Would you let your numbers go?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Obviously hypothetical stemming from curiosity originating from right here on the forums.

 

Would you let your numbers go, that page that tallies all the wonderful caches you've discovered and that number in parenthesis that appears whenever you log another cache?

 

People like to know what caches they've been to. I know the mister and I are having a rough time remembering which Lee County caches we've visited to revisit now that he's not tagging on a friend's account and I understand that you can't just find a cache (you have to sign the log and log it online, too). For us, it really did begin with just the satisfaction of finding it. Now that we've started a team account, I've gotten the approval of a few cache owners to log those previous finds (from my account since the mister never logged since his friend was, even after he finally opened an account) but haven't asked all of them because there's a few I'd like my kids to take the lead on and I figure we'll log it then. So, we have 4 and it looks like we just started last month. I didn't care until I browsed the forums. I know it's hard to remember without documentation of which caches we've been to, but I couldn't give a care about counting them.

 

From the forums, I've found two assumptions:

1. you bought your GPS to geocache and don't know any more about the sport, orientering, or your GPS device than the number of caches logged for any longer than the date your account started.

2. the person who has 47 finds is not as good as the person with 1058 finds and deserves to be insulted and reminded of this fact whenever they find any reason to be displeased with the person with more finds.

 

So, why are you in Geocaching? Is it for the numbers? Does that make you a good geocacher that everyone should admire and love? Does that make you better than everyone else? Or do you like the hunt and the find? If it's a combination of all of these, how does that work? If it's something else, what is it?

 

How important are these numbers?

 

Is the only reason some people are staying away from Waymarking.com is because it doesn't boost their Geocaching numbers?

 

If Geocaching.com decided to remove the numbers, listing only the caches you've visited without officially tallying them, would you survive or would you consider leaving the sport (or at least this site)? Is it really that important?

 

This isn't meant to incite any arguments and I apologize in advance if anyone takes this personally. I don't mean to attack your need for numbers (if you have one). I'm just curious how and why you're so attached to them.

 

- HauntHunters

[+adjensen]

From the forums, I've found two assumptions:

1. you bought your GPS to geocache and don't know any more about the sport, orientering, or your GPS device than the number of caches logged for any longer than the date your account started.

2. the person who has 47 finds is not as good as the person with 1058 finds

 

Quite possibly. Certainly less experienced in the nuances of the game. If they bothered to log 47 finds, it's not too likely that they've another 1011 that they didn't log.

 

and deserves to be insulted and reminded of this fact whenever they find any reason to be displeased with the person with more finds.

 

Certainly not, "deserves" being the operative word.

 

So, why are you in Geocaching? Is it for the numbers? Does that make you a good geocacher that everyone should admire and love? Does that make you better than everyone else? Or do you like the hunt and the find? If it's a combination of all of these, how does that work? If it's something else, what is it?

 

I've been doing this, off and on, for the past five years because I enjoy hiking and exploring. I've been doing map reading, orienteering, cartography and other geography stuff since college in the early 1980s. This is just the latest itteration of that. I pretty much always do it with other people, which keeps my numbers low, but I'd rather take a whole day to climb a mountain with my wife and daughter to find a tough cache than do 15 micros in a day to boost my numbers.

 

Hence the "slowest to 100" label

 

How important are these numbers?

 

If it's a game, you need some means of "keeping score," I guess. The numbers are said way. I don't geocache for that reason, but I see why some would.

 

Probably a better way to keep score would be to factor in the difficulty of a cache in the score, but that's a whole other can of worms

 

Is the only reason some people are staying away from Waymarking.com is because it doesn't boost their Geocaching numbers?

 

I personally stay away because it's confusing, and when I've tried to sort it out, it looked rather boring.

[+Tallahassee Lassie]

Numbers mean very little to me. That said, there is some personal satisfaction from reaching milestone numbers. I won't apologize for it, and if TPTB want to hide numbers from everyone but the finder, I wouldn't have a single problem with that. It isn't all about the numbers for me, but it keeps going back to the "play the game your way" discussion. As long as my numbers are mine and gotten "legally", then they aren't your business what I want to do with them. I like to keep an accounting of my finds.

 

Also, when I'm introducing new people to the sport, I often tell them how many caches I've found and how many are available worldwide, so they can see that this sport is not just a local phenomenon that they would spend $200 for a GPS and then not be able to use it anywhere else. By comparing how many I've found (about 130) and how many are placed (????), they can see that this is something that is going to be aruond for awhile.

 

BTW, I don't take offense personally, but the tone in your post is so obviously negative that anyone who does have a reason for numbers will probably not post their reasons for fear of being flamed. I have very tough skin, so flame on.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Tallahassee Lassie

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

BTW, I don't take offense personally, but the tone in your post is so obviously negative that anyone who does have a reason for numbers will probably not post their reasons for fear of being flames. I have very tough skin, so flame on.

