Jump to content

Hiding cache stats


Team S-J

Recommended Posts

Is there a way of hiding my cache stats. I'm a rather casual cacher who would rather enjoy the experience of caching rather than see the number of caches done. People cache for lots of different reasons and I wouldn't want to change that. But I'd like to hide the quantity of caches I've done.

Link to comment

Is there a way of hiding my cache stats. I'm a rather casual cacher who would rather enjoy the experience of caching rather than see the number of caches done. People cache for lots of different reasons and I wouldn't want to change that. But I'd like to hide the quantity of caches I've done.

 

If you don't mind me asking... why do you want to hide the quantity of caches done. If you don't cache for the numbers, just ignore them. Do they bother you? Or is it your perception that other people are more concerned about them then you are?

Link to comment
Is there a way of hiding my cache stats. I'm a rather casual cacher who would rather enjoy the experience of caching rather than see the number of caches done. People cache for lots of different reasons and I wouldn't want to change that. But I'd like to hide the quantity of caches I've done.

That is a very interesting question/idea. I also favor the anonymity. I suspect the answer would be not possible now though.

Link to comment

1) Is there a way of hiding my cache stats.

2) I'm a rather casual cacher who would rather enjoy the experience of caching rather than see the number of caches done....

 

1) The only way to hide yours stats is to not log. You can use the "Post a note" then "ignore the cache" method.

2) Then do so. Your stats do not get in the way of your enjoying this activity without regard to your stats.

 

Also don't donfuse your find number with stats. by itself it helps me know your relative experince for my use in maintaining my caches based on your log. I have no idea of your find/dnf ratio. Your FTFs, Your LTF's, Your terrain average or any of a hundred other stats. Just a gross number.

Link to comment

At one level it's so others can't see (judge?), at another level it's because I enjoy the experience and don't see the numbers as interesting as the places I've been to or the journey and inevitable adventures experienced on doing so few caches. For example yesterday I went skiing in the morning, while there I took a photo with a TB that wanted to "chill out", from there we dropped off the TB, from there off to another cache located at a pub. So two caches in one day. That's a lot for Team S-J but we had such a cracking day. It may just be pre 100 jitters! Or maybe the fact that some of the people I've introduced to caching are well on the way to logging more caches than I. I don't want to post them as notes as that would mess up the owners stats. Maybe I should chill out like my last TB and ignore the numbers and just hope the next cache takes me somwehere interesting.

Link to comment

At one level it's so others can't see (judge?), at another level it's because I enjoy the experience and don't see the numbers as interesting as the places I've been to or the journey and inevitable adventures experienced on doing so few caches. For example yesterday I went skiing in the morning, while there I took a photo with a TB that wanted to "chill out", from there we dropped off the TB, from there off to another cache located at a pub. So two caches in one day. That's a lot for Team S-J but we had such a cracking day. It may just be pre 100 jitters! Or maybe the fact that some of the people I've introduced to caching are well on the way to logging more caches than I. I don't want to post them as notes as that would mess up the owners stats. Maybe I should chill out like my last TB and ignore the numbers and just hope the next cache takes me somwehere interesting.

 

Please, this is not meant to offend, however it seems that maybe the numbers are important to you. I really don't look at someone's numbers unless I have a friendly rivalry going on with a cacher I know.

 

As to leaving a note rather an a log, not too many owners brag about finds on their caches. As an owner, I would like to know you were there however, especially if the cache needed maintenance or a bug goes missing so I cna drop you a note as Ior the owner try to track who forgot to log it.

 

I would ignore the numbers. If someone makes mention of how few or many you have, it's their problem.

Link to comment

I would just ignore the number, also. I don't know if you use GSAK and run PQs and so forth, yet, but those things are made to work with the "finds" recorded. When I run a PQ, I tell it to ignore the caches I've already found.

 

Really, the number are only as important as you make them. Even if someone else is "competing" with you, you aren't competing with them unless you choose to feel that way.

 

My husband and I cache together most of the time. We aren't very aggressive about it and a day's outing for us can be one or two or a bunch, depending on how the day goes, what kind of caches we're finding etc.

 

One of the biggest shocks of my life came a couple of years ago when we were still pretty new. We were on a caching-hiking outing with some caching friends and a cacher we had met only once before admitted to us that he was watching our find count and trying to stay just ahead of us. Why us, we asked? We started the same day he did. OK, I guess it makes sense to want to have some way to put a gage on your progress. It was all in fun, and humerous too, since he was half our age and in much better shape than we were, but there you have it..we had competition. So what did we do about it? Nothing. We keep on doing what we do and I hope he does too, I can't say, I haven't looked at his stats since I got home that day and saw his log just under one of mine in the online logs. Hope he's still having fun. We are.

Link to comment

I think it's nice to be able to log finds and have the smiley face, but I wouldn't mind hiding my numbers from other people to view.

