should we have a ignore all caches by x

[+StarBrand]

....

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. ....

 

I rather agree with this sentiment.

[+Tequila]

 

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?

 

WOW!!!!!

 

I can't imagine the angst you are experiencing because of this thread: GSAK :)

 

.

[+JesandTodd]

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?

 

And in those 23000 caches, there is one hider, who hides the most craptastic caches along side the road in the most beautiful parts of Az. They have 1000 of these caches hidden, along the road, and the majority of them are micros. In these most beautiful parts, these caches are hidden in weeds, behind dumpsters, and just overall bad hides. I've searched for many of them before I decided I would no longer search them out.

 

1000 + hides is TOO MUCH to add to an ignore list or to remove from a list in my iphone! And when we do a PQ of the area, it's filled with thier hides!

I really wish I could just ignore them. Just a simple click and I can search for real caches in a nice area.

[+dfx]

WOW!!!!!

 

I can't imagine the angst you are experiencing because of this thread: GSAK :)

 

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but I don't really care either.

[Clan Riffster]

Personally I find the idea of just simply pushing a single button and pretending like a cacher does not exist kinda mean.

An interesting perspective. For arguments sake, lets say you and I lived in the same general region, and for whatever reason, I did not like your caches, and utilized the hypothetical Groundspeak single click solution to ignore them all. Would you ever know? I'm not sure I could view such an act as "mean" when there is no one victimized by it.

 

...its almost like Groundspeak is condoning someone ignoring a cacher.

Groundspeak already condones ignoring cachers. They've done so for years. They just make it time consuming. I suspect they created the ignore feature so folks could maximize their enjoyment. By streamlining the existing system, they would be going even farther with the maximizing. I'm not seeing this as a bad thing.

 

What if a cacher started putting out better caches, you would never even see them.

Considering the sheer volume of caches being placed in your average geographic region, I'm betting that those "better" caches would never be missed. As an example of this principle, you need only look at my PQ results. My area is saturated by low D/T rated urban micros. Since these are about as much fun, for me, as watching paint dry, I exclude all micros, size not chosen and size unknowns from my PQs. Yet, there are still more caches being hidden than I can keep up with.

 

That is my opinion and I do not expect you to agree with me.

Nothing wrong with having an opinion that differs from others. I find myself in that position a lot. You have expressed your differences in a civil manner, which earns you more than a few kudos.

[+Harry Dolphin]

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.

 

Naw. The people I would put on my ignore list push button, are those with whom I have intellectual disagreements. I don't like your attitude; I will not look for any of your caches. For example, the CO who deleted my log becaue I took objection to a cache with a suggestive title, hidden in the parking lot of a porn store. Nope. Hit the Ignore Button! Don't like your attitude. Don't like your caches. Will never look for your caches.

[+Gan Dalf]

 

The fact that I am trying to consider those near a power trail is implying am not just thinking about a local thing.

 

I did not get that was what you were trying to consider, my bad for misunderstanding.

 

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.

 

It’s difficult to sort out all these different points and respond to them so I won’t even try. The bottom line is that I was trying to figure out what your position was and why. Now that you’ve explained that I have a better understanding of where you are coming from; you don’t like it because it’s mean.

 

Why would Groundspeak NOT condone ignoring a certain cacher? As dfx points out in another arm of this thread, they already do by providing the option at all. And in fact, beyond condoning it, I would think they would be advocates of it. Let’s face it, there is a lot of tension between certain cachers, I would think that they would want to provide cachers all of the opportunities they can to avoid (ignore) one another in an effort to relieve those tensions.

 

Here’s the thing. Let’s just say I’ve found a dozen or so caches from the same person and all of those caches have been of the type that I don’t enjoy looking for. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the way this person hides and that I’m not going to look for their caches anymore because invariably, I get angry whenever I do. But now the problem is that person has 120 hides almost all of which are the same micro in the woods or LPC in a parking lot type of hide. You’re saying that I should be forced to go through all 120 of that persons caches and ignore them individually, rather than have the ability to ignore them all, because you think it’s mean? You’re expectation is correct, I don’t agree with that.

 

You seem to be mistaking how I feel about THEM for how I feel about their caches. And to that point, what’s better? For me to be Secretly mean and ignore all of the caches they’ve put out in one fell swoop, or to force me to go through one at a time and ignore their 100 or more caches thereby making me like them even less for being forced to do so? How would they even know anyway? I would not expect that the feature would come with a notification that all of their caches had just been ignored by a single user.