 

The behavior on the forums hasn't been very positive by people who seem to value their numbers and I've been a bit offended by the term "number ho" which seems to repeatedly pop up. I'm confused as to why anyone would use such a sexist term as a badge of honour, especially in a sport that involves children. Suffice it to say that I really just don't understand the value. I understand the function (and you've described it very well) but the personal attachment begs me to wonder how attached they are. Would they leave the game (or gc.com) if they couldn't have "23,483,747,545 finds" next to their username? I don't mean to demean anyone with a high number of finds. Anything more than what we have (counted or not) is impressive and I'm amazed that people can find 5000 or more. I don't know how they do it! But, would the game mean as much if they didn't have the number and just had pages upon pages of cache listings (or, even still, the tally wasn't visible to other users)?

 

- HauntHunters

[CoyoteRed]

2. the person who has 47 finds is not as good as the person with 1058 finds

 

Quite possibly. Certainly less experienced in the nuances of the game.

 

Absolutely. It's hard to take someone seriously when they're spouting off about a subject they really know little about. In the 3 years they've been caching and have found what only amounts the number some would consider a good weekend then, yeah, their advice is just about as good as their experience level.

 

If Geocaching.com decided to remove the numbers, listing only the caches you've visited without officially tallying them, would you survive or would you consider leaving the sport (or at least this site)? Is it really that important?

 

I wouldn't leave the hobby. On the contrary, I've advocated this very thing. Others have as well.

 

On the flip side, it is guaranteed that some would leave the hobby because the only reason they cache is because that number is the only thing that gives them worth. They have to be "better" than the next guy.

 

Personally, I think the hobby would be healthier for it. Barring that, at least allow those of us who wish it to hide our own tallies.

[+ThePropers]

Isn't this thread #4,653 on the subject of numbers, what they mean to you, what they mean to the community in general, etc?

 

Do I like numbers: Yes Always have, always will (be it geocaching or any other "sport" where you keep track of stats).

Do I cheat to get numbers? Nope.

Do I like to see other people's numbers? Yep.

Do they mean anything in the grand scheme of things? Nope.

Would I like to see more stats implemented? Yep.

 

I like to compare it to baseball. See, there are many types of people:

Group 1) People who hate baseball: Stats don't matter at all.

Group 2) The casual baseball watcher: Stats really don't matter at all, but they watch baseball for the "fun" of it.

Group 3) The casual baseball fan: Only cares about win/loss and team standings.

Group 4) The team fan: Keeps track of individual player stats, but only for their team.

Group 5) The hardcore fan: Keeps tracks of every player on every team.

 

If you switch that to geocaching, there are a few people on the forums who fit into Group 2.

However, the majority probably fit into group 3. They like to keep track of their basic numbers, and possibly a couple of their caching friends.

I would probably fit into group 4, where I want more individualized stats. Granted, I use fizzymagic's FindStats to generate these for me.

There are no doubt a few people in group 5, that want more specific breakdowns for everyone. I'm actually probably borderline 4/5 in this regard, I guess.

 

Regardless, nobody ever writes to ESPN and says "Hey, I'm in Group 2, so please get rid of all the baseball stats because I don't care about them." Nobody complains because they know that there are hardcore fans who actually want to see the stats.

 

I don't see why geocaching should be any different. If you don't care about the numbers, DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. See how simple that is? In other breaking news, if you don't like a TV show, turn the channel. It's really a brilliant idea.

Edited September 5, 2006 by ThePropers

[+cachew nut]

The behavior on the forums hasn't been very positive by people who seem to value their numbers and I've been a bit offended by the term "number ho" which seems to repeatedly pop up. I'm confused as to why anyone would use such a sexist term as a badge of honour, especially in a sport that involves children.

Huh? The only sour grapes I'm seeing in the forums are from the underacheivers who want to take the numbers away from the people who value them. The term "number ho" seems to me to be a derogatory term created to lessen in value the acheivements of some of the most experienced players in this game.

 

Suffice it to say that I really just don't understand the value. I understand the function (and you've described it very well) but the personal attachment begs me to wonder how attached they are. Would they leave the game (or gc.com) if they couldn't have "23,483,747,545 finds" next to their username? I don't mean to demean anyone with a high number of finds.

I like my numbers and I'm not ashamed to say so. I work hard to increase them every chance I get. The higher the number, the more experience I have gained and the more places I have been. I've been to more Walmarts than I would have ever thought. I like Walmart, and I'm always glad that when I travel, someone has anticipated my visit and can point me in the right direction. Same goes for Cracker Barrel.

 

When I started geocaching, I had zero finds like anyone else. My numbers are a reflection of the experience I have gained and the places I have been. A long time ago, there was a "Leaderboard" and almost everyone competed to move up a few rungs. It was a healthy competition that everyone used to watch and comment on. At some point, the really dedicated cachers rose above the others and the sour grapes began. The Leaderboard went away. With it went a lot of geocaching activity. My activity dropped off sharply.

