Find Counts

[+KBI]

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

Fixed it for you.

That's YOUR opinion.

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

Are you accusing ME of saying that, Roddy? If so, can you link me to the post where I said you are not allowed to have an opinion if your opinion is contrary to mine – so I will know which post to apologize for?

 

If I didn’t know better I’d be tempted to suspect you’re not answering my question because ... there is no answer. Not a rational one anyway. It couldn’t be that you are asking the website to make a major change to its formula for a purely emotional reason, could it? Because that’s how it’s beginning to sound. You’re asking for a new rule that is likely to annoy tens of thousands of people at best, and your only rationale is one that can’t be verbalized any better than “I feel abused?”

 

[EDIT: mispelled name]

Edited November 19, 2007 by KBI

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

It looks good to me, but you'll now get the naysayers crying foul because THEY would have to add the numbers together. Maybe if you said to put the number beside and then we that play for a TRUE count could subtract the multiples?

[+Rockin Roddy]

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

Fixed it for you.

That's YOUR opinion.

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

Are you accusing ME of saying that, Ready? If so, can you link me to the post where I said you are not allowed to have an opinion if your opinion is contrary to mine – so I will know which post to apologize for?

 

If I didn’t know better I’d be tempted to suspect you’re not answering my question because ... there is no answer. Not a rational one anyway. It couldn’t be that you are asking the website to make a major change to its formula for a purely emotional reason, could it? Because that’s how it’s beginning to sound. You’re asking for a new rule that is likely to annoy tens of thousands of people at best, and your only rationale is one that can’t be verbalized any better than “I feel abused?”

never mind...I told myself I wouldn't get dragged into this, but here I am.

 

Back to the comedy!

Edited November 19, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+KBI]

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

I concede that removing the find counts is not the best solution.

Well, I guess that *somewhat* answers the abuser/victim question.

[+TrailGators]

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

What is interesting to me is that hiding ones own numbers seems to be striking a nerve and generating opposition. Why is that? If the people that are competing only saw numbers of people that were competing then wouldn't that be better for them? I don't know if I would use the option, but if I hid my numbers, I would do it to let people know that I just enjoy hiking and finding caches. Nobody has yet to explain why this is so objectionable or maybe even threatening to some.

[+KBI]

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

You just like to argue. Don't you ever get sick of it?

No, what I get sick of is that YOU continue to make dubious claims without being willing – or able – to back them up.

 

You’ve had plenty of opportunities, yet you refuse to support your questionable premises. That makes ME argumentative?

 

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

Alrighty then, let’s have a look at that:

 

Everyone who is able to attend any particular event, at the time the event takes place, is not only able to log the event itself, but also any temp caches associated with the event. They ARE available to everyone. Anyone who is NOT able to attend the event at the particular time it takes place is out of luck – they can’t log the temps, but neither can they log the event itself. Are you being "abused" if a local event is scheduled when you are out of town, TG?

 

Event caches themselves are not permanent caches, TG. When I log my attendance at an event cache, does that constitute abuse just because the event only lasts a couple hours? If it does, are you the victim? If so, what kind of pain or damage does it cause you?

 

I can only conclude from your argument that you not only despise event temporary (multiple) cache logs; you despise conventional (single) event cache logs as well. Is that really your position, TG?

 

Is that all you’ve been withholding all this time? Is that your explanation for being a victim? That can’t be you only answer. Seriously, TG, tell me why multilogging makes you feel so abused.

[+ReadyOrNot]

If I didn’t know better I’d be tempted to suspect you’re not answering my question because ... there is no answer. Not a rational one anyway.

 

Not rational, IN YOUR OPINION... Whether or not something is rational is purely YOUR OPINION.. I don't agree with YOUR OPINION.

[+Rockin Roddy]

you'd be better to block him from view...he thinks HIS opinion is the only opinion out there....

[+KBI]

If I didn’t know better I’d be tempted to suspect you’re not answering my question because ... there is no answer. Not a rational one anyway.

