should we have a ignore all caches by x

[+HHD]

Is it time in this day and age of power cachers to have a button to ignore all caches by a particular hider? I know we can ignore a individual caches one by one but to my knowledge there is no way to do all of them at once.

 

The reason I bring this up is if you know a certain. Hider has poor maintenance or you don't like pngs or whatever then you could just ignore all of their caches and not be bothered with them.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

This feature has been asked for many times and still hasn't been implemented. I would love to have this kind of tool to use, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

[+Walts Hunting]

As usual the answer to how to deal with a problem like this is GSAK. A very simple process exists to do just this with that program and has for a long time. With the advent of version 8 and the API it got even easier.

[+dfx]

As usual the answer to how to deal with a problem like this is GSAK.

 

Which is a non-answer for many of us.

[knowschad]

It is probably already in the database, but if you have a suggestion for the web site, the proper place (I should say, the only place it may make a difference) to put it would be in the "Geocaching.com Website" forum with the tag, "[FEATURE]" in the subject.

[+HHD]

yep, it is already in the database. Just hoping to bring the discussion to the recent mind.

[+northernpenguin]

How about an "ignore user" function, which also drops their logs, notes, forum posts and emails so you don't have to see THOSE either ....

[+Ambient_Skater]

How about an "ignore user" function, which also drops their logs, notes, forum posts and emails so you don't have to see THOSE either ....

That's a good idea.

[Mr.Yuck]

How about an "ignore user" function, which also drops their logs, notes, forum posts and emails so you don't have to see THOSE either ....

 

Atlas Quest gots it. Not that I'd ever want to ignore a letterboxer or anything.

 

Please mark what about this member you want to ignore:

 

Hide Posts: Hide messages that this member posts to the message boards

 

Hide Chats: Hide any messages sent by this member in the chat rooms or on the billboard widget

 

Hide Mail: Automatically move any AQ mail from this person to the trash folder

 

Hide Boxes: Do not include any letterboxes created or owned by this member in letterbox searches

Edited November 29, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+Manville Possum]

As usual the answer to how to deal with a problem like this is GSAK.

 

Which is a non-answer for many of us.

 

GSAK would be nice but I can't see paying extra to a third party. My PM expires tomorrow and I'm not able to renew at this time, but this would be a great PM feature that I would find useful.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes. It would be nice. But not something that I need rght now! I have no problem putting 'ignore' on all of someone's caches. May take a while, but if it's something I want, it's worth taking the time.

Many other things I'd want to have first. Like having the CO's name on the cache on the ignore list. I dcided I did not want to ignore a certain CO's caches. It's a very time-consuming process to unignore them.

[AZcachemeister]

As usual the answer to how to deal with a problem like this is GSAK. A very simple process exists to do just this with that program and has for a long time. With the advent of version 8 and the API it got even easier.

 

Not a viable solution, really.

Your PQ space will still be taken up with caches by 'XYZ roadsidemicrohider', even though GSAK is set to ignore them.

Much better to eliminate these at the source.

[+Manville Possum]

As usual the answer to how to deal with a problem like this is GSAK. A very simple process exists to do just this with that program and has for a long time. With the advent of version 8 and the API it got even easier.

 

Not a viable solution, really.

Your PQ space will still be taken up with caches by 'XYZ roadsidemicrohider', even though GSAK is set to ignore them.

Much better to eliminate these at the source.

Good point.

[+user13371]

Even for someone who says "GSAK isn't an option" -- filtering after you get the PQ is the only way to go. Whether GSAK on PC, Geosphere on iOS, iCacher on Mac, iGeoKnife with Android, etc... there ARE options.

 

But AZcachemeister: You're concerned that downloading caches you're gonna filter out later will take up too much space in your PQs? I'd have to see an example because I haven't got that problem (yet). I only download/refresh about 3000 a day, and the two folks I filter to ignore only take up about 450 of those spots. You could theoretically download and refresh 35000 caches over a week's time -- shoot, there's fewer than 23000 caches in the whole state of Arizona! Are there really some hiders so prolific (and ignore-worthy) that they'd be crowding out usable PQ space for you?

