Feature Request - No Stats

[+nfa]

I like it...have it changeable like your forum title...

 

NFA - 72"

 

NFA - "Likes Coffee Ice-Cream"

 

NFA - Happy!

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

To TPTB:

 

Add me to the "I'd rather you use my $30 to pay the developers to do something OTHER than hide stats" list.

 

If I understand this correctly, the very vocal "let me hide my stats" camp want to do this to make some sort of statement that, to them at least, it's NOT about the numbers.

 

To that, I say, if it REALLY isn't about the numbers to you, then WHY DO YOU CARE what others may see?

 

Now then, as for the "privacy" argument I've heard a few times around here, I strongly suggest you take a look at Groundspeak's Terms Of Use and let me know exactly WHERE the expectation of privacy comes from. Groundspeak makes it clear that they will not share any of your personally identifiable data, but makes no claim whatsoever to data like hide and find counts.

 

Asking to hide the numbers because, to you, "it's not about the numbers" - now that's the very definition of hypocritical.

[CoyoteRed]

To that, I say, if it REALLY isn't about the numbers to you, then WHY DO YOU CARE what others may see?

 

Yet another person who is not reading the whole thread(s).

[+clan_Barron]

There is a thread today about how people brought caches with them to Geowoodstock from places like Iraq.

Are the stats of those that are logging a pile of caches sitting on a table in TX really the same as the person who logged the cache while dodging bullets in Iraq?

 

I agree that hides/finds stats should be a user preference. Just like wearing a seat belt or motorcycle helmet should be (though IMHO you're crazy if you choose not to )

 

On another note I'm tired of seeing statements about a "pile of caches sitting on a table in TX". I was at Geowoodstock and don't remember getting to meet you there. If you were there you would know that there was no "pile of caches sitting on a table" waiting to be "found". Yes, there were "pocket caches" that some people were carrying around with them, but all of the temporary caches that I found (like "Bedrock in Bagdad") were hidden and required a hike & GPS to find. I wish that you would have been at GW4 so that we could have met because we both appear to have a common love of God, guns & country so I'm sure you are probably enough like me (much less annoying in person than in the forums ) that we'd get along just fine.

 

-edited because I wish my two fingers that can type were also the two that can spel

Edited May 31, 2006 by clan_Barron

[Ferreter5]

I'd like a textbox on my profile into which I can type a number and have that displayed as my find count to others. I'd still get to see my real find count.

[+StarBrand]

One thing that has always attracted me to Geocaching and this website is the sense of community and sharing. While I agree that many aspects of this have beome nothing but a numbers game, I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when. To see how many they found this weekend - that just interests me. If folks start restricting which of thier info I can see - a lot of that free flowing exploration quickly disappears.

 

No competition exists in geocaching except that which I create - so that isn't the problem. Just the ability to see, seek and find new places and new faces. Many of the best caches I visited were as a result of just random explorations through the website. Clicking on logs, than profiles, than finds or hides. repeat. repeat........

 

I vote no.

[+Recdiver]

Just to throw my vote/opinion in. I like the option of letting the users have the choice on whether to show their "numbers" publicly. If I had a choice I would block mine since no one but I should care how many I've found or hid.

[+Recdiver]

snip

 

To that, I say, if it REALLY isn't about the numbers to you, then WHY DO YOU CARE what others may see?

 

snip

Because I do care and I don't need to justify myself to you or anyone else.

[CoyoteRed]

...I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when.

 

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

To that, I say, if it REALLY isn't about the numbers to you, then WHY DO YOU CARE what others may see?

 

Yet another person who is not reading the whole thread(s).

 

Baloney. I've been reading your babble for days. In ALL the threads. It STILL doesn't make sense.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

snip

 

To that, I say, if it REALLY isn't about the numbers to you, then WHY DO YOU CARE what others may see?

 

snip

Because I do care and I don't need to justify myself to you or anyone else.

 

Actually, you DO need to justify yourself to TPTB. They're not going to change the way the site works for no reason, now are they?

[CoyoteRed]

To that, I say, if it REALLY isn't about the numbers to you, then WHY DO YOU CARE what others may see?

