was not in his list of found caches. I then remembered that the cache in question was on my ignore list. After deleting the cache from my ignore list, it then appeared on his list of finds.

I'm wondering if this is the intended behaviour for caches on ignore lists. My thinking is that while I do want to ignore certain caches, I wouldn't mind seeing if other cachers have found them. It can also lead to confusion when a portion of a cachers finds are missing from their public list of finds. I'm curious if this is the intended functionality or a bug.

8k · February 1, 2010

Apparantly it is. The most reason changes to the site seems to cause caches on your ignore list to be hidden not matter where you are looking at them. The only place these caches appear is on your ignore list.

IMO, that goes too far. If I am hiding a cache and want to check on what cache might be nearby, it ought to be easy to see all the caches including those on my ignore list. Now I can't do this.

Initially Ignore only worked with Pocket Queries (if you checked "And are not on my ignore list") and in nearest search if you said "Hide caches I have found or that I own". Later people asked to hide them on maps. I would have prefered for them to be hidden on maps only if you checked a box (Hide caches I have found or on my ignore list), but it got implemented to hide ignored caches all the time.

In the latest change, ignored cached got hidden all the time not only on maps but also in nearest search, search by owners, search caches found by a user, and in pocket queries even if you didn't specify "hide caches on my ignore list". I don't think TPTB considered that some people want / need to see ignored caches included for certain kinds of searches.

10.2k · February 1, 2010

Apparantly it is. The most reason changes to the site seems to cause caches on your ignore list to be hidden not matter where you are looking at them. The only place these caches appear is on your ignore list.

IMO, that goes too far. If I am hiding a cache and want to check on what cache might be nearby, it ought to be easy to see all the caches including those on my ignore list. Now I can't do this.

Initially Ignore only worked with Pocket Queries (if you checked "And are not on my ignore list") and in nearest search if you said "Hide caches I have found or that I own". Later people asked to hide them on maps. I would have prefered for them to be hidden on maps only if you checked a box (Hide caches I have found or on my ignore list), but it got implemented to hide ignored caches all the time.

In the latest change, ignored cached got hidden all the time not only on maps but also in nearest search, search by owners, search caches found by a user, and in pocket queries even if you didn't specify "hide caches on my ignore list". I don't think TPTB considered that some people want / need to see ignored caches included for certain kinds of searches.

Yes sir, they went to town on the ignore list. Not being able to see them even if you're looking at caches found by Joe User just just happened with the recent changes to the site. All the other "enhancements" happened about 6 months ago.

One example, someone logged a cache on my watchlist with a cut and paste log, which basically said they came to my town for a numbers run, and the cache was one of 55 or so for the day. I then looked at caches found by that user, and I only saw 7 caches found in my town! Who knows what the other 48 were, but they were obviously park-n-grab micros on my ignore list.

So yep, the only place you can see them is on your ignore list itself. It's definitely different, but I'll get used to it.

8k · February 2, 2010

So yep, the only place you can see them is on your ignore list itself. It's definitely different, but I'll get used to it.

Until you try to hide a cache that is blocked by a cache on your ignore list.

Yes some people use the ignore list because they don't like a certain type of cache or they don't want to find caches by a certain cacher. They feel that ignorance is bliss and if once a cache is on their ignore list and they never see it again they can be be happy.

Other people are more selective about the ignore list. They use to eliminate caches that they know they will never hunt from their pocket query. It could be a cache they helped to hide but is owned by someone else, or it could be a cache that requires physical skills they don't have (or don't want to try to find out if they have). It could be a cache they have tried to find and have finally decided to give up. They just don't want to search for it anymore. It may be cache they don't want to search for because the location is somewhere they don't feel comfortable searching. They have no desire to ignore these caches completely. They know these caches are there and may even want to see them on maps or in list of nearest unfound caches. They may certainly want to see them when looking at caches someone else has found. They simply want to use the ignore list to keep these caches from taking up space in a pocket query when they are downloading caches to hunt.

I used to be able to use the ignore list for this purpose. I no longer can without the impact of not seeing these cache even when I want to see them. Thank you Groundspeak for caving into the vocal minority who wished for a way to make the caches they think are "lame" disappear. I've got news for them. These caches don't disappear because you put them on your ignore list. They are still there and people enjoy finding them.

