TrailGators

Once you've got that algorithm developed and shared with the community, there will be some kind of monument to you set up next to Ulmer's GCF cache in Oregon! I've noticed that it is often a handful of people that hide hundreds of these "types of caches" in each area. We can ignore these caches but when one person hides hundreds that can get very tedious. So I proposed an idea a while back to be able to ignore all the caches hidden any cacher with one click. The nice thing about this idea is that it promotes a "live and let live" philosophy." This would also allow my 500 cache PQ to contain many more caches that I'm likely to enjoy.

I prefer the interesting ones too. Like you I don't want another "to do" list. I cache to get away from all those!

The operative words there are "new cacher". Eventually, you will find that you're clearing out a radius from around your "home base", and when you discover that's what you've done, you'll find yourself keeping it that way. Even those that filter micros as evil do the same thing, they just select different targets to clear. We'll all take something new and nearby if it fits. Out here, there are plenty of other heavy target environments not all that far away, so it's not like I'll ever run out of things to do if I feel like spending an afternoon "out caching". Meanwhile, if they pop up around here -- zap! I've been doing this for seven years and I don't do that. If it looks like a blah cache, then I ignore it.

Ha! Grabbits! You may have just coined a new name for the drive-up micro! Dag nabbit, they're all grabbits! Clearing out an area is like digging a hole in sand. It's better to use the ignore button and maybe someday they'll even enhance the ignore feature...

No thanks. There are plenty of free stat generators that give the html code to users that want to paste that stuff on their profile page.

Agreed - I let the website keep the database for me. Just because I don't want to keep a database of my own I would like to get all the geocaches in the area I will go caching in in one PQ. It will be less load on the servers to produce one PQ with 1000 caches than three PQs with each 500 caches to cover the same area. There will be a lot of caches that will be in two or three of the PQs just to get the ones in the outskirts. It would be easier to let users pull up to their daily limit of 2500 with one PQ, but we have to play the cards that we are dealt. Anyhow you can pull 1000 with two PQs by using the date placed feature. For example, in my area: If I set the date to return caches between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2005 and I preview the search then I get a circle of 30 miles and 500 caches. Then if I set the date to return caches between 1/1/2006 and 12/31/2009 and I preview the search then I get a circle of 10 miles and 500 caches. So now I have to adjust the 1/1/2006 date until both PQs return the same radius. It takes a little while but once it's done you are set and you can send those to yourself every week. You can also do this for 5 PQs and 2500 caches... My center date ended up being 1/1/2009. So there are 1000 caches within 12.5 miles from my center-point (zipcode). 500 of them were placed this year! Wow!

Me too. This situation sort of reminds me of my retired neighbor that had the best lawn in the neighorhood because he finally had loads of time to spend on it. I just had too much other stuff going on to spend that much time on my yard. The same goes with caching. When I get time to do it, I really enjoy it but there is no way that I could ever spend the amount of time on it that others do. So to me the find count only reflects the amount of time that different people invest into caching and nothing more. So why would I ever care how much time other people spend on the game?

Good advice.

Our experience has been the exact opposite. Could be that since non-cachers have not a clue wrt what the game is about and what it's components are and that a www site even exists. However as you might imagine, I am more than eager to fill them in. And I can tell you that at the local event that we attended last weekend, found count was mentioned over and over and over. There was even a couple of people there who actually had their found count on their name tag stickies. They didn't include their DNF count though, don't know why. Could possibly be that they didn't know their DNF count, I don't know mine and don't care to. Must be a regional thing. Non-cachers never ask me either. I'm typically asked by newbies or by numbers oriented cachers. I think the numbers oriented ones just ask as a way of finding out if I'm into numbers too. When I give them a nonchalant answer like "I'm not sure," they figure out where I stand. However, I don't mind if they are.

This is a good idea!

The find count also helps other finders. If I see that a newbie DNFed a cache I'll still go look for it. So either you provide a count or you need to provide some type of experience level. Only immediately after the find, though. The number could easily be off by hundreds within a single weekend. A newbie's first attempt at caching may look like he had 500 finds if you see it two weeks after he posted it. C'mon, the typical newbie doesn't find hundreds of caches in two weeks. Only the most ravenous cachers do that. Anyhow, it is useful info to know what experience the DNFer had if you are going to attempt a cache. Do we really need to debate something so obvious?

