Jump to content

# caches found


Glenn

Recommended Posts

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

Now I can get behind this little twist on the stats proposal.....

Link to comment

I like the opt out idea. As a new geocacher, I use the numbers as a way to rate how hard a cache really is. When the only people that have logged a find have over 300, I get a quick idea that I might have to spend a little more time searching even if it's a single star.

Link to comment
I'd prefer an opt out feature instead of an across the board change.

 

If you opt out, then you only get to see your numbers, and nobody elses.

 

If you don't opt out, then you get to see everyone's numbers.

 

I like the opt out idea too but many have fought even that idea when this subject has been brought up in the past. The main argument is that numbers help people judge whether or not to look for caches that have been DNFed. SO here is my proposal to satisfy even those folks:

 

icon_smile.gif June 24 by TrailGators (A lot of caches found)

Link to comment

If ANY stats exist, you will continue to have the "angst both in and out of the forums".

 

Removing them from the log doesn't stop people from being competitive about numbers...they just have to click a little further to see them.

 

You won't eliminate the problem with this suggestion...you'll just create a new round of angst with people who do want numbers on logs.

Link to comment
I'd prefer an opt out feature instead of an across the board change.

 

If you opt out, then you only get to see your numbers, and nobody elses.

 

If you don't opt out, then you get to see everyone's numbers.

 

I like the opt out idea too but many have fought even that idea when this subject has been brought up in the past. The main argument is that numbers help people judge whether or not to look for caches that have been DNFed. SO here is my proposal to satisfy even those folks:

 

icon_smile.gif June 24 by TrailGators (A lot of caches found)

 

What would define "a lot"? More than 100?

 

My suggestion would be that if you opted out, and you were looking at pages, you'd see things like:

icon_smile.gif June 24 by TrailGators (1,345 found)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by Mushtang (-----)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by Jeremy (-----)

 

But if I didn't opt out, and I looked at the same page, I'd see:

icon_smile.gif June 24 by TrailGators (1,345 found)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by Mushtang (687 found)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by Jeremy (823 found)

 

Needing to know how experienced a cacher is might be a reason for you not to opt out. Or maybe you'd decide not to see numbers and click the extra time it would take to look at someone's profile in the case of a DNF.

Link to comment
I'd prefer an opt out feature instead of an across the board change.

 

If you opt out, then you only get to see your numbers, and nobody elses.

 

If you don't opt out, then you get to see everyone's numbers.

 

I like the opt out idea too but many have fought even that idea when this subject has been brought up in the past. The main argument is that numbers help people judge whether or not to look for caches that have been DNFed. SO here is my proposal to satisfy even those folks:

 

icon_smile.gif June 24 by TrailGators (A lot of caches found)

 

What would define "a lot"? More than 100?

We could have levels like belts in Karate:

White = 0-50

Yellow = 50-100

Green = 100-250

Blue = 250-500

Red = 500-750

Brown = 750-1000

Black = 1000+

Link to comment

What would define "a lot"? More than 100?

We could have levels like belts in Karate:

White = 0-50

Yellow = 50-100

Green = 100-250

Blue = 250-500

Red = 500-750

Brown = 750-1000

Black = 1000+

 

That only works if we all agree on what counts toward the belt totals....if I log 500 "temporary event" caches, does that go into my belt status? what if I just armchair log a whole bunch of them?

 

The smiley is a meaningless measure of anything at all.

Link to comment
What would define "a lot"? More than 100?
We could have levels like belts in Karate:

White = 0-50

Yellow = 50-100

Green = 100-250

Blue = 250-500

Red = 500-750

Brown = 750-1000

Black = 1000+

That only works if we all agree on what counts toward the belt totals....if I log 500 "temporary event" caches, does that go into my belt status? what if I just armchair log a whole bunch of them?

 

The smiley is a meaningless measure of anything at all.

