Should Groundspeak get into the stats business?

[sdarken]

I've been thinking for a while that perhaps Groundspeak should start offering the ability to generate stats for people's profile pages :- maybe by introducing a small optional charge.

 

Lots of people currently use Cachestats, GSAK/Findstatsgen3 or INATN but I know of several people that would like to have stats on their profile but are technologically challenged.

 

Perhaps it's time for Groundspeak and a 3rd party such as itsnotaboutthenumbers.com to team up to provide a simple integrated solution.

 

To support the cost of providing this service I could see people paying a small amount. eg: a one-time $5 charge. This would only be for people that wanted the stats. Not a cost that everyone would pay for.

 

So what do you think? Is there a demand for this service and how much would you be willing to pay for it?

[BRTango]

I've been thinking for a while that perhaps Groundspeak should start offering the ability to generate stats for people's profile pages :- maybe by introducing a small optional charge.

 

Lots of people currently use Cachestats, GSAK/Findstatsgen3 or INATN but I know of several people that would like to have stats on their profile but are technologically challenged.

 

Perhaps it's time for Groundspeak and a 3rd party such as itsnotaboutthenumbers.com to team up to provide a simple integrated solution.

 

To support the cost of providing this service I could see people paying a small amount. eg: a one-time $5 charge. This would only be for people that wanted the stats. Not a cost that everyone would pay for.

 

So what do you think? Is there a demand for this service and how much would you be willing to pay for it?

 

Not a bad idea, but with 3rd party software out there and people who can and will update more frequently than GC.com, I wouldn't be willing to pay anything.

 

INATN, Findgenstat3 are both very ease to use even for those that are technically challenged. They may have a small learning curve, but once they figure it out, most I've spoken with find it very easy.

[+StarBrand]

I doubt this would ever happen. TPTB have been very consistent about this site NOT being a competition in any way. Stats have not been provided tradtionally because nobody wants them to be used in a competitive manner. They have allowed 3rd parties to set this up on a limited basis but do not provide direct support for it.

[+Renegade Knight]

Should they? Yes absolutly for both stats and the cool things you can do with stats that even people who hate stats would enjoy.

 

Will they? Maybe after the retirement of key individuals in the present administration who have a clear no stats stance as part of their party platform. However don't hold your breath.

[+gof1]

Please no. I don't care about your stats and would rather they put the effort into more useful endeavors. Like installing beer coolers in every cache location.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

This proposal, in my estimation -- and I hope that I am not sounding too melodramatic -- is the Beginning of the End of Days; it is a sure sign, more sure than a sighting of the Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse, that the End Times are near. Armageddon is at hand. Gather your loved ones and your goats and hide in the root cellar for forty days and forty nights.

 

Further, I note with due concern that this proposal by the OP obviously came from the Dark Side.... why, take a look at the OP's "handle", it even contains the word "dark"in it.

 

 

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...and I hope that I am not sounding too melodramatic -- is the Beginning of the End of Days;...

 

Since we already had stats and things were better back then as evidenced by the pining for the good old days displayed by more than a few prominent forum posters I'm starting to think that maybe the loss of stats was the true beginning of the end of days and the end of caching as we knew it. It was a kindler and more civilized time. An era when caching Jedi followed the creed because it was in their very soul. They lived with honor and carried themselves with dignity. Cache logs were always dry and if by chance one was not a light sabre was defly employed to dry it out whereupon the log would be restored with care to it's site of repose. My how times have changed since the loss of stats.

[+sbell111]

This proposal, in my estimation -- and I hope that I am not sounding too melodramatic -- is the Beginning of the End of Days; it is a sure sign, more sure than a sighting of the Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse, that the End Times are near. Armageddon is at hand. Gather your loved ones and your goats and hide in the root cellar for forty days and forty nights.

 

Further, I note with due concern that this proposal by the OP obviously came from the Dark Side.... why, take a look at the OP's "handle", it even contains the word "dark"in it.

Finally, a serious post from Vinny.

 

I agree completely.