 

You see, a lot of people used to use the Leaderboard as friendly competition. Yeah, competition, imagine that. Not like some game of T-ball where the score is always a tie. So while the small group of underachievers cheered the demise of the Leaderboard, most of the players suddenly lost their game. It's this same minority group of complainers squeeking the wheel, pretending that everyone else feels the same way they do.

 

Now there is a new Leaderboard, and I compete against myself. My prize is watching myself move up in rank. If you want to play, you are welcome. And if you don't want to play, you don't have to. And for the guy who is ashamed of his 47 finds, don't be, since that number isn't high enough to make the Leaderboard anyway, so I would never know it unless you told me.

 

Anything more than what we have (counted or not) is impressive and I'm amazed that people can find 5000 or more. I don't know how they do it! But, would the game mean as much if they didn't have the number and just had pages upon pages of cache listings (or, even still, the tally wasn't visible to other users)?

Ask the question again when you hit 5000.

Edited September 5, 2006 by cachew nut

[+Tsmola]

wouldn't bother me any if they were gone.

[Mushtang]

Isn't this thread #4,653 on the subject of numbers, what they mean to you, what they mean to the community in general, etc?

 

Do I like numbers: Yes Always have, always will (be it geocaching or any other "sport" where you keep track of stats).

Do I cheat to get numbers? Nope.

Do I like to see other people's numbers? Yep.

Do they mean anything in the grand scheme of things? Nope.

Would I like to see more stats implemented? Yep.

 

I like to compare it to baseball. See, there are many types of people:

Group 1) People who hate baseball: Stats don't matter at all.

Group 2) The casual baseball watcher: Stats really don't matter at all, but they watch baseball for the "fun" of it.

Group 3) The casual baseball fan: Only cares about win/loss and team standings.

Group 4) The team fan: Keeps track of individual player stats, but only for their team.

Group 5) The hardcore fan: Keeps tracks of every player on every team.

 

If you switch that to geocaching, there are a few people on the forums who fit into Group 2.

However, the majority probably fit into group 3. They like to keep track of their basic numbers, and possibly a couple of their caching friends.

I would probably fit into group 4, where I want more individualized stats. Granted, I use fizzymagic's FindStats to generate these for me.

There are no doubt a few people in group 5, that want more specific breakdowns for everyone. I'm actually probably borderline 4/5 in this regard, I guess.

 

Regardless, nobody ever writes to ESPN and says "Hey, I'm in Group 2, so please get rid of all the baseball stats because I don't care about them." Nobody complains because they know that there are hardcore fans who actually want to see the stats.

 

I don't see why geocaching should be any different. If you don't care about the numbers, DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. See how simple that is? In other breaking news, if you don't like a TV show, turn the channel. It's really a brilliant idea.

YAY! Beautifully said.

 

I too am not "in it for the numbers", but I do love MY numbers. I'm fully aware exactly how important they are in the grand scheme of the game, but it's something I'd hate to lose.

 

It never ceases to amaze me when someone doesn't like something they try to remove it from existence - because if they don't like it then obviously everyone else would be better off without it too.

[+ibycus]

I wouldn't want to see the numbers go.

 

Why? Because I don't think it would change the underlying issue, people will find some other way to judge themselves and other people. I would however advocate having the ability to hide your own stats page from other people. (seems like a reasonable comprimise)

 

No I don't take newbies as seriously as a 'seasoned' vetran

 

Why? Because there are soooo many cachers who come and go in a season. Many of them show up on the scene, and automatically assume they know better than people who have been around for years as to how things should be done. Do I assume they bought their GPS for geocaching? No, there are very few actual 'GPS skills' involved in geocaching, so what they bought their unit for is irrelevant. (I for one bought my first unit to better track my progress driving across the country). It is very relevant how many caches they have found though. It gives you some idea of the kinds of hides they have experienced, and some idea of their dedication to the game.

Does someone with 2000 finds necessarily warrant more 'respect' than someone with 200? Nope. Than someone with 20? Probably.

 

There are many people who have casually been involved in geocaching for years, and only have a hundred or so finds. (One of the cachers around here that I respect the most has only a little over 100.

 

If someone with 5 finds, and 2 posts attacks something I've said in the forums, I'll be a lot more likely to shrug it off than if someone who's opinion means something to me does it (and what gives that meaning? how long they've been around, how much I've seen them, and the tone of their posts in the past)

[+sbell111]

I like my numbers, but don't really care what yours are, except when they are relevent to a comment you have made.

[CoyoteRed]

Ah, yes. Equating professional baseball to geocaching. Now, there's a spot-on analogy.

[+GreyingJay]

I like to know my own stats. LogicWeave's CacheStats is a great tool for this, by the way (see my profile, and many other users', for an example).

 

Do I care about numbers? For my own personal use, yes. I like to know where I'm at, how often I've been going at this, etc. Last month I did a streak of 2-3 caches a day for almost 3 weeks daily, just to see if I could. To some people that's peanuts, but for me it was a neat little challenge.

