Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ReadyOrNot

Find Counts

Recommended Posts

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

 

You are not see the important difference this time. ReadyOrNot said PUBLIC find count. The last time the find count was removed there were no find counts being calculated to place by each finder on the cache page. What ReadyOrNot is saying is to have the calculation made but only visible to the cache owner.

 

When this topic has come up in the past the major complaint is by cache owners who find that number useful. Well, let them have it! Just hide it from everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post

I like to look at the find counts of cachers I am familiar with, in the logs. Not just the "friends" list ones. I know how these cachers keep their personal score (what "rules" they use) and as such the numbers have meaning. Removing the numbers, just cause of a few who play differently that I do seems silly, I can just ignore those numbers.

Share this post


Link to post

I support the option for individual users to hide their find-log tallies.

 

Quite frankly, it's no one's business how many find-logs you've written. Yes, that includes the cache owner. High numbers cachers aren't any better at finding caches than lower number cachers with a little experience under their belt. It only comes into play with folks who are not very familiar with the hobby. I've not actually tallied the numbers, but it seems like we have more higher numbers cachers DNFing some of our caches that are still there than lower number cachers.

 

In fact, a better solution for determining whether you should check on your cache after a DNF is that cacher's DNF history, not find history. Who cares how good a finder his or she is. The real question is how good of a non-finder he or she is. Were others able to find a cache they DNFed earlier or does their history show a fairly consistent series of missing caches? These things are more important than the number of finds.

 

Yes, I understand that this would discourage some folks from actually writing DNFs, but only those who are so worried about their caching-mana they'll do anything to protect it. These are probably the same folks who increase their "worth" with sketchy practices anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually agree with CR on this one. If anything were to change about showing the numbers (and I'm not saying I think anything should be done), I think it should be user choice, not a blanket site decision.

The geocachers who don't want to show their find count can hide them, the rest of the geocachers can leave things as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
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?
The fact is, no one is ever going to hide 1000 temporary caches for a single event. Therefore, this is a non-issue. If someone makes 1000 logs to an event for temporary caches that didn't exist, the event holder will delete the bogus finds, as mandated by the guidelines. If the cache owner doesn't do this maintenance, TPTB will most likely punish that cache owner and specific cache logger. I think that it's very unlikely that TPTB would clamp down on all temporary event caches worldwide simply because one cacher made a bunch of bogus logs.
Given the poo storm that happened the last time that find counts were removed, I don't see this suggestion ever being implemented.
You are not see the important difference this time. ReadyOrNot said PUBLIC find count. The last time the find count was removed there were no find counts being calculated to place by each finder on the cache page. What ReadyOrNot is saying is to have the calculation made but only visible to the cache owner.
Actually, the last time, the total was still available by pulling up the cacher's profile page. This suggestion goes farther to suggest that the totals should be removed from the profile, also. That would create even more angst than before.
When this topic has come up in the past the major complaint is by cache owners who find that number useful. Well, let them have it! Just hide it from everyone else.
That's not actually true. You see, in much the same way as cache owners decide whether they need to go perform maintenance based on a DNFer's experience, many cache seekers determine whether they should try to find the cache based on the DNFer's experience.

 

If NateNewbie DNFed a cache yesterday, I'll go look for it. If JoGPS DNFed it yesterday, I might wait until the owner verifies it's presence or someone else finds it before I waste my fuel.

Share this post


Link to post

The biggest problem that I have with hiding the find count is that it would serve no real purpose other than causing angst for TPTB.

 

For instance, without looking at ReadyOrNot's profile page, I just checked and saw that he has found 263 caches and hidden nine. These totals are available from his profile page (not using the total count) and each of his hide's cache pages.

 

Are the people who are requesting that the numbers be hidden also requesting that no one have access to any one else's hide/found history?

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

The biggest problem that I have with hiding the find count is that it would serve no real purpose other than causing angst for TPTB.

 

For instance, without looking at ReadyOrNot's profile page, I just checked and saw that he has found 263 caches and hidden nine. These totals are available from his profile page (not using the total count) and each of his hide's cache pages.

 

Are the people who are requesting that the numbers be hidden also requesting that no one have access to any one else's hide/found history?

I think what ReadyOrNot is proposing is to have the find count removed from the logs, but for everyone to have access to the profile page. In this instance, I would agree with him. The find numbers are really meaningless, given multiple temp. find counts at events. But I dont care if people do that anymore. Really.