[+RonGerth]

I can see both sides of the issue. There are lots of people out there who are doing things like finding their own caches and logging the find as a find instead of writing a note, they are creating a second account to hide caches with one account and find them with the other and stuff like that. There are others like myself who are in competition with only myself to see if I can do things like find a cache in all 50 states or find a cache in all of the counties in my home state, stuff like that. I am not competing with others and that is not why the boys and I are into caching but there are some cool things that can be done to track ourselves internally with a site like INATN. Maybe the powers that be could add that as an optional area for a member to go to for say a $5 per year charge tacked onto the membership fee which they could in turn use to defray some of their operating expenses. I can see the purists who say that caching is not about the numbers and should not become about the numbers but even they must have some sort of numbers related thrill that they like to track. If a person does not want to become a numbers driven person they do not have to pay the $5 extra. If a person wants to they can shell out the $5 for the option. Personally I don't see the problem with $5 extra, we spend that much or more buying snacks on a Saturday morning before beginning a GeoTrek with the boys to go caching.

 

I see that INATN is off line now and from the sounds of the screen that pops up when you try to go there it might be for awhile if not forever.

 

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

RonGerth

Wyoming

[+Hockeyhick]

I'd be in favor of an option to *hide* my count...

 

Besides, the number of friends that I've made whilst caching is a far more important number!

[+gof1]

...the number of friends that I've made whilst caching is a far more important number!

 

HERE! HERE!

Now that's a statement I can support!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

No! Just the opposite, in fact!

 

They should hide the numbers from everyone but the member's account!

 

If the member chooses to publish them on their profile with INATN or any other third-party numbers cruncher, that's up to them.

 

Given the (rather amazing to me) number of people who won't even pay for Premium access here I wouldn't think many would pay for a number generator.

[+simpjkee]

I love the idea of Geocaching.com generating more stats, but why would it cost money. Thats ridiculous. I'll stick to the free stats generators

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I love the idea of Geocaching.com generating more stats, but why would it cost money. Thats ridiculous. I'll stick to the free stats generators

Dern tootin... why should we have to pay for those programmers and server usage and maintenance... that's just not fair!

[+briansnat]

Groundspeak has said on many occasions that they will not do it. They have been pretty firm on the subject.

 

At one time I was very disappointed by their stance and I thought that it would great to have a comprehensive, opt out stats site for premium members.

 

I've come around to their way of thinking. I think that the pursuit of numbers has had a negative affect on the sport and I'm against anything that would encourage it.

[+TotemLake]

Should Groundspeak get into the stats business?

No.

 

Btw, this just ups my post one more to 5757.

Would that be double heinzite?

Edited April 8, 2008 by TotemLake

[+TrailGators]

Please no. I don't care about your stats and would rather they put the effort into more useful endeavors. Like installing beer coolers in every cache location.

I agree that they should invest resources in other places. I would rather have the beer coolers too!

[+Clarkbowman]

Please no. I don't care about your stats and would rather they put the effort into more useful endeavors. Like installing beer coolers in every cache location.

 

I like the Beer Cooler Idea, myself.

[+3doxies]

No! Just the opposite, in fact!

 

They should hide the numbers from everyone but the member's account!

 

If the member chooses to publish them on their profile with INATN or any other third-party numbers cruncher, that's up to them.

 

Given the (rather amazing to me) number of people who won't even pay for Premium access here I wouldn't think many would pay for a number generator.

 

Absolutely hits the bulls-eye! Or at least give us the ability to turn off both our number being visible to others, and our own ability to see others numbers.

[+Zolgar]

you know. I don't give a <beep> about find counts and competing with other cachers for a number of finds..

 

But I do think it would be nice if they offered the kind of comprehensive stats that you can get through various 3rd parties.

 

I kind things like # of caches found by X person, # per state, Most found in one day, things like that.. I find those numbers interesting.