[+Walts Hunting]

I an going to have to point out the erroneous info from the previous two posts. Filtering after is a waste of time. Use GSAK to fetch just the caches of the person you want to ignore and only them. After thEU are loaded run the ignore macro and they are added to your ignore list and will never bother you again.

[+lamoracke]

personally I would not like the ignore all user function, but then again, am not by a huge power trail in my neck of the woods (thankfully).

[+user13371]

I an going to have to point out the erroneous info from the previous two posts. Filtering after is a waste of time. Use GSAK to fetch just the caches of the person you want to ignore and only them. After they are loaded run the ignore macro and they are added to your ignore list and will never bother you again.

Maybe we're just talking different terms or using different applications. I don't use GSAK but the end result is the same:

 

- Download all of the caches in my area to Geosphere on the iPhone.

- Search (filter) by cache owner/placed by names or other criteria.

- Highlight or set the ignore flag on the resulting list as needed.

 

My iPhone can hold thousands of caches but my eTrex 10 only holds 500. So on any given caching day I'll sift my database for just a few hundred in a given area and export that the the GPS.

[+Walts Hunting]

The problem with your method is you have to repeat it with each download. By adding them to the ignore list on gs they never show up again when you do a pq.

[knowschad]

The problem with your method is you have to repeat it with each download. By adding them to the ignore list on gs they never show up again when you do a pq.

The problem with your method is that it will only ignore caches owned by that user on that date. You will have to continue adding new caches to your ignore list.

[+user13371]

The (lack of) problem with my method is that I can choose to ignore or not ignore them whenever I want. I *want* all of the local/active caches in my database, even if there are some I don't care to look at today. Making my selections of the day is not such an onerous task that I'm gonna ask GC.com (or GSAK) to do it for me one time and never look at it again myself.

[+Gan Dalf]

personally I would not like the ignore all user function, but then again, am not by a huge power trail in my neck of the woods (thankfully).

 

What is your objection to it, or are you just saying it's something you are not interested in? If that, then couldn't you just as easily not use the function?

 

I understand the argument that if it's not something I'd use and therefor don't want Groundspeak wasting resources on it when there are other more urgent things I do want, but there seems to be a lot of interest in wanting it. Personally I can think of more than one or two cachers all of whose caches I'd like to ignore...

[+dfx]

Even for someone who says "GSAK isn't an option" -- filtering after you get the PQ is the only way to go. Whether GSAK on PC, Geosphere on iOS, iCacher on Mac, iGeoKnife with Android, etc... there ARE options.

 

That's not the point, of course there are options. But the OP isn't asking how to do it with GSAK or how to do it with any other application, the OP is asking for the feature to be implemented on the website.

[+BlueDeuce]

nevermind...too obvious.

Edited November 30, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+user13371]

That's not the point, of course there are options. But the OP isn't asking how to do it with GSAK or how to do it with any other application, the OP is asking for the feature to be implemented on the website

A valid observation, sure -- but most of the replies here have been highly relevant:

 

1) The feature has been asked for by users many times but GC.com hasn't implemented it.

2) In the absence of that feature, some folks might find it helpful to hear how others deal with the problem.

 

I'm still curious about your earlier remark that GSAK "is a non-answer for many of us." Is it really the the case that you can't run it or some other client-side filtering program? Or just that you want GC.com to offer all of GSAK's capability online (and all other options are "not the point")?

Edited November 30, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[knowschad]

I suspect Groundspeak has put this request off for as long as it has because they generally tend to lean toward features that bring cachers together rather than to separate them. A similar concept is the "Favorite" vote, which is another feature that was requested for years before it was implemented, in part because they wanted to find a way to avoid voting against a cache or a cacher. I'm not in favor of many of Groundspeak's stances on things, but this is one that I do appreciate.

[+dfx]

I'm still curious about your earlier remark that GSAK "is a non-answer for many of us." Is it really the the case that you can't run it or some other client-side filtering program? Or just that you want GC.com to offer all of GSAK's capability online (and all other options are "not the point")?

 

I do post-processing of my PQ data. Not with GSAK, but with my own scripts. I am able to ignore a particular CO if I wanted to. Not with GSAK though. But I don't actually want to do that anyway, which is why not I have asked for this feature here.