I just arbitrarily picked some levels as an example. Events could be excluded... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

The smiley is a meaningless measure of anything at all.

To you. And also to those that want the find counts removed, or replaced with something else.

 

However, there are lots of people that love looking at the number of caches found, for many different reasons. If they're meaningless to you, then why can't you ignore them and let other people keep enjoying them.

 

Why should some people decide that the numbers don't matter to them, and therefore nobody should be able to see them?

Link to comment

What would define "a lot"? More than 100? We could have levels like belts in Karate:

White = 0-50

Yellow = 50-100

Green = 100-250

Blue = 250-500

Red = 500-750

Brown = 750-1000

Black = 1000+

 

Interesting concept, but I see two potential problems: first, while a number is just a number, a Belt system creates a system of stratification that implies that having a certain number of finds is either a "good" or "bad" thing. If I have less than 50 finds and am therefore a "newbie", I'll want to make that push to find enough caches to make it to that next level. If I have less than 50 finds and no label is attached to the number, it's up to each person to judge for themselves what weight my find count should have in their mind. I could see a potential for this system to actually enforce the numbers game, since people will want to strive for that prestigious title beside their name. Sure, we have a similar thing with even-numbered milestones (100, 1000, etc), but this actually defines a number rather than allowing people to judge the significance of a person's find count on their own.

 

The second issue has been alluded to before- where exactly do you draw the line? In some urban areas, it's nothing to find 2,000 1/1 caches within a year. At the same time, many cachers in non-cache-dense areas haven't yet racked up a few hundred finds even after years of caching. I wouldn't call them inexperienced, though. In Mississippi, we still recognize and congratulate milestones in the hundreds (200, 300) for cachers that have been in the game for years and are very active and contributing members.

 

edit: fixed a quote

Edited by DavidMac
Link to comment

What would define "a lot"? More than 100? We could have levels like belts in Karate:

White = 0-50

Yellow = 50-100

Green = 100-250

Blue = 250-500

Red = 500-750

Brown = 750-1000

Black = 1000+

 

Interesting concept, but I see two potential problems: first, while a number is just a number, a Belt system creates a system of stratification that implies that having a certain number of finds is either a "good" or "bad" thing. If I have less than 50 finds and am therefore a "newbie", I'll want to make that push to find enough caches to make it to that next level. If I have less than 50 finds and no label is attached to the number, it's up to each person to judge for themselves what weight my find count should have in their mind. I could see a potential for this system to actually enforce the numbers game, since people will want to strive for that prestigious title beside their name. Sure, we have a similar thing with even-numbered milestones (100, 1000, etc), but this actually defines a number rather than allowing people to judge the significance of a person's find count on their own.

 

The second issue has been alluded to before- where exactly do you draw the line? In some urban areas, it's nothing to find 2,000 1/1 caches within a year. At the same time, many cachers in non-cache-dense areas haven't yet racked up a few hundred finds even after years of caching. I wouldn't call them inexperienced, though. In Mississippi, we still recognize and congratulate milestones in the hundreds (200, 300) for cachers that have been in the game for years and are very active and contributing members.

 

edit: fixed a quote

Thanks! You've just proven why numbers are basically worthless for judging cache finding skill level. However, if you used some formula, like multiplying average difficulty times quantity the number the result would be more meaningful. So the people that want to gauge someone's experience on a DNF would be better off knowing that a red belt didn't find it than someone that has found 500 of whatever.

 

The other thing it might do is make people want to hide/find more difficuly caches. This would lead to more variety. I think we have way to many easy caches and could use some more difficult caches. This might give an incentive for people to hide something besides another 1/1. Also events wouldn't count.

 

By the way, this is just an idea. It might be fun earning the next skill-level belt just like it is in karate....

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

 

It is of a lot of use to other cachers than the cache owner. I use it as a tool for helping to determine the legitimacy of an account (a valid concern in my area).

