No Numbers Option for Premium Membership

[CoyoteRed]

IMHO, if you don't like the numbers, don't become a member. Go find all the caches you want to, and don't log a single one of them. I personally don't care.

This runs directly counter to some folks who demand that if you find a cache you must log it. "No Ghosts!"

[+brdad]

Yep. Mine and a majority of the other people (not necessarily on the forums, either) who use GC.com as their geocaching domain. Mine and a HUGE majority of the other members. From what I can tell, mine and all but a very smal handful of people, most of which are very vocal on the forums.

 

A majority, huh? When you can explain to me how you polled 1,111,880 members and determined 555,941 or more agree with you, I'll move over to your side. Actually, you said HUGE majority, so I am guessing it's a list of about 833,910 that you have?

 

Until then, I'll admit I don't know how many care about the numbers, but that I do know some do and some don't. And I also know no one has convinced me that the loss of a few find counts is going to hurt anything.

 

Also, as has been mentioned, some of those who choose not to show their numbers may be the people who don't log at all now. I would rather get a log with no find count than no log at all.

Edited May 30, 2007 by brdad

[+tozainamboku]

IMHO, if you don't like the numbers, don't become a member. Go find all the caches you want to, and don't log a single one of them. I personally don't care.

This runs directly counter to some folks who demand that if you find a cache you must log it. "No Ghosts!"

First of all I never demanded that if you find a cache you must log online. I've only said that if you don't log online it's not a find.

 

I know plenty of people who don't log every cache they find online. Most are only occasional cachers. To them the fun is going out and finding caches. They don't have the desire to share their experiences online. But some are regulars who are simply making a statement about "the numbers". Some only log caches they feel are worthy of an online log. A lack of a log is a silent protest against what they see as a lame cache. Some only log online when there is a reason to (first to find - not that these people are into FTF but as a courtesy to others who might go looking for this cache think no one has found, or because they move a travel bug). Some don't log at all and will only use a note if there is something to report. They are saying that they don't want to be part of the competition. It is possible that an option to not show your number would let the people in the last group use the found it log to keep track of their finds and still give them some way to show their distain for the numbers. I'm not sure how many people would really take advantage of this. It may even have the undesirable effect of people thinking that if you don't share your find count you must be hiding something. As far as it helping to determine how much weight to give to a DNF, you could get their find count from their profile or checking for 'caches found by user' unless hiding your stats also disabled these features.

[+Renegade Knight]

How about a different mantra: Play the game any way you want. But don't force me to play your game.

 

Some of us are adverse to being included in stats and competitions. In my own personal non-moderator feelings, I feel that the competitive aspect of Geocaching has increased the proliferation of poorly-thought-out and lackluster caches. I've also seen that some who tout their 1K+ or 2K+ finds readily boast of finding 40-50 caches per day and log each with "2 of 40" and "15 of 40". And THEN these same cachers go on to try and belittle those with <1000 caches.

 

Can you blame me for not wanting to be a part of that?

 

Force? That's jury duty and the draft. Not caching where someone makes a list and decides they want to be at the top of it. Anyone who doesn't decide that isn't being forced and should not even be aware that someone else is now "competing". You were here when we had a stats site. I didn't hear you complain about it then. And you shouldn't have. Even Curmudgenly Gal (can't spell that) hasn't suffered from numbers so much attracing some folks with few sociallly redeeming features. That's not cache stats, that's the bottom end of the real life human bell curve.

 

As for the proliferation, Here is another angle.

 

Now there are so many caches that if you want someone to find your cache it has to stand out. It needs to be something worthy of sorting through all the cache sprawl to seek that one. Otherwise you only get the finds where someone hits "GoTo" and your cache is closest. You have to work harder so your caches are sought out and your reputation stands on it's own. Otherwise your cache is just a another cache hidden amongh all the other caches.

 

There is saying. The best place to hide a leaf is on the forest floor with all the other leaves. Same with caches. Now unlike before, to get noticed you make your cache pop.

 

After a fashon numbers themselves are like thos caches. IF you as a cacher want to stand out, finds alone won't do it anymore.

[+Renegade Knight]

IMHO, if you don't like the numbers, don't become a member. Go find all the caches you want to, and don't log a single one of them. I personally don't care.

This runs directly counter to some folks who demand that if you find a cache you must log it. "No Ghosts!"

Yup, I call those ghosts parasites. But only if they don't log anywhere. The cache log is ok though I may never see it. There are always exceptions but the ones who can log, should, some way. Otherwise they are nothng more than parasites.

[+Renegade Knight]

I would love it if there were a feature where the profile, or at least the cache logs, could be hidden from people except those who are on the friends list or something similar.

Oh, great idea! And, how about if we hide all webpage activity from all other members of QC.com, and secretly find caches, but don't log them, and move TB's around, but don't log them, and have event caches, but don't notify anybody of the event, and claim it's only because we don't want to be accused of competing with anybody!

 

Sheesh....!

 

Sorta defeats the purpose, hmmm?

 

Who's purpose? Yours?

 

I don't think Carleenp meant that her logs would also be invisible to the cache owner because that's why cache owners place caches.

 

Still logs in general give you a sence of community, they tell you whats going on with the cache so you can better prepare, they let you see if there is someone new in the area, they give you a handy way to say "Oh so you are C Gal, Man...I read your log on the one cache and WOW I never did find it..." and so on.