 

Does having 20 in one day mean I'm better than the cacher who has only found 15 in one day? does the fact that I've found 30 caches by Cacher-X mean anything? Is it even remotely important that I've caches in Arizona, California and New Mexico, but at least 70% of my finds are in Arizona?

(Only one of those is even remotely real)

Nope.

 

But they're fun little details to know.

 

As are the average difficulty, the average terrain, how many of what size.. I'm a gamer. I LIKE stats, even if they're meaningless stats.

Just like in Fallout 2, I loved my kill counts. 50,000 radscorpians >.>

[+simpjkee]

I love the idea of Geocaching.com generating more stats, but why would it cost money. Thats ridiculous. I'll stick to the free stats generators

Dern tootin... why should we have to pay for those programmers and server usage and maintenance... that's just not fair!

 

well yeah. especially when there are free sites willing to do it

[+RonGerth]

I love the idea of Geocaching.com generating more stats, but why would it cost money. Thats ridiculous. I'll stick to the free stats generators

Dern tootin... why should we have to pay for those programmers and server usage and maintenance... that's just not fair!

 

I agree, I like the idea of free loading on all of my hobbies that I choose to do. I now have to figure out a way to get DTV to pay for my NFL Sunday Ticket, a way to get Garmin to give me a GPS unit for free, how about free gas?????????

 

I know I am going to get flamed for this but I think that if a person is free loading off the system it takes large cajones (was gonna put balls here but figured it would get censored) to b*tch about it when a person or persons who are paying their way suggest a change or changes and then offer to pay for them.

 

If GC wants to make stats available and charge for them, I say more power to them, if not that is their choice. Personally, I will pay for it to get it.

 

Ron

[+Totem Clan]

I love the idea of Geocaching.com generating more stats, but why would it cost money. Thats ridiculous. I'll stick to the free stats generators

Dern tootin... why should we have to pay for those programmers and server usage and maintenance... that's just not fair!

 

I agree, I like the idea of free loading on all of my hobbies that I choose to do. I now have to figure out a way to get DTV to pay for my NFL Sunday Ticket, a way to get Garmin to give me a GPS unit for free, how about free gas?????????

 

I know I am going to get flamed for this but I think that if a person is free loading off the system it takes large cajones (was gonna put balls here but figured it would get censored) to b*tch about it when a person or persons who are paying their way suggest a change or changes and then offer to pay for them.

 

If GC wants to make stats available and charge for them, I say more power to them, if not that is their choice. Personally, I will pay for it to get it.

 

Ron

In my case it's not free loading because in don't use, don't want it, don't want to pay for it so somebody can use it.

[sdarken]

In regard to cost, in the business model I was suggesting, the new functionality would be funded by people who use it. INATN has already created the functionality so a partnership might be relatively quick and easy to implement.

 

"Free" doesn't usually work as a business model. You only have to read those recent INATN threads to see that every business needs a revenue stream to pay for costs. Servers and bandwidth are not free.

 

In regard to Groundspeak's reluctance to turn geocaching into a competition. They effectively did that when they started tracking find counts. Lots of people have extra stats on their pages already and I dont see it making the game more competitive. Frankly, I dont care about other peoples stats any more than they care about mine. Adding more stats to personal profiles is not likely to change the game. (INATN has a bunch of TOP 10 stats and other stats that compare cachers to each other. I'm not proposing that Groundspeak should start generating those. I'm purely talking about personal stats.)

 

I really just see see this idea as a potential revenue stream for Groundspeak/INATN and a convenience for those people that want to pay for it.

[+simpjkee]

I love the idea of Geocaching.com generating more stats, but why would it cost money. Thats ridiculous. I'll stick to the free stats generators

Dern tootin... why should we have to pay for those programmers and server usage and maintenance... that's just not fair!

 

I agree, I like the idea of free loading on all of my hobbies that I choose to do. I now have to figure out a way to get DTV to pay for my NFL Sunday Ticket, a way to get Garmin to give me a GPS unit for free, how about free gas?????????

