Improved Ignore List

[ertyu]

I've refrained from using the standard ignore list because it's functionality is not at all what I want, in fact it is nearly opposite. I'd like the caches to remain on the bulk of the website and be excluded from PQs. It's nice to have the toggle to remove them from PQs, but it would be nice if there were a toggle for other items, like the maps, APIs, website listings etc. The caches don't need to vanish entirely like they do now, I just want them easily filtered from my downloads and some forms of browsing.

[+J Grouchy]

So what happens when you check the "Are not on my ignore list" option in the PQ? Wouldn't that exclude any caches that ARE on your ignore list?

[+T.D.M.22]

So you really don't want to ignore those caches....

[+HHL]

So what happens when you check the "Are not on my ignore list" option in the PQ? Wouldn't that exclude any caches that ARE on your ignore list?

 

Yes. We call it Logic.

[+dprovan]

So what happens when you check the "Are not on my ignore list" option in the PQ? Wouldn't that exclude any caches that ARE on your ignore list?

You've put your finger on exactly the feature he wants: he wants to create an ignore list but with the ignore list having a feature that allows him to disable the ignore functionality, yet still be able to click on "Are not on my ignore list" to get the results he wants from the PQ.

 

I'm not advocating such a feature because it seems heck-a-confusing, but functionally that's exactly what the OP is asking for. I already massage my PQs, so if I wanted this feature, I'd just post-process the PQs, although that does mean ignored caches would waste slots in the 1000 cache PQ maximum.

[ertyu]

I find the feature confusing because the ignored caches are removed from places where it doesn't make sense to me. For example, if a friend has found a cache I've ignored, it disappears from their find list as well, I think it even disappears from my finds list. It vanishes from all kind of lists and messes with total counts and the like. Now I haven't used it in a while and perhaps some of this has changed.

 

I want to be able to Ignore/Filter caches from certain places, like PQs, maps, APIs and lists where it makes sense to me, but not to make the cache entirely vanish from the website and affect things I think it shouldn't.

[ertyu]

So you really don't want to ignore those caches....

 

No I want to ignore the caches, I just don't want to use the current Ignore List logic as it applies to too much of the website in my opinion.

[ertyu]

I just find it odd that the only place you can ignore the ignore list is in PQs where it is default option to include ignored caches. That is the one place I've yet to want to see ignored caches. Not to say the option is bad, I'm sure in the future I may have a reason, but I've not had one yet to include an ignored cache.

[+HHL]

I just find it odd that the only place you can ignore the ignore list is in PQs [...]

 

That' not odd. PQs also can hold archived caches if the PQ is based on bookmark list. And a bookmark list from user A may contain ignored caches from user B. That's why GS implemented the check box to exclude ignored caches.

 

Hans

[+EngPhil]

he wants to create an ignore list but with the ignore list having a feature that allows him to disable ignore the ignore functionality, yet still be able to click on "Are not on my ignore list" to get the results he wants from the PQ.

Can the rest of us ignore the ignoring of the ignore functionality of the ignore list with another ignore option?

 

I'm not advocating such a feature because it seems heck-a-confusing

Yeah, no kidding :-)

 

(Sorry, ignore me, I'm having a loopy night...)

[ertyu]

If the ignore list is working for you, feel free to ignore this forum posting.

 

The ignore list does not work for me, but I would like to use it.

 

PQs have an option to not follow the ignore list, in fact it's the default, why is it so much to ask to consider adding this same functionality to other places?

[+dprovan]

he wants to create an ignore list but with the ignore list having a feature that allows him to disable ignore the ignore functionality, yet still be able to click on "Are not on my ignore list" to get the results he wants from the PQ.

Can the rest of us ignore the ignoring of the ignore functionality of the ignore list with another ignore option?

Yeah. Actually, I cast this idea via the ignore list because that links the feature I was describing to the OP's presentation. In practice, it might make more sense to allow a PQ to ignore an arbitrary list rather than restrict it to only being able to ignore things on the ignore list. That way, the OP could create a list of caches he wants PQs to ignore unrelated to the list of caches he doesn't want to show up on the map. Perhaps even make the ignore list itself an arbitrary list with multiple ignore checkboxes to indicate which system features, if any, should ignore that list. (Although that limits the list to 1000 entries. Isn't the current ignore list unlimited length?)

 

A feature along those lines would be more logical and easier to understand, but I don't really think it would be worth the effort involved in implementing it (assuming it would be practical to implement in the first place).

[+niraD]

In practice, it might make more sense to allow a PQ to ignore an arbitrary list rather than restrict it to only being able to ignore things on the ignore list. That way, the OP could create a list of caches he wants PQs to ignore unrelated to the list of caches he doesn't want to show up on the map.