If you're not going to fix the ignore list, please provide an "exceptions list" that I can use instead to remove caches from my PQ that I don't want there. Or better, allow me to say in may pocket query "And are not on the <xyz> bookmark list and allow me to select any of my bookmark lists or any shared bookmark list.

3.1k · February 2, 2010

There is an easy get around for the issue of placing a cache and an ignored cache is too close.

Run a PQ based on your Ignore List and import it into GSAK. Now you can quickly check for caches too close.

10.2k · February 2, 2010

So yep, the only place you can see them is on your ignore list itself. It's definitely different, but I'll get used to it.

Until you try to hide a cache that is blocked by a cache on your ignore list.

Yes some people use the ignore list because they don't like a certain type of cache or they don't want to find caches by a certain cacher. They feel that ignorance is bliss and if once a cache is on their ignore list and they never see it again they can be be happy.

Other people are more selective about the ignore list. They use to eliminate caches that they know they will never hunt from their pocket query. It could be a cache they helped to hide but is owned by someone else, or it could be a cache that requires physical skills they don't have (or don't want to try to find out if they have). It could be a cache they have tried to find and have finally decided to give up. They just don't want to search for it anymore. It may be cache they don't want to search for because the location is somewhere they don't feel comfortable searching. They have no desire to ignore these caches completely. They know these caches are there and may even want to see them on maps or in list of nearest unfound caches. They may certainly want to see them when looking at caches someone else has found. They simply want to use the ignore list to keep these caches from taking up space in a pocket query when they are downloading caches to hunt.

I used to be able to use the ignore list for this purpose. I no longer can without the impact of not seeing these cache even when I want to see them. Thank you Groundspeak for caving into the vocal minority who wished for a way to make the caches they think are "lame" disappear. I've got news for them. These caches don't disappear because you put them on your ignore list. They are still there and people enjoy finding them.

C'mon Mr. T. Just because I used an example of someone finding caches I would consider "lame", doesn't mean I don't use the ignore list for all those reasons you stated. I just thought it was an interesting example of what is currently happening with the ignore list.

Nor do I think The Frog has caved in to a "vocal minority". Of all the recent enhancements to ignored caches, the only one I can think of that was ever requested around here is removing them from the Google Maps.

1.3k · February 3, 2010

Oh, this is just too funny. I have read multiple threads of how people want better ways to ignore caches so they can wipe a type of cache or caches placed by specific cachers out of their own little existances and now when Groundspeak makes them all vanish, we get to see the result.

I think your best bet is to use a pocket query when you are trying to figure out where to place a cache and just open it up in Google Earth. It will cost you one pocket query and using Google Earth means you wont mess up your local database.

6.7k · February 3, 2010

Now that right there is the reason so many of those threads get contentious. Those of us who want to be able to ignore caches don't want to wipe them from our own existence as you say. We want better controls to manage the list. Perhaps it would be easier to understand if the whole thing was renamed the "exclusion" list as Toz. suggested. Caches that I don't wish to look for but obviously will need to know about should I want to hide a cache. I don't recall anyone saying that they never wanted to be able to look at them again, ever.

1.3k · February 3, 2010

Now that right there is the reason so many of those threads get contentious. Those of us who want to be able to ignore caches don't want to wipe them from our own existence as you say. We want better controls to manage the list. Perhaps it would be easier to understand if the whole thing was renamed the "exclusion" list as Toz. suggested. Caches that I don't wish to look for but obviously will need to know about should I want to hide a cache. I don't recall anyone saying that they never wanted to be able to look at them again, ever.

Not sure what your problem is. I simply commented on the humor I find in the situation and then offered some advice on what to do. Should I have not offered advice on what to do?

6.7k · February 3, 2010

Now that right there is the reason so many of those threads get contentious. Those of us who want to be able to ignore caches don't want to wipe them from our own existence as you say. We want better controls to manage the list. Perhaps it would be easier to understand if the whole thing was renamed the "exclusion" list as Toz. suggested. Caches that I don't wish to look for but obviously will need to know about should I want to hide a cache. I don't recall anyone saying that they never wanted to be able to look at them again, ever.

