Jump to content

Color coded find number suggestion


Glenn

Recommended Posts

The number of finds next to a geocachers name in their log entries is used by cache owners know how experienced a geocacher is and determine if they need to check on their cache after a DNF log. However someone finding the same cache again and again isn't the same a someone who has found the same number of different caches. I suggest that when someones found numbers include multiple logs on the same cache that the number listed in their found log is changed to a different color. This way the cache owner can easily determine if someone has found 100 different caches or the same cache 100 times without having to look thru each the profiles.

Link to post

You're going to need a whole rainbow.

 

Finding 100 lamp post skirts is not the same as finding 100 ammo cans in the woods.

 

Finding 100 ammo cans in the woods is not the same as finding 100 film cans in the woods.

 

Finding 100 film cans in the woods is not the same as finding 100 blinkers in rock piles.

 

Even something as simple as one finder's 100 lamp post finds is not the same as another person's 100 lamp post finds. Time of day, muggles, spiders and a whole host of other factors makes every find different.

 

Number of finds is only a rough estimate of experience, and that experience may or may not apply to the current hide in question.

 

Geocaching is not a competition. The numbers mean something entirely different to each person that looks at them.

Link to post

Look at to from a cache owners perspective. Because multiple logs on the same cache are allowed it is very difficult to even roughly estimates someones caching experience without digging thru their profile. If all find counts where only for unique finds then that rough estimate would easier to judge. Multiple found logs on the same cache throw a major kink in to this estimation. From a cache owners perspective it would be nice to have an indication that someone has a number of multiple found logs on the same caches.

 

Since it is easy to accidentally log multiple find logs on a few caches I wouldn't expect the color change to trigger on just a few multiple found logs. It could trigger when a determined percentage of unique finds to multiple find logs is reached. This way a cache owner can more easily estimate the experience of a cacher who is logging a DNF on his cache. I am not suggesting that this show on a persons profile page. Just on the cache page where the cache owners look.

Link to post

Look at to from a cache owners perspective. Because multiple logs on the same cache are allowed ..........

 

Not on any cache I own. Only the first time there is a find, all subsequent visits should be a note. I will ask once for someone to change it, then wait a week. After that.......... :D

Link to post

Hi Glenn,

 

If you look at my profile, you will see that I have more overall finds than unique cache finds. So I do have some experience with this. I know that every one of the overall finds was actually a different hide. With the occasional glitches at the website it is entirely possible that I have two back-to-back identical Found logs somewhere in the database. But for the ones where I consciously logged a Found or Attended multiple times over the years, it is always for different hidden objects or different hides. So if you consider that a large number of hides in any urban area are film canister micros, I would say that multiple finds on the same cache are generally as different as finding film-canister micros because the location is typically different for each find.

 

I organized an event some months ago which included a "diabolical cache hunt" of about 20 caches that were quite difficult to find. In that event I did not allow multiple logs (because I think that this is nonsense and it was my prerogative to set it up this way), but if I had, I can guarantee you that those hides would have been a much greater proof of experience than the nearest 20 approved caches near the event (many of which are mine). So it is entirely feasible that multiple finds recorded for something like this can reflect a greater level of experience. So you might reconsider your point of view on that aspect.

Link to post

Look at to from a cache owners perspective. Because multiple logs on the same cache are allowed ..........

 

Not on any cache I own. Only the first time there is a find, all subsequent visits should be a note. I will ask once for someone to change it, then wait a week. After that.......... :D

 

Not all cache owners follow your logging standard and there is where the complexity comes in. How can a cache owner be expected to determine a cachers caching experience when there are at least two distinctly different logging standards. My suggestion in helping a cache owner easily identify which standard a cacher is using is to color the find count on the cache page differently for the standard method of logging being used by that cacher.

Link to post

Hi Glenn,

 

If you look at my profile, you will see that I have more overall finds than unique cache finds. So I do have some experience with this. I know that every one of the overall finds was actually a different hide. With the occasional glitches at the website it is entirely possible that I have two back-to-back identical Found logs somewhere in the database. But for the ones where I consciously logged a Found or Attended multiple times over the years, it is always for different hidden objects or different hides. So if you consider that a large number of hides in any urban area are film canister micros, I would say that multiple finds on the same cache are generally as different as finding film-canister micros because the location is typically different for each find.

 

I organized an event some months ago which included a "diabolical cache hunt" of about 20 caches that were quite difficult to find. In that event I did not allow multiple logs (because I think that this is nonsense and it was my prerogative to set it up this way), but if I had, I can guarantee you that those hides would have been a much greater proof of experience than the nearest 20 approved caches near the event (many of which are mine). So it is entirely feasible that multiple finds recorded for something like this can reflect a greater level of experience. So you might reconsider your point of view on that aspect.

 

This thread is NOT a debate about whether multiple finds on the same cache/event should he allowed or not. There are already plenty of those threads in the forum.

 

There are at least two accepted standards for logging finds. As a cache owner it is hard to determine which standard a cache finder us using without digging thru his profile. My suggestion is a way for the cache owner to easily determine this for each cacher who logs his cache. Color the find counts differently. This will help a cache owner know how to handle certain notes, DNF, and needs maintenance logs.

 

I understand that multiple find logs by the same cacher on the same cacher happen from time to time. A few multiple find logs on the same cache is not a true indication that that particular cacher is using the log multiple finds on the same cache standard. I believe I stated that in a previous post in this thread. A good solution would be to have the color change trigger then a cacher has a predetermined percentage of their find logs as multiple find logs on the same caches.

Link to post

Hi Glenn,

 

If you look at my profile, you will see that I have more overall finds than unique cache finds. So I do have some experience with this. I know that every one of the overall finds was actually a different hide. With the occasional glitches at the website it is entirely possible that I have two back-to-back identical Found logs somewhere in the database. But for the ones where I consciously logged a Found or Attended multiple times over the years, it is always for different hidden objects or different hides. So if you consider that a large number of hides in any urban area are film canister micros, I would say that multiple finds on the same cache are generally as different as finding film-canister micros because the location is typically different for each find.

