so if they removed the find #s from the site

[+Bad_CRC]

saw in another thread someone speaking of removing the # of finds from geocaching.com profiles

(no, they aren't actually going to do this)

 

Was just curious as to the breakdown of how that would be received, what would you do?

 

- not notice?

 

- sort of care one way or another, but not really consider it a big deal

 

- think it was the worst thing ever, and find another way to track your numbers on your own?

 

- think it was the best thing ever and would help encourage people to concentrate only on good finds instead of building numbers?

 

- what numbers now?

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not sure. I usually claim that numbers are just an irrelevant byproduct of the game, similar to chigger bites and calories burned, yet I do place a certain significance on milestones. # 100, # 500, etc. If they made the find count only visible to the individual player, I would never miss a beat. If they did away with them altogether, I'd probably come up with some alternative tracking method just so I know where I am. Maybe?

[+StarBrand]

As long as I could see my own numbers - I really don't care - much.

 

The only place I really like the counts is when I get a DNF and I can see how experienced the cacher was - tells me if I need to run right out or wait to check. Gives me a good idea anyway.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

- sort of care one way or another, but not really consider it a big deal

 

Yeah. That one. About the only thing I like it for is for figuring out if I've met the person or the name before (higher numbers means it's more likely I should at least be familiar with the name, somehow). I also like to know whether to treat the person with the friendliness one might give a newcomer, or instead with the comraderie of an old-timer.

 

Other than that, the numbers thing is just a mindless contest. I hate having put much effort into the creation of a cache, only to have a numbers hound treat it as just another box.

[+TrailGators]

I honestly wouldn't care but too many people would. It would change the way people cache.

[bogleman]

It's just human nature to compete in one form or another - take away the numbers (er SMILEY FACES) and then something else will pop up and take it's place.

 

Numbers are fun for the stat freaks.

[Neos2]

I'd mind a lot. I'm a science person so I love the numbers. I suppose that might make me a stat freak of some sort. They are just so darn fun, and sometimes very useful.

[vtmtnman]

I'm not sure. I usually claim that numbers are just an irrelevant byproduct of the game, similar to chigger bites and calories burned, yet I do place a certain significance on milestones. # 100, # 500, etc. If they made the find count only visible to the individual player, I would never miss a beat. If they did away with them altogether, I'd probably come up with some alternative tracking method just so I know where I am. Maybe?

 

I'm right with Clan on this one.I'd just list milestones on the profile page,and track my own numbers,solely for me.

Edited April 26, 2007 by vtmtnman

[+Whistlen]

I'd keep track of the numbers myself just so I know how many. I only look at the numbers of others if they log something odd then you see if they are vet cachers or newbees.

[+Confucius' Cat]

My position is pretty well known: DON'T CARE, wouldn't miss 'em.

 

It might improve the game some but probably not much. Don't really see much benefit in removing them or having them.

 

I have met cachers that keep detailed scrapbooks of every find. Numbers and stories are important to them.

 

To me, pictures and memories are important but nothing needs to be written for the most part. And how many is irrelevant.

 

I wonder how many people keep a record of how many good TV shows they watch, or how many times they have been to an amusement park, or had a great meal?

 

The experience itself is the reward. How many times? Irrelevant.

[+Renegade Knight]

The place I like to see numbers is on cache logs. It helps me guage how to react to certain kinds of logs.

 

If a log says "The cache is missing" and it's from an old pro. I'll check on the cache. If it's a newbie and they are seeking one that I've rated as hard...I'm not going to rush out and check on the cache.

 

As for profiles. It's handy for Troll checks and a few other things that relate to experience.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[CoyoteRed]

- think it was the best thing ever and would help encourage people to concentrate only on good finds instead of building numbers?

Remove the find count and allow even non-PMs the ability to ignore a cache you'd remove the last incentives to find certain types of caches. They would languish and die.

