traildad

Would you really do that?

I think it is more about keeping others from comparing themselves to you. You know, help keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I'm not interested in saving other people from themselves. If another player wants to compare themselves to me by the number of finds we have then I think it's pretty stupid, but it's not up to me to force them to understand that. Likewise, if someone believes that the find counts are important, it's not up to them to force me to believe the way they do either. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize that I can ignore a game that is being played that I don't wish to participate it, and I can play happily the way I want to. Does that mean that you are also "smart" enough to accept that others have a different and valid point of view? The OP asked for an option to hide the find count. It seems smarter to grant that, than it does to try and insist that everyone become "enlightened" enough to ignore how they feel. This change would not hurt the game, and might even bring more traffic to the web site. More traffic to the site is better for the frog. All the people that don't log finds might change the way they play the game. I have to disagree,, If anything, the site would have less traffic and therefore less revenue. Allthough geocaching didn't start out this way, these days it is "about the numbers" for most who enjoy it. It's not about the destination or the view anymore, it's about increasing that smilie count and comparing that count with friends or other cachers. There's no doubt that adding a feature to hide count would be discouraging for some and i believe that TPTB are hesitant to add the feature because they may think this too! To each their own. We know that some people avoid logging online. I doubt any of the numbers players would change their habits just because some people hide their find count. If some that try to avoid the numbers game start logging online, you end up with more site traffic.

So you were quoting me... but not replying to me. You were responding to others. My bad. (yeah right) Here is a quote of the post I am referring to. I was responding to Prime Suspect. It is in the quotes you supplied. Did you not read what you put in your own post. Obfuscate a little more, tag off to KBI and then come back to this later and try again. Maybe it will work for you then. I think it is more about keeping others from comparing themselves to you. You know, help keep them from becoming vain or bitter.

I think it is more about keeping others from comparing themselves to you. You know, help keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I'm not interested in saving other people from themselves. If another player wants to compare themselves to me by the number of finds we have then I think it's pretty stupid, but it's not up to me to force them to understand that. Likewise, if someone believes that the find counts are important, it's not up to them to force me to believe the way they do either. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize that I can ignore a game that is being played that I don't wish to participate it, and I can play happily the way I want to. Does that mean that you are also "smart" enough to accept that others have a different and valid point of view? The OP asked for an option to hide the find count. It seems smarter to grant that, than it does to try and insist that everyone become "enlightened" enough to ignore how they feel. This change would not hurt the game, and might even bring more traffic to the web site. More traffic to the site is better for the frog. All the people that don't log finds might change the way they play the game. Whoa, slow down there a minute and look at what I was replying to before you put your own meaning into my words. You said - that hiding the find count is about keeping people from comparing themselves to you, and to help to keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I replied - that I wasn't interested in keeping people from doing anything that they want to do if the only result is that they're hurting themselves (causing them to become vain or bitter). You overreacted - and assumed that I somehow meant to imply that someone else's point of view wasn't valid, and that I was insisting that everyone ignore their feelings. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize you were reacting based on an emotional response and if you'd paid attention to what I (actually) wrote you'd see that I was explaining that I didn't want to change ANYTHING about how someone else plays their game. I think you need to include some quotes for this to make any sense. You are leaving out context than changes the meaning of what was said, and I think you are twisting some of what was said. If you can link your comments above to the actual quotes I can respond. Nope, I kept everything quoted from your reply. Everything is here. I've bolded and color coded the words to make it easier for you to ignore. Thanks for the bolding. Now if you would only quote me accurately. I respond to others and somehow I am trying to tell you something? I see now why you didn't simply use the quote function. It is a lot easier to misdirect and misconstrue if you can claim to be quoting someone when you are not. The jumps and leaps to conclusions don't even come close to what I was saying. No wonder I couldn't figure out what you were talking about.

I think it is more about keeping others from comparing themselves to you. You know, help keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I'm not interested in saving other people from themselves. If another player wants to compare themselves to me by the number of finds we have then I think it's pretty stupid, but it's not up to me to force them to understand that. Likewise, if someone believes that the find counts are important, it's not up to them to force me to believe the way they do either. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize that I can ignore a game that is being played that I don't wish to participate it, and I can play happily the way I want to. Does that mean that you are also "smart" enough to accept that others have a different and valid point of view? The OP asked for an option to hide the find count. It seems smarter to grant that, than it does to try and insist that everyone become "enlightened" enough to ignore how they feel. This change would not hurt the game, and might even bring more traffic to the web site. More traffic to the site is better for the frog. All the people that don't log finds might change the way they play the game. Whoa, slow down there a minute and look at what I was replying to before you put your own meaning into my words. You said - that hiding the find count is about keeping people from comparing themselves to you, and to help to keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I replied - that I wasn't interested in keeping people from doing anything that they want to do if the only result is that they're hurting themselves (causing them to become vain or bitter). You overreacted - and assumed that I somehow meant to imply that someone else's point of view wasn't valid, and that I was insisting that everyone ignore their feelings. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize you were reacting based on an emotional response and if you'd paid attention to what I (actually) wrote you'd see that I was explaining that I didn't want to change ANYTHING about how someone else plays their game. I think you need to include some quotes for this to make any sense. You are leaving out context than changes the meaning of what was said, and I think you are twisting some of what was said. If you can link your comments above to the actual quotes I can respond.