 

I'll admit that it also gives some people the power to stalk and cache maggots a venue to play out their games. A very bad side effect.

 

If CarleenP's suggestion did inlcude cache owners seeing the logs, it's not ideal, but it would not kill the activity as we know it. Just lessen it from what it is.

[+flask]

i've said it before; i'll say it again: i LOVE my numbers. i don't care about yours. and i would prefer it if you didn't care about mine. the best way i can think of to have you not care about mine is for you not to be able to see them.

 

it would be extremely lovely to have the option to hide or show your numbers.

 

i'd say that everyone would be happy, but i know that some people just can't be happy unless they can see my numbers too. they need to know whose is bigger...

[CoyoteRed]

IMHO, if you don't like the numbers, don't become a member. Go find all the caches you want to, and don't log a single one of them. I personally don't care.

This runs directly counter to some folks who demand that if you find a cache you must log it. "No Ghosts!"

First of all I never demanded that if you find a cache you must log online.

Who said you did? I was thinking of someone else.

[+TrailGators]

I just like knowing the "relative" number of finds a cacher has.

Maybe some folks think it's none of your business.

What do you care? That's always your mantra -- "Play the game your own way"... Yet, you sure care a lot about other people seeing your find count.. Wonder why that is?

Gee, I've gone from being accused of trying to force folks to cache my way to telling folks to cache your own way. Kind of like a right-wing, commie, liberal, conservative hippie--depending on who you're talking to.

That's funny!

[Neos2]

I don't think Carleenp meant that her logs would also be invisible to the cache owner because that's why cache owners place caches.

.....

 

If CarleenP's suggestion did inlcude cache owners seeing the logs, it's not ideal, but it would not kill the activity as we know it. Just lessen it from what it is.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Wait a minute here....If I read you right, you are saying that it would be OK with you if all we had to go by was the cache description? No found it logs? No funny DNF logs? No notes? No "should be archived" or "needs maintenance"?

 

Um, no thanks....at least half of my enjoyment or geocaching comes from reading those logs and composing my own so they are at least useful to others. (Hey, I aim for amusing, but sometimes I only amuse myself).

 

I spend as much time reading the online logs as I do the paper logs, perhaps more, since most people put their creative effort there. It's fantastic to be able to go back virtually to a cache that I've previously done physically and see what the people who visited there after I did have to say.

 

I also read logs before I visit to see if a cache I am heading to needs some TLC, so I'll be sure to have that with me when I head out. I also use them to judge how difficult a cache might be for me. Some young pup new to the game might think a stroll up a steep grade is "not too hard" and rate his cache that way-- but I have a bit of trouble with that sort of thing. If I see my pal has been there and rated the cace "tennis shoes" I know it's going to be a fairly tame cache, if he says "hiking boots" I know to save some extra time for that one.

 

But mostly I read the logs to see if people sound like they are having fun. If I see a lot of "Thanks for the cache" comments, I don't hurry out to that cache as quickly as if I read logs that say "Wow, this one goes on my top ten list!" or "I did this one last week but I had to bring my husband back with me to see this one. Too cool!"

 

I think not seeing the numbers would dull the activity significantly. I think some of the more dishonest types would proliferate, and I predict problems associated with not having the guidance numbers give us to gauge some aspects of the experience. I feel a lot of honest people would lose interest and drift away--as well as a lot of the people we should not do without--some of our competitive people drive the creativity in the sport. But even worse would be not seeing the logs, either. I think not seeing other peoples logs would kill the entire activity pretty quickly.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't think Carleenp meant that her logs would also be invisible to the cache owner because that's why cache owners place caches.

.....

 

If CarleenP's suggestion did inlcude cache owners seeing the logs, it's not ideal, but it would not kill the activity as we know it. Just lessen it from what it is.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Wait a minute here....If I read you right, you are saying that it would be OK with you if all we had to go by was the cache description? No found it logs? No funny DNF logs? No notes? No "should be archived" or "needs maintenance"?

 

Um, no thanks....at least half of my enjoyment or geocaching comes from reading those logs and composing my own so they are at least useful to others. (Hey, I aim for amusing, but sometimes I only amuse myself). ...

 

My point was just that such a move would not be fatal to geocaching, it would be less than ideal though.

I agree with you about the logs, for all the reasons you bring up.

Edited May 31, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+brdad]

I think not seeing the numbers would dull the activity significantly. I think some of the more dishonest types would proliferate, and I predict problems associated with not having the guidance numbers give us to gauge some aspects of the experience. I feel a lot of honest people would lose interest and drift away--as well as a lot of the people we should not do without--some of our competitive people drive the creativity in the sport. But even worse would be not seeing the logs, either. I think not seeing other peoples logs would kill the entire activity pretty quickly.

 

Where do you get the idea you would not be seeing ANY numbers??? This discussion has to do with what appears to be a relatively low number of cachers not showing their numbers.

 

And are you implying that the people who do not show their numbers would be dishonest? What does the desire to hide or not hide your find count have to do with honesty?

 

As far as the competitive people driving the creativity - I'm not sure I agree with that, either. Many of the competitive types are the ones pushing for the placement of caches under every light pole and park bench. Creativity has little to do with how many finds someone has. And what does it has to do with this subject, anyway? I can't imagine any of the competitive types wanting to hide their numbers.

 

I would not opt for hiding of the logs - But if you hide the numbers, you may actually see a few more logs from people who won't log now because the numbers are there.

