Would you let your numbers go?

September 5, 2006

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

How come Mushtang gets the gold star!? I have good reading comprehension skills, too! I want a gold star so that I have more than Johnny..."

September 5, 2006

Well perhaps underacheiver was too harsh, in your case.

Yeah, I didn't mean to air all that laundry, but I wanted to give an example of how life can just pack the time full. It was just bad timing so our cache runs are mostly single runs with not a lot of time devoted to it. That'll change, but in the meanwhile (especially while I'm trying to waymark the fire stations in my county), it's slow going.

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?

No, because I don't have issue with the counting, and it won't matter if they change it up or keep it as is. I can't think of anything the site could do to make me quit. Even if they raised their membership prices beyond what I would pay, I'd still participate as a free account. The most I might end up doing is staying off these forum boards if the number people get more aggressive and insulting (it's not been against me but it doesn't have to be), but unless there's a sudden surge, that'd be a long way off and rather unlikely.

- HauntHunters

5.3k · September 5, 2006

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.

And what would be wrong with that argument? It would go something like this:

Bad stats can be very misleading, and are worse than no stats at all.

Raw finds is a bad stat.

Therefore, raw finds is worse than no stats at all.

Seems like a valid argument to me. I don't know if I agree with it, but it seems like a reasonable position to take.

September 5, 2006

Now that we've started a team account, I've gotten the approval of a few cache owners to log those previous finds...

Well, they seem important enough to you to double log finds, hmmm?

As I posted in another thread...

Who really cares? Some people are in it for the numbers. Some for the hard hunts. Some for the outdoors. Some because they like it.

Whatever floats your boat, hmmm? The reason doesn't really matter. I had a guy log onto one of my caches that he completed 101 caches that day. No way. That's one cache every 14 minutes for 24 straight hours. Not physically possible, unless it was temporary caches at an event cache that was dreamed up to strictly boost numbers. Do I care? No. Did I erase his log? Nope. If he wants to log 1000 caches/day, I don't care. Won't change the way I play at all.

2.5k · September 5, 2006

I like numbers and lists and categories and so forth because I am a science person. I like records and documentation for the same reason. That probably also why I like doing genealogy, come to think if it, since all those things come in to play there too.

I'm only competing against myself. If someone else is competing against me, they win if they want. I don't care. As far as being better or worse based on numbers --Hah! I'm a better cacher now than I was when I had 47 caches, and I hope I'll be better still when I have 1047, other than that, who cares? It only means what you make it mean. There is an old guy I do genealogy with. He has something like 10,000 people in his databse for our mutal family, but I'd trust my well-researched couple of hundred over his ten thousand any day of the week. He values his massive numbers, I value my quality numbers.

As for team member later logging their find separately, I think that is a good thing (and it certainly isn't "double logging" since you can always dispose of the team account later!). My husband and I cache together most of the time, but we keep separate accounts because we don't always go together. If I find a cool cache, I will want to try to get him to go there sometime. He is more likely to go there if he doesn't already have it "checked off" the list (i.e. doesn't already have it marked as found on a team account). If a team wants to keep all of their finds in onw account, even if they go different places and the whole team doesn't do the cache, then that is fine with me, too. Just because I don't want to keep track of my numbers that way, doesn't mean it isn't a way that will work for someone else.

2.7k · September 5, 2006

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?

Answering the post title question: Yes. I already have.

I have had second thoughts about it but basically I'm pretty much content with my decision.

I have not left the site or the sport... yet. If I do, it will not be because I am disappointed in not having an accurate find count.

As far as the amount of "respect" I get for having 4 finds as opposed to 400, I don't particularly care about that either. To some extent I do value the respect of my peers, but I think I have pretty much lost that anyway.

Does my advice as a 4 cache wonder mean anything to you? If my advice is good, take it and use it. If it is bad, disregard it. That is pretty much standard operating procedure with advice.

Truth comes in all kinds of packages. Truth is truth even if the "father of lies" tells it.

Free advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Numbers mean little. In a HOBBY, enjoying yourself is everything.