TWENTY DOLLARS On their wedding night, the young bride Approached her new husband and asked For $20.00 for their first lovemaking Encounter.. In his highly aroused state, Her husband readily agreed. This scenario was repeated each time they made Love, for more than 30 years, with him thinking that it was a Cute way for her to afford new clothes and other incidentals that She needed. Arriving home around noon one day, she was Surprised to find her husband in a very drunken state. During the next few minutes, he explained that His employer was going through a process of corporate Downsizing, and he had been let go. It was unlikely that, at the age of 59, he'd be able to find Another position that paid anywhere near what He'd been earning, and therefore, they were financially ruined. Calmly, his wife handed him a bank book which Showed more than thirty years of steady deposits and interest totaling Nearly $1 million. Then she showed him certificates of deposits issued By the bank which were worth over $2 million, And informed him that they Were one of the largest depositors in the bank. She explained that for more than Three decades she had 'charged' him for sex, These holdings had multiplied and these were the Results of her savings and investments. Faced with evidence of cash and investments Worth over $3 million, her husband was so astounded he could Barely speak, but finally he found his voice and blurted out, 'If I'd had any idea what you were doing, I would have given you all my business!' OOPS That's when she shot him. You know, sometimes, men just don't know when To keep their mouths shut

Dave, I am 7 puppies shy of having zero! So I basically need them all. Let me check my schedule when I get home and get back with you.

I didn't mean to address that half of my post to you specifically, sorry if it looked like it. The way I see it, this is the main roadblock for what you and others want. Perhaps if they had levels based on quantity and difficulty, you could advance from a Minnow to a Polywog and then to a Frog (like Signal) . There were be no numbers per se, but people woud know that if a Minnow didn't find their cache, that it is likely due to inexperience. However, if a Frog didn't find their cache then it is likely that they need to get out there and check on it! I was thinking of something like that, actually. The games on Yahoo label you as "provisional" until you finish a certain number of games. That would involve a lot more implementation and design, of course. Maybe it would be acceptable to those who would definitely use this (as I said before, I'm not certain I would; I'm just in favor of more options) would be satisfied with their current find count being included in the owner notification email, just not listed on the cache page with their logs? It would give the owner the info they might need, yet that owner wouldn't know more than how many finds you had at that moment (i.e. they wouldn't have permanent access to your find count). The find count also helps other finders. If I see that a newbie DNFed a cache I'll still go look for it. So either you provide a count or you need to provide some type of experience level.

I didn't mean to address that half of my post to you specifically, sorry if it looked like it. The way I see it, this is the main roadblock for what you and others want. Perhaps if they had levels based on quantity and difficulty, you could advance from a Minnow to a Polywog and then to a Frog (like Signal) . There were be no numbers per se, but people woud know that if a Minnow didn't find their cache, that it is likely due to inexperience. However, if a Frog didn't find their cache then it is likely that they need to get out there and check on it!

Actually, there are two options:1) You could log everything as a note and then ignore your found caches to get them out of your PQs. 2) You could quit logging online and then ignore your found caches to get them out of your PQs. I do Option #2 for caches that I don't enjoy. And the My Finds PQ? I use that more than any other PQ. I also frequently look at just my Found logs in my profile -- for reminiscence, for answering questions in the forums. I still, by the way, have seen only one stated reason to be able to always see someone's find count, which is to help assess DNFs. It seems to me unlikely that a newbie would use this feature -- even less likely if it were a PM feature. And again, I don't think anyone here will disagree that the number isn't a reliable gauge of anything anyway. In my examples, you would have to create "My Finds" bookmark to be able to run PQs on your not logged finds.... The DNF reason is the only valid reason to need to know someone else's find count that I have heard.

Actually, there are two options:1) You could log everything as a note and then ignore your found caches to get them out of your PQs. 2) You could quit logging online and then ignore your found caches to get them out of your PQs. I do Option #2 for caches that I don't enjoy.

I've had a lot of varying opinions about this over the years. I've come to the conclusion that if a feature helps the site by feeding the obsession and it is true to "their game," then it is a good thing for business then it will stay. So I seriously doubt they will get rid of the find count.

I remember finding my 1000th and my 2000th caches. Those moments made me recollect all the good memories and fun journeys that I had. So whenever I cross the next milestone, I'm sure the same thing will happen, but for me: "The journey is the destination" (Dan Eldon).

FE is iron so a female must be an IRON MAN!

Thank you for showing up. As an agnostic insomniac dyslexic, I have been up for three nights wondering if there really is a Dog.

Bad link...