Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ReadyOrNot

Find Counts

Recommended Posts

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

I think you might want to go read Act 1 Scene 1, it appears you missed it. :D:D

Edited by Mushtang

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

I've read it and I also stated what I think. This is how the forums work. He has his opinion, you have yours and I have mine. :D

 

Because you insist on rehashing a dead topic: Unless someone logs 1001 temp logs on some cache, you have nothing to worry about. Nobody is going to "force" TPTB to change anything. Nate stated this very clearly. I actually think it's impossible for one person to log 1000 temps at one event. Therefore, I took Nate's comment to mean that TPTB will never stop temps.

Share this post


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

I think you might want to go read Act 1 Scene 1, it appears you missed it. :D:D

"Hark! Who goes there?" :D I thinkith the OP wantith to get ridith of the find countith because he thinkith that the numbers are a jokeith. When there art people with thousands of temp finds it is a jokith. However, I thinkith that the choice should be given to each to decide for themselves. Freedom to play the game how you want to play is what is most importantith. :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

I've read it and I also stated what I think. This is how the forums work. He has his opinion, you have yours and I have mine. :D

... and the OP's very clearly stated opinion it that multilogging is the VERY REASON he wants to see a wholesale change imposed on the rest of us, system wide.

 

Do you agree with his proposal, TG?

 

Do you agree with his premise that multilogging of an event cache constitutes "abuse," TG?

 

If so, do you consider yourself a victim of multilogging, TG?

 

Because you insist on rehashing a dead topic: Unless someone logs 1001 temp logs on some cache, you have nothing to worry about. Nobody is going to "force" TPTB to change anything. Nate stated this very clearly. I actually think it's impossible for one person to log 1000 temps at one event. Therefore, I took Nate's comment to mean that TPTB will never stop temps.

Nate rejected your proposal. This thread is about an entirely new and different proposal. I only brought yours up to make a point, as I already explained.

 

Besides, I don't think Nate's 1000 number was meant to be anything official. I took it to mean that he pulled a big-sounding number out of the air on the fly to make his point: that he and the others in charge don't see any problem as things are, and that multilogging would have to get several orders of magnitude higher before they would even care.

Share this post


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

I think you might want to go read Act 1 Scene 1, it appears you missed it. :D:D

"Hark! Who goes there?" :D I thinkith the OP wantith to get ridith of the find countith because he thinkith that the numbers are a jokeith. When there art people with thousands of temp finds it is a jokith. However, I thinkith that the choice should be given to each to decide for themselves. Freedom to play the game how you want to play is what is most importantith. :D

I like that you've admitted this. Thanks TrailGaterth, I have a feeling I'll be linking you back to this post at some point.

Edited by Mushtang

Share this post


Link to post
I thinkith that the choice should be given to each to decide for themselves. Freedom to play the game how you want to play is what is most importantith.

I like that you've admitted this.

Me too. I'm glad this little debate has come to a happy conclusion. :D

Share this post


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

I think you might want to go read Act 1 Scene 1, it appears you missed it. :D:D

"Hark! Who goes there?" :D I thinkith the OP wantith to get ridith of the find countith because he thinkith that the numbers are a jokeith. When there art people with thousands of temp finds it is a jokith. However, I thinkith that the choice should be given to each to decide for themselves. Freedom to play the game how you want to play is what is most importantith. :D

I like that you've admitted this. Thanks TrailGaterth, I have a feeling I'll be linking you back to this post at some point.

But Muththangith, you and KBIth don't want the siteith to let thy have the optionith to hideith my countith. Freedomith should beith a two way streetith. :D Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, one more try before bedtime:

 

Do you agree with the OP's proposal to remove ALL find counts from ALL cache pages, TrailGators?

 

Do you agree with his premise that multilogging of an event cache constitutes "abuse," TG?

 

If so, do you consider yourself a victim of other cachers' multilogging, TG?