Link to comment

Thanks! You've just proven why numbers are basically worthless for judging cache finding skill level. However, if you used some formula, like multiplying average difficulty times quantity the number the result would be more meaningful. So the people that want to gauge someone's experience on a DNF would be better off knowing that a red belt didn't find it than someone that has found 500 of whatever.

 

The other thing it might do is make people want to hide/find more difficuly caches. This would lead to more variety. I think we have way to many easy caches and could use some more difficult caches. This might give an incentive for people to hide something besides another 1/1. Also events wouldn't count.

 

By the way, this is just an idea. It might be fun earning the next skill-level belt just like it is in karate....

 

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like the rankings concept (I actually think it's an intriguing idea), I'm just not sure that it would solve any of the problems that it sets out to. I know that at least one other caching site out there uses a number*difficulty formula, but I honestly can't comment on it since I don't use any other listing site but this one. The problem I see with either system (raw numbers or a "belt" system) is that you have at least two types of people among those who want to know: those who want to use the number/ranking as a way to judge the usefulness of information obtained from the logs, and those who see it as a way to introduce competition into the mix (that's competition in a negative sense of the word, I think you know what I'm getting at). No matter what system you use, you can't help one group without also helping the other. What it comes down to is, is the inconvenience that would be caused the first group worth it to put a stop to the angst caused by the bad apples among the second group? But that's a whole debate in itself.

 

Personally, my favorite option would be to allow individuals to opt out of both having their find count displayed and to hide the display of other peoples' counts on pages they view. If you wanted to go farther, have the preference also hide the found half of the geocaches tab on the user profile, as well as the "other caches... found by this user" link to make it more difficult for someone to figure out the number.

Link to comment

I have to agree that a simple number is pretty much useless in determining the value of one's logs after that number reaches a certain number. I've seen too many DNFs (or finds for that matter) that read similar to "Well, I've got over 3,000 finds and I can't find this one so it must be missing." So, we go check on it and it still snug in its hidey-hole. The raw number of finds really have only a vague and loose correlation to experience with any one particular type or style of hide.

 

My favorite logs are the ones by groups of high numbers cachers who love micros and they can't collectively find a large ammo can. I mean how hard is it with accurate coords for a group to find a large ammo can? Come on, they were standing within inches of it.

 

See what I mean?

 

What's more important is the person's activity. It would be much more accurate in determining value in any one log if you peruse the person's other logs. Being able to see only the last 50 or so logs of any one user would be a much better way to judge. A list of date, cache name, type, size, difficulty, and the user's log listed in reverse date order will allow you to read back and see enough of his recent experience to make a much better informed call. I'd list finds, DNFs, notes, NMs, and SBAs to be able to get a better feel of how he logs.

 

So, in the above example, if a person logs a DNF on one of our well-hidden large container caches and I look at their last 50 logs to see they only hunt easy drive-by micros, it doesn't matter they have 51 finds or 100,000.

Link to comment

The original suggestion seem to imply that

  1. the raw number of 'found it' logs tells something about the cacher's experience
  2. only the owner of a cache would be interested in the finder's experience (perhaps in order to evaluate a DNF log)

Starting with the second point - I think any one who looks for the cache might be interested in knowing the experience of previous cachers who either found or did not find the cache. If a experienced cacher finds a cache in a parking lot and says it was a cool hide, I'd be pretty sure if was not an LPC. If a newbie finds a cache in a parking lot and says it was a cool hide, I'd be pretty sure it was an LPC. :laughing:

 

The raw number of 'found it' logs probably does say something about the cacher's experience. Someone with 3 finds clearly has less experience than some with 300 and they woule have less experience than someone with 3000. Perhaps we should show the logarithm of the number of finds :rolleyes:

 

icon_smile.gif June 24 by Jeremy (2.9154 logfinds)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by Mushtang (2.8367 logfinds)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by TrailGators (3.1287 logfinds)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by tozainamboku (3.5169 logfinds)

icon_smile.gif June 24 by Ventura_Kids (4.0532 logfinds)

 

Only a little more seriously, beyond the raw count of logs, there are other factors that might indicate experience. I like some of the numbers that ItsNotAboutTheNumbers caculates. The number of days with a find gives some indication of how often the person has gone caching. Someone who finds a lot of urban hides may a lot more raw finds than someone who hikes yet they have both cached just as often. One person may have been a member for four years but only been caching four times, while someone else has been a member for one month and has gone caching 20 times. It has also been pointed out that experience with caches of a similar type hide would probably give a better idea of how to evaluate a DNF. Someone who has lots of experience with regular size containers hidden in the woods may have trouble finding urban micros or visa versa. And there is also a person's geocaching average - the number of finds divided by the number of attempts (finds + DNFs). If someone with a low percent of DNFs logs a DNF there is probably more chance that they really looked before giving up as opposed to someone with a high percent of DNFs who logs DNFs because they got out of the car or didn't look because of too many muggles.

 

I would just stick with the raw counts we have now because anything "better" would just be too complicated to implement. Most people can understand the weaknessed of raw counts to determine a cacher's experience and use them accordingly.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
If someone with a low percent of DNFs logs a DNF there is probably more chance that they really looked before giving up as opposed to someone with a high percent of DNFs who logs DNFs because they got out of the car or didn't look because of too many muggles.
The DNF ratio would be useful. I am one of the people that only logs a DNF when I give up and can't find the cache. If I log a DNF on your cache, then it is probably missing or the coords are a mile off. When my caches get DNF logs, I pretty much ignore them unless there are a 3-4 in a row or someone writes a very convincing log. However, if I did see one DNF from someone that doesn't DNF unless they give it their best (low ratio), I would go check on my cache much sooner. :laughing:
Link to comment

So what is being suggested. If one goes to someones profile you will see nothing in Geocaches? How about their hides?

 

What I could get behind is the

icon_smile.gif June 24 by TrailGators (A lot of caches found)

 

showing the number of caches that that cacher had found when he found that cache. Not what he currently has found.

 

It irks me a bit to read my log for the first cache I've found and see that I have 1125 finds.

Link to comment

Actually, thinking about this i want to refine my opinion.

I think it would be good for the cache logs to show 2 numbers next to any cachers name. The number of caches they had found on the day that they logged that cache, and the current number of finds that they have.

 

It IS all about the numbers!

Link to comment

...The raw number of finds really have only a vague and loose correlation to experience with any one particular type or style of hide....

 

True enough. That's all I need in conjunction with other clues for whatever purpose I have in trying to figure out how much expernice this cacher has, or if they are legitimate to begin with.

Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

 

Didn't we just discuss this about a month ago?

 

I mean, I know topics repeat... and repeat... and repeat... but this was a quick turnaround (and, alas, it WAS a little bit different.)

 

(Sorry to repeat this guys, but) My take is a bit different... I guess I'd be OK with people knowing how many caches I've found... if I were able to prevent people from clicking on my username --> profile --> Geocaches and then being able to fish through every freakin' log I've ever written and to then feel they have the right to 'discuss' the logs/where I was/who I was with/how much better they are than me/ad nauseum with me in whatever manner they deem is the MO for the day.

 

As time goes on, I find I'm much more interested in how long someone has been a member here over how many caches they have or how many posts they've made to the forum. Length of time playing the game has more value to me than any of the other numbers.

 

 

michelle

Link to comment
<snip>(Sorry to repeat this guys, but) My take is a bit different... I guess I'd be OK with people knowing how many caches I've found... if I were able to prevent people from clicking on my username --> profile --> Geocaches and then being able to fish through every freakin' log I've ever written and to then feel they have the right to 'discuss' the logs/where I was/who I was with/how much better they are than me/ad nauseum with me in whatever manner they deem is the MO for the day.</snip>

But reading your logs is so entertaining that they'd forget why they came by the time they had read just a few! :(

Link to comment

If ANY stats exist, you will continue to have the "angst both in and out of the forums".