Edited May 31, 2007 by brdad

[+Geovius]

I like to see the numbers also in the future!

 

But if we get option to hide our numbers I would also like to get option that allows me to see the numbers of the chosen member if I want. Does it sound ridicilous? Not necessarily because this option should need specific user action so it wouldn't be automatic.

[+Always & Forever 5]

<snip>

Where do you get the idea you would not be seeing ANY numbers??? This discussion has to do with what appears to be a relatively low number of cachers not showing their numbers.

<snip>

So, then, you agree that this is a "low number of cachers"? That's what I was trying to say earlier, when you missed orbital re-entry and demanded I explain how I polled every cacher on earth to determine the same thing.

 

My point, that you managed to completely miss earlier, was that most cachers would rather see the numbers than hide them. I don't think that you can argue with that.

[+ventura_kids]

My guess is that there are 10 geocachers that would NOT show their numbers.

Remember that those of us on the forums are in whole, a tiny microcosm of the sport.

The largest group of cachers have never seen the forums, and don't log on-line.

 

I personally use the number count to determine if I should look for a cache after it is logged with a DNF.

If the DNF'er is a very low count, I may hunt for it. If the DNF'er has thousands of finds, I usually skip it.

 

Save me 7 minutes, and leave the stats on.

 

Cool... I can quote myself.

I polled the 1,000,00 + geocachers... (note that numbers are quite significant even in here), and found out that there are NOT 10 geocachers that agree with the 'no numbers' option... there are only 9.

[+carleenp]

I would love it if there were a feature where the profile, or at least the cache logs, could be hidden from people except those who are on the friends list or something similar.

Oh, great idea! And, how about if we hide all webpage activity from all other members of QC.com, and secretly find caches, but don't log them, and move TB's around, but don't log them, and have event caches, but don't notify anybody of the event, and claim it's only because we don't want to be accused of competing with anybody!

 

Sheesh....!

 

Sorta defeats the purpose, hmmm?

 

I meant only from view through the profile page link. They would be viewable on the cache pages and such just as they are now. It just makes it harder for others to see the total count or to follow a single person's activities by using the profile page. It is not a feature I think will happen, but it is nonetheless one that I would like.

Edited May 31, 2007 by carleenp

[+TrailGators]

My guess is that there are 10 geocachers that would NOT show their numbers.

Remember that those of us on the forums are in whole, a tiny microcosm of the sport.

The largest group of cachers have never seen the forums, and don't log on-line.

 

I personally use the number count to determine if I should look for a cache after it is logged with a DNF.

If the DNF'er is a very low count, I may hunt for it. If the DNF'er has thousands of finds, I usually skip it.

 

Save me 7 minutes, and leave the stats on.

 

Cool... I can quote myself.

I polled the 1,000,000 + geocachers... (note that numbers are quite significant even in here), and found out that there are NOT 10 geocachers that agree with the 'no numbers' option... there are only 9.

I heard that two of those 999,991 people just changed their minds! Now there are 11 that agree!

[+sbell111]

How about a different mantra: Play the game any way you want. But don't force me to play your game.

 

Some of us are adverse to being included in stats and competitions. In my own personal non-moderator feelings, I feel that the competitive aspect of Geocaching has increased the proliferation of poorly-thought-out and lackluster caches. I've also seen that some who tout their 1K+ or 2K+ finds readily boast of finding 40-50 caches per day and log each with "2 of 40" and "15 of 40". And THEN these same cachers go on to try and belittle those with <1000 caches.

 

Can you blame me for not wanting to be a part of that?

From your post, I don't understand why you think that you are part of it. I you are not competing, you're not a part of it and, therefore, not affected by it.

 

If we were to agree on your thesis that numbers result in bad caches (which we do not), hiding your own numbers is not going to change the behavior of anyone who chooses to compete based on numbers.

[+New England n00b]

I just like knowing the "relative" number of finds a cacher has.

Maybe some folks think it's none of your business.

 

What do you care? That's always your mantra -- "Play the game your own way"... Yet, you sure care a lot about other people seeing your find count.. Wonder why that is?

Um, because it is HIS find count, not yours?

[+TrailGators]

How about a different mantra: Play the game any way you want. But don't force me to play your game.

 

Some of us are adverse to being included in stats and competitions. In my own personal non-moderator feelings, I feel that the competitive aspect of Geocaching has increased the proliferation of poorly-thought-out and lackluster caches. I've also seen that some who tout their 1K+ or 2K+ finds readily boast of finding 40-50 caches per day and log each with "2 of 40" and "15 of 40". And THEN these same cachers go on to try and belittle those with <1000 caches.

 

Can you blame me for not wanting to be a part of that?

From your post, I don't understand why you think that you are part of it. I you are not competing, you're not a part of it and, therefore, not affected by it.

 

If we were to agree on your thesis that numbers result in bad caches (which we do not), hiding your own numbers is not going to change the behavior of anyone who chooses to compete based on numbers.

I agree. However, this would give people the ability to look for caches hidden by just non-numbers people if I wanted to. I really think matching caching styles is the key to maximizing enjoyment. Right now you can't tell who the non-numbers people are. Some might falsely conclude that I'm a numbers person because I've found a lot of caches, but I just enjoy caching. It would be nice to know which people are more like me so I can find their caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Um, because it is HIS find count, not yours?

The TOS also makes it this sites find count and allows it's use for geocaching purposes. There are many legitimate purposes before you even get to numbers controversy.