I think it is more about keeping others from comparing themselves to you. You know, help keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I'm not interested in saving other people from themselves. If another player wants to compare themselves to me by the number of finds we have then I think it's pretty stupid, but it's not up to me to force them to understand that. Likewise, if someone believes that the find counts are important, it's not up to them to force me to believe the way they do either. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize that I can ignore a game that is being played that I don't wish to participate it, and I can play happily the way I want to. Does that mean that you are also "smart" enough to accept that others have a different and valid point of view? The OP asked for an option to hide the find count. It seems smarter to grant that, than it does to try and insist that everyone become "enlightened" enough to ignore how they feel. This change would not hurt the game, and might even bring more traffic to the web site. More traffic to the site is better for the frog. All the people that don't log finds might change the way they play the game. Whoa, slow down there a minute and look at what I was replying to before you put your own meaning into my words. You said - that hiding the find count is about keeping people from comparing themselves to you, and to help to keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I replied - that I wasn't interested in keeping people from doing anything that they want to do if the only result is that they're hurting themselves (causing them to become vain or bitter). You overreacted - and assumed that I somehow meant to imply that someone else's point of view wasn't valid, and that I was insisting that everyone ignore their feelings. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize you were reacting based on an emotional response and if you'd paid attention to what I (actually) wrote you'd see that I was explaining that I didn't want to change ANYTHING about how someone else plays their game. Aren't we supposed to yell out "tag" or something when we hand off to the team member.

Saying that I respect your right to make un-supportable claims is calling you a liar? You’ve lost me. Where did I make any claim? We are talking about a helpful suggestion offered by me and Mushtang and others, not a claim. You tried to spin our suggestion as an insult. I explained to you that there is no insult, that it is merely a helpful suggestion. You then told me it was an insult anyway, thereby calling me a liar and telling me I don’t know what’s in my own head. If you ask me what time it is, and I glance at my watch and tell you the time, but then you insist that I have just insulted you, and I say, no, no offense was intended I was just telling you the time, yet you stand by your accusation – what am I supposed to do with that? I’ll tell you what I do with it. I ignore it and walk away. Bye. Ya that works doesn't it. Asking the time is comparable to telling someone what the "smart" way to feel is. For starters I was responding to someone else and you inserted your righteousness into the middle and now claim I was calling you a liar. This is a claim made by you. You are claiming that mushtang simply made a suggestion. I know it helps your arguments to pretend, ignore and forget, but those are your words. Where has anyone suggested that anyone is "not smart enough?" I think you are reading an insult into a place where no insult exists. Mushtang simply made a suggestion. Several of us have made the same suggestion. It is a suggestion that each reader is free to take or ignore. No offense is intended; folks like Mushtang are only trying to help.

I know what you mean. At least the brick wall wouldn't try to claim that it wasn't a brick wall.

Your statement that this change "would not hurt the game" is your opinion, and the rest of your statement is speculation with no evidence supporting it. Many people have said (every time this topic comes up) that they LIKE being able to see the find counts, therefore the option to hide the find counts would "hurt the game" for these folks. This is indisputable. In reality everyone cannot have what they want. I don't know how I stand on the issue. But I'm always wary when opinion is casually stated as fact. It wouldn't hurt the game for you, and probably not for me, but it would for some. Absolutely. It would probably be seen as a harm to the game for the people that like to look at others numbers to help gain a sense of superiority. Others that won't even log a find to avoid the numbers game might see it as a positive for the game. You claim one side is indisputable, but somehow for the other side you are less sure. Isn't it indisputable that for those that would like to hide their find count this would not hurt the game? I am sure that there will still be plenty of people that leave their numbers visible for that crowd to still enjoy their game.

Thanks. That clears it right up. I will type slowly. I observed that someone made a rude comment to the OP or others that feel the same. I said I thought it was a bit rude. It was not directed at me and I was not offended. I am able to comment about it even though I was not personally offended. Saying that I respect your right to make un-supportable claims is calling you a liar?

Neither do they exist just because you imagine them. And neither do they not exist just because you claim they don't. I respect your right to feel insulted by non-insults. Or, as an über-genius once said: And I respect your right to claim that the earth is flat or anything else you want to believe. Keep in mind, I never said I was offended. I said the statement was a bit rude. If you choose to twist things to suit your needs, as your genius would say, that's your problem.