[+Totem Clan]

- sort of care one way or another, but not really consider it a big deal

 

 

I like keep track of milestones, mine and my friends. I also like to know when someone new to caching takes up the sport here locally, so I can welcome them personally. Other than that, I wouldn't miss them.

[+sbell111]

- think it was the best thing ever and would help encourage people to concentrate only on good finds instead of building numbers?

Remove the find count and allow even non-PMs the ability to ignore a cache you'd remove the last incentives to find certain types of caches. They would languish and die.

[+sbell111]

The place I like to see numbers is on cache logs. It helps me guage how to react to certain kinds of logs.

 

If a log says "The cache is missing" and it's from an old pro. I'll check on the cache. If it's a newbie and they are seeking one that I've rated as hard...I'm not going to rush out and check on the cache.

 

As for profiles. It's handy for Troll checks and a few other things that relate to experience.

I totally agree with RK's position.

 

I would like to add that if the numbers were removed, tons of people would complain about the action. Remember years ago, when they were temporarily made static on the cache pages? There were loads of complaints before they were returned to being (relatively) dynamic.

[CoyoteRed]

- think it was the best thing ever and would help encourage people to concentrate only on good finds instead of building numbers?

Remove the find count and allow even non-PMs the ability to ignore a cache you'd remove the last incentives to find certain types of caches. They would languish and die.

[CoyoteRed]

I would like to add that if the numbers were removed, tons of people would complain about the action. Remember years ago, when they were temporarily made static on the cache pages? There were loads of complaints before they were returned to being (relatively) dynamic.

I remember that. There were a lot of complaints when codeword caches went away and virts guidelines were changed, too.

 

I wonder what kind of effect removing those counts would have on site performance if every log entry didn't have to update those numbers. It's not as if those numbers aren't available just two clicks away on the off chance you need them. I'd sacrifice those numbers in a heartbeat in exchange for site performance.

[+sbell111]

I would like to add that if the numbers were removed, tons of people would complain about the action. Remember years ago, when they were temporarily made static on the cache pages? There were loads of complaints before they were returned to being (relatively) dynamic.

I remember that. There were a lot of complaints when codeword caches went away and virts guidelines were changed, too.

 

I wonder what kind of effect removing those counts would have on site performance if every log entry didn't have to update those numbers. It's not as if those numbers aren't available just two clicks away on the off chance you need them. I'd sacrifice those numbers in a heartbeat in exchange for site performance.

As I recall, those numbers were originally perfectly dynamic and were changed to static for performance reasons. They were then changed to the current method which is not perfectly dynamic so that they wouldn't harm site performance.

[Mushtang]

Not only would I not want the numbers to go away, I'd love for one more number to be added to each log. It would be great to look back on an old log and see (325th of 653). The first number would be static, the second would change as you find more.

 

Depending on how you cache, that first number would mean different things:

If you don't log all your finds, or if you don't log them in order, it would mean 325th logged.

If you do log all your finds in order, it would mean 325th found.

[+sbell111]

I would like to add that if the numbers were removed, tons of people would complain about the action. Remember years ago, when they were temporarily made static on the cache pages? There were loads of complaints before they were returned to being (relatively) dynamic.

I remember that. There were a lot of complaints when codeword caches went away and virts guidelines were changed, too.

 

I wonder what kind of effect removing those counts would have on site performance if every log entry didn't have to update those numbers. It's not as if those numbers aren't available just two clicks away on the off chance you need them. I'd sacrifice those numbers in a heartbeat in exchange for site performance.

As I recall, those numbers were originally perfectly dynamic and were changed to static for performance reasons. They were then changed to the current method which is not perfectly dynamic so that they wouldn't harm site performance.

Just to correct the record, I checked some old threads and my memory was slightly malfunctioning. The numbers were dynamic, then they were removed, now they are 'somewhat dynamic'. I don't believe that they were ever actually static.

 

Oopsies.