 

You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? No one can really tell the difference, my ink jet printer does a good job, and the yellow marker test does not make the color run. How does that affect anyone? There are people in other countries making billions of dollars this way, how does this affect YOU? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Find counts are only meaningless to some, not to all.

 

Also, I'm not sure where this is a common practice but around here multiple logging of events is most definitely not the norm and in fact I am not aware of it ever happening. Typically, the only time a regular cache is logged more than once is if the owner moves it and allows people to find it again. I think I may have done that once or twice and allowed it on one of my caches when I had to relocate it and change the container.

 

It just sounds to me like an issue that doesn't even affect me or our neck of the woods and I think making site changes to accomodate certain areas at the expense of others is not the best way to solve this thing that I will not call a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
I think what ReadyOrNot is proposing is to have the find count removed from the logs, but for everyone to have access to the profile page. In this instance, I would agree with him. The find numbers are really meaningless, given multiple temp. find counts at events. But I dont care if people do that anymore. Really.
In that case, he is suggesting a change that was made in the past, found to be unacceptable, and undone.

 

No thanks.

You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.

Share this post


Link to post
You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.
I'd promised myself to stay out of this thread, but this is actually a *good* analogy. If something is rare it is worth more. If you're the only one in the world with $1000, then using that money you can buy more than anyone else can. If someone starts printing $1000 bills in his basement and handing them to everyone, then your $1000 in the bank suddenly becomes worth much less.

 

Relating the analogy to cache finds, if you're the only person in the world with 1000 finds, aquired after years of work trudging up mountains, wading through swamps, and solving mind-numbing puzzles, then you have a right some pride in that number. Other cachers have respect for that number. If people can now aquire 1000 "finds" after a few months of park-n-grabs and attending events, then your pre-existing 1000 finds is worth much less. The cacher who aquired the finds the hard way LOST a lot of perceived respect.

 

That's what people are complaining about.

Share this post


Link to post

it seems like we have more higher numbers cachers DNFing some of our caches that are still there than lower number cachers.

Did it occur to you that this might be because the high number cachers actually logged their DNFs?

 

I do agree that sometimes a really unique hide will fool the "experts" especially if there are several "obvious" places to look where the cache isn't. Newbies might not give up as quickly and post that your cache is missing. But I also suspect that just as many newbies didn't find your cache are just not posting a DNF. You might have a point that some high numbers caches are so confident in there ability that when they DNF they are sure your cache is missing while and newbie might just think they didn't find the cache due to their inexperience.

 

On topic. I can see a reason to allow people to opt out of having their find count displayed on every log. My understanding is that the leader board websites still work by scraping from a small number of caches that are frequently found and where the high number cachers are almost certain to found at least one of them. Cachers who opt out would not display a count on these pages so the leader board would not show these cachers. It solves the problem of cachers who don't want to compete or be seen as competing. If Groundspeak really wanted to stop the leader boards they could allow each cacher to specify an adjustment in their profile to add (or subtract) to their find count. The leader boards would see this number and become totally useless. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.
I'd promised myself to stay out of this thread, but this is actually a *good* analogy. If something is rare it is worth more. If you're the only one in the world with $1000, then using that money you can buy more than anyone else can. If someone starts printing $1000 bills in his basement and handing them to everyone, then your $1000 in the bank suddenly becomes worth much less.

 

Relating the analogy to cache finds, if you're the only person in the world with 1000 finds, aquired after years of work trudging up mountains, wading through swamps, and solving mind-numbing puzzles, then you have a right some pride in that number. Other cachers have respect for that number. If people can now aquire 1000 "finds" after a few months of park-n-grabs and attending events, then your pre-existing 1000 finds is worth much less. The cacher who aquired the finds the hard way LOST a lot of perceived respect.

 

That's what people are complaining about.

Ummm, 4wf took the position that counterfitting didn't affect anyone. I stated that it did affect others. You disagreed with me by explaining how it affected others.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm becoming confused as to what, exactly, this thread is requesting and why it is being requested.

Share this post


Link to post
You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.
I'd promised myself to stay out of this thread, but this is actually a *good* analogy. If something is rare it is worth more. If you're the only one in the world with $1000, then using that money you can buy more than anyone else can. If someone starts printing $1000 bills in his basement and handing them to everyone, then your $1000 in the bank suddenly becomes worth much less.