 

Perhaps somebody doesn't want to use GSAK or anything else. Perhaps they like browsing the map on the website and don't want to see somebody's caches there. What does it matter? The question wasn't "how can I do this?", the question was "why can't the website do this?"

[+Gan Dalf]

I'm still curious about your earlier remark that GSAK "is a non-answer for many of us." Is it really the the case that you can't run it or some other client-side filtering program? Or just that you want GC.com to offer all of GSAK's capability online (and all other options are "not the point")?

 

Perhaps somebody doesn't want to use GSAK or anything else. Perhaps they like browsing the map on the website and don't want to see somebody's caches there. What does it matter? The question wasn't "how can I do this?", the question was "why can't the website do this?"

 

My thoughts exactly. There might be many reasons why I person can't, won't, doesn't know how to use third party programs for filtering caches and as dfx says (and I happen to be one of them) many people like to see their maps cache free.

 

Part of being a Premium Member is using Features and also having the right to ask for Features that you would like to see implemented. Just because other tools exist doesn't mean that certain features shouldn't be asked for and implemented...

Edited December 1, 2011 by FobesMan

[+HHD]

Website forum link

[+user13371]

DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds. But if you really want the conversation to stay strictly on the theme of "why won't the website do this for me?" the best bet would be to ask in the Geocaching Website forum.

 

---

Edit: Oops. Asked and answered. I typed this before reading HighHeeled Dutchess pointer to the suggestion in that forum. We now return to our scheduled program of solutions, work arounds, and people complaining that they don't want to do that.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+HHD]

[+Gan Dalf]

DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds. But if you really want the conversation to stay strictly on the theme of "why won't the website do this for me?" the best bet would be to ask in the Geocaching Website forum.

 

---

Edit: Oops. Asked and answered. I typed this before reading HighHeeled Dutchess pointer to the suggestion in that forum. We now return to our scheduled program of solutions, work arounds, and people complaining that they don't want to do that.

 

and it seems to me that your questions are more for arguments sake instead of your actual curiosity. Come on, really, you knew what the answer was when you asked dfx in the first place right? You just asked to keep the argumeent going, didn't you? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know your answer will be started with "nah..." followed by an explanation of how you are jsut curious about how people think.

Edited December 1, 2011 by FobesMan

[+HHD]

Boys...don't make me turn this thread around.

[knowschad]

DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds.

I totally agree with you there!! Workarounds are nice, but if there is a need for a workaround, there is very possibly a need for a website enhancement. Workarounds are just that... a way to work around a problem that can't be solved more directly.

[knowschad]

Boys...don't make me turn this thread around.

 

Just how would you go about doing that?

[+dfx]

DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds. But if you really want the conversation to stay strictly on the theme of "why won't the website do this for me?" the best bet would be to ask in the Geocaching Website forum.

Ah, actually I thought this was where this thread was located. I didn't realize there were two of them. But it doesn't change the underlying fact, which is:

 

Edit: Oops. Asked and answered. I typed this before reading HighHeeled Dutchess pointer to the suggestion in that forum. We now return to our scheduled program of solutions, work arounds, and people complaining that they don't want to do that.

Using GSAK is not a solution nor a workaround. It is for those who already use GSAK or who want to start using it (and ultimately pay for it). It's utterly useless for everybody else. Suggesting to use something, some 3rd party application might be a workaround, but still not a solution.

[+BlueDeuce]

DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds. But if you really want the conversation to stay strictly on the theme of "why won't the website do this for me?" the best bet would be to ask in the Geocaching Website forum.

Ah, actually I thought this was where this thread was located. I didn't realize there were two of them. But it doesn't change the underlying fact, which is:

 

Edit: Oops. Asked and answered. I typed this before reading HighHeeled Dutchess pointer to the suggestion in that forum. We now return to our scheduled program of solutions, work arounds, and people complaining that they don't want to do that.

Using GSAK is not a solution nor a workaround. It is for those who already use GSAK or who want to start using it (and ultimately pay for it). It's utterly useless for everybody else. Suggesting to use something, some 3rd party application might be a workaround, but still not a solution.

 

(Okay, I'll hint at what I posted before)

 

Just to qualify, roughly how many caches do you want to ignore? I think it's important to clarify the effort using the current method.