That was my thought. The ignore list would ignore caches everywhere. And PQs could both include and exclude caches on any list.

 

This assumes that PQs can do something other than simply spit out the caches on a list. I know that I'd like to use a PQ to filter only the unfound caches on a list, or only the low terrain caches on a list, or whatever. But right now, you either get a full PQ with various criteria (but without the ability to use lists), or you get a bookmark list PQ (without any other criteria available to filter the list).

[+Harry Dolphin]

I would like it if the Ignore List included the name of the CO. Now, it only lists the cache code and cache name (and distance.)

[ertyu]

So I dug through some of the things I use with regards to geocaching.com and came up with a confusing list of where the ignore list is and isn't applied. It's much more muddled that I recalled and with no clear rational, it makes it all the more difficult keep track of and to figure out what you are seeing.

 

A cache on the Ignore List:

- Disappears from various cache lists (seek/⁠nearest.aspx?state_id=xx)

(seek/⁠nearest.aspx?lat=xyz&lng=abc)

(seek/⁠nearest.aspx?lat=xyz&lng=abc&f=1)

- Disappears from general cache maps

- Disappears from other users profile found caches list

- Disappears from my profile found caches list (seek/⁠nearest.aspx?ul=xxxxx)

- Disappears from other hiders profile hidden caches list

- Disappears from my profile hidden list (seek/nearest.aspx?u=xxxxx)

- Disappears from search (play/search/)

- Disappears from advanced search (seek/⁠nearest.aspx?key=xyz)

- Remains in my owned cache list (my/⁠owned.aspx)

- Remains in my logs list (my/⁠logs.aspx)

- Remains in my geocaches list (my/⁠geocaches.aspx)

- Remains on recently viewed list (my/⁠recentlyviewedcaches.aspx)

- Remains in multiple sections of quickview (my/⁠default.aspx)

- Remains visible in other bookmark lists

- Remains in PQs by default, can be removed by checkbox

- Remains in My Finds PQ

- Remains visible in the iOS app by default, can be removed by setting

- Does not appear to change find/⁠hide counts in statbar or profile list

- Does not appear to change user statistics

- API appears to support including and excluding caches on the ignore list as well as an arbitrary list

- GSAK API access appears to exclude Ignored Caches, has no option to change

- Haven't verified how the ignore list affects Notifications

Edited May 5, 2015 by ertyu

[ertyu]

So I dug through some of the things I use with regards to geocaching.com and came up with a confusing list of where the ignore list is and isn't applied. It's much more muddled that I recalled and with no clear rational, it makes it all the more difficult keep track of and to figure out what you are seeing.

 

A cache on the Ignore List:

- Disappears from various cache lists (seek/⁠nearest.aspx?state_id=xx)

(seek/⁠nearest.aspx?lat=xyz&lng=abc)

(seek/⁠nearest.aspx?lat=xyz&lng=abc&f=1)

- Disappears from general cache maps

- Disappears from other users profile found caches list

- Disappears from my profile found caches list (seek/⁠nearest.aspx?ul=xxxxx)

- Disappears from other hiders profile hidden caches list

- Disappears from my profile hidden list (seek/nearest.aspx?u=xxxxx)

- Disappears from search (play/search/)

- Disappears from advanced search (seek/⁠nearest.aspx?key=xyz)

- Remains in my owned cache list (my/⁠owned.aspx)

- Remains in my logs list (my/⁠logs.aspx)

- Remains in my geocaches list (my/⁠geocaches.aspx)

- Remains on recently viewed list (my/⁠recentlyviewedcaches.aspx)

- Remains in multiple sections of quickview (my/⁠default.aspx)

- Remains visible in other bookmark lists

- Remains in PQs by default, can be removed by checkbox

- Remains in My Finds PQ

- Remains visible in the iOS app by default, can be removed by setting

- Does not appear to change find/⁠hide counts in statbar or profile list

- Does not appear to change user statistics

- API appears to support including and excluding caches on the ignore list as well as an arbitrary list

- GSAK API access appears to exclude Ignored Caches, has no option to change

- Haven't verified how the ignore list affects Notifications

 

I also confirmed that I receive notifications for caches on the ignore list, at least of archive type

[+dprovan]

So I dug through some of the things I use with regards to geocaching.com and came up with a confusing list of where the ignore list is and isn't applied. It's much more muddled that I recalled and with no clear rational, it makes it all the more difficult keep track of and to figure out what you are seeing.

I admit I don't use the ignore list, so I don't really know what people using it expect, but as I look at your list, everything makes perfect sense to me. The logic is that you are ignoring caches because you don't want to look for them, not because you don't want to see them listed anywhere ever again. So they disappear from places where you're perusing caches, but are still accounted for if they're found or if someone lists them in a bookmark list. Certainly I can't even imagine why you think it makes sense for an ignored cache to disappear from your list of owned caches.