 

Relating the analogy to cache finds, if you're the only person in the world with 1000 finds, aquired after years of work trudging up mountains, wading through swamps, and solving mind-numbing puzzles, then you have a right some pride in that number. Other cachers have respect for that number. If people can now aquire 1000 "finds" after a few months of park-n-grabs and attending events, then your pre-existing 1000 finds is worth much less. The cacher who aquired the finds the hard way LOST a lot of perceived respect.

 

That's what people are complaining about.

A smiley is only worth something if you let it. And you might look silly if you let it. Sure, there is another thread where people are congratulating TeamAlamo for being the first to reach 25000 finds. There is even a picture of him with a hokey toy medal some gave him at a event. You may want to determine the value of smiley by dividing the value of that medal by 25000. Or subtract any of Team Alamos finds that you don't think he should have logged and use the lower number. Let me know how much a smiley is worth. Perhaps I can sell a few of mine. I could use the money - since I'm unable to print my own. It may be that someone is using "counterfeit" smileys to defraud his friend of a the cost of a beer or a plastic toy medal, but more likely his friends are aware of his logging practices and don't find anything wrong with them.

Share this post


Link to post
You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.
I'd promised myself to stay out of this thread, but this is actually a *good* analogy. If something is rare it is worth more. If you're the only one in the world with $1000, then using that money you can buy more than anyone else can. If someone starts printing $1000 bills in his basement and handing them to everyone, then your $1000 in the bank suddenly becomes worth much less.

 

Relating the analogy to cache finds, if you're the only person in the world with 1000 finds, aquired after years of work trudging up mountains, wading through swamps, and solving mind-numbing puzzles, then you have a right some pride in that number. Other cachers have respect for that number. If people can now aquire 1000 "finds" after a few months of park-n-grabs and attending events, then your pre-existing 1000 finds is worth much less. The cacher who aquired the finds the hard way LOST a lot of perceived respect.

 

That's what people are complaining about.

 

But I thought the whole argument for hiding the find count was that the numbers were meaningless to anyone other than the individual. Therefore, no respect has been gained or lost regardless of who has found how many and of what type of cache or whether or not the number is shown or hidden.

Share this post


Link to post

But I thought the whole argument for hiding the find count was that the numbers were meaningless to anyone other than the individual. Therefore, no respect has been gained or lost regardless of who has found how many and of what type of cache or whether or not the number is shown or hidden.

 

The argument for hiding it is made by those who believe it's only valuable to the individual. I'd be surprised if the people who favor an option for hiding the count are participating in the congratulations.

 

For me, smiley counts of other caches are really meaningless. There are too many ways to run up tons of them these days. I'm not saying any of them are "wrong"...just that there are more chances - hides, temporaries, bonus smileys, whatever.

 

There's a big difference in someone hitting a 1000 smileys in 2007 vs 1000 smileys in 2002. Just like hyperinflation....smileys are abundant and therefore can't really be "valued".

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.

I disagree. It doesn't have to be about competition. Not everybody is a Type A personality with a need to have more hides than the next person.

 

With exceptions to the rule, find counts show the player's experience in relationship to the ability to articulate an opinion on the game that is more than just making noise. (Yes I know, everybody's opinion are supposed to be valid, but some are just real stinkers.) And again with exceptions, the quality of hides largely depends upon the player's experience. Without find counts, you lose a large reference point with which to base these two situations. I'm sure there are more.

 

As for mulitple finds on a single hide or event... well that responsibility sits largely on the organizer of the event or hide. People will abuse what they are allowed to abuse. If that's not you, cool.

 

Let me put this to the OP and anybody else that feels more than less obscurity is needed:

Why is it somebody has to add one more layer to get everybody on the same page that you think they need to be on? Leave it alone. I like the way this site is handled just fine without losing one more aspect of how players are represented. What I would like to see are the DNF counts right along with the Find counts. The DNFs show how a person thinks when they do their search because they usually add more than TNLNSLTFTC.

Share this post


Link to post

Mental note to self: Don't refresh the page on an exceeded time limit error.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post
You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.
I'd promised myself to stay out of this thread, but this is actually a *good* analogy. If something is rare it is worth more. If you're the only one in the world with $1000, then using that money you can buy more than anyone else can. If someone starts printing $1000 bills in his basement and handing them to everyone, then your $1000 in the bank suddenly becomes worth much less.