 

Yet another person who is not reading the whole thread(s).

 

Baloney. I've been reading your babble for days. In ALL the threads. It STILL doesn't make sense.

Actually, I've been relatively quiet. Not completely, no, but I've been sitting back and watching the melt-down.

 

Your quoted query was answered directly when it was asked before by someone else. If you don't understand the answer then what about it is it you don't understand?

[+ThePropers]

I'd never use it, but think the opt-out is a good idea.

 

I'm not a numbers ho, and I'm certainly not a stats ho for any sport/game, but would rather see more stats added, since I love looking at other people's stats. I want to see total caches. I want total UNIQUE caches found. I want how many days it's been since someone found their first cache. I want to see how many of those days they've found caches. I want to see their daily averages. I want to see their significant other's hotness rating. I want to see their RBI. Ok, maybe not those last two. Not so much that I feel I'm in competition with anyone, but mainly because I find it interesting.

 

I know it's a family game, and TPTB always lean on the side that goes to promoting the "friendly" atmosphere, but IMHO, they've let it go so long and in such negative directions (allowing infinite "finds" per event, logging your own cache...etc), that rather than be friendly, it's now a lot of negativity as a direct result of the refusal to impose limits.

 

But yeah, that's OT and I apologize. So, I'll just throw my vote into the "Opt out option would be nice, but I won't use it" camp.

Edited June 1, 2006 by ThePropers

[+sbell111]

...I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when.

 

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

You are either using faulty logic or are trying to twist it for your own reasons. Reading someone's logs is not tantamount to stalking. For one thing, you learn nothing but where someone was on a certain day in the past. This could not possibly result in a the security issue that you imply.

 

You might note that the reason we enter logs is so others can read them.

Edited June 1, 2006 by sbell111

[+StarBrand]

...I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when.

 

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

Wow - your interpretation is what is creepy..... Also odd to think that you have never followed the travels of a cacher visiting some of your sites to see where else they might have been and other caches they enjoyed.

[+StarBrand]

Actually CR - your post was just plain over the top - I deeply resent the implication that my activities via this web site are anything but honorable and I would appreciate a direct apology.

[+jon & miki]

Folks - my original feature request did NOT eliminate the logs' visibility to others or prevent anyone from following a cacher's log trail, but simply removed the current trivially simple access to my caching "score".

 

While I'm happy to see discussions of the merits of the proposal and suggestions for satisfying as many interest groups as possible and statements of support/opposition, I would rather not see this thread hijacked into an argument about the pros and cons of features quite different that the one I am requesting.

 

The same for personal arguments - please start another thread for those (or take it offline). Please?

Edited June 1, 2006 by jon & miki

[CoyoteRed]

...I would appreciate a direct apology.

 

No, I don't think so. I won't apologize for having an opinion or expressing it.

[+StarBrand]

...I would appreciate a direct apology.

 

No, I don't think so. I won't apologize for having an opinion or expressing it.

 

Nice twisting of my post there. I didn't ask you to apologize for an opinion. I asked for an apology for implying that I am doing something less than honorable. I think your line of thinking is quite bizarre.

 

As for the OP, I don't like your suggestion but was really responding to CRs posts suggesting a wide expansion of your idea. Sorry for the tangent.

[+welch]

One thing that has always attracted me to Geocaching and this website is the sense of community and sharing. While I agree that many aspects of this have beome nothing but a numbers game, I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when. To see how many they found this weekend - that just interests me. If folks start restricting which of thier info I can see - a lot of that free flowing exploration quickly disappears.

 

No competition exists in geocaching except that which I create - so that isn't the problem. Just the ability to see, seek and find new places and new faces. Many of the best caches I visited were as a result of just random explorations through the website. Clicking on logs, than profiles, than finds or hides. repeat. repeat........

 

I vote no.

Thats an interesting view and perhaps the best reason I've seen (though I don't think find counts are strictly related) But to play devils advocate, if I start loging 'tnln' would you let me hide my stats?