Neither do they exist just because you imagine them. And neither do they not exist just because you claim they don't.

Where has anyone suggested that anyone is "not smart enough?" I think you are reading an insult into a place where no insult exists. Mushtang simply made a suggestion. Several of us have made the same suggestion. It is a suggestion that each reader is free to take or ignore. No offense is intended; folks like Mushtang are only trying to help. You are entitled to your opinion. It is kind of like a backhanded compliment. Dammed by faint praise. Insults are not always in your face. The implication is that those that want the ability to hide the find counts are not smart enough. Do you really think suggesting that people should feel differently is the way to help them?

Does that mean that you are also "smart" enough to accept that others have a different and valid point of view? The OP asked for an option to hide the find count. It seems smarter to grant that, than it does to try and insist that everyone become "enlightened" enough to ignore how they feel. This change would not hurt the game, and might even bring more traffic to the web site. More traffic to the site is better for the frog. All the people that don't log finds might change the way they play the game. You say Mushtang is "insisting" that everyone become enlightened; I say he is only offering enlightenment. I think maybe you didn't read his post as you were quoting it. He says "I'm not interested in saving other people from themselves." That doesn’t sound like any kind of "insistence" to me. Mushtang is merely suggesting a more confident point of view, one which might provide some measure of peace to those who are currently self-conscious about the display of their find count. He isn’t forcing it on anyone, which is as it should be. But did you read what he was responding to? It is the people that are comparing their numbers to others that he doesn't want to save. I think it is more of an insistence that they get over their self-consciousness or just lump it. If anyone wants to give reasons why the idea might hurt the game, go for it. To suggest that those that "feel" differently about this are not smart enough to realize that they can ignore people, is not helpful and a bit rude. Some people are more in tune with computers where they can just rewrite the software when the response is not desired. Human emotions are not so simple. I can understand resisting ideas that would hurt the game, hiding find counts would not do that. He says that he can happily play the way that he wants to. Would it be OK if a few others were also allowed to happily play the way they want to?

I think it is more about keeping others from comparing themselves to you. You know, help keep them from becoming vain or bitter. I'm not interested in saving other people from themselves. If another player wants to compare themselves to me by the number of finds we have then I think it's pretty stupid, but it's not up to me to force them to understand that. Likewise, if someone believes that the find counts are important, it's not up to them to force me to believe the way they do either. Fortunately I'm smart enough to realize that I can ignore a game that is being played that I don't wish to participate it, and I can play happily the way I want to. Does that mean that you are also "smart" enough to accept that others have a different and valid point of view? The OP asked for an option to hide the find count. It seems smarter to grant that, than it does to try and insist that everyone become "enlightened" enough to ignore how they feel. This change would not hurt the game, and might even bring more traffic to the web site. More traffic to the site is better for the frog. All the people that don't log finds might change the way they play the game.

I think it is more about keeping others from comparing themselves to you. You know, help keep them from becoming vain or bitter.

Some people are comfortable at a nudist colony, some are not. Are you able to understand that concept? Some are comfortable letting it all hang out, others want privacy. All you really need to understand is the idea that some people want to opt out of any part of the game that includes them (even passively) in the numbers competition. To each their own. If I chose to go to a nudist colony I would also choose to accept the rules in force at that location. Can you understand that your example has nothing in common with this discussion? I have no problem with people requesting the ability to hide counts. I simply don't understand the rationale. No one is being forced to post finds online. They choose to do so. As I said in my last post, we are all entitled to our own opinions. And we are only in control of our own actions. As far as I know there is no way for someone else playing this game to force me to be in competition with them. I choose if I want to compete. You can choose to accept those rules. Are others allowed to ask if it is ok to wear a bathing suit? The point it has in common with this discussion is that different people have different comfort levels. You said you don't understand the strong desire for change. Different people have different comfort levels. I am forced to post online if I want my finds and dnf's tracked by the site. No one is forced to use my find count to determine my competency before deciding if they should check if the cache is missing. The nobody is forcing anyone argument goes both ways. I say the last part of your comment is a lot of what this is about. Maybe it is more opinion than fact, but I think you are wrong there. You are forced to be in the competition if someone else is comparing their numbers to your numbers. Even if you don't know they are doing it, you are part of the competition. The very weak argument about determining competency of a dnf, and other selfish reasons aside, I have to wonder why anyone would care enough to fight this idea.

Some people are comfortable at a nudist colony, some are not. Are you able to understand that concept? Some are comfortable letting it all hang out, others want privacy. All you really need to understand is the idea that some people want to opt out of any part of the game that includes them (even passively) in the numbers competition. To each their own.