 

BTW, when they were removed previously, there were tons of complaints about it.

Edited April 26, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Not only would I not want the numbers to go away, I'd love for one more number to be added to each log. It would be great to look back on an old log and see (325th of 653). The first number would be static, the second would change as you find more.

 

Depending on how you cache, that first number would mean different things:

If you don't log all your finds, or if you don't log them in order, it would mean 325th logged.

If you do log all your finds in order, it would mean 325th found.

I liked that idea when you posed it in this thread and I still like it.

[CoyoteRed]

Just to correct the record, I checked some old threads and my memory was slightly malfunctioning. The numbers were dynamic, then they were removed, now they are 'somewhat dynamic'. I don't believe that they were ever actually static.

If I fully understand how it works, the numbers presently are static on a cache page until a log is written then the counts are updated for that cache page. This means that every time a log is written to a cache page the system updates the find counts on every log. It is not dynamic is that the count changes on every log written by that user.

 

So, no, the numbers are not "live," but do update on every time a log is written thus causes more work for the server. I wonder how much performance would improve if those numbers weren't there.

[+Renegade Knight]

Just to correct the record, I checked some old threads and my memory was slightly malfunctioning. The numbers were dynamic, then they were removed, now they are 'somewhat dynamic'. I don't believe that they were ever actually static.

If I fully understand how it works, the numbers presently are static on a cache page until a log is written then the counts are updated for that cache page. This means that every time a log is written to a cache page the system updates the find counts on every log. It is not dynamic is that the count changes on every log written by that user.

 

So, no, the numbers are not "live," but do update on every time a log is written thus causes more work for the server. I wonder how much performance would improve if those numbers weren't there.

 

If I recall they made that was orginally done to save some server load. It was a very unpopular chagne and so they brought it back in a more limited form. A compromise of sorts.

 

I would not mind if the number was accurate at the time of the log but did not update for each new log.

[+Totem Clan]

If I fully understand how it works, the numbers presently are static on a cache page until a log is written then the counts are updated for that cache page. This means that every time a log is written to a cache page the system updates the find counts on every log. It is not dynamic is that the count changes on every log written by that user.

 

So, no, the numbers are not "live," but do update on every time a log is written thus causes more work for the server. I wonder how much performance would improve if those numbers weren't there.

I just checked. There are caches that I found over a month ago that have my current find count on them, but they have not been logged since before my numbers changed.

 

Either I don't understand what you're saying or that's not how it works.

[+Kabuthunk]

It'd annoy me, purely because I enjoy looking at people's stats. As in # found in whatever province, average difficulty, etc, etc, etc. The type of stuff you see on "itsnotaboutthenumbers.com". And as someone else said... the milestones are always nice. On the mb geocaching forum, there's always a congratulation or two kicking around for when you reach those milestones... so removing the find-count entirely would kinda kill that.

 

Also, they'd still need to have a way of tracking which caches you've already done, so you don't keep re-visiting the exact same ones, or getting confused as to if an area has been cached or not. At which point, someone will write an application that takes said data and gives you a find count regardless.

 

So in all actuality, it'd just make a massive hassle for everyone, without really changing much of anything.

 

I would not mind if the number was accurate at the time of the log but did not update for each new log.

I concur. It'd be annoying if they postponed it for a full week (since it'd likely crash the server trying to update a full week all at once, or at least lag the server for a good half-day or something), but if it postponed updating your find count for the day, and every day at midnight for each respective time zone, it'd update the find counts. That'd make sense to me... but I could easily be mistaken, and that may well not work for all I know.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Kabuthunk

[+tozainamboku]

I honestly wouldn't care but too many people would. It would change the way people cache.

I think there is a big misunderstanding of the reason why the high-number cachers cache. I don't think that the competition is all that important. Most of the high number cachers I've cached with are driven to find every cache that is within their capability to find. Even the ones that just do the 1/1s because they can find more per day are probably more motivated by setting a personnal record. Sure there is some competition. But it's mostly friendly. There would probably still be friendly competition as cachers who want this will find some way to share their numbers.