 

By being able to log finds, you can still use pocket queries and GSAK to track what to load into your GPS. For some reason, I'm not sure if the ignore a cache feature will work as well. It seems like rigging the system.

Link to comment

I've been caching for almost 2 years now and just broke the 100 mark.

 

Some others that started over a year after me have broken the 2000 mark already. Do I care? Only in I think its great that they have the time and freedom to cache as much as they do.

 

Honestly, if you don't want to be concerned about your numbers... then don't bother with them. The important thing is that you are having fun, whether that's finding one cache per month and then heading to the pub... or finding 100+ caches per day.

 

If your concerned about other people seeing how low your numbers are and thinking "Gee... what's up with him" then ignore them and know that you are having fun caching your own way.

 

Numbers are only a concern if you make them a concern... and this is only a competition if you make it so. Even if someone else is competing with you (as mentioned in a post above)... that doesn't mean you have to compete with them.

Link to comment

I wouldn't be too worried about your numbers. I'm a new geocacher and I have talked to some cachers who have been around for many years - some with large find numbers (in the thousands) and some with lower numbers (under 100). I value all of their opinions and comments. Some people look at the numbers and do alot of the quick park and grabs while others like the 3+ difficulty levels and long hikes. Those take alot more time than the quick 1 leveled ones. So the numbers don't mean much to me.

Link to comment

I've come up with a new rating system.

Rather than just count the number of finds do the following.

Add up the following for each find:-

Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed)

Terrain (1-5 as listed)

Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km)

Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km)

Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5)

Add an extra two for a new county or region

Add another three for a new country

Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type)

Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5)

Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5)

 

Using this new method makes me just as useless at caching!

Any other criteria anyone can think of?

 

Please, please please don't take this seriously :-)

Edited by Team S-J
Link to comment

I've come up with a new rating system.

Rather than just count the number of finds do the following.

Add up the following for each find:-

Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed)

Terrain (1-5 as listed)

Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km)

Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km)

Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5)

Add an extra two for a new county or region

Add another three for a new country

Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type)

Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5)

Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5)

 

Using this new method makes me just as useless at caching!

Any other criteria anyone can think of?

 

Please, please please don't take this seriously :-)

I think you might have forgotten "distance to nearest bathroom/numbers of bottles of water consumed" (uh, perhaps this is more of a ladies only concern?) :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I've come up with a new rating system.

Rather than just count the number of finds do the following.

Add up the following for each find:-

Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed)

Terrain (1-5 as listed)

Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km)

Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km)

Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5)

Add an extra two for a new county or region

Add another three for a new country

Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type)

Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5)

Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5)

 

Using this new method makes me just as useless at caching!

Any other criteria anyone can think of?

 

Please, please please don't take this seriously :-)

 

Also, don't forget to add wildlife encounters... 1 for chipmunks and 5 for bears/mountain lions.

 

PS. I'm taking you seriously... oh yes I am... and there is nothing you can do about it. So there :rolleyes:

 

PPS. Please don't take that last PS. seriously :rolleyes:

Edited by BRTango
Link to comment

I've come up with a new rating system.

Rather than just count the number of finds do the following.

Add up the following for each find:-

Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed)

Terrain (1-5 as listed)

Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km)

Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km)

Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5)

Add an extra two for a new county or region

Add another three for a new country

Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type)

Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5)

Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5)

 

Using this new method makes me just as useless at caching!

Any other criteria anyone can think of?

 

Please, please please don't take this seriously :-)

 

 

Also, don't forget to add wildlife encounters... 1 for chipmunks and 5 for bears/mountain lions.

 

PS. I'm taking you seriously... oh yes I am... and there is nothing you can do about it. So there :anicute:

 

PPS. Please don't take that last PS. seriously :rolleyes:

 

You forgot the age of the CACHER :rolleyes:

Even though "annual" age compared to "physical/mental" age may be different. :rolleyes:

Edited by newlifelawn
Link to comment

So that's :-

Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed)

Terrain (1-5 as listed)

Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km)

Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km)

Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5)

Add an extra two for a new county or region

Add another three for a new country

Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type)

Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5)

Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5)

Age of cacher (1 for <30, up to 5>70)

Vegetation Interaction (1 for no vegetation, 5 fell out of tree)

Animal Interaction (1 no animals, 5 eaten by croc)

Number of cachers (1 on your own, 5 with reluctant wife)

Cache interaction (1 TNLNSL, 5 left Rolex)

 

More please.

Link to comment

...Using this new method makes me just as useless at caching!

Any other criteria anyone can think of?...

 

Burn factor.

 

Weight, Times, Distance, Times Altitude Gain = Burn Factor.

Someone who weights 100lb wet can skip up that mountian side. Someone who weights 250lbs will have to work harder at it. They are not going to be skipping.

 

Death March Rating.

 

Burn Factor * Age/(Expected Life Span - Age)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...