Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ReadyOrNot

Find Counts

Recommended Posts

I vote in favor of keeping the find counts as they are.

Share this post


Link to post

My reasons against removing find counts from the logs:

 

(1) Removing the counts from the logs would appear to be a solution to a problem that, in the opinion of many, does not exist. The current proposal has been made specifically in response to the fact that some cachers get annoyed when other cachers log multiple finds for event caches. Eliminating the find counts from ALL logs is, in my opinion, an overreaction to this behavior, especially considering that there is still no consensus whether the multilogging behavior is bad in the first place. What is inherently wrong with these numbers? Why do I need protecting? I know full well what other people’s numbers mean (and what they don’t mean) and I don’t need them hidden from me, thank you very much.

 

(1a) The reaction of a few grumblers against event cache multilogging is relatively meaningless as it falls right into the same category as past reactions (by many of the same people) against such non-problems as ALR caches, micro caches and lamp post caches. "I don’t happen to like it, so ... let’s OUTLAW it!" It seems there will always be a faction among us who are not content to conduct themselves by their own standards; these busybodies constantly feel the need to force their own personal aesthetic, ethic or whim upon everyone else via new rules. When there is no victim there is no crime nor any need for any new rule. Where is the tolerance? Like everyone else I have my own personal standards, yet I have never felt the need to call for rule changes that would force my standards on everyone else.

 

(2) Even if I could be convinced that multilogging of event caches is a true problem for everyone (not just the few who insist on misinterpreting the numbers), I don’t think removal of the counts from logs is the best answer. I would much prefer to see ALL event cache “attended” logs removed from the find count calculation, and to otherwise keep the find counts as they are. “Finding” and “attending” are not the same thing. One-day social events and permanently hidden containers with logbooks are two completely different concepts. Why DO we lump these apples and oranges together in our find tally? I have attended events and I have always enjoyed them; I can’t image that an ineligibility to claim a smiley credit would affect my decision whether to attend an event. Removing smiley credits from attended events might annoy a few cachers, but universally removing the find counts from the logs would certainly upset many, many more. What about the large number of us who rarely (or never) attend events, or who only log events once? Why punish us for some sin we have taken no part in?

 

(3) I don’t understand the argument that characterizes a cacher’s stat display (next to their log) as some kind of sensitive privacy information. If it’s in your profile, who cares if it’s in your log? Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but as of now I just don’t see it. If Groundspeak wanted to give each individual cacher the option whether to have his numbers displayed, on the other hand, I could probably live with that.

Share this post


Link to post

My reasons for wanting find counts displayed as they are:

 

(1) I enjoy watching my find count rise with each find, and I like seeing my number proudly posted next to my name in the logs. It gives me a personal sense of accomplishment because I know exactly what my count represents. I have my own standards as to when I will or will not allow myself a find credit. Other folks’ standards may differ from mine, but their find counts don’t much affect me and therefore don’t much matter to me. Like everybody else I learned early in my caching career that a raw find score is relatively meaningless unless you know more about the cacher. When I choose friendly competition, it is only against those whose personal standards I respect. Yes, I admit it can be a annoyance when one of the “log-‘em-all” types “finds” a cache that really isn’t there, causing me to waste time on a cache that I might not have attempted had it been properly DNFed, but ... this is a very uncommon occurrence in my experience. It is a minor annoyance, certainly nothing worthy of such an extreme countermeasure.

 

(2) As others have described, I find value in having a cacher’s numbers handy when considering, for example, how much a given DNF log should affect my decision to attempt a cache – or how valid a newbie’s comments in a Found It log might be.

 

(3) Find counts are popular, and thereby enhance the overall popularity of Geocaching.com. More popularity equals more fun caches to choose from. More popularity equals more revenue for the site equals a better website equals better Geocaching. The present formula works. It works very well, and it has worked very well for several years now. TPTB should consider very carefully before making such a fundamental change to the caching experience.

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).

It is still a tool to be used. A single screwdriver is as limited in its ability to do a job as well. A cross tip can't do what a flat tip can. And you don't throw it out of the toolbox because you can't wrench a nut off with it.

 

I have a very low count for the tme I've been involved. But people know me by basis of my time with the sport. Over time, you get to know who the players are and what value they have in terms of experience ratio to finds. You also get to know through various means who the cheaters are.

 

Here's the basic application I use the find count for: I see an alias I don't know with a low count, I'm assuming newbie. I see an alias I don't know wth a high count, I'm assuming been around long enough to know the right way to play even if they choose not to. If the find count is somewhere in between, I'll quantify it by looking at their profile. My response to either is weiighed in by that. Why make me two step the process when one step does the trick?