[+Always & Forever 5]

<snip>

I really think matching caching styles is the key to maximizing enjoyment.

Why do you think that? I enjoy all caches, whether I would choose to hide a similar style/type cache or not. If we all cached the same, dontcha think that would get pretty boring after a while?

 

Who cares if a cache is hidden by a "numbers" or "non-numbers" guy?

 

Some of you seem to take this WAY too seriously. Go out, find a cache, and have fun. Quit worrying whether or not your stats are visible, and what others may think, and quitcherbitchin' about LPC's, and just enjoy the sport. Don't like the way things are run? Quit. Find something else to do.

 

'Fer cryin' out loud, life's too short!!!

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

I really think matching caching styles is the key to maximizing enjoyment.

Why do you think that? I enjoy all caches, whether I would choose to hide a similar style/type cache or not. If we all cached the same, dontcha think that would get pretty boring after a while?

 

Who cares if a cache is hidden by a "numbers" or "non-numbers" guy?

 

Some of you seem to take this WAY too seriously. Go out, find a cache, and have fun. Quit worrying whether or not your stats are visible, and what others may think, and quitcherbitchin' about LPC's, and just enjoy the sport. Don't like the way things are run? Quit. Find something else to do.

 

'Fer cryin' out loud, life's too short!!!

You like finding anything and everything. I don't enjoy finding anything and everything. I enjoy creative caches or caches that take me to cool locations.

[+sbell111]

<snip>

I really think matching caching styles is the key to maximizing enjoyment.

Why do you think that? I enjoy all caches, whether I would choose to hide a similar style/type cache or not. If we all cached the same, dontcha think that would get pretty boring after a while?

 

Who cares if a cache is hidden by a "numbers" or "non-numbers" guy?

 

Some of you seem to take this WAY too seriously. Go out, find a cache, and have fun. Quit worrying whether or not your stats are visible, and what others may think, and quitcherbitchin' about LPC's, and just enjoy the sport. Don't like the way things are run? Quit. Find something else to do.

 

'Fer cryin' out loud, life's too short!!!

You like finding anything and everything. I don't enjoy finding anything and everything. I enjoy creative caches or caches that take me to cool locations.

I don't believe that separating out those caches hidden by those cachers who want to be able to see find totals will leave you with a higher percentage of caches that are either 'creative' or in 'cool' locales.

[+Always & Forever 5]

You like finding anything and everything. I don't enjoy finding anything and everything. I enjoy creative caches or caches that take me to cool locations.

So, what you're saying is, anyone who doesn't hide their find count is incapable of hiding a cache that's creative and/or cool?

 

Wow. Care to share how you came to this conclusion?

[+TrailGators]

You like finding anything and everything. I don't enjoy finding anything and everything. I enjoy creative caches or caches that take me to cool locations.

So, what you're saying is, anyone who doesn't hide their find count is incapable of hiding a cache that's creative and/or cool?

 

Wow. Care to share how you came to this conclusion?

That's not even close to what I said... Edited May 31, 2007 by TrailGators

[+brdad]

<snip>

Where do you get the idea you would not be seeing ANY numbers??? This discussion has to do with what appears to be a relatively low number of cachers not showing their numbers.

<snip>

So, then, you agree that this is a "low number of cachers"? That's what I was trying to say earlier, when you missed orbital re-entry and demanded I explain how I polled every cacher on earth to determine the same thing.

 

My point, that you managed to completely miss earlier, was that most cachers would rather see the numbers than hide them. I don't think that you can argue with that.

 

I have no idea how many cachers would care about not seeing the find count in some logs. I never stated or intended to imply that. I was wondering how you found out, since you quite clearly stated you knew there was a majority.

 

What I am stating is that I think the number of people who would choose to hide their logs would be low, and therefore it would have minimal impact on anyone's playing of the game. And as I stated previously, there may even be an extra log or two on the cache page from finders who would opt to log online if their numbers could remain hidden. That is an assumption, not based on any numbers or any discussions other than what tiny percentage of the caching world I have been in contact with.

 

Would you or anyone else be willing to give up seeing 3 logs with find counts out of 25 on a cache page if there was an extra log from someone who doesn't normally log online? I would.

[+flask]

oh, i would be so happy if i were optional to hide one's own counts. that way i could hide mine and you could enjoy yours.

 

i could enjoy my numbers in the privacy of my own home. when i first started, i loved having my find count be public. but then i became more well-known for it. now when (if) i go to events, i use my given name instead of my caching name. my friends know better than to call me "flask" during introductions. i don't wear geocaching clothing, i don't carry my GPS. i can almost pass for a geocaching widow.

 

if nobody knew how many caches i've found life would be more comfortable for me. well, actually nobody really does know how many i've found. i'm behind in logging by a number i don't know. there are several caches that i have found and am denying finding, and a few i have found, but for which my logs have been deleted.

 

truthfully, i don't know how many caches i have found. i'm happier that way.

 

i don't think the visibility of numbers is the downfall of caching. i don't believe it leads to lame caches or crooked cachers. i do not think that eliminating the numbers would make the game purer or lead to more creative hides.

 

i would simply like those who want to hide their numbers to be able to hide them.

[Neos2]

I think not seeing the numbers would dull the activity significantly. I think some of the more dishonest types would proliferate, and I predict problems associated with not having the guidance numbers give us to gauge some aspects of the experience. I feel a lot of honest people would lose interest and drift away--as well as a lot of the people we should not do without--some of our competitive people drive the creativity in the sport. But even worse would be not seeing the logs, either. I think not seeing other peoples logs would kill the entire activity pretty quickly.