Not rational, IN YOUR OPINION... Whether or not something is rational is purely YOUR OPINION.. I don't agree with YOUR OPINION.

Relax. I do not have an OPINION on your answer. How can I form an OPINION on your answer when I have never heard your answer?

 

If I've missed your answer, please quote it or link me to it. As your answer speaks to the very core of this debate I'm sure you will be happy to take advantage of the chance to convince everyone with your sound and ironclad reasoning.

[+KBI]

you'd be better to block him from view...

Yes, good suggestion. If you have no convincing logical response, it might help to put your fingers in your ears and walk away singing "I'M A VICTIM" as loud as you can. That'll surely convince people.

 

Let me know how that works out for you.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Can someone change that record??

[+TrailGators]

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

Alrighty then, let's have a look at that:

 

Everyone who is able to attend any particular event, at the time the event takes place, is not only able to log the event itself, but also any temp caches associated with the event. They ARE available to everyone. Anyone who is NOT able to attend the event at the particular time it takes place is out of luck – they can't log the temps, but neither can they log the event itself. Are you being "abused" if a local event is scheduled when you are out of town, TG?

Don't go off on one of your victim/abuse tirades again. Just discuss the guideline instead this time. There is in fact a cache permanence guideline. Why do you think they wrote it? Maybe I am misintrepreting their intention. Don't jump to conclusions again....

[+TrailGators]

Can someone change that record??

Yes, I know! It's been broken for a longgg time! Edited November 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

It looks good to me, but you'll now get the naysayers crying foul because THEY would have to add the numbers together. Maybe if you said to put the number beside and then we that play for a TRUE count could subtract the multiples?

If you believe we should have a statistic for number of unique finds then ask for a statistic for number of unique finds. I could get behind a number of unique finds statistic or a number of physical caches found statistics (to not count events). But when you turn it around to be a number of duplicate entries that you need to subtract to get a TRUE count, you have just stated that your way is the only way to count finds. There will never be 100% agreement on when the use the Found It log - even if you got agree that temporary event caches should never be logged. TPTB have made it clear that they are not going to make any changes to the current policy of allowing the event/cache owner to police the logs on their cache. (I don't know why KBI and Mushtang keep posting, they can be silent at least till Jeremy or OpioNate start to post that one of these ideas looks like a good way to stop abuse. But it is more entertaining to read a debate with two sides )

 

Since I don't know what everyone considers a TRUE count, I have a Truth In Numbers section in my profile to allow you to the math.

[+KBI]

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

Alrighty then, let's have a look at that:

 

Everyone who is able to attend any particular event, at the time the event takes place, is not only able to log the event itself, but also any temp caches associated with the event. They ARE available to everyone. Anyone who is NOT able to attend the event at the particular time it takes place is out of luck – they can't log the temps, but neither can they log the event itself. Are you being "abused" if a local event is scheduled when you are out of town, TG?

Don't go off on one of your victim/abuse tirades again. Just discuss the guideline instead this time. There is in fact a cache permanence guideline. Why do you think they wrote it? Maybe I am misintrepreting their intention. Don't jump to conclusions again....

Let me simplify:

 

You claim that temp caches are bad because they will not "be there for everyone to find (cache permanence)."

 

My response was two points:

1. Event caches, by their very nature, are temporary. If you accept the existence of event caches, then how can you be against the non-permanence of event-associated temporary caches?
   
2. If the event cache is available to you – and all events are required to be available to everyone, are they not? – then any temporary caches associated with that event are therefore equally available to you. If you accept the time-limited availability of an event cache, then how can you be against the very same time-limited availability of event-associated temporary caches?
   

Event-associated temporary caches are available to every cacher, but they are only available for a limited time.

 

Event caches themselves are also available to every cacher, and they are also only available for a limited time.

 

Same-same.

 

If you believe event-associated temporary caches are "abusive" for the reason you stated, then you must also believe that Event caches themselves are abusive.

 

Got it now?

[+Rockin Roddy]

It looks good to me, but you'll now get the naysayers crying foul because THEY would have to add the numbers together. Maybe if you said to put the number beside and then we that play for a TRUE count could subtract the multiples?