When I no longer enjoy myself, that is when I will leave caching. Indeed, for some that WILL mean "when the numbers get shut off", but not for me.

September 5, 2006

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

Very well said! Concur with all your comments. I'd like to trade 500 of my "park and grab" finds for a chance to find a handful of superbly hidden 4/4 or 5/5 caches. I guess it's time to start expanding my search radius by 700 + miles.

September 5, 2006

I use numbers counts as a barometer for cache presence. If someone with 5 logged finds says "it's not there" when hunting one of my 3 star difficuly ones, it has a lot less weight, and causes me less concern than someone, say, with 2000 finds saying the same thing. In the latter case, I would be a lot more concerned about a maintenance visit.

Other than using finds as a VERY rough barometer of skill/experience, the numbers mean utter 5417 to me.

September 5, 2006

Let your numbers go?

Now who's calling whom a ho?

We've gotten off track.

Oops...sorry....wrong thread........

10.1k · September 5, 2006

Didn't I just respond to this thread yesterday? Oh, this is a new thread with the exact same question. Where is that yawning frog smiley?

Yes, I'm proud of my numbers. Yes, I would probably find a new hobby if they took the numbers away. Or it would certainly change the way I play this game. Went to Maine to visit my sister. Made stops in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire on the way up, and Massachusetts on the way back. Discovered two really great parks! Without numbers, I wouldn't have bothered.

Do I respect low-numbers caches less? Not really. They're just as nice and friendly as the rest of the bunch. As someone else noted, I might place less credence in their DNF logs. But that's a judgement call.

So, why are we rehashing the same question on two different areas???

4.5k · September 6, 2006

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

Good simple advice that would alleviate alot of angst, but there is still a teensy eensie problem. You are probably one of the very few who mean it when you say you don't care about your numbers, but i figure the majority who say this continue to log their finds online. (in other words, they do care about em)

Your second idea about GC.com giving us a choice is good too!

3.9k · September 6, 2006

The numbers don't drive me, but I still like seeing them. It took me 5 years to reach 100 and I was quite proud! Would it bother me if they no longer published the numbers? No. I could lie then!

El Diablo

2k · September 6, 2006

Give up the numbers?

Miss all the entertainment kindly provided by all the folks who can only see it one way or the other?

Pease no!

September 6, 2006

Didn't I just respond to this thread yesterday? Oh, this is a new thread with the exact same question. Where is that yawning frog smiley?

<snip>

It's not the same question, as you know since you've answered a different question. Why purposefully come into a thread just to be aggressive and insulting? I have no inclination to take away your precious number, nor do I have the authourity to. I appreciate your honesty with your answer that you are only in this sport for the number on the website and not for the pleasure of the hunt and find, or the socialization, or the fun of doing something that combines a number of outdoor activities with GPS technology. You're the first one who's been that honest and that says a great deal to your credit. But your rudeness towards me because I dared to ask a question to the forum in a manner that makes reading and responding entirely voluntary is just plain bizarre.

- HauntHunters.

September 6, 2006

2.5k · September 6, 2006

The most I might end up doing is staying off these forum boards if the number people get more aggressive and insulting (it's not been against me but it doesn't have to be), but unless there's a sudden surge, that'd be a long way off and rather unlikely.

Well let's just try to make sure that doesn't happen then! :tired:

2.5k · September 6, 2006

Whatever floats your boat, hmmm? The reason doesn't really matter. I had a guy log onto one of my caches that he completed 101 caches that day. No way. That's one cache every 14 minutes for 24 straight hours. Not physically possible, unless it was temporary caches at an event cache that was dreamed up to strictly boost numbers. Do I care? No. Did I erase his log? Nope. If he wants to log 1000 caches/day, I don't care. Won't change the way I play at all.

Huh? 100 caches in a day seems totally doable. I haven't done it myself, but it be done easily if you wanted to.

10.1k · September 6, 2006

Didn't I just respond to this thread yesterday? Oh, this is a new thread with the exact same question. Where is that yawning frog smiley?