Share this post


Link to post
Do you agree with the OP's proposal to remove ALL find counts from ALL cache pages, TrailGators?
I already gave my opinion. I'm sure you can easily compare my answer to his suggestion to answer your own question. So why are you asking me a question that you know the answer to?

 

Do you agree with his premise that multilogging of an event cache constitutes "abuse," TG?
Yes.

 

If so, do you consider yourself a victim of other cachers' multilogging, TG?
Change the word victim to something far less dramatic and then I will answer.

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.

Yes, that was the term I was thinking of in my mind, but wasn't going to post to be polite. :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.

Yes, that was the term I was thinking of in my mind, but wasn't going to post to be polite. :D

Oops, I guess that means I wasn't. Sorry, I thought it was an accepted term. :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.

We keep a paper journal. That's good enough for me. In fact, it's better because we can write what we really feel. I don't feel it's very important to log "TNLNSL" on a cache that was pretty much a waste of my time. It's easier to click the ignore button.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, that was the term I was thinking of in my mind, but wasn't going to post to be polite. :D

Oops, I guess that means I wasn't. Sorry, I thought it was an accepted term. :D

I didn't mean to infer that! Lol. I use that term all the time, it's one of my favorites. :D But when I was going to write it down, I just couldn't. I've been scolded too many times in life. :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.

We keep a paper journal. That's good enough for me. In fact, it's better because we can write what we really feel. I don't feel it's very important to log "TNLNSL" on a cache that was pretty much a waste of my time. It's easier to click the ignore button.

I understand.

 

I like having everything in one spot. I've tried paper, and it gets lost. I've tried my computer, then I lose documents when it crashes. So gc.com better work out! :D I like having it all in order by date, and I've used it many times over the years to help me remember where I was and what I was doing.

 

I don't ever feel that I need to log TNLNSL, ugh. In fact, my longest log entry was on an LPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Do you agree with the OP's proposal to remove ALL find counts from ALL cache pages, TrailGators?
I already gave my opinion. I'm sure you can easily compare my answer to his suggestion to answer your own question. So why are you asking me a question that you know the answer to?

Your question is a fair one.

 

I am asking because I need clarification in order to understand why you continue to debate me instead of the OP.

 

Your previous comments make clear that you would prefer folks have the option only to remove their own find count from their cache logs, not that ALL find counts should be completely removed from ALL cache logs as the OP proposes. Did I get that right? When you made that suggestion many posts back I supported it, and I still do.

 

If I have, in fact, correctly interpreted your answer to the question, then of course your position puts you and me on the same side of this debate – which, since you still seem to have a problem with my comments, leads me to the next obvious question:

 

What exactly have I said here that you DO oppose?

 

Do you agree with his premise that multilogging of an event cache constitutes "abuse," TG?
Yes.

Thank you.

 

Took a while, but I got my answer. (Sometimes patience pays off! :D )

 

If so, do you consider yourself a victim of other cachers' multilogging, TG?
Change the word victim to something far less dramatic and then I will answer.

I’m sorry if that word bothers you, TG, but "victim" is accurate. It is not my intent to offend you; if you want to give me a different, less troubling word that is equivalent or better for the purpose, I’ll consider using it.

 

I’ve pointed it out before: In order for abuse to exist, there must also be a victim. If there is no victim, then there is, by definition, no "abuse."

 

You can’t have it both ways, TG. You have now clearly stated that you believe multilogging of an event cache constitutes "abuse." If so, then who is the victim?

 

Are you the victim? If you are, then please explain how the practice of event multilogging causes you to suffer personal damage, pain, stress, or any other quantifiable loss or harm. By what mechanism, exactly, does someone else's event multilogging make you a victim?

 

Is someone else the victim? If so, then please tell me why, in light of your previous comments to me, you feel the need to defend someone else who is free to speak for themselves? Also, please explain how the practice of event multilogging causes that victim to suffer personal damage, pain, stress, or any other quantifiable loss or harm.