 

Am I in it for the numbers? Not really.

 

Would I care if the numbers went away? I'd still like the ability to count and keep track of my own finds, but I don't think I'd particularly care if I could no longer see the find count of other players.

 

Am I bothered by / envious of the guys who have 1500/500/16000+ finds?? Other than I know they're devoting an insane amount of time to this game, no.

 

Will I ever reach those numbers / am I striving to reach those numbers? Heck no!

 

When I first started caching I attended my first local event with a whole 4 finds under my belt. People smiled when they found out ("aww, cute! a newbie!") but in general I was treated with the same respect as the guys with 1000+. In fact, they were very helpful in giving me ideas about what to expect, suggestions for "classic" local caches to try, etc.

[Mushtang]

Ah, yes. Equating professional baseball to geocaching. Now, there's a spot-on analogy.

He wasn't. He was equating people that follow baseball stats with people that follow geocaching stats.

 

If you can't keep up then it's probably best you not try and join in.

[+ThePropers]

Ah, yes. Equating professional baseball to geocaching. Now, there's a spot-on analogy.

 

Actually it was equating statistics tracking for baseball to statistics tracking for geocaching.

 

Maybe if I explained it a different way, you'd understand. See, not every baseball fan cares about in-depth statistics, and those that don't do NOT try to get ESPN to quit reporting the stats.

 

On the flip side, not every geocacher cares about in-depth statistics, but for some strange reason, some of those geoachers try to get the what few statistics we have here taken away.

 

Maybe that helps.

[+ibycus]

I've been a bit offended by the term "number ho" which seems to repeatedly pop up. I'm confused as to why anyone would use such a sexist term as a badge of honour, especially in a sport that involves children.

 

If you're offended by that, I'd suggest that you get out the forums until you can develop a bit thicker of a skin. Not that I'm going to be the one to malign you, and personal attacks are against forum rules, but they can be a rough place sometimes.

 

As to the terminology, I'd say its quite appropriate. Language is only useful in so much as it conveys meaning. How would you express the feeling that someone else is, obsessed with numbers. They don't care about the quality of the caches, only how much it ups their smiley count. They are a slave to the numbers. They essentially prostitute themselves to the numbers. All of that is wrapped up an a convenient little package of "numbers ho".

 

Yes, it has been used in a derogatory manner, but of course those its used towards are generally very proud of their high numbers, and hence see it as a compliment. Their 'badge of honour' for their way of playing the game. Their obsession with the numbers has paid off, someone has noticed them (which is what they were going for in the first place).

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Ah, yes. Equating professional baseball to geocaching. Now, there's a spot-on analogy.

 

Personally, I liked how zie equated the love for the sport to how one keeps tracks of the numbers. If you don't care about numbers in geocaching, you obviously "hate" the sport. Yeah, okay. I think the post touched a nerve and I anticipated that it might and my apology-in-advance wouldn't be good enough to ward off snap responses. I was hoping they might answer the questions instead of clinging to "stop trying to take away my numbers!" defensiveness. I'm not trying to take away anybody's numbers. I don't have that power.

 

A prime example of "bad behavior" from high numbered cachers:

A high numbered cacher called another one an idiot because zie wanted a TB released from a prison, then proceeded to criticise them for "only" having 47 caches, as if that was relevant to them being disappointed that zir TB wasn't moving along.

 

This post wasn't pulled out my arse. It arose from a lot of "OMGWTF" moments, especially reading previous posts on the subject of numbers.

 

- HauntHunters

[CoyoteRed]

Maybe that helps.

 

Not really, considering ESPN doesn't keep track of sand lot games, or a whole host of other baseball game or player stats.

 

In order for any stat to mean anything everyone has to be on a level playing field. You know, like major and minor leagues as you simply can't directly compare the two, much less any of the other leagues.

 

Geocaching is a hobby where the only stat is the number games played from the very beginning of your career with absolutely no quantifying of the challenges faced. Yeah, that's much like baseball stats. Yep. And I see ESPN reporting the number of games a player has ever played in their life.

 

Additionally, it's none of your business what my stats are. None. If I want to let you know, then that's my prerogative, but you don't have a right to it.

[+sbell111]

Can someone please make a smiley of Signal yawning. That might be really helpful.

[+cachew nut]

Geocaching is a hobby where the only stat is the number games played from the very beginning of your career with absolutely no quantifying of the challenges faced. Yeah, that's much like baseball stats.

 

Actually the 2006 season started in January.

[CoyoteRed]

Geocaching is a hobby where the only stat is the number games played from the very beginning of your career with absolutely no quantifying of the challenges faced. Yeah, that's much like baseball stats.

 

Actually the 2006 season started in January.

 

Oh, yeah? I didn't realize your count reset on the new year. News to me.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I've been a bit offended by the term "number ho" which seems to repeatedly pop up. I'm confused as to why anyone would use such a sexist term as a badge of honour, especially in a sport that involves children.