<snip>

It's not the same question, as you know since you've answered a different question. Why purposefully come into a thread just to be aggressive and insulting? I have no inclination to take away your precious number, nor do I have the authourity to. I appreciate your honesty with your answer that you are only in this sport for the number on the website and not for the pleasure of the hunt and find, or the socialization, or the fun of doing something that combines a number of outdoor activities with GPS technology. You're the first one who's been that honest and that says a great deal to your credit. But your rudeness towards me because I dared to ask a question to the forum in a manner that makes reading and responding entirely voluntary is just plain bizarre.

- HauntHunters.

There was nothing rude in my post to call for such an uncalled-for tirade. Breathe deeply. Count to ten. And stop to think before you run off at the mouth. Not only have you deliberately chosen to misinterpeted what I wrote, but you have deliberately chosen to be extraordinarily rude. Talk about 'bizarre.'

Breathe deeply. Take your pills. Then reconsider your rudeness.

3.9k · September 6, 2006

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.

And what would be wrong with that argument? It would go something like this:

Bad stats can be very misleading, and are worse than no stats at all.

Raw finds is a bad stat.

Therefore, raw finds is worse than no stats at all.

Seems like a valid argument to me. I don't know if I agree with it, but it seems like a reasonable position to take.

That doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. It seems like the position that someone would take if other peoples numbers were important to them.

"Bad stats" are misleading to whom? And how are they misleading?

Your numbers don't mean anything to me. Only mine do. And the fact that your stats are peppered with "raw finds" or "bad stats" doesn't change the way anyone else caches.

I love my numbers, and I want to keep my numbers.

September 6, 2006

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I earned em' and I'm keeping em'. End of discussion!

2.7k · September 6, 2006

I had a guy log onto one of my caches that he completed 101 caches that day. No way. That's one cache every 14 minutes for 24 straight hours. Not physically possible, unless it was temporary caches at an event cache that was dreamed up to strictly boost numbers. Do I care? No. Did I erase his log? Nope. If he wants to log 1000 caches/day, I don't care. Won't change the way I play at all.

Huh? 100 caches in a day seems totally doable. I haven't done it myself, but it be done easily if you wanted to.

I had a guy log over a hundred in a weekend and claimed to find two of mine within about 10 minutes of each other and the caches in question are sevral miles apart in an area of notoriously bad traffic. No way!, said I.

Then just for giggles, (alright, it wasn't for giggles, I wanted to CATCH that cheatin' B*****d!) I retraced part of his route... and found his name and exact time in each and every log I visited.

Never say "impossible".

9.3k · September 6, 2006

How important are these numbers?

For us, the numbers are largely an irrelevant byproduct of the game, not unlike chigger bites and calorie loss. That being said, we will usually find some way to make certain finds unique, such as # 100, 200, etc. If that went away, it wouldn't affect our love for the game. I personally don't grasp competition and what folks get out of it, but that's their life. Live & let cache.

9.3k · September 6, 2006

I wanted to CATCH that cheatin' B*****d! I retraced part of his route... and found his name and exact time in each and every log I visited.

Cat, you've got way too much time on your hands, Brother! :tired: :laughing:

September 6, 2006

We've only got 19 finds and have recently adopted a cache.

Could care less about the numbers, for me it's fun and being outdoors.

We try to squeeze in a cache or a hike each morning after I get home from work.

I can't wait for the fall - my fave time of year to be outside

2.2k · September 6, 2006

numbers are not important but i would prefer to keep them as it gives me a guide to how much i've been doing.

now i would happily have it that no one can see anyone elses numbers.....

live is too short for all this angst.

5.3k · September 6, 2006

Never mind.

Edited September 6, 2006 by fizzymagic

September 6, 2006

The one thing that I dont think is right is when a group of hunters goes out hunting and when one "finds" a cache, they all "find" that cache.

I got into geocachng for

1. quality time with my wife,

2. exercise and 3.

the fun of the hunt.

Yes I like my numbers. Ive been doing this for about 6-7 weeks and Im proud of what I have so far.

Someone mentioned the term "under-acheiver". So if theres a person who has been hunting for 1 year and has 5 finds, are they underacheivers? I dont think so. Maybe they dont eat, drink, and sleep geocaching. Maybe they think theres more to life than getting up on the weekend and spending the entire weekend driving around looking for "numbers" ooops, I mean caches.