[ertyu]

I admit I don't use the ignore list, so I don't really know what people using it expect, but as I look at your list, everything makes perfect sense to me. The logic is that you are ignoring caches because you don't want to look for them, not because you don't want to see them listed anywhere ever again. So they disappear from places where you're perusing caches, but are still accounted for if they're found or if someone lists them in a bookmark list. Certainly I can't even imagine why you think it makes sense for an ignored cache to disappear from your list of owned caches.

I don't think the list makes sense at all. It certainly isn't how I want to use it. In fact your statements are somewhat contradicted by my findings. For example, if I go through the list of my found caches in my profile, ignored ones are not listed. Similarly through the same avenue, my hides that are ignored are not listed. I'm not suggesting I want my owned caches to disappear, it was just one avenue I investigated as plenty of odd things happen with the ignore list.

[+niraD]

My guess is that they didn't expect people to ignore found or owned caches. They expected people to ignore unfound caches that they didn't want to see any more. And they designed the system around that expectation.

[+dprovan]

My guess is that they didn't expect people to ignore found or owned caches. They expected people to ignore unfound caches that they didn't want to see any more. And they designed the system around that expectation.

Well, yes, except I don't think it's that they didn't expect it so much as they didn't consider it an interesting application. They may, indeed, not have considered the possibility, but if I were in their shoes and I'd thought about it, I would conclude that it would be a mistake to make a cache disappear from found logs because it's ignored since obviously it wasn't ignored after all.

 

Basically, the ignore list is for caches that you don't want to see because you don't intend to ever look for them. Not only am I OK with the implementation assuming all bets are off once you find them despite declaring that you weren't interested, I think it's actually quite logical. If you've found a cache that you want to ignore, then the logical approach is not log a find on it, or delete a found log that you've already filed. That would prevent the cache from being listed in most of the places listed. It's only when you want to ignore a cache yet also file logs against it that there's a significant discrepancy.

 

If the list was called "hide" rather than "ignore" then there'd be less room to argue about it.

[ertyu]

It matters not to me what it is called, the functionality is what I have issues with.

 

If I choose to ignore or hide caches from my view, I don't think they should disappear from all the areas they currently do. In addition I think there are several areas where they appear, where they should not. A big example, it should not rewrite history, it should not remove it from finds or hides lists.

 

The biggest problem is that it's confusing. In some places it appears, in some places it doesn't, in some places there is an option to have it appear or not and the default settings for that option are contradictory to what would be naturally assumed in my opinion. No matter what, I have to carefully examine whether the ignore list is being applied or not for absolutely everything, which just makes it too difficult to deal with.

 

I put one cache on my ignore list to test various things and forgot it was there. I was confused several times in a week as to why certain things weren't as expected.

 

But I digress, it appears I'm alone in these thoughts in this forum, so I'll just continue on, unable to use the feature I desire.

[+dprovan]

It matters not to me what it is called, the functionality is what I have issues with.

I wasn't arguing about the name, just pointing out that a feature which universally hid the cache would be called "hide", while "ignore" indicates a desire to ignore the cache, a desire that would be overridden if you yourself don't ignore it but, instead, post logs to it.

 

If I choose to ignore or hide caches from my view, I don't think they should disappear from all the areas they currently do. In addition I think there are several areas where they appear, where they should not. A big example, it should not rewrite history, it should not remove it from finds or hides lists.

 

The biggest problem is that it's confusing. In some places it appears, in some places it doesn't, in some places there is an option to have it appear or not and the default settings for that option are contradictory to what would be naturally assumed in my opinion. No matter what, I have to carefully examine whether the ignore list is being applied or not for absolutely everything, which just makes it too difficult to deal with.

OK, now I don't know what your point is. In the first paragraph, you acknowledge it shouldn't be applied everywhere, but the second paragraph seems to say it is confusing because it isn't applied everywhere.

 

Maybe you should be more explicit about which of those places it should be applied but isn't, and which it is applied but shouldn't be. Until now, I thought you were saying it should be applied everywhere it isn't in your list.

 

About the only thing I understand about your position at this point is the PQ issue: I agree that logically the default on PQs is backwards: it should be to not include ignored caches unless requested. Even I have a hard time coming up with a logic to the current behavior.

[ertyu]

When I first started this post, I thought the ignore list applied mostly universally except for a few places. After researching various avenues I'm so confused by where it does and doesn't apply, I really don't know which bits I would want to change. The whole thing is in just such a confused state I'm better off avoiding it entirely.

 

It's a nice idea, there are caches that I don't want to see again, but I don't want to have to second guess looking at any part of geocaching.com wondering if I'm seeing the correct data or not.