 

Relating the analogy to cache finds, if you're the only person in the world with 1000 finds, aquired after years of work trudging up mountains, wading through swamps, and solving mind-numbing puzzles, then you have a right some pride in that number. Other cachers have respect for that number. If people can now aquire 1000 "finds" after a few months of park-n-grabs and attending events, then your pre-existing 1000 finds is worth much less. The cacher who aquired the finds the hard way LOST a lot of perceived respect.

 

That's what people are complaining about.

Ummm, 4wf took the position that counterfitting didn't affect anyone. I stated that it did affect others. You disagreed with me by explaining how it affected others.

Not what happened. 4WF did say counterfitting didn't affect others, but I took that as sarcasm because of the smilie at the end of his original post: :ph34r:

 

You said it was a bad analogy because counterfitting money does affect others, thus implying that counterfitting cache finds does NOT affect others. My post explained how counterfitting cache finds DOES affect others, and used a similar situation involving counterfitting money to show why his was a good analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.
I'd promised myself to stay out of this thread, but this is actually a *good* analogy. If something is rare it is worth more. If you're the only one in the world with $1000, then using that money you can buy more than anyone else can. If someone starts printing $1000 bills in his basement and handing them to everyone, then your $1000 in the bank suddenly becomes worth much less.

 

Relating the analogy to cache finds, if you're the only person in the world with 1000 finds, aquired after years of work trudging up mountains, wading through swamps, and solving mind-numbing puzzles, then you have a right some pride in that number. Other cachers have respect for that number. If people can now aquire 1000 "finds" after a few months of park-n-grabs and attending events, then your pre-existing 1000 finds is worth much less. The cacher who aquired the finds the hard way LOST a lot of perceived respect.

 

That's what people are complaining about.

Ummm, 4wf took the position that counterfitting didn't affect anyone. I stated that it did affect others. You disagreed with me by explaining how it affected others.
Not what happened. 4WF did say counterfitting didn't affect others, but I took that as sarcasm because of the smilie at the end of his original post: :ph34r:

 

You said it was a bad analogy because counterfitting money does affect others, thus implying that counterfitting cache finds does NOT affect others. My post explained how counterfitting cache finds DOES affect others, and used a similar situation involving counterfitting money to show why his was a good analogy.

I fear that we are wandering too far away from the thread's topic, whatever that is, but I think it's important to suggest that you don't take my posts to imply anything more than I actually state in the post. That way, misunderstandings are less likely to happen. Plus, I'm not very deep, so there isn't likely to be much hidden meaning in my posts. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

... 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.

 

It's an indicator. One cache of mine would be easy if someone found a specific cache 250 miles away. For that my criteria was "Lots of finds in the Boise Area". I discounted a 1000+ person who gripped about the cache becaus they were not from the right area.

 

3000 finds is still a good chunk even if they had extra 2000 temps.

Share this post


Link to post

Reclarification:

 

Inidividuals still have access to their find counts, but the general public does not ON CACHE PAGES. I think you should still be able to manually look at a users profile and see their hides, finds, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Reclarification:

 

Inidividuals still have access to their find counts, but the general public does not ON CACHE PAGES. I think you should still be able to manually look at a users profile and see their hides, finds, etc.

And again I disagree. Find counts gives me the owner an excellent idea of the person's experience. That's going to indicate to me their ability to locate my cache.

Share this post


Link to post
Reclarification:

 

Inidividuals still have access to their find counts, but the general public does not ON CACHE PAGES. I think you should still be able to manually look at a users profile and see their hides, finds, etc.

I also still disagree.

 

This is the very idea that has already been put into place and changed back because it caused too many complaints. Cachers didn't want the change back then, I don't believe that many cachers would want it now.

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.

 

You are not see the important difference this time. ReadyOrNot said PUBLIC find count. The last time the find count was removed there were no find counts being calculated to place by each finder on the cache page. What ReadyOrNot is saying is to have the calculation made but only visible to the cache owner.

 

When this topic has come up in the past the major complaint is by cache owners who find that number useful. Well, let them have it! Just hide it from everyone else.