- think it was the best thing ever and would help encourage people to concentrate only on good finds instead of building numbers?

Remove the find count and allow even non-PMs the ability to ignore a cache you'd remove the last incentives to find certain types of caches. They would languish and die.

Not just number people will continue to find anything someone hides but urban cachers who don't have the desire or time to go for long hikes will continue to find and hide LPCs and other caches like them. Perhaps there would be fewer of these, but I doubt it.

[+sbell111]

It'd annoy me, purely because I enjoy looking at people's stats. As in # found in whatever province, average difficulty, etc, etc, etc. The type of stuff you see on "itsnotaboutthenumbers.com". And as someone else said... the milestones are always nice. On the mb geocaching forum, there's always a congratulation or two kicking around for when you reach those milestones... so removing the find-count entirely would kinda kill that.

 

Also, they'd still need to have a way of tracking which caches you've already done, so you don't keep re-visiting the exact same ones, or getting confused as to if an area has been cached or not. At which point, someone will write an application that takes said data and gives you a find count regardless.

 

So in all actuality, it'd just make a massive hassle for everyone, without really changing much of anything.

 

I would not mind if the number was accurate at the time of the log but did not update for each new log.

I concur. It'd be annoying if they postponed it for a full week (since it'd likely crash the server trying to update a full week all at once, or at least lag the server for a good half-day or something), but if it postponed updating your find count for the day, and every day at midnight for each respective time zone, it'd update the find counts. That'd make sense to me... but I could easily be mistaken, and that may well not work for all I know.

Jeremy spoke out against completely static logs in the thread I referenced above.

[+briansnat]

As a the owner of quite a few caches, the numbers have importance for me. If I see a DNF from someone with 2 finds, it doesn't mean as much to me as a DNF from someone with 2,000 finds. I realize that a novice's DNF can be as legit as an experienced geocacher, but when I have to make a decision as to whether I need to check on a cache I do take the numbers into consideration.

 

That said, it is my feeling that the pursuit of the almighty smiley has had a negative affect on this sport and if numbers didn't show, it would remove the incentive for dishonesty and hiding traches.

[+DocDiTTo]

The only good thing about seeing numbers is, as others have said, as a gauge to see how experienced a cacher is. And with all the multiple logging of events, pocket caches, armchair virtuals and other fake finds, even that isn't very useful anymore. A newbie can go to one event and log 70 attends for caches they "found" on a group hunt with 10 other people no longer look like a newbie. I'd be happy with no numbers, as they are pointless. Any signifigance they may have had at one time has been and continues to be diminished by those who do everything in their power to pad their stats.

 

I'd actually go the other way - I think it would be great if, as part of our profiles, we had a special field for a number that would be added to your find count. People could put in 0, or just increase that number for every event cache they found, or they could simply pick some number out of the blue and have 8,000,000 finds if they wanted. Then we wouldn't have a need for countless event logs or other silly numbers games. Everyone could have whatever number they wanted, and we could get back to caching without having to worry about numbers and ways to make them bigger.

Edited April 26, 2007 by DocDiTTo

[+Yno]

I only keep track for my own amusement. Since I have GSAK and have have complete control over it, I don't really care if a website keeps my stats or not, or lets them be public or not. With all the recent changes to the mapping situation on GC.com, I have learned to be more self sufficient anyway, and I use GSAK and Mapsource to show me areas to hunt. If everything went away except for my PQ's, I could still play the game. I don't care about the score.

[+egami]

As a the owner of quite a few caches, the numbers have importance for me. If I see a DNF from someone with 2 finds, it doesn't mean as much to me as a DNF from someone with 2,000 finds. I realize that a novice's DNF can be as legit as an experienced geocacher, but when I have to make a decision as to whether I need to check on a cache I do take the numbers into consideration.