Not sure what your problem is. I simply commented on the humor I find in the situation and then offered some advice on what to do. Should I have not offered advice on what to do?

And I am not sure what your problem is. I just attempted to explain that most of us only want a better tool for sorting caches not to

wipe a type of cache or caches placed by specific cachers out of their own little existances

as you put it in your rude little way.

1.3k · February 4, 2010

There are people who want to block out caches and never see them again for various reasons. It would seam their voices have been heard and the result is what we now have. Reminds of the expression "be care full what you ask for, because you might just get it". I find that amusing because no matter how much you try to please people, there will always be people who want it another way. I have worked in the software industry for the past 18 years and know from experience that it is a fact of life. Was I meaning to be contentious? No, but thanks for demonstrating what that word means. Please, we don't need any more demonstrations.

I don't use ignore. From the look of the PQ interface it looks like you can exclude ignored caches, so that make me think if you don;t check that, the PQ should include them. Has anyone verified this?

6.7k · February 4, 2010

Quick question folks. Is there anyone who wants "...to block out caches and never see them again..." for any reason? I don't recall ever hearing someone say that.

I suspect that what happened is TPTB wanted to hide ignored caches from the maps and this complete invisibility situation was a side effect. It isn't all that hard to work around. Just need a second account. I'll check the PQs to see if an ignored cache can be retrieved via that option.

6.7k · February 4, 2010

Leaving the option "Are not on my ignore list" unchecked and searching centered on the nearest cache to one on my ignore list a PQ did not return that ignored cache. I can only seem to see ignored caches if I look at them on my ignored caches bookmark list.

10.2k · February 4, 2010

Quick question folks. Is there anyone who wants "...to block out caches and never see them again..." for any reason? I don't recall ever hearing someone say that.

No. No one ever asked for any of this stuff. But this doesn't stop us from hearing statements like "TPTB have caved in to the vocal minority", or "oh this is too funny" from people who think anyone who ever ignored a cache is a militant, anti-micro, cache snob.

I suspect that what happened is TPTB wanted to hide ignored caches from the maps and this complete invisibility situation was a side effect. It isn't all that hard to work around. Just need a second account. I'll check the PQs to see if an ignored cache can be retrieved via that option.

My guess too, although we could be totally wrong.

1.3k · February 4, 2010

I can understand it not showing everywhere else, but with that optional available in the PQ, I would think it would have showed up in the PQ.

February 4, 2010

I can understand it not showing everywhere else, but with that optional available in the PQ, I would think it would have showed up in the PQ.

I hope that is how it is supposed to work, but it does not. I created a PQ and left that option unchecked. My ignored caches did not appear in the PQ results.

It is not a big deal for me, as I only have a few caches on my ignore list, but I can see how this could present an issue for those who make greater use of the ignore list.

21.9k · February 5, 2010

Quick question folks. Is there anyone who wants "...to block out caches and never see them again..." for any reason? I don't recall ever hearing someone say that.

No. No one ever asked for any of this stuff. But this doesn't stop us from hearing statements like "TPTB have caved in to the vocal minority", or "oh this is too funny" from people who think anyone who ever ignored a cache is a militant, anti-micro, cache snob.

I suspect that what happened is TPTB wanted to hide ignored caches from the maps and this complete invisibility situation was a side effect. It isn't all that hard to work around. Just need a second account. I'll check the PQs to see if an ignored cache can be retrieved via that option.

My guess too, although we could be totally wrong.

As a forum moderator helping with site feature questions since the debut of the ignore list, I remember it differently. In thread after thread over the years, the question was "I ignored this cache but it still shows up in my lists." My stock answer was to link to the advanced search page, which would exclude ignored caches (along with hidden and found caches) if you checked the box. It always bugged me that the instructions never said that ignored caches would be hidden. The response was usually "but we want them ignored everywhere, not as a hidden feature on the obscure advanced search page."

When you have that same discussion over and over again, it sticks in the mind.