If you believe we should have a statistic for number of unique finds then ask for a statistic for number of unique finds. I could get behind a number of unique finds statistic or a number of physical caches found statistics (to not count events). But when you turn it around to be a number of duplicate entries that you need to subtract to get a TRUE count, you have just stated that your way is the only way to count finds. There will never be 100% agreement on when the use the Found It log - even if you got agree that temporary event caches should never be logged. TPTB have made it clear that they are not going to make any changes to the current policy of allowing the event/cache owner to police the logs on their cache. (I don't know why KBI and Mushtang keep posting, they can be silent at least till Jeremy or OpioNate start to post that one of these ideas looks like a good way to stop abuse. But it is more entertaining to read a debate with two sides )

 

Since I don't know what everyone considers a TRUE count, I have a Truth In Numbers section in my profile to allow you to the math.

Good idea Toz. I could get behind that one even better!

 

It would be entertaining if not for the broken record thing...

Edited November 19, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+tozainamboku]

Don't go off on one of your victim/abuse tirades again. Just discuss the guideline instead this time. There is in fact a cache permanence guideline. Why do you think they wrote it? Maybe I am misintrepreting their intention. Don't jump to conclusions again....

Sure and it is being enforced. Temporary Caches do not get separate listings on Geocaching.com. There is some discussion as to what a reviewer should do if the event has temporary caches listed as additional waypoints which may not have been resolved, but my opinion is that these are no different that additional waypoints for the start of the three legged race. The discussion should not be about whether people are logging caches but as to whether or not a cache owner can give out bonus smileys. I think (like Jeremy) that giving out bonus smileys is stupid, but there isn't a need to actually change the site to eliminate bonus smileys or even to put an asterisk on the find count of anyone who ever logged one. If you don't play bonus smileys you are free not to log bonus smileys. Other than a minor inconvenience of getting emails because you chose to watch this cache or your mouse wheel finger is tired from scrolling past these logs, you haven't made a convincing argument for how you are harmed. Then again the people who choose to log bonus smileys haven't made a convincing argument why they should be allowed to do so. If you can prove you are harmed by them, make that appeal before suggesting ways to limit them. The argument that you just want to stop someone else from doing something stupid isn't going fly. This is the same argument made by totalitarian governments on both the left and the right to justify the way they treat their citizens.

[+KBI]

... I don't know why KBI and Mushtang keep posting, they can be silent at least till Jeremy or OpioNate start to post that one of these ideas looks like a good way to stop abuse. ...

Because, as Sbell said:

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

Silence is risky. Silence can be mistaken for agreement.

 

Besides, it's way too much fun to watch some of these folks flounder and flail while struggling (and failing) to defend their shoot-from-the-hip ideas.

[+sbell111]

What is interesting to me is that hiding ones own numbers seems to be striking a nerve and generating opposition. Why is that? If the people that are competing only saw numbers of people that were competing then wouldn't that be better for them? I don't know if I would use the option, but if I hid my numbers, I would do it to let people know that I just enjoy hiking and finding caches. Nobody has yet to explain why this is so objectionable or maybe even threatening to some.

I feel that I already addressed your question in this post:

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

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

As such, I wonder if you would mind speaking to the question put toward those that wish to hide this information from the cache pages:

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

[+TrailGators]

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

Alrighty then, let's have a look at that:

 

Everyone who is able to attend any particular event, at the time the event takes place, is not only able to log the event itself, but also any temp caches associated with the event. They ARE available to everyone. Anyone who is NOT able to attend the event at the particular time it takes place is out of luck – they can't log the temps, but neither can they log the event itself. Are you being "abused" if a local event is scheduled when you are out of town, TG?

Don't go off on one of your victim/abuse tirades again. Just discuss the guideline instead this time. There is in fact a cache permanence guideline. Why do you think they wrote it? Maybe I am misintrepreting their intention. Don't jump to conclusions again....

You claim that temp caches are bad because they will not "be there for everyone to find (cache permanence).