Share this post


Link to post
What exactly have I said here that you DO oppose?
I oppose the dramatics. I don't like it when people exaggerate things by using overly strong words like "force," "impose" and "victim." If an objective observer were reading this thread he would never guess that you are talking about a game. Even the word "abuse" is too strong. Anyhow, when you use strong words like that you make it seem like things are way more important than they really are. Maybe it's your opinion but it's not my opinion. :D

Pure obfuscation.

 

I offered to adjust my language to use words of your choosing, yet you have made no attempt to provide any alternative. You have expressed unhappiness with certain terms I have used, yet you can give no argument to convince me that those terms are either inaccurate or imprecise as they apply to the debate. I repeated my questions many times and in many different ways, merely to help you clarify your position, and you have squandered each of those opportunities by doing pretty much anything but debate the issue.

 

You are still conveniently ignoring the debate, refusing to answer some very clear and very reasonable yet apparently very inconvenient questions.

 

Truth is, I think you’ve actually answered my main question, if unintentionally. By dancing around the question you’ve indicated that you are apparently too uncomfortable with the truth to give the honest answer, which leads me to speculate, based on previous comments and in absence of any rebuttal or clarification from you, that your reason for belittling the provably benign behavior of others is purely emotional, unreasonable and selfish: You simply want to see the website change its rules so that more people will play the way you do.

 

You are welcome to refute any of that; until then, and until you give a serious response to those very simple questions, I’m done talking to 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.
So would you be unhappy if you could not see my find count?

Yes, I would be unhappy if I could not see the find counts of other cachers. As I said, I like it just the way it is and I find it useful, just the way it is. Most of the people I cache with tell me they feel exactly the same way I do.

 

Added later: The other people I cache with tell me they would like to see even more numbers associated with the caches.

Edited by Neos2

Share this post


Link to post

Keep the post counts, have the duplicate "finds" automatically deleted. Doesn't look like some of the owners care when duplicates show up. When they happen on my caches, I delete the dupes and let the cacher know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh please save me! Oh moderators, use thy powereth to closeth this threadeth. Endeth my misery!
A fittingly tragic ending to a highly dramatic thread! :(

Share this post


Link to post

Oh please save me! Oh moderators, use thy powereth to closeth this threadeth. Endeth my misery!

IBL

 

I was thinking today about the people who say they use the find counts to decide how to handle DNF and realized that this could be bad. I've seen cachers who choose to archive their caches because one or two very high number cachers failed to find it. What's worse is that they often don't even check if there is cache to remove. One the other hand I've seen caches with several DNFs from relative newbies. Some may even have a detail description of how they found an empty tupperware containter or caching swag scattered around ground zeros. Yet the owner does nothing because the cachers who DNFd have low find count. (Or maybe the cache is a log-only micro - so empty tupperware and swag might not mean anything.)

Share this post


Link to post

Oh please save me! Oh moderators, use thy powereth to closeth this threadeth. Endeth my misery!

IBL

 

I was thinking today about the people who say they use the find counts to decide how to handle DNF and realized that this could be bad. I've seen cachers who choose to archive their caches because one or two very high number cachers failed to find it. What's worse is that they often don't even check if there is cache to remove. One the other hand I've seen caches with several DNFs from relative newbies. Some may even have a detail description of how they found an empty tupperware containter or caching swag scattered around ground zeros. Yet the owner does nothing because the cachers who DNFd have low find count. (Or maybe the cache is a log-only micro - so empty tupperware and swag might not mean anything.)

When people DNF my caches I email them to ask where they looked. I agree that using some unreliable number is not a good method.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree that using some unreliable number is not a good method.

Yet some folks think the method is perfectly fine because it is the only thing available and don't want anything better. I simply don't see the logic in that.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree that using some unreliable number is not a good method.

Yet some folks think the method is perfectly fine because it is the only thing available and don't want anything better. I simply don't see the logic in that.

Personally I don't mind finding better alternatives. If the only thing you want to use the find count for is to judge DNFs then there are certainly better options of information to be displayed.