 

Someone else mentioned this and I think this seems like a reasonable point for "valuing" such a number.

 

I suppose what you could do to somewhat bypass this issue is have general rankings where a value was assigned to a range of numers that you could see when viewing your caches. For instance, a newb would maybe have a green circle up to say 250 caches. The next level might be yellow for 251 - 500, etc,.

 

However, this wouldn't totally eliminate the problem, it might alleviate it to a degree. It's kind of shifting the issue in the sense that people would still go for that ranking...but maybe only having it viewable to cache owners and your own profile might mitigate it somewhat.

 

That said, it is my feeling that the pursuit of the almighty smiley has had a negative affect on this sport and if numbers didn't show, it would remove the incentive for dishonesty and hiding traches.

 

I can see this, but I also think it depends on your perception of how important the numbers are...to me, I am an extrememly casual cacher and outside of you previous comment of gauging cache status I am not sure I'd place any other value on the numbers other than that.

 

If people feel a need to cheat, to me, they are simply cheating themselves.

 

However, I see you concern...just the principle of the matter can be irritating. Perhaps after I've cached longer I'll harbor that sentiment as well, but I really try to not let things like that affect me.

Edited April 26, 2007 by egami

[+Team Tigger International]

The place I like to see numbers is on cache logs. It helps me guage how to react to certain kinds of logs.

 

If a log says "The cache is missing" and it's from an old pro. I'll check on the cache. If it's a newbie and they are seeking one that I've rated as hard...I'm not going to rush out and check on the cache.

 

As for profiles. It's handy for Troll checks and a few other things that relate to experience.

 

Exactally !!!

 

Plus I like to keep track of our own personal numbers ... not that they matter much to anyone but us . It give us some sense of a personal challange to see if we can better our finds each year or at least keep the same averages from year to year . Numbers are tracked everywhere in our society , for many different reasons . I for one would miss the numbers . (what if we stopped keeping score at sporting events , NASCAR races , hours worked , how many times a DR performed open heart surgery :imigine how you would feel if you were the Dr.'s first : etc...... )

Numbers do matter for many many various reasons, throughout everyones lives.

 

Star

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

saw in another thread someone speaking of removing the # of finds from geocaching.com profiles

(no, they aren't actually going to do this)

 

Was just curious as to the breakdown of how that would be received, what would you do?

 

- not notice?

 

- sort of care one way or another, but not really consider it a big deal

 

- think it was the worst thing ever, and find another way to track your numbers on your own?

 

- think it was the best thing ever and would help encourage people to concentrate only on good finds instead of building numbers?

 

- what numbers now?

I would not notice.

[+Markwell]

I just checked. There are caches that I found over a month ago that have my current find count on them, but they have not been logged since before my numbers changed.

 

Either I don't understand what you're saying or that's not how it works.

 

I believe any update to the page - a Travel Bug leaving the inventory, another cacher logging and then deleting their log, and (I believe) the cache page owner editing the cache - might trigger an update to the find count on the individuals' logs.

[+Always & Forever 5]

I have a hard time believing all the "I don't care/I wouldn't notice/I hate the numbers game/I don't like 'em" posts in this thread. Too much emphasis is placed on "One cache = One smiley", and too much arguing over "posting finds on MIA caches" from previous threads here that would tend to prove that people DO care about the numbers, regardless of what they may post.

 

If this isn't you, I apologize in advance.

 

Me? Yeah, I'll admit it, I like the numbers.

 

So, sue me.

[+Totem Clan]

I just checked. There are caches that I found over a month ago that have my current find count on them, but they have not been logged since before my numbers changed.

 

Either I don't understand what you're saying or that's not how it works.

 

I believe any update to the page - a Travel Bug leaving the inventory, another cacher logging and then deleting their log, and (I believe) the cache page owner editing the cache - might trigger an update to the find count on the individuals' logs.