 

I also find that number useful when reading logs as a finder. If an experienced cacher can't find it, then I may have some trouble. If a bunch of nooBs can find it then I may have a chance.

 

The number is also handy to evaluate if a cache gripe is a sock puppet cache maggot trying to cause trouble or just a moron who thinks they know it all.

Share this post


Link to post

...In fact, a better solution for determining whether you should check on your cache after a DNF is that cacher's DNF history...

 

Now if you put the find/dnf count in their log that would be even more helpful.

 

You are right that the information has limitations, but it's still a valid and useful tool. A cresent wrench is not a better wrench than the right size box wrench, but if you can only ever have one wrench...I'm going with cresent.

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.

 

It's kind of like the gun argument - guns don't kill people... people kill people.

 

Find counts don't ruin the fun... people who are obsessed with other people's find counts ruin the fun.

 

Ya know, if you don't like your find count being available for all-and-sundry to see, do something about it. There are ways to take care of it if you really want to. (... that is, ways aside from b*tching about it in the forums where you just come across as noise and force us all to rehash the same pro/con arguments over and over again.)

 

Edited to add: I know RK always uses the find counts to see how 'valid' a user complaint may be argument... and while I think it CAN be a valuable tool, these days (read: micro-spew-proliferation, and the ease in which one can find thousands of caches in a short period of time) I don't so much see find count as being a valid indicator of someone's experience. Time in the trenches, maybe - find count... not so much. QUALITY of caches found... er, nevermind.)

 

michelle

Edited by CurmudgeonlyGal

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.

 

Your numbers might be meaningless, mine aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Edited to add: I know RK always uses the find counts to see how 'valid' a user complaint may be argument... and while I think it CAN be a valuable tool, these days (read: micro-spew-proliferation, and the ease in which one can find thousands of caches in a short period of time) I don't so much see find count as being a valid indicator of someone's experience. Time in the trenches, maybe - find count... not so much. QUALITY of caches found... er, nevermind.) michelle
I agree. I know people with few finds that never get stumped and I know people with tons of finds that are leading the DNF competition (% wise). It would be much more useful to know how many equivalent caches to yours (difficulty wise) that the person has found if they DNF your cache. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Reclarification:

 

Inidividuals still have access to their find counts, but the general public does not ON CACHE PAGES. I think you should still be able to manually look at a users profile and see their hides, finds, etc.

And again I disagree. Find counts gives me the owner an excellent idea of the person's experience. That's going to indicate to me their ability to locate my cache.

 

I find that 'find counts' are less valuable to me as time goes on. It's so VERY easy to amass a large number of finds these days on VERY easy caches. Even here in my own hood... where there aren't so many cachers, the proliferation of easy-to-find micro's is increasing exponentially... wow... big find count... did you actually get off of the pavement for any of them?

 

A better 'judge' of a cachers ability (or dis-ability) might be a variation on the difficulty/terrain averages accompanied by their 'find' count. I think that would be a far better indication of someone's ability to find YOUR cache.

 

Better yet, if you want a hint, just send me a list of links to some of the harder caches you've found and we'll discuss some tactics you might take to find whatever it is you're looking for.

 

But even then D/T is still not the best. I know with my own find count, my D/T ratings would probably be pretty low because a fair chunk of my numbers were amassed exactly as mentioned above. I have some time to kill and can't get too far away, so I lift skirts and peel off magnetic 'signs' with logs on the back and other assorted easy stuff. Better than nothing, at times.

 

IMO, because I am the judgmental person I am, the true stuff a cacher is made out of is the long hike to get the box, the determination it takes to really gear up in the dead of winter to go after that box no one has found yet when there's 2' of snow on the ground... the acrobatics (and balls) it takes to climb up under a bridge to SEE if the cache might be there (no guarantees)... but, I'm more inclined to hide something that needs some forethought and planning that's not just a quick drive-by cache. I'd consider all of these before I passed out a freebie.

 

Ultimately, your best indicator of a cacher is knowing that person, how they cache, their determination level, if they are hunting for the number, or the experience and a bunch of other yadda.

 

Of course, none of those extras are readily available and, perhaps, the best thing we have to go on IS someone's find count... I'm just not convinced it is the best way to judge someone's ability to find any of my caches.