Edited December 1, 2011 by FobesMan

[knowschad]

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?

 

I'd say that about half of the geocachers that I know that use GSAK are barely computer literate. Somebody showed them once how to load their PQs into it, and send the PQ to the GPSr. Whoever showed them that probably also configured the output macros to change the way the data loads in, but they themselves have no idea how that works. No... they do NOT know how to filter a cache owner.

[jholly]

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?

 

And in those 23000 caches, there is one hider, who hides the most craptastic caches along side the road in the most beautiful parts of Az. They have 1000 of these caches hidden, along the road, and the majority of them are micros. In these most beautiful parts, these caches are hidden in weeds, behind dumpsters, and just overall bad hides. I've searched for many of them before I decided I would no longer search them out.

 

1000 + hides is TOO MUCH to add to an ignore list or to remove from a list in my iphone! And when we do a PQ of the area, it's filled with thier hides!

I really wish I could just ignore them. Just a simple click and I can search for real caches in a nice area.

 

You know I do believe you can do it pretty quickly and painlessly with GSAK. Yeah, I know, GSAK. Use version 8, setup a getgeocaches query and specify hidden by. Dump that into a clean new database and then use the add to bookmark interface and specify the Ignore list. Done. Delete the database you used to do it and your good to go.

[+JesandTodd]

You know I do believe you can do it pretty quickly and painlessly with GSAK. Yeah, I know, GSAK. Use version 8, setup a getgeocaches query and specify hidden by. Dump that into a clean new database and then use the add to bookmark interface and specify the Ignore list. Done. Delete the database you used to do it and your good to go.

 

This...

I'd say that about half of the geocachers that I know that use GSAK are barely computer literate. Somebody showed them once how to load their PQs into it, and send the PQ to the GPSr. Whoever showed them that probably also configured the output macros to change the way the data loads in, but they themselves have no idea how that works. No... they do NOT know how to filter a cache owner.

 

I can barely get PQs into my Garmin*. And since it only holds 1000 caches, it's only loaded with mountain caches. Or caches where the NW trails are good to have (like random greenbelts and such...)

 

My primary gps remains my iPhone4, and I don't want, use, or need, GSAK for that.

 

And GSAK is hardly intuitive. I'm sure I'll get there...but for right now, I'm just not messing with it.

 

*I'm not kidding. I've loaded a PQ once and I can't for the life of me figure out how to update that query!

[+user13371]

...My primary gps remains my iPhone4, and I don't want, use, or need, GSAK for that. ...

I don't use GSAK either. On my iPhone I use Geosphere - and when I want to load caches onto my Garmin I export the subset I want as a GPX file from the phone.

[AZcachemeister]

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?

 

And in those 23000 caches, there is one hider, who hides the most craptastic caches along side the road in the most beautiful parts of Az. They have 1000 of these caches hidden, along the road, and the majority of them are micros. In these most beautiful parts, these caches are hidden in weeds, behind dumpsters, and just overall bad hides. I've searched for many of them before I decided I would no longer search them out.

 

1000 + hides is TOO MUCH to add to an ignore list or to remove from a list in my iphone! And when we do a PQ of the area, it's filled with thier hides!

I really wish I could just ignore them. Just a simple click and I can search for real caches in a nice area.

 

You know I do believe you can do it pretty quickly and painlessly with GSAK. Yeah, I know, GSAK. Use version 8, setup a getgeocaches query and specify hidden by. Dump that into a clean new database and then use the add to bookmark interface and specify the Ignore list. Done. Delete the database you used to do it and your good to go.

 

You don't even have to do all those steps...but the point is that not everyone uses GSAK, and they shouldn't need to.

It's like adding a spam filter to your eMail...all mail from bogus@email.com goes in the trash.

[AZcachemeister]

You know I do believe you can do it pretty quickly and painlessly with GSAK. Yeah, I know, GSAK. Use version 8, setup a getgeocaches query and specify hidden by. Dump that into a clean new database and then use the add to bookmark interface and specify the Ignore list. Done. Delete the database you used to do it and your good to go.

 

This...

I'd say that about half of the geocachers that I know that use GSAK are barely computer literate. Somebody showed them once how to load their PQs into it, and send the PQ to the GPSr. Whoever showed them that probably also configured the output macros to change the way the data loads in, but they themselves have no idea how that works. No... they do NOT know how to filter a cache owner.