4.2k · February 5, 2010

Quick question folks. Is there anyone who wants "...to block out caches and never see them again..." for any reason? I don't recall ever hearing someone say that.

No. No one ever asked for any of this stuff. But this doesn't stop us from hearing statements like "TPTB have caved in to the vocal minority", or "oh this is too funny" from people who think anyone who ever ignored a cache is a militant, anti-micro, cache snob.

I suspect that what happened is TPTB wanted to hide ignored caches from the maps and this complete invisibility situation was a side effect. It isn't all that hard to work around. Just need a second account. I'll check the PQs to see if an ignored cache can be retrieved via that option.

My guess too, although we could be totally wrong.

As a forum moderator helping with site feature questions since the debut of the ignore list, I remember it differently. In thread after thread over the years, the question was "I ignored this cache but it still shows up in my lists." My stock answer was to link to the advanced search page, which would exclude ignored caches (along with hidden and found caches) if you checked the box. It always bugged me that the instructions never said that ignored caches would be hidden. The response was usually "but we want them ignored everywhere, not as a hidden feature on the obscure advanced search page."

When you have that same discussion over and over again, it sticks in the mind.

There may have been a few that wanted this, but it would have been a better solution if instead of ALWAYS hiding ignored caches there had simply been the addition of a "Hide Ignored Caches" tick box for the Google Map search- which is where I recall seeing it requested. The ability to hide ignored caches could have been implemented without such a broad stroke.

8k · February 5, 2010

As a forum moderator helping with site feature questions since the debut of the ignore list, I remember it differently. In thread after thread over the years, the question was "I ignored this cache but it still shows up in my lists." My stock answer was to link to the advanced search page, which would exclude ignored caches (along with hidden and found caches) if you checked the box. It always bugged me that the instructions never said that ignored caches would be hidden. The response was usually "but we want them ignored everywhere, not as a hidden feature on the obscure advanced search page."

When you have that same discussion over and over again, it sticks in the mind.

There may have been a few that wanted this, but it would have been a better solution if instead of ALWAYS hiding ignored caches there had simply been the addition of a "Hide Ignored Caches" tick box for the Google Map search- which is where I recall seeing it requested. The ability to hide ignored caches could have been implemented without such a broad stroke.

I'd even be happy if the maps hid ignored caches by default and there was a check box "Include caches on my your ignore list".

It may be true, as Keith Watson said, that you can't please everyone. But by giving people options you will please more people. There is no reason why we couldn't have options to hide/show ignored caches on maps, nearest search, and pocket queries. I don't see the point in ignoring caches on when looking at "caches found by", "caches hidden by", or a pocket query preview of a bookmark list or a query where the user didn't specify "AND are not on my ignore list"; but if there was a demand for this it could be an option too.

10.2k · February 5, 2010

Quick question folks. Is there anyone who wants "...to block out caches and never see them again..." for any reason? I don't recall ever hearing someone say that.

No. No one ever asked for any of this stuff. But this doesn't stop us from hearing statements like "TPTB have caved in to the vocal minority", or "oh this is too funny" from people who think anyone who ever ignored a cache is a militant, anti-micro, cache snob.

I suspect that what happened is TPTB wanted to hide ignored caches from the maps and this complete invisibility situation was a side effect. It isn't all that hard to work around. Just need a second account. I'll check the PQs to see if an ignored cache can be retrieved via that option.

My guess too, although we could be totally wrong.

As a forum moderator helping with site feature questions since the debut of the ignore list, I remember it differently. In thread after thread over the years, the question was "I ignored this cache but it still shows up in my lists." My stock answer was to link to the advanced search page, which would exclude ignored caches (along with hidden and found caches) if you checked the box. It always bugged me that the instructions never said that ignored caches would be hidden. The response was usually "but we want them ignored everywhere, not as a hidden feature on the obscure advanced search page."

When you have that same discussion over and over again, it sticks in the mind.

I do indeed remember that going to the semi-obscure advanced search page was a way to hide ignored caches and that it never actually said ignored caches would be hidden in the instructions. And I'm sure I answered that question at least once.

Personally, I can deal with the new changes, it's just kind of strange to get used to it.