 

I organized an event some months ago which included a "diabolical cache hunt" of about 20 caches that were quite difficult to find. In that event I did not allow multiple logs (because I think that this is nonsense and it was my prerogative to set it up this way), but if I had, I can guarantee you that those hides would have been a much greater proof of experience than the nearest 20 approved caches near the event (many of which are mine). So it is entirely feasible that multiple finds recorded for something like this can reflect a greater level of experience. So you might reconsider your point of view on that aspect.

This thread is NOT a debate about whether multiple finds on the same cache/event should he allowed or not. There are already plenty of those threads in the forum.

 

There are at least two accepted standards for logging finds. As a cache owner it is hard to determine which standard a cache finder us using without digging thru his profile. My suggestion is a way for the cache owner to easily determine this for each cacher who logs his cache. Color the find counts differently. This will help a cache owner know how to handle certain notes, DNF, and needs maintenance logs.

 

I understand that multiple find logs by the same cacher on the same cacher happen from time to time. A few multiple find logs on the same cache is not a true indication that that particular cacher is using the log multiple finds on the same cache standard. I believe I stated that in a previous post in this thread. A good solution would be to have the color change trigger then a cacher has a predetermined percentage of their find logs as multiple find logs on the same caches.

Glenn, I suggest you read Hynr's post again, particularly the second paragraph. I don't see anywhere where he was debating whether multiple finds should be allowed or not. Actually he was debating your claim that "someone finding the same cache again and again isn't the same a someone who has found the same number of different caches." I've even highlighted the meat of Hynr's post for you. He was actually stating that many times the multiple logs are actually for unique caches, and in some cases those unique caches are much harder to find than the average cache.

 

Edit: re-ordered sentences in my reply.

Edited by Lil Devil
Link to post

Perhaps you are refering to the practice of logging multiple attended events for finding temporary caches hidden at events. A case could be mad that the experience gained finding temporary event caches is ever bit as meaningful to a cache owner as finding a non-temporary cache is determining the finders experience in finding hidden caches. Even if you are talking about multiple finds on a traditional cache, the person many be claiming a find because the cache had move significantly. Not only has this finder had the extra experience of searching twice, but they have some concept now that a cache may move from the location where other have found it. A DNF from someone who understands that caches get moved sometimes has more meaning to the cache owner than someone who has never revisited a cache to see this phenomenon. The more I think about it, someone who has a higher find count from having multiple finds is probably one whose DNF is more likely to indicate I need to check on the cache. Yes, I like the idea. Lets post the numbers of people who have logged multiple find on a cache in a different color because they are the DNF logs that are more likely to indicate a real problem. :D

Link to post

Glenn, I suggest you read Hynr's post again, particularly the second paragraph. I don't see anywhere where he was debating whether multiple finds should be allowed or not. Actually he was debating your claim that "someone finding the same cache again and again isn't the same a someone who has found the same number of different caches." I've even highlighted the meat of Hynr's post for you. He was actually stating that many times the multiple logs are actually for unique caches, and in some cases those unique caches are much harder to find than the average cache.

 

Edit: re-ordered sentences in my reply.

 

If I meant to debate the validity of multiple find logs on the same cache I would have started this thread in the Geocaching Topics Forum and not the Geocaching.com Web Site Forum. This thread is about a new feature suggestion, color coding of find counts to signal to the cache owner how a cacher plays the game. I fully realize that two cachers can go to the same event and one comes home and logs it as attended 20 times, once for each event cache, while the other cacher comes home and makes only one attended log even tho he too found all 20 event caches. Also I am fully aware that two cachers will hunt the same cache and one cacher will log two founds on the cache, once for finding the cache and a second for completing the bonus requirements, while the other cacher will log only one find on the cache even tho he too has completed the bonus requirements. I am not saying either type of cacher is right or wrong. I simply, as a cache owner, would like to be able to determine one type of cacher from the other without having to dig thru their profile because it does determine how a cache owner should interpret their find count in to experience geocaching and then apply that when reading the log(s) they leave.

Link to post

Perhaps you are refering to the practice of logging multiple attended events for finding temporary caches hidden at events. A case could be mad that the experience gained finding temporary event caches is ever bit as meaningful to a cache owner as finding a non-temporary cache is determining the finders experience in finding hidden caches. Even if you are talking about multiple finds on a traditional cache, the person many be claiming a find because the cache had move significantly. Not only has this finder had the extra experience of searching twice, but they have some concept now that a cache may move from the location where other have found it. A DNF from someone who understands that caches get moved sometimes has more meaning to the cache owner than someone who has never revisited a cache to see this phenomenon. The more I think about it, someone who has a higher find count from having multiple finds is probably one whose DNF is more likely to indicate I need to check on the cache. Yes, I like the idea. Lets post the numbers of people who have logged multiple find on a cache in a different color because they are the DNF logs that are more likely to indicate a real problem. :D

 

I think we are thinking the same thing here. However, for the sake of the feature suggestion I am trying to let any bias show in either direction. I think letting the cache owner know how a cacher logs is just as important as the number of found logs made in determining a cachers caching experience.

Link to post

Hynr makes a good and valid point. While i don't think these temporary caches should be logged as "attended" on an event page, they are still caches and those who go after them are gaining more experience when they find them.

 

You might have something here if you could somehow filter out accidental and/or purposely logged multiple finds on the same exact cache. Even so, i don't think this would add up to being a very significant number and therfore wouldn't be of too much help in determining "experience"...

Link to post

Hi Glenn, it may be that I am misunderstanding your OP. I understood that you wanted the number showing the person who logs a DFN, Write Note, Needs Archived log to have their find number appear with an alternate color scheme so as to discount that persons influence on the cache owner if many of those finds are on the same cache. My post addressed exactly that. I did reveal parenthetically my current personal opinion about logging the same cache multiple times. Sorry if that side note irritated you.