 

If you're offended by that, I'd suggest that you get out the forums until you can develop a bit thicker of a skin. Not that I'm going to be the one to malign you, and personal attacks are against forum rules, but they can be a rough place sometimes.

 

As to the terminology, I'd say its quite appropriate. Language is only useful in so much as it conveys meaning. How would you express the feeling that someone else is, obsessed with numbers. They don't care about the quality of the caches, only how much it ups their smiley count. They are a slave to the numbers. They essentially prostitute themselves to the numbers. All of that is wrapped up an a convenient little package of "numbers ho".

 

Yes, it has been used in a derogatory manner, but of course those its used towards are generally very proud of their high numbers, and hence see it as a compliment. Their 'badge of honour' for their way of playing the game. Their obsession with the numbers has paid off, someone has noticed them (which is what they were going for in the first place).

 

The problem isn't mine. I don't have to accept sexism, and, yes the term is rooted in sexism. We don't call ourselves cache ni***rs, do we? If we did, would we expect other people to just accept it because what else would you refer to someone who was a slave to geocaching, and we're using it in a different context so it must be okay? Somehow, I just don't think that would fly.

 

Out of curiosity, how would you explain "number ho" to a six year-old? Or even a ten year-old?

 

I know teh internets can be rough. I also know people are capable of respectible and good behavior. For some reason, I expect more out of people now than I did in the early nineties. I guess because the internet is so commonplace now.

 

- HauntHunters

[+cachew nut]

Geocaching is a hobby where the only stat is the number games played from the very beginning of your career with absolutely no quantifying of the challenges faced. Yeah, that's much like baseball stats.

 

Actually the 2006 season started in January.

 

Oh, yeah? I didn't realize your count reset on the new year. News to me.

It's amazing, isn't it?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I like to know my own stats. LogicWeave's CacheStats is a great tool for this, by the way (see my profile, and many other users', for an example).

 

Do I care about numbers? For my own personal use, yes. I like to know where I'm at, how often I've been going at this, etc. Last month I did a streak of 2-3 caches a day for almost 3 weeks daily, just to see if I could. To some people that's peanuts, but for me it was a neat little challenge.

 

Am I in it for the numbers? Not really.

 

Would I care if the numbers went away? I'd still like the ability to count and keep track of my own finds, but I don't think I'd particularly care if I could no longer see the find count of other players.

 

Am I bothered by / envious of the guys who have 1500/500/16000+ finds?? Other than I know they're devoting an insane amount of time to this game, no.

 

Will I ever reach those numbers / am I striving to reach those numbers? Heck no!

 

When I first started caching I attended my first local event with a whole 4 finds under my belt. People smiled when they found out ("aww, cute! a newbie!") but in general I was treated with the same respect as the guys with 1000+. In fact, they were very helpful in giving me ideas about what to expect, suggestions for "classic" local caches to try, etc.

 

Awesome comment. Thank you very much. This was the kind of response I was really hoping for, someone who could answer directly and on the level. Thanks, again! This was helpful!

 

- HauntHunters

[+ThePropers]

- removed post because my head hurts -

Edited September 5, 2006 by ThePropers

[Mushtang]

Maybe that helps.

 

Not really, considering ESPN doesn't keep track of sand lot games, or a whole host of other baseball game or player stats.

 

In order for any stat to mean anything everyone has to be on a level playing field. You know, like major and minor leagues as you simply can't directly compare the two, much less any of the other leagues.

 

Geocaching is a hobby where the only stat is the number games played from the very beginning of your career with absolutely no quantifying of the challenges faced. Yeah, that's much like baseball stats. Yep. And I see ESPN reporting the number of games a player has ever played in their life.

 

Additionally, it's none of your business what my stats are. None. If I want to let you know, then that's my prerogative, but you don't have a right to it.

Again, he was comparing the way people look at baseball stats to the way people look at geocaching stats, he wasn't comparing the actual stats to each other.

 

Seriously, try and pay attention.

 

BTW, it almost seems as if you're saying that a reason for not displaying stats is that they don't tell the entire story of a cacher's history.

[+tozainamboku]

... I understand that you can't just find a cache (you have to sign the log and log it online, too). For us, it really did begin with just the satisfaction of finding it. ...

Of course you can just find a cache. There is absolutely no requirement to sign the log or log online in order to find a geocache. Geocaching is not a competative sport, despite the way some people may view certain high numbers cachers. When you start looking at numbers you have to define what you are counting. Unlike baseball statistics, geocaching statistics are much less well defined. People who are interested in comparing the statistics of one geocacher with another are comparing apples an oranges. One can only track one's own statistics or that of a close group of friends who agree to certain rules.

 

I like to compare it to baseball. See, there are many types of people:

Group 1) People who hate baseball: Stats don't matter at all.

