Find Counts

[Mushtang]

Let's just display the number of duplicates next to their find count.

 

ReadyOrNot (287/0)

 

I know it will never happen, but......

I have a nice goose egg for duplicates too!

There's really nothing stopping either of you from adding the line, "The above find count includes zero duplicate Found or Attended logs" on the bottom of every one of your logs. Until the site makes the change to the displayed number you can still make sure it's known.

[+Mudfrog]

Let's just display the number of duplicates next to their find count.

 

ReadyOrNot (287/0)

 

I know it will never happen, but......

 

That's a favorite option of mine too!

I like this idea too! Not sure why it's so hard for some but i'm one of those that realizes that a cache can only be found one time and that an event can only be attended one time. There will always be cachers who come up with their silly reasons to log multiple times but at least this would show the correct number of GC.com caches they actually found and attended.

 

This may be the "WIN-WIN" solution that makes everyone happy!

[+KBI]

I was just asking you a question to maybe get you to see something you were not seeing. You can bring a horse to water....

Sounds familiar. Frustrating, ain't it?

[+TrailGators]

I was just asking you a question to maybe get you to see something you were not seeing. You can bring a horse to water....

Sounds familiar. Frustrating, ain't it?

I guess if you are still in 'this rathole' with me than you must also be a rat* like me!

 

* Referencing this post:

I'm not going any further with this rathole.

Edited November 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I was just asking you a question to maybe get you to see something you were not seeing. You can bring a horse to water....

Sounds familiar. Frustrating, ain't it?

I guess if you are still in 'this rathole' with me than you must also be a rat like me!

Not sure what calling me a rat is supposed to accomplish, but if you want to discuss this topic with you any further you know what to do.

[+TrailGators]

I was just asking you a question to maybe get you to see something you were not seeing. You can bring a horse to water....

Sounds familiar. Frustrating, ain't it?

I guess if you are still in 'this rathole' with me than you must also be a rat like me!

Not sure what calling me a rat is supposed to accomplish, but if you want to discuss this topic with you any further you know what to do.

I thought you might miss that joke, so I edited my post to add the reference.

 

Edit: You and I agree that people should be able to hide their numbers if they want to. So there isn't anything for us to debate this time.

Edited November 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+USA 45]

If you do that then we would not know when someone has hit an achivement gold. I give out coins and pins to our group when they have so many finds and so many hides. I would not beable to check them if they made them just for our own use. I think if you post a found then the site should auto stop you from post another find. Just allow a note to be posted. Not sure if Im on the right track but It might work , just more work for the site. USA 45

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

Let's just display the number of duplicates next to their find count.

 

ReadyOrNot (287/0)

 

I know it will never happen, but......

I have a nice goose egg for duplicates too!

There's really nothing stopping either of you from adding the line, "The above find count includes zero duplicate Found or Attended logs" on the bottom of every one of your logs. Until the site makes the change to the displayed number you can still make sure it's known.

 

I think I'll add that to my profile page... right under my stats bar!

 

Even when I had a find count... I didn't log dupes, virts, locationless or events

 

 

michelle

Edited November 19, 2007 by CurmudgeonlyGal

[+KBI]

There are some fascinating new twists of logic in this thread.

Yes, very.

 

The logic seems as if it should be fairly straightforward and linear, but there have indeed been some, um – I guess “fascinating” is a polite word – twists of logic.

 

The following facts are not in dispute:

1. The proposal presented by the Originating Post calls for "removing public find counts." (I assume this means removing them from ALL publicly viewable places, not just the cache logs.)
   
2. The stated reason for this proposal, as put forward by the original poster as well as a few others, is the assertion that multilogging of event caches constitutes "abuse," and therefore must be controlled.
   
3. In order for "abuse" to exist there must be at least one victim. If no one is being harmed then there is, by definition, no "abuse."
   

Here, unfortunately, is where the logic train jumps the tracks and tumbles down the ravine:

 

A few of us have challenged the hypothesizers of this alleged abuse to identify who the alleged victims are. This question has been met with silence, obfuscation, ridicule, noise and personal insults against the questioner, but – it has not been answered.

 

One would assume that such a fundamental and system-wide change to the Geocaching experience would only be accepted by a widespread consensus borne of solid and convincing rationale; therefore one would also reasonably expect the champions of such a strongly held supporting opinion to take immediate and full advantage of any opportunity to defend it.

 

Yet the question remains unanswered: Where are the victims?

 

As with other recent controversies in the forums it would seem that this is one of those issues where the people who are calling for new rules are doing so based on some complaint or perceived injustice, but – when pressed to provide a logical and convincing argument, these same complainers simply refuse to defend their position.

 

It is a familiar pattern: Grumbler complains that he dislikes some behavioral element of Geocaching. Grumbler proposes some new rule designed to protect himself – and everyone else – from the offending behavior, regardless whether the behavior proves to be harmless and/or popular in the opinions of the many non-grumblers. Grumbler is asked to provide a convincing argument otherwise. Grumbler gruffly refuses.

 

When such complainers prove to be unwilling or unable to defend their claims with logic, one can only assume that the motivations behind their calls for behavior control are less than logical: emotional, confused, selfish, irrational, or just plain spiteful. In a word: Intolerant.

 

Soundly convince me that someone is being harmed – truly harmed – by the practice of multilogging, and you will not only have decisively convinced me that multilogging is abusive; you might actually convince me to unite with you in your call for a rule change designed to control the evil behavior.

 

Grumblers: Show me the victims, and I just might join your side.

Edited November 19, 2007 by KBI

[Mushtang]

Let's just display the number of duplicates next to their find count.

 

ReadyOrNot (287/0)

 

I know it will never happen, but......