 

If I am way off in my interpretation of your suggestion, then I would point out that many readers (including those who might implement your suggestion) might also misinterpret; so some clarification might be helpful.

Link to post

Hynr makes a good and valid point. While i don't think these temporary caches should be logged as "attended" on an event page, they are still caches and those who go after them are gaining more experience when they find them.

 

You might have something here if you could somehow filter out accidental and/or purposely logged multiple finds on the same exact cache. Even so, i don't think this would add up to being a very significant number and therfore wouldn't be of too much help in determining "experience"...

 

This thread isn't about whether temporary caches at events or bonus stages of caches should or should be logged. Both methods of logging are in use, that is a fact and no one should expect either camp to change their mind of what is acceptable any time soon. It is impossible for a cache owner to determine which method a cacher uses by only looking at the find count on the cache page. Changing the color of the find count number based upon which method the cacher uses, which is easily determined using a formula, will signal this information to the cache owner. It isn't like this information is hidden, it is just time consuming to determine. This feature or one like it isn't showing anything that can't already be determined by reading thru a cacher list of found cache. It is a time saver.

Link to post

At what percentage level (non-unique finds : total finds) would you want to see this kick in?

 

Can you point out some particular geocacher profiles and corresponding cache logs which might serve as an example of where this would show up? I have a hard time seeing how it would trigger what you want to show. As I mentioned above, I don't see how it identifies what you want it to show (level of experience) beyond what the find count number itself shows.

 

My experience with multiple logs on the same cache is the following: I never see anyone logging finds on my own caches multiple times unless by mistake. Ditto for all the caches I search for around my home. I carry an extensive set of logs with me when I go caching; I don't look at them often but when I do, I rarely see duplicate find logs. So I don't see when your proposed color shift would ever show anything?

Edited by Hynr
Link to post

Hi Glenn, it may be that I am misunderstanding your OP. I understood that you wanted the number showing the person who logs a DFN, Write Note, Needs Archived log to have their find number appear with an alternate color scheme so as to discount that persons influence on the cache owner if many of those finds are on the same cache. My post addressed exactly that. I did reveal parenthetically my current personal opinion about logging the same cache multiple times. Sorry if that side note irritated you.

 

If I am way off in my interpretation of your suggestion, then I would point out that many readers (including those who might implement your suggestion) might also misinterpret; so some clarification might be helpful.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I've only been talking about "found it" logs (aka find logs) and multiple "found it" logs on the same cache regardless of cache type. Side notes do tend to confuse things a bit. Your idea does seem to have merit and I highly encourage you to start your own thread to expand your ideas.

 

I don't think my suggestion will cause anyones log to be discounted. At least not anymore than it normally would if the time was taken to look at that cachers profile. The fact is that a low find doesn't always mean that a cacher is inexperienced and a high find count doesn't always mean a cacher is experienced due to the two different logging methods. Since it is simple for a computer to tell if someone has multiple "found it" logs caches this would a step in the direction of better tools for cache owners to determine a cachers overall caching experience.

Link to post

At what percentage level (non-unique finds : total finds) would you want to see this kick in?

 

Can you point out some particular geocacher profiles and corresponding cache logs which might serve as an example of where this would show up? I have a hard time seeing how it would trigger what you want to show. As I mentioned above, I don't see how it identifies what you want it to show (level of experience) beyond what the find count number itself shows.

 

My experience with multiple logs on the same cache is the following: I never see anyone logging finds on my own caches multiple times unless by mistake. Ditto for all the caches I search for around my home. I carry an extensive set of logs with me when I go caching; I don't look at them often but when I do, I rarely see duplicate find logs. So I don't see when your proposed color shift would ever show anything?

 

This wouldn't show level of experience (as experience is very hard to boil down to a single color or even single number) but it is one of the factors in determining a rough level of experience. As far determining at what percentage level the color change would happen that would have to be determined by someone with more time that I have. I don't have the time to read thru the number of profiles necessary to determine this. That is a reason why I suggested this feature. Computers can be great time savers and they are lot more accurate than someone taking a quick look at a profile. People tend to miss things and interpret data incorrectly when taking quick looks.

Link to post

OK, if you won't provide an example, I will.

 

Ecorangers

 

They have logged an amazing 1,625 events which is 13% of their 12,496 total finds. Looking through a couple pages of those event logs, I see that every one of them is for a unique, albeit temporary, event cache.

 

What, exactly, would a color-code on their find number tell you? :blink:

Link to post

Hynr makes a good and valid point. While i don't think these temporary caches should be logged as "attended" on an event page, they are still caches and those who go after them are gaining more experience when they find them.

 

You might have something here if you could somehow filter out accidental and/or purposely logged multiple finds on the same exact cache. Even so, i don't think this would add up to being a very significant number and therfore wouldn't be of too much help in determining "experience"...

 

This thread isn't about whether temporary caches at events or bonus stages of caches should or should be logged. Both methods of logging are in use, that is a fact and no one should expect either camp to change their mind of what is acceptable any time soon. It is impossible for a cache owner to determine which method a cacher uses by only looking at the find count on the cache page. Changing the color of the find count number based upon which method the cacher uses, which is easily determined using a formula, will signal this information to the cache owner. It isn't like this information is hidden, it is just time consuming to determine. This feature or one like it isn't showing anything that can't already be determined by reading thru a cacher list of found cache. It is a time saver.

 

Yes i realize this thread isn't about what's right or wrong.

 

Since it is simple for a computer to tell if someone has multiple "found it" logs caches this would a step in the direction of better tools for cache owners to determine a cachers overall caching experience.

 

I was trying to say that all caches, including temporary caches found at events and logged multiple times, all add up to experience. Maybe i'm not reading your idea right but if i am, then i don't see how it will help much in determining a cacher's experience level.