Group 2) The casual baseball watcher: Stats really don't matter at all, but they watch baseball for the "fun" of it.

Group 3) The casual baseball fan: Only cares about win/loss and team standings.

Group 4) The team fan: Keeps track of individual player stats, but only for their team.

Group 5) The hardcore fan: Keeps tracks of every player on every team.

Which is the group who goes on the forums to flame Barry Bonds Baseball Agency (BBBA) for using steriods and cheating

Edited September 5, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+ThePropers]

 

Personally, I liked how zie equated the love for the sport to how one keeps tracks of the numbers. If you don't care about numbers in geocaching, you obviously "hate" the sport. Yeah, okay.

 

I'm not exactly sure who "zie" is, but I didn't say anything like that, not did I even imply that.

 

I'll just be quiet now. I can see that comparing people who care/don't care about stats in one hobby to people who care/don't care about stats in another hobby is a concept too complicated to discuss in these forums. Maybe I shouldn't have used "baseball" since everyone (well, a couple people) took that so freaking literally for some reason. But alas, I digress.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a corner to slink off to and think about what I've done.

[+ThePropers]

Again, he was comparing the way people look at baseball stats to the way people look at geocaching stats, he wasn't comparing the actual stats to each other.

 

Seriously, try and pay attention.

 

BTW, it almost seems as if you're saying that a reason for not displaying stats is that they don't tell the entire story of a cacher's history.

 

High-fives Mushtang for having good reading comprehension skills. You get the gold star, and a smilie face on your homework.

 

There is no "entire" story of a cacher's history, but find count is all we got. There are several suggestions on improving stats (like for instance not letting someone attend the same event 45 times or providing a count of "unique caches found") but all those have been either shot down or ignored. The general consensus is to just let people play the way they want to play, which is fine by me. But this thread was about taking away the very limited stats that the site does provide, which I would disapprove of.

Edited September 5, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

Personally, I liked how zie equated the love for the sport to how one keeps tracks of the numbers. If you don't care about numbers in geocaching, you obviously "hate" the sport. Yeah, okay.

 

I'm not exactly sure who "zie" is, but I didn't say anything like that, not did I even imply that.

 

I'll just be quiet now. I can see that comparing people who care/don't care about stats in one hobby to people who care/don't care about stats in another hobby is a concept too complicated to discuss in these forums. Maybe I shouldn't have used "baseball" since everyone (well, a couple people) took that so freaking literally for some reason. But alas, I digress.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a corner to slink off to and think about what I've done.

 

zie/zir/zirself is a non-gendered way to refer to someone. I don't know if you're a he or a she or someone who is transgendered or androgenous (and it's not my place to guess), so instead of continually putting "s/he" or the improper "they", I use the non-gendered pronouns.

 

You had said:

"Group 1) People who hate baseball: Stats don't matter at all."

 

So if stats don't matter to me, I hate geocaching? That's where my comment came from. Given that you didn't realize what you'd said, it's clear now that wasn't what you meant.

 

- HauntHunters

Edited September 5, 2006 by HauntHunters

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

But this thread was about taking away the very limited stats that the site does provide, which I would disapprove of.

 

No, it wasn't.

 

- HauntHunters

[+cachew nut]

zie/zir/zirself is a non-gendered way to refer to someone.

 

It's sorta like that new math, huh?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

zie/zir/zirself is a non-gendered way to refer to someone.

 

It's sorta like that new math, huh?

 

Yeah, except totally different.

 

- HauntHunters

[+ThePropers]

zie/zir/zirself is a non-gendered way to refer to someone. I don't know if you're a he or a she or someone who is transgendered or androgenous (and it's not my place to guess), so instead of continually putting "s/he" or the improper "they", I use the non-gendered pronouns.

 

You had said:

"Group 1) People who hate baseball: Stats don't matter at all."

 

So if stats don't matter to me, I hate geocaching? That's where my comment came from. Given that you didn't realize what you'd said, it's clear now that wasn't what you meant.

 

- HauntHunters

 

See, I would think Joe Schmoe, who is a buddy of mine who thinks geocaching is the dumbest thing in the world and would never go geocaching in a million years be the guy I was referrring to who "hates baseball" (curse my baseball comparison!) So see, I did realize what I said, but you didn't read it right.

 

And HauntHunters (as an EXAMPLE...please don't take that literally), who doesn't care about stats, but likes geocaching would be in Group #2. At least according to my little "groups" I mention.

 

And I'm actually a goat...not that it's any of your business of course.

Edited September 5, 2006 by ThePropers

[+ThePropers]

But this thread was about taking away the very limited stats that the site does provide, which I would disapprove of.

 

No, it wasn't.

 

- HauntHunters

 

I was basing that off of the "would you let you numbers go" in the title and the following quote in the OP

 

If Geocaching.com decided to remove the numbers, listing only the caches you've visited without officially tallying them, would you survive or would you consider leaving the sport (or at least this site)? Is it really that important?