In your vision of geocaching (seek and find new places and new faces?) where does the counting of new places fit in?

Why do personally put your numbers on this website?

 

I really don't care if you read my logs, there on internet and weird as it may seem those logs could be being read by people in China. What I'm caring for less and less is people having this one easy stop stat shop all neatly complied for them. I got congratulated by a couple people when I reached 500 found. I guess it was nice to know people notice me, but to me reaching 500 meant little and made me feel silly. 490 500 510 all seem the same to me. What means something to me are the caches that I will always remember. The fun ones, the really hard ones, the ones that showed me sights I just stood there and soaked in the view. For those I tend to write something in the log about it (usually, but not always, sometimes I'm greedy and keep it to myself).

But people don't focus on the special caches, they focus on the numbers. That just makes it all seem cheap. To me geocaching is not about the total number of smilies, but adventures you have. If I could I turn off the numbers for everyone in hopes they forget any concern they have for the numbers I would, and I don't know maybe that would wrong since we're supposed to let everyone play the way they want within the guidelines. But at the very least I would like to be able to turn my own numbers off, which I hope would keep people from sending me congrats for some meaningless benchmark. However, as it is today, the only way I could do that is if I eliminate my logs (something some seem to like) which also means shorting myself on using the abilites of the website.

[+Geovius]

What comes to original suggestion I also vote for NO.

Why?

I don't know excatly, but I just like the way it is right now.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm really starting to think Team 30 has gotten it right, don't log any finds.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

To that, I say, if it REALLY isn't about the numbers to you, then WHY DO YOU CARE what others may see?

 

Yet another person who is not reading the whole thread(s).

 

Baloney. I've been reading your babble for days. In ALL the threads. It STILL doesn't make sense.

Actually, I've been relatively quiet. Not completely, no, but I've been sitting back and watching the melt-down.

 

Your quoted query was answered directly when it was asked before by someone else. If you don't understand the answer then what about it is it you don't understand?

 

No, it wasn't answered. " I care because I care" is like saying the sky is blue because it is. It's not an answer. It's childish and whiny is what it is. Grow up and stop worrying about other peoples' numbers. No, I don't like it either, but I don't lose sleep over it or ask other people to change the way they play the game or operate their site because it's not what I do. Get over it and get over yourselves.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

I'm really starting to think Team 30 has gotten it right, don't log any finds.

 

Go for it, there's nothing stopping you. And while you're at it, if you're so concerned about stalkers that's probably the SAFEST way too. Think of all the miscreants out there using your logs to keep track of you and your wife, where you've been, what you're doing. I would think immediately removing all of your logs and going underground would have been the FIRST thing to do.

[CoyoteRed]

No, it wasn't answered. " I care because I care" ...

 

So, you didn't read it after all, because that wasn't the answer.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm really starting to think Team 30 has gotten it right, don't log any finds.

 

Go for it, there's nothing stopping you. And while you're at it, if you're so concerned about stalkers that's probably the SAFEST way too. Think of all the miscreants out there using your logs to keep track of you and your wife, where you've been, what you're doing. I would think immediately removing all of your logs and going underground would have been the FIRST thing to do.

 

Oh, I'm not worried about me and the wife. Then again we close the curtains when we want a little privacy.

 

It's funny though that there's a faction that doesn't want anyone to have privacy when using the site because then that faction can't keep track of you. Kind of like not wanting anyone to have curtains on their house.

 

Besides I didn't say anything about stalking. I was thinking it, but if you came to the same conclusion...

[+sbell111]

I'm really starting to think Team 30 has gotten it right, don't log any finds.

 

Go for it, there's nothing stopping you. And while you're at it, if you're so concerned about stalkers that's probably the SAFEST way too. Think of all the miscreants out there using your logs to keep track of you and your wife, where you've been, what you're doing. I would think immediately removing all of your logs and going underground would have been the FIRST thing to do.

Perhaps to be extra safe you should also refrain from posting in the forums since you would then be giving the stalkers hints as to your likes and dislikes. They could use this info to track you down, you know.

[+sbell111]

...Besides I didn't say anything about stalking. I was thinking it, but if you came to the same conclusion...