Link to post

This thread isn't about whether temporary caches at events or bonus stages of caches should or should be logged. Both methods of logging are in use, that is a fact and no one should expect either camp to change their mind of what is acceptable any time soon. It is impossible for a cache owner to determine which method a cacher uses by only looking at the find count on the cache page. Changing the color of the find count number based upon which method the cacher uses, which is easily determined using a formula, will signal this information to the cache owner. It isn't like this information is hidden, it is just time consuming to determine. This feature or one like it isn't showing anything that can't already be determined by reading thru a cacher list of found cache. It is a time saver.

I think it would be better to require everyone to have a Truth In Numbers section on their profile page. Perhaps this section could be automatically generated.

Link to post

Let's see if I have this right...

 

You decide that a percentage of non-unique finds to total finds ratio of 10% is "unacceptable", and establish the color coding based on that number.

 

Cacher "A" has a total of 112 finds with 100 unique caches, all of them 1/1 LPCs' (except the one event cache where he found 12 temps).

 

Cacher "B" has a total of 5,575 finds with 5,000 unique caches, with an average difficulty/terrain level of 3/3. These could contain 100 event caches, with 575 temp caches total among them.

 

By your color coded rating method, you would place more stock in cacher "A" than cacher "B"??? Just because his percentage is lower???

 

Not me. Of course, that's why I read the logs and use means other than strictly numbers to judge someone's experience.

Link to post

OK, if you won't provide an example, I will.

 

Ecorangers

 

They have logged an amazing 1,625 events which is 13% of their 12,496 total finds. Looking through a couple pages of those event logs, I see that every one of them is for a unique, albeit temporary, event cache.

 

What, exactly, would a color-code on their find number tell you? :anitongue:

There are two accepted methods of logging. However differences in the logging methods makes it impossible to compare a cacher who uses one method to another cache who uses the other method. This feature wouldn't allow a cache owner to compare one cacher that uses one method to another cacher using another method. That is, to use a common phrase, like comparing apples to oranges. I'm trying to not compare apples to oranges. I would like a simple method to determine who is an apple and who is an orange. That way I, as a cache owner, can compare apple cachers to apple cachers and orange cachers to orange cachers.

 

I was trying to say that all caches, including temporary caches found at events and logged multiple times, all add up to experience. Maybe i'm not reading your idea right but if i am, then i don't see how it will help much in determining a cacher's experience level.

That is because my suggestion is not a tool to compare one cachers caching experience level to another cachers experience level. A feature like that would require something like the equation that a website like TerraCaching uses. My suggestion is for a tool to easily recognize which method a cacher is using. This information is already available by viewing a cachers profile information but it takes some time to determine. This feature would eliminate that search time.

 

Let's see if I have this right...

 

You decide that a percentage of non-unique finds to total finds ratio of 10% is "unacceptable", and establish the color coding based on that number.

 

Cacher "A" has a total of 112 finds with 100 unique caches, all of them 1/1 LPCs' (except the one event cache where he found 12 temps).

 

Cacher "B" has a total of 5,575 finds with 5,000 unique caches, with an average difficulty/terrain level of 3/3. These could contain 100 event caches, with 575 temp caches total among them.

 

By your color coded rating method, you would place more stock in cacher "A" than cacher "B"??? Just because his percentage is lower???

 

Not me. Of course, that's why I read the logs and use means other than strictly numbers to judge someone's experience.

 

1) *I* am not deciding anything. I'm only looking for information.

II) I'm not the one calling either logging method unacceptable. In fact I believe that you are the first one in this thread to use the word unacceptable. Take a look at any one of my posts and you will see that I state at least once if not multiple times that there are two ACCEPTED standards for found it logs.

C) This feature might be able to be misused by some but there are other features on this website that have a history of being misused.

3.14) This is not the debate thread. For a healthy debate you should try the Multiple logging of events thread.

Link to post
There are two accepted methods of logging. However differences in the logging methods makes it impossible to compare a cacher who uses one method to another cache who uses the other method. This feature wouldn't allow a cache owner to compare one cacher that uses one method to another cacher using another method. That is, to use a common phrase, like comparing apples to oranges. I'm trying to not compare apples to oranges. I would like a simple method to determine who is an apple and who is an orange. That way I, as a cache owner, can compare apple cachers to apple cachers and orange cachers to

 

I'm really trying to understand what you are getting at but i'm still having trouble. There's more to it than just breaking down the two accepted methods.

 

For example, there are multiple loggers who are logging one cache (not temporary event caches) multiple times. Their experience would only be for that one cache.

 

But then you have multiple loggers who log temporary caches at events. Even though they are logging an event more than once, these multiple loggers are gaining more experience because they are actually finding different caches. The way i see it, these would need to be compared with the unique cache loggers as they have still found lots of different caches.

Link to post

OK, if you won't provide an example, I will.

 

Ecorangers

 

They have logged an amazing 1,625 events which is 13% of their 12,496 total finds. Looking through a couple pages of those event logs, I see that every one of them is for a unique, albeit temporary, event cache.

 

What, exactly, would a color-code on their find number tell you? :anitongue:

There are two accepted methods of logging. However differences in the logging methods makes it impossible to compare a cacher who uses one method to another cache who uses the other method. This feature wouldn't allow a cache owner to compare one cacher that uses one method to another cacher using another method. That is, to use a common phrase, like comparing apples to oranges. I'm trying to not compare apples to oranges. I would like a simple method to determine who is an apple and who is an orange. That way I, as a cache owner, can compare apple cachers to apple cachers and orange cachers to orange cachers.

You've completely lost me now. Maybe it wasn't clear, but in my example, Ecorangers has only been to 150 or so actual events. But they've logged each of them 100 times on average.

 

Now let's look back at the original post in this thread:

However someone finding the same cache again and again isn't the same a someone who has found the same number of different caches. I suggest that when someones found numbers include multiple logs on the same cache that the number listed in their found log is changed to a different color.

So by your own definition, Ecorangers' find could would be color-coded.

 

I ask again, what would that color-code tell you?

Link to post

I'm really trying to understand what you are getting at but i'm still having trouble. There's more to it than just breaking down the two accepted methods.

 

For example, there are multiple loggers who are logging one cache (not temporary event caches) multiple times. Their experience would only be for that one cache.

 

But then you have multiple loggers who log temporary caches at events. Even though they are logging an event more than once, these multiple loggers are gaining more experience because they are actually finding different caches. The way i see it, these would need to be compared with the unique cache loggers as they have still found lots of different caches.

 

I don't see that much difference between going back and finding the same cache again and finding a different cache hidden in the same style. There are some very common ways of hiding caches. One way is hiding the cache under a pile of sticks against a fallen tree. Once you have seen this style of hide changing the location of the hide rarely makes too much of a difference.

 

You've completely lost me now. Maybe it wasn't clear, but in my example, Ecorangers has only been to 150 or so actual events. But they've logged each of them 100 times on average.

 

Now let's look back at the original post in this thread:

However someone finding the same cache again and again isn't the same a someone who has found the same number of different caches. I suggest that when someones found numbers include multiple logs on the same cache that the number listed in their found log is changed to a different color.

So by your own definition, Ecorangers' find could would be color-coded.

 

I ask again, what would that color-code tell you?

 

My mistake. I didn't follow thru on my original post with a description of logging methods. But I did follow up in later posts with descriptions of logging methods. If two cachers each using a different logging method visit the same caches it should be obvious that one cachers find count will be significantly higher than the other cachers. Unfortunately for cache owners cachers do not follow a predictable pattern when caching and some cachers have stated caching before other and still other cachers cache more than other cachers. With all those variables the variations in logging method isn't readily identifiable. The color code will let cache owners know which method the cacher uses.

Link to post

I'll keep it simple.

 

I think this could work. I just want to know when I get my platinum color...

 

I was thinking more like blue and violet. But I think platinum would work too except I can't think of a good complimentary color.

Link to post

1) *I* am not deciding anything. I'm only looking for information.

II) I'm not the one calling either logging method unacceptable. In fact I believe that you are the first one in this thread to use the word unacceptable. Take a look at any one of my posts and you will see that I state at least once if not multiple times that there are two ACCEPTED standards for found it logs.

C) This feature might be able to be misused by some but there are other features on this website that have a history of being misused.

3.14) This is not the debate thread. For a healthy debate you should try the Multiple logging of events thread.

 

1) Using your method, you would indeed be "deciding" something. The validity of a cacher and associated comments.

2) I didn't call them unacceptable, either. Hence the use of the quotation marks around the word. You know, as in 'lack of a better word'?

3) No 'might' about it. It would be continuously misused, and calling attention to other features in the system that are misused doesn't mean we should throw another one on the fire.

4) I missed where I was debating anything. In fact, I opened my post by stating "Let's see if I have this right".

 

As you pointed out, it would be misused, and for that reason I am against it. No matter how many other things are.

Link to post
If two cachers each using a different logging method visit the same caches it should be obvious that one cachers find count will be significantly higher than the other cachers. ... The color code will let cache owners know which method the cacher uses.

Will it?

 

For this discussion we really need to talk about 3 different logging methods:

 

1. Those who log every cache or event once, regardless of how many times they find each cache or how many temporary caches they find. In this case their "experience" level will be equal to their unique cache count, and equal to their total find count.

 

2. Those who log multiple finds on caches, such as when they come back to pick up or drop off travel bugs, or swing by with a friend. In this case their "experience" level will be equal to their unique cache count, but lower then their total find count.

 

3. Those who log events multiple times because they found a whole bunch of temporary caches. In this case their "experience" level will be greater than their unique cache count, and equal to their total find count.

 

There are of course many other logging methods, as well as various mixes of the above 3. But I think it's clear that you're looking for a way to identify class #2 above.

 

But there is no way for the system to tell the difference between #2 and #3 just from looking at numbers and ratios, but there is a clear difference in experience level between the two.

Link to post

I think there should be a color for those people who don't log all their finds online. Some people choose only to log finds if they have something exceptional to share and others don't log finds at all as a kind of protest against the importance some people give to numbers. If someone with zero finds posts a DNF on my cache it would help to know if they really had zero finds or if they just don't log their finds on line. Seems like this is a bigger problem then evaluating a DNF based on whether a person has logged multiple finds on some caches.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to post

I think there should be a color for those people who don't log all their finds online. Some people choose only to log finds if they have something exceptional to share and others don't log finds at all as a kind of protest against the importance some people give to numbers. If someone with zero finds posts a DNF on my cache it would help to know if they really had zero finds or if they just don't log their finds on line. Seems like this is a bigger problem then evaluating a DNF based on whether a person has logged multiple finds on some caches.

 

Yep, didn't think of that but i would think that it certainly throws another kink into the mix.

Link to post

I'm trying to understand how a different color would help. Let me try some examples.

 

Cacher A has never been to a cache in their life, but has logged 175 caches, once each, no events and no event caches. They have 175 unique caches showing in their account.

 

Cacher B has been to 175 caches, no events, no event caches. They have logged 175 unique caches; 175 caches show in their account.

 

Cacher C has been to 175 unique caches, 30 events (logged once for each event) logged no event caches, no traveling caches, no bonus caches. They have 205 unique caches showing in their account.

 

Cacher D has been to 175 unique caches, 30 events, and has logged 40 event caches; they have no traveling caches, no bonus caches. They have 205 unique caches; their account shows 245 total caches.

 

Cacher E has been to 175 unique caches, 5 of them were traveling caches that have been logged twice each. They have never been to an event or logged an event cache or a bonus cache. They have 175 unique caches; their account shows 180 caches total.

 

Cacher F has been to 1750 unique caches, has logged 50 events and 50 event caches, no traveling caches, no bonus caches. Their unique caches equal 1800, their total caches are shown as 1850.

 

Cacher G has logged 10 caches, no events, no traveling caches, no bonus caches. They show 10 unique caches.

 

For the purposes of my examples, the "event caches" these individuals chose to log were all actual ammo can caches found deep in the woods along scenic trails during an event using a GPS with unique cords, containing a log book that had to be signed and the event owner wanted them to log them this way.

 

If I understand you correctly, cacher A, B, and G will appear in your color scheme as the more experienced type of cacher, while the others will appear as the less experienced cacher, whatever color those may be. Now tell me how that helps me figure out what to do if cachers A, B, and G all log that they couldn't find my cache, while the others log to say they loved it?

Link to post
If two cachers each using a different logging method visit the same caches it should be obvious that one cachers find count will be significantly higher than the other cachers. ... The color code will let cache owners know which method the cacher uses.

Will it?

 

For this discussion we really need to talk about 3 different logging methods:

 

1. Those who log every cache or event once, regardless of how many times they find each cache or how many temporary caches they find. In this case their "experience" level will be equal to their unique cache count, and equal to their total find count.

 

2. Those who log multiple finds on caches, such as when they come back to pick up or drop off travel bugs, or swing by with a friend. In this case their "experience" level will be equal to their unique cache count, but lower then their total find count.

 

3. Those who log events multiple times because they found a whole bunch of temporary caches. In this case their "experience" level will be greater than their unique cache count, and equal to their total find count.

 

There are of course many other logging methods, as well as various mixes of the above 3. But I think it's clear that you're looking for a way to identify class #2 above.

 

But there is no way for the system to tell the difference between #2 and #3 just from looking at numbers and ratios, but there is a clear difference in experience level between the two.

 

How would you suggest a cache owner determine which logging method a cacher uses? Digging thru a cacher profile is far too time consuming.

 

#2 and #3 are not all that different if you looking for an estimation of caching experience. I've done maintenance visits on my own caches where someone had re-hid it differently and it was like finding a cache that someone else placed. I know of events where the a majority of the temp caches where similar hides due to the theme of the event.

Link to post

I think there should be a color for those people who don't log all their finds online. Some people choose only to log finds if they have something exceptional to share and others don't log finds at all as a kind of protest against the importance some people give to numbers. If someone with zero finds posts a DNF on my cache it would help to know if they really had zero finds or if they just don't log their finds on line. Seems like this is a bigger problem then evaluating a DNF based on whether a person has logged multiple finds on some caches.

 

Have you been following me?

Link to post

I'm trying to understand how a different color would help. Let me try some examples.

 

Cacher A has never been to a cache in their life, but has logged 175 caches, once each, no events and no event caches. They have 175 unique caches showing in their account.

 

Cacher B has been to 175 caches, no events, no event caches. They have logged 175 unique caches; 175 caches show in their account.

 

Cacher C has been to 175 unique caches, 30 events (logged once for each event) logged no event caches, no traveling caches, no bonus caches. They have 205 unique caches showing in their account.

 

Cacher D has been to 175 unique caches, 30 events, and has logged 40 event caches; they have no traveling caches, no bonus caches. They have 205 unique caches; their account shows 245 total caches.

 

Cacher E has been to 175 unique caches, 5 of them were traveling caches that have been logged twice each. They have never been to an event or logged an event cache or a bonus cache. They have 175 unique caches; their account shows 180 caches total.

 

Cacher F has been to 1750 unique caches, has logged 50 events and 50 event caches, no traveling caches, no bonus caches. Their unique caches equal 1800, their total caches are shown as 1850.

 

Cacher G has logged 10 caches, no events, no traveling caches, no bonus caches. They show 10 unique caches.

 

For the purposes of my examples, the "event caches" these individuals chose to log were all actual ammo can caches found deep in the woods along scenic trails during an event using a GPS with unique cords, containing a log book that had to be signed and the event owner wanted them to log them this way.

 

If I understand you correctly, cacher A, B, and G will appear in your color scheme as the more experienced type of cacher, while the others will appear as the less experienced cacher, whatever color those may be. Now tell me how that helps me figure out what to do if cachers A, B, and G all log that they couldn't find my cache, while the others log to say they loved it?

 

To barrow from another geocacher in a slightly different thread...

 

c0ea5084-59dc-40ba-a934-1fab038e9d85.jpg

 

Yeah, I have a response.

 

Uhhhh, What?

Link to post

To barrow from another geocacher in a slightly different thread...

 

Yeah, I have a response.

 

Uhhhh, What?

No need to borrow from other threads, there is enough "Huh?" and head-scratching in this one.

 

I'll make it easy for you:

 

In the examples I gave, one of the cachers had zero experience finding caches, one had just a few caches under their belts, most had about the same number of caches, and one had a great many caches. Your way of color coding cachers would result in someone with 10 caches being in the same group as someone with 1800 caches and with another person who had lied about having 175 caches --all in the experienced cacher group with the "good" color. Everyone else in my list, each with at least 175 caches to their credit, would show up on your "inexperienced" list.

Edited by Neos2
Link to post

I'll make it easy for you:

 

And he still won't get it. There is no way to "judge" someone's experience ONLY from his numbers, whether they are color coded or not. Nor should there be. Experience cannot be completely measured with tangible numbers. Experience is a combination of things too numerous to capture and decipher on a web page.

 

He's looking for a sure-fire method to weed out the novice cachers from the pros, and it simply can't be done by only using the find totals.

Link to post

I think there should be a color for those people who don't log all their finds online. Some people choose only to log finds if they have something exceptional to share and others don't log finds at all as a kind of protest against the importance some people give to numbers. If someone with zero finds posts a DNF on my cache it would help to know if they really had zero finds or if they just don't log their finds on line. Seems like this is a bigger problem then evaluating a DNF based on whether a person has logged multiple finds on some caches.

 

Have you been following me?

No. I don't think I understand the problem you are trying to solve, or if I do I don't understand how your suggestion will help you solve it.

Link to post

There's another, entirely unforeseen effect that a change like this would have.

 

This feature would also be welcomed by a cacher who, unlike the nice reasonable posters in this thread, are utterly obsessed by numbers, eaten up by numbers, posessed by numbers, and get very upset at the very idea that someone else may have double-logged a cache, and in so doing may have gained an edge - however slight - on them in the numbers race. This hypothetical, highly competitive, numbers-obsessed cacher would be able to use this as a "name and shame" feature in order to spy out these unspeakable rotters who are stealing a march on them.

 

Never thought of that, did you? I wonder if such a hypothetical cacher could exist ... :(

Link to post

To barrow from another geocacher in a slightly different thread...

 

Yeah, I have a response.

 

Uhhhh, What?

No need to borrow from other threads, there is enough "Huh?" and head-scratching in this one.

 

I'll make it easy for you:

 

In the examples I gave, one of the cachers had zero experience finding caches, one had just a few caches under their belts, most had about the same number of caches, and one had a great many caches. Your way of color coding cachers would result in someone with 10 caches being in the same group as someone with 1800 caches and with another person who had lied about having 175 caches --all in the experienced cacher group with the "good" color. Everyone else in my list, each with at least 175 caches to their credit, would show up on your "inexperienced" list.

 

I never offered the suggestion as a way to discover if someone is making fake logs on caches. That AFAIK can only be done by checking the physical cache log. My suggestion is a way to make it easier for cache owners to quickly know which logging method a cacher is using. The information is already available by taking the time to reading thru a cachers logs. If a cache owner doesn't do this then he runs the risk of assuming a cacher is less experienced than he really is just because the cacher chooses not to log all his multiple finds when he finds the same cache and/or temp caches at events.

 

I'll make it easy for you:

 

And he still won't get it. There is no way to "judge" someone's experience ONLY from his numbers, whether they are color coded or not. Nor should there be. Experience cannot be completely measured with tangible numbers. Experience is a combination of things too numerous to capture and decipher on a web page.

 

He's looking for a sure-fire method to weed out the novice cachers from the pros, and it simply can't be done by only using the find totals.

 

You sure can judge, a better word to use is estimate, a cachers caching experience. It is done every day when a cache owner looks at the number caches found to the right of cachers name in their online log.

 

I think what some of you are trying to say is that the find count found next to a cachers name in his online cache logs is a completely useless number. I am sure if this was true the number of caches found would have been removed from the cache pages long ago. The number isn't useless. It is very hard to use as an estimation of caching experience if the way that a cacher has chosen to log his finds isn't known. A color code system would allow this to be known to the cache owner without having to dig thru profiles.

Link to post

There's another, entirely unforeseen effect that a change like this would have.

 

This feature would also be welcomed by a cacher who, unlike the nice reasonable posters in this thread, are utterly obsessed by numbers, eaten up by numbers, posessed by numbers, and get very upset at the very idea that someone else may have double-logged a cache, and in so doing may have gained an edge - however slight - on them in the numbers race. This hypothetical, highly competitive, numbers-obsessed cacher would be able to use this as a "name and shame" feature in order to spy out these unspeakable rotters who are stealing a march on them.

 

Never thought of that, did you? I wonder if such a hypothetical cacher could exist ... :(

 

This feature wouldn't do that at all. All this information is available in a cachers profile. This feature would give a quick indication of which accepted logging method is being used. People who are numbers-obsessed already take the time to dig thru cachers profiles to find that information. It isn't hidden. Currently it takes time to discover a cachers chosen logging method. Also this feature can be made to only display when the owner of the cache views the page.

Link to post

You sure can judge, a better word to use is estimate, a cachers caching experience. It is done every day when a cache owner looks at the number caches found to the right of cachers name in their online log.

 

And, if you read my post again, I said you can't go solely by the number. I seen people with literally thousands of finds log DNF's on caches that I found in a matter of minutes. The number alone won't give you their experience level, even if it describes what logging method they use.

 

And, anyway, who cares? The number is only as useful or as worthless as each individual makes it. I like the numbers, but I don't care if someone "pads" their own number or not. Means nothing to me. I don't care what "logging method" anybody else chooses to use.

Link to post

This feature wouldn't do that at all. All this information is available in a cachers profile. This feature would give a quick indication of which accepted logging method is being used. People who are numbers-obsessed already take the time to dig thru cachers profiles to find that information. It isn't hidden. Currently it takes time to discover a cachers chosen logging method. Also this feature can be made to only display when the owner of the cache views the page.

 

Aaaahhhhhhh. After re-reading this post, I understand you are saying this: "I'm one of the number obsessed people that can't be bothered reading logs to determine what caching method is being used, so I'd like a shortcut to take any effort on my part out of the picture."

 

Okay. I get it now.

 

Even more reason for me to vote "no".

Link to post

Does it really matter how much "real" experience a cacher has? Yes, I will be more likely to run out and check on a cache when someone with a high find count has logged a DNF than when a newbie has logged a DNF, but as a cache owner, I do not feel obliged to go check on a cache after every single DNF regardless of the experience level of the DNF'er.

 

The only other possible reason I can imagine to care how much experience a cacher has is to hypothesize that a person who is very experienced might have more accurate coords for their hides than a person who is less experienced. This might theoretically aid your own search for a particular cache.

 

Other than that, who cares whether a person has 1000 finds or 100 finds or 10 finds? We have twice DNF'd an ammo can that some guy with about 950 finds less than we have "found in a couple of minutes."

 

As for multiple logs on events, that's just silly! Why would anyone bother? But then again, why would anybody bother to buy a Britney Spears CD? But people do inane and inexplicable things like that every day!

Link to post
The number of finds next to a geocachers name in their log entries is used by cache owners know how experienced a geocacher is and determine if they need to check on their cache after a DNF log. However someone finding the same cache again and again isn't the same a someone who has found the same number of different caches. I suggest that when someones found numbers include multiple logs on the same cache that the number listed in their found log is changed to a different color. This way the cache owner can easily determine if someone has found 100 different caches or the same cache 100 times without having to look thru each the profiles.

 

Soooo...... let me see here. I show 1088 finds but one of the caches I found is a Traveling Cache and I've found it 3 times in 3 completely different locations. I guess that would make my stat number colored to indicate that I have probably logged one cache 100 times or so in order to inflate my number of finds. Therefore, I must be some loser who is impressed with big numbers and has no integrity. Yeah, I just love this idea. Of course what you think of my find number doesn't really matter to me. Numbers don't really impress me as far as determining someone's caching ability or integrity.

 

There are folks here who have been caching for many years and have much lower find numbers than I do. Some of them live where there aren't many caches available. Some of them only search for certain types of hides, such as ones with a long hike and a spectacular view. Many of them refuse to search for urban micros. Some of them just don't cache constantly. Others don't log all their finds online. There are many reasons for a lower find count. It isn't an indication of knowledge or skill.

Link to post

 

Soooo...... let me see here. I show 1088 finds but one of the caches I found is a Traveling Cache and I've found it 3 times in 3 completely different locations. I guess that would make my stat number colored to indicate that I have probably logged one cache 100 times or so in order to inflate my number of finds. Therefore, I must be some loser who is impressed with big numbers and has no integrity. Yeah, I just love this idea. Of course what you think of my find number doesn't really matter to me. Numbers don't really impress me as far as determining someone's caching ability or integrity.

 

I guess I'm a number-obsessed loser too.

 

I've been caching over 3-1/2 yrs, almost 1800 finds of varying degrees of difficulty. Over 50 were {gasp} locationless. I also have a pile of virtuals. I have found 1 traveling cache over 20 times in different locations of various degrees of difficulty, and I have 1 other cache I found twice - once in its original form as a 1/1 regular, and then again some time later when it was changed to a 3-stage multi with Diff and Terr both significantly higher than they had been. I have been to 5 events and logged each 1 time even though 1 of those was a Texas Challenge where a found or helped find several VERY difficult temp caches.

 

So my question is this. How would simply color-coding my numbers (that really should mean nothing to anyone but me) based on some arbitrary ratio tell anyone anything about my experience?

Link to post

I don't like the color-code idea because it actually masks the (useless?) information that you are trying to highlight. Instead, I would be open to showing two numbers: mini cacher ("finds"/"caches"). If they are the same, then so be it. If "finds" is greater than "caches" then you can quickly see HOW much greater it is. And then make your own judgment of the cachers experience or what ever you think you can glean from the two numbers. Mind you, I don't think this info is going to be that useful for too many... but what ever.

 

Just having the system change the color makes it seem like the system is trying isolate those who's numbers don't match... putting it in the "negative" bucket of info. Having the system just put both numbers takes the onus off the system and puts it onto the reader by just providing the two numbers as fact... with no prejudgment attached. again... not that I would find that info too useful.

 

I also don't find the hostility in this thread useful.. :blink:

Link to post

I don't like the color-code idea because it actually masks the (useless?) information that you are trying to highlight. Instead, I would be open to showing two numbers: mini cacher ("finds"/"caches"). If they are the same, then so be it. If "finds" is greater than "caches" then you can quickly see HOW much greater it is. And then make your own judgment of the cachers experience or what ever you think you can glean from the two numbers. Mind you, I don't think this info is going to be that useful for too many... but what ever.

 

Originally that is what I was thinking about suggesting.

 

Just having the system change the color makes it seem like the system is trying isolate those who's numbers don't match... putting it in the "negative" bucket of info. Having the system just put both numbers takes the onus off the system and puts it onto the reader by just providing the two numbers as fact... with no prejudgment attached. again... not that I would find that info too useful.

 

I also don't find the hostility in this thread useful.. :blink:

 

My thinking moved to a color system based on other forum posts and angst over exact numbers. I'd actually like to see all the numbers go away and a color based caching experience system used. If someone really wants their stats known they can add them to their profile. There can even be an option to enable automatically updating states in your profile. But that is a different feature request.

 

There are at least two accepted methods of logging and although there are some in these forums who take sides most cachers see neither method as negative. Two neutral colors can be used and the colors don't have to be viewable by everyone looking at the cache page. The colors can be shown exclusively to the owner of the cache.

Link to post

There are at least two accepted methods of logging and although there are some in these forums who take sides most cachers see neither method as negative.

At least two is an understatement. Some people log attended multiple times to count temporary event caches. Some people log a second find if they revisit a cache and it has moved from where they found it previously. Some people log multiple finds only on grandfathered moving caches that have be rehidden by someone else since the last time they found it. Some will log a second smiley for doing a bonus activity the cache owner has suggested. Some will log multiple smileys if the cache owner has created a cache that has multiple targets and allows for logging a find on each target. Some people follow a strict one cache one log rule. Some people don't log every cache they have found online. Isn't this an accepted method too?

 

I suppose if you are strict one cache one find person, you might think there are only two methods of logging. You may believe that persons who log multiple times are less likely or more likely to log a DNF than someone who is a strict one cache one find person, and therefore as a cache owner you would like to see this information on DNF logs. Since there are several reasons why a person may log a cache multiple times, I don't believe you can generalize whether someone who has multiple finds on some caches is more likely or less likely to log a DNF.

 

Using a finder's experience to evaluate a DNF is weak at best. Most people use this number in conjunction with other facts. Most imortant is what the person wrote in the log. Also a cache owner would know if his hide is something an a experienced cacher should find. For example, if a person with 500 finds DNFs an LPC it's likely missing. If a person with 2 finds DNFs an LPC, they probably have just never seen an LPC. I also take a look at the person's profile to evaluate the DNF. I don't look to see if they have multiple finds. I'm more interested in seeing what kinds of caches they have found. If they have only found 1/1 caches, and they DNF'd my 3.5 difficulty hide, I may think they just didn't know where to look. If they have found a cache that I know was hidden in a similar manner to mine, I'll know to check my cache.

 

I don't believe your suggestion would help a cache owner evaluate a DNF. I'm suspicious that you have some other motive in suggesting this.

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