3.1k · February 5, 2010

Like TWU, I have no issues with the new changes because of the way I treat Ignored caches.

However, any time you can offer customers/users, additional flexibility, assuming minimal impact to the operation, it is a good thing.

2.2k · February 5, 2010

I'm OK with this change -- after all, if a cache location was lame enough for me to Ignore in the first place I better not be planning on hiding one within 161m of that spot or I am doing something wrong!

6.7k · February 5, 2010

I'm OK with this change -- after all, if a cache location was lame enough for me to Ignore in the first place I better not be planning on hiding one within 161m of that spot or I am doing something wrong!

Not necessarily true. An LPC in a parking lot could be blocking a wonderful spot 150m into a park.

February 6, 2010

How do I *ignore* all hides by a certain cache owner without having to go through all the pages of hides?

10.2k · February 6, 2010

How do I *ignore* all hides by a certain cache owner without having to go through all the pages of hides?

You don't hang around these forums all that much, do you? Just kidding, that's probably a good thing. That feature has been asked for repeatedly, but we've never heard anything back.

If you're on one of the offending cachers cache pages, click on "Find other caches hidden by this user", it actually seems like it would go pretty fast. Seems I say, as I've never bulk ignored more than a handful of caches by one owner at a time myself. .

February 15, 2010

Something that I want is to be able to see caches on my ignore list so that I don't place a cache too close to one. There is an area that has several caches on my ignore list, and I want to place a cache there. As it currently is, I would have to go through my current ignore list, one at a time, to see if any of them is near where I am going to put my cache. Is there a better way?

Yes, I have tried the "Are not on my ignore list" check box on pocket queries. I have to pocket queries that are IDENTICAL except for this check box. However, the caches shown are also IDENTICAL. If this check box actually worked, then I could do what I want.

Any other ideas?

- Oberon Kenobi -

10.1k · February 16, 2010

Quick question folks. Is there anyone who wants "...to block out caches and never see them again..." for any reason? I don't recall ever hearing someone say that.

I suspect that what happened is TPTB wanted to hide ignored caches from the maps and this complete invisibility situation was a side effect. It isn't all that hard to work around. Just need a second account. I'll check the PQs to see if an ignored cache can be retrieved via that option.

Guess that'll learn me! I do think that TPTB did go a bit overboard on this. I didn't want them never to show anywhere (except the Ignore List - And that's alphabetical by cache name, not cache hider..) I don't want them on my PQ's, or maps. I looked at caches hidden by cache owner (for someone whose caches I will not be hunting). 70 hidden. Only the 19 I've found even show up there. That's a bit overboard!

But, the only problem I can foresee is when hiding caches. They do not show up under 'all nearby caches'.

There shoud be somewhere that they show, for use when hiding caches. (Not that any are near where I hide caches.)

1.3k · February 16, 2010

If you are ignoring caches because they are placed in lame locations, then there should not be any problem. Only place caches at least 1/10th of a mile from what you consider to be lame.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Keith Watson

6.7k · February 16, 2010

Not the only reason for ignoring a cache.

How about it Groundspeak? Was this a side effect of removing ignored caches from the maps? Is there a possibility of perhaps letting us toggle it on or off? Or is there another solution that you folks have in mind?

7.9k · February 16, 2010

Run a PQ based on your Ignore List and import it into GSAK. Now you can quickly check for caches too close.

Not if you have 900+ caches on that list.

Just keep an offline database of all the caches in your state and you'll be fine.

UH-OH! The ignore list is now encouraging necessitating the dreaded offline database!

1.3k · February 16, 2010

Run a PQ based on your Ignore List and import it into GSAK. Now you can quickly check for caches too close.

Not if you have 900+ caches on that list.

Just keep an offline database of all the caches in your state and you'll be fine.

UH-OH! The ignore list is now encouraging necessitating the dreaded offline database!

Shhhhhh, I won't tell.

3.1k · February 16, 2010

Run a PQ based on your Ignore List and import it into GSAK. Now you can quickly check for caches too close.

Not if you have 900+ caches on that list.

Just keep an offline database of all the caches in your state and you'll be fine.

