+Mudfrog Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) Had forgotten about this issue until just a few minutes ago when i tried to run a query for all caches in my area. I want to hide a cache, and just to be sure i'm not getting too close to another cache, i want the query results to show all caches in that area. It's just hard to believe that i'm the only one here that uses queries in this manner. Is there a reason this hasn't been fixed? Is there a work around, without having to manually take caches off my ignore list? Edited April 11, 2010 by Mudfrog
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 When I want to do the same, I merely do an unrestricted pocket query based on the 'area' I'm interested in. (1.e. - don't ignore any caches).
+Mudfrog Posted April 11, 2010 Author Posted April 11, 2010 When I want to do the same, I merely do an unrestricted pocket query based on the 'area' I'm interested in. (1.e. - don't ignore any caches). I have caches on my ignore list because i helped hide them and don't want to see them everytime i bring up my nearest unfound caches list. So manually "un-ignoring" them everytime i do a query is not something i wish to do. But, i did just find out something. After running the query, i went to preview the results, where it didn't show the ignored caches. I went ahead and put the query into gsak where, lo and behold, the ignored caches showed up. So even so they don't show in the preview, they were in the query just the same. Kinda weird but i guess i can live with it like this...
AZcachemeister Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 Ignored caches don't show up anywhere. Ever. (With the exception of your Ignore Bookmark List.) This is the current way the function is implemented, but it hasn't always been like that. Ignored caches don't even show up in the list of caches owned by the cache owner. Heck, I'll bet that if you ignore your own cache, it wouldn't show up in your view of the list of caches you own.
+pppingme Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 I too have reported this bug and seen a couple threads on it, with NO RESPONSE from gs addressing this issue. THIS IS A BUG. If I choose the check box that says "Are not on my ignore list", then obviously I don't want the caches, HOWEVER, if I don't choose that option, THEN I EXPECT THOSE CACHES TO SHOW.
+tozainamboku Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I too have reported this bug and seen a couple threads on it, with NO RESPONSE from gs addressing this issue. THIS IS A BUG. If I choose the check box that says "Are not on my ignore list", then obviously I don't want the caches, HOWEVER, if I don't choose that option, THEN I EXPECT THOSE CACHES TO SHOW. Actually, I believe this is what happens in the GPX file. All caches show up unless you check "Are not on my ignore list". However if you preview the PQ or view the results on a map, ignored caches are ignored. It's find if the default is to hide ignored caches in searches and maps, but there needs to be a way to include these cache when some wants to see all nearby caches (like when they are looking to see if there is room to hide a cache).
+pppingme Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 All caches show up unless you check "Are not on my ignore list". However if you preview the PQ If the pq preview and final emailed results are different, IT'S STILL A BUG, and now we are talking about multiple bugs. Two bugs that gs has not addressed or even acknowledged.
+Lil Devil Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Two bugs that gs has not addressed or even acknowledged. They rarely acknowledge the bugs. They do address them, but it usually takes a few months. Patience, Grassshopper.
+pppingme Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 They rarely acknowledge the bugs. Then why is Nate always in here saying we are working on it, its on the list, we can't duplicate it, etc. That sure sounds like acknowledgment to me.
+Lil Devil Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I would hardly say that Nate is "always" doing that. "Sometimes" maybe, but I'll stick by my "rarely" comment
Recommended Posts