September 6, 2006

Didn't I just respond to this thread yesterday? Oh, this is a new thread with the exact same question. Where is that yawning frog smiley?

<snip>

It's not the same question, as you know since you've answered a different question. Why purposefully come into a thread just to be aggressive and insulting? I have no inclination to take away your precious number, nor do I have the authourity to. I appreciate your honesty with your answer that you are only in this sport for the number on the website and not for the pleasure of the hunt and find, or the socialization, or the fun of doing something that combines a number of outdoor activities with GPS technology. You're the first one who's been that honest and that says a great deal to your credit. But your rudeness towards me because I dared to ask a question to the forum in a manner that makes reading and responding entirely voluntary is just plain bizarre.

- HauntHunters.

There was nothing rude in my post to call for such an uncalled-for tirade. Breathe deeply. Count to ten. And stop to think before you run off at the mouth. Not only have you deliberately chosen to misinterpeted what I wrote, but you have deliberately chosen to be extraordinarily rude. Talk about 'bizarre.'

Breathe deeply. Take your pills. Then reconsider your rudeness.

I wasn't rude at all, nor did I go on a "tirade". There's no reason for you to patronize me by pretending my comment was somehow upset or irrational, and again you've been aggressive, insulting, and degraded everyone on anti-anxiety medication by perpetuating a false stereotype with the 1980's quip, "take a pill". It'd be silly to consider anyone who doesn't agree with you, or who calls you out on your behavior, to be anti-anxiety medication and somehow missed a dose. I have seen this behavior from you towards other users on the forums. It just must be what you do. That's not what I'm here for so I'm not going to participate further in this discussion. Good luck next time.

- HauntHunters

September 6, 2006

How important are these numbers?

For us, the numbers are largely an irrelevant byproduct of the game, not unlike chigger bites and calorie loss. That being said, we will usually find some way to make certain finds unique, such as # 100, 200, etc. If that went away, it wouldn't affect our love for the game. I personally don't grasp competition and what folks get out of it, but that's their life. Live & let cache.

That's how we feel. It's fun since it's here, but if it were gone? ...Oh well. :tired:

- HauntHunters

September 6, 2006

The one thing that I dont think is right is when a group of hunters goes out hunting and when one "finds" a cache, they all "find" that cache.

I got into geocachng for

1. quality time with my wife,

2. exercise and 3.

the fun of the hunt.

Yes I like my numbers. Ive been doing this for about 6-7 weeks and Im proud of what I have so far.

Someone mentioned the term "under-acheiver". So if theres a person who has been hunting for 1 year and has 5 finds, are they underacheivers? I dont think so. Maybe they dont eat, drink, and sleep geocaching. Maybe they think theres more to life than getting up on the weekend and spending the entire weekend driving around looking for "numbers" ooops, I mean caches.

I think the person who originally said "underachiever" had retracted that on reconsideration. If a cacher were involved in a competitive game within the sport that involved the numbers, surely zie'd be considered an underachiever; but, I think we're all in agreement that not everyone plays that way so it's rather inaccurate to use that term generally.

Do you have a suggestion for a proper way to handle multiple cacher finds? Should cachers post a note with only the first find getting the count? What do you think would work better?

- HauntHunters

September 6, 2006

The one thing that I dont think is right is when a group of hunters goes out hunting and when one "finds" a cache, they all "find" that cache.

I'll never understand that. That's like saying if I invite another cacher along on an 8 mile hike to go get a cache, and he just happens to find it first, then I might as well just ignore the cache since it would be rude of me to log the find.

Or maybe in your opinion it would be ok for me to make a second 8 mile hike on another day to find the cache (in the same spot where I already know it is) and then I could log it?

Doesn't make any sense to me. :tired:

September 6, 2006

The one thing that I dont think is right is when a group of hunters goes out hunting and when one "finds" a cache, they all "find" that cache.

I'll never understand that. That's like saying if I invite another cacher along on an 8 mile hike to go get a cache, and he just happens to find it first, then I might as well just ignore the cache since it would be rude of me to log the find.