UH-OH! The ignore list is now encouraging necessitating the dreaded offline database!

As was indicated in this thread, a PQ based on your Ignore List is not limited to 500.

6.7k · February 16, 2010

I have generated a PQ of over 1000 caches. While the system says it has generated it has not shown up in my email as of yet. At this point I don't know if it is not being sent or if GMail wont accept the file size or something. It isn't in the spam filter. Perhaps there is a limit to how many you can ignore.

7.9k · February 21, 2010

As was indicated in this thread, a PQ based on your Ignore List is not limited to 500.

HMM, I somehow missed that little tidbit in the linked thread.

I have generated a PQ of over 1000 caches. While the system says it has generated it has not shown up in my email as of yet. At this point I don't know if it is not being sent or if GMail wont accept the file size or something. It isn't in the spam filter. Perhaps there is a limit to how many you can ignore.

And I happened to have a couple of spare PQs available for today, so I (just now) ran one too (970 caches on the list).

The funny thing was that after running it, I clicked on the preview link to see what I got...and there was nothing there! Ten pages of nothing!!

6.7k · February 21, 2010

As was indicated in this thread, a PQ based on your Ignore List is not limited to 500.

HMM, I somehow missed that little tidbit in the linked thread.

I have generated a PQ of over 1000 caches. While the system says it has generated it has not shown up in my email as of yet. At this point I don't know if it is not being sent or if GMail wont accept the file size or something. It isn't in the spam filter. Perhaps there is a limit to how many you can ignore.

And I happened to have a couple of spare PQs available for today, so I (just now) ran one too (970 caches on the list).

The funny thing was that after running it, I clicked on the preview link to see what I got...and there was nothing there! Ten pages of nothing!!

Yeah. There seems to be several issues with bookmarks and PQs. I was gonna wait until the anounced work is completed and if it is still a problem I'll revisit the forums with it then.

7.9k · February 22, 2010

The PQ allegedly ran, but nothing was delivered.

It can't be a size issue, since my 'My Finds' PQ works properly...or does it? It's been a while since I ran one, I'd better go check.

EDITED TO ADD:

OK, I guess I did it wrong since I didn't visit the PQ page and check a day for it to run...or did I? I remember checking the 'Run once and delete' checkbox when I was generating the PQ from the bookmark list, but the PQ is sitting there with a 'Last Generated' date of 'NEVER'...odd.

I think at this stage I wouldn't advise counting on getting a PQ from your ignore list if it exceeds 500 listings.

Edited February 22, 2010 by AZcachemeister

1.3k · February 22, 2010

From from I am gathering, if you run a PQ of just ignored caches and the system is not including ignored caches in the PQ results, then I would assume no file will be sent because it would be empty. I think they skip sending empty files.

What I am trying to figure out is why does someone have 900+ caches on an ignore list if I read that correctly? That would sound like someone is spending more time ignoring caches than actually going out and finding them.

3.1k · February 22, 2010

What I am trying to figure out is why does someone have 900+ caches on an ignore list if I read that correctly? That would sound like someone is spending more time ignoring caches than actually going out and finding them.

Not at all. There are many positive reasons to ignore caches and it is not very time consuming.

A significant number of cachers no longer log their finds. A simple way of removing them from their PQ's is to ignore them.

Also, there are tons of caches not worth finding. Within 200km of my house, there are 9,437 caches that I have not found. Many, IMHO, are not worth finding. Parking lot drive ups, etc. Placing them on the Ignore List is a simple way of improving the efficiency of the PQ system and reduce the volume of PQ's generated.

I am sure many other cachers can provide similar examples as to why they might have a large list of ignored caches.

1.3k · February 22, 2010

A significant number of cachers no longer log their finds. A simple way of removing them from their PQ's is to ignore them.

Seems to me if you are going to the effort of ignoring the cache to mark it as found, just log it as found.

6.7k · February 22, 2010

Keith we have been through all this with you. If all you want to do is give us grief about the way we choose to cache then please, don't bother. If you have something constructive to add it would be appreciated.

1.3k · February 23, 2010

I am not giving you grief about the way you cache. I am just trying to point out that trying to get a company who is in the business of people hiding and finding caches, I doubt they are going to put a lot of effort in to tailoring a system towards not finding caches.