You still are not listening. I gave you my opinion. Yes, I believe that every physical cache logged on this site should be available on a permanent basis for all to find. All of our events manage to do this by listing real caches. So if you can't make the event, you can still enjoy those caches later on! This is my opinion.

[+KBI]

Then again the people who choose to log bonus smileys haven't made a convincing argument why they should be allowed to do so.

Um ... because it might be a fun way to document the entertainment you enjoyed at the cache event?

 

Your unstated premise is that a reason is required.

 

If someone wants to do it, if the cache owner allows it, and if there is no evidence it is harming anyone or violating anyone's rights, then that's all the reason I need.

 

Should I be required to give a reason before I include knock-knock jokes in my cache logs?

[+TrailGators]

As such, I wonder if you would mind speaking to the question put toward those that wish to hide this information from the cache pages:

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

I agree that just hiding the number on all the cache pages would potentially annoy people. I was actually hoping that nobody would be able to see my numbers even by viewing my profile. It's basically the same as me creating my own html for my profile page. I don't view numbers as important so I would only include the stuff that is important to me in my profile. Is this objectionable?

[+KBI]

You still are not listening. I gave you my opinion. Yes, I believe that every physical cache logged on this site should be available on a permanent basis for all to find. All of our events manage to do this by listing real caches. So if you can't make the event, you can still enjoy those caches later on! This is my opinion.

Huh?

 

So you’re saying that all event caches that are not like the ones you host are abusive? You’re saying that if any other event cache host fails to leave behind a container they are being abusive?

 

In that case I must ask again: If that is abuse, then who is the victim?

[+KBI]

I agree that just hiding the number on all the cache pages would potentially annoy people. I was actually hoping that nobody would be able to see my numbers even by viewing my profile.

You are always welcome to change all your smileys to notes, and to keep a separate record offline if you like. There is nothing preventing you from doing that right now.

[+TrailGators]

I agree that just hiding the number on all the cache pages would potentially annoy people. I was actually hoping that nobody would be able to see my numbers even by viewing my profile.

You are always welcome to change all your smileys to notes, and to keep a separate record offline if you like. There is nothing preventing you from doing that right now.

I like to track my own personal milestones. Notes don't tally in the nice summary tables. I explained this before. Edited November 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Rockin Roddy]

Hiding the stats won't do anything (IMHO), having a count which depicts actual finds (call them unique or original finds) and allow another count for temp caches or whatever else doesn't fit in the first count. That is what I'd think would be great. (well, what would really be great is not having all those posts for temp caches as well, but we've already heard on that one)

Edited November 19, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+TrailGators]

You still are not listening. I gave you my opinion. Yes, I believe that every physical cache logged on this site should be available on a permanent basis for all to find. All of our events manage to do this by listing real caches. So if you can't make the event, you can still enjoy those caches later on! This is my opinion.

Huh? So you're saying that all event caches that are not like the ones you host are abusive? You're saying that if any other event cache host fails to leave behind a container they are being abusive? In that case I must ask again: If that is abuse, then who is the victim?

You keep trying to distort my opinion. What I said made sense and is better for all participants of this site. That is why there is a cache permanence guideline. Just because this issue isn't large enough for TPTB to act doesn't mean that it is right. Anyhow, I'm done explaining.

[+ReadyOrNot]

In regards to event caches, they should not be counted as finds. You can read my previous posts and I have always held that opinion. Here's what we should have:

 

# of events attended: 23

# of temp. caches found at events: 167

# of caches found: 897

# of duplicate caches found: 89

 

It's my opinion that the only finds that should be smileys are # of caches found.. The other finds should have an asterisk by them. If TPTB are going to allow them, they should be separated out. It gets too complicated to have " ReadyOrNot (897,23,167,89) ", I think we need to come to some sort of consensus as to what a "Find" means... Is there any way to have that conversation in a constructive manner?

 

Could we agree that a "Find" involves finding a legitimate listed cache. And then everything else could still be accounted for, but in some other fashion, so everyone could still keep track of how many events they attended and how many temp caches they found at those events.