 

Where do you get the idea you would not be seeing ANY numbers??? This discussion has to do with what appears to be a relatively low number of cachers not showing their numbers.

 

And are you implying that the people who do not show their numbers would be dishonest? What does the desire to hide or not hide your find count have to do with honesty?

 

As far as the competitive people driving the creativity - I'm not sure I agree with that, either. Many of the competitive types are the ones pushing for the placement of caches under every light pole and park bench. Creativity has little to do with how many finds someone has. And what does it has to do with this subject, anyway? I can't imagine any of the competitive types wanting to hide their numbers.

 

I would not opt for hiding of the logs - But if you hide the numbers, you may actually see a few more logs from people who won't log now because the numbers are there.

Actually, this discussion has been all over the place. Hide everyone's numbers, hide no one's numbers, if you hide your numbers you can't see anyone else's numbers either--I think at one time or another each of those has been suggested in this thread.

 

And yes, I was implying that some people would feel more free to be dishonest if they were able to hide their numbers--actually, I was more than implying it, I was predicting it. Why wouldn't that be true? It would much more difficult to catch them at any shenanigans--even some of the most dedicated cache police wouldn't want to go through all that effort (or couldn't, depending on exactly how that was set up). Now,mind you, it doesn't matter that much to me personally if someone wants to make up all their caching adventure (except where my own caches are concerned, I suppose, since I am supposed to monitor them).

 

Frankly, I doubt the number of people logging would increase if the numbers didn't show. Most of the people who don't log now would still not want to log--they'd juse use some other reason. Perhaps "it's too much hassle", or they once "made someone mad with a log they wrote" or "I don't want anyone else to be able to read my online log" or "I'm afraid my privacy would be compromised" etc etc. Logging online is a part of this activity, but some teensy tiny minority of the people that play just don't want to do log online and they won't, no matter what we do.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Neos2

[+Evil Chicken]

I have no desire to hide my logs - if folks want to read 'em, great! But I would be extremely happy if I could hide the find count next to the log so others couldn't see it. Caching and cachers shouldn't be defined by numbers, but it seems like that is what so many folks do. I would opt out of numbers in a heartbeat if given the choice.

 

I know I could go back and change 700+ "Found it" to "Note" but it's not worth the effort at this point. I have considered logging finds as notes from here on, but I do like knowing how many I have found and I am admittedly lazy in that I don't want to have to create a system to keep a count of my notes.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I know I could go back and change 700+ "Found it" to "Note" but it's not worth the effort at this point. I have considered logging finds as notes from here on, but I do like knowing how many I have found and I am admittedly lazy in that I don't want to have to create a system to keep a count of my notes.

 

It really doesn't take that much time... even if there are more than that.

 

I know where I was, number-wise, when I stopped counting. It was an appreciable number. I have no idea how many I have now... just that it's 'more' than that other number.

 

I'm cool with it.

 

 

michelle

[+Renegade Knight]

...cachers shouldn't be defined by numbers, but it seems like that is what so many folks do. ...

 

If numbers had a direct relationship with your credit score I could see how cachers would be defined by numbers.

[+brdad]

And yes, I was implying that some people would feel more free to be dishonest if they were able to hide their numbers--actually, I was more than implying it, I was predicting it. Why wouldn't that be true? It would much more difficult to catch them at any shenaigans--even some of the most deicated cache police wouldn't want to go through all that effort (or couldn't, depending on exactly how that was set up). Now,mind you, it doesn't matter that much to me personally if someone wants to make up all their caching adventure (except where my own caches are concerned, I suppose, since I am supposed to monitor them).

 

Can you give an example of a such a shenanigan? I can't for the life of me think up any foul situation where knowing the logger's find count will help you determine a cacher might be deceptive.

 

Are we talking someone compromising your caches? I can't imagine that - If I compromise your cache, you're going to need more about me than my find count to help you determine if I did it.

 

Are we talking about faking finds? You can't beleive half the posted finds you see - If I tell you I have X number of finds, you have to choose whether to beleive that or not as well as how much it matters to you. I'm addicted to my numbers enough to know exactly how many gc.com approved caches I have found, and I am telling you that is it one more than what my posted count it. Believe it or not. On your own caches, do you suspect a cacher is logging a fake find when he has only 2 finds listed or 2000 listed?

 

Or are you talking about some other form of shenanigan?

 

Half of the arguments in this thread seem like they are concerned the logs would be hidden as well as the find count. That would be a different story. But we are only talking about missing the find count in a select number of logs.

Edited June 1, 2007 by brdad

[+Renegade Knight]

....Can you give an example of a such a shenanigan? I can't for the life of me think up any foul situation where knowing the logger's find count will help you determine a cacher might be deceptive....

 

Check your email.

[+welch]

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.

...

If such a feature were available I would use it too, provided it does not otherwise affect the way I use the site.