I have a nice goose egg for duplicates too!

There's really nothing stopping either of you from adding the line, "The above find count includes zero duplicate Found or Attended logs" on the bottom of every one of your logs. Until the site makes the change to the displayed number you can still make sure it's known.

 

I think I'll add that to my profile page... right under my stats bar!

 

Even when I had a find count... I didn't log dupes, virts, locationless or events

 

 

michelle

I always thought your find count was that high because of all the duplicate events you'd logged.

 

My respect for you just doubled, knowing that all those finds are not the result of cheating!

 

[+TrailGators]

I think I'll add that to my profile page... right under my stats bar!

 

Even when I had a find count... I didn't log dupes, virts, locationless or events

 

michelle

Funny! You actually deleted all your finds? I bet some people are shaking in their boots because they can't see your numbers....

[+smcpeaknkids]

Not to but my head in where it does not belong but come on if someone wants to live in a silly little world where they pretend to find more caches than they do who cares. It is not hurting me and if the cache owner does not like the extra logs he deletes them. The number of people who do not pad their count and enjoy seeing others count far outweighs the few who live in a fantasy cache find world. By eliminating cache counts all we are doing is protecting the few cache padders from their own ego. I actually feel sorry for them. I enjoy watching my friends both in my home state and around the US and see their success. Do not take that away just because some people abuse there own find count.

 

I am not computer literate accept in every day use but would it not be to difficult to just set up the cache pages to only accept one smiley per account.

[CoyoteRed]

My challenge to you or anybody else, was to come up with something that everybody can agree on. I still don't see it happening here.

If that were the test then Mike Teague would still be hand entering the coordinates on his site.

 

I'm glad it isn't.

[CoyoteRed]

Grumblers: Show me the victims, and I just might join your side.

I feel the same way in regards to the option of showing the count. Who's the victim if I don't make my count public?

 

For those who like to watch their friends, that could be done via the friends feature. Do I smell another revenue opportunity?

Edited November 19, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+Rockin Roddy]

There are some fascinating new twists of logic in this thread.

Yes, very.

 

The logic seems as if it should be fairly straightforward and linear, but there have indeed been some, um – I guess “fascinating” is a polite word – twists of logic.

 

The following facts are not in dispute:

1. The proposal presented by the Originating Post calls for "removing public find counts." (I assume this means removing them from ALL publicly viewable places, not just the cache logs.)
   
2. The stated reason for this proposal, as put forward by the original poster as well as a few others, is the assertion that multilogging of event caches constitutes "abuse," and therefore must be controlled.
   
3. In order for "abuse" to exist there must be at least one victim. If no one is being harmed then there is, by definition, no "abuse."
   

Here, unfortunately, is where the logic train jumps the tracks and tumbles down the ravine:

 

A few of us have challenged the hypothesizers of this alleged abuse to identify who the alleged victims are. This question has been met with silence, obfuscation, ridicule, noise and personal insults against the questioner, but – it has not been answered.

 

One would assume that such a fundamental and system-wide change to the Geocaching experience would only be accepted by a widespread consensus borne of solid and convincing rationale; therefore one would also reasonably expect the champions of such a strongly held supporting opinion to take immediate and full advantage of any opportunity to defend it.

 

Yet the question remains unanswered: Where are the victims?

 

As with other recent controversies in the forums it would seem that this is one of those issues where the people who are calling for new rules are doing so based on some complaint or perceived injustice, but – when pressed to provide a logical and convincing argument, these same complainers simply refuse to defend their position.

 

It is a familiar pattern: Grumbler complains that he dislikes some behavioral element of Geocaching. Grumbler proposes some new rule designed to protect himself – and everyone else – from the offending behavior, regardless whether the behavior proves to be harmless and/or popular in the opinions of the many non-grumblers. Grumbler is asked to provide a convincing argument otherwise. Grumbler gruffly refuses.

 

When such complainers prove to be unwilling or unable to defend their claims with logic, one can only assume that the motivations behind their calls for behavior control are less than logical: emotional, confused, selfish, irrational, or just plain spiteful. In a word: Intolerant.

 

Soundly convince me that someone is being harmed – truly harmed – by the practice of multilogging, and you will not only have decisively convinced me that multilogging is abusive; you might actually convince me to unite with you in your call for a rule change designed to control the evil behavior.

 

Grumblers: Show me the victims, and I just might join your side.

 

I love this "where's the victims" comedy...you STILL haven't figured that out? MAYBE all who complain are the victims...MAYBE the answer has been given so many times they're tired of telling you (since that's been your same argument from the get go on every thread started about the abuse) (YOU here is used in generic form).

 

I'm not for the removal of the stats, that's not going to do anything and will never fly (IMHO)...I'd not want to see the stats disappear! But there is abuse, or why would there be complaints that are seen even up to the higher ups and has been addressed by Jeremy himself. Please stop asking this silly question as it's obvious (to me at least) that this has been answered some MILLIONS of times...maybe not to how you'd like it to be answered, but.... This, to me, seems a question asked as a way to sidetrack the debate. (or when a person is asked a question that they have no answer for and wants to deflect the attention to someone else)

 

You telling me that there's no victims is insulting to me. I"M a victim. To say I'm not dismisses my opinion and says that I don't matter. (again, YOU being generic here)

 

Back to the debate...

Edited November 19, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[4wheelin_fool]

I do not want my find numbers to be displayed in my logs. My finds are my business. I have learned in previous threads that they don't really matter anyway:

 

Tozamboku -

If there were a "spirit of the game" it would be that Geocaching is a non-competitive sport. The find count is not the score. It is simply a way to keep track of your finds on the website

King Boreas-

.... just skip looking at my stats altogether. They are my own stats, for my own enjoyment- not for you to look at and judge how I play the game or your opinion of my personal ethics. If you don't like it, frankly I don't care.

