Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
The Alethiometrists

No Numbers Option for Premium Membership

Recommended Posts

I'm a basic member and have been for years. Since I don't do pocket queries, I don't really have a use for a premium membership, but I would gladly pony up the fee if there was a way NOT to display my finds numbers on either my profile page or my logs. After some of the things I've seen and heard, I've been tempted to stop logging finds, but I know that I appreciate people logging finds on my own caches, and I have no problem with personally having a record - I just don't want any part of the numbers game. If I could just disable the display, I'd gladly do it.

 

So, Groundspeak, here's one user who'd appreciate that service, and since I met folks at GW5 who don't log finds at all to avoid the numbers game, I suspect I'm not the only one.

Edited by The Alethiometrists

Share this post


Link to post

I would also like the ability to remove my Find count from my logs. That number does not contribute to my enjoyment of geocaching and I would like to be able to opt out of that system.

I cannot think of any reason to publicly display that number on every log that I write.

Many geocachers in the area in which I live do not log online at all, they do this to distance themselves from controversy concerning numbers. The numbers problem is real, I can show you forum posts from geocachers who were accosted online or in email by complete strangers complaining about a perceived lack of integrity.

The geocachers who opt out of logging caches online might become Premium members and log online if they were allowed to opt out of the public display of their Find count.

In reading these forums there are very few geocachers who insist that numbers are important so perhaps this type of change might be well received by the community in general.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

I insist that number are important.

 

In reading the forums, you see all kinds of things said. Some of them are even true. :sunsure:

 

When hanging out with cachers, I have never heard anyone say they disliked their numbers---or anyone else's. In fact, I've never heard anyone outside the forums say anything at all about numbers, except perhaps to congratulate a friend on a milestone.

 

Even in these forums, the number of people who dislike the number are very small. Those few just happen to be very vocal and very repetitive. If one little voice pops in to say anything about numbers they all chime in to insist that "everyone" feels the way they do. If you really read the links and the threads, it's the same 10 people over and over again.

 

And we all know that very few cachers venture into the forums at all--they are too busy caching.

Share this post


Link to post

I have been doing this for a long time. Others who started at the same time as I are ahead of me by the order of thousands. Even though my cache find rate can only be described as in the slow poke catagory, they are important to me as a part of caching, and I still take pride in them. I even take pride in the fact that I have around 1600 and my friends have 5000 or so. Pride for me and them. Why would anyone be offended by numbers? Seems strange to me.

 

What does offend me is when I take the time and trouble to place a cache, and people don't log their find. That is my reward for putting it there. :sunsure:

Share this post


Link to post

One of the 2 rules in this game is to sign the log book. This includes signing the online logbook. Numbers dont matter, but they do contain lots of info that is helpful and interesting. I would consider skipping the online log as a slap in the face almost. If you use the web site to get the coords, then its awful messed up to not use it to record your logs. Seems kind of selfish to me. Just my opinion though. :sunsure:

Share this post


Link to post

I insist that number are important.

 

 

Perhaps you might comment on the requested enhancement to the website rather than just telling everyone that you insist the numbers are important.

 

If you read the OP's post they actually discuss meeting geocachers at an event who don't log at all because they want to avoid the problems caused by those who insist that the numbers are important. If you read the forums it is very easy to find people who feel that numbers are not important and may actually contribute to problems.

The destructive actions of those who insist that the numbers are important are real, I snipped this text from a post made on this forum and I think it illustrates my point very well. A cacher questioned a log left by another geocacher and even went as far as leaving a Note log on the cache, the Note log was deleted after the cache owner responded in the forums...

 

lets get one thing straight . i dont give two turds about you and your uptight friends problems with how i run my cache.

every week i check all my caches logs in respect to the online log and any true " fake " logs are deleated .i would never allow a log on just velcro , i would never allow a log on " i think i was close " ... this however was another case .

the person who let me know the whole location had been muggled doesnt live in my area and i decided that since he helped me out by telling me the haps that i would let him be the final finder . it was my choice and i made it , gotta a problem , go tell your mom not me .

i will be deleating you un-needed log and would hope you get some help for your anal tendencies ( and maybe find something better to do with your time ) .

thank you and merry merry.

 

I can provide more examples if you wish.