That is lame. Here's your post:

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

While its true that you never used the word 'stalking', I challenge you to explain what else you could have meant.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

...Besides I didn't say anything about stalking. I was thinking it, but if you came to the same conclusion...

That is lame. Here's your post:

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

While its true that you never used the word 'stalking', I challenge you to explain what else you could have meant.

 

You gave it one more reply than it deserved, Colonel.

[Pto]

...Besides I didn't say anything about stalking. I was thinking it, but if you came to the same conclusion...

That is lame. Here's your post:

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

While its true that you never used the word 'stalking', I challenge you to explain what else you could have meant.

 

I see CR is still busy playing the "thats not what I said" game.....even(again) after being directly quoted.

 

I vote Yes. I vote No. I wont vote. In the end, all 3 result in the same.....

[CoyoteRed]

...Besides I didn't say anything about stalking. I was thinking it, but if you came to the same conclusion...

That is lame. Here's your post:

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

While its true that you never used the word 'stalking', I challenge you to explain what else you could have meant.

 

Well, I see that you're addressing me from the above quoted posts...

 

First, why don't you ask what StarBrand meant by:

...I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when.

He's the one that's doing it.

 

Then explain to me why I shouldn't have gotten a creepy feeling?

 

Granted, I probably wouldn't be as crepted out (creeped out?) as if someone was just standing in the road and staring at the house, but still, you tell me. I don't know his motives. Why would he be virtually following folks around on their adventures?

[CoyoteRed]

...Besides I didn't say anything about stalking. I was thinking it, but if you came to the same conclusion...

That is lame. Here's your post:

I must tell you, that's kind of creepy.

 

You just added another reason for it. Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

While its true that you never used the word 'stalking', I challenge you to explain what else you could have meant.

 

I see CR is still busy playing the "thats not what I said" game.....even(again) after being directly quoted.

 

I vote Yes. I vote No. I wont vote. In the end, all 3 result in the same.....

 

Sure, doing something that gives someone a creepy feeling equates to stalking. Yep! Thanks for the clarification.

[+TEAM 360]

Think of the young, single females or parents of children who know that someone can watch them. Creepy.

 

Let's take another look at that quote, shall we? CR says 'someone', NOT StarBrand...it was a generalization, so CR doesn't owe you jack, much less an apology. Don't take it so personal. I have to agree with CR on that one, there are some things that can be determined by online logs, such as if a cacher is away on vacation or what area of town they live in...if you are a well-established cacher, I am sure the local community knows you and might know where you live. Don't insult me by saying that's 'paranoid' or start talking about 'black helicopters'...not wanting your location known is just being safe, that's all. Go ask anyone who knows about Internet safety. They'll tell you the same thing. But this thread is about 'opting-out' of stats, so I will keep it on track.

 

I have been caught up in this 'opt-out' for years now, and I can tell you, it's just not going to happen, as much as I would like to see it offered.

Why?

Because as long as there is ONE cacher out there who whines 'we like the numbers, we like the numbers', TPTB will NEVER give an 'opt-out'. NEVER. The whiners will make everyone play the game THEIR way.

 

Having an opt-out would mean the number freaks can still post their find count, do their chest-pounding 'HEY EVERYONE, LOOK AT ME!' antics, and brag about how many they have. They just won't be able to prove where they stand with the rest of the GC community, since the stats rug would be pulled out from under them.

 

I get flack ALL THE TIME about not logging online and keeping my numbers to myself. People say I need to log online so I 'don't take away the experiences from everyone else, we would love to read about your adventures'....yea, sure they would. I bet they are all just dying to read about the latest cache hunt from TEAM 360. In reality, they couldn't care less about another 'TNLNSLTFTC' email notification.

 

People ask 'why do you want to hide stats'? They also say 'if you don't care about stats, then what do you care if everyone else sees them?'....well, to those people, I reply 'Why do YOU care SO MUCH about them that you FORCE my stats to be displayed?' I don't like being 'forced' into what has undoubtedly become a numbers-obsessed game for some people. You get judged by having too many finds, too little finds, not enough or too many hides, etc, etc...