 

 

michelle

Share this post


Link to post
You could compare it to money. For some reason the Feds get extremely anal if I print up my own cash. I dont know why, but if I bleach a bunch of 1$ bills and then print circa 1984 $100 notes on top, I could get sent away to prison for a LONG time. But why? I'm not hurting anyone. How does that affect anyone that I'm making my own cash? ...
That's a bad analogy. Other people are affected by counterfitting.
I'd promised myself to stay out of this thread, but this is actually a *good* analogy. If something is rare it is worth more. If you're the only one in the world with $1000, then using that money you can buy more than anyone else can. If someone starts printing $1000 bills in his basement and handing them to everyone, then your $1000 in the bank suddenly becomes worth much less.

 

Relating the analogy to cache finds, if you're the only person in the world with 1000 finds, aquired after years of work trudging up mountains, wading through swamps, and solving mind-numbing puzzles, then you have a right some pride in that number. Other cachers have respect for that number. If people can now aquire 1000 "finds" after a few months of park-n-grabs and attending events, then your pre-existing 1000 finds is worth much less. The cacher who aquired the finds the hard way LOST a lot of perceived respect.

 

That's what people are complaining about.

 

But I thought the whole argument for hiding the find count was that the numbers were meaningless to anyone other than the individual. Therefore, no respect has been gained or lost regardless of who has found how many and of what type of cache or whether or not the number is shown or hidden.

 

 

The numbers at this point are meaningless to anyone other than the individual, mostly because of different standards being used to accumulate them. Thats what the counterfeiting analogy was for.

 

My opinion - if the number of finds stamp in the log on the cache page was removed, it would create less emphasis on the total find count. If you wanted to view a persons caching history, you could still click on thier profile and see the detailed results.

Share this post


Link to post

<edited for brevity>

Of course, none of those extras are readily available and, perhaps, the best thing we have to go on IS someone's find count... I'm just not convinced it is the best way to judge someone's ability to find any of my caches.

 

 

michelle

 

Granted, for want of a better tool, the find count is the best there is right now. It is going to determine if and how I answer to a Needs Maintenance, DNF or request for help. I'm a relatively busy person and cannot take the time to get to know each and every person that looks for my cache, but I will and do take a personal interest in their log when coupled with their find count if there's an expressed problem with the location, description. or hints.

 

so I lift skirts and peel off

We need to talk.... privately. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Offended by find counts? Fire up Firefox and Greasemonkey and this Greasemonkey script. It will replace all find counts on log pages with "0" so you don't have to worry about the temptation of judging someone based on their totals.

That's awesome!

 

Okay, for everyone complaining that the find counts are showing, I'll buy each of you a copy of Firefox just so you can use this script and solve all your issues!

Share this post


Link to post

Offended by find counts? Fire up Firefox and Greasemonkey and this Greasemonkey script. It will replace all find counts on log pages with "0" so you don't have to worry about the temptation of judging someone based on their totals.

That's awesome!

 

Okay, for everyone complaining that the find counts are showing, I'll buy each of you a copy of Firefox just so you can use this script and solve all your issues!

Send me $50 and I'll buy it. I promise! :):)

Share this post


Link to post
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?
The fact is, no one is ever going to hide 1000 temporary caches for a single event. Therefore, this is a non-issue. If someone makes 1000 logs to an event for temporary caches that didn't exist, the event holder will delete the bogus finds, as mandated by the guidelines. If the cache owner doesn't do this maintenance, TPTB will most likely punish that cache owner and specific cache logger. I think that it's very unlikely that TPTB would clamp down on all temporary event caches worldwide simply because one cacher made a bunch of bogus logs.

 

The guidelines allow/require the cache owner to police the logs. There is nothing to say that cachers could not log every other cacher they take a photo of, at the event. This makes as much sense as logging tmporary caches as 'attended'.

One cache, one log makes the most sense. I'm even willing to give up my ten duplicate logs! (One moving cache. Nine Locationless with changing objectives.)

Share this post


Link to post
Offended by find counts? Fire up Firefox and Greasemonkey and this Greasemonkey script. It will replace all find counts on log pages with "0" so you don't have to worry about the temptation of judging someone based on their totals.
The only problem with this is that I never judge anybody by find counts so I don't need that program. I could care less if someone opened 50 billion tupperware containers. What I need is the reverse program that hides my counts from anyone that judges me by them. If you don't judge me than you can see them! :):) Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

 

With exceptions to the rule, find counts show the player's experience in relationship to the ability to articulate an opinion on the game that is more than just making noise. (Yes I know, everybody's opinion are supposed to be valid, but some are just real stinkers.) And again with exceptions, the quality of hides largely depends upon the player's experience. Without find counts, you lose a large reference point with which to base these two situations. I'm sure there are more.