 

I know I am going to get flamed for this but I think that if a person is free loading off the system it takes large cajones (was gonna put balls here but figured it would get censored) to b*tch about it when a person or persons who are paying their way suggest a change or changes and then offer to pay for them.

 

If GC wants to make stats available and charge for them, I say more power to them, if not that is their choice. Personally, I will pay for it to get it.

 

Ron

 

thats ridiculous. If you can get a service for $5 or get a very similar service for free. You'd take the free one unless you wanted added luxury of the $5 service.

[+gof1]

I love the idea of Geocaching.com generating more stats, but why would it cost money. Thats ridiculous. I'll stick to the free stats generators

Dern tootin... why should we have to pay for those programmers and server usage and maintenance... that's just not fair!

 

I agree, I like the idea of free loading on all of my hobbies that I choose to do. I now have to figure out a way to get DTV to pay for my NFL Sunday Ticket, a way to get Garmin to give me a GPS unit for free, how about free gas?????????

 

I know I am going to get flamed for this but I think that if a person is free loading off the system it takes large cajones (was gonna put balls here but figured it would get censored) to b*tch about it when a person or persons who are paying their way suggest a change or changes and then offer to pay for them.

 

If GC wants to make stats available and charge for them, I say more power to them, if not that is their choice. Personally, I will pay for it to get it.

 

Ron

 

thats ridiculous. If you can get a service for $5 or get a very similar service for free. You'd take the free one unless you wanted added luxury of the $5 service.

 

I have to agree with simpjkee on this. If the local dairy is giving away free milk would you go to the corner store and buy it? On the other side of the coin if the local dairy gave away free milk would you open a store to sell it?

 

And the name calling was unnecessary.

[+sbell111]

First, it's important to note that TPTB have been very clear that they will never provide the level of stats that is being requested in this thread.

 

That being said, if I were craving stats and INATN's didn't exist, I would simply use GSAK, which I've already paid for. I would create my maps using online tools or by using MapPoint, just like we all did prior to INATN.

 

If INATN needs funding, they should either accept donations from it's users or develop some kind of membership program. There is no need for INATN to be taken over by another entity, in my opinion.

 

I've never used INATN, I have no specific plans to do so, and I would not be interested in supporting the site financially. I'm sure that there are plenty of numbers hounds that use it all the time and would pay for the ability to continue to do so.

[Mushtang]

I think it's interesting that every once in a while we'll get threads asking for all the stats to be removed, and every once in a while we'll get a thread asking for a stats page, leaderboard, or some other additional stats feature.

 

Just a good example of the diversity of what all the different players like and think is a fun aspect of the game.

 

Now did someone mention beer coolers? I'm all for adding cold beer to the game, where do I vote for that?

[+Totem Clan]

 

Now did someone mention beer coolers? I'm all for adding cold beer to the game, where do I vote for that?

Free homebrew for any cachers that drop by my place to go caching. How's that.

 

 

As far the stats thing. I think the way GS does it now is a happy medium. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

[CoyoteRed]

So what do you think?

I'm in agreement with those above who say they'd like to hide their stats. I would do the same.

 

Not only that, but also fix it so our caches wouldn't add to anyone else's stats either. We didn't even consider our caches incrementing some stat count somewhere when we placed them. So, why should it? That's not the purpose we placed the cache and don't feel our caches should be hunted simply because of it.

[+sbell111]

So what do you think?

I'm in agreement with those above who say they'd like to hide their stats. I would do the same.

 

Not only that, but also fix it so our caches wouldn't add to anyone else's stats either. We didn't even consider our caches incrementing some stat count somewhere when we placed them. So, why should it? That's not the purpose we placed the cache and don't feel our caches should be hunted simply because of it.

I think that's going a bit too far. Actually quite a bit too far.

 

I assume that you placed your caches to be found by other cachers. Why would you ever assume that those cache finds should not increment those cachers' find counts?

[+Totem Clan]

So what do you think?

I'm in agreement with those above who say they'd like to hide their stats. I would do the same.