Mushtang-

Numbers don't count in any sort of competition. The number of caches I've found has nothing to do with the number that you've found. But numbers do matter to me - my numbers.

 

And I would like to enjoy the freedom of keeping them hidden. If you all want to put them in your logs, thats fine. The option to not display them would be appreciated. Why are other people's counts anyones business? Do you think that this is what is best for us? Let me quote Rush:

 

They say there are strangers who threaten us

In our immigrants and infidels.

 

They say there is strangeness too dangerous

In our theaters and bookstore shelves.

 

Those who know what's best for us

Must rise and save us from ourselves"

 

I know there are plenty of new cachers that would not like the find numbers displayed in their logs. They would like to enjoy the game without being analyzed through a microscope. For some, 30 finds may be an accomplishment. But then they see someone with 300 finds and they feel intimidated, not to mention 3000 finds. I think it would be best to have the numbers not displayed by default. If someone would like to have them displayed, they could just check a box. The amount of new cachers in the game greatly outnumbers the older ones anyway. Lets give them a break. You would be able to see their finds with only a mouse click anyway.

[+sbell111]

... You would be able to see their finds with only a mouse click anyway.

If you will be able to see the numbers by simply making a click or two, then I don't see the point in hiding them. The only purpose that would be served is to annoy those who would find the number to be useful.

 

I wish someone would explain why TPTB should implement an idea that only serves to annoy people so they complain en masse to TPTB. As if TPTB doesn't have enough drama in their lives...

Edited November 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

They shouldn't.

 

If someone really wants their numbers hidden, there are ways to do it. I'm just gonna go out on a limb and guess that those who want their numbers unavailable to the masses are just too lazy to follow-through...

 

Oh, and because they like the other 'features' that are provided by having their numbers available in the way they are now.

 

 

michelle

[+KBI]

I love this "where's the victims" comedy...you STILL haven't figured that out? MAYBE all who complain are the victims...MAYBE the answer has been given so many times they're tired of telling you (since that's been your same argument from the get go on every thread started about the abuse) (YOU here is used in generic form).

 

I'm not for the removal of the stats, that's not going to do anything and will never fly (IMHO)...I'd not want to see the stats disappear! But there is abuse, or why would there be complaints that are seen even up to the higher ups and has been addressed by Jeremy himself. Please stop asking this silly question as it's obvious (to me at least) that this has been answered some MILLIONS of times...maybe not to how you'd like it to be answered, but.... This, to me, seems a question asked as a way to sidetrack the debate. (or when a person is asked a question that they have no answer for and wants to deflect the attention to someone else)

 

You telling me that there's no victims is insulting to me. I"M a victim. To say I'm not dismisses my opinion and says that I don't matter. (again, YOU being generic here)

 

Back to the debate...

Well done. I’m impressed!

 

In one short post you managed to (1) Ridicule me, (2) Ridicule the question, (3) Claim that I have personally insulted you, (4) Repeat the still-unsupported “abuse” claim, (5) Claim the question has already been answered without actually being able to ... (6) Quote or link the actual answer, and (7) Repeat the claim of victim status ... (8) While providing absolutely zero supporting evidence to establish your alleged victim status.

 

All of it I find entertaining. Most of it is irrelevant; however I would be most interested if you could rectify item number (8).

 

Is there anything you have to say, anything at all, which might convince me (and others) that the practice of multilogging has caused you grievous harm? Be careful now; I’m not talking about some pet peeve, annoyance or inconvenience – one would be ashamed to use the term “abuse” to characterize such mild effects, especially when using the claim to support a demand for a new rule, yes? There are some things about this pastime I actually find annoying myself, but if I choose to let those things bother me, that is my choice. I’m talking about actual, serious, unavoidable harm.

 

I’ll help you. Here is one test:

 

If you are free to choose whether to let the behavior bother you, then there is NO abuse by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy lies about the gas mileage of his cachemobile in an effort to impress you.

Example: You mention to your caching buddy that it might be fun to compete with each other for highest find count, and your buddy responds by changing all his finds to notes, thus hiding his count.

 

If you have little choice whether you are harmed, then YES, you are being abused by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy punches you in the face without warning and then runs ahead in his effort to be FTF.

Example: Your caching buddy secretly uses a marked deck at the Thursday night poker game and takes all your money.

 

Now please. Please please please tell me, in detail, exactly how you have any legitimate claim at victimhood when some cacher multi-logs his extra finds at some cache event.

[+KBI]

If someone really wants their numbers hidden, there are ways to do it. I'm just gonna go out on a limb and guess that those who want their numbers unavailable to the masses are just too lazy to follow-through...

There is a VERY easy way.

 

If you don’t want your find count to be available to others, simply make all your online logs "notes" instead of "smileys."

 

Change all your existing smileys (a minor one-time effort) into notes, and always select "Post a Note" instead of "Found It" in the future. That way you get to keep your find count secret while still maintaining an online record of all your caching activities and thoughts. If you’re afraid someone will still figure out a way to tally your finds manually, you could even leave the wording vague in your notes and use a hidden code to denote whether each note is a find, a DNF, or just a note.

 

Perfect solution!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I love this "where's the victims" comedy...you STILL haven't figured that out? MAYBE all who complain are the victims...MAYBE the answer has been given so many times they're tired of telling you (since that's been your same argument from the get go on every thread started about the abuse) (YOU here is used in generic form).