We recently had a similar situation develop and a volunteer reviewer deleted Note logs made on a cache that questioned another geocachers integrity, the cache owner allowed the Find log but that wasn't good enough for one cacher who insisted that the numbers were important. Adding the ability to eliminate the numbers might encourage many casual geocachers to adopt Premium memberships simply so they can opt out of the numbers game.

 

Instead of telling everyone how the forums work and what everyone really thinks perhaps you might contribute reasons why this would not be a helpful addition to the available features.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the 2 rules in this game is to sign the log book. This includes signing the online logbook. Numbers dont matter, but they do contain lots of info that is helpful and interesting. I would consider skipping the online log as a slap in the face almost. If you use the web site to get the coords, then its awful messed up to not use it to record your logs. Seems kind of selfish to me. Just my opinion though. :sunsure:

I think your post misses the mark on several levels.

  • Logging online is not required or even expected. It's a bonus.
  • The find count tells you very little. I can't judge anything based on that number.
  • I often skip logging online when the cache simply wasn't worth my time. It's a slap in face to not log a cache that had absolutely no effort put into the hide? Puh-leese!
  • Plenty of folks refuse to log online. They are perfectly within their rights to do so.
  • I'm glad you recognize your stance is simply your opinion. It's not shared universally.

My only reward for placing a cache is knowing you enjoyed it and that doesn't have to come via the online logs. The physical logbook is there for a reason and I do read it.

 

I couldn't care in the least if someone doesn't log their find online for any of our caches. It's their choice.

Share this post


Link to post

There is already a way to do this.

 

You can still log your finds ONLINE and have your find count stay at zero. Log your finds as a NOTE instead of a find.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the key point of the OP is that the "option" of hiding your numbers would be nice to have. It is like the ability to hide ones email address from the public. I wouldn't use it but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

Share this post


Link to post

There is already a way to do this.

 

You can still log your finds ONLINE and have your find count stay at zero. Log your finds as a NOTE instead of a find.

That won't make the found caches go away on your Nearest Cache List if you're not a PM.

 

Of course, you could use the ignore feature if you're a PM, but that's an additional step. OTOH, the site won't differentiate between caches ignored because you didn't want to find them and those you did find.

Share this post


Link to post

There is already a way to do this.

 

You can still log your finds ONLINE and have your find count stay at zero. Log your finds as a NOTE instead of a find.

Except a note on a cache doesn't remove it from your searches and PQs like a found does. Sure, you can still filter them out client side, but for some people that means pulling down and then filtering out hundreds or even thousands of caches from their PQs. It's along the same lines as before the caches along a route feature was added. Back then for a long trip you might have to grab 10,000 caches or more just to get a hundred possible caches along your route.

Allowing an option to opt out of the find count seems like a simple feature with many pros and few or no cons.

PRO:

  • should be a fairly minor programming change. The cache counts would still be tracked, just not displayed.
  • would please many customers who have requested this feature over the years
  • have no effect on those who still want others to see their find count
  • allow those who currently opt out by not logging online the opportunity to share their logs online with cache owners and other users and still choose not to play the numbers game.
  • reduce sever load because stats wont need to be calculated every time a cache page loads for those who opt out.
  • reduce server load because some people wont have to download PQs only to locally filter out most of them as already found.
  • align the website more closely with Groundspeak's oft-stated position that geocaching is not a competition and they don't encourage stats keeping.

CON:

  • cache owners would not see a find count next to a name to instantly evaluate a cacher's experience on a DNF type log.

The one con I can think of is practically a non-issue. DNF's are only a small percentage of the total logs posted anyway. Those who opt out of find counts will most likely be in the minority, and those that don't log online now, or only log notes don't show an accurate find count to evaluate anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

I still don't see what numbers have to do with this. I suppose you are saying, or someone is saying, that those with no integrety are logging caches to bump up their find count, and this causes tension. Truth is that those who lack integrety lack integrety no matter what. Numbers can be a means of flagging that. We had one new cacher who had a primium membership that was logging 5/terrain caches as "found on my drive home from work". He had no chance of reaching the numbers that others have around here. He was just nuts I guess. I see not having numbers displayed as a way for TROLLS to reach into the activity unnoticed and to cause trouble. Sort of geo-vandelism.

 

I have seen this a time or two. Numbers are not important, just interesting and fun for me, but they are also a way of keeping people honest. So what's wrong with that?