Or maybe in your opinion it would be ok for me to make a second 8 mile hike on another day to find the cache (in the same spot where I already know it is) and then I could log it?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me, either. Of course, all people on the "find" should be able to log it as such. What about when I take a newbie out...which one of us do you think shouldn't get to count it?

Sheesh!

September 6, 2006

I think everybody with more finds than me should have to drop their counts and start over so I always look good. Also, in the forums we shouldn't have number of posts listed so I won't look like a newbie, and we shouldn't keep score in sports because I was never very good at it, and we should all ride around on black, single speed bicycles with big balloon tires, and there should be world peace, and we should all pass flowers around and I should be elected supreme ruler of the universe to inact all these measures.

The reality is humans are competitive. Go to a kids ballgame where they don't keep score and I guarantee just about every parent in the stands is keeping a mental score. Besides I am much more likely to to take advice from someone like Briansnat with several hundred finds, about 50 quintrillion posts and a decent helping of common sense (at least until he disagrees with me, LOL) than I am from Klem Kadidlesnipper who has 2 finds and 1 post. Is Briansnat more knowledgeable, can't say with 100% certainty but from his numbers I would definitely take his advice first.

I kind of like the ring to that, Klem Kadidlesnipper. Wish we could still change user names but that is a whole other thread.

7.2k · September 6, 2006

Do you have a suggestion for a proper way to handle multiple cacher finds? Should cachers post a note with only the first find getting the count? What do you think would work better?

It's a group find. Most teams don't drive separately to the area or hike alone to ground zero. Impromptu groups use the same rules, pretty much, as true teams.

It's up to the group, but if I ever find the cache while with a group I'll "keep looking" as I move away from where I found it. Then when I'm some distance away from the cache, I'll proclaim I've found it and let everyone else have a chance to find the cache.

I personally don't care for it when someone finds the cache and just pulls it up robbing me of the opportunity to find it on my own.

On the other hand, I'm not going to make the others wait all day for me to find it either. I have the choice of giving up or walking from the area to return some other time.

September 6, 2006

Then just for giggles, (alright, it wasn't for giggles, I wanted to CATCH that cheatin' B*****d!) I retraced part of his route... and found his name and exact time in each and every log I visited.

What, y'all don't use your personal helicopters to find caches?

Oh, wait, I'm in the wrong thread... the "what vehicle do you cache with" is further down the page :tired:

38.2k · September 6, 2006

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.

Found it logs are not about the numbers. They are about providing feedback and letting the owner know you found the cache. Since he spent the time, effort and money to place the cache I think the least we can do is let the owner know we found it.

Now if some people choose the make the running total of found it logs into something else, that is their business. I'm not going to let it stop me from using the system for its designed purpose.

Edited September 6, 2006 by briansnat

September 6, 2006

Here's my opinion on this topic that is as old as geocaching itself :

Why not have the numbers? Why turn OFF functionality that already exists? If numbers don't matter to you, why does it matter if other people care about them? Roll your eyes at such people and move on.

Note - I like the numbers. I'm not in this to be competetive - I've been caching since 2000, and am pushing my way towards 200 finds. I'm not out doing this every day, I'm not in a race to build my numbers - but I'm thrilled to track my progress. Passing 100 was a big milestone to me. Passing 200 will be as well... I don't look down on others who have less, but I am amazed and impressed with people who have thousands.

I just dont' see what the big deal is.

September 6, 2006

It's hard to take someone seriously when they're spouting off about a subject they really know little about.

Ah, so that's why no one ever answers my posts - I've only got 35 finds!

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.

I suspect that, while there are certainly some who are motivated by that, most of us "number whores" are more motivated by seeing our found counts increasing in relation to what they were before. I like seeing my numbers increase. I don't give a squat what anyone else's numbers are.

September 6, 2006

If you don't care about the numbers, DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. See how simple that is?

/CHEER!

September 6, 2006

Here's my opinion on this topic that is as old as geocaching itself :

Then you've already missed the point of my post.

Why not have the numbers?