 

My apologies if I misinterpreted that.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

I was basing that off of the "would you let you numbers go" in the title and the following quote in the OP

 

If Geocaching.com decided to remove the numbers, listing only the caches you've visited without officially tallying them, would you survive or would you consider leaving the sport (or at least this site)? Is it really that important?

 

My apologies if I misinterpreted that.

 

Gotcha. No. Please take it hypothetically. I wasn't saying that they should/shouldn't either way. Just wanting to know how important the numbers are... would some people lose the point if there wasn't a number beside their username? I wasn't intending to suggest that the count should be removed or that the hard work (that people feel is demonstrated in their count) is invalidated. Not what I intended at all.

 

As for you being a goat, that's a pretty cute kid for being half-goat!

 

- HauntHunters

[olmeca]

I am a relatively new geo-cacher and something I have being doing more and more lately. I personally find it important to know for myself how many caches I have found and find it important that all those ticks I see are for caches that I have done and have had the experience of being out there to do.

 

Those are my stats and I only care about them so I can keep track of what I've done and where I've being and if I could hide them I probably would since they only mean something to me not to anyone else.

 

I always believed geo-caching was a fun game to play so you could get out there and experience different places where other geocachers believed it was worth while visiting and it was only by reading these forums that I have seen all the politics associated with a simple game.

 

If it wasnt for the high numbers giving the low numbers a hard time then the low numbers couldnt bitch about the high numbers having high numbers, the microcache owners wouldnt be sticking up for there caches against the micocache haters, the purists wouldnt have an issue about cachers finding but not signing a log book and claiming a find, and many more variations on opinions for finding tupperware then these forums would be devoid of any discussion at all.

 

So as has being said many times before.. play the game your own way.

 

I now read these forums for amusement only.

[+ThePropers]

 

As for you being a goat, that's a pretty cute kid for being half-goat!

 

 

Oh, that's our adopted kid. We keep the half-goat chained up in the basement and feed him a bucket of fish heads once a week.

[+denali7]

If it wasnt for the high numbers giving the low numbers a hard time then the low numbers couldnt bitch about the high numbers having high numbers, the microcache owners wouldnt be sticking up for there caches against the micocache haters, the purists wouldnt have an issue about cachers finding but not signing a log book and claiming a find, and many more variations on opinions for finding tupperware then these forums would be devoid of any discussion at all.

 

PERFECT!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

It seems simple, really, and I have suggested it before, but here goes.

 

If, like me, you don't care about numbers, don't log caches. Simple. I pretty much quit logging at around 1800 and have found at least twice that many now. Can I prove that assertion? No, but I don't need to. The folks I cache with know we did them, that's good enough.

 

The other suggestion is for Groundspeak to give us a choice. It's simple business to put a checkbox in each cacher's profile - if 'Show Stats' is checked they show up, if not, they don't.

 

Ed

[+budd-rdc]

Would I let my numbers go? If the sport is deteriorating to the point of ruin because of them, yes I would. I can still reminisce about my visits, and enjoy reading about other people's visits without the numbers.

 

The baseball analogy is nice. Here's my version:

 

- Homeruns vs. find counts

- "Hitter's park" vs. cache density

- Corked bat vs. "creative finds"

 

Numbers can be an easy motivator, especially for newbies. It's easy to grasp. It's a good marketing, tool. It creates a perception of competition, like video game scores. I don't expect TPTB to remove them, even though I personally want an option to hide the find counts from other people.

 

Most legitimate complaints about numbers seem to come from people who have been in the sport for a while, where they have "matured" and moved onto other challenges, like high difficulty, high terrain, etc. It'd be silly to call some of them "underachievers."

[+kdv]

The behavior on the forums hasn't been very positive by people who seem to value their numbers and I've been a bit offended by the term "number ho" which seems to repeatedly pop up. I'm confused as to why anyone would use such a sexist term as a badge of honour, especially in a sport that involves children.

Huh? The only sour grapes I'm seeing in the forums are from the underacheivers who want to take the numbers away from the people who value them.

 

underachievers.....wow, I would almost start to think some people go geocaching to 'compensate' for some other type of shortcoming

 

On the other hand, how come so many threads about numbers are started by people who say they don't care one bit about them. Here's an idea: let's stop talking about them!

 

Katja

[+imfrog2002]

I'm kind of torn on this. I enjoy trying to get numbers, but I do it just to get out of the house! I know my GPS better than my computer, and that's saying something. I only have 33 finds, but I'm on staff for a Boy Scout camp where I have to teach people what Geocaching is, and how to use a GPS. These are boys that for the most part have never heard of GPS, or a GPSr. I might not have that many finds, but I know my GPS better than a few cachers that have 500 finds! I just don't have finds because of gas prices, and time restrictions! I have to disagree with you, adjensen. You said that the more caches the person has, the better the cacher they are. Not true. I know some people that have less than 100 finds and they are ones that not many people can find. It's not all about numbers, it's about the passion.

