Logged Visits Vs Number Of Finds

[+Ed & Julie]

When one looks at a cache page, there is a section just above the logs that says:

 

Logged Visits (229 total. Visit the Gallery (6 images))

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

Cache find counts are based on the last time the page generated.

 

I think it would be animprovement to see that changed slightly to look like:

 

Logged Finds 210 total.

Other Notes/Logs 19

Visit the Gallery (6 images)

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

Cache find counts are based on the last time the page generated.

 

When I look at the cache pages, I'd like to know the number of times it's been found, instead of just the total number of logs (which includes notes, DNFs, etc).

 

Just a thought

 

Ed

[+Lil Devil]

Not the first time this has been suggested, but it's still a good idea.

 

Raine, are you listening?

[+hiker49]

I agree with you 200%. Hopefully this will get one of the all powerful admins (like Jeremy's) attention.

[+Renegade Knight]

Another Ditto here.

[+Enchanted Shadow]

I think that *both* numbers should be listed, as they both have their uses.

[+Ed & Julie]

I think that *both* numbers should be listed, as they both have their uses.

They would be, if they were listed like my example above.

 

Instead of saying:

 

119 total logged visits

 

I think it would be more useful to state:

 

100 Logged finds

19 other Logs/Notes

 

You still know that there was 119 total, it's just broken down.

 

Ed

[+Super_Nate]

I've never thought of that! I like it, and it is a good point.

[+wildearth2001]

yeah, Im another big time ditto, I have been wishing for that for a long time

[+Anonymous']

This would be very helpful.

[+Newmarch]

I find it rather aggrivating that a cache owner can simply archive the DNF's. I experienced this several times recently in the Jacksonville area. I'd post a DNF and get an e-mail the same day saying my log had been deleted.

 

So, the last find was on May 31, 2005. No telling how many DNF's had been deleted between that date and September 5th. So, actually, I believe the feature of allowing the cache owner the right to delete DFN's offensive.

[+garri]

I vote for your proposal. But I remember it was ignored before

[+badlands]

I vote YES it would be a welcome addition.

[+robert]

Nice idea.

 

And for events, it would be nice to see the number of "Will Attend" logs (though I realize 1 "Will Attend" will not be equal to 1 person attending, but it still helps!)

 

[+The Waldo's]

Put Me on the band wagon.

[+geognerd]

Especially relevant now that the cache reviewer's "Published" log is counted as the first loged visit for every new cache.

[+pdxmarathonman]

I find it rather aggrivating that a cache owner can simply archive the DNF's. I experienced this several times recently in the Jacksonville area. I'd post a DNF and get an e-mail the same day saying my log had been deleted.

 

So, the last find was on May 31, 2005. No telling how many DNF's had been deleted between that date and September 5th. So, actually, I believe the feature of allowing the cache owner the right to delete DFN's offensive.

It's a great idea. But just to be clear, the cache owner can delete any log entry they choose; whether it be a DNF, Found It, or a Note.

[+Super_Nate]

All right, we've got a resounding yes...who do we talk with to get it going?

[danoshimano]

Yes, I would like to see this too.

[+The Blue Quasar]

The challenge is to create the method to make a change like that.

 

It might be that everyone agrees that it is best but unless a way to implement a change is suggested in addition, then it might not be received.

 

We all have ideas, vague or specific about various ways to alter things... and some might be really good, others really bad, and most in between somewhere.

 

The hard part is getting consensus and determining implentation.

 

That and also, finding someone to devote the time to well document all of the changes or alterations and explain why they should be made, in addition to cross-referrencing the changes, how they would impact each other and countless other factors.

 

That would be a daunting task for anyone, including the Groundspeak echelon.

 

It is often easier to continue with what you have, and make changes only if required.

 

While I agree fully with the change, it is a cosmetic change only, and would probably get set as a low priority... as a guess.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+BigFurryMonster]

It'll help if we knew whom to talk to.

 

I agree fully with the idea.

[+Cornix]

The challenge is to create the method to make a change like that.

 

It might be that everyone agrees that it is best but unless a way to implement a change is suggested in addition, then it might not be received.

I guess all it needs is adding a condition to the WHERE clause of the SQL query.

 

SELECT count(*) from log WHERE log.cacheid = $CID AND log.type = 1

 

Just my 2 cents

Cornix

[+Pharmadude]

Yes, me too as well also besides!

 

This is one little enhancement I would greatly appreciate