 

Would I log online if my numbers were private? I would be very careful to do so, as TPTB could take away the 'opt-out' at any time, and then I would have to go back and wipe out all my 'find' logs.

 

So I will continue to NOT log online for now, along with the hundreds, maybe thousands of others, who do the same, including Dave Ulmer. For now, it's the only way to keep my find count at '0'.

[CoyoteRed]

Excellent post, Team 360!

[+sbell111]

Then explain to me why I shouldn't have gotten a creepy feeling?

I'm glad you asked. I guess the most obvious reason is because you log caches online so other people can read the logs. If they enjoy your logs, they might want to read more of them. Since you control what you type, you don't have to release any private info that you don't want to. BTW, its not like they are tracking you in real time. They are reading your logs on caches that you are unlikely to ever visit again. There is no safety issue here.

Granted, I probably wouldn't be as crepted out (creeped out?) as if someone was just standing in the road and staring at the house, but still, you tell me. I don't know his motives. Why would he be virtually following folks around on their adventures?

Please see above. BTW, have you ever read Oregone's logs. they are not everyone's cup of tea, but for those that enjoy them, they follow from one to the next. They are written to almost require you to follow him from cache to cache.

 

Either way, the reason that someone would be reading someone's logs is because they enjoy them. It is a compliment to the writer. That's not very creepy at all, is it?

[+sbell111]

...First, why don't you ask what StarBrand meant by:

...I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when.

He's the one that's doing it. ...

Sorry, I missed this part in my other reply but it's simple, really.

 

Let's say that you came to my area and did some caching. You found one of my caches and logged that you really enjoyed it. I(n a few weeks, I'm coming to your area. I might look through your logs to identify other caches that you really liked. This would leave me with a list of caches that I might like.

 

It's not really about you, you see.

[+Quest Master]

 

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

 

 

 

blah, blah, blah

 

 

If we ignore him, do you think maybe he'll let this thread go back on topic?

[+fizzymagic]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

If we ignore him, do you think maybe he'll let this thread go back on topic?

It's never helped before; I don't expect it would this time, either.

[Jeremy]

 

So I will continue to NOT log online for now, along with the hundreds, maybe thousands of others, who do the same, including Dave Ulmer. For now, it's the only way to keep my find count at '0'.

 

Your silly protest is just another way of saying LOOK AT ME! So I don't buy your reasoning. If you stopped boasting about it I would give you some credit.

[+StarBrand]

...First, why don't you ask what StarBrand meant by:

...I really don't want to lose the ability to smoothly flow from 1 log to another, from one cache to another via a cachers log - to see where people go and when.

He's the one that's doing it....

 

I guess folks shouldn't try to read or follow the journals of Lewis and Clark to see where they were sometime in the past either. Or diaries of Oregon Trail Pioneers. None of our business I guess. Don't log or leave it on a publically avialable area unless you don't mind me reading it.

 

To directly answer the question - I am interested in what caches they may have chosen to visit in the area. Why did they stop at this one but not another. I try to figure out what kinds of caches people will visit and why so i can place better ones in the area. Sometimes I just do it because I see they visited areas I am interested in. They liked my cache so i might like some of the other ones they visited. Maybe I just want to compare comments on mine versus other nearby caches. Or maybe they live in an interesting location. Nice to visit logs on caches in those areas. Sometimes i do it because of a note left in the logs referring to another cache or trip they are on. I have never tried to track down anybody as you strongly implied. Very gutter brained of you to try and read anything else into it. And TEAM 360 - he explicity called my actions "creepy" where young wemon are concerned so I still believe an apology is in order. But I know it is not coming.

 

Fine - hide your stats on a banner if you want - just allow us all to explore the site as is. Although, I must agree with the sentiment that if numbers really don't mean anything - then why all the concern over them??

[+TEAM 360]

 

So I will continue to NOT log online for now, along with the hundreds, maybe thousands of others, who do the same, including Dave Ulmer. For now, it's the only way to keep my find count at '0'.