 

All I want is for the numbers to be separated, not combined into one total. What is wrong with that?

[+StarBrand]

Actually replying to the OP.

 

Despite the obvious problems, I don't mind seeing the find count and am in no way fearful of mine showing.

 

And just to throw some logic into the derailed topic ongoing.

 

per guidelines:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

[+Rockin Roddy]

Actually replying to the OP.

 

Despite the obvious problems, I don't mind seeing the find count and am in no way fearful of mine showing.

 

And just to throw some logic into the derailed topic ongoing.

 

per guidelines:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

 

THANK-YOU!

[+sbell111]

As such, I wonder if you would mind speaking to the question put toward those that wish to hide this information from the cache pages:

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

I agree that just hiding the number on all the cache pages would potentially annoy people. I was actually hoping that nobody would be able to see my numbers even by viewing my profile. It's basically the same as me creating my own html for my profile page. I don't view numbers as important so I would only include the stuff that is important to me in my profile. Is this objectionable?

Would you allow people to see the list of caches that you found? Would that not also let them know how many finds that you have?

[+sbell111]

Hiding the stats won't do anything (IMHO), having a count which depicts actual finds (call them unique or original finds) and allow another count for temp caches or whatever else doesn't fit in the first count. That is what I'd think would be great. (well, what would really be great is not having all those posts for temp caches as well, but we've already heard on that one)

Perhaps you should start a thread that asks for this change.

[+sbell111]

You still are not listening. I gave you my opinion. Yes, I believe that every physical cache logged on this site should be available on a permanent basis for all to find. All of our events manage to do this by listing real caches. So if you can't make the event, you can still enjoy those caches later on! This is my opinion.

Huh? So you're saying that all event caches that are not like the ones you host are abusive? You're saying that if any other event cache host fails to leave behind a container they are being abusive? In that case I must ask again: If that is abuse, then who is the victim?

You keep trying to distort my opinion. What I said made sense and is better for all participants of this site. That is why there is a cache permanence guideline. Just because this issue isn't large enough for TPTB to act doesn't mean that it is right. Anyhow, I'm done explaining.

Pssst. That's not why the permanence guideline was created.

[+sbell111]

per guidelines:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

Remember that the cache owner is the arbiter of what is bogus. Obviously, these event holders do not believe that those logs are bogus.

[+TrailGators]

As such, I wonder if you would mind speaking to the question put toward those that wish to hide this information from the cache pages:

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

I agree that just hiding the number on all the cache pages would potentially annoy people. I was actually hoping that nobody would be able to see my numbers even by viewing my profile. It's basically the same as me creating my own html for my profile page. I don't view numbers as important so I would only include the stuff that is important to me in my profile. Is this objectionable?

Would you allow people to see the list of caches that you found? Would that not also let them know how many finds that you have?

That would be OK. It's fun to see what caches people have found. That's another issue with logging only notes. You don't get that list. Anyhow, if someone wants to go to that extreme and count how many logs I have, then I would feel sorry for them.

[+Mudfrog]

Actually replying to the OP.

 

Despite the obvious problems, I don't mind seeing the find count and am in no way fearful of mine showing.

 

And just to throw some logic into the derailed topic ongoing.

 

per guidelines:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

Obvious, very easy to understand, and is a fact, not someone's opinion. Yet, for some reason, some out there just can't seem to grasp the simple concept...

[+tozainamboku]

You keep trying to distort my opinion. What I said made sense and is better for all participants of this site. That is why there is a cache permanence guideline. Just because this issue isn't large enough for TPTB to act doesn't mean that it is right. Anyhow, I'm done explaining.

Gosh so I can't allow people to log a bonus smiley if they participated in the three legged race? I'm sorry TG but if you keep confusing the issue with cache permanence you won't get a resolution. TPTB have given the decision as to what constitutes a find and how many finds a person can have on a given cache to the cache owner (within reason). It may be true that some day the "within reason" portion will be clarified. Unlikely to the satisfaction of those who insist on 1 find per GC# or any other simplistic rule.