 

I can barely get PQs into my Garmin*. And since it only holds 1000 caches, it's only loaded with mountain caches. Or caches where the NW trails are good to have (like random greenbelts and such...)

 

My primary gps remains my iPhone4, and I don't want, use, or need, GSAK for that.

 

And GSAK is hardly intuitive. I'm sure I'll get there...but for right now, I'm just not messing with it.

 

*I'm not kidding. I've loaded a PQ once and I can't for the life of me figure out how to update that query!

 

Unfortunately, Ignoring a cache will not cause it to not show up on any app that used the current API.

[+JesandTodd]

Unfortunately, Ignoring a cache will not cause it to not show up on any app that used the current API.

 

Grr..I know!! I have a cache on my ignore list and it's the closest to my house!! I see it all the time on my iPhone...

[+user13371]

... I'm tired of seeing GSAK suggested as the solution to everything. ...

Actually, I don't use GSAK myself, I use other tools on the iPhone and Mac. But from experience I know GSAK and several of these tools can answer to this purpose on the user's end.

 

But ignoring a CO? Come on, that's basic stuff, probably one of the most requested features overall.

I've thought about this a few times. I agree it seems like it would be a simple feature to add to the PQ generator. I really don't know why it's not in there. Groundspeak might have a business reason not to, or there might be some technical/performance issue that isn't obvious to an outsider.

[AZcachemeister]

 

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.

 

Mean would be adding the cache(s) to a public/shared bookmark list (or lists) called (something like) 'Garbage I don't want to look for', which would be displayed on all the cache pages.

 

How is it any meaner to ignore them all at once instead of one-at-a-time?

[+Gan Dalf]

I don't download them every single day, just the days I decide to go caching.

 

Well you did say daily, that implies everyday to me. i can understand downloading that many on days when you go geocaching though it does seem like a bit of overkill if the most you are going to find when you do is 5. i guess it does maximize your choices that way...

[+dfx]

... I'm tired of seeing GSAK suggested as the solution to everything. ...

Actually, I don't use GSAK myself, I use other tools on the iPhone and Mac. But from experience I know GSAK and several of these tools can answer to this purpose on the user's end.

No doubt about that. But to a plain user of the website, suggesting GSAK as a solution is just as nonsensical as suggesting Geosphere to someone who doesn't have an iphone (or even to someone who does, but wants to use another application for that matter) or any of the other tools you've mentioned. Like I said, I use my own scripts for processing PQ data and through them I could easily filter certain COs out, but you don't see me suggesting "write your own scripts" to do something basic that gets asked for about once a month, even though it would get the job done.

[+northernpenguin]

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?

 

In that case, I demand that Geocaching.com adds a feature to load my GPS based on filtered selections, treat "Additional Waypoints" as Garmin POI files and cache details as GPX files. I also demand a full implementation of the FindStatGen macro, and I want it to make me a daily cappuccino too.

[+user13371]

... to a plain user of the website, suggesting GSAK as a solution is just as nonsensical as suggesting Geosphere to someone who doesn't have an iphone (or even to someone who does, but wants to use another application for that matter) or any of the other tools you've mentioned...

I just don't see it that way. Nothing wrong with pointing to the tools that are available, if someone hasn't realized it yet, and let folks pick what works for them.

 

To me the "plain" (new? naive?) user is ready for 3rd party tools at about the same time they start realizing the limitations of the built-in PQ generator. No matter how much GC.com builds in, someone is going to want some other feature and the answer is still gonna be "Here are some additional tools you can run on your own computer to do that..."

 

I like some of NorthernPenguin's example -- an "ignore user" feature does seems simple enough. And if/when GC adds it, next week someone will be asking "Why can the 'caches along a route' generator be expanded to also do 'caches within a polygon'?". I guarantee you that the first person to ask will hear "Well, GC.com won't do that for us yet, but for now there's this nifty tool called GSAK..."

Edited December 2, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+dfx]

And if/when GC adds it, next week someone will be asking "Why can the 'caches along a route' generator be expanded to also do 'caches within a polygon'?". I guarantee you that the first person to ask will hear "Well, GC.com won't do that for us yet, but for now there's this nifty tool called GSAK..."