There are two reasons not to make a change. One is that it would take too many resources, the other is that it would affect other users too adversely. The first has been addressed. If it cannot be shown that anyone would be negatively affected, then the second point is moot. So yes, it is on the "naysayers" to show that this change should not be made. You logic seems broken, to me. If we were to follow this logic, TPTB should make any requested change unless those who oppose it are able to craft a sufficient argument to convince the change requesters to rescind their change request. That can't be the optimal solution. A better plan is for those who want a change to prove that it is in the best interest of all. I think it works more like, TPTB make the changes when they are convinced it is a good idea.

Expect? I think you are making a rather large jump there. I for one could care less if I can see others numbers.

Do you think this thread was started because someone spun "the wheel of site changes" and "opt out of find counts" came up? Hey that sounds like a good random change to try this month, lets post on the forum and see what everyone thinks.

A change, positive or negative, is still a change from the norm that would require planning and lots of testing to ensure that the change would not affect other areas of the site. Especially, whether you agree or not, functionality that has been present since the outset. It's not the responsiblity of the "nay-sayers" to argue that it shouldn't be changed.. It is the responsibility of those that want the change to justify the amount of work that would be required to make the change. It's my opinion that there has not been any strong rationale to justify the time and money required to make such a change. Are we supposed to justify it to you, or TPTB? It seems to me that some are judging it based on personal preference or selfish motives. It it isn't something they want, then it must be less than worthwhile. They just don't want any resources used on anything except their own pet projects. I wonder how many cache owners run out and check the cache the first time someone posts a dnf. I assume that most wait for a trend to develop before checking. I just don't think many people see one dnf and check how many finds the cacher has and if they are a high number cacher they run right out and check on the cache. I think the cacher's start date would give enough info for the majority of circumstances where reliability of a dnf is in question. Maybe someone can point to some cache logs that show many multiple cases where the CO posted a maintenance check after one dnf on multiple occasions. On top of that, how many people will opt out and not show numbers? Of those, how many will be the crucial dnf that you need to use to determine if the cache needs to be checked? On those occasions you could email the cacher and ask them for more info. You could just ignore dnf logs of cachers without find counts displayed. You could just check their start date. The few that change their account name and also opt out and also log that crucial dnf would be rare indeed and not worth considering. Like the idea or not, it is simply personal preference. I don't think you can really make a case that it will cause problems overall.

All things are possible.. That doesn't mean all things are advisable. If you want to change the site, which will affect everyone, then the responsibility falls on you to show why it is necessary to make a change that really does nothing positive for the site, except maybe make a few people feel less afraid.. I don't think the programmers are real interested in building a night light for you folks.. They've got better things to do. Really? Are we only allowed "necessary" changes?

But that’s just it! You don’t need to take ANY steps! You are already there! Look at me. I have never taken any steps to sidestep the competition aspect of geocaching. Do you see me competing? Do you see me anguishing over the behaviors or comments of others? No, you do not – because I do not participate in those things. Doesn’t that mean, then, that I am already where you wish to be? If so, then why do you need a new feature installed to the website to get you to where you already are? I don’t have anything against those who choose to compete; I just don’t care to participate. Why isn’t that good enough for you? Geocaching is not a competition. There is nothing about Geocaching that inherently lends itself to supporting any kind of meaningful competition. If you give the question at the very bottom of my last post some serious thought, the reason for that will become crystal clear. When I see this kind of post I really have to wonder. Do you say these things just to make an "argument". Do you really have so little understanding of human emotion. Some people can take anything. Make fun of them, laugh at them, call them names etc and it all just rolls off their backs. Others are very upset it they only "think" someone is saying something negative about them. Do you think it would work if you just tell them to ignore it. If someone is self conscious about their weight, would you just tell them "Look at me, my weight doesn't bother me" so why should you "let" your weight bother you? I understand why you might think that, but do you really think that will change how they "feel". These are not computer programs that you can rewrite as you please to get the desired output. Human emotions are what they are. Argue for or against the issue for whatever reasons, but it seems silly to suggest that someone should only feel the way you feel. I like the idea of the option to hide find counts. No one is going to decide to do a maintenance check based on my one dnf, so they don't need to know either. I can understand why you might not support using resources to make this change. I don't understand why you can't understand that not everyone feels the same way about numbers that you do, and that telling them to "look at me" is of absolutely no help.

Yes I had a goal to find the Long John Silvers cache. GCRBPR It was a ten mile hike round trip. After trying two different routes in, I came in the back way which gave me an 1800 ft head start on the climb up. Even with the elevation advantage it still was a 12 hour hike. I think it was the fourth time I tried before I actually made it to ground zero. Then it was a dnf. I just couldn't give up. It was a true caching adventure. I also hit 100 caches found. I also set the goal to make this cache find #100. After the dnf I thought it might not work out but