 

I'm not for the removal of the stats, that's not going to do anything and will never fly (IMHO)...I'd not want to see the stats disappear! But there is abuse, or why would there be complaints that are seen even up to the higher ups and has been addressed by Jeremy himself. Please stop asking this silly question as it's obvious (to me at least) that this has been answered some MILLIONS of times...maybe not to how you'd like it to be answered, but.... This, to me, seems a question asked as a way to sidetrack the debate. (or when a person is asked a question that they have no answer for and wants to deflect the attention to someone else)

 

You telling me that there's no victims is insulting to me. I"M a victim. To say I'm not dismisses my opinion and says that I don't matter. (again, YOU being generic here)

 

Back to the debate...

Well done. I’m impressed!

 

In one short post you managed to (1) Ridicule me, (2) Ridicule the question, (3) Claim that I have personally insulted you, (4) Repeat the still-unsupported “abuse” claim, (5) Claim the question has already been answered without actually being able to ... (6) Quote or link the actual answer, and (7) Repeat the claim of victim status ... (8) While providing absolutely zero supporting evidence to establish your alleged victim status.

 

All of it I find entertaining. Most of it is irrelevant; however I would be most interested if you could rectify item number (8).

 

Is there anything you have to say, anything at all, which might convince me (and others) that the practice of multilogging has caused you grievous harm? Be careful now; I’m not talking about some pet peeve, annoyance or inconvenience – one would be ashamed to use the term “abuse” to characterize such mild effects, especially when using the claim to support a demand for a new rule, yes? There are some things about this pastime I actually find annoying myself, but if I choose to let those things bother me, that is my choice. I’m talking about actual, serious, unavoidable harm.

 

I’ll help you. Here is one test:

 

If you are free to choose whether to let the behavior bother you, then there is NO abuse by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy lies about the gas mileage of his cachemobile in an effort to impress you.

Example: You mention to your caching buddy that it might be fun to compete with each other for highest find count, and your buddy responds by changing all his finds to notes, thus hiding his count.

 

If you have little choice whether you are harmed, then YES, you are being abused by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy punches you in the face without warning and then runs ahead in his effort to be FTF.

Example: Your caching buddy secretly uses a marked deck at the Thursday night poker game and takes all your money.

 

Now please. Please please please tell me, in detail, exactly how you have any legitimate claim at victimhood when some cacher multi-logs his extra finds at some cache event.

 

I hope someone with the willingness to repeat themselves (for the umpteenth time) will answer your question (again)...I feel if you truly need to be told (again), you'll not get it!

Edited November 19, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

I love this "where's the victims" comedy...you STILL haven't figured that out? MAYBE all who complain are the victims...MAYBE the answer has been given so many times they're tired of telling you (since that's been your same argument from the get go on every thread started about the abuse) (YOU here is used in generic form).

 

I'm not for the removal of the stats, that's not going to do anything and will never fly (IMHO)...I'd not want to see the stats disappear! But there is abuse, or why would there be complaints that are seen even up to the higher ups and has been addressed by Jeremy himself. Please stop asking this silly question as it's obvious (to me at least) that this has been answered some MILLIONS of times...maybe not to how you'd like it to be answered, but.... This, to me, seems a question asked as a way to sidetrack the debate. (or when a person is asked a question that they have no answer for and wants to deflect the attention to someone else)

 

You telling me that there's no victims is insulting to me. I"M a victim. To say I'm not dismisses my opinion and says that I don't matter. (again, YOU being generic here)

 

Back to the debate...

Well done. I’m impressed!

 

In one short post you managed to (1) Ridicule me, (2) Ridicule the question, (3) Claim that I have personally insulted you, (4) Repeat the still-unsupported “abuse” claim, (5) Claim the question has already been answered without actually being able to ... (6) Quote or link the actual answer, and (7) Repeat the claim of victim status ... (8) While providing absolutely zero supporting evidence to establish your alleged victim status.

 

All of it I find entertaining. Most of it is irrelevant; however I would be most interested if you could rectify item number (8).

 

Is there anything you have to say, anything at all, which might convince me (and others) that the practice of multilogging has caused you grievous harm? Be careful now; I’m not talking about some pet peeve, annoyance or inconvenience – one would be ashamed to use the term “abuse” to characterize such mild effects, especially when using the claim to support a demand for a new rule, yes? There are some things about this pastime I actually find annoying myself, but if I choose to let those things bother me, that is my choice. I’m talking about actual, serious, unavoidable harm.

 

I’ll help you. Here is one test:

 

If you are free to choose whether to let the behavior bother you, then there is NO abuse by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy lies about the gas mileage of his cachemobile in an effort to impress you.

Example: You mention to your caching buddy that it might be fun to compete with each other for highest find count, and your buddy responds by changing all his finds to notes, thus hiding his count.

 

If you have little choice whether you are harmed, then YES, you are being abused by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy punches you in the face without warning and then runs ahead in his effort to be FTF.

Example: Your caching buddy secretly uses a marked deck at the Thursday night poker game and takes all your money.

 

Now please. Please please please tell me, in detail, exactly how you have any legitimate claim at victimhood when some cacher multi-logs his extra finds at some cache event.

 

I hope someone with the willingness to repeat themselves (for the umpteenth time) will answer your question (again)...I feel if you truly need to be told (again), you'll not get it!

How does the implementation of the OP's suggestion make you less of a victim? As I recall, you felt victimized because you were either forced to receive a bunch of emails that you didn't want related to event pages that you were watching or you were forced to scroll past the logs for temporary event caches when reviewing event pages that allowed such logs.

 

I do not understand how the removal of the log count from the cache page logs alleviates your concerns.

[+TrailGators]

If someone really wants their numbers hidden, there are ways to do it. I'm just gonna go out on a limb and guess that those who want their numbers unavailable to the masses are just too lazy to follow-through...