Yup, which again will be fine for those who already use it, but mostly useless for those who don't. If someone really wants to (read: must) populate a whole area through regular PQs just to trim that down to a certain polygon-shaped area, then yeah, they'll probably get GSAK or something else to do that. But for most everybody, such a function would simply be a convenience. It would be nice if the website could do that, but if it doesn't, then they won't jump through some hoops just to make it happen. It would be nice if they could get a better PQ result with more useful caches and less useless caches using up less of their precious PQs. But if they can't, then they'll just live without it. Post-processing ain't gonna be good enough because their PQs get used up anyway and so the benefit of having a trimmed-down result mostly vanishes (unless they have a really good reason to do that, see above). That's why it's not a solution.

[+JesandTodd]

Ignoring all caches by a user is a requested feature, not an expected one. Looks like GSAK can do just about everything and everything. That's great! But I'd really like GS to just expand the already existing feature instead of me losing my mind trying to figure out some obscure program.

[+user13371]

...(suggesting GSAK) ... will be fine for those who already use it, but mostly useless for those who don't...

I'm still not following you. It's mostly useless to suggest a tool to someone who hasn't used it before? There's a first time for everything and that's how it happens. Edited December 2, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+user13371]

...losing my mind trying to figure out some obscure program.

It's only "obscure" the first time you're figuring out how to do it.

 

You don't even need GSAK -- what app are you using for geocaching on your iPhone? The GC.com one or Geosphere or something else?

[+JesandTodd]

The GC app.

[+JesandTodd]

Also, define "the first time you're figuring out how to do it"

 

I guess I'm still in that phase

[+Gan Dalf]

 

What if a cacher started putting out better caches, you would never even see them.

Considering the sheer volume of caches being placed in your average geographic region, I'm betting that those "better" caches would never be missed. As an example of this principle, you need only look at my PQ results. My area is saturated by low D/T rated urban micros. Since these are about as much fun, for me, as watching paint dry, I exclude all micros, size not chosen and size unknowns from my PQs. Yet, there are still more caches being hidden than I can keep up with.

 

While I agree almost verbatem with every other point you made, you lost me with this one. Knowing from experience exactly what the caches in lams geographic region are and regardless of your example, I'm having a hard time undestanding how over saturation of low D/T rated caches results in not missing better caches from someone that usually hides the same... Or am I missing something? Can you rephrase for clarity?

[+niraD]

Unfortunately, Ignoring a cache will not cause it to not show up on any app that used the current API.

Grr..I know!! I have a cache on my ignore list and it's the closest to my house!! I see it all the time on my iPhone...

Actually, Neongeo (Android) can respect your ignore list. But I think the way it works is by downloading your ignore list and then hiding downloaded caches that are on your ignore list.

[+JesandTodd]

Mus be nice....the android app could visit trackables way before the iPhone could too...

[+dfx]

...(suggesting GSAK) ... will be fine for those who already use it, but mostly useless for those who don't...

I'm still not following you. It's mostly useless to suggest a tool to someone who hasn't used it before? There's a first time for everything and that's how it happens.

 

Alright, let me try an analogy as last resort then.

 

Go back some 20 years and assume that you are somewhere here and want to get here.

 

Your interpretation of that request is: "I really need to get there. How can I get there?" Sure, the answer is: take the ferry. Or take a plane. Paddle a canoe, swim, whatever. There's many ways to get it done.

 

But that's not what's being asked for. It actually is: "I'd like to get there, maybe we should be able to drive there." Suggesting the ferry or to take a plane isn't an answer. Yeah, it would get you from here to there, but getting there never was the real problem. Sure, some people may actually not know about the ferry and some of those may actually consider taking it upon learning about it. But for everybody else, that suggestion is really useless. Maybe they can't or don't want to afford the ferry, or they don't have the time to wait for it, can't accommodate for its schedule or just don't want to wait in line. Yeah, the end result would be the same, but it's just not the same thing as driving, and most people just won't go there (or not very often) if they have to take the ferry. The only actual solution is to build a bridge that you can drive over.

 

And guess what? They did!

 

(Don't bother replying about how the analogy is flawed, I'm done here.)

[+user13371]

The GC app.

Darn. From here I'd have no choice to but to suggest an obscure tool to you. Geosphere would let you do a lot more than the GC.com app, but it costs $8 and you'd have to learn how to use it.