 

The other problem, the greater problem I think is keeping things civil.

Share this post


Link to post

I would personally support the idea of being able to hide your find count, but only with the caveat that it be available to a cache owner if you log a DNF. That, or a DNF ratio. If one of the locals who has 1200 finds logs a DNF on one of mine, I'll run out right away and check it. If someone with, say, 20 finds, or 100 finds and 20 DNFs logs a DNF, I'll likely wait till it is convenient for me to check it, or until someone else also can't find it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a basic member and have been for years. Since I don't do pocket queries, I don't really have a use for a premium membership, but I would gladly pony up the fee if there was a way NOT to display my finds numbers on either my profile page or my logs. <snip> I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Not that I am trying to pick this apart, but I did note that you have milestones listed in your profile, including every 100'th cache find. This would seem to go against your claim that it isn't about the numbers for you?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a basic member and have been for years. Since I don't do pocket queries, I don't really have a use for a premium membership, but I would gladly pony up the fee if there was a way NOT to display my finds numbers on either my profile page or my logs. <snip> I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Not that I am trying to pick this apart, but I did note that you have milestones listed in your profile, including every 100'th cache find. This would seem to go against your claim that it isn't about the numbers for you?

I noticed that too.

Share this post


Link to post

I would personally support the idea of being able to hide your find count, but only with the caveat that it be available to a cache owner if you log a DNF. That, or a DNF ratio. If one of the locals who has 1200 finds logs a DNF on one of mine, I'll run out right away and check it. If someone with, say, 20 finds, or 100 finds and 20 DNFs logs a DNF, I'll likely wait till it is convenient for me to check it, or until someone else also can't find it.

Ok, except right now many of those who would hide their find count if they could don't log online, only log notes, or have just stopped logging so their true numbers don't show anyway.

What would you do if say this guy logged a DNF on your cache now? If someone with a hidden find count logs a dnf, you would have the same problem as you do now with people who hide their find counts by not logging finds online. No change.

Share this post


Link to post

aparently those of you who dont want to log on the site also do not help TB's and Geocoins along to their goals, or maybe that is how they become missing. Might have to come up with a new place for travelers (in the hands of a non logger)

 

 

just my .02

Share this post


Link to post

You know, my mother didn't name me "Neos2" at birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Not that I am trying to pick this apart, but I did note that you have milestones listed in your profile, including every 100'th cache find. This would seem to go against your claim that it isn't about the numbers for you?

 

I'm not an extreme anti-numbers person, and I didn't intend this thread to be a debate on different approaches to caching. For me, milestones have always been like birthdays - an excuse for a celebration of some kind - but having more of them doesn't make you a better person, necessarily. We almost always plan a special cache for our 100 milestones, and around here (Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina) we do special caches and events for people's 1 K milestones. I've actually been involved in organizing several of those 1 Ks, and enjoyed our own.

 

I just think the thing's gone too far, that we've been sliding down a slippery slope - but, again, I don't want this thread to be about that.

 

I started this thread because I met some folks at GW5 who don't post finds, to avoid the numbers game, and that appealed to me, but it presents a few problems. Some of those have already been addressed. In addition to those, there's the fact that we often do challenging hiking caches, multis, and puzzles that don't get a lot of finds, and I know (as an owner of some such caches) that it's good to update the last-found date on those. Also, I do like having the ability to easily check the record of my own finds.

 

So, I went to the "Contact Groundspeak" area of GC-dot-com, and came across the suggestion of posting to the forums. I hardly ever post anymore, but I thought this would be a good suggestion that might get a few cheapskates like me to upgrade to a premium membership. :)

 

For the record, I have nothing against people who play the numbers game. Some of my best friends are numbers people. :) I've just been thinking about opting out. And if I could take the numbers off my profile, I would remove my milestones' listing as well, and keep that somewhere private. I might instead list several of those on a favorites list, since I do want to call attention to some of those cool caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the key point of the OP is that the "option" of hiding your numbers would be nice to have. It is like the ability to hide ones email address from the public. I wouldn't use it but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

 

Exactly. I happen to like the numbers but would I object to a checkbox providing the option to hide numbers? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post

I find the numbers to be at least mildly useful to me for a few things. I would NOT be in favor of such a feature.