Even the archive caches in the area have the current count on them.

[+ChileHead]

Not only would I not want the numbers to go away, I'd love for one more number to be added to each log. It would be great to look back on an old log and see (325th of 653). The first number would be static, the second would change as you find more.

 

Depending on how you cache, that first number would mean different things:

If you don't log all your finds, or if you don't log them in order, it would mean 325th logged.

If you do log all your finds in order, it would mean 325th found.

I liked that idea when you posed it in this thread and I still like it.

 

I like that too. It would prevent individuals from having to keep track of their own milestones (they still could if they wanted, but if something can be automated I'm all for it.)

[+ChileHead]

For those that don't care about the numbers, it would be nice to "opt out" of having your numbers published. For those that care about them, nothing changes.

[+tozainamboku]

I have a hard time believing all the "I don't care/I wouldn't notice/I hate the numbers game/I don't like 'em" posts in this thread. Too much emphasis is placed on "One cache = One smiley", and too much arguing over "posting finds on MIA caches" from previous threads here that would tend to prove that people DO care about the numbers, regardless of what they may post.

 

If this isn't you, I apologize in advance.

 

Me? Yeah, I'll admit it, I like the numbers.

 

So, sue me.

You really don't get the puritan's stance. The puritan's don't care about the numbers but they think everyone who is not a puritan does. Why else would you claim a find when you didn't find anything or count a temporary non-GC approved cache as a find on Geocaching.com, if not to inflate your numbers? To a puritan, the purpose of the found it log is to log when you found a GC-approved cache; the purpose of the DNF log is log that you looked for a GC-approved cache and didn't find it (or, for the extreme puritans, you didn't sign the log); and the Note log is for anything else - like when you found a temporary cache at an event. There is nothing inconsistent with a puritan railing against misuse of the found it log saying that the numbers don't matter. In fact, some puritans believe that if the numbers were not public, there would be less "cheating" because the incentive would be missing.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I have to say I doubt it would affect us much accept to confuse things. The counts are useful in a myriad of ways already pointed out. For the people really interested in competition I think more numbers would be useful. How about miles walked/hiked, average difficulty rating, how many pounds of trash removed from the outdoors (and not just during CITOs). Numbers perform a function of keeping order. I wouldn't stop caching without the numbers, but I'd definitely have to write things down better to remember what the heck we've been doing

[+TotemLake]

I would like to add that if the numbers were removed, tons of people would complain about the action. Remember years ago, when they were temporarily made static on the cache pages? There were loads of complaints before they were returned to being (relatively) dynamic.

I remember that. There were a lot of complaints when codeword caches went away and virts guidelines were changed, too.

 

I wonder what kind of effect removing those counts would have on site performance if every log entry didn't have to update those numbers. It's not as if those numbers aren't available just two clicks away on the off chance you need them. I'd sacrifice those numbers in a heartbeat in exchange for site performance.

I'd say its a minimal performance hit and doesnt contribute to the problem in the sense you speak of. The only time it is updated is when the cache page is requested and the page is already requesting updated information from the database to show on the browser anyway; and only on the last 5 logs on the first request.

[+whistler & co.]

I like the find counts because when I look at a cache page, I can immediately tell if any of the cachers I know and consider friends has been caching lately. I don't obsess about it in the sense that I know exactly how finds all the locals have and check daily to see who's been out caching, but when someone's find count jumps by several, I usually click the profile to see what they've been up to.

 

Plus, I agree with the others who said that a DNF from someone with many finds carries more weight than one from someone with very few finds.

[Clan Riffster]

Everyone could have whatever number they wanted

I'll take "42".

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

- think it was the best thing ever.

As edited, that's my vote.

[+simplyred]

I think this is a game and the numbers are fun, to me, taking away the numbers would be like taking away caches that have great scenic views. There not needed but they sure make it fun.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

For those that don't care about the numbers, it would be nice to "opt out" of having your numbers published. For those that care about them, nothing changes.