 

It would let you download your pocket queries to your phone, bulk select/highlight/ignore/delete any of them by text in the descriptions or by the owner's name, and do a lot of filtering similar to what the more expensive and (to some folks) "more obscure" GSAK program would do. My most frequent use is to sift through the entire collection I have on my phone and export just a subset that will fit on my Garmin. There's a bunch more it can do, but those are the points that seem relevant to what you've already mentioned (ignoring blocks of caches and getting them onto your Garmin).

 

Your choice: Spend another $8 and learn how to use a tool that's available now, or wait for GC.com to build these features into the website and/or the iPhone app they already sold you.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+user13371]

I'm done here.

Promise?!?

 

Actually, I like your bridge analogy and can follow along. Building a bridge, adding features to a website, absolutely the same thing. It's cool if you want to build a bridge (well, you want soeone else to build it for you, but close enough). But your advocacy doesn't help someone get from point A to point B today. And folks who CAN get there today (knowing how to use what's available already) aren't sure why you're fussing. Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Another way your analogy works is that some folks will have a different view of progress. I don't mind if your bridge gets built, even though I'm comfortable swimming for now. But I'll bet some people will argue against it in terms of cost or performance.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+dfx]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

[+L0ne.R]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

 

+1

[+HHD]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

 

+1

 

+1

[+northernpenguin]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

 

The issue here comes down to resources and cost.

There is a "solution" to the specific problem, even if it's not what one deems the "ideal" solution.

 

Using the bridge analogy, perhaps the ferry is the option because the bridge is going to cost 2.6 billion dollars and the community can't afford to build it. Do you press on with the bridge construction, and cancel all other roadwork projects, or do you think the locals are more apt to complain about the potholes on all the roads leading up to the superbridge.

 

The other point is, the ferry and the airport are running today so you can use those to get over there while this is discussed. There will be those that oppose the bridge based on the fact that other options exist. Ask the residents of Prince Edward Island who preferred the ferry to the Confederation Bridge how that worked out for them

 

Now to be fair, an ignore all caches by X feature surely isn't a massive undertaking like a public API is, and this is more likely a line-of-business / political type issue where Geocaching.com is more interested in maintaining the atmosphere of the site in their specific way, much like we got "favourites" but didn't get "god I hate this" voting.

[+Gan Dalf]

 

...and this is more likely a line-of-business / political type issue where Geocaching.com is more interested in maintaining the atmosphere of the site in their specific way, much like we got "favourites" but didn't get "god I hate this" voting.

 

I can't buy this. Ignoring someones cache is in no way the same as posting on someones cache page that their cache sucks. Ignoring caches already exists there was no analgous I hate this cache function before favorites were created. A CO does not KNOW when their cache is being ignored unless the person doing the ignoring tells them, so why would this be a political lets all be nice to one another issue?

 

I think it more likely that since there is already a function in place that does the job, albeit a slow, cloodgie one, then it is not a current priority for Groundpspeak. There are other more important features that people have been clamoring for and so there focus is on that.

[+dfx]

The issue here comes down to resources and cost.

There is a "solution" to the specific problem, even if it's not what one deems the "ideal" solution.

 

Now to be fair, an ignore all caches by X feature surely isn't a massive undertaking like a public API is, and this is more likely a line-of-business / political type issue where Geocaching.com is more interested in maintaining the atmosphere of the site in their specific way, much like we got "favourites" but didn't get "god I hate this" voting.

 

I won't point out that the suggested "solution" is a solution to the wrong problem, but I will recognize that there may well be good reasons for them not to actually implement this feature. But until somebody actually tells us "we're not gonna do that", it's purely speculation. And until that happens, don't tell people to stop asking for it, just because there's already a kludge through which you can achieve a similar end result.

[+user13371]

...I think it more likely that since there is already a function in place that does the job, albeit a slow, cloodgie one, then it is not a current priority for Groundpspeak. There are other more important features that people have been clamoring for and so there focus is on that.

I'll go along with part of this -- the tools exist to do it already and Groundspeak folks have their priorities looking elsewhere.

 

But I'd differ on the "slow, cloodgie" part. There are MANY ways to get this done. Not all of them are slow, and cloodgie isn't a word

Edited December 2, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[jholly]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

Tell you what, while your waiting for the bridge or driving around I'll ride the ferry and be happy I have an imperfect way to get to the other side.

[+Coldgears]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

Tell you what, while your waiting for the bridge or driving around I'll ride the ferry and be happy I have an imperfect way to get to the other side.