 

 

So how many temp caches at an event does someone have to find before their DNF on a lamp skirt micro can be taken seriously and not be ignored because of their inexperience (aka low find count)?

Share this post


Link to post

I take all DNF logs seriously no matter who has not found them but usually the DNF log helps a lot in deciding if i need to go and visit. The find count has no bearing on my decision im sure if you have too many to maintain then it might be issue in your decision whether or not to carry out your responsibilities as a cache owner.

 

I would like to be able to make my find counts private as the game of smiley hunt gets more common. For many it not about the hunt anymore its all about the finding the haste and rush is all to evident and it often compromises the cache hiding places in the so called experienced cachers rush for one more smiley or the FTF.

 

In fact i often find that following a high finding numbers cacher reveals poorly rehidden caches, stamps or stickers in log books as its quicker and sometimes geo trails where there is no need.

Share this post


Link to post
Did it occur to you that this might be because the high number cachers actually logged their DNFs?

Yes, it did. Upon further reflection this disparity further re-enforces the idea that logged DNFs for more important than finds when determining the validity of a single DNF log.

 

In the spirit of offering a solution in this direction I would probably investigate the idea of a page that listed all, or past 50, of a user's DNFs complete with icons of the previous 5 logs and 10 logs that come after. If the list showed a lot of DNFs with smilies coming afterwards then that person might not be that good at finding caches and thusly the DNF is probably not that important. However, if you see a lot of SBAs, maintenance, and archived icons then you can probably think their DNF have more weight. Basically, this list would tell you how often their DNFs resulted in only not finding the cache versus the DNFs because of a missing cache.

 

If this tool was fleshed out it would most likely make find counts to determine the validity of a DNF useless and, thusly, not needed. If the find count is not needed then there is no reason to force it to be shown and, programming effort aside, no reason to not give us the option of turning off our individual tallies.

Share this post


Link to post
Did it occur to you that this might be because the high number cachers actually logged their DNFs?

Yes, it did. Upon further reflection this disparity further re-enforces the idea that logged DNFs for more important than finds when determining the validity of a single DNF log.

 

In the spirit of offering a solution in this direction I would probably investigate the idea of a page that listed all, or past 50, of a user's DNFs complete with icons of the previous 5 logs and 10 logs that come after. If the list showed a lot of DNFs with smilies coming afterwards then that person might not be that good at finding caches and thusly the DNF is probably not that important. However, if you see a lot of SBAs, maintenance, and archived icons then you can probably think their DNF have more weight. Basically, this list would tell you how often their DNFs resulted in only not finding the cache versus the DNFs because of a missing cache.

That sounds pretty complicated. Most people would rather use a very simple method, even if it's not perfectly effective.
If this tool was fleshed out it would most likely make find counts to determine the validity of a DNF useless and, thusly, not needed. If the find count is not needed then there is no reason to force it to be shown and, programming effort aside, no reason to not give us the option of turning off our individual tallies.
Even if you were correct and a way to use DNF follow-up history to effectively determine whether a person's DNF is likely to require a maintenance visit, every one that likes having the find count tied to each log for any other reason (or no reason) will still complain loudly about the loss of the feature.

 

Given that the change has not been shown to solve any established problem and would cause tons of angst, I can not support the change.

Share this post


Link to post

 

With exceptions to the rule, find counts show the player's experience in relationship to the ability to articulate an opinion on the game that is more than just making noise. (Yes I know, everybody's opinion are supposed to be valid, but some are just real stinkers.) And again with exceptions, the quality of hides largely depends upon the player's experience. Without find counts, you lose a large reference point with which to base these two situations. I'm sure there are more.

 

 

So how many temp caches at an event does someone have to find before their DNF on a lamp skirt micro can be taken seriously and not be ignored because of their inexperience (aka low find count)?

I did qualify my statements.