 

Removing them from the log doesn't stop people from being competitive about numbers...they just have to click a little further to see them.

 

You won't eliminate the problem with this suggestion...you'll just create a new round of angst with people who do want numbers on logs.

Ugh, not more angst! Where's Carleen? We need beer!!!

Link to comment

... I guess I'd be OK with people knowing how many caches I've found... if I were able to prevent people from clicking on my username --> profile --> Geocaches and then being able to fish through every freakin' log I've ever written and to then feel they have the right to 'discuss' the logs/where I was/who I was with/how much better they are than me/ad nauseum with me in whatever manner they deem is the MO for the day....

 

I had some doofy in IL who happned to look for the same cache as me on a trip read my log. (Some rant about something or another) and decide that since it wasn't about the cache they needed to reach out and smack me upside the head and teach me a lesson. They emailed me a what for. Then they bragged about it in their local forum. I emailed them back a why not and the cache owner who had liked the log posted in the forum and nicely said to stuff it. They never did catch a clue but then I don't expect those types to have a lot of clues to work with to begin with.

 

Anyway...when it comes to logs I've had more people say they enjoy my occasional good log than those who say that I should take a class in how to log right. I'm going with the numbers.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

 

What? I'm a n00b, but I dont see why you'd want this changed

Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

 

What? I'm a n00b, but I dont see why you'd want this changed

 

Geocaching isn't a contest so why have everyones find count shown to everyone who views the logs on any cache? This information is useful to the cache owner to gage the experience of a cacher making a DNF find. To determine whither or not they should take the log seriously or wait for a more experienced cacher to make a DNF before checking out the cache.

Link to comment
Geocaching isn't a contest so why have everyones find count shown to everyone who views the logs on any cache? This information is useful to the cache owner to gage the experience of a cacher making a DNF find. To determine whither or not they should take the log seriously or wait for a more experienced cacher to make a DNF before checking out the cache.

If this is the case, then only DNF logs should show the count. Nearly every argument I've read for the count details the use of the number to determine the veracity of DNF logs.

Link to comment
Geocaching isn't a contest so why have everyones find count shown to everyone who views the logs on any cache? This information is useful to the cache owner to gage the experience of a cacher making a DNF find. To determine whither or not they should take the log seriously or wait for a more experienced cacher to make a DNF before checking out the cache.

If this is the case, then only DNF logs should show the count. Nearly every argument I've read for the count details the use of the number to determine the veracity of DNF logs.

I like the numbers because I like to see how many caches someone has found, and I like having that information right on their cache logs. Isn't that good enough?

 

I'm well aware that my find count doesn't directly relate to your find count. It's possible to show that either one of us has more "experience" or more "fun" some would argue. But I don't care about that at all.

 

I like looking at KBI's numbers to see how far ahead of me he's getting. In the past I enjoyed looking at his numbers to give him a little ribbing about how far ahead of him I was.

 

I like coming across some local cachers logs by surprise from time to time and being amazed at how many they've found since the last I'd seen. They're really out there finding caches!

 

I really like looking at the different experience levels of the people that have logged caches I'm reading, whether they be my own cache, one that I'm logging, or one that I'm reading up on that I might go try and find.

 

These are only a few of the reasons I enjoy it. I know a lot of other people enjoy looking at the numbers too.

 

What I don't understand is why some people in the forums keep campaining to have the numbers removed just because they "don't like them" or "don't understand why they're there". It's like LPCs, if you don't like them, ignore them. There are plenty of folks that do.

Link to comment
What I don't understand is why some people in the forums keep campaining to have the numbers removed just because they "don't like them" or "don't understand why they're there".

My primary reason is my numbers are my business alone. Not yours or anyone else's. Why should you be poking your nose in my business?