There is a VERY easy way.

 

If you don't want your find count to be available to others, simply make all your online logs "notes" instead of "smileys."

 

Change all your existing smileys (a minor one-time effort) into notes, and always select "Post a Note" instead of "Found It" in the future. That way you get to keep your find count secret while still maintaining an online record of all your caching activities and thoughts. If you're afraid someone will still figure out a way to tally your finds manually, you could even leave the wording vague in your notes and use a hidden code to denote whether each note is a find, a DNF, or just a note.

 

Perfect solution!

It's far from perfect. I enjoy seeing my own finds summary and having my own personal milestones. Notes don't get tabulated. I would still share my finds with my friends and I agree with CR that this is a potential Premium Member benefit that could draw some more revenue from those that would enjoy this feature.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I love this "where's the victims" comedy...you STILL haven't figured that out? MAYBE all who complain are the victims...MAYBE the answer has been given so many times they're tired of telling you (since that's been your same argument from the get go on every thread started about the abuse) (YOU here is used in generic form).

 

I'm not for the removal of the stats, that's not going to do anything and will never fly (IMHO)...I'd not want to see the stats disappear! But there is abuse, or why would there be complaints that are seen even up to the higher ups and has been addressed by Jeremy himself. Please stop asking this silly question as it's obvious (to me at least) that this has been answered some MILLIONS of times...maybe not to how you'd like it to be answered, but.... This, to me, seems a question asked as a way to sidetrack the debate. (or when a person is asked a question that they have no answer for and wants to deflect the attention to someone else)

 

You telling me that there's no victims is insulting to me. I"M a victim. To say I'm not dismisses my opinion and says that I don't matter. (again, YOU being generic here)

 

Back to the debate...

Well done. I’m impressed!

 

In one short post you managed to (1) Ridicule me, (2) Ridicule the question, (3) Claim that I have personally insulted you, (4) Repeat the still-unsupported “abuse” claim, (5) Claim the question has already been answered without actually being able to ... (6) Quote or link the actual answer, and (7) Repeat the claim of victim status ... (8) While providing absolutely zero supporting evidence to establish your alleged victim status.

 

All of it I find entertaining. Most of it is irrelevant; however I would be most interested if you could rectify item number (8).

 

Is there anything you have to say, anything at all, which might convince me (and others) that the practice of multilogging has caused you grievous harm? Be careful now; I’m not talking about some pet peeve, annoyance or inconvenience – one would be ashamed to use the term “abuse” to characterize such mild effects, especially when using the claim to support a demand for a new rule, yes? There are some things about this pastime I actually find annoying myself, but if I choose to let those things bother me, that is my choice. I’m talking about actual, serious, unavoidable harm.

 

I’ll help you. Here is one test:

 

If you are free to choose whether to let the behavior bother you, then there is NO abuse by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy lies about the gas mileage of his cachemobile in an effort to impress you.

Example: You mention to your caching buddy that it might be fun to compete with each other for highest find count, and your buddy responds by changing all his finds to notes, thus hiding his count.

 

If you have little choice whether you are harmed, then YES, you are being abused by the other person.

Example: Your caching buddy punches you in the face without warning and then runs ahead in his effort to be FTF.

Example: Your caching buddy secretly uses a marked deck at the Thursday night poker game and takes all your money.

 

Now please. Please please please tell me, in detail, exactly how you have any legitimate claim at victimhood when some cacher multi-logs his extra finds at some cache event.

 

I hope someone with the willingness to repeat themselves (for the umpteenth time) will answer your question (again)...I feel if you truly need to be told (again), you'll not get it!

How does the implementation of the OP's suggestion make you less of a victim? As I recall, you felt victimized because you were either forced to receive a bunch of emails that you didn't want related to event pages that you were watching or you were forced to scroll past the logs for temporary event caches when reviewing event pages that allowed such logs.

 

I do not understand how the removal of the log count from the cache page logs alleviates your concerns.

I said I wasn't for the suggestion!! It won't.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I said I wasn't for the suggestion!! It won't.

 

If you're not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them. There is no middle ground with some people. We're the only ones coming up with solutions. Their sole purpose in these forums seems to be to poo-poo every idea that is made.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I said I wasn't for the suggestion!! It won't.

 

If you're not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them. There is no middle ground with some people. We're the only ones coming up with solutions. Their sole purpose in these forums seems to be to poo-poo every idea that is made.

I hear you there!

[+KBI]

Now please. Please please please tell me, in detail, exactly how you have any legitimate claim at victimhood when some cacher multi-logs his extra finds at some cache event.

 

I hope someone with the willingness to repeat themselves (for the umpteenth time) will answer your question (again)...I feel if you truly need to be told (again), you'll not get it!

How does the implementation of the OP's suggestion make you less of a victim?

It doesn't. Other than to repeat "I'm a victim," he has not proven, established or supported his victim status by any convincing means, and seems strangely hesitant to do so for some reason.

 

As I recall, you felt victimized because you were either forced to receive a bunch of emails that you didn't want related to event pages that you were watching or you were forced to scroll past the logs for temporary event caches when reviewing event pages that allowed such logs.

 

I do not understand how the removal of the log count from the cache page logs alleviates your concerns.

Do you think this is the supporting evidence he's mysteriously referring to? Watchlists and log scrolling are painful hardships forced upon him by his abusers?

 

Both of those concerns constitute mere annoyances – at most.

 

Watchlist: Placing an event cache – a cache type known for generating a large number of logs over a very short period of time – on one's watchlist is an active choice. If it is his choice to receive the emails, then there is no "abuse."

 

Log scrolling: Is Roddy serious? I sincerely doubt anyone is going to convince me that spending the extra few moments and expending the extra half-calorie of energy required to scroll a little further down an extended page of logs and notes qualifies anyone to claim "victim-of-abuse" status. Seriously, I’d be ashamed to whine like that. How heavy IS your computer mouse, Roddy?

[+TrailGators]

I said I wasn't for the suggestion!! It won't.

 

If you're not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them. There is no middle ground with some people. We're the only ones coming up with solutions. Their sole purpose in these forums seems to be to poo-poo every idea that is made.

I hear you there!

I think if your suggestion had not taken the finds count away from everyone, it would have had a better shot and not attracted the same old naysayers. They always pounce on words like "abuse" and "victim." They will even try to bait you to say those words. So just let people opt out. If people are against that then they do not want you to play your way. Edited November 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I said I wasn't for the suggestion!! It won't.

If you're not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them. There is no middle ground with some people. We're the only ones coming up with solutions. Their sole purpose in these forums seems to be to poo-poo every idea that is made.

I now know that you are not reading my posts, Roddy. If you were, you'd have read that:

 

(1) I, for one, have conceded that the idea for an option to allow an individual cacher to hide his own find count from appearing in his logs is very reasonable, and I believe that it is the only reasonable change proposal presented so far. If you had read that detail, which has appeared in several of my posts, you wouldn't lump all the folks who oppose you into one pile.

 

(2) TrailGators and I are united in that opinion, a fact which I have also acknowledged. If you had read THAT detail, which has also appeared in several of my posts, then you would understand that your proposal goes way beyond that idea in its call for a universal removal of ALL find counts. If you had read that detail, you wouldn't lump all the folks who agree with your and your "abuse" claim into one pile.

 

(3) I have directly and clearly asked you to support your claim that multilogging of event caches constitutes abuse. If you had read THAT detail, which has also appeared in several of my posts, then I’m quite sure you would have happily jumped on the opportunity to present your presumably very convincing arguments. I have asked repeatedly: Who are the victims of your alleged “abuse?” Where is the convincing evidence? So far I’ve heard nothing but crickets.

Edited November 19, 2007 by KBI

[+TrailGators]

I have directly and clearly asked you to support your claim that multilogging of event caches constitutes abuse. If you had read THAT detail, which has also appeared in several of my posts, then I'm quite sure you would have happily jumped on the opportunity to present your presumably very convincing arguments. I have asked repeatedly: Who are the victims of your alleged "abuse?" Where is the convincing evidence? So far I've heard nothing but crickets.

It really doesn't matter whether any of us think it's abuse or not. TPTB don't think it is and they have recently stated this very clearly. So that means we can argue about it until the cows come home and nothing is going to change.

[+KBI]

I think if your suggestion had not taken the finds count away from everyone, it would have had a better shot and not attracted the same old naysayers. They always pounce on words like "abuse" and "victim." They will even try to bait you to say those words. Proposing to solve a spoon-size problem with a bulldozer-size solution is always guaranteed to generate a spirited debate. So just let people opt out. If people are against that then they do not want you to play your way.

Fixed it for you.

[+KBI]

I have directly and clearly asked you to support your claim that multilogging of event caches constitutes abuse. If you had read THAT detail, which has also appeared in several of my posts, then I'm quite sure you would have happily jumped on the opportunity to present your presumably very convincing arguments. I have asked repeatedly: Who are the victims of your alleged "abuse?" Where is the convincing evidence? So far I've heard nothing but crickets.

It really doesn't matter whether any of us think it's abuse or not. TPTB don't think it is and they have recently stated this very clearly. So that means we can argue about it until the cows come home and nothing is going to change.

You are confusing two different threads and two different proposals. Your proposal has been definitively rejected. ReadyOrNot’s proposal has neither been rejected nor accepted.

 

Besides, if you're going to continue to refuse to answer my question, then why in the world are you quoting it? What’s the point?

[+TrailGators]

I think if your suggestion had not taken the finds count away from everyone, it would have had a better shot and not attracted the same old naysayers. They always pounce on words like "abuse" and "victim." They will even try to bait you to say those words. Proposing to solve a spoon-size problem with a bulldozer-size solution is always guaranteed to generate a spirited debate. So just let people opt out. If people are against that then they do not want you to play your way.

Fixed it for you.

That's YOUR opinion.

[+TrailGators]

I have directly and clearly asked you to support your claim that multilogging of event caches constitutes abuse. If you had read THAT detail, which has also appeared in several of my posts, then I'm quite sure you would have happily jumped on the opportunity to present your presumably very convincing arguments. I have asked repeatedly: Who are the victims of your alleged "abuse?" Where is the convincing evidence? So far I've heard nothing but crickets.

It really doesn't matter whether any of us think it's abuse or not. TPTB don't think it is and they have recently stated this very clearly. So that means we can argue about it until the cows come home and nothing is going to change.

You are confusing two different threads and two different proposals. Your proposal has been definitively rejected. ReadyOrNot's proposal has neither been rejected nor accepted.

 

Besides, if you're going to continue to refuse to answer my question, then why in the world are you quoting it? What's the point?

You are still discussing abuse. What's the point? I already answered your three questions. Was there a fourth one?

[+sbell111]

I said I wasn't for the suggestion!! It won't.

If you're not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them. There is no middle ground with some people. We're the only ones coming up with solutions. Their sole purpose in these forums seems to be to poo-poo every idea that is made.

I hear you there!

I think if your suggestion had not taken the finds count away from everyone, it would have had a better shot and not attracted the same old naysayers. They always pounce on words like "abuse" and "victim." They will even try to bait you to say those words. So just let people opt out. If people are against that then they do not want you to play your way.