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB decided to not allow caches that solicit. Why did they do this? I'm assuming it's because they understand that it will lead the game down a path that they don't want the game to go. I don't know the history, but I'm assuming in the beginning it wasn't that way, and then at some point, they deemed it a big enough problem to do something about it....

 

Fast forward to the find count discussion....

 

TPTB have not decided that multi-logging has become a big enough problem to do something about it yet. They NEVER said that it isn't a problem, they just have chosen not to do anything. The find counts are the reason why people abusive certain aspects of the site, without them, the abuse would go away..

 

Seems simple enough to me.. Although the reasons stated for keeping the numbers are valid. I agree, because that's how I use the numbers as well..

 

It's too bad we can't all come together to find a valid way to eliminate the cheating while keeping the nice features that we all like to use.

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB decided to not allow caches that solicit. Why did they do this? I'm assuming it's because they understand that it will lead the game down a path that they don't want the game to go. I don't know the history, but I'm assuming in the beginning it wasn't that way, and then at some point, they deemed it a big enough problem to do something about it....

 

Fast forward to the find count discussion....

 

TPTB have not decided that multi-logging has become a big enough problem to do something about it yet. They NEVER said that it isn't a problem, they just have chosen not to do anything. The find counts are the reason why people abusive certain aspects of the site, without them, the abuse would go away..

 

Seems simple enough to me.. Although the reasons stated for keeping the numbers are valid. I agree, because that's how I use the numbers as well..

 

It's too bad we can't all come together to find a valid way to eliminate the cheating while keeping the nice features that we all like to use.

Your entire premise is a house of cards built on the premise that the bulk of geocachers and TPTB agree with your definitions of 'abuse' and 'cheating'. I suspect that you are mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB decided to not allow caches that solicit. Why did they do this? I'm assuming it's because they understand that it will lead the game down a path that they don't want the game to go. I don't know the history, but I'm assuming in the beginning it wasn't that way, and then at some point, they deemed it a big enough problem to do something about it....

 

Fast forward to the find count discussion....

 

TPTB have not decided that multi-logging has become a big enough problem to do something about it yet. They NEVER said that it isn't a problem, they just have chosen not to do anything. The find counts are the reason why people abusive certain aspects of the site, without them, the abuse would go away..

 

Seems simple enough to me.. Although the reasons stated for keeping the numbers are valid. I agree, because that's how I use the numbers as well..

 

It's too bad we can't all come together to find a valid way to eliminate the cheating while keeping the nice features that we all like to use.

 

Calling other geocachers "Cheaters" is a bold statement. Define "Cheating"!!

Share this post


Link to post

The find counts are the reason why people play in a way i don't want them to, without them, the thing that I don't like might go away..

 

Seems simple enough to me.. Although the reasons stated for keeping the numbers are valid. I agree, because that's how I use the numbers as well..

 

It's too bad we can't all come together to agree with me and eliminate the things I don't like while keeping the nice features that we all like to use.

 

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB decided to not allow caches that solicit. Why did they do this? I'm assuming it's because they understand that it will lead the game down a path that they don't want the game to go. I don't know the history, but I'm assuming in the beginning it wasn't that way, and then at some point, they deemed it a big enough problem to do something about it....

 

Fast forward to the find count discussion....

 

TPTB have not decided that multi-logging has become a big enough problem to do something about it yet. They NEVER said that it isn't a problem, they just have chosen not to do anything. The find counts are the reason why people abusive certain aspects of the site, without them, the abuse would go away..

 

Seems simple enough to me.. Although the reasons stated for keeping the numbers are valid. I agree, because that's how I use the numbers as well..

 

It's too bad we can't all come together to find a valid way to eliminate the cheating while keeping the nice features that we all like to use.

 

Calling other geocachers "Cheaters" is a bold statement. Define "Cheating"!!

You're nitpicking and Off Topic.

 

Btw, OSHA requires handles and seatbelts if you're going to jump on their back like that. :(

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post

Same expected crowd.. Same expected responses.. I didn't call anyone cheaters by the way, but some certainly took offense..

 

My father once told me that only the offensive take offense. (Not sure what that means totally, but it sounds good)

Share this post


Link to post
Define "Cheating"!!
Ok:

 

to deceive or mislead somebody, especially for personal advantage

Based on that definition, you should be able to agree that the people whose actions that you rail against are not cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Same expected crowd.. Same expected responses.. I didn't call anyone cheaters by the way, but some certainly took offense..