 

 

If the numbers "don't matter" and are "not important" and "do not contribute" - why would you care if they are visible or not? (rehtorical question - just think about it)

Share this post


Link to post

... I would gladly pony up the fee if there was a way NOT to display my finds numbers on either my profile page or my logs. After some of the things I've seen and heard, I've been tempted to stop logging finds, but I know that I appreciate people logging finds on my own caches,...

 

As long as I can opt out of the non numbers folks being able to see my caches I'd say we have a win win proposal. My reason is quite simply the last sentance in your quoted post above.

Share this post


Link to post

...

My only reward for placing a cache is knowing you enjoyed it and that doesn't have to come via the online logs. The physical logbook is there for a reason and I do read it....

 

Likewise. However I live in an area where the chance of actually having a cache survive long enough to read the log book is a problem. I'm missing out on at least 40% of my finders logs.

 

When I find caches that have been stolen an moved the bulk of the people who I contact to ask how they want their cache, log, and container back. They normally say "naaaa...just keep it". My actual experience is that most owners don't really seem to care about the log book.

Share this post


Link to post

After some of the things I've seen and heard, I've been tempted to stop logging finds, but I know that I appreciate people logging finds on my own caches, and I have no problem with personally having a record - I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Could you please elaborate on how seeing the number of cache finds on your account has created a problem in your life? Is it difficult doing the math every time you see the number to determine your ACTUAL number of finds after removing double logs, etc??? Just go through and remove the double logging and you'll feel better.. I also think it's funny that you list your milestones on your profile page, yet you have such a big problem with numbers?

 

What's the real problem here? Maybe that should be the focus of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Could you please explain to me just what the "numbers game" is? To me, the numbers are an important part of the "game". I use them how I see fit. I don't understand why you can't do the same, without making changes that would hide them from others' view.

 

It seems to me the only reason the "numbers game" is such an issue is that so many people work hard at making it an issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, except right now many of those who would hide their find count if they could don't log online, only log notes, or have just stopped logging so their true numbers don't show anyway.

What would you do if say this guy logged a DNF on your cache now? If someone with a hidden find count logs a dnf, you would have the same problem as you do now with people who hide their find counts by not logging finds online. No change.

 

Ah, but it would be their own fault if I ignored them, not mine :blink: Do most people who don't log online log DNFs? People can choose not to be a part of the community, but they will lose something valuable as a result.

Share this post


Link to post

aparently those of you who dont want to log on the site also do not help TB's and Geocoins along to their goals, or maybe that is how they become missing. Might have to come up with a new place for travelers (in the hands of a non logger)

 

It isn't necessary to log TBs with a Found it log. You can log them with a note or even a DNF (which I always found interesting). :blink:

 

The other valid reason I could see for hiding find counts, etc., is that SOME individuals don't like to be in a competition with others. There are site scrapers out there that collect find counts and rank people by region based on stats. In those cases, you have to write to the site scrapers and opt out of their competition. If premium users had the ability to hide their stats in general, then they wouldn't have to opt out of these other non-sanctioned third-party services.

 

But I could also see various levels of opting out.

--Show/Not show find count on logs

--Show/Not show find count on profile

--Show/Not show find count on GC.com stat bar image

 

Anyway, not sure it will happen, and it's not really all that important to me, one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post

There is already a way to do this.

 

You can still log your finds ONLINE and have your find count stay at zero. Log your finds as a NOTE instead of a find.

Except a note on a cache doesn't remove it from your searches and PQs like a found does. Sure, you can still filter them out client side, but for some people that means pulling down and then filtering out hundreds or even thousands of caches from their PQs. It's along the same lines as before the caches along a route feature was added. Back then for a long trip you might have to grab 10,000 caches or more just to get a hundred possible caches along your route.

Allowing an option to opt out of the find count seems like a simple feature with many pros and few or no cons.

PRO:

  • should be a fairly minor programming change. The cache counts would still be tracked, just not displayed.
  • would please many customers who have requested this feature over the years
  • have no effect on those who still want others to see their find count
  • allow those who currently opt out by not logging online the opportunity to share their logs online with cache owners and other users and still choose not to play the numbers game.
  • reduce sever load because stats wont need to be calculated every time a cache page loads for those who opt out.
  • reduce server load because some people wont have to download PQs only to locally filter out most of them as already found.
  • align the website more closely with Groundspeak's oft-stated position that geocaching is not a competition and they don't encourage stats keeping.