What if you were paying $50 a year with the intention of them building the bridge?

[+Gan Dalf]

But I'd differ on the "slow, cloodgie" part. There are MANY ways to get this done igonre caches.

 

Not on the Geocaching.com website there's not!

 

Not all of them are slow, and cloodgie isn't a word

When I don't know how to spell a word, I spell phoneticly, you understood what I meant.

[jholly]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

Tell you what, while your waiting for the bridge or driving around I'll ride the ferry and be happy I have an imperfect way to get to the other side.

What if you were paying $50 a year with the intention of them building the bridge?

That is my choice. Or I can pay $20 round trip on the ferry and be happy that I'm saving the hours it would take to drive and the extra $15 in gas. Not to mention I'm also saving $50 a year on a pipe dream.

[AZcachemeister]

Not that you're advocating for a bridge (I get that part) but that you're so opposed to people pointing out there are other ways to go.

 

Not at all. What I'm opposed to is people advertising those "other ways" as being the "solution" to the problem that the lack of a particular feature poses. Or, in other words, it's like saying: There's no need for a bridge, because you can already take the ferry! That doesn't help those who can't or don't want to take the ferry at all.

 

But if the bridge-builders are off making ice-cream, you might need to take the ferry until they get back on the job.

Knowing where the terminal is and how much it costs can help you decide whether you might rather swim it.

[Clan Riffster]

Step 1: Install GSAK. Pay X amount of dollars.

Step 2: Learn to use GSAK.

Step 3: Use version 8, setup a getgeocaches query and specify hidden by.

Step 4: Dump that into a clean new database

Step 5: Then use the add to bookmark interface and specify the Ignore list.

Step 6: Delete the database you used to do it.

Or, click a single hypothetical button, provided by Groundspeak, which says words to the effect of, "Ignore all hides by this user". Since I consider laziness to be an art form,I would much rather have a one-step process as opposed to a multi-step process. Not that your suggestion wouldn't work. I'm sure it would do the job. But us lazy folks like to at least dream about doing it with a single click.

[Clan Riffster]

 

What if a cacher started putting out better caches, you would never even see them.

Considering the sheer volume of caches being placed in your average geographic region, I'm betting that those "better" caches would never be missed. As an example of this principle, you need only look at my PQ results. My area is saturated by low D/T rated urban micros. Since these are about as much fun, for me, as watching paint dry, I exclude all micros, size not chosen and size unknowns from my PQs. Yet, there are still more caches being hidden than I can keep up with.

 

While I agree almost verbatem with every other point you made, you lost me with this one. Knowing from experience exactly what the caches in lams geographic region are and regardless of your example, I'm having a hard time undestanding how over saturation of low D/T rated caches results in not missing better caches from someone that usually hides the same... Or am I missing something? Can you rephrase for clarity?

I can try, but as I've oft been called dumber than a bag of hammers, I make no promises to the results. As I understood the linked statement, lamoracke expressed a concern that, if I, (the collective I), were to ignore all hides by BillyBobNosePicker because history showed me that he hid crappy caches, then I might be missing out on some quality hides should BillyBob change his ways. I was trying to point out that, even if BillyBob did suddenly hide some great ones, I'd likely never notice them, or feel slighted by their absence from my PQs, because there are so many other caches being hidden by other people that do meet my rather biased caching aesthetic.

[+GeoBain]

Step 1: Install GSAK. Pay X amount of dollars.

Step 2: Learn to use GSAK.

Step 3: Use version 8, setup a getgeocaches query and specify hidden by.

Step 4: Dump that into a clean new database

Step 5: Then use the add to bookmark interface and specify the Ignore list.

Step 6: Delete the database you used to do it.

Or, click a single hypothetical button, provided by Groundspeak, which says words to the effect of, "Ignore all hides by this user". Since I consider laziness to be an art form,I would much rather have a one-step process as opposed to a multi-step process. Not that your suggestion wouldn't work. I'm sure it would do the job. But us lazy folks like to at least dream about doing it with a single click.

 

Let's not forget that if you choose to reverse the process you must again repeat several steps or you could click a single hypothetical button and again show that hiders caches without affecting your other ignored caches.

[+HHD]

Lazy cachers unite! I knew I had people here.

[+user13371]

The secrets of this earth are not for all to see, but only for those who will seek them.

[+L0ne.R]

The secrets of this earth are not for all to see, but only for those who will seek them.