Given they way the system is working currently there is not much to do other than accept it or stop ignoring caches.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Keith Watson

1.3k · February 23, 2010

Keith we have been through all this with you. If all you want to do is give us grief about the way we choose to cache then please, don't bother. If you have something constructive to add it would be appreciated.

Wow, I just looked at your profile. If this is not a sock puppet account, I can understand why you may have a large ignore list.

6.7k · February 23, 2010

Yet you feel the need to jump in every the topic comes up just to point out how you think we should just log finds. Got anything helpful? Can you explain why my PQs aren't working? Why my ignore list come up as a favorites list by Jeremy?

1.3k · February 23, 2010

Yet you feel the need to jump in every the topic comes up just to point out how you think we should just log finds. Got anything helpful? Can you explain why my PQs aren't working? Why my ignore list come up as a favorites list by Jeremy?

First let me point out that you seem to be using the ignore list as a way of marking caches that you have found. I am making this assumption based on the fact that your account has no finds in it. If that is they way you want to not have your found caches not show up in a pocket query go right ahead. Considering the way the website works, it would seem that that is not they way the ignore lists were intended to be used, but once again, what ever turns your crank, go ahead and keep on ignoring caches you find. I can see you having problems telling if a cache is not showing up because you don't want to find it or you have already found it.

I don't what you mean about what you mean about your ignore list coming up as a favorite list by Jeremy. I must have missed that thread.

Why is your pocket query not working? That one seems pretty simple. The option "Are not on my ignore list" would indicate that the original selection for a pocket query would include ignored caches and this was a way to exclude ignored caches. Looking at the recent changes to the site of excluding ignored caches by default everywhere including the pocket queries the option "Are not on my ignore list" is implied weather you check it or not.

What Groundspeak should do is change "Are not on my ignore list" to "Are on my ignore list" to add the option of including ignored caches.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Keith Watson

7.9k · February 23, 2010

What I am trying to figure out is why does someone have 900+ caches on an ignore list if I read that correctly? That would sound like someone is spending more time ignoring caches than actually going out and finding them.

Also, there are tons of caches not worth finding. ~~ Placing them on the Ignore List is a simple way of improving the efficiency of the PQ system and reduce the volume of PQ's generated.

I am sure many other cachers can provide similar examples as to why they might have a large list of ignored caches.

And indeed, there are OVER 500 difficult puzzle caches in Arizona. Caches involving complicated decryption or mathematics I do not currently understand. I might figure those out someday, but I don't want them taking up space in my PQ for caches I might hunt tomorrow.

And while we're on the subject, why would anyone need a PQ of their finds? They already found those caches, they can't find them again. Yet people asked for the 'My Finds' PQ, and eventually it was produced.

1.3k · February 23, 2010

And while we're on the subject, why would anyone need a PQ of their finds? They already found those caches, they can't find them again. Yet people asked for the 'My Finds' PQ, and eventually it was produced.

I think the most popular use of the My Finds is to generate stats. There are a few programs and websites out there that will do this from a GPX.

3.1k · February 23, 2010

First let me point out that you seem to be using the ignore list as a way of marking caches that you have found. I am making this assumption based on the fact that your account has no finds in it. If that is they way you want to not have your found caches not show up in a pocket query go right ahead. Considering the way the website works, it would seem that that is not they way the ignore lists were intended to be used, but once again, what ever turns your crank, go ahead and keep on ignoring caches you find. I can see you having problems telling if a cache is not showing up because you don't want to find it or you have already found it.

The Ignore Listing feature is one of many features, supplied by Groundspeak, that allows each cacher to customize how they play the game. Why a person ignores a cache is immaterial. How many caches a person ignores is also immaterial. In fact, no one, other than you, seems to be concerned about the why aspect.

As for problems distinguishing found vs. don't want to find, that is easily resolved.

I don't what you mean about what you mean about your ignore list coming up as a favorite list by Jeremy. I must have missed that thread.