CON:

  • cache owners would not see a find count next to a name to instantly evaluate a cacher's experience on a DNF type log.

The one con I can think of is practically a non-issue. DNF's are only a small percentage of the total logs posted anyway. Those who opt out of find counts will most likely be in the minority, and those that don't log online now, or only log notes don't show an accurate find count to evaluate anyway.

 

Good analysis and I agree. The way people log DNF logs these days they almost never mean that the cache is missing. Plus I know which cachers almost never get stumped. If one of those people log a DNF then I'll go check on the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

Good analysis and I agree. The way people log DNF logs these days they almost never mean that the cache is missing. Plus I know which cachers almost never get stumped. If one of those people log a DNF then I'll go check on the cache.

Slight sidestep here about that . . .

 

DNFs aren't supposed to tell the cache owner the cache is missing. It tells the cache owner someone tried to find the cache . . . and did not find it. :(

 

I appreciate every log on every one of my caches. A DNF tells me at least someone was looking for the cache. Depending on who the person is, I might email them, and a little hint might sneak out . . . :blink:

Edited by Miragee

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Could you please explain to me just what the "numbers game" is? To me, the numbers are an important part of the "game". I use them how I see fit. I don't understand why you can't do the same, without making changes that would hide them from others' view.

 

I believe the answer is "Go ahead and play your game with your numbers, but not mine. I don't want my numbers in your game."

 

Analogy Time:

A group of runners (Group A) start going to the track at the local high school. They gather and run every day at 5:30 a.m. They enjoy running, and improving their own time but not in a competitive way. Then some others (Group B) start running at 5:30 a.m., but they compete. Group B has a starting line, and someone to clock their times down to the millisecond. Group A doesn't really care for the competition other than with themselves. But they're willing to share the track, but don't want to be in Group B's competition. Group B starts including Group A's times on their race results.

 

Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

Share this post


Link to post

<snip> Good analysis and I agree. The way people log DNF logs these days they almost never mean that the cache is missing. Plus I know which cachers almost never get stumped. If one of those people log a DNF then I'll go check on the cache.

Slight sidestep here about that . . .

 

DNFs aren't supposed to tell the cache owner the cache is missing. It tells the cache owner someone tried to find the cache . . . and did not find it. :(

 

I appreciate every log on every one of my caches. A DNF tells me at least someone was looking for the cache. Depending on who the person is, I might email them, and a little hint might sneak out . . . :blink:

The point someone was making was that IF someone with a high find count DNFs a cache that it may mean that it is missing..... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

<snip> Good analysis and I agree. The way people log DNF logs these days they almost never mean that the cache is missing. Plus I know which cachers almost never get stumped. If one of those people log a DNF then I'll go check on the cache.

Slight sidestep here about that . . .

 

DNFs aren't supposed to tell the cache owner the cache is missing. It tells the cache owner someone tried to find the cache . . . and did not find it. :lol:

 

I appreciate every log on every one of my caches. A DNF tells me at least someone was looking for the cache. Depending on who the person is, I might email them, and a little hint might sneak out . . . :(

The point someone was making was that IF someone with a high find count DNFs a cache that it may mean that it is missing..... :(

Not if it is me looking for the cache . . . :P I've posted 232 DNFs, and many of those were there . . . :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Could you please explain to me just what the "numbers game" is? To me, the numbers are an important part of the "game". I use them how I see fit. I don't understand why you can't do the same, without making changes that would hide them from others' view.

 

I believe the answer is "Go ahead and play your game with your numbers, but not mine. I don't want my numbers in your game."

 

Analogy Time:

A group of runners (Group A) start going to the track at the local high school. They gather and run every day at 5:30 a.m. They enjoy running, and improving their own time but not in a competitive way. Then some others (Group B) start running at 5:30 a.m., but they compete. Group B has a starting line, and someone to clock their times down to the millisecond. Group A doesn't really care for the competition other than with themselves. But they're willing to share the track, but don't want to be in Group B's competition. Group B starts including Group A's times on their race results.

 

Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

Good analogy! :blink: Then there's Group C that say they don't compete, but they are there at midnight trying to improve their times.... :(

Share this post


Link to post

.......Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

Assuming that Group B is being somewhat non-intrusive about how they obtain the timing - what difference does it make to anybody in Group A?

