IF ya’ don’t like ‘em…don’t do ‘em…well…OK!

[+datum]

Here’s something I offer up for discussion. I realize not everyone agrees on what makes an acceptable cache. Some may find the Virtual consisting of a “historic plaque” sitting in the middle of an empty open field explaining that a post office once set here to be interesting. Others may think a Tupperware container tossed behind a tree along a busy road is exciting. Then again some don’t. Some feel the more caches the better, some don’t. Some folks get into the number of finds, some don’t. However, what most can agree on is that we would like some control as to what caches show up on the Nearest Geocache(s) list that comes up when a zip code is input. Since at present, there is no way to get these off your list unless you “find” them, here’s a possible solution. Log it as a find but in the comments post “Not found – removing from list.” This would eliminate the listing of that cache and the necessity for you to do a cache just to get it out of the way…off your list.

 

A better solution would be for Geocaching.com to have an additional option on the Log A Find page (along with: Found it, Couldn’t find it, Post a note, Cache should be archived) called “Don’t list on Nearest Cache Page.” This option would remove it from your list but not claim it as a find.

 

Thoughts, comments?

[+jollybgood]

I've always thought an Ignore feature or "I'll PASS" would be nice. There are several local caches I'm not interested in finding.

 

For example there's a park near me where over a dozen caches have been placed in the 18 months I've been caching. I see no need to visit the same area over and over again. Just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather seek out places I'ver never been.

 

But I can't get them off my Pocket Quieries list. It'd be nice to have the option of making them go away.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

[+DustyJacket]

I agree.

In addition, there is one that had recently kicked my butt - I made 4 tries and am not interested in going back. As long as it keeps showing up in my Pocket Query it will be "mocking" me.

 

Also, I'd like my own caches to not appear on a query. I don't plan to log a find on them.

 

I'd love an "ignore" option.

 

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

[+jollybgood]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DustyJacket:

I agree.

In addition, there is one that had recently kicked my butt - I made 4 tries and am not interested in going back. As long as it keeps showing up in my Pocket Query it will be "mocking" me.

 

Also, I'd like my own caches to not appear on a query. I don't plan to log a find on them.

 

I'd love an "ignore" option.

 

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

---

 

Ummmm, take a closer look at the filters on your Pocket Query. You can filter out your OWN caches.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

[+DustyJacket]

Cool! I haven't revised my filters since I placed my caches. Thanks.

 

My first point still stand. I hate to see that DNF mocking me !

 

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

[+smithdw]

If you are using pocket queries, you really need Watcher. With it you can view cache info offline, sort them in several different ways, and more to what you want, setup filters. The filters let you set ignore lists for cache types, caches sizes, ratings, travel bugs, bearing and distance from home, coordinates, specific caches, placed by, owner, state and country. After you filter out the caches you don't want (the program saves your filters and you can turn them on or off) you can save the GPX file for sending to your PDA or GPS. Another feature is that it will merge GPX files another is searching through the entire cache description and last 5 logs.

The program is free and ClayJar updates it quite often. Go ahead and try it out.

 

"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec/sec."

-Marcus Dolengo

[+Harrald]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DustyJacket:

<<SNIP>> As long as it keeps showing up in my Pocket Query it will be "mocking" me.

 

<<SNIP>>

---

 

I guess that you'll have to take a fifth try at it then. Either that or have a few words on a screen mock you

 

I don't really want an ignore button. The only way you should be able to get a cache off that first, second or whatever page is to find it. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

 

On another note watcher really does rock for filtering and ignoring caches.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[BassoonPilot]

Well, if you're going to have an "Ignore" button, I suppose you had also better institute a "Boycotting this cache" button.

[+sbukosky]

I've asked for a feature like this and I'm sure others have too. There's a location-less cache that keeps popping up and a commercial cache that I will never log and annoys the hell out of me. Also, I went to a cache in a real garbagey park and ran across kids smoking pot near the cache. I've no interest in going back there. We need an ignore feature!

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

[umc]

Good to see you're still around Datum.

 

I like the idea of having that extra option on the log page and would use it if I lived where the Not Tellin caches are or other caches that I have no interest in.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

[+flask]

i'm in favor of the ignore option, for whatever reason. the only real drawback i can think of is whether it would be difficult to code. i know nothing of those things and do not like to assume how easy it will be for other people.

 

i'm AGAINST claiming anything as found and then leaving a note.

 

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

[+Renegade Knight]

How about a Bozo Bin for cache owners who's every cache, makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end?