[+user13371]

...Come on, really, you knew what the answer was when you asked dfx in the first place right? You just asked to keep the argumeent going, didn't you? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know your answer will be started with "nah..." followed by an explanation of how you are jsut curious about how people think.

Nah, I wouldn't do that

 

No, I really couldn't make sense of his initial remark or the ongoing complaint from DFX. There's more than one place where we can discuss "How can I accomplish this task" as well as "Shouldn't GC.com bolt this feature into the website." Threads drift all the time. What's the point of complaining about people offering ways of getting the thing done?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+user13371]

Just to qualify, roughly how many caches do you want to ignore? I think it's important to clarify the effort using the current method.

Well, I hardly ever do ignore by user, but I usually mark and segregate a few of them into a separate group that I may or may not look at on any given day. Typically download between 2000-3000 daily, and the ones I sort of ignore account for around 400-500. The numbers and specific caches do change daily.

[+HHD]

DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds. But if you really want the conversation to stay strictly on the theme of "why won't the website do this for me?" the best bet would be to ask in the Geocaching Website forum.

Ah, actually I thought this was where this thread was located. I didn't realize there were two of them. But it doesn't change the underlying fact, which is:

 

Edit: Oops. Asked and answered. I typed this before reading HighHeeled Dutchess pointer to the suggestion in that forum. We now return to our scheduled program of solutions, work arounds, and people complaining that they don't want to do that.

Using GSAK is not a solution nor a workaround. It is for those who already use GSAK or who want to start using it (and ultimately pay for it). It's utterly useless for everybody else. Suggesting to use something, some 3rd party application might be a workaround, but still not a solution.

 

(Okay, I'll hint at what I posted before)

 

Just to qualify, roughly how many caches do you want to ignore? I think it's important to clarify the effort using the current method.

 

There are thee cachers in my area one of which is very prolific (over 500 hides) so all together about 600-700.

Way to many to do one at a time.

Edited December 1, 2011 by HighHeeled Dutchess

[+Gan Dalf]

Typically download between 2000-3000 daily, and the ones I sort of ignore account for around 400-500.

 

Not to "drift" the thread any more but this is something that I find very bizarre. I once asked a similar question of another cacher before who did not give me an answer that gave me a better understand of why.

 

My question is, why on Earth do you download 2000-3000 caches everyday? I know others like you that do the same thing and I just can't figure it out. You just don't cache enough for it to make sense to me. Caches don't change that much on a daily basis, especially if as for you, you've only got one month in two years where you've found even 50 caches, a few months with more than 40 and most of the time you are finding less than 20 per month...

 

I live in a cache rich area, anywhere from 2-10 publish in my 25 mile notification radius every day. My closest unfound to home radius goes out 18 miles and contains about 750 caches. I'm an OCD cacher that likes to keep as big an area clear of unfound caches around my home as I can. I average more than 80 finds a month and routinely go over 100. I rarely download my 750 cache PQ more than twice a week. Sometimes, when I travel, or if I am going to an area outside my normal radius, I create another PQ and download those but those PQ's never contain more than 500 caches and sometimes they are more like 100. Why do you download thousands of caches everyday when you find so few, I really don't understand it...

 

BTW this is in no way a judgement on why you do it or how you cache, it is just something that I find puzzling that I've noticed some cachers that seem to cache very little, do. You are not alone in this...

[AZcachemeister]

I an going to have to point out the erroneous info from the previous two posts. Filtering after is a waste of time. Use GSAK to fetch just the caches of the person you want to ignore and only them. After thEU are loaded run the ignore macro and they are added to your ignore list and will never bother you again.

 

Thanks for the clarification! A quick filter by owner, and a couple of clicks using the API and those caches are on the 'I' list!

[AZcachemeister]

 

But AZcachemeister: You're concerned that downloading caches you're gonna filter out later will take up too much space in your PQs? I'd have to see an example because I haven't got that problem (yet). I only download/refresh about 3000 a day, and the two folks I filter to ignore only take up about 450 of those spots. You could theoretically download and refresh 35000 caches over a week's time -- shoot, there's fewer than 23000 caches in the whole state of Arizona! Are there really some hiders so prolific (and ignore-worthy) that they'd be crowding out usable PQ space for you?