 

Not only that, but also fix it so our caches wouldn't add to anyone else's stats either. We didn't even consider our caches incrementing some stat count somewhere when we placed them. So, why should it? That's not the purpose we placed the cache and don't feel our caches should be hunted simply because of it.

I tend to agree. I could care less about any one else stats, and as far as my I just like them to see how far I've come I guess you could say. However there are those that are totally stat driven. The majority of cachers are somewhere in the middle. That's why I like it the way it is now. The stats are not shoved in your face constantly but if you want them they're there. If you want more there are PQs and plenty off site software and services for that purpose.

Once again I say leave it alone.

[4wheelin_fool]

They should forget about the stats, and just declare it an all-out competion and issue points.

 

You get 2 points for finding a terrain 5 cache, and 1 point for a terrain 4 hide. Finding a LPC would be -2

[CoyoteRed]

Why would you ever assume that those cache finds should not increment those cachers' find counts?

That's not even a question that makes sense. "Assume," "should not?" I think my opinion is clear, very clear. I don't want folks seeking our caches simply to increment their find count. Period. That's not what we've placed the cache for. There's no assumption involved. If the only reason to seek one of our caches is to increment your find count then I'd just rather you didn't.

 

In fact, it's my prerogative, don'tcha think? I've listed my latest caches on a different site. I don't care for their solution as it takes the concept what what I don't like about find counts and pushes it even further.

 

Now, do you think those finding our caches on that other site have their counts incremented here? Nope. Do you think I should "assume" their counts "should not" be incremented here?

 

Also, aren't temporary caches still caches none the less? Why not increment find counts with those? Why should those who rail against logging temporary event cache "assume" those caches "should not" count?

 

Quite a bit too far? I don't think so. In fact, it falls right in line with the examples that are already accepted I mention above.

Edited April 8, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

They should forget about the stats, and just declare it an all-out competion and issue points.

 

You get 2 points for finding a terrain 5 cache, and 1 point for a terrain 4 hide. Finding a LPC would be -2

Oh, and hiding a LPC would be -10.

[+RonGerth]

So what do you think?

I'm in agreement with those above who say they'd like to hide their stats. I would do the same.

 

Not only that, but also fix it so our caches wouldn't add to anyone else's stats either. We didn't even consider our caches incrementing some stat count somewhere when we placed them. So, why should it? That's not the purpose we placed the cache and don't feel our caches should be hunted simply because of it.

I tend to agree. I could care less about any one else stats, and as far as my I just like them to see how far I've come I guess you could say. However there are those that are totally stat driven. The majority of cachers are somewhere in the middle. That's why I like it the way it is now. The stats are not shoved in your face constantly but if you want them they're there. If you want more there are PQs and plenty off site software and services for that purpose.

Once again I say leave it alone.

 

I just think that as an option for those people who want to check their stats that there is nothing wrong with GC offering a stats page and if necessary charging to get into that area. It would allow those people who want to do the stats thing to do it and would also allow those who do not want to to not do it. GMC offers many different vehicles because it is not a one size fits all world, GC can and should do the same. As far as the remark earlier about paying for milk from a dairy when the dairy next door gives it away for free, I can understand that but if a person can go to one site and get everything for a small charge or has to go to a couple of different sites to run and re-run things that is up to them to decide what their time is worth. I think that this is starting into the same line as the blow up with they put Google ads on the pages that went away when you became a premium member.

 

Ron

[+gof1]

To TPTB,

 

Please. In the unlikely event you decide to generate a "stats page" I would like to be excluded from the stats. I do not want anyone to see how many LPCs I've found. It is no ones business how many unique finds I have. If I want to compare myself with another cacher I will get together with him/her over a beer or three and we can look at the pictures we have taken.

 

As a matter of fact I would be quite happy if my current find count could be hidden from view. I find it an annoyance that others can go online and find my name on lists that rank cachers by their find statistics. As if a bunch of park and grabs can compare to a long hike in the woods.