Share this post


Link to post

 

With exceptions to the rule, find counts show the player's experience in relationship to the ability to articulate an opinion on the game that is more than just making noise. (Yes I know, everybody's opinion are supposed to be valid, but some are just real stinkers.) And again with exceptions, the quality of hides largely depends upon the player's experience. Without find counts, you lose a large reference point with which to base these two situations. I'm sure there are more.

 

 

So how many temp caches at an event does someone have to find before their DNF on a lamp skirt micro can be taken seriously and not be ignored because of their inexperience (aka low find count)?

I did qualify my statements.

 

My point is that you can't tell a cachers experience by looking at just one number. Your qualifications prove that point. Show me a cache log and tell me which cachers are the exception without viewing their profile. You can't.

 

Due to the various logging practices the current system that cache owners have to determine caching experiance (a simple find count) just doesn't a majority of the time. It may have worked years ago, but it doesn't work today. The find count either needs to be removed from cache page or extra stats need to be added (multi-find count, DNF count, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
My point is that you can't tell a cachers experience by looking at just one number. Your qualifications prove that point. Show me a cache log and tell me which cachers are the exception without viewing their profile. You can't.

 

Due to the various logging practices the current system that cache owners have to determine caching experiance (a simple find count) just doesn't a majority of the time. It may have worked years ago, but it doesn't work today. The find count either needs to be removed from cache page or extra stats need to be added (multi-find count, DNF count, etc).

I disagree.

 

Of course, the fine count isn't a perfect estimator of experience, but it is a great instant dipstick.

Share this post


Link to post

...Edited to add: I know RK always uses the find counts to see how 'valid' a user complaint may be argument... and while I think it CAN be a valuable tool, these days (read: micro-spew-proliferation, and the ease in which one can find thousands of caches in a short period of time) I don't so much see find count as being a valid indicator of someone's experience. Time in the trenches, maybe - find count... not so much. QUALITY of caches found... er, nevermind.)

 

michelle

 

For you and Team360 I'm aware that both of you have a lack of a find count but a lot of time in the trenches. Find count is a tool. Complete with limitations. Sometimes you have to know the exceptions.

 

If you came through town and logged one of my caches with a complaint, I'd mostly wonder why you didn't tell me directly over a beer, but I'd get over it and then deal with whatver the issue was.

Share this post


Link to post

...My point is that you can't tell a cachers experience by looking at just one number. Your qualifications prove that point. Show me a cache log and tell me which cachers are the exception without viewing their profile. You can't....

 

My point is that you can tell a lot by seeing the log and the find count. If you need more info you can then click on their profile and learn more. Having to click on the profile every single time just creates more work and uses up more bandwidht to display information that I may not need.

 

The only real argument to remove a find count is the "It's none of your freaking business" argument. Arguments that say "yeah, but even though you actually find it useful, it's really not" are sort of pointless because I do find it useful and you really can't tell me I don't when I do. Ok you can, but it won't change that I do.

 

Another agrument is "Find counts ruin caching" but that's negated by the fact that for as many if not more "Find counts make caching more fun"

Share this post


Link to post

...Find counts don't ruin the fun... people who are obsessed with other people's find counts ruin the fun....

There is a lot of truth in this. Especially the obsessed folks who think they are Gods gift to caching.

If they really were Gods gift they would leave behind a trail of fun and joy, light and hope. :laughing:

 

Not create anguish, frustration, angst, darkness and blight. :(

Share this post


Link to post
A smiley is only worth something if you let it. And you might look silly if you let it.

... and if you let someone else's smiley count bother you, you risk looking VERY silly.

Share this post


Link to post
The numbers at this point are meaningless to anyone other than the individual, mostly because of different standards being used to accumulate them. Thats what the counterfeiting analogy was for.

At this point? But hasn't that ALWAYS been the case? When have all caches EVER been equal? When have all cachERS been equal? When has Geocaching been homogenous? If you can prove such a game ever existed, then maybe you can make your case that a person's smiley count ever had meaning when compared to another person's smiley count.

 

From day one of this game, each cache has been unique. Most of us figured that out early on, and quickly understood why it is generally invalid to compare two peoples’ find counts.

 

If a smiley could be traded for something of actual value, AND if every *dollar* was unique, then maybe your counterfeiting analogy might apply.

Share this post


Link to post

Nice. I see that you used the correct spelling for counterfeiting to highlight my typo.

 

:(

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...