This statement is so poorly worded that I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Why is your pocket query not working? That one seems pretty simple. The option "Are not on my ignore list" would indicate that the original selection for a pocket query would include ignored caches and this was a way to exclude ignored caches. Looking at the recent changes to the site of excluding ignored caches by default everywhere including the pocket queries the option "Are not on my ignore list" is implied weather you check it or not.

With the exception of G&B (documented in a separate thread) and a couple of other cachers, the PQ for Ignore List appears to be working fine. I just ran a PQ based on my Ignore List. Within seconds I had the PQ in my email and it contained all of my ignored caches.

What Groundspeak should do is change "Are not on my ignore list" to "Are on my ignore list" to add the option of including ignored caches.

There is no need to do that. Generating a PQ from the Ignore List Bookmark does this automatically.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss why people choose to ignore caches or to discuss how many caches a person chooses to ignore. If you are that concerned about those issues, please start a new thread in the general Geocaching forum where it belongs. I am sure it will be a spirited discussion and I will be happy to fully explain why I ignore caches.

This thread was created by the OP to discuss how Ignored Caches are treated with respect to other aspects of the game. Please respect the OP by keeping on topic.

1.3k · February 23, 2010

First let me point out that you seem to be using the ignore list as a way of marking caches that you have found. I am making this assumption based on the fact that your account has no finds in it. If that is they way you want to not have your found caches not show up in a pocket query go right ahead. Considering the way the website works, it would seem that that is not they way the ignore lists were intended to be used, but once again, what ever turns your crank, go ahead and keep on ignoring caches you find. I can see you having problems telling if a cache is not showing up because you don't want to find it or you have already found it.

The Ignore Listing feature is one of many features, supplied by Groundspeak, that allows each cacher to customize how they play the game. Why a person ignores a cache is immaterial. How many caches a person ignores is also immaterial. In fact, no one, other than you, seems to be concerned about the why aspect.

As for problems distinguishing found vs. don't want to find, that is easily resolved.

I don't what you mean about what you mean about your ignore list coming up as a favorite list by Jeremy. I must have missed that thread.

This statement is so poorly worded that I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Why is your pocket query not working? That one seems pretty simple. The option "Are not on my ignore list" would indicate that the original selection for a pocket query would include ignored caches and this was a way to exclude ignored caches. Looking at the recent changes to the site of excluding ignored caches by default everywhere including the pocket queries the option "Are not on my ignore list" is implied weather you check it or not.

With the exception of G&B (documented in a separate thread) and a couple of other cachers, the PQ for Ignore List appears to be working fine. I just ran a PQ based on my Ignore List. Within seconds I had the PQ in my email and it contained all of my ignored caches.

What Groundspeak should do is change "Are not on my ignore list" to "Are on my ignore list" to add the option of including ignored caches.

There is no need to do that. Generating a PQ from the Ignore List Bookmark does this automatically.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss why people choose to ignore caches or to discuss how many caches a person chooses to ignore. If you are that concerned about those issues, please start a new thread in the general Geocaching forum where it belongs. I am sure it will be a spirited discussion and I will be happy to fully explain why I ignore caches.

This thread was created by the OP to discuss how Ignored Caches are treated with respect to other aspects of the game. Please respect the OP by keeping on topic.

Actually I think the OP was about not seeing caches when looking at caches a person has found because they are on the viewers ignore list.

I don't remember telling anyone how to play the game in this thread. I have stated that you can play it any way you wish. Unfortunately my suggestions on what can be done, or questions about what people are doing an how they are doing it are being interrupted of some kind of personal attack. If that is they way you choose to see it, then I guess you can just go on doing that as well. I would like to point out that the first statement against another person in this thread was not by me, but rather at me.

You can rationalize all you want about the way people cache in different ways, but at the end of the day, on this site it is Groundspeak that decides what the easiest way is going to be.

Oh, and by the way

I don't what you mean about what you mean about your ignore list coming up as a favorite list by Jeremy. I must have missed that thread.

Was meant to be

I don't know what you mean about your ignore list coming up as a favorite list by Jeremy. I must have missed that thread.

Detaching from this thread.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Keith Watson

7.9k · February 24, 2010

CATFIGHT!

Ignore List Question

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment