so if they removed the find #s from the site

[+TrailGators]

...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.

You can upload your finds PQ here and see all sorts of interesting things about your caching history.

[+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.

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.

I think that it actually only updates the numbers on the page when the page has changed, such as when a new log has been made.

[+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.

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.

I think that it actually only updates the numbers on the page when the page has changed, such as when a new log has been made.

They may have changed it back to being dynamic, as TotemLake explained. I looked at some caches that have been archived since mid-2001 and they still have my finds correct.

[+welch]

so if they removed the find #s from the site, what would you do?

Not care, the numbers mean little to me.

I actually think it would be a good for gc.com to get rid of the numbers as a public summary total to show its 'not about the numbers'. Of course even if that happened, I don't think it would change much since those that like the numbers would just go to third party sight, or put a bunch of stat stuff in their profiles. I also don't really see gc.com changing anything, just because it would probably cause complains (what doesn't?) and it doesn't seem like it will have any big benefit.

A way to 'opt out' or even scaled levels would also be nice, but I don't see those happening either.

[+poohstickz]

To the question, what would I do? Nothing at all. My heart wouldn't even skip a beat.

 

Now, as for trying to provide something for everyone.

 

My feeling is that the cache log page ought to be about the cache. Instead, the cacher's find count is somewhat in your face as soon as you start to read the logs. Removing those counts from the general public view would allow the numbers on the log page to be about the cache itself.

 

Note that I said that page and the general public view. By all means, if it helps, then let the owner see the cacher's find count on his page. After all, the owner already gets a different page and the coding for that change would be just some more of the same.

 

One could leave the finds and stuff still on the cacher's profile. If they belong anywhere, then that is a natural place for them to be.

[+Sugar Glider Sweatshop]

There are several geocachers in our area (including us) who note the find number in our log. We also have a yellow notepad at home where we've listed all of our finds.

 

Why? Just for fun.

[+smcpeaknkids]

- 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.

My words exactly

[+sbell111]

- 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.

My words exactly

Ummm, TC? I think you should give smcpeaknkids their words back and ask next time before you use them.

 

 

[+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.

My words exactly

Ummm, TC? I think you should give smcpeaknkids their words back and ask next time before you use them.

 

 

 

Hey, they were just laying there and I didn't think they would mind. Besides it finders keepers.

 

Edited April 26, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+Mopar]

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?

Mine arent on your list:

 

-Not really care, since it's not a big deal

 

- maybe there would be less reason for people to bother logging fake finds on caches they didn't actually find

[+hide_from_the_kids]

I wouldn't care but I am not in it for the finds.

 

My husband and kiddos would because they view it as a way to track progress over time. I am hoping that they will eventually evolve into "wasn't x a really great search" rather then we did 7 yesterday.

[+NightPilot]

I wouldn't notice. I don't really keep track of how many I've found, much less how many someone else has found. I could not care less. If other people want the numbers, fine, I won't complain about them being there, but that's not why or how I cache.

[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.

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.

I think that it actually only updates the numbers on the page when the page has changed, such as when a new log has been made.

They may have changed it back to being dynamic, as TotemLake explained. I looked at some caches that have been archived since mid-2001 and they still have my finds correct.

This could very well be correct. This cache doesn't get much activity at all yet the count is correct. I know it used to be like I was saying as you could look at this cache and our count was way behind the profile count.

 

No telling when this changed.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

I love the numbers, but that's just me.

 

I agree with what Jeremy posted on that other thread "How about I get rid of the find count on cache listings altogether? This information will still be available on the profile pages."

 

At the beginning of each find I log I note which find it is for me. Also if its my first puzzel etc.

Love scrapbooking so have a notebook with short note, photos, cache name, lat/long, GCnumber and date to find. Abit over the top I know but thats what I am like on certain things.

 

I like reading other peoples logs and quite often check out their profiles to see what other caches they have found and if they have attended any events.

 

When I log a dnf I tend to give extra information on what sort of search I made. Some gps have been all over the place and can't even pinpoint an area worth doing a decent hunt at. Others I have got good gps found gz used clues and looked hard so I say so. The last such one turned out to be a muggled one. I tend to watch DNFs to see if anyone finds it after me. I have no problem saying in my log that I didn't search for long.

 

How many finds someone has made doesn't to tell you the whole story. Someone who has only done 1/1 could have a high count but not be as good on a 3/1 as someone with a low count who only does puzzles/multis.

 

Would only get rid of count on the cache pages if it made a difference to work load for the servers.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

If the numbers were removed , how'd we know who was winning?

[+egami]

If the numbers were removed , how'd we know who was winning?

 

The one with the most toys, duh!

[+NightPilot]

How do we know who is winning now?

[+Confucius' Cat]

Regarding the significance of number of finds in evaluating whether to check out a DNF, I don't put too much stock in the find count.

 

What I use to determine if I should go check is the nature of the log, i.e. does the log have some wording such that I know the cacher looked in the right place? Or perhaps the log will say they just did a quick search.

 

I generally don't sweat it on a single DNF even if it was from CC Cooper.

 

Multiple DNFs, even without supporting evidence or cacher experience will generally get me to schedule a visit.

 

Not to be hypocritical (since I don't generally log online) I do appreciate logs that indicate problems, but I can live without them since I DO check my caches occasionally regardless of log activity.

 

If I can live without logs entirely, I have no problem living without the numbers.

[+Big Matt and Shell]

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.

Ditto,

 

I love it because it gives me soemthing to work towards.

[+Bad_CRC]

I like seeing how many caches people have.

 

I'd like not to see my own numbers though. It's very hard not to go for carpy caches just to get the +1.

 

So far I've done pretty well at only going for caches that seem fun, which keeps getting tougher as almost all the new caches around here are parking lot micros.

 

I'm still at a point I could almost double my count in a day if I just hit all these micros.

[PyroDave]

I'd start cacheing again because without the numbers I think hiders would actualy put some effort in on there hides again.

 

Dave

[+Confucius' Cat]

I'd start cacheing again because without the numbers I think hiders would actualy put some effort in on there hides again.

 

Dave

In spite of whatever dis-incentive ther might be toward putting out good caches because some people want nothing but numbers, there are many well thought out and well placed caches.

 

Sounds like you need to go get the baby out of the sewer, I think you threw her out with her bath water.

[+DanOCan]

I love the numbers and you'd have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

[+Bad_CRC]

If the numbers were removed , how'd we know who was winning?

 

Read the logs and see who is having the most fun.

 

personally, I think nudecacher is winning. He seems to be the one cacher who has the most fun based upon looking at the experiences people have. There may be others though.

[+TrailGators]

I think nudecacher is winning. He seems to be the one cacher who has the most fun based upon looking at the experiences people have. There may be others though.

If he is winning then I concede...

[Nudecacher]

If he is winning then I concede...

 

 

Nudecacher

[+TrailGators]

If he is winning then I concede...

 

 

Nudecacher

Bummer. I was hoping Nudecacher was a Hooter's gal that liked geocaching in the buff.....

[+Clothahump]

 

- what numbers now?

 

That would be my answer. I haven't got a clue how many finds I have. I just don't care. I love caching and I rarely have time to do it these days.

[+Always & Forever 5]

That would be my answer. I haven't got a clue how many finds I have. I just don't care. I love caching and I rarely have time to do it these days.

You have 190 as of one minute ago.

 

Also, I find it ironic that you "just don't care" about your numbers, yet you post "Find number 100: Ice Angels (1/1/2006)" on your profile page...

 

So...?

 

[+OXCACHER]

 

I generally don't sweat it on a single DNF even if it was from CC Cooper.

 

 

Observation: If it isn't about the numbers, and it has been stated that number of finds doesn't equal a good cacher, then why would you reference the CC Cooper agency as a gauge in which you would judge a DNF by?

 

Because you know they have experience by their numbers?

 

ALL of the geocaching sites have some sort of number system. I am actually surprised that TC has a Scoring system given it is a "Quality Cache Site".

 

...but anyway, nice Freudian slip

Edited May 1, 2007 by TalesFromTheSurface

[Clan Riffster]

I find it ironic that you "just don't care" about your numbers, yet you post "Find number 100: Ice Angels (1/1/2006)" on your profile page.

Funny thing how irony works, huh? If you snoop around my profile, you might see similar entries, and you'de observe my find count is somewhere in the upper five hundreds. None of them are indicative of me giving a rats fiddle about what my total find count is. As mentioned earlier, I do place a certain degree of self inflated importance on milestones, (# 100, # 200, etc), to the extent that I try to find something particularly unique when I am approaching the next milestone. If the find count were kept private, I would continue this activity, as it adds a bit of fun to an already fun game. If the find counts went away all together, then I would either track my own stats, or ditch the milestone searches. This would not twitch my kilt in the least.

 

There is only a discrepancy if you choose to insert one there.

[+Always & Forever 5]

None of them are indicative of me giving a rats fiddle about what my total find count is.

Then how would you keep track for your milestones???

 

As mentioned earlier, I do place a certain degree of self inflated importance on milestones, (# 100, # 200, etc), to the extent that I try to find something particularly unique when I am approaching the next milestone.

If you are not interested in total count, what importance could milestones possibly have to you???

 

If the find count were kept private, I would continue this activity, as it adds a bit of fun to an already fun game. If the find counts went away all together, then I would either track my own stats, or ditch the milestone searches.

Then, by your own admission, the numbers ARE somewhat important. True, not important enough to quit caching should they ever disappear completely, but slightly important, just the same.

 

And, that's fine. They're important to me, too. But then, I've never claimed otherwise, either.

 

There is only a discrepancy if you choose to insert one there.

No discrepancy noted. Just an observation on my part. The poster I quoted stated they had "no idea of total count". However, when they posted their milestone they knew, didn't they?

[Clan Riffster]

Nevermind...

Edited May 1, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+sbell111]

None of them are indicative of me giving a rats fiddle about what my total find count is.

Then how would you keep track for your milestones???

As mentioned earlier, I do place a certain degree of self inflated importance on milestones, (# 100, # 200, etc), to the extent that I try to find something particularly unique when I am approaching the next milestone.

If you are not interested in total count, what importance could milestones possibly have to you???

If the find count were kept private, I would continue this activity, as it adds a bit of fun to an already fun game. If the find counts went away all together, then I would either track my own stats, or ditch the milestone searches.

Then, by your own admission, the numbers ARE somewhat important. True, not important enough to quit caching should they ever disappear completely, but slightly important, just the same.

 

And, that's fine. They're important to me, too. But then, I've never claimed otherwise, either.

There is only a discrepancy if you choose to insert one there.

No discrepancy noted. Just an observation on my part. The poster I quoted stated they had "no idea of total count". However, when they posted their milestone they knew, didn't they?

Does it matter?

[Dinoprophet]

I wouldn't care. I don't keep track of the number of hikes I've taken or the number of times I've ridden my bike, either. Only because it's an automatic feature of the site do I pay any attention to milestones.

 

Find number 0x100 coming up, baby!

[+Always & Forever 5]

Does it matter?

Nope.

[+Totem Clan]

You know the more I think about the more I do pay attention to the numbers. No so much the numbers of the folks in forums, but the numbers for the local cachers. Even then it's not so much their total numbers as it is the changes in the numbers, and things like the caches they found that I have and so on.

 

But as long as I could still "filter out finds", I don't think I would miss them that much.

[+Renegade Knight]

None of them are indicative of me giving a rats fiddle about what my total find count is.

Then how would you keep track for your milestones???

...

 

Here is an irony of sorts.

 

I do like numbers and was motivated for milestones ending in 00 and 000. However I no clue which cache belongs to which milestone. I never did log my caches in any particular order.

[+Always & Forever 5]

You know the more I think about the more I do pay attention to the numbers. No so much the numbers of the folks in forums, but the numbers for the local cachers. Even then it's not so much their total numbers as it is the changes in the numbers, and things like the caches they found that I have and so on.

And, that's just my point. I think most (not all) people use/like the numbers for one reason or another. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Some people can't admit it, though. Why? Who knows...

 

Here is an irony of sorts.

 

I do like numbers and was motivated for milestones ending in 00 and 000. However I no clue which cache belongs to which milestone. I never did log my caches in any particular order.

I sorta have the same problem, but I think I'm relatively close...

[+Sagefox]

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 notice. I would be very disappointed if that happened.

 

I suspect this one aspect of this game attracts and keeps people in it. If numbers weren't posted I think a majority of players would lose interest and cache placing and finding activity would drop way down.

 

I find it interesting that whenever this topic comes up a majority of posts say that numbers aren't really important, they could care less, etc. Intuition and observation tell me that the opposite is true out in the game. People enjoy stats.

 

I just checked in with Its Not About The Numbers. It is the only stats program I am familiar with (and I love what they do with those numbers). I was curious about how many people have posted their PQ's so far. It looks like close to 3500! That looks like some sort of interest in numbers.

[+Team Four Paw]

That would be my answer. I haven't got a clue how many finds I have. I just don't care. I love caching and I rarely have time to do it these days.

You have 190 as of one minute ago.

 

Also, I find it ironic that you "just don't care" about your numbers, yet you post "Find number 100: Ice Angels (1/1/2006)" on your profile page...

 

So...?

 

 

The above is the very reason why a cacher's stats should be private unless made public by said cacher. Kind of like Bookmarks. The numbers breed bad behavior.

[CoyoteRed]

I was curious about how many people have posted their PQ's so far. It looks like close to 3500! That looks like some sort of interest in numbers.

But how many of those 3500 did it simply for idle curiosity like me and how many are driven by those numbers? Additionally, the site referenced does a lot more than count the number of Found It logs. Some of those folks are probably seeing how much "better" they are versus the typical numbers hounds. Some of the lists are "anti-numbers" in that it's pretty hard to be a numbers ho and have an average terrain or difficulty over 2, or be one of the wordiest cachers.

 

I'm kind of wondering what if this site--geocaching.com--included stats like that of INATN.com how would the face of geocaching change? Who puts out the hardest caches? The ones with the most DNFs? The most popular? The ones that get the wordiest logs?

 

I'm thinking what numbers are presented is what shapes how the hobby is pursued.

[+simpjkee]

i like the finds count, but i think there should be more to a find than just writing a log. I could write a log for a cache in iraq as far as i know. you should have to answer a question about the cache correctly before it becomes an official find. something of that nature

[Dinoprophet]

i like the finds count, but i think there should be more to a find than just writing a log. I could write a log for a cache in iraq as far as i know. you should have to answer a question about the cache correctly before it becomes an official find. something of that nature

People who fake their online logs are usually found out by the cache owner and their logs deleted, sometimes even their account shut down. No need to make extra work for the rest of us. If that became the norm, I and I'm sure many others would just find caches and not log them online.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+Totem Clan]

But how many of those 3500 did it simply for idle curiosity like me and how many are driven by those numbers? Additionally, the site referenced does a lot more than count the number of Found It logs.

I posted mine there to see things like the maps, and my caching trends. I like the way it gives you data about your caching, not just raw numbers. It's quite informative.

[+Sagefox]

I was curious about how many people have posted their PQ's so far. It looks like close to 3500!

 

Some of those folks are probably seeing how much "better" they are versus the typical numbers hounds. Some of the lists are "anti-numbers" in that it's pretty hard to be a numbers ho and have an average terrain or difficulty over 2, or be one of the wordiest cachers.

 

This is a sad and disturbing commentary. I suspect that those who are having fun with this game have little desire to evaluate whether they are "better" than others and even less interest in if others are "better" than them.

 

And if people are having fun, what difference does it make what their average terrain or difficulty levels are? Indeed. What difference could this possibly make?

[+Always & Forever 5]

That would be my answer. I haven't got a clue how many finds I have. I just don't care. I love caching and I rarely have time to do it these days.

You have 190 as of one minute ago.

 

Also, I find it ironic that you "just don't care" about your numbers, yet you post "Find number 100: Ice Angels (1/1/2006)" on your profile page...

 

So...?

 

 

The above is the very reason why a cacher's stats should be private unless made public by said cacher. Kind of like Bookmarks. The numbers breed bad behavior.

 

Sorry, but I don't see where viewing a profile page can be construed as "bad behavior". Perhaps you'd care to explain, please?

 

Also, please note I wasn't commenting on his stats. I was commenting on the milestone entry that HE MADE HIMSELF, stating that he didn't care about his numbers. I find that mildly amusing, and largely contradictory.

 

Besides, I'm known for exhibiting bad behavior, which is why I'm free to a good home...

 

[+Always & Forever 5]

This is a sad and disturbing commentary. I suspect that those who are having fun with this game have little desire to evaluate whether they are "better" than others and even less interest in if others are "better" than them.

 

And if people are having fun, what difference does it make what their average terrain or difficulty levels are? Indeed. What difference could this possibly make?

 

Exactly! I like the numbers, and I sure don't consider myself any "better" than any other cacher. The terrain/diff levels mean absolutely nothing to me when I determine whether the cache is fun or not. Some 1/1's are a blast, and some 4/4's are a drag. And vice versa.

[+sbell111]

WOO HOO! I finally reaced elebenteen ninety seven cache finds!!!!

 

(Not that numbers matter)

Edited May 2, 2007 by sbell111

[+Sagefox]

I'm thinking what numbers are presented is what shapes how the hobby is pursued.

 

You might be right about this. Because of INATN I am concentrating on specific counties so I can watch them change colors on the state maps. After 30 years of driving through Oregon to get somewhere else I am now learning and remembering the names of the counties we drive through.

 

Our profile now very clearly shows where we cache and with what intensity because of these cool color maps. I like that feature. That's a fun thing to do with numbers.