 

My father once told me that only the offensive take offense. (Not sure what that means totally, but it sounds good)

Personally, I find this response to be weak. It's very convenient to follow up a rude statement with 'anyone who disagrees with me must be guilty', but in my opinion, it's lame and very likely in violation of the guidelines.

 

I was, in fact, offended by your 'cheating' and 'abusive' comment. That being said, I don't practice the actions that you complain about. I was offended because you are being rude to others for taking actions that are not wrong, even though you disagree with them. I'm offended because behavior like yours makes all of us look petty.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me that there are two minor modifications that could be made to the site whereupon if either one were implemented, the result would be a more "straightforward" find count. One option would be to simply change the logging functionality so as to allow one and only one "found it" (or "attended") log per cache, regardless of cache type. The other would be to display a double find count for each profile where the first number is the find count, and the second number indicates the number of unique caches that were logged. In this way, if JoeCacherDude has a find count of 3025/3000 it would mean that he has logged 3025 "finds" on 3000 unique caches/events.

 

Of course, this does not address the somewhat legitimate complaint that 3000 urban micros found don't "equal" 100 ten mile hikes in the back country, but if one is sufficiently interested in another cacher to care how and where he made his finds, then one can easily check the profile page for the names of and information about his cache finds.

Share this post


Link to post

Please don't make me be a moderator. It's boring. Let's leave what has been said, said, and not post any further retaliatory remarks. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
...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.

Who cares? It's not their number to look at and, quite frankly, none of their business. I've mentioned this already. I'm already purposefully obscuring my numbers by refusing to log caches that I deem unworthy of feedback. Go take a look at the "numbers" statistics site and look us up. It's even further off. So, tell me again, just what that number is supposed to telling them?

Share this post


Link to post
...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.

Who cares? It's not their number to look at and, quite frankly, none of their business. I've mentioned this already. I'm already purposefully obscuring my numbers by refusing to log caches that I deem unworthy of feedback. Go take a look at the "numbers" statistics site and look us up. It's even further off. So, tell me again, just what that number is supposed to telling them?

 

Making an argument purely based on that it will upset people is not valid. Sometimes doing the right thing upsets people. Unfortunately, I think too many decisions here are based on how many people it will perceive to upset.

Share this post


Link to post

Upon reading more of the posts after the one I responded to above it seems having options is wrong and counter productive.

Share this post


Link to post
...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.

Who cares? It's not their number to look at and, quite frankly, none of their business. I've mentioned this already. I'm already purposefully obscuring my numbers by refusing to log caches that I deem unworthy of feedback.

I do the same thing now. It really cuts down on the workload when I get home. :D

Share this post


Link to post

It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.

Share this post


Link to post
Making an argument purely based on that it will upset people is not valid.

Really?

 

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this entire discussion started because a few people like yourself were bothered, distressed, annoyed, displeased, offended, disturbed, troubled – shall we say, "upset" – at the way certain people were multilogging event caches? Many people have even reported that they feel "abused" by the practice. If merely being upset about something is not a valid argument, as you say – and I tend to agree with you – then you might want to come up with a new supporting reason for your proposed change.

 

If someone logs the same event cache 50 times, that behavior has absolutely no effect on me or my caching activities. I am honestly trying to get worked up about it, but I just can’t seem to manage any outrage. I myself don't understand the attraction, but if it's fun for them, what do I care? I am fully aware of the limitations on using raw find count data as a measure of a person’s experience, and I just don’t see how anyone’s event-multilogging behavior affects me in the slightest.

 

If their behavior ever does begin to upset me, that’s my problem, is it not?

 

I agree: "Making an argument purely based on that something will upset people is not valid."

Share this post


Link to post

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this entire discussion started because a few people like yourself were bothered, distressed, annoyed, displeased, offended, disturbed, troubled – shall we say, "upset" – at the way certain people were multilogging event caches?

 

I am not bothered, distressed, annoyed, displeased, offended, disturbed, troubled, or UPSET. In fact, arguing this topic is the most fun I've had all week, considering if I'm not in these forums having fun, I'm writing boring code for the rest of the day....

 

Now that we've established that...

 

The best argument I've heard for why we should keep the numbers is that they are somehow helpful to people.. I think we can all agree that the numbers are becoming more and more useless as time goes on. The most common argument in this thread is that it's been tried before and too many people got upset. My comment was in regards specifically to that argument, which is not valid.

 

Thank goodness the world doesn't work that way, otherwise people who complain and make the most noise would get their way... Oh wait, I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.
When it really comes down to it, I only remember the ones that were special. There are many caches that I honestly can't remember the next day. So if I can't remember them what's the point of wasting time to log them? That way my journal becomes all the stuff that I want to remember. :D Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.
When it really comes down to it, I only remember the ones that were special. There are many caches that I honestly can't remember the next day. So if I can't remember them what's the point of wasting time to log them? That way my journal becomes all the stuff that I want to remember. :D

Hm...interesting psychology to see the different takes on life. :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.
When it really comes down to it, I only remember the ones that were special. There are many caches that I honestly can't remember the next day. So if I can't remember them what's the point of wasting time to log them? That way my journal becomes all the stuff that I want to remember. :D

Hm...interesting psychology to see the different takes on life. :D:D
Yep. Haven't you ever had trouble remembering a cache that you found? I have a caching buddy that would log "I can't remember this cache, but thanks for the cache" on the ones he couldn't remember. I thought it was really funny mainly because it was so true.

Share this post


Link to post
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this entire discussion started because a few people like yourself were bothered, distressed, annoyed, displeased, offended, disturbed, troubled – shall we say, "upset" – at the way certain people were multilogging event caches?

I am not bothered, distressed, annoyed, displeased, offended, disturbed, troubled, or UPSET.

You're not? Well then, if you’re not personally feeling abused by multiple finds, why bring it up? :D

 

You originally said:

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.
If "abuse" is no longer your reason; if log-displayed find counts don’t really bother you, then what exactly IS your reason for wanting to see the removal of something that other people clearly enjoy?

 

 

The best argument I've heard for why we should keep the numbers is that they are somehow helpful to people. I think we can all agree that the numbers are becoming more and more useless as time goes on.

Useless to you maybe, not to everyone. I listed some reasons why those numbers are VERY useful to me. I think what you meant to say is “less useful to (you) than (you) would prefer.”

 

Typewriters, corded phones, vinyl records and non-microwave popcorn are also becoming less useful as time goes on. Should those things also be forcibly restricted from the general population simply because they are less useful to you than you might prefer?

 

TotemLake gave an excellent analysis of the flaw in that logic. A tool may be imperfect, yet it may still possess plenty of usefulness. Just because a tool is imperfect is no reason to throw it away, and it certainly doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to restrict other peoples’ access to something that provides utility and is otherwise harmless.

 

Besides, thst's not the only defense. Many of us have listed some very valid non-tool reasons for appreciating the numbers. You haven’t countered any of those reasons.

 

The most common argument in this thread is that it's been tried before and too many people got upset. My comment was in regards specifically to that argument, which is not valid.

In that case I disagree. That argument IS valid.

 

This website is a business. A business must keep its customers happy in order to survive. I believe Groundspeak acted rationally the first time around, and I don’t foresee any change to their strategy.

 

You may dislike looking at the numbers (in some apparently non-upsetting fashion), but a large number of cachers obviously DO like looking at them, and ... when dollars vote, the majority rules.

 

Thank goodness the world doesn't work that way, otherwise people who complain and make the most noise would get their way...

Which is why I generally feel compelled to offer my opposing viewpoint whenever I see a vocal minority trying to force their version of the “proper” game upon everyone else. If the rest of us fail to speak up, our silence might be mistaken for concurrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Thank goodness the world doesn't work that way, otherwise people who complain and make the most noise would get their way...
Which is why I generally feel compelled to offer my opposing viewpoint whenever I see a vocal minority trying to force their version of the "proper" game upon everyone else. If the rest of us fail to speak up, our silence might be mistaken for concurrence.

Honestly KBI, both you and your brother are so dramatic. I sometimes wonder if you guys really believe that there are actually scores of innocent people cowering in some corner waiting for you to come out and defend them. I wish you guys would just state your own opinions and let everyone else state theirs and knock off the defender facade. :D Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Thank goodness the world doesn't work that way, otherwise people who complain and make the most noise would get their way...
Which is why I generally feel compelled to offer my opposing viewpoint whenever I see a vocal minority trying to force their version of the "proper" game upon everyone else. If the rest of us fail to speak up, our silence might be mistaken for concurrence.

Honestly KBI, both you and your brother are so dramatic. I sometimes wonder if you guys really believe that there are actually scores of innocent people cowering in some corner waiting for you to come out and defend them. I wish you guys would just state your own opinions and knock off the defender facade. :D

I am only speaking for myself. It was never my intent to imply that I was speaking for anyone else. In fact, should a groundswell of "multilogging abuse victims" ever rise up and indicate that the vast majority of cachers ARE inconsolably troubled whenever a find count appears next to someone’s log, I will stand corrected, and at that time I will join the call for immediate removal of the offending numbers.

 

Until then I stand by my position.

 

Honestly TrailGators, do you have anything at all to say in response to my comments, such as something -- anything -- to convince me that you are a victim, and that this dreaded multilogging behavior actually constitutes some real form of "abuse" ...

 

... or do you actually believe that the best way to support your position is to abandon the topic at hand, and instead make lame personal attacks against me and my family?

Share this post


Link to post
Thank goodness the world doesn't work that way, otherwise people who complain and make the most noise would get their way...
Which is why I generally feel compelled to offer my opposing viewpoint whenever I see a vocal minority trying to force their version of the "proper" game upon everyone else. If the rest of us fail to speak up, our silence might be mistaken for concurrence.

Honestly KBI, both you and your brother are so dramatic. I sometimes wonder if you guys really believe that there are actually scores of innocent people cowering in some corner waiting for you to come out and defend them. I wish you guys would just state your own opinions and knock off the defender facade. :D

I am only speaking for myself. It was never my intent to imply that I was speaking for anyone else. In fact, should a groundswell of "multilogging abuse victims" ever rise up and indicate that the vast majority of cachers ARE inconsolably troubled whenever a find count appears next to someone's log, I will stand corrected, and at that time I will join the call for immediate removal of the offending numbers.

 

Until then I stand by my position.

 

Honestly TrailGators, do you have anything at all to say in response to my comments, such as something -- anything -- to convince me that you are a victim, and that this dreaded multilogging behavior actually constitutes some real form of "abuse" ...

 

... or do you actually believe that the best way to support your position is to abandon the topic at hand, and instead make lame personal attacks against me and my family?

If that was an attack then you must bend with the tiniest breeze. It was simply feedback. Making comments like "vocal minority trying to force their version of the "proper" game upon everyone else" is being overly dramatic. Nobody is "forcing" anything. These are forums where you come and state your opinions. That is a far cry from "forcing." :D

 

Edit: I've already stated that I would remove my find counts from public view if it were an option. There is a lot more to this game than some stupid count.

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.
When it really comes down to it, I only remember the ones that were special. There are many caches that I honestly can't remember the next day. So if I can't remember them what's the point of wasting time to log them? That way my journal becomes all the stuff that I want to remember. :D

Hm...interesting psychology to see the different takes on life. :D:D
Yep. Haven't you ever had trouble remembering a cache that you found? I have a caching buddy that would log "I can't remember this cache, but thanks for the cache" on the ones he couldn't remember. I thought it was really funny mainly because it was so true.

Nope, I haven't forgotten a cache before I logged it. I have had to think back if it was a trip and there were a lot of caches, but that's only happened a couple times and I remembered after some memory clues. I suppose if I waited months I may forget. But that's why I try not to wait and I log them. I like having that memory and the knowledge of where I've been. I feel the same about everything in life. Everything's made me who I am, whether it was good or bad it's a part of me.

Share this post


Link to post
It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.
When it really comes down to it, I only remember the ones that were special. There are many caches that I honestly can't remember the next day. So if I can't remember them what's the point of wasting time to log them? That way my journal becomes all the stuff that I want to remember. :D

Hm...interesting psychology to see the different takes on life. :D:D
Yep. Haven't you ever had trouble remembering a cache that you found? I have a caching buddy that would log "I can't remember this cache, but thanks for the cache" on the ones he couldn't remember. I thought it was really funny mainly because it was so true.

Nope, I haven't forgotten a cache before I logged it. I have had to think back if it was a trip and there were a lot of caches, but that's only happened a couple times and I remembered after some memory clues. I suppose if I waited months I may forget. But that's why I try not to wait and I log them. I like having that memory and the knowledge of where I've been. I feel the same about everything in life. Everything's made me who I am, whether it was good or bad it's a part of me.

Then you have a good memory. By the way, I wasn't calling any "bad." I just think that caches range from memorable to forgetable. Whenever, I've gone out and found 40-50 caches in a weekend, I always had ones that I can't remember. Nowadays, I don't do so many and I am more selective so I do remember them all.

Share this post


Link to post
It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.
When it really comes down to it, I only remember the ones that were special. There are many caches that I honestly can't remember the next day. So if I can't remember them what's the point of wasting time to log them? That way my journal becomes all the stuff that I want to remember. :D

Hm...interesting psychology to see the different takes on life. :D:D
Yep. Haven't you ever had trouble remembering a cache that you found? I have a caching buddy that would log "I can't remember this cache, but thanks for the cache" on the ones he couldn't remember. I thought it was really funny mainly because it was so true.

Nope, I haven't forgotten a cache before I logged it. I have had to think back if it was a trip and there were a lot of caches, but that's only happened a couple times and I remembered after some memory clues. I suppose if I waited months I may forget. But that's why I try not to wait and I log them. I like having that memory and the knowledge of where I've been. I feel the same about everything in life. Everything's made me who I am, whether it was good or bad it's a part of me.

Then you have a good memory. By the way, I wasn't calling any "bad." I just think that caches range from memorable to forgetable. Whenever, I've gone out and found 40-50 caches in a weekend, I always had ones that I can't remember. Nowadays, I don't do so many and I am more selective so I do remember them all.

I'm just way to tight and ocd. Gotta put everything in its place :D

Share this post


Link to post
It really doesn't matter to me if the cache wasn't very good or not, I log every cache. It's a journal of what I've done through the years, and that's what's important me.
When it really comes down to it, I only remember the ones that were special. There are many caches that I honestly can't remember the next day. So if I can't remember them what's the point of wasting time to log them? That way my journal becomes all the stuff that I want to remember. :D

Hm...interesting psychology to see the different takes on life. :D:D
Yep. Haven't you ever had trouble remembering a cache that you found? I have a caching buddy that would log "I can't remember this cache, but thanks for the cache" on the ones he couldn't remember. I thought it was really funny mainly because it was so true.

Nope, I haven't forgotten a cache before I logged it. I have had to think back if it was a trip and there were a lot of caches, but that's only happened a couple times and I remembered after some memory clues. I suppose if I waited months I may forget. But that's why I try not to wait and I log them. I like having that memory and the knowledge of where I've been. I feel the same about everything in life. Everything's made me who I am, whether it was good or bad it's a part of me.

Then you have a good memory. By the way, I wasn't calling any "bad." I just think that caches range from memorable to forgetable. Whenever, I've gone out and found 40-50 caches in a weekend, I always had ones that I can't remember. Nowadays, I don't do so many and I am more selective so I do remember them all.

I'm just way to tight and ocd. Gotta put everything in its place :D

Actually, I think the term for that is anal retentive. I know a lot of people like that. There's nothing wrong with being super organized. We need people like that in fields like accounting. :D As far as OCD, I think geocaching attracts a lot of OCD types. I think most of the numbers maniacs are OCDs. I'm not sure why so many people are like that. It would be interesting to understand what makes people become like that. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
If that was an attack then you must bend with the tiniest breeze.

No offence taken. I was simply curious why you chose to attack me personally instead of debating the topic. Come to think of it, you didn't actually answer that question, did you?.

 

It was simply feedback.

Riiiiiiiight.

 

When others do it to you, it's an off-topic attack. When you do it to others, it's "feedback."

 

Gotcha. :D

 

Making comments like "vocal minority trying to force their version of the "proper" game upon everyone else" is being overly dramatic.

No, I believe it is dead-on accurate.

 

A few people have expressed that they feel victimized by those who sometimes log an event cache more than once.

 

A few people make it their business to publicly look down their noses at anyone they feel has run up their numbers "too easily."

 

Your proposal to deal with the event cache "problem" was to directly restrict how often a cache can be logged. (That suggestion was rejected, as I recall.)

 

The current proposal to deal with the "problem" is to completely remove find counts from ALL logs on ALL cache pages, regardless whether any of us non-victims happen to like them there.

 

Nobody has convinced me that this alleged abuse exists, yet a vocal few still feel the need to discourage others' allegedly "offensive" behavior and to protect the rest of us from ourselves.

 

Therefore, a "vocal minority trying to force their version of the "proper" game upon everyone else" IS an accurate description.

 

........

 

As for being "overly dramatic," an example of that would be if one were to use words like "scores of innocent people cowering in some corner."

 

Nobody is "forcing" anything. These are forums where you come and state your opinions. That is a far cry from "forcing." :D

Nobody is "forcing" anything?

 

I am happy with the status quo and believe it is harmless. Many others have spoken up to say the same. Those who are NOT happy with the status quo have NOT put up any convincing arguments to show that there is a problem, yet they keep asking Groundspeak to impose a universal change upon the rest of us via new restrictive rules. Did I miss anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody is "forcing" anything. These are forums where you come and state your opinions. That is a far cry from "forcing." :D
Nobody is "forcing" anything? I am happy with the status quo and believe it is harmless. Many others have spoken up to say the same. Those who are NOT happy with the status quo have NOT put up any convincing arguments to show that there is a problem, yet they keep asking Groundspeak to impose a universal change upon the rest of us via new restrictive rules. Did I miss anything?
I think you need to pull out a dictionary and look up the word "force." Anyhow, you seem to be unable to turn off the dramatics. There was another topic that Nate ended that you cannot seem to let go. I let it go. This topic is about not having find counts. I have already stated that I would like to have the option to hide their MY find count. How is this a restrictive rule being "imposed" on you?

Share this post


Link to post

I like the find count just the way it is. It's useful to me, and it does just what I need it to do. I would not be happy if anything about it changed. Most of the people I cache with tell me they feel exactly the same way I do.

Share this post


Link to post
I like the find count just the way it is. It's useful to me, and it does just what I need it to do. I would not be happy if anything about it changed. Most of the people I cache with tell me they feel exactly the same way I do.
So would you be unhappy if you could not see my find count?

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody is "forcing" anything. These are forums where you come and state your opinions. That is a far cry from "forcing." :D
Nobody is "forcing" anything? I am happy with the status quo and believe it is harmless. Many others have spoken up to say the same. Those who are NOT happy with the status quo have NOT put up any convincing arguments to show that there is a problem, yet they keep asking Groundspeak to impose a universal change upon the rest of us via new restrictive rules. Did I miss anything?

I think you need to pull out a dictionary and look up the word "force."

Please don't obfuscate. I gave a clear description to support why I used that carefully chosen word. Do you have anything at all to say to counter my position, or to support your claim of "abuse?" Come to think of it, you still haven't answered my question ...

 

Anyhow, you seem to be unable to turn off the dramatics.

... and I see you're still clinging, instead, to your lame personal attack.

 

I don't blame you. It's an inconvenient question.

 

There was another topic that Nate ended that you cannot seem to let go.

That’s only because it well supported my premise that you and others are trying to force a universal change on the game without proving your "abuse" claims.

 

This topic is about not having find counts. I have already stated that I would like to have the option to hide their MY find count. How is this a restrictive rule being "imposed" on you?

I have already explained that quite clearly, you must have missed it. It’s at the bottom of my last post. I invite you to go back, and please read it this time.

Share this post


Link to post
I like the find count just the way it is. It's useful to me, and it does just what I need it to do. I would not be happy if anything about it changed. Most of the people I cache with tell me they feel exactly the same way I do.

So would you be unhappy if you could not see my find count?

Having to click on each cacher's name, one at a time, to get to their profile and read the number seems like an unnecessary hassle compared to the present automated system, don’t you think?

 

Just curious: Why would you want to hide your find count?

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.

 

Thoughts-

 

I myself enjoy the find count aspect of the game, if for no other reason to give myself goals and insights into my new hobby/pastime/game/obsession/time filler. It is ingrained in human behavior to be competitive in nature, whether wholeheartedly in the FTF races or just in the back of the brain at some subconscious level as to what the Jones' are up to. My take on the multi-logging abuse; if it floats YOUR boat, go for it, if not then don't do it. It really doesn't hurt what I feel is my prime reason for doing this, the enjoyment of the moment and the memory of what transpired while searching for that piece of Tupperware/Altoids tin under a lamp-skirt/ or that way-cool container that someone took a lot of time and effort to produce and maintain. My numbers are kept up to date on itsnotaboutthenumbers for the most part and many of these types of numbers can be found/produced/maintained there {multi-logs}. {yes, please go look my counts up, I keep them up to date for a reason!} For I do look at your numbers for whatever my reasons are at that particular time since it is information that is available for whatever reason :D .

 

As far as eliminating any perceived abuse of logging a cache/event, there is no way around this; just hiding someone's numbers doesn't mean at the next event they wouldn't boast of their abilities at geocaching, much like a fisherman's fish story told around the campfire after the "fact". That too is part of the fun. Everything in life should be taken with a grain of salt and viewed in perspective, its a hobby/game/obsession. For the most part from my short experiences with this, the vast majority of cachers I have run into at caches or gone out caching with seem to be enjoying themselves at that particular time, and I enjoy meeting them out there. So regardless of how they log their finds later, the actual event of being out there finding enjoyment seems that the overall mission of Geocaching has been accomplished. Why fix something that isn't really broken?

 

So even if I am the only person who enjoys the numbers part of the game as just another part of it or furthering of it, the numbers should stay!!! {just my poke at levity}.

Share this post


Link to post
I like the find count just the way it is. It's useful to me, and it does just what I need it to do. I would not be happy if anything about it changed. Most of the people I cache with tell me they feel exactly the same way I do.
So would you be unhappy if you could not see my find count?

I wouldn't, but only because you're not in my area and I don't see your name on cache pages that I read (and I don't have event pages on my watchlist from across the country).

 

If nobody's find counts were on the cache pages I look at anymore because a small vocal group in the forums complained loudly, suggesting that it's best for all of us that we don't see them, and I never spoke up myself and said otherwise, I would be very upset.

 

Here's another set of Rush lyrics for you from the same album you quoted in the other thread. They seem very appropriate here. Recognize this song? (I hope this isn't being too dramatic)

 

"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"

Share this post


Link to post
It's an inconvenient question.
I have no clue what question you are talking about. Why don't you quit beating around the bush and ask a clear and coherent question?

Share this post


Link to post
I like the find count just the way it is. It's useful to me, and it does just what I need it to do. I would not be happy if anything about it changed. Most of the people I cache with tell me they feel exactly the same way I do.

So would you be unhappy if you could not see my find count?

Having to click on each cacher's name, one at a time, to get to their profile and read the number seems like an unnecessary hassle compared to the present automated system, don't you think?

 

Just curious: Why would you want to hide your find count?

I would just want the freedom to do it. I might hide it or I might not. If I did hide it it, would be to show that I play the game for a different reason. Freedom is cool! :D

Share this post


Link to post
It's an inconvenient question.
I have no clue what question you are talking about. Why don't you quit beating around the bush and ask a clear and coherent question?

It was in this post. I guess you missed that too.

 

Here, I'll quote it for you:

Honestly TrailGators, do you have anything at all to say in response to my comments, such as something -- anything -- to convince me that you are a victim, and that this dreaded multilogging behavior actually constitutes some real form of "abuse" ...

 

... or do you actually believe that the best way to support your position is to abandon the topic at hand, and instead make lame personal attacks against me and my family?

Share this post


Link to post
Just curious: Why would you want to hide your find count?

I would just want the freedom to do it. I might hide it or I might not. If I did hide it it, would be to show that I play the game for a different reason. Freedom is cool! :D

Fair enough. I can live with that. Maybe you'd like to tell the world "I’m not here to compete." Works for me!

 

Question: Do you suppose that merely having that option available would be good enough for the Original Poster of this thread? He seems to want ALL find counts stricken from ALL cache logs.

 

Maybe he’ll tell us himself.

Share this post


Link to post
It's an inconvenient question.
I have no clue what question you are talking about. Why don't you quit beating around the bush and ask a clear and coherent question?

It was in this post. I guess you missed that too.

 

Here, I'll quote it for you:

Honestly TrailGators, do you have anything at all to say in response to my comments, such as something -- anything -- to convince me that you are a victim, and that this dreaded multilogging behavior actually constitutes some real form of "abuse" ...

Victim? Drama. Bringing up a dead topic like multilogging. More drama. Are we ready for Act 2 Scene 3 yet? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Victim? Drama. Bringing up a dead topic like multilogging. More drama. Are we ready for Act 2 Scene 3 yet? :D

Dead topic? Um, did you ever actually read the Original Post, TG?

 

You might want to check it out before you continue this line.

 

And you STILL haven't answered the question. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I used to be jealous of all the cachers with more finds than me.... now I'm only jealous of 6 of them. :D :D :D

 

I use the find counts all the time. I'll give an example (hopefully this is not off the subject).

 

In our events, we like to congratulate the new cachers when they reach milestones. 50 finds, 100 finds, etc.. The new cachers then award the next new cachers with the same milestone award in perpetuity.

 

another example

If I see a DNF on a cache, I immediately go check the geocachers stats, to see if they are new and in-experienced, or even just a powercacher who only spends 7 minutes searching. This info helps me to determine if I shoud go hunt for the cache....or in the case of my own caches, whether to go do maintenance.

 

Don't change what isn't broke. :D I've been in too many groups that quit because of a micro-group changes things that are working just fine. ....yes, those of us in the forums are a very, very, very micro group.

The majority of cachers are out hunting! :D

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...