 

There are two teams that operate just to the north of Phoenix that have enough caches (I have yet to find) to fill two PQs. They have considerably different styles, but not many of their caches are very rewarding.

 

I used to ignore one of the teams entirely, but have since recanted that philosophy for another tact.

 

I see your post D/L process works well for you since you filter out those caches you don't feel like hunting today, but you might want to do them tomorrow.

 

As I said, I have mostly recanted the wholesale ignoring of one user's caches (there are still a couple on that list, though), but for some the ability would be a blessing. If I were downloading 450 caches that I knew I would never look for, that would be 450 caches that weren't downloaded that I COULD have looked for instead.

 

PQ space is a limited and valuable resource that I want to get the most of...since I'm paying for it.

[+user13371]

why on Earth do you download 2000-3000 caches everyday?

Because it's the easiest way to get around the exact kind of GC.com limitations this thread was talking about

 

IF the GC.com pocket query generator had more precise filters, and if I could run/download any number of queries any time I wanted, I'd just do that. But the PQ machine is limited to 5 per day and the parameters are relatively coarse.

 

So what's easiest for me is to run a set of 3 queries that say "Show me active traditionals which I haven't found, within 10 miles of home." I don't download them every single day, just the days I decide to go caching. Then I download the whole batch and sift it to my needs of the moment. With only 3 PQs scheduled per day, I still have a couple open spots to compose & run new a one if something different strikes me.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+user13371]

PQ space is a limited and valuable resource that I want to get the most of...since I'm paying for it.

I kinda feel the same way and do indeed "budget" my PQ usage. But whenever I put more thought to it, I feel a bit silly. PQ space is limited to 35000 caches per week, per premium membership. If I was really caching so much that this wasn't enough, and I was spending too much time trying to work around limits, I'd just buy a second premium membership.

 

Edited December 1, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+StarBrand]

I find it a bit odd to assume that exactly 100% of all caches that a given user will ever put out will be one's that I would not want to look for.

[+GeoBain]

I find it a bit odd to assume that exactly 100% of all caches that a given user will ever put out will be one's that I would not want to look for.

 

If 90% of what a cacher puts out is garbage, I'm ok missing out on the other 10%. I'd even go 60/40, perhaps even 50/50 depending on how bad my experiences were with his caches.

 

And one thing that is being overlooked when discussing ignore from X as opposed to ignore X caches individually is that when you can hide from X, you can easily remove X from your ignore list. Not so easy if you had to manually ignore all his caches.

[+lamoracke]

personally I would not like the ignore all user function, but then again, am not by a huge power trail in my neck of the woods (thankfully).

 

What is your objection to it, or are you just saying it's something you are not interested in? If that, then couldn't you just as easily not use the function?

 

I understand the argument that if it's not something I'd use and therefor don't want Groundspeak wasting resources on it when there are other more urgent things I do want, but there seems to be a lot of interest in wanting it. Personally I can think of more than one or two cachers all of whose caches I'd like to ignore...

 

If you do not care for a certain cacher, well, in most cases, its what, 10 or 12 ignore buttons on their caches, maybe less, maybe more. I was using the devil's advocate if you are not a fan of power trails, it would take a long long long time to go into 1000 caches and mark ignore on every one of them. However, since we do not have such huge power trails in our backyard Fobes, its moot for us.

[+Gan Dalf]

personally I would not like the ignore all user function, but then again, am not by a huge power trail in my neck of the woods (thankfully).

 

What is your objection to it, or are you just saying it's something you are not interested in? If that, then couldn't you just as easily not use the function?

 

I understand the argument that if it's not something I'd use and therefor don't want Groundspeak wasting resources on it when there are other more urgent things I do want, but there seems to be a lot of interest in wanting it. Personally I can think of more than one or two cachers all of whose caches I'd like to ignore...

 

If you do not care for a certain cacher, well, in most cases, its what, 10 or 12 ignore buttons on their caches, maybe less, maybe more. I was using the devil's advocate if you are not a fan of power trails, it would take a long long long time to go into 1000 caches and mark ignore on every one of them. However, since we do not have such huge power trails in our backyard Fobes, its moot for us.

 

Since this is not a local forum and is read by people from all over the world what is moot for us is not necessarily moot for others. We are talking about what is applicable to everyone everywhere, not just you and I locally.