You realize that RoN used the word 'abuse' three times in the OP, right? Certainly, that should allow for discussion as to whether any significant abuse is taking place.

 

The simple fact is, the idea that was suggested in the OP was implemented and, due to widespread complaints, it was changed back. Not only did the OP not explain why the very change that failed previously should be embraced, but he phrased his suggestion in such a way to automatically cause some cachers to be against it. You then act shocked when the failed idea is not embraced? Now I'm shocked.

Edited November 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

I think if your suggestion had not taken the finds count away from everyone, it would have had a better shot and not attracted the same old naysayers. They always pounce on words like "abuse" and "victim." They will even try to bait you to say those words. Proposing to solve a spoon-size problem with a bulldozer-size solution is always guaranteed to generate a spirited debate. So just let people opt out. If people are against that then they do not want you to play your way.

Fixed it for you.

That's YOUR opinion.

 

Haven't you figured out that you are not allowed to have an opinion if your opinion is contrary to theirs? Only opinions in agreement with theirs are considered valid opinions.

[+KBI]

You are still discussing abuse. What's the point? I already answered your three questions.

No, you didn't.

 

Like the others, you claim event multilogging constitutes "abuse."

 

Like the others, you have not provided any convincing evidence or arguments to support your claim.

 

I asked you to do so. Repeatedly.

 

You refused. repeatedly.

 

I gave up.

 

If you want to try again, start here.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

If you're NOT interested in supporting your claim, that's okay too, but: if you keep making the "abuse" claim after publicly refusing to support it, you're going to risk looking pretty silly.

[+sbell111]

I said I wasn't for the suggestion!! It won't.

If you're not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them. There is no middle ground with some people. We're the only ones coming up with solutions. Their sole purpose in these forums seems to be to poo-poo every idea that is made.

It's problem solving 101. First, it must be determined that a problem exists. If agreement cannot be made on this issue, it's hard to move forward with change.

 

The way you phrased your OP, it was clear what you believed the problem to be. You believe that people who log temps to event pages abuse the system and cause individual totals to be unusable by others. Therefore, you believe that they should be removed from cache pages.

 

Many people have disagreed with your conclusion that these actions are abusive. Further, many have stated that they still find these totals useful. Also, it has been explained that the totals would still be available in two other places and that removing them from the cache pages would serve no purpose other than to inconvenience both those that use this data and TPTB, since there will be complaints aplenty.

 

The OP really left no middle ground, in my opinion. Concensus cannot be reached on the issue of abuse and no good reason has been given to remove the totals.

 

It's interesting that this is an idea that not only has been previously requested, but has actually been put into service. Given that it was changed back due to the high level of angst it created, I believe that it should only be reconsidered if it was shown to clearly solve a 'real' problem, was the only workable solution to the problem, and had widespread support.

[+TrailGators]

The simple fact is, the idea that was suggested in the OP was implemented and, due to widespread complaints, it was changed back. Not only did the OP not explain why the very change that failed previously should be embraced, but he phrased his suggestion in such a way to automatically cause some cachers to be against it. You then act shocked when they failed idea is not embraced? Now I'm shocked.

I was aware of what he said and that's why this thread attracted certain people. My point is that he should not use certain words unless he wants to attract certain people to his thread.

[+sbell111]

The simple fact is, the idea that was suggested in the OP was implemented and, due to widespread complaints, it was changed back. Not only did the OP not explain why the very change that failed previously should be embraced, but he phrased his suggestion in such a way to automatically cause some cachers to be against it. You then act shocked when the failed idea is not embraced? Now I'm shocked.

I was aware of what he said and that's why this thread attracted certain people. My point is that he should not use certain words unless he wants to attract certain people to his thread.

I agree. One should not call other cachers 'abusers' or 'cheaters' if they don't want to start a poo storm. Edited November 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

It's interesting that this is an idea that not only has been previously requested, but has actually been put into service. Given that it was changed back due to the high level of angst it created, I believe that it should only be reconsidered if it was shown to clearly solve a 'real' problem, was the only workable solution to the problem, and had widespread support.

 

I concede that removing the find counts is not the best solution. What do you think about putting duplicates next to the find count? (583/25)... For those that play "Their" way, they can add them together if they want. For those that play "My" way, you can ignore the multiple finds number.???

[+ReadyOrNot]

The simple fact is, the idea that was suggested in the OP was implemented and, due to widespread complaints, it was changed back. Not only did the OP not explain why the very change that failed previously should be embraced, but he phrased his suggestion in such a way to automatically cause some cachers to be against it. You then act shocked when the failed idea is not embraced? Now I'm shocked.

I was aware of what he said and that's why this thread attracted certain people. My point is that he should not use certain words unless he wants to attract certain people to his thread.

I agree. One should not call other cachers 'abusers' or 'cheaters' if they don't want to start a poo storm.

 

You've already stated that you don't play "THAT" way.. why do you take offense whenever I mention cheaters or abusers.. As far as I can tell, you don't fit into those categories.. Are you a champion for someone else's cause or something? I got suspended for a couple weeks because you took offense to the word "Insane" in one of my posts, that wasn't even directed at you.. Maybe you shouldn't be so touchy.

[+TrailGators]

If you're NOT interested in supporting your claim, that's okay too, but: if you keep making the "abuse" claim after publicly refusing to support it, you're going to risk looking pretty silly.

You just like to argue. Don't you ever get sick of it? I didn't refuse. I've explained it numerous times but you don't listen. One of the points I have already brought up is that the site wants people to hide caches that will be there for everyone to find (cache permanence). So logging caches that are not permanent goes against that guideline the way I interpret it. Therefore caches that go against the intention of the guidelines constitute abuse in my view.

[+tozainamboku]

There is a group that feels that any presentation of the find count inevitably leads to competition. Competition could be good or bad. For some reason people who I would otherwise assume are free market capitalists (perhaps even libertarians who oppose any government interventon) are the ones who most vociferously contend that competition is bad for geocaching and demand government (Groundspeak) intervention to avoid the excesses of the free market. According to them competition is what encourages people to hide uninspired caches or to plan cache outings that grab as many easy to get caches instead of going out to find that one that needs a 5 mile hike. Competition results some event owners placing more and more temporary caches at their event and allowing people to log extra attended logs for them. Competition results in some people being willing to log anything that a cache owner allows as find - making the found count useless to those that use it only to keep track of the caches they have found. They wish to hide the counts to end the competition. (The so called leaderboards use the counts listed next to the cacher's name in the logs from a few very popular caches to maintain the "rankings" of cachers - so hiding the counts would stop the competition at least for awhile.) Some wish to simply be able to opt out of the competition. The somehow feel that those who use the find counts to compete are forcing them to also compete. My feeling is that if they believe their find count is an accurate representation of the caches they found, it shouldn't matter what other people do with it. And if they know their find count is inaccurate (because they don't log every cache they find), then they can simply look at the people who "compete" with them as engaging in an exercise of futility.

 

Go ahead an report me but I think anyone who wants to hide the find counts is a Right-Wing Commie Pinko Fascist

[+sbell111]

It's interesting that this is an idea that not only has been previously requested, but has actually been put into service. Given that it was changed back due to the high level of angst it created, I believe that it should only be reconsidered if it was shown to clearly solve a 'real' problem, was the only workable solution to the problem, and had widespread support.

I concede that removing the find counts is not the best solution. What do you think about putting duplicates next to the find count? (583/25)... For those that play "Their" way, they can add them together if they want. For those that play "My" way, you can ignore the multiple finds number.???

I have a few concerns with that suggestion.

• TPTB will never implement it.
  
• It ignores the fact that many of these duplicate finds were made completely legitimately (on moving caches). These finds would now be cheapened.
  
• Showing the totals in this manner would suggest that these finds did not take the same skills as 'regular' finds. This is not correct, in my opinion. It takes exactly the same skill-set to find a cache next to a tree covered by sticks that has it's own cache page as it takes to find a cache next to a tree covered by sticks that doesn't have it's own cache page. If anything, the number of events should be shown next to the total number, since it does not take the same skill-set to 'find' an event.
  

[+TrailGators]

Go ahead an report me but I think anyone who wants to hide the find counts is a Right-Wing Commie Pinko Fascist

You are mixing two opposites. Everyone knows that Commie Pinkos are on the left. Communism is the next step going left of socialism. Anyhow, this is not a political issue so your metaphor doesn't work... Edited November 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

The simple fact is, the idea that was suggested in the OP was implemented and, due to widespread complaints, it was changed back. Not only did the OP not explain why the very change that failed previously should be embraced, but he phrased his suggestion in such a way to automatically cause some cachers to be against it. You then act shocked when the failed idea is not embraced? Now I'm shocked.

I was aware of what he said and that's why this thread attracted certain people. My point is that he should not use certain words unless he wants to attract certain people to his thread.

I agree. One should not call other cachers 'abusers' or 'cheaters' if they don't want to start a poo storm.

You've already stated that you don't play "THAT" way.. why do you take offense whenever I mention cheaters or abusers.. As far as I can tell, you don't fit into those categories.. Are you a champion for someone else's cause or something? I got suspended for a couple weeks because you took offense to the word "Insane" in one of my posts, that wasn't even directed at you.. Maybe you shouldn't be so touchy.

I don't have to 'play that way' to believe that those who do 'play that way' are not cheaters or abusers.

 

In some sense, we are all champions for the cause of others in these forums because there are so many geocachers who don't have a voice in the forums. If we didn't pipe up when we disagreed with an idea, it might make it appear that the idea has broad support when in fact, it does not.

Edited November 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

You're right KBI....I DID stop reading your posts. I refuse to read posts which minimize MY opinion to make yourself look more important!

 

I did skim a few though...I do love how you don't read MY posts!

[+TrailGators]

If we didn't pipe up when we disagreed with an idea, it might make it appear that the idea has broad support when in fact, it does not.

How would you know how much support or lack or support anything had? I thought these were simply discussions...

[+CTYankee9]

 

I concede that removing the find counts is not the best solution. What do you think about putting duplicates next to the find count? (583/25)... For those that play "Their" way, they can add them together if they want. For those that play "My" way, you can ignore the multiple finds number.???

 

From my standpoint on this, this would seem to be the easiest most workable solution. I am not sure what it would take to add the multiple finds on a single cache number to our current find count, but I am sure it wouldn't be too difficult.

 

Again to me and the way I enjoy the game, the numbers come in handy at times, so I do have a use for them. But, of course anytime I am comparing or researching another player or just curious, it is not solely based on that number. Depending on what I am trying to figure out; the picture gallery, a maintained profile page, past logs, other web-sites, or any other informational inputs are useful. The information is currently publicly available and at times useful, so it is good information to have every now and again.

 

As far as the thoughts on hiding your own find count from other people's view and my perspective on it. Dunno... seems that the people that are most vocal about numbers not mattering are also the most in favor of hiding the find counts. Truly if the numbers do not mean anything to you, then the finds being viewable really shouldn't matter; it would just be a non-number that happened to be next to your account name. Should others base any decision or form an opinion based solely on your find count, I would hope not. There are so many other aspects of the game {some mentioned above} that go into having fun that it wouldn't really be a factually based decision or opinion.