(Yea I can get rid of the 'numbers', by logging only notes, but this will screw up my ability to filter by caches found / not found... )

[+tozainamboku]

If I were logging multi-attended logs for events or changing my DNFs to finds because the owner said I could, I would want to hide my numbers so that the people who care so much about my numbers couldn't see them. And if I never did this, I would show my numbers because there would be nothing to be ashamed of. But what I am seeing in this thread are puritans saying they would hide their numbers and people who have defended questionable logging practices as harmless fun insisting that the puritan's numbers are important to them and the ability to hiding one's find count would some how reduce their enjoyment of the game. Perhaps the puritans are right and people engage in questionable practice to get their numbers up higher than other peoples so they can feel good about having a higher number. If people are hiding their numbers then you couldn't compare find counts and that's what's fun about geocaching. The puritans however think that the fun is in finding geocaches and the numbers don't matter.

 

I'm sure there are puritans who think the find counts should show and anti-puritans who would like be able to hide their counts. I'm just remarking about a few names that have shown up in this thread who were also active in the other thread.

[+TrailGators]

If I were logging multi-attended logs for events or changing my DNFs to finds because the owner said I could, I would want to hide my numbers so that the people who care so much about my numbers couldn't see them. And if I never did this, I would show my numbers because there would be nothing to be ashamed of. But what I am seeing in this thread are puritans saying they would hide their numbers and people who have defended questionable logging practices as harmless fun insisting that the puritan's numbers are important to them and the ability to hiding one's find count would some how reduce their enjoyment of the game. Perhaps the puritans are right and people engage in questionable practice to get their numbers up higher than other peoples so they can feel good about having a higher number. If people are hiding their numbers then you couldn't compare find counts and that's what's fun about geocaching. The puritans however think that the fun is in finding geocaches and the numbers don't matter.

 

I'm sure there are puritans who think the find counts should show and anti-puritans who would like be able to hide their counts. I'm just remarking about a few names that have shown up in this thread who were also active in the other thread.

I don't think the labels apply. Some people are making a simple request to hide their numbers.

[+traildad]

 

If it really means nothing, then why must it be hidden? To protect who? - from what? If it is indeed valueless.

 

It is kind of like the old saying "you can't judge a book by it's cover". Your numbers don't show much and alone are a superficial feature. If I didn't want to be judged by my "cover" why shouldn't I be able to prevent it? I think it would be a reasonable conclusion to assume that when I post anything, some people will judge what I say through the filter of my find count, (or post count). Just because I consider numbers to be unimportant doesn't mean I am not "harmed" from being stereotyped by the people that think numbers mean everything. If I am in a locker room I don't care who is biggest. This doesn't mean I should have to stand up for inspection by everyone that thinks it matters. Maybe the balance to this idea would be that if I choose to hide my numbers you can choose to not see my logs. That way you don't have to decide if I can tell a cache from a hole in the ground before you go out to check your cache.

 

PS Just for the record I don't care about your numbers or my numbers and I would not choose to hide them. I do believe that anyone that wanted to should be allowed to hide them.

[+NevadaWolf]

Just another thought on numbers that I haven't seen here, but first my opinion on numbers...

 

My view on my numbers show me how many places I've been to find a cache. I don't care how others view my numbers, but it's nice when someone tells me congrats on a milestone.

 

My view on others numbers - aside from my close friends, I don't care if you have 1 or 1 billion. I've seen and heard of too many people who cheat to give much weight to the numbers of those I don't know personally (and some I do know). My view of my close friends numbers is simply they have too much time on their hands.

 

But one thing I do use numbers for is to see how reliable a new cache placed by a person is. Two examples (both for and against my view)...

 

Cacher A with no finds hides a cache - the cache is discovered to be on private property with a serious safety risk, the hider never logs back into the site, and repeated emails get no response from the hider. Result, an archived cache and possible geo-trash left in the desert as no one knows where the cache really is and the hider shows no indication of retrieving it. Bad situation

 

Cacher B with no finds hides several caches - all good, though the container is questionable. Email inquires reveal a new cacher who's read all the rules, regs, FAQs, and wants to contribute to the community. After reading other logs, this newbie decides that they are only going after caches with high remarks from other cachers. Good situation.

 

If a cacher with only a few finds listed hides a cache, I will look at that persons profile. If the caches they have found are all LPCs and/or poor caches, I won't rush out to that persons cache - instead I will wait for FTF hounds to give their reports. However, if a hider has found caches that (imho) are quality hides, then I will rush out to see how they have placed theirs.

 

Numbers only tell me that a cacher has experienced a range of caches and that I can trust that their cache was placed with the knowledge of what has or has not worked in my area. Not a 100% reliable scale, but enough to give me a ballpark feel for a new cache that has been published.

Edited June 1, 2007 by NevadaWolf

[+Prying Pandora]

This is absurd. If you don't care about numbers, why are you paying so much attention to them? Can't you simply find your caches, log your finds or DNFs and be done with it? The rest of us are too busy finding caches to worry about your numbers so you're attracting a lot less attention than you think you are. It seems like this anti numbers nonsense is being used as an attention getter more often than not. One of our more attention-craving local cachers has taken this to an extreme with continual public announcements about not being about the numbers and no longer logging finds. I never cared about this person's find count before, but it's difficult to ignore now that it's in my face all the time. If for nothing else, I find a person's find count particularly useful when deciding how seriously to take a DNF before hunting for a cache. I wish I could get that info on my Palm when I'm out caching!

[+sbell111]

This is absurd. If you don't care about numbers, why are you paying so much attention to them? Can't you simply find your caches, log your finds or DNFs and be done with it? The rest of us are too busy finding caches to worry about your numbers so you're attracting a lot less attention than you think you are. It seems like this anti numbers nonsense is being used as an attention getter more often than not. One of our more attention-craving local cachers has taken this to an extreme with continual public announcements about not being about the numbers and no longer logging finds. I never cared about this person's find count before, but it's difficult to ignore now that it's in my face all the time. If for nothing else, I find a person's find count particularly useful when deciding how seriously to take a DNF before hunting for a cache. I wish I could get that info on my Palm when I'm out caching!

There is nothing in your post that I don't agree with. Well put.

[+flask]

i never said that i don't care about numbers. i LOVE my numbers. i love them, i love them!

 

i just don't want you to see them.

 

as for hidden numbers contributing to dishonesty, where's the benefit in claiming to find a cache you haven't found if you have no find count to inflate? sure, you can claim to have found it, but who would notice except you? people who cheat for the find count have nothing to gain.

[+Happy Humphrey]

i never said that i don't care about numbers. i LOVE my numbers. i love them, i love them!

i just don't want you to see them.

Just for clarification: if the find count against your log was suppressed, would you also want your profile to be suppressed? Otherwise, the find count is still available to me by viewing your profile: just a little more awkward to see (that would be a slight PIA when I was assessing your DNF or your new cache, but no more).

 

And if the summary of caches found (on your profile) was hidden from "prying eyes": should the list of caches found by your username, also be hidden to protect from anyone counting your found caches?

 

It's all a bit hard to understand - perhaps the only reasonable solution for those who want to "opt out of the numbers game" is that they tick a box which allows them to see geocache descriptions, their own logs and maintenance-type entries, but nothing else (as if they are the only people logging caches). Everyone else would see their stats, profile etc but be unable to contact them except indirectly via a moderator.

 

HH

[+TrailGators]

i never said that i don't care about numbers. i LOVE my numbers. i love them, i love them!

 

i just don't want you to see them.

 

as for hidden numbers contributing to dishonesty, where's the benefit in claiming to find a cache you haven't found if you have no find count to inflate? sure, you can claim to have found it, but who would notice except you? people who cheat for the find count have nothing to gain.

Bingo!

[+TrailGators]

It seems like this anti numbers nonsense is being used as an attention getter more often than not. One of our more attention-craving local cachers has taken this to an extreme with continual public announcements about not being about the numbers and no longer logging finds.

Now we are all doing this for attention? It's funny how a simple request can get so blown out of proportion.... Can you please tell us more about ourselves? I love hearing the positive comments...

[+Renegade Knight]

It seems like this anti numbers nonsense is being used as an attention getter more often than not. One of our more attention-craving local cachers has taken this to an extreme with continual public announcements about not being about the numbers and no longer logging finds.

Now we are all doing this for attention? It's funny how a simple request can get so blown out of proportion.... Can you please tell us more about ourselves? I love hearing the positive comments...

For the OP it was a simple request. Standing up loudly and proclaiming "it's not about the numbers" and making an issue out of it at every opportunity, or in every log, etc. That not a simple request. That's something else. If you witnessed that persons proclimations...it would tell you something.

[+tozainamboku]

If I were logging multi-attended logs for events or changing my DNFs to finds because the owner said I could, I would want to hide my numbers so that the people who care so much about my numbers couldn't see them. And if I never did this, I would show my numbers because there would be nothing to be ashamed of. But what I am seeing in this thread are puritans saying they would hide their numbers and people who have defended questionable logging practices as harmless fun insisting that the puritan's numbers are important to them and the ability to hiding one's find count would some how reduce their enjoyment of the game. Perhaps the puritans are right and people engage in questionable practice to get their numbers up higher than other peoples so they can feel good about having a higher number. If people are hiding their numbers then you couldn't compare find counts and that's what's fun about geocaching. The puritans however think that the fun is in finding geocaches and the numbers don't matter.

 

I'm sure there are puritans who think the find counts should show and anti-puritans who would like be able to hide their counts. I'm just remarking about a few names that have shown up in this thread who were also active in the other thread.

I don't think the labels apply. Some people are making a simple request to hide their numbers.

 

i never said that i don't care about numbers. i LOVE my numbers. i love them, i love them!

 

i just don't want you to see them.

 

as for hidden numbers contributing to dishonesty, where's the benefit in claiming to find a cache you haven't found if you have no find count to inflate? sure, you can claim to have found it, but who would notice except you? people who cheat for the find count have nothing to gain.

Bingo!

 

In the other thread the discussion was how could people who say the numbers don't matter also be the ones who say that you shouldn't use the found it log when you didn't find a cache or to get bonus find. I don't find any inconsistency in this stand. The puritans (and the purist/literalist) believe that geocaching is about finding geocaches. There is no "score" so the only proper way to use the found it log is to record finds. Howeve the puritans go further and believe that anyone who uses the find it log a different way must be doing so because they believe there is a "score" and they are cheating to get a higher score. The response from the side that supports allowing using the found it log to record temporary event caches or "good enough" attempts to find a possibly missing cache is that the "score" doesn't matter to them either but that they wish to use found it to record what they are personally comfortable as claiming a find on.

 

In this thread I have seen puritans wanting to be able to hide their find counts. But if there is no score what benefit would they get in hiding their find count? They are comfortable that there logs accurately reflect what they have found. The number is just a number of how many cache they have found.

 

On the other hand, some of those that are most vocally opposed to allowing someone to hide their numbers are the same ones who contend that people should be allowed to use the found it log as they and the cache owner see fit. If they believe that it is OK to use a found it log in ways that other people believe is dishonest how can the numbers be used in any meaningful way? I don't see what advantage they get by not allowing people to hide number except for the argument that it allows them to judge a DNF log.