 

But that's not the only reason the find count is there. I don't think the percentage of people who falsly inflate their find count is that high. I haven't done any studies, but it would surprise me if it were over 5%, and I suspect it's less than 1%. So looking at the find count beside someone's name is still useful to see how many actual finds someone has.

 

There are probably only a dozen or so people who's find count I purposefully check whenever I see their name on a log, the rest I may or may not notice. I know these dozen people, I know how they cache, I know exactly what their find count represents. But I still like to have that information at their logs when I happen to come across one on a cache page, I'd hate to have to go clicking around to find it.

 

When I read cache pages of caches I've found while out of town, the find number not only helps me judge DNFs but also information contained in their logs on the Finds.

 

But the main reason I don't want to see find counts taken away is...... there's no reason to remove them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums doesn't like them. This group feels that they need to remove them so other people can't use them because obviously the people using them don't know what the numbers really mean, and they must be saved from the people who falsify their find counts.

Share this post


Link to post
... But the main reason I don't want to see find counts taken away is...... there's no reason to remove them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums doesn't like them. This group feels that they need to remove them so other people can't use them because obviously the people using them don't know what the numbers really mean, and they must be saved from the people who falsify their find counts.

I couldn't have said it better.

Share this post


Link to post

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. :santa:

 

:santa:

Share this post


Link to post
... But the main reason I don't want to see find counts taken away is...... there's no reason to remove them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums doesn't like them. This group feels that they need to remove them so other people can't use them because obviously the people using them don't know what the numbers really mean, and they must be saved from the people who falsify their find counts.

I couldn't have said it better.

You did say it better. Several times.

Share this post


Link to post
... But the main reason I don't want to see find counts taken away is...... there's no reason to remove them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums doesn't like them. This group feels that they need to remove them so other people can't use them because obviously the people using them don't know what the numbers really mean, and they must be saved from the people who falsify their find counts.
I couldn't have said it better.
You did say it better. Several times.
Don't forget that KBI supported giving people the choice to hide their find counts if they wanted to: :santa:
Your previous comments make clear that you would prefer folks have the option only to remove their own find count from their cache logs, not that all find counts should be completely removed from all cache logs as the OP proposes. When you made that suggestion many posts back I supported it, and I still do.
By the way Mushtang, this will dissappoint you but I don't want to be 'saved' and I doubt you could find anyone else does either. So I think Mushtang could have said it better. :santa:

Share this post


Link to post
... But the main reason I don't want to see find counts taken away is...... there's no reason to remove them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums doesn't like them. This group feels that they need to remove them so other people can't use them because obviously the people using them don't know what the numbers really mean, and they must be saved from the people who falsify their find counts.

I couldn't have said it better.

You did say it better. Several times.

 

Yes, he logged the thread multiple times. :santa:

Share this post


Link to post
But the main reason I don't want to see find counts taken away is...... there's no reason to remove them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums doesn't like them.

The main reason I'd like to see the option of removing my find count is... there's no reason to have them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums who like to spy on others.

Share this post


Link to post
But the main reason I don't want to see find counts taken away is...... there's no reason to remove them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums doesn't like them.

The main reason I'd like to see the option of removing my find count is... there's no reason to have them, according to this thread, other than a small group on the forums who like to spy on others.

No reason to have the numbers? I'm amazed sometimes at the audacity you show in your posts. (And the mastery of your twisted phrasings--truely! I am not being ugly, I really do admire your ability to write an interesting argument, the stance of which I completely disagree, but so obfucated that I can't get a grip on it to argue intelligently).

 

But back to the topic... It's not the like tiny number of people in this thread represent "all geocachers, everywhere" or even anything remotely resembling a representative slice of the geocaching population. Obviously most geocachers don't even come into these forums --so all this thread can accurately represent is the most recent thoughts of the particular people who posted here.

 

In fact, I'd would bet there are many people who aren't even opening the thread to see what is written, thinking "Oh, it's the same folks arguing the same argument they had last week. I wonder why they do that?