 

I think we need to come to some sort of consensus as to what a "Find" means... Is there any way to have that conversation in a constructive manner?

 

Could we agree that a "Find" involves finding a legitimate listed cache. And then everything else could still be accounted for, but in some other fashion, so everyone could still keep track of how many events they attended and how many temp caches they found at those events.

 

All I want is for the numbers to be separated, not combined into one total. What is wrong with that?

TPTB don't think the numbers should be used for a competition so there is no real reason to separate out the numbers ReadyOrNot doesn't want to count. I know (because ReadyOrNot pointed it out in an earlier thread) that Waymarking doesn't allow multiple visits to a waymark. I think that was a stupid decision on Groundspeak's part, but it still doesn't imply that some caches may have legitimate multiple finds. Even if you got everyone to agree on one cache per GC#, people would complain that some owners let you claim a find when you didn't find the cache. Don't compare numbers between two caches if you don't know the logging practices of one. Don't use the number of a geocacher whose logging practices you don't know for anything more than a rough estimate.

 

And just to throw some logic into the derailed topic ongoing.

 

per guidelines:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

Of course it is the guideline that leaves it up to the cache owner to determine which logs are bogus (and which are legitimate finds or attendeds) that allows some cacher owners to get creative and upset those who know that find means find and attended means attended. TPTB have said that this use of the logs is silly or stupid but have decided to allow the guideline to remain as is (perhaps so that no one takes the numbers too seriously).

[+TrailGators]

You keep trying to distort my opinion. What I said made sense and is better for all participants of this site. That is why there is a cache permanence guideline. Just because this issue isn't large enough for TPTB to act doesn't mean that it is right. Anyhow, I'm done explaining.

Toz, perhaps I am confusing it. I even stated that before. Why don't you explain the intention/benefits of cache permanence?

[+StarBrand]

....Remember that the cache owner is the arbiter of what is bogus. Obviously, these event holders do not believe that those logs are bogus.

Where does it say that?

[+ReadyOrNot]

....Remember that the cache owner is the arbiter of what is bogus. Obviously, these event holders do not believe that those logs are bogus.

Where does it say that?

 

The owner doesn't make up the rules, they enforce them. The argument should be "What is bogus", not who defines bogus.

[+KBI]

I agree that just hiding the number on all the cache pages would potentially annoy people. I was actually hoping that nobody would be able to see my numbers even by viewing my profile.

You are always welcome to change all your smileys to notes, and to keep a separate record offline if you like. There is nothing preventing you from doing that right now.

I like to track my own personal milestones. Notes don't tally in the nice summary tables. I explained this before.

You are always welcome ... to keep a separate record offline if you like.

 

I explained this in my post.

[+KBI]

You still are not listening. I gave you my opinion. Yes, I believe that every physical cache logged on this site should be available on a permanent basis for all to find. All of our events manage to do this by listing real caches. So if you can't make the event, you can still enjoy those caches later on! This is my opinion.

Huh? So you're saying that all event caches that are not like the ones you host are abusive? You're saying that if any other event cache host fails to leave behind a container they are being abusive? In that case I must ask again: If that is abuse, then who is the victim?

You keep trying to distort my opinion. What I said made sense and is better for all participants of this site. That is why there is a cache permanence guideline. Just because this issue isn't large enough for TPTB to act doesn't mean that it is right. Anyhow, I'm done explaining.

It is not my intent to distort your opinion. What would be the point?

 

I'm only trying to understand your opinion.

 

It's simple. You cited the availability and cache permanence guidelines to explain why you feel abused by temp cache logs. I asked: If the impermanence/limited time availability of temp caches bothers you, then why doesn't the impermanence/limited time availability of event caches bother you?

 

If temp cache logs are abusing you, then how are event cache logs not abusing you as well?

 

I'm simply trying to follow your reasoning. If I have misunderstood, then please show me where. Please try again to explain how the multilogging of temp caches causes you to feel abused as described in the original post.

[+ReadyOrNot]

It is not my intent to distort your opinion. What would be the point?

 

that's all you've been doing.. What do you mean it's not your intent. He's answered you and your co-hort numerous times.. The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean it has not been answered. You keep claiming that you are waiting for an answer.. What you mean to say is that you are waiting for an answer that you agree with...

 

There's a big difference between the two.

[+KBI]

In regards to event caches, they should not be counted as finds....

 

It's my opinion that the only finds that should be smileys are # of caches found....

 

Could we agree that a "Find" involves finding a legitimate listed cache?

Grab hold of something and brace yourself: I agree with you.

 

Surprised?

 

I left out the parts of your post that I still disagree with – I think that other stuff is complicated and unnecessary.

 

I really tend to agree, however, that event caches should probably not be counted as Geocache finds. I could accept that. My reasoning is that Virtual and Locationless caches are already being phased out, and for good reason; they aren’t really caches. There is no container to find and no log to sign. Event “caches” are even less cache-like than Virtual and Locationless caches – not only is there is no container to find, but and they only last a few hours!

 

Whether that ever changes doesn’t really matter to me, however. If I have 400 finds and I meet a friend who has never found a single hidden container but he has attended 400 cache events, what does that matter to me? It might be misleading if I’m reading the log of his first ammocan find and see a “401 finds” next to his name, but that possibility has already existed for years now and I haven’t seen any evidence of that being a problem.

[+KBI]

per guidelines:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

Remember that the cache owner is the arbiter of what is bogus. Obviously, these event holders do not believe that those logs are bogus.

Sbell beat me to it.

[+KBI]

Actually replying to the OP.

 

Despite the obvious problems, I don't mind seeing the find count and am in no way fearful of mine showing.

 

And just to throw some logic into the derailed topic ongoing.

 

per guidelines:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

Obvious, very easy to understand, and is a fact, not someone's opinion.

Wrong. The definition of "bogus" is up to the cache owner and his opinion ... and nobody else. That's your "fact."

[+TrailGators]

In regards to event caches, they should not be counted as finds....

 

It's my opinion that the only finds that should be smileys are # of caches found....

 

Could we agree that a "Find" involves finding a legitimate listed cache?

Grab hold of something and brace yourself: I agree with you.

 

Surprised?

 

I left out the parts of your post that I still disagree with – I think that other stuff is complicated and unnecessary.

 

I really tend to agree, however, that event caches should probably not be counted as Geocache finds. I could accept that. My reasoning is that Virtual and Locationless caches are already being phased out, and for good reason; they aren't really caches. There is no container to find and no log to sign. Event "caches" are even less cache-like than Virtual and Locationless caches – not only is there is no container to find, but and they only last a few hours!

 

Whether that ever changes doesn't really matter to me, however. If I have 400 finds and I meet a friend who has never found a single hidden container but he has attended 400 cache events, what does that matter to me? It might be misleading if I'm reading the log of his first ammocan find and see a "401 finds" next to his name, but that possibility has already existed for years now and I haven't seen any evidence of that being a problem.

I agree too. I still like virtuals but I never really liked locationless caches much. I did log a couple just to give them a fair shot. I have a couple of friends that have admitted to logging a couple of temp caches. They said they did it in their early days and no longer do it. I think I would feel some disappointment if a friend suddenly went nuts logging temps, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

[4wheelin_fool]

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

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

 

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

 

Your theory is built upon a house of cards assuming that people would complain en masse about an extra option to hide their find counts from the logs. I hesitate to wonder if the extra mouse click could be characterized as victimizing those who would wish to see someones find count.

 

If other cachers would like to display their find counts in the logs, that's fine. I would like to enjoy the freedom to express myself and keep mine hidden as a non-competitive cacher. And as stated previously, there are certainly new cachers who would like to hide their "newbie" status from being broadcast in the logs. If you are curious, just click their profile and see the detailed amount.

[+ReadyOrNot]

***

Edited November 20, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+ReadyOrNot]

Grab hold of something and brace yourself: I agree with you.

 

Good! Can we stop right here then!!!