 

Your silly protest is just another way of saying LOOK AT ME! So I don't buy your reasoning. If you stopped boasting about it I would give you some credit.

 

Not a 'silly protest' at all. I just don't want my stats out there, but you have your website setup in a way that forces everyone to have stats. Tell me another way I can log online without having to play the 'silly numbers game', and I will do it.

 

I would give you some credit if you hadn't flip-flopped on offering the 'opt-out' a couple of years ago.

[+sbell111]

If we ignore him, do you think maybe he'll let this thread go back on topic?

Back on topic? I was responding directly to issues posted in the thread.

 

meh.

[+ThePropers]

I have been caught up in this 'opt-out' for years now, and I can tell you, it's just not going to happen, as much as I would like to see it offered.

Why?

Because as long as there is ONE cacher out there who whines 'we like the numbers, we like the numbers', TPTB will NEVER give an 'opt-out'. NEVER. The whiners will make everyone play the game THEIR way.

 

Having an opt-out would mean the number freaks can still post their find count, do their chest-pounding 'HEY EVERYONE, LOOK AT ME!' antics, and brag about how many they have. They just won't be able to prove where they stand with the rest of the GC community, since the stats rug would be pulled out from under them.

 

Really? It's been my opinion TPTB cater to the exact opposite crowd, or else we'd have stats coming out the ying yang (and possibly even the yong, but that would be pretty ugly and possibly painful). And everyone who likes the numbers is a whiner and a chest beater? Nobody could possibly care about stats for anything other than small penis syndrome? Yeah...sure.

 

So I will continue to NOT log online for now, along with the hundreds, maybe thousands of others, who do the same, including Dave Ulmer. For now, it's the only way to keep my find count at '0'.

 

Well, at least you're not chest beating and whining, unlike all those stat hos out there. Oh, and just a thought, you could log a note, which would keep your find count at zero, while still giving back a bit to the hider to let them know the status of the cache.

 

I don't get why it's so bad to care the slightest littlest teeniest tiny bit about numbers, even in a non-competitive way.

 

I must be a bad boy. That's what she said (zing!!)

 

Anyways, I'm all for the opt out option (for people like 360), but won't use it myself. I always like more options. Maybe then after TPTB cater to the non-numbers crowd, maybe the people who are interested in numbers could get some more stats added.

[+ThePropers]

Tell me another way I can log online without having to play the 'silly numbers game', and I will do it.

 

See my previous post. Log a note. It's simple, easy, and affordable! And it keeps your find count at zero! And gives back to the hider! And keeps a record of your "finds" for yourself, while not allowing anyone else to view it (unless there's a way to view note counts by a user that I'm unaware of...which there very well could be).

Edited June 1, 2006 by ThePropers

[+TEAM 360]

Tell me another way I can log online without having to play the 'silly numbers game', and I will do it.

 

See my previous post. Log a note. It's simple, easy, and affordable!

 

Results for 'write note':

49 Results

 

Wow. Thanks. Might as well just keep the stats.

 

And no, that's not how many finds I have.

Edited June 1, 2006 by TEAM 360

[+TEAM 360]

Look, I am just saying, it seems there have been a lot of people asking for the 'opt-out' lately.

 

Why not at least give it a shot?

[+ThePropers]

Results for 'write note':

49 Results

 

Wow. Thanks. Might as well just keep the stats.

 

And no, that's not how many finds I have.

 

Hmmm...how did you run that?

[Jeremy]

Look, I am just saying, it seems there have been a lot of people asking for the 'opt-out' lately.

 

Why not at least give it a shot?

 

What you're saying is you won't anyway, and by the way, LOOK AT ME. I'm protesting by not posting my finds.

 

No offense, but a topic in the forums is often a tempest in a teapot.

[+TEAM 360]

If you implemented the 'no-stats' option, you bet I would log online...I used to write the most beautiful stories about the cache locations, the trees, the land...

 

Well, I've said my piece...

 

Good evening to all, I have a Suns basketball game to catch.

[+TEAM 360]

Oh, and...

LOOK AT ME, EVERYONE!!