I almost didn't open it myself. I'm glad I did. There are some fascinating new twists of logic in this thread. Congrats to all for a fun thread!

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

ReadyOrNot (287/0)

 

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

Share this post


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

 

ReadyOrNot (287/0)

 

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

I have a nice goose egg for duplicates too! :santa:

Share this post


Link to post
I agree that using some unreliable number is not a good method.

Yet some folks think the method is perfectly fine because it is the only thing available and don't want anything better. I simply don't see the logic in that.

Perhaps because your perception is too narrow and you think your way is the correct way and no others count. Therein lies the problem.

 

Your value does not necessarily equal my value. You think you devalued the use of the numbers by not logging the finds. On the flipside of not logging my cache, I could care less about what you thought about it. No feedback deserves anymore thought than that. The fact you think you devalue the find count by not logging is nonsense to me. You are not the only ones to not log a cache and that is an accepted practice for any reason in the books. The people that choose to log are the ones that have left value in my book. That doesn't mean it has to have value in your book.

 

You also don't have to agree to put anything out there at all. However, it is a tool for some of us, it IS about the numbers for others, and it IS about competition for still another group of people.

 

Why is it there is always a small contentious group that has to tell me they are saving me from myself by making the suggestion to do away with it becuae it has less value or useless? Let me be the judge of what I need to be saved from. If the numbers don't matter to you... GREAT! Oh wait... I could care less... right? Then why not a reciprical attitude towards those that care about the numbers? Great! I mean... don't care. Its not your play, its not your game... but it is mine.

 

So...

 

Give me a better tool and I will use it. But, you must come up with something everyone will agree on. Not the majority, not the vocal majority. Everybody must agree on it without contention. Otherwise you're just replacing one "useless" (not that I agree its useless) tool with another by somebody's definition of usefulness. Until then leave the existing alone. It will always be contentious, but it is there and it exists for the use anyone chooses to use it for.

 

If it ever comes to the point where a person can opt out to have the numbers placed beside their log, I will probably consider deleting their find and ask them to post it as a note. Afterall, in their perception... numbers don't count. Ooops... another contention on a proposed tool.

Share this post


Link to post
If it ever comes to the point where a person can opt out to have the numbers placed beside their log, I will probably consider deleting their find and ask them to post it as a note. Afterall, in their perception... numbers don't count. Ooops... another contention on a proposed tool.
Numbers still might mean something to the person. Just because they don't want to broadcast their numbers doesn't mean they don't enjoy trying to hit their own personal milestones. So it's really just a matter of letting people play the game the way they want to. Keeping their numbers private is their way. Some other people log hundreds of temps to make their numbers bigger and that is their way. If one extreme is allowed then why squelch the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Do you agree with the OP's proposal to remove ALL find counts from ALL cache pages, TrailGators?
I already gave my opinion. I'm sure you can easily compare my answer to his suggestion to answer your own question. So why are you asking me a question that you know the answer to?

Your question is a fair one.

 

I am asking because I need clarification in order to understand why you continue to debate me instead of the OP.

 

Your previous comments make clear that you would prefer folks have the option only to remove their own find count from their cache logs, not that ALL find counts should be completely removed from ALL cache logs as the OP proposes. Did I get that right? When you made that suggestion many posts back I supported it, and I still do.

 

If I have, in fact, correctly interpreted your answer to the question, then of course your position puts you and me on the same side of this debate – which, since you still seem to have a problem with my comments, leads me to the next obvious question:

 

What exactly have I said here that you DO oppose?

 

Do you agree with his premise that multilogging of an event cache constitutes "abuse," TG?
Yes.

Thank you.

 

Took a while, but I got my answer. (Sometimes patience pays off! :santa: )

 

If so, do you consider yourself a victim of other cachers' multilogging, TG?
Change the word victim to something far less dramatic and then I will answer.

I’m sorry if that word bothers you, TG, but "victim" is accurate. It is not my intent to offend you; if you want to give me a different, less troubling word that is equivalent or better for the purpose, I’ll consider using it.

 

I’ve pointed it out before: In order for abuse to exist, there must also be a victim. If there is no victim, then there is, by definition, no "abuse."

 

You can’t have it both ways, TG. You have now clearly stated that you believe multilogging of an event cache constitutes "abuse." If so, then who is the victim?

 

Are you the victim? If you are, then please explain how the practice of event multilogging causes you to suffer personal damage, pain, stress, or any other quantifiable loss or harm. By what mechanism, exactly, does someone else's event multilogging make you a victim?

 

Is someone else the victim? If so, then please tell me why, in light of your previous comments to me, you feel the need to defend someone else who is free to speak for themselves? Also, please explain how the practice of event multilogging causes that victim to suffer personal damage, pain, stress, or any other quantifiable loss or harm.

 

I may be way off base here but the victim is an event holder that wishes none of the temps be loggable so few people show up to the event just because the temps are not loggable. If he or she put alot of work and few show up just because of the temps, that would make them a victim.

 

I may be wrong, but it's just a thought.

 

I do support that the number count be taken away by the cachers choice. But I don't think alot of people would use that feature.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

ReadyOrNot (287/0)

 

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

 

That's a favorite option of mine too!

Share this post


Link to post
If it ever comes to the point where a person can opt out to have the numbers placed beside their log, I will probably consider deleting their find and ask them to post it as a note. Afterall, in their perception... numbers don't count. Ooops... another contention on a proposed tool.
Numbers still might mean something to the person. Just because they don't want to broadcast their numbers doesn't mean they don't enjoy trying to hit their own personal milestones. So it's really just a matter of letting people play the game the way they want to. Keeping their numbers private is their way. Some other people log hundreds of temps to make their numbers bigger and that is their way. If one extreme is allowed then why squelch the other?

I said I will probably consider it. I did not say I will do it.

 

It is about letting people play the game they want. If they choose to multiple find my cache, it is up to me to allow it or not as is my right as the owner of said cache. As far as numbers being opted out... I really don't care. But if that person is going to gripe about my cache, they may receive no reply from me for their intended obscurity. But that's just one aspect.

 

The whole point of my entire rant, is no matter how perfect you build the tool, or how perfect the tool is, there will always be contention. Always! Leave the numbers alone. They mean something to somebody for whatever aspect of the game they choose to play.

 

(edited the rest out because it contributed nothing else to the conversation)

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post
The whole point of my entire rant, is no matter how perfect you build the tool, or how perfect the tool is, there will always be contention. Always! Leave the numbers alone. They mean something to somebody for whatever aspect of the game they choose to play.
I agree that there will always be contention. But only do nothing when things are actually fair and balanced. Like I said I think one extreme is allowed and the other is not. So what is the harm in letting the other end of the bell curve keep their numbers private?

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps because your perception is too narrow and you think your way is the correct way and no others count. Therein lies the problem.

My perception is narrow? Huh!

 

Everyone is saying it's okay to "play the game your way." I guess that means "their way" and not "my way."

 

Also, I really like the part where unless you can make it perfect don't try to make it better. I always thought better was good.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps because your perception is too narrow and you think your way is the correct way and no others count. Therein lies the problem.

My perception is narrow? Huh!

 

Everyone is saying it's okay to "play the game your way." I guess that means "their way" and not "my way."

 

Also, I really like the part where unless you can make it perfect don't try to make it better. I always thought better was good.

I have no problem with the way you play your game. In fact, I did say I don't care. I have a problem with people telling me my argument doesn't make sense. I have a problem with people telling me the value isn't there when I say it is. That's like telling me I don't need a light to read by when I think I do. That's when the perception goes narrow. Its a refusal to acknowledge the flip side of the coin. Hey... Make it better! Go for it! I have said it lacks, but for want of a better tool... leave it in place until you do. My challenge to you or anybody else, was to come up with something that everybody can agree on. I still don't see it happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
The whole point of my entire rant, is no matter how perfect you build the tool, or how perfect the tool is, there will always be contention. Always! Leave the numbers alone. They mean something to somebody for whatever aspect of the game they choose to play.
I agree that there will always be contention. But only do nothing when things are actually fair and balanced. Like I said I think one extreme is allowed and the other is not. So what is the harm in letting the other end of the bell curve keep their numbers private?