 

You can opt out, I have! I am approaching as many finds that I have not logged as those I have.

 

Can I prove that? Nope. I rarely cache alone, however, and anyone that caches with me will tell you that I only log a very few of my finds.

 

Are numbers important? No. Outside of conversations about numbers such as this I don't even bring it up.

 

If I am asked how many I have found I give the approximate number I have logged... more often than not someone is nearby that pipes up and says "Well, that's how many he's logged, anyway".

 

Am I judged by my numbers? Gosh, I hope not, how shallow and misguided that would be!

 

Is a DNF log from me any more trustworthy or meaningful than that of a newbie? No, I DNF caches all the time!

 

I am totally in favor of each member seeing his own stats and making them public only if he chooses to.

 

Just like 'hunt what you like' and 'hide them like you like to find them', then 'publish your stats only if you want to' might be good advice!

[+TrailGators]

For those that don't care about the numbers, it would be nice to "opt out" of having your numbers published. For those that care about them, nothing changes.

 

You can opt out, I have! I am approaching as many finds that I have not logged as those I have.

 

Can I prove that? Nope. I rarely cache alone, however, and anyone that caches with me will tell you that I only log a very few of my finds.

 

Are numbers important? No. Outside of conversations about numbers such as this I don't even bring it up.

 

If I am asked how many I have found I give the approximate number I have logged... more often than not someone is nearby that pipes up and says "Well, that's how many he's logged, anyway".

 

Am I judged by my numbers? Gosh, I hope not, how shallow and misguided that would be!

 

Is a DNF log from me any more trustworthy or meaningful than that of a newbie? No, I DNF caches all the time!

 

I am totally in favor of each member seeing his own stats and making them public only if he chooses to.

 

Just like 'hunt what you like' and 'hide them like you like to find them', then 'publish your stats only if you want to' might be good advice!

I would say that you've proved that they were not important to you. I know of others that stopped logging at 499 or at 999. Good for you and them, but I log to get caches off my radar and to let others know that I found a cache, so they can call me for help.

 

The competition part makes sense but how do you compare someone that has found 33% terrain >3 with someone that has found 3% terrain > 3? So the "competition" totally favors 1/1s.

 

I like the idea of being earning experience icons for finding 100 of each type/difficulty of cache. This would be more useful for judging who has DNFed a cache. Plus it would be fun. Numbers are a good indicator but some are much better at finding tough ones. I usually look for good finders that I know to help me make a judgement...

Edited April 26, 2007 by TrailGators

[Guyute1210]

Everyone could have whatever number they wanted

I'll take "42".

No way! I wanted it!

[+TrailGators]

Everyone could have whatever number they wanted

I'll take "42".

No way! I wanted it!

I want a google....So there! Edited April 26, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

...The competition part makes sense but how do you compare someone that has found 33% terrain >3 with someone that has found 3% terrain > 3? So the "competition" totally favors 1/1s. ...

 

With real stats (which we don't have on this site) you can skin the cat a thousand ways.

 

Back when we had at least some stats you could see who was caching in your area, you could see the newbies and knew their names at the local events. You could see what your real life buddy whas up to in geoaching and so on. Those are some non stats benefits of having stats. There are others.

 

From a stats standpoint you can compete on sheer numbers. Or you could use something similar to the SkyDiver system and compete based on finding the least found caches. Or terrain rated caches. Or furthest from the road caches, Or anything else that someone else could dream up. You can be king of a very small stats segment. King of your town, King of your county, or King of FTFs (or LTFs). You could be queen of all caches over 5000'. Queen of all cahes that have a 3:1 steep climb and so on. Data gives possiblities.

 

People who would opt out of stats are opting out on a principal. Not out of losing any real skin off their backs.

 

Of course we don't actually have stats, can't skin the cat, or any of that. We just have numbers.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Renegade Knight