 

Besides that, I disagree. The owners whose caches all of which I would like to ignore (and some of which I already have) are all prolific hiders, with more than 50 hides each and a couple with well over 100. The whole reason behind a ignore all by X cacher is because they are hiders who routinely hide bad caches, in crappy locations with bad coords or are intentionally “evil” and they hide a lot of them and seem to like getting DNF’s. That’s the whole point. It’s not the n00b who goes out and hides a few caches because they don’t know any better that we are talking about. It’s the prolific hiders whose caches we don’t enjoy and so we don’t want them to show up on our maps.

And so, to rephrase my original question, do you have an objection to the idea of an Ignore all by X feature, or is it more that you don’t care because you would never use it? You’re initial posting seemed to say the former, did you actually mean the latter?

[+lamoracke]

personally I would not like the ignore all user function, but then again, am not by a huge power trail in my neck of the woods (thankfully).

 

What is your objection to it, or are you just saying it's something you are not interested in? If that, then couldn't you just as easily not use the function?

 

I understand the argument that if it's not something I'd use and therefor don't want Groundspeak wasting resources on it when there are other more urgent things I do want, but there seems to be a lot of interest in wanting it. Personally I can think of more than one or two cachers all of whose caches I'd like to ignore...

 

If you do not care for a certain cacher, well, in most cases, its what, 10 or 12 ignore buttons on their caches, maybe less, maybe more. I was using the devil's advocate if you are not a fan of power trails, it would take a long long long time to go into 1000 caches and mark ignore on every one of them. However, since we do not have such huge power trails in our backyard Fobes, its moot for us.

 

Since this is not a local forum and is read by people from all over the world what is moot for us is not necessarily moot for others. We are talking about what is applicable to everyone everywhere, not just you and I locally.

 

Besides that, I disagree. The owners whose caches all of which I would like to ignore (and some of which I already have) are all prolific hiders, with more than 50 hides each and a couple with well over 100. The whole reason behind a ignore all by X cacher is because they are hiders who routinely hide bad caches, in crappy locations with bad coords or are intentionally “evil” and they hide a lot of them and seem to like getting DNF’s. That’s the whole point. It’s not the n00b who goes out and hides a few caches because they don’t know any better that we are talking about. It’s the prolific hiders whose caches we don’t enjoy and so we don’t want them to show up on our maps.

And so, to rephrase my original question, do you have an objection to the idea of an Ignore all by X feature, or is it more that you don’t care because you would never use it? You’re initial posting seemed to say the former, did you actually mean the latter?

 

The fact that I am trying to consider those near a power trail is implying am not just thinking about a local thing. Personally I find the idea of just simply pushing a single button and pretending like a cacher does not exist kinda mean. Maybe one has a beef with someone. Maybe someone does not like their caches. Maybe your friends do not like this person. Maybe whatever the reason. I just think that to be allowed to just simply hit one button and ignore a certain cacher for whatever reason is kinda mean and feels like high school to me. If such a button were to exist, its almost like Groundspeak is condoning someone ignoring a cacher. What if a cacher started putting out better caches, you would never even see them. If one wants to ignore someone's caches, obviously that is their business, but I wish they would have to go through the effort of ignoring the individual caches as they find them. That is my opinion and I do not expect you to agree with me.

Edited December 1, 2011 by lamoracke

[+dfx]

What's the point of complaining about people offering ways of getting the thing done?

 

Because I'm tired of seeing GSAK suggested as the solution to everything. Somebody who already uses GSAK probably already knows how to ignore a particular CO, or if they don't, they'd ask in the GSAK forums how to do that. But as for everybody else, there's only a certain chance that they would consider to use it to do whatever it is they want. Usually, the more specialized their request is, the higher the chance is that they'd consider using a 3rd party application (and a commercial one at that).

 

But ignoring a CO? Come on, that's basic stuff, probably one of the most requested features overall. You know we already have an ignore list for single caches, right? Well guess what, you can also do that with GSAK. So technically, the website wouldn't need to have that feature, because you can do it anyway with GSAK! But wait... The website does have an ignore list anyway! I wonder why that is? Could it be so that people don't have to use a 3rd party tool to do something basic like ignoring caches?