 

Ignore the numbers if you want. Look at them if you want. Hiding them seems to serve no purpose except some kind of "commentary" on how you feel.

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Could you please explain to me just what the "numbers game" is? To me, the numbers are an important part of the "game". I use them how I see fit. I don't understand why you can't do the same, without making changes that would hide them from others' view.

 

I believe the answer is "Go ahead and play your game with your numbers, but not mine. I don't want my numbers in your game."

 

Analogy Time:

A group of runners (Group A) start going to the track at the local high school. They gather and run every day at 5:30 a.m. They enjoy running, and improving their own time but not in a competitive way. Then some others (Group B) start running at 5:30 a.m., but they compete. Group B has a starting line, and someone to clock their times down to the millisecond. Group A doesn't really care for the competition other than with themselves. But they're willing to share the track, but don't want to be in Group B's competition. Group B starts including Group A's times on their race results.

 

Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

 

Group A is NOT competing. Group B is just using their times.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip> Good analysis and I agree. The way people log DNF logs these days they almost never mean that the cache is missing. Plus I know which cachers almost never get stumped. If one of those people log a DNF then I'll go check on the cache.

Slight sidestep here about that . . .

 

DNFs aren't supposed to tell the cache owner the cache is missing. It tells the cache owner someone tried to find the cache . . . and did not find it. :P

 

I appreciate every log on every one of my caches. A DNF tells me at least someone was looking for the cache. Depending on who the person is, I might email them, and a little hint might sneak out . . . :P

The point someone was making was that IF someone with a high find count DNFs a cache that it may mean that it is missing..... :lol:

Not if it is me looking for the cache . . . :( I've posted 232 DNFs, and many of those were there . . . :blink:

I know that! :(

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Could you please explain to me just what the "numbers game" is? To me, the numbers are an important part of the "game". I use them how I see fit. I don't understand why you can't do the same, without making changes that would hide them from others' view.

 

I believe the answer is "Go ahead and play your game with your numbers, but not mine. I don't want my numbers in your game."

 

Analogy Time:

A group of runners (Group A) start going to the track at the local high school. They gather and run every day at 5:30 a.m. They enjoy running, and improving their own time but not in a competitive way. Then some others (Group B) start running at 5:30 a.m., but they compete. Group B has a starting line, and someone to clock their times down to the millisecond. Group A doesn't really care for the competition other than with themselves. But they're willing to share the track, but don't want to be in Group B's competition. Group B starts including Group A's times on their race results.

 

Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

 

Group A is NOT competing. Group B is just using their times.

...and is displaying them on a big chart that puts Group A lower than Group B..... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

.......Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

Assuming that Group B is being somewhat non-intrusive about how they obtain the timing - what difference does it make to anybody in Group A?

 

Ignore the numbers if you want. Look at them if you want. Hiding them seems to serve no purpose except some kind of "commentary" on how you feel.

Why guess how they feel? If they want them hidden then why should it bother anyone in Group B? I say let them do what they want with their own numbers. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

...and is displaying them on a big chart that puts Group A lower than Group B..... :blink:

So don't look at the chart.......

Share this post


Link to post

Analogy Time:

A group of runners (Group A) start going to the track at the local high school. They gather and run every day at 5:30 a.m. They enjoy running, and improving their own time but not in a competitive way. Then some others (Group B) start running at 5:30 a.m., but they compete. Group B has a starting line, and someone to clock their times down to the millisecond. Group A doesn't really care for the competition other than with themselves. But they're willing to share the track, but don't want to be in Group B's competition. Group B starts including Group A's times on their race results.

 

Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

 

How is Group A impacted by Group B using their times? Does this affect the way Group A competes? No. Does this make Group A run faster or slower than they usually do? No.

 

I see no way in which Group B impacts Group A's way of doing things, or vice versa...

 

Nor do I see a logical tie between this analogy and Geocaching...

Share this post


Link to post
The point someone was making was that IF someone with a high find count DNFs a cache that it may mean that it is missing..... :blink:

Not if it is me looking for the cache . . . :lol: I've posted 232 DNFs, and many of those were there . . . :(

 

That was why I suggested a DNF ratio would also be relevant :( I think I DNF about one out of 15, so I would never encourage anyone to take my DNF as authoritative, but there are some locals who almost never miss that I would assign high credibility to. Sure, they play the numbers game, but only for their own satisfaction. They could care less about what others think of their find count, but when they post a find, it is a real find, and when they post a DNF, you can bet they looked long and hard. I wish all cachers were this reliable and brought as much to Geocaching as these people.