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

[+Dave_W6DPS]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

How about a Bozo Bin for cache owners who's every cache, makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end?

---

 

Would that include those who can't hide a cache unless you have to walk through a field of trash to get to it????

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

How about a Bozo Bin for cache owners who's every cache, makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end?

---

 

Would that include those who can't hide a cache unless you have to walk through a field of trash to get to it????

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

---

 

Sure, we all annoy someone. I resemble your remark on at least one cache.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

[+ChrissySkyking + Blaze]

Yeah, I, too, would appreciate an Ignore Cache choice on the Log screen.

 

There a number of caches near me that were created by a very smart ex-FBI agent, but they're all about ciphers and encryptions that, frankly, neither my wife nor I feel like spending the time doing. We talked with him at a geocache picnic, and were all in agreeance that there's no reason to do the caches that don't appeal to you. His are for people who like serious puzzles.

 

So, the caches keep popping up again and again on our pocket queries, and it just gets confusing when we're out driving around. Each time, we have to consult our PDA to find out whether this is a cache we want to do, or is it one of the puzzle ones we really don't care to find.

 

As a website designer and database programmer, I'd feel confident that our wonderful Geocaching.com website designers can probably fairly easily implement the new type of cache log. (Let's see... have to modify the cache page, the log page, the nearest lists, and the pocket queries, and the mobibook files... etc. etc.) Ok, surely it's not a quick update, but something that could be done if they have the time (and $$!).

[+datum]

Whatever reason we have for not doing a particular cache can be as varied as we are individuals. Regardless, I see agreement that once that determination is made, it would be nice not to wade through them again every time the Nearest Cache list is brought up. Using Pocket Queries and programs like Watcher may be an option but it is not a solution for the clutter. As the amount of caches in a particular area grow, that percentage of “passed” caches will grow. Simply…. because the caches you want to do, you will. THOSE move off your Nearest Cache list and move on to the “Caches you found.” The “passed” caches stay there. It is conceivable that with the exception of the occasional new cache, you may have to someday go through a multiple of pages to find something you want to do.

 

I would not like to see it come down to “Log(ging) it as a find but in the comments post: Not found – removing from list” to eliminate a cache from you list. That would skew ones cache number. THE NUMBER is a motivator for some and for others it is a convenient reference as to ones activity. However, unless the clutter problem is addressed, it may become a measure of last resort.

 

For those who have been around for awhile, think about the amount of caches in your area 2 years ago. Look at today. Imagine what it will be like 2 years from now. It’s good to be selective.

[+Frolickin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harrald:

I don't really want an ignore button. The only way you should be able to get a cache off that first, second or whatever page is to find it. _Ignoring it doesn't make it go away_.

---

I've gone caching with some folks. On a couple of these outings caches were placed. In one case, we created a new user id for the cache. Since three of us hid the cache, it now shows up on all our nearest cache list. We can't exactly go out and find this one.

 

On another outing, the other cacher placed the cache and listed it under his account. Mind you, I could have logged it, but since I was there when it was placed, it seems disingenuous to do so.

 

An ignore option would clear these from the nearest cache pages. Yes, I use Watcher. That is an extra that has nothing to do with GC.com. It would be nice to have the feature resolved on the site that we support.

 

Just my $.02,

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

[+bigredmed]

I agree with the desire to have a filter on the watch list. I would like to wipe VC's and most multicaches. It would be great to have them either eliminated from my list, or better, have them dropped into a second category (like we have now with caches we placed, caches that are unavailable, and caches we have already done.)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/

[+timpaula]

having a "no thanks" option is a no-brainer, and being a professional web application developer, i can tell you that it's no more difficult than handling finds. It's just another type of find, which shouldn't impact storage space or processing time, if designed correctly. Would probably take less than a day to implement, providing the system is well-designed to begin with.

 

What I'd like to see is a feature "wish list" that people could vote on. Perhaps a "wish list" topic, then after some consensus is reached, we could make a poll to vote for the ones we want most. Or we could take a "bug parade" approach, for those that know the Java developer forums. Basically, everyone votes for the three most important things we want the developers to focus on. This determines what gets worked on (at least in theory).

 

<timpaula>

[3fros]

I agree, I've wanted this feature for quite a while. One time I drove by a cache that was in the back of a kids private school. Yeah right, here's this strange looking guy wandering around in the back of a kids private school. Next thing I know is that I'll find myself in the back of a squad car. No thanks! I would like to just ignore this one and several others I know I'll never want to do.