 

Additionally, the number is not accurate. We've found a few we've not bothered to log online for whatever reason. Some might look at our count and say, "CR, an easy weekend would put you over 800 finds." The answer to that would be, "Umm... we're already well over 800, but thanks anyway."

 

Additionally...

I like the numbers because I like to see how many caches someone has found, and I like having that information right on their cache logs. Isn't that good enough?
I could say "I'd like to not show my numbers anywhere on this site. Isn't that good enough?"
Link to comment

 

You won't eliminate the problem with this suggestion...you'll just create a new round of angst with people who do want numbers on logs.

 

I agree with that.

 

As an experiment, they should remove the #s of posts from the forums first to see what happens. ;)

 

Well, for those of us who do post/have posted in OT, our post count is not correct, anyway...

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

Additionally, the number is not accurate. We've found a few we've not bothered to log online for whatever reason. Some might look at our count and say, "CR, an easy weekend would put you over 800 finds." The answer to that would be, "Umm... we're already well over 800, but thanks anyway."

The numbers are accurate. They are an accurate count of the number of 'found it' logs and 'attended' logs you have. They don't mean how many caches someone has found. Someone, like CR, might not log every cache they have found. They only log online when they have something to share about the cache hunt. Other people may log a find when they didn't find a cache but the owner told them it would be OK to log a find for whatever reason. Or someone may log a find more than once on the cache because the owner moved it an rehid it in a different spot. The forums are full of angst over when it OK to enter a 'found it' log or not. But that is probably because people feel that the 'find count' should represent the number of finds you actually have. Do not try to make the find count anything other than what it is. Find count ≠ number of caches found

 

I like knowing how many 'found it' logs I have and how many everyone else has. I can compete for the number of 'found it' logs. If someone else wants to "cheat" an record 'found it' logs for caches they never found, I can point at them and yell "Cheater! Cheater!" If someone else doesn't record all their finds, I don't care. It just makes me show up higher in the "standings". If people don't care about competing then they can ignore the numbers. Or perhaps there should be an option - "don't show me the numbers" or "don't show me anyone else's numbers".

Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

 

Didn't we just discuss this about a month ago?

 

I mean, I know topics repeat... and repeat... and repeat... but this was a quick turnaround (and, alas, it WAS a little bit different.)

 

(Sorry to repeat this guys, but) My take is a bit different... I guess I'd be OK with people knowing how many caches I've found... if I were able to prevent people from clicking on my username --> profile --> Geocaches and then being able to fish through every freakin' log I've ever written and to then feel they have the right to 'discuss' the logs/where I was/who I was with/how much better they are than me/ad nauseum with me in whatever manner they deem is the MO for the day.

 

As time goes on, I find I'm much more interested in how long someone has been a member here over how many caches they have or how many posts they've made to the forum. Length of time playing the game has more value to me than any of the other numbers.

 

 

michelle

 

Didn't you just say the same thing last month? ;)

Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

 

Didn't we just discuss this about a month ago?

 

I mean, I know topics repeat... and repeat... and repeat... but this was a quick turnaround (and, alas, it WAS a little bit different.)

 

(Sorry to repeat this guys, but) My take is a bit different... I guess I'd be OK with people knowing how many caches I've found... if I were able to prevent people from clicking on my username --> profile --> Geocaches and then being able to fish through every freakin' log I've ever written and to then feel they have the right to 'discuss' the logs/where I was/who I was with/how much better they are than me/ad nauseum with me in whatever manner they deem is the MO for the day.

 

As time goes on, I find I'm much more interested in how long someone has been a member here over how many caches they have or how many posts they've made to the forum. Length of time playing the game has more value to me than any of the other numbers.