I'm not going any further with this rathole. Its easy to pick apart an opinion. I've said mine. Take it or leave it.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's examine what the number commonly referred to as the "find count" actually is. It is a count of the number of times that a person has entered a 'Found It' log or and 'Attended' log online. It is not an indication of the number of caches a person has found. Several people have mentioned that they don't log every cache online. They might only enter a log if they thought the cache was exceptional or perhaps they just stopped logging at 999 because it was a way to show that numbers aren't important. Others might sometimes log a 'Found It' by mistake when they meant to log a note or a DNF. Still others will use the 'Found It' or 'Attended' log to record a bonus that a cache owner offered, or for a cache where they were with the owner when it was hidden, or a DNF where the owner said they could change it to a find because they were looking in the right place. Some people may post a 'Found It' log on their own cache for various reasons. Most people log 'Attended' on their own events. Some people don't.

 

There will never be agreement on what to count or not count as a find. Some people won't log all their finds, others will post a 'Found It' for any reason that a cache owner would allow.

 

Since the count is just a count of certain online logs is it useful? I think it is.

 

First of all there are very few, if any, people who are just sitting in front of the their computer entering online logs so they have a big number. For most people the number is primarily based on the number of caches they found. The number may also include temporary event caches and various bonus that cache owners award. But in most instances the number is primarily the number of caches found - smaller if someone doesn't log every cache and bigger if they log other bonus smileys. So one can still use the number to get a rough estimate of a cacher's experience.

 

Second you can use the number to set milestones or goals. Given a certain uncertainty in the number of caches a person has actually found, using the number of logs is a reasonable backup. Depending on how serious you are you might want to look a a person's logs to get a rough estimate of how much their number is off, but most competitions and milestone celebrations are friendly social affairs and the roughness in the log count doesn't get in the way of how the count is used.

Share this post


Link to post
...who is the victim?

I may be way off base here but the victim is an event holder that wishes none of the temps be loggable so few people show up to the event just because the temps are not loggable. If he or she put alot of work and few show up just because of the temps, that would make them a victim.

 

I may be wrong, but it's just a thought.

Each cacher comes with his own set of preferences. As you hypothesize, there may actually be some folks out there who will attend events ONLY if they can log a bunch of temp caches while there.

 

In your example, the host chooses to be offended by this preference; either he allows for the multilogging and he lets it bother him, or he forbids multilogging and bristles at the unsurprisingly low resulting turnout. Either way, it is his choice whether to go against the general preference of your hypothetical cachers, and it is therefore his choice whether to be disappointed.

 

It’s the same with any cache: Hide what most people enjoy and you get lots of traffic; hide something that is difficult or somehow unappealing to the majority and you get very few finds. If high traffic is one's goal as a cache owner, one must satisfy the market.

 

If the event host chooses to be a victim, he is therefore being "abused" ONLY by his own voluntary decision to host an unpopular "cache;"

 

He is NOT being abused by the multiloggers.

Share this post


Link to post
The whole point of my entire rant, is no matter how perfect you build the tool, or how perfect the tool is, there will always be contention. Always! Leave the numbers alone. They mean something to somebody for whatever aspect of the game they choose to play.
I agree that there will always be contention. But only do nothing when things are actually fair and balanced. Like I said I think one extreme is allowed and the other is not. So what is the harm in letting the other end of the bell curve keep their numbers private?

Its easy to pick apart an opinion. I've said mine. Take it or leave it.
I was just asking you a question to maybe get you to see something you were not seeing. You can bring a horse to water....

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...