 

I think perhaps that instead of the count of finds next to a cacher's name in the log, there should just be a count of logs (found logs, attended logs, did not find, will attend, notes, needs maintainance, needs archive) one could then look and see how experienced a cacher is and judge their DNF whithout having to debate if the find count is right. It becomes just a count of logs. To me it currently is just a count of found it logs and doesn't signify anything about how many caches someone has found. But perhaps since found it logs are signaled out as special, some are motivated to log extra ones that they wouldn't otherwise log.

[+TrailGators]

It seems like this anti numbers nonsense is being used as an attention getter more often than not. One of our more attention-craving local cachers has taken this to an extreme with continual public announcements about not being about the numbers and no longer logging finds.

Now we are all doing this for attention? It's funny how a simple request can get so blown out of proportion.... Can you please tell us more about ourselves? I love hearing the positive comments...

For the OP it was a simple request. Standing up loudly and proclaiming "it's not about the numbers" and making an issue out of it at every opportunity, or in every log, etc. That not a simple request. That's something else. If you witnessed that persons proclimations...it would tell you something.

True, but why steer the thread towards the extremes? We know what happens when people do that. Anyhow, I think there is a reasonable request here by the OP. I guess it's not clear to me what the general response was towards to the OPs request.....

[+TrailGators]

If I were logging multi-attended logs for events or changing my DNFs to finds because the owner said I could, I would want to hide my numbers so that the people who care so much about my numbers couldn't see them. And if I never did this, I would show my numbers because there would be nothing to be ashamed of. But what I am seeing in this thread are puritans saying they would hide their numbers and people who have defended questionable logging practices as harmless fun insisting that the puritan's numbers are important to them and the ability to hiding one's find count would some how reduce their enjoyment of the game. Perhaps the puritans are right and people engage in questionable practice to get their numbers up higher than other peoples so they can feel good about having a higher number. If people are hiding their numbers then you couldn't compare find counts and that's what's fun about geocaching. The puritans however think that the fun is in finding geocaches and the numbers don't matter.

 

I'm sure there are puritans who think the find counts should show and anti-puritans who would like be able to hide their counts. I'm just remarking about a few names that have shown up in this thread who were also active in the other thread.

I don't think the labels apply. Some people are making a simple request to hide their numbers.

 

i never said that i don't care about numbers. i LOVE my numbers. i love them, i love them!

 

i just don't want you to see them.

 

as for hidden numbers contributing to dishonesty, where's the benefit in claiming to find a cache you haven't found if you have no find count to inflate? sure, you can claim to have found it, but who would notice except you? people who cheat for the find count have nothing to gain.

Bingo!

 

In the other thread the discussion was how could people who say the numbers don't matter also be the ones who say that you shouldn't use the found it log when you didn't find a cache or to get bonus find. I don't find any inconsistency in this stand. The puritans (and the purist/literalist) believe that geocaching is about finding geocaches. There is no "score" so the only proper way to use the found it log is to record finds. Howeve the puritans go further and believe that anyone who uses the find it log a different way must be doing so because they believe there is a "score" and they are cheating to get a higher score. The response from the side that supports allowing using the found it log to record temporary event caches or "good enough" attempts to find a possibly missing cache is that the "score" doesn't matter to them either but that they wish to use found it to record what they are personally comfortable as claiming a find on.

 

In this thread I have seen puritans wanting to be able to hide their find counts. But if there is no score what benefit would they get in hiding their find count? They are comfortable that there logs accurately reflect what they have found. The number is just a number of how many cache they have found.

 

On the other hand, some of those that are most vocally opposed to allowing someone to hide their numbers are the same ones who contend that people should be allowed to use the found it log as they and the cache owner see fit. If they believe that it is OK to use a found it log in ways that other people believe is dishonest how can the numbers be used in any meaningful way? I don't see what advantage they get by not allowing people to hide number except for the argument that it allows them to judge a DNF log.

 

I think perhaps that instead of the count of finds next to a cacher's name in the log, there should just be a count of logs (found logs, attended logs, did not find, will attend, notes, needs maintainance, needs archive) one could then look and see how experienced a cacher is and judge their DNF whithout having to debate if the find count is right. It becomes just a count of logs. To me it currently is just a count of found it logs and doesn't signify anything about how many caches someone has found. But perhaps since found it logs are signaled out as special, some are motivated to log extra ones that they wouldn't otherwise log.

Some of believe that numbers mania brings a dark cloud to the game, and they want to be free of it. I think the marginal value of losing a few find counts to help people decide whether to give up looking for a cache is not a good reason to stop others from playing this game free from (others seeing their) numbers. I know people with thousands of finds that DNF caches that I later found. They even bet us that we couldn't find it and we did. If you want a real challenge, then find the cache without any clues and just the coordinates. Edited June 1, 2007 by TrailGators

[+carleenp]

A work around, albeit one that takes some work/effort: If you want to use the name you are known by at events and in forums, but want to generally keep your caching activities more private and away from prying eyes through the profile and search pages, make a different/new account for logging caches. Use your old one for events and forums, and maybe log an occasional cache with it for your favorite stats like adding new states, or so that people won't think you totally quit or something. Nobody will really know who the other account is. It will just be one of those cachers that nobody knows. Just a random idea....

Edited June 2, 2007 by carleenp