 

michelle

 

Didn't you just say the same thing last month? ;)

;) Round and round we go. Where it stops nobody knows...
Link to comment

Why is the angst of forum posters, people who spend more time talking about caching than actually going out and finding caches more important than the value this number represents to those who do go out and hunt caches? People who are hunting for a cache will look at this number and use it as a gauge as to the value of the found/not found log. If someone logs a DNF and has found less than x finds, then the hunter will place a value on this log. It's also used in areas where folks like to recognize the accomplishments of the hunters with a little recognition. If the numbers are hidden or hidden by colored icons then it become much more difficult for this social activity to occur.

 

Angst of forum posters? What a ridiculous joke, the people who talk about caching have far too much influence over geocaching.

 

A much more appropriate thread would be the angst that the number of posts gives to people who spend their time geocaching and one occasion look in the forums only to discover threads like this. How about changing the forums so no one can see the number of posts each person has made?

 

Topic created by posts: 1203 and supported by posts: 4,473. I could go on but I'd rather go geocaching.

Link to comment

Why is the angst of forum posters, people who spend more time talking about caching than actually going out and finding caches more important than the value this number represents to those who do go out and hunt caches?

I didn't see where anyone said their point of view was more important than someone else that spent more time caching than they do.

 

People who are hunting for a cache will look at this number and use it as a gauge as to the value of the found/not found log. If someone logs a DNF and has found less than x finds, then the hunter will place a value on this log. It's also used in areas where folks like to recognize the accomplishments of the hunters with a little recognition. If the numbers are hidden or hidden by colored icons then it become much more difficult for this social activity to occur.
I'm glad you could take time out of your busy caching schedule to give your opinion in these forums.

 

Angst of forum posters? What a ridiculous joke, the people who talk about caching have far too much influence over geocaching.
I think you assume too much.

 

A much more appropriate thread would be the angst that the number of posts gives to people who spend their time geocaching and one occasion look in the forums only to discover threads like this. How about changing the forums so no one can see the number of posts each person has made?
So.. Find numbers shouldn't be changed to placate the forum posters, but post numbers should be changed to placate the cachers? Good to see you're looking at this with a fair and open mind.

 

Topic created by posts: 1203 and supported by posts: 4,473. I could go on but I'd rather go geocaching.
Have a nice day caching. Thanks for the drive by.
Link to comment

The number of caches found after the user name in cache logs should be changed so that it is only viewable by the cache owner. Everybody doesn't need to see it and it serves no real purpose to anyone besides the cache owner. It is a cause of angst both in and out of the forums. If others are really curious they can click on the user name and look at that persons profile.

 

Didn't we just discuss this about a month ago?

 

I mean, I know topics repeat... and repeat... and repeat... but this was a quick turnaround (and, alas, it WAS a little bit different.)

 

(Sorry to repeat this guys, but) My take is a bit different... I guess I'd be OK with people knowing how many caches I've found... if I were able to prevent people from clicking on my username --> profile --> Geocaches and then being able to fish through every freakin' log I've ever written and to then feel they have the right to 'discuss' the logs/where I was/who I was with/how much better they are than me/ad nauseum with me in whatever manner they deem is the MO for the day.

 

As time goes on, I find I'm much more interested in how long someone has been a member here over how many caches they have or how many posts they've made to the forum. Length of time playing the game has more value to me than any of the other numbers.

 

 

michelle

 

Didn't you just say the same thing last month? :laughing:

 

Well, at least I waited a month to repeat my 'ad nauseum'...

 

 

What's your repetition-excuse? How many finds do you have again? :laughing:

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

 

You won't eliminate the problem with this suggestion...you'll just create a new round of angst with people who do want numbers on logs.

 

I agree with that.

 

As an experiment, they should remove the #s of posts from the forums first to see what happens. :laughing:

 

Well, for those of us who do post/have posted in OT, our post count is not correct, anyway...

 

 

michelle

 

Why should posts to the OT forum now count as much as a post to other forums? So if they don't count as much how much should they count for? 1/2, 1/4, 1/32 or maybe not at all?

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