 

I do agree, however that numbers mean something. They show how much passion you have, but they also show how much traveling you do. Sometimes the numbers show how much money you have. I don't have a lot of extra money, so you'll notice that almost all of my cache finds are in one place. Right now, I can't go Geocaching too much, because I can't afford gas. I could see going without numbers, but I like to know how many I have. I don't mind not having other people see them. I just like to know milestones. I could care less if it's my 100th cache, or my 2000th! As long as it's fun. Okay, enough rambling. xD

[+cachew nut]

The behavior on the forums hasn't been very positive by people who seem to value their numbers and I've been a bit offended by the term "number ho" which seems to repeatedly pop up. I'm confused as to why anyone would use such a sexist term as a badge of honour, especially in a sport that involves children.

Huh? The only sour grapes I'm seeing in the forums are from the underacheivers who want to take the numbers away from the people who value them.

 

underachievers.....wow, I would almost start to think some people go geocaching to 'compensate' for some other type of shortcoming

 

On the other hand, how come so many threads about numbers are started by people who say they don't care one bit about them. Here's an idea: let's stop talking about them!

 

Katja

 

I've really not said anything to, or about anybody elses find count specifically, and only in general terms when they make noises about changing the way I play my geocaching game.

 

The OP states that the people who value their find count have a less than positive attitude. That's not the case, the people who value their count are not the ones making the noise, it's the ones who want to eliminate find counts. Since I value mine, and work hard at keeping them from going stale, I will defend my desire to not have my game changed again.

 

I'm not really seeing others who value their find count wanting to see them go away, just the ones who don't value them. No shortcomings here.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

The OP states that the people who value their find count have a less than positive attitude. That's not the case

 

Then explain why someone's opinion and person is degraded based on them having a lower number (not low number, just lower than the cacher insulting them) and explain why I've already seen this in the forums too many times to count. Tell me why you're inclined to describe cachers with lower numbers as "underachievers". Am I an underachiever? Or is it possible that four kids, two dogs, a husband who's had a full-hip replacement, insurance classes, prioritized hobbies, family obligations, and other scheduling obligations (my children in sports and scouts) maybe take time away from racking up those numbers? Does "underachiever" really fit me? No, it really doesn't.

 

Since I've seen a high numbered cacher name one of zir caches with the term "number ho" in it, I know your claim that it's only used by spoiled sports as an insult is also untrue.

 

There's no need to go Gollum about this. I'm asking how important the numbers are to you and why they are. Are they so important that you'd quit the game if GC.com upped and decided to quit counting? That's what this is about. It's not about the numbers or the fact that the site counts. It's about people's affection for that count and how they choose to relate to other cachers based on it.

 

- HauntHunters

[+cachew nut]

Well perhaps underacheiver was too harsh, in your case. I didn't quit when the original leaderboard went away, but I lost interest and stopped for a while. Would I quit geocaching if geocaching.com quit counting? I don't know, I probably wouldn't quit geocaching, but I might lose interest again. I don't see the point, the site has always kept count, everyone knows this going in. More importantly, will you quit if the count remains as it is?

[+Mike & Kate]

I've only got 7 finds right now, and my wife and I have only been doing this for about 3 weeks, but I like being able to see everyone else's find count. That way, if I ever have a question about a cache, or geocaching in general, I know who in my area is the best one to ask, to get a good reliable answer.

 

Just my $.02.

 

Mike (Mike & Kate)

[+Quiggle]

Must be the weather, but there are a few of you who seem to be posting just to bicker amongst yourselves (as is evident by this and another thread or two today). If you've got something to add to the discussion, that's fine, but don't inject yet another thread with your personal differences--that's best left to PM, not a public forum.

 

Thanks.

[gerboa]

I didn't even realise finds were counted and smileys awarded until I read these sort of posts. Couldn't tell you now how many finds I have, but could tell you a detailed story about each. BTW the rewards of reading logs from delighted finders is one of the real +++'s

[+Snoogans]

There's no need to go Gollum about this. I'm asking how important the numbers are to you and why they are. Are they so important that you'd quit the game if GC.com upped and decided to quit counting? That's what this is about. It's not about the numbers or the fact that the site counts. It's about people's affection for that count and how they choose to relate to other cachers based on it.

 

- HauntHunters

 

I don't relate to other cachers based solely on numbers. I look to see when they joined and how much they have participated in the geocaching community in a number of facets to the game. Finds are subjective and mean very little to me.

 

I wouldn't let MY numbers go. They are important to me and me alone and I'm nearly 100 caches behind in logging them.

 

I suppose if the OP had been done differently..... Asking the question, "could you let MY numbers go?" I think you'd discover that there are quite a few of us who could care less about anyone else's numbers but our own.

 

The site will NEVER stop counting for many of the reasons already mentioned and you will ALWAYS get those that are upset at the mere suggestion that their numbers be erased hypothetical or not.