Yeah, why not? I like mine and it'll be fun to see it as more. They aren't the point of playing, but it's cute that the site keeps track instead of just letting the logs go uncounted.

Why turn OFF functionality that already exists?

Who said anything about wanting to turn it off? I thought I said "obviously hypothetical".

If numbers don't matter to you, why does it matter if other people care about them?

You're about the tenth person to ask me that. It completely misses the point of the post and derails the discussion into the number argument instead of focusing on the problem: the nasty people who are obsessed with their count. If you're so tired of the argument, why did you disregard the point of the post to force this argument? That said, is this black or white? Can I like them and not understand why people get obsessively nasty about them?

I don't look down on others who have less

And this post is about the people who do.

I just dont' see what the big deal is.

Likewise. I don't understand why people get so defensive.

- HauntHunters

September 6, 2006

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

Most analogies fail when you over-analyze them. In the comparison of baseball numbers enthusiasts to geocaching numbers enthusiasts, it seemed a prety reasonable analogy.

8k · September 6, 2006

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

Most analogies fail when you over-analyze them. In the comparison of baseball numbers enthusiasts to geocaching numbers enthusiasts, it seemed a prety reasonable analogy.

Numbers are bad

September 6, 2006

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.

An idiotic jerk will be an idiotic jerk, regardless of their numbers. Having the numbers published gives them something concrete to wave around, but if the numbers weren't published they'd just invent some and wave them around anyway. At least when the numbers are published, someone with an even higher amount might say "Hmm, so-and-so is being an idiotic jerk and waving their numbers around. I think I'll demonstrate their folly by pointing out my higher numbers, and stomping on them. We'll see how they like that!"

1.6k · September 6, 2006

I don't care if you take the "numbers" away. I think a lot of folks would find a way to track their own progress - at least I would. Thank you GSAK, for giving me a "backup"

It's all about my numbers and their integrity. I could care less about yours, because they are not mine.

September 6, 2006

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

I think you're still not quite getting it. The analogy wasn't about the games (baseball / geocaching). It also wasn't about the kinds of stats generated in each. Rather, it was about the varying levels of interest that individuals have in those stats.

In order for any stat to mean anything everyone has to be on a level playing field.

Well, for them to have any objective meaning beyond a simple comparative count, sure. But the numbers - obviously - have a great deal of subjective interest to a lot of people.

2.5k · September 6, 2006

Can we ztop with the zie's and za's? It's kind of ztupid and diztracting from the point of the zentence.

Edited September 6, 2006 by cachew nut

September 6, 2006

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.

Hey, quiet! Don't say the T word.

4.5k · September 6, 2006

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.

Found it logs are not about the numbers. They are about providing feedback and letting the owner know you found the cache. Since he spent the time, effort and money to place the cache I think the least we can do is let the owner know we found it.

Now if some people choose the make the running total of found it logs into something else, that is their business. I'm not going to let it stop me from using the system for its designed purpose.

I agree that the cache owner wants to see those logs come in and that this is how the geocaching on this site is set up. I kinda disagree though about the find logs not being about the numbers (this is not a bad thing of course). But if a person get's all angsty about numbers and truly doesn't care about them, then why not just post a note about their find and/or their experience on the cache page?

September 6, 2006

Can we ztop with the zie's and za's? It's kind of ztupid and diztracting from the point of the zentence.

Is this where I pull out this forum's standard response of "OMG!IF U DONT LIEK IT DONT DO IT!" ?

I'm sorry you're not comfortable with gender neutral pronouns but I'm not going to stop.

- HauntHunters

7.2k · September 6, 2006

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.

I think that is it for me right there. My numbers are important to me. I log each find with the find number in the log for the most part. I look back at old caches and I know where I was at that time. I like the milestones, even ones like my 1,000th traditional cache or my 100th virtual cache, etc. Yes, the page with the totals would be missed by me.

Other folk's numbers are not as important to me, but some of your friends are fun to watch over time. Our biggest, longest running continuous topic in our local forums is the "congrats" topic where people and their milestone finds are featured as friends notice.

Would you let your numbers go?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment