Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ReadyOrNot

Find Counts

Recommended Posts

Considering TPTB's stated stance on multi-logging (discussed in another topic). I think it would be best for everyone if we removed public find counts. If it's suppose to be about personal reference, then there shouldn't be a problem with keeping them purely for personal use only, not public consumption.

 

Thoughts?

 

*EDIT* This would have the same result of eliminating the abuse aspect, because I think those that are abusing multiple finds are doing it so that others will see higher find counts. If others can't see your find counts, then there's no reason for people to abuse it.

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post

Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea! :lol: My find count is meaningless to everyone else except me. People argue that the count gives you an experience level if someone DNFs a cache. Experience at finding what? Finding 2000 easy temp caches? Maybe they could give you an option to only let people on your friends list see your counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
I missed that. Was a giant fan involved too? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
I missed that. Was a giant fan involved too? :lol:

It's possible that it was before your time, but I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
I missed that. Was a giant fan involved too? :lol:

It's possible that it was before your time, but I don't think so.

I'm coming up on my 5 year anniversary next month. If it happened that long ago then there may be a chance....

Share this post


Link to post
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
I missed that. Was a giant fan involved too? :lol:

It's possible that it was before your time, but I don't think so.

I'm coming up on my 5 year anniversary next month. If it happened that long ago then there may be a chance....

 

I think it's a reasonable trade-off.. Allow them to find as many caches as they want and have complete control over their numbers... The trade-off, noone except you will ever know.

 

Sounds fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
I missed that. Was a giant fan involved too? :lol:
It's possible that it was before your time, but I don't think so.
I'm coming up on my 5 year anniversary next month. If it happened that long ago then there may be a chance....
I doubt it. There is a heck of lot more people to complain about the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
I missed that. Was a giant fan involved too? :lol:

It's possible that it was before your time, but I don't think so.

Removed Sept 15 2002

Reinstated Oct 3 2002

TrailGators joins Dec 27 2002

Missed it by *that* much.

books_tempo5.gif

 

Sept 15 2002:

First, you'll notice that the number of caches found has been removed from the logs. The reason behind this is that now the pages are generated whenever there is a change - such as a travel bug added, a new log posted, or the cache itself edited by the owner. As a result, if you log other caches afterwards (or if no activity occurs for the cache after your log), the number found would be incorrect. You can, however, still click on the user's name to see their profile, which contains their find count.

 

Oct 3 2002:

Find counts are now again listed on cache detail pages. However, due to the nature of the pages being cached (no pun intended), the page only regenerates when a change is made to the page. For example, a new log, or the cache details themselves have been modified. So if you notice that your find counts are "wrong," they're really just a snapshot in time.

 

It was re-added due to the uproar in the forums (and countless emails) about the missing log number. You spoke, we listened.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.
Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.
I don't understand your post. Was that your way of saying that you don't think that anyone will complain if this feature is removed? Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
I missed that. Was a giant fan involved too? :lol:

It's possible that it was before your time, but I don't think so.

Removed Sept 15 2002

Reinstated Oct 3 2002

TrailGators joins Dec 27 2002

Missed it by *that* much.

books_tempo5.gif

 

Sept 15 2002:

First, you'll notice that the number of caches found has been removed from the logs. The reason behind this is that now the pages are generated whenever there is a change - such as a travel bug added, a new log posted, or the cache itself edited by the owner. As a result, if you log other caches afterwards (or if no activity occurs for the cache after your log), the number found would be incorrect. You can, however, still click on the user's name to see their profile, which contains their find count.

 

Oct 3 2002:

Find counts are now again listed on cache detail pages. However, due to the nature of the pages being cached (no pun intended), the page only regenerates when a change is made to the page. For example, a new log, or the cache details themselves have been modified. So if you notice that your find counts are "wrong," they're really just a snapshot in time.

 

It was re-added due to the uproar in the forums (and countless emails) about the missing log number. You spoke, we listened.

Thanks Markwell. BTW I love Get Smart! :)

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.
Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.
I don't understand your post. Was that your way of saying that you don't think that anyone will complain if this feature is removed?

 

Oh, to the contrary.. I think lots of people would complain. The multi-loggers would complain. The cache machine folks would complain. The sitting around in a circle thing was sarcasm... :lol:

 

A good question would be: Do you think multi-logging event caches would stop if noone could see your numbers except yourself? Do you think cache machines would stop? Do you think mass placement of micros would slow? (If a tree fell in the woods ......) ... I didn't just throw all those topics together did I?

Share this post


Link to post

A good question would be: Do you think multi-logging event caches would stop if noone could see your numbers except yourself? Do you think cache machines would stop? Do you think mass placement of micros would slow? (If a tree fell in the woods ......) ... I didn't just throw all those topics together did I?

 

I could care less if the numbers show or not...I know they're all meaningless.

 

And to answer your question, no, none of these things would change. Just because people couldn't see numbers on the site, they'd still know how many they had and for the people who care, they'd share the number. So people that participate in all of the secondary "smilie" counting would keep it up.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.
Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.
I don't understand your post. Was that your way of saying that you don't think that anyone will complain if this feature is removed?

 

Oh, to the contrary.. I think lots of people would complain. The multi-loggers would complain. The cache machine folks would complain. The sitting around in a circle thing was sarcasm... :lol:

 

A good question would be: Do you think multi-logging event caches would stop if noone could see your numbers except yourself? Do you think cache machines would stop? Do you think mass placement of micros would slow? (If a tree fell in the woods ......) ... I didn't just throw all those topics together did I?

I think it would but so would the addiction which is good for Groundspeak's business. It's the same reason that people keep buying cigarettes except this addiction doesn't kill you. Anyhow, I just wanted the option to hide my numbers. I suggested earlier that I could let people on my friends list see them. Why should anyone object to me wanting to hide my numbers?

Share this post


Link to post

A good question would be: Do you think multi-logging event caches would stop if noone could see your numbers except yourself? Do you think cache machines would stop? Do you think mass placement of micros would slow? (If a tree fell in the woods ......) ... I didn't just throw all those topics together did I?

 

I could care less if the numbers show or not...I know they're all meaningless.

 

And to answer your question, no, none of these things would change. Just because people couldn't see numbers on the site, they'd still know how many they had and for the people who care, they'd share the number. So people that participate in all of the secondary "smilie" counting would keep it up.

 

Then who was complaining when it was taken away back in 2002? And why?

Share this post


Link to post

My Markwell searching ability isn't quite the same and it's way before my time, but I'd guess all of the people that think a smilie count means something would complain loudly about seeing them disappear.

 

To take this suggestion a little farther and more user responsive...how about giving each user the option of removing their find counts?

 

Hmmm, I think I've seen that suggestion before even.

Share this post


Link to post

Considering TPTB's stated stance on multi-logging (discussed in another topic). I think it would be best for everyone if we removed public find counts. If it's suppose to be about personal reference, then there shouldn't be a problem with keeping them purely for personal use only, not public consumption....

 

 

Why remove a lot of the fun of the activity? Find counts are not a problem. It's what people do that's problem.

 

I also use find counts when reading logs to get a general idea of the experience of the cacher so I know if I need to check on the cache or if the cache should be good. A newbie not being able to find a 5 star cache is not unusual. Conversly I may give a newbie a hint.

Share this post


Link to post

Considering TPTB's stated stance on multi-logging (discussed in another topic). I think it would be best for everyone if we removed public find counts. If it's suppose to be about personal reference, then there shouldn't be a problem with keeping them purely for personal use only, not public consumption....

 

 

Why remove a lot of the fun of the activity? Find counts are not a problem. It's what people do that's problem.

 

I also use find counts when reading logs to get a general idea of the experience of the cacher so I know if I need to check on the cache or if the cache should be good. A newbie not being able to find a 5 star cache is not unusual. Conversly I may give a newbie a hint.

So if someone has found 5000 caches does that mean you better go check? For all you know 2000 of those finds are temps and the rest are park and grabs. As far as a newbie could could click on their profile to see when they joined. Plus not everyone would hide their finds.

Share this post


Link to post

Considering TPTB's stated stance on multi-logging (discussed in another topic). I think it would be best for everyone if we removed public find counts. If it's suppose to be about personal reference, then there shouldn't be a problem with keeping them purely for personal use only, not public consumption.

 

Thoughts?

 

*EDIT* This would have the same result of eliminating the abuse aspect, because I think those that are abusing multiple finds are doing it so that others will see higher find counts. If others can't see your find counts, then there's no reason for people to abuse it.

Yeah, I have a thought. I think that it's silly to try yet another method of solving the "abuse" non-problem when 23 hours ago OpinioNate said TPTB weren't interested in a workaround to what they believe to be a non-issue.

 

I can give you a link to his post if you'd like.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a different suggestion: Only show the finds for that particular type of cache.

 

Using my profile as an example, if I were to log a new Mystery cache it would show a find count of 23 and clearly indicate that this ONLY included Mystery caches. For my next Multi-Cache, it would show a find count of 10. Etc.

 

Another idea: have two totals, one for Physical cache finds (trads, multis, mysteries, Apes, letterbox hybrids) and a separate total for for non-physical cache finds (virts, locationless, events, megas, webcam, CITO, earthcaches, and NGS Benchmarks).

 

People say that a find count indicates experience, and that a DNF from someone with 1000 finds means more than a DNF from someone with 500 finds. But what if the person with 500 finds has found 500 physical caches, and the person with 1000 finds has found 400 physical containers but also has 600 virtual, locationless, event logs, webcams, CITO events, and earthcaches?

Share this post


Link to post

I still have hope that one day people logging unapprovable caches using approved cache listings will reach a point that gc.com will finally decide to invoke a 1:1 logging rule.

 

A formal announcement that gc.com will not implement such a rule today is a step in the right direction.

 

And no I am not joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Here's a different suggestion: Only show the finds for that particular type of cache.

 

Using my profile as an example, if I were to log a new Mystery cache it would show a find count of 23 and clearly indicate that this ONLY included Mystery caches. For my next Multi-Cache, it would show a find count of 10. Etc.

 

Another idea: have two totals, one for Physical cache finds (trads, multis, mysteries, Apes, letterbox hybrids) and a separate total for for non-physical cache finds (virts, locationless, events, megas, webcam, CITO, earthcaches, and NGS Benchmarks).

 

People say that a find count indicates experience, and that a DNF from someone with 1000 finds means more than a DNF from someone with 500 finds. But what if the person with 500 finds has found 500 physical caches, and the person with 1000 finds has found 400 physical containers but also has 600 virtual, locationless, event logs, webcams, CITO events, and earthcaches?

That's actually a cool idea!

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with the original post. Removing the find counts will be a bad thing, I enjoy seeing the finds on people's logs, and watching my friends find counts increase over time as I'm logging caches that they've found. Having more information on their counts, not less, would be the best.

 

For instance, the only change I'd make is to show both a static and dynamic count number. The first would not change, and the second would, so that my 50th find would read (50 - 50) the day I made it, and 30 finds later would read (50 - 80), or something like that.

 

A formal announcement that gc.com will not implement such a rule today is a step in the right direction.

I totally agree, it's definitely a step in the right direction!

 

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements and the threads calling for a numbers change still get added. I count at least two new ones since last night.

 

(shrugs shoulders)

 

I wonder what other steps they'll eventually take?

Edited by Mushtang

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements and the threads calling for a numbers change still get added. I count at least two new ones since last night.

 

Weren't you the one just a few days ago talking about how you have a right to your opinion and as long as the topic is being discussed that you will retain the right to post your opinion. Now you want the conversation to go away because of TPTB's current viewpoint at this moment in time? They are a business and their opinions will change depending on which direction the wind is blowing. There may very well come a time when they realize that their decision was wrong and do the right thing :ph34r: Until then, just as you, I have the right to bring it up and discuss it until I puke. and you have the right to ignore it or continue commenting about how you are sick of commenting on it.

 

Kinda funny if you ask me

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, it's definitely a step in the right direction!

 

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements

 

<snip>

 

No, no. Their position is very clear.

 

They've always said that they have to reach a certain point before they'll do things differently.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements and the threads calling for a numbers change still get added. I count at least two new ones since last night.

 

Weren't you the one just a few days ago talking about how you have a right to your opinion and as long as the topic is being discussed that you will retain the right to post your opinion. Now you want the conversation to go away because of TPTB's current viewpoint at this moment in time? They are a business and their opinions will change depending on which direction the wind is blowing. There may very well come a time when they realize that their decision was wrong and do the right thing :ph34r: Until then, just as you, I have the right to bring it up and discuss it until I puke. and you have the right to ignore it or continue commenting about how you are sick of commenting on it.

 

Kinda funny if you ask me

Calm down.

 

Where did I say the topic should go away?

 

I never said the discussion shouldn't exist, I just think it's silly that it does. I never said folks didn't have the right to express their opinion, and my opinion is it's silly to call for a change to the logs in order to stop a practice so soon after it was said by TPTB they weren't interested in doing so.

 

"It's unfortunate" does not mean the same thing as "you don't have the right"

 

You definitely have the right to post silly ideas. Knock yourself out.

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, it's definitely a step in the right direction!

 

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements

 

<snip>

 

No, no. Their position is very clear.

 

They've always said that they have to reach a certain point before they'll do things differently.

Perhaps you're right.

 

I'm hoping, however, that they just handle the incident (tell the logger to stop, etc.) instead of punishing anyone else that might want to enjoy the activity that they've already said they don't care about.

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, it's definitely a step in the right direction!

 

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements

 

<snip>

No, no. Their position is very clear.

 

They've always said that they have to reach a certain point before they'll do things differently.

Perhaps you're right.

 

I'm hoping, however, that they just handle the incident (tell the logger to stop, etc.) instead of punishing anyone else that might want to enjoy the activity that they've already said they don't care about.

They just flat out told us what they are going to do and you still sound like you still think they will do something different. Don't you believe them? Quit worrying about it and go log your log temps. I just wish you all would log those in some cache at the event instead of messing up the event page. That was my main beef all along. That is something you all can do if you want to think of others and have your cake and eat it. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, it's definitely a step in the right direction!

 

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements

 

<snip>

No, no. Their position is very clear.

 

They've always said that they have to reach a certain point before they'll do things differently.

Perhaps you're right.

 

I'm hoping, however, that they just handle the incident (tell the logger to stop, etc.) instead of punishing anyone else that might want to enjoy the activity that they've already said they don't care about.

They just flat out told us what they are going to do and you still sound like you still think they will do something different. Don't you believe them?
You're a little too quick to chastise. I saw the post where OpinioNate said that the cache owners police their own logs and decide for themselves, and then added the "within reason" qualifier. As far as I saw he didn't indicate what would be done if it wasn't within reason, and this is what BlueDeuce and I were referencing - the thing that would happen when the logging passed a certain point. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but there was no need to attack me like that. If I missed where he said what they were going to do can you give me a link? I'd like to read it.

 

Quit worrying about it and go log your log temps.
I don't log temp caches. In the past I logged 2 extra at an event (maybe 3, I can't remember) and then decided I didn't want to do it anymore. But just because I didn't think it was something I didn't want to do, it didn't make me want to keep other people from doing it.

 

I just wish you all would log those in some cache at the event instead of messing up the event page.
I'm glad to see that you've accepted a good way to avoid the issues that bother you. I agree that having an additional logs on a cache other than the event would be a great idea if the event owner didn't want the logs on his event page.

 

That was my main beef all along.
No, you started using those when pushed to give a reason other than "I don't want them to". I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad thing, these debates often change people's minds on topics and give them new ideas.

 

That is something you all can do if you want to think of others and have your cake and eat it. :ph34r:
Definitely. Thinking of how others play the game is good. Being tolerant of different styles, methods, interests, etc. can only improve the game for everyone.

 

A compromise, such as logging temp caches on a different cache when the owner doesn't want them on his cache page, is a great way for everyone to be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
A compromise, such as logging temp caches on a different cache when the owner doesn't want them on his cache page, is a great way for everyone to be happy.
The owner that permits this was the one I was talking about....

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, it's definitely a step in the right direction!

 

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements

 

<snip>

No, no. Their position is very clear.

 

They've always said that they have to reach a certain point before they'll do things differently.

Perhaps you're right. I'm hoping, however, that they just handle the incident (tell the logger to stop, etc.) instead of punishing anyone else that might want to enjoy the activity that they've already said they don't care about.

They just flat out told us what they are going to do and you still sound like you still think they will do something different. Don't you believe them?
You're a little too quick to chastise. I saw the post where OpinioNate said that the cache owners police their own logs and decide for themselves, and then added the "within reason" qualifier. As far as I saw he didn't indicate what would be done if it wasn't within reason, and this is what BlueDeuce and I were referencing - the thing that would happen when the logging passed a certain point. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but there was no need to attack me like that. If I missed where he said what they were going to do can you give me a link? I'd like to read it.
You don't remember the 1000 part? Are you worried that as soon as someone logs 1001 temps on one cache that they will pull the plug?

Share this post


Link to post
A compromise, such as logging temp caches on a different cache when the owner doesn't want them on his cache page, is a great way for everyone to be happy.
The owner that permits this was the one I was talking about....

Ahh, when then that's not much of a compromise then. A cache owner wants folks to log the temps on his cache page, but other folks don't want the logs there so they want the site to make changes. I believe that was the point of the thread you opened where you wanted to suggest a way the site could make that change.

 

That seems to be what OpinioNate's post was addressing, saying that the site isn't interested in keeping this from happening.

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, it's definitely a step in the right direction!

 

Unfortunately it's the umpteenth time they've made similar statements

 

<snip>

No, no. Their position is very clear.

 

They've always said that they have to reach a certain point before they'll do things differently.

Perhaps you're right. I'm hoping, however, that they just handle the incident (tell the logger to stop, etc.) instead of punishing anyone else that might want to enjoy the activity that they've already said they don't care about.

They just flat out told us what they are going to do and you still sound like you still think they will do something different. Don't you believe them?
You're a little too quick to chastise. I saw the post where OpinioNate said that the cache owners police their own logs and decide for themselves, and then added the "within reason" qualifier. As far as I saw he didn't indicate what would be done if it wasn't within reason, and this is what BlueDeuce and I were referencing - the thing that would happen when the logging passed a certain point. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but there was no need to attack me like that. If I missed where he said what they were going to do can you give me a link? I'd like to read it.
You don't remember the 1000 part? Are you worried that as soon as someone logs 1001 temps on one cache that they will pull the plug?

Oh, I did read that part about the 1000. One of us is confused I think. Let me restate my point and see if it helps.

 

When you suggested that "they just flat out told us what they are going to do", you apparently meant that they'd do something if someone logs 1000 times. But that's not what they are going to do, it's the thing that will cause them to do the thing that happens. And this is what BlueDuece and I were speculating on. He suggested that it would cause them to do something differently, and I said what I hoped the something would be.

 

And no, I'm not worried about it. Just curious what it might be and discussing the possibilities. It wouldn't surprise me if someone in these threads decided to log 1000 finds on a single cache just to see what that would be.

Share this post


Link to post
A compromise, such as logging temp caches on a different cache when the owner doesn't want them on his cache page, is a great way for everyone to be happy.
The owner that permits this was the one I was talking about....

Ahh, when then that's not much of a compromise then. A cache owner wants folks to log the temps on his cache page, but other folks don't want the logs there so they want the site to make changes. I believe that was the point of the thread you opened where you wanted to suggest a way the site could make that change.

 

That seems to be what OpinioNate's post was addressing, saying that the site isn't interested in keeping this from happening.

It was a simple request dude. The owner could simply "consider" that many people attending his event enjoy reading the logs on the event page and so he could set up a separate cache to log the 999 temps so they don't have to scroll through thousands of temp logs. It's called "win-win." But I guess a favor is even out of the question with people like you. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
And no, I'm not worried about it. Just curious what it might be and discussing the possibilities. It wouldn't surprise me if someone in these threads decided to log 1000 finds on a single cache just to see what that would be.
I hope they do! Bwa ha ha! :ph34r: <----Edit: THIS MEANS THAT I'M JOKING! I just thought that I better clarify that. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
A compromise, such as logging temp caches on a different cache when the owner doesn't want them on his cache page, is a great way for everyone to be happy.
The owner that permits this was the one I was talking about....

Ahh, when then that's not much of a compromise then. A cache owner wants folks to log the temps on his cache page, but other folks don't want the logs there so they want the site to make changes. I believe that was the point of the thread you opened where you wanted to suggest a way the site could make that change.

 

That seems to be what OpinioNate's post was addressing, saying that the site isn't interested in keeping this from happening.

It was a simple request dude. The owner could simply "consider" that many people attending his event enjoy reading the cache page and so he could set up a separate cache to log the 999 temps so they don't have to scroll through thousands of temp logs. It's called "win-win." But I guess a favor is even out of the question with people like you.

People like me? What kind of people am I exactly? Your personal attacks are getting tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
A compromise, such as logging temp caches on a different cache when the owner doesn't want them on his cache page, is a great way for everyone to be happy.
The owner that permits this was the one I was talking about....

Ahh, when then that's not much of a compromise then. A cache owner wants folks to log the temps on his cache page, but other folks don't want the logs there so they want the site to make changes. I believe that was the point of the thread you opened where you wanted to suggest a way the site could make that change.

 

That seems to be what OpinioNate's post was addressing, saying that the site isn't interested in keeping this from happening.

It was a simple request dude. The owner could simply "consider" that many people attending his event enjoy reading the cache page and so he could set up a separate cache to log the 999 temps so they don't have to scroll through thousands of temp logs. It's called "win-win." But I guess a favor is even out of the question with people like you.

People like me? What kind of people am I exactly?

 

People that won't do someone a favor. You are even arguing against doing that... :ph34r: Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I expect things to follow a natural course.

 

All things said

 

I'm tired of the typical non-ending

 

back and forth.

Share this post


Link to post
And no, I'm not worried about it. Just curious what it might be and discussing the possibilities. It wouldn't surprise me if someone in these threads decided to log 1000 finds on a single cache just to see what that would be.
I hope they do! Bwa ha ha! :ph34r:

Clearly logging 1000 finds on an event cache is something that the site doesn't want to see happen. But you're hoping that some cacher does it anyway.

 

Tell me how this lines up with the "doing a favor" post of yours above. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. I think that find counts are part of who people are, whether they got 1000 in a month or in 7 years. I like that, I like having it there to see. I wish it woul also show their hides and their dnf's and notes. :ph34r::ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
And no, I'm not worried about it. Just curious what it might be and discussing the possibilities. It wouldn't surprise me if someone in these threads decided to log 1000 finds on a single cache just to see what that would be.
I hope they do! Bwa ha ha! :ph34r:

Clearly logging 1000 finds on an event cache is something that the site doesn't want to see happen. But you're hoping that some cacher does it anyway.

 

Tell me how this lines up with the "doing a favor" post of yours above. :ph34r:

 

Oh c'mon! I'm joking around! :ph34r: Who the heck is going to log 1000 temp logs at one event? That is beyond ridiculous! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. I think that find counts are part of who people are, whether they got 1000 in a month or in 7 years. I like that, I like having it there to see. I wish it woul also show their hides and their dnf's and notes. :ph34r::ph34r:

Someone that likes to play without numbers is who they are too. :ph34r: IMHO the kinds of caches they hide and find better defines who they are. A grand total doesn't tell you much of anything.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. I think that find counts are part of who people are, whether they got 1000 in a month or in 7 years. I like that, I like having it there to see. I wish it woul also show their hides and their dnf's and notes. :ph34r::ph34r:

Someone that likes to play without numbers is who they are too. :ph34r: IMHO the kinds of caches they hide and find better defines who they are. A grand total doesn't tell you much of anything.

 

Ok, how about this. Instead of the the number of their finds, have a link that takes us to a small pop up that just lists their start date, their finds (perhaps by type), their DNF's, their hides, etc. Just something small and quick, not like the stats on the profile page.

 

You can choose to click it if you want (which will get tedious after a while), or not, in which case you see nothing.

Edited by Ambrosia

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. I think that find counts are part of who people are, whether they got 1000 in a month or in 7 years. I like that, I like having it there to see. I wish it woul also show their hides and their dnf's and notes. :ph34r::ph34r:

Someone that likes to play without numbers is who they are too. :lol: IMHO the kinds of caches they hide and find better defines who they are. A grand total doesn't tell you much of anything.

 

Ok, how about this. Instead of the the number of their finds, have a link that takes us to a small pop up that just lists their start date, their finds (perhaps by type), their DNF's, their hides, etc. Just something small and quick, not like the stats on the profile page.

 

You can choose to click it if you want (which will get tedious after a while), or not, in which case you see nothing.

Their name links to their profile page now, which has all that stuff already. Maybe when you hit 100 of each type the count turns into a smiley: :ph34r: . That would still let people know that you have found a ton of that type in case you logged a DNF and they wanted to know.... Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. I think that find counts are part of who people are, whether they got 1000 in a month or in 7 years. I like that, I like having it there to see. I wish it woul also show their hides and their dnf's and notes. :ph34r::ph34r:

Someone that likes to play without numbers is who they are too. :lol: IMHO the kinds of caches they hide and find better defines who they are. A grand total doesn't tell you much of anything.

 

Ok, how about this. Instead of the the number of their finds, have a link that takes us to a small pop up that just lists their start date, their finds (perhaps by type), their DNF's, their hides, etc. Just something small and quick, not like the stats on the profile page.

 

You can choose to click it if you want (which will get tedious after a while), or not, in which case you see nothing.

Their name links to their profile page now, which has all that stuff already. Maybe when you hit 100 of each type the count turns into a smiley: :ph34r: . That would still let people know that you have found a ton of that type in case you logged a DNF and they wanted to know....

 

I know it goes to their profile, like I said earlier. But that's a big clunky page and then you still need to click on another link to see types of caches (but not DNF's). I just thought that a quick simple small stat page that pops up like the pictures do right now.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. I think that find counts are part of who people are, whether they got 1000 in a month or in 7 years. I like that, I like having it there to see. I wish it woul also show their hides and their dnf's and notes. :ph34r::ph34r:

Someone that likes to play without numbers is who they are too. :lol: IMHO the kinds of caches they hide and find better defines who they are. A grand total doesn't tell you much of anything.

 

Ok, how about this. Instead of the the number of their finds, have a link that takes us to a small pop up that just lists their start date, their finds (perhaps by type), their DNF's, their hides, etc. Just something small and quick, not like the stats on the profile page.

 

You can choose to click it if you want (which will get tedious after a while), or not, in which case you see nothing.

Their name links to their profile page now, which has all that stuff already. Maybe when you hit 100 of each type the count turns into a smiley: :ph34r: . That would still let people know that you have found a ton of that type in case you logged a DNF and they wanted to know....

 

I know it goes to their profile, like I said earlier. But that's a big clunky page and then you still need to click on another link to see types of caches (but not DNF's). I just thought that a quick simple small stat page that pops up like the pictures do right now.

Like a mini profile baseball card... That would be cool too. Maybe they could let you customize your own card too! :D

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that they should be removed. It's part of my history, and it's part of other people's history.

 

Noone is saying remove it so YOU can't see it, just so others can't see it. Once it's gone, everyone will be able to sit in a circle, singing songs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. I think that find counts are part of who people are, whether they got 1000 in a month or in 7 years. I like that, I like having it there to see. I wish it woul also show their hides and their dnf's and notes. :D:ph34r:

Someone that likes to play without numbers is who they are too. :ph34r: IMHO the kinds of caches they hide and find better defines who they are. A grand total doesn't tell you much of anything.

 

Ok, how about this. Instead of the the number of their finds, have a link that takes us to a small pop up that just lists their start date, their finds (perhaps by type), their DNF's, their hides, etc. Just something small and quick, not like the stats on the profile page.

 

You can choose to click it if you want (which will get tedious after a while), or not, in which case you see nothing.

Their name links to their profile page now, which has all that stuff already. Maybe when you hit 100 of each type the count turns into a smiley: :D . That would still let people know that you have found a ton of that type in case you logged a DNF and they wanted to know....

 

I know it goes to their profile, like I said earlier. But that's a big clunky page and then you still need to click on another link to see types of caches (but not DNF's). I just thought that a quick simple small stat page that pops up like the pictures do right now.

Like a mini profile baseball card... That would be cool too. Maybe they could let you customize your own card too! :D

 

:ph34r:

 

I'm sure that it wouldn't happen, it's just something that came into my mind. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...