Share this post


Link to post

...and is displaying them on a big chart that puts Group A lower than Group B..... :blink:

So don't look at the chart.......
I don't but I'm empathetic with Group A. :( Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The point someone was making was that IF someone with a high find count DNFs a cache that it may mean that it is missing..... :blink:

Not if it is me looking for the cache . . . :lol: I've posted 232 DNFs, and many of those were there . . . :(

 

That was why I suggested a DNF ratio would also be relevant :( I think I DNF about one out of 15, so I would never encourage anyone to take my DNF as authoritative, but there are some locals who almost never miss that I would assign high credibility to. Sure, they play the numbers game, but only for their own satisfaction. They could care less about what others think of their find count, but when they post a find, it is a real find, and when they post a DNF, you can bet they looked long and hard. I wish all cachers were this reliable and brought as much to Geocaching as these people.

A DNF means I looked and did not find. It is not an indication of how I "looked long and hard". I post a DNF if I looked and did not find. Not just if I spent a few hours looking before I didn't find.

 

I might spend 10 minutes looking before time contraints force me to return to work over the lunch hour. Or I might spend 30 minutes looking for a 2 difficulty cache before I walk away. Or the weather. Or whatever. If I looked and did not find that is a DNF.

 

I have about 1 DNF for every 6 finds. I guess in your book that makes me a poorer cacher than your 1:15 ratio??

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't want any part of the numbers game.

 

Could you please explain to me just what the "numbers game" is? To me, the numbers are an important part of the "game". I use them how I see fit. I don't understand why you can't do the same, without making changes that would hide them from others' view.

 

I believe the answer is "Go ahead and play your game with your numbers, but not mine. I don't want my numbers in your game."

 

Analogy Time:

A group of runners (Group A) start going to the track at the local high school. They gather and run every day at 5:30 a.m. They enjoy running, and improving their own time but not in a competitive way. Then some others (Group B) start running at 5:30 a.m., but they compete. Group B has a starting line, and someone to clock their times down to the millisecond. Group A doesn't really care for the competition other than with themselves. But they're willing to share the track, but don't want to be in Group B's competition. Group B starts including Group A's times on their race results.

 

Shouldn't Group A have the option of not competing without hindering the competition of Group B?

Group B probably wants to compare their times to everyone elses just to get a feel for how well they are doing. If Group A doesn't compete what does it hurt if their times are known. On the other hand, if group A runs only 1750 yards to get their mile time or reduces their times by 45 seconds for every practice lap they took before their timed run, then perhaps they should opt out so there wouldn't be so much angst in the runners' forum. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Lord knows I am no nunbers hound with less than 600 finds in 5.5 years. I don't want the numbers for any sort of competition. But they do indicate some level of proficiency when i see a DNF or certain other comments in logs. Lets me know how "seriously" I should take it. It is at least an indicator.

 

As I stated before, the only reason I see to "opt" out is to make some kind of political commentary about how you feel.

Share this post


Link to post

For the people that don't want to see the numbers, and want to opt out of the "numbers game", let them opt out so that nobody's numbers show up on any cache pages that these people look at. That way they're not bothered by numbers.

 

However, leave all of the numbers on the pages that I view, since I didn't opt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Nor do I see a logical tie between this analogy and Geocaching...
OK try this analogy.

 

 

A group of runners, Group A, go to the track at the local high school. They gather and run everyday from 5:30 am to 6:30am. They simply enjoy running for that one hour a day. Then some others, Group B, start running at 5:30 am but they run until 6:30 pm. But they compete to see who has run the most laps. Group A is willing to share the track, but don't have the time or want to be in Group B's competition. Group B then makes a chart and includes Group A's laps on their chart. It makes Group A look inferior and nobody likes to look inferior. Group A knows they could kick Group B's rear ends if they had the time. :blink: So shouldn't Group A have the option of not being on this chart?

Share this post


Link to post

Group A also notices that Group B is not running around the entire track. Instead they are running circles around light posts and counting those as laps....

:blink::(:lol: <-- (This means I'm joking!!!)

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...