 

Please, don't make me stop logging caches. The logs are what I can give back to the hider, and it makes it such a pain to set up PQs. I know, there is the option of placing found caches on my ignore list, but I may want to watch some of the caches I've found. No, every thing is set up for logging caches found. It would be so much easier on me (selfish I know) if I could just hide my find count.

 

Thanks,

GOF1

[+RonGerth]

An easy solution for you. Don't look at your numbers and quit obsessing about all of the others who are looking at your name and numbers on the lists. A simple mind over matter deal, if you don't mind it won't matter. It is not like (I hope) people are running up to you and rubbing their numbers in your face and laughing at you or something. I am not a very active cacher as far as numbers goes so if they laughing at people I should be getting the treatment too and so far nobody has rubbed it in my face.

 

Ron

[+Miragee]

To TPTB,

 

Please. In the unlikely event you decide to generate a "stats page" I would like to be excluded from the stats. <snip>

I agree. I do not like it when someone decides to start "competing" with me and saying "I only need 12 more caches to catch up to you." Ick! It is like having a stalker . . .

[+TrailGators]

To TPTB,

 

Please. In the unlikely event you decide to generate a "stats page" I would like to be excluded from the stats. <snip>

I agree. I do not like it when someone decides to start "competing" with me and saying "I only need 12 more caches to catch up to you." Ick! It is like having a stalker . . .

I just ignore it.

[+sbell111]

I'm in agreement with those above who say they'd like to hide their stats. I would do the same.

 

Not only that, but also fix it so our caches wouldn't add to anyone else's stats either. We didn't even consider our caches incrementing some stat count somewhere when we placed them. So, why should it? That's not the purpose we placed the cache and don't feel our caches should be hunted simply because of it.

Why would you ever assume that those cache finds should not increment those cachers' find counts?

That's not even a question that makes sense. "Assume," "should not?"

I think that I phrased the question properly, based on your previous post. I'm sorry that you had trouble understanding it.

I think my opinion is clear, very clear. I don't want folks seeking our caches simply to increment their find count. Period. That's not what we've placed the cache for. There's no assumption involved. If the only reason to seek one of our caches is to increment your find count then I'd just rather you didn't.

No assumption involved? You are completely assuming that you understand other cachers' motivations.

In fact, it's my prerogative, don'tcha think? I've listed my latest caches on a different site. I don't care for their solution as it takes the concept what what I don't like about find counts and pushes it even further.

No. I don't think that it's your prerogative. A cache owner does not get to decide who finds his/her caches or why a cacher decides to look for and find their caches.

Now, do you think those finding our caches on that other site have their counts incremented here? Nope. Do you think I should "assume" their counts "should not" be incremented here?

Do you think that this has anything to do with this discussion?

Also, aren't temporary caches still caches none the less? Why not increment find counts with those? Why should those who rail against logging temporary event cache "assume" those caches "should not" count?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or this thread?

Quite a bit too far? I don't think so. In fact, it falls right in line with the examples that are already accepted I mention above.

Really? How do you wanting to determine whether finds on your caches should increment the find counts of caches who appropriately log a find have anything to do with whether new caches meet the guidelines or whether caches on other sites are caches or whether cache owners have the right to decide what counts as a find on their caches? Edited April 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+ProjectFred325]

Did I hear caching and beer? Where does the line start?

[+Renegade Knight]

So what do you think?

I'm in agreement with those above who say they'd like to hide their stats. I would do the same.

 

Not only that, but also fix it so our caches wouldn't add to anyone else's stats either. We didn't even consider our caches incrementing some stat count somewhere when we placed them. So, why should it? That's not the purpose we placed the cache and don't feel our caches should be hunted simply because of it.

 

In a sea of carbon copy caches the only reason to log yours would be because it's so very much better than the rest that it's worth the experience on its own. I have climbed many a hill because they are there, I've been to the top of a couple of mountains, and yet none would merit a log in a journal the same way that Everest or Denali would. The only reason to track those smaller acomplishments would be in a chronology of my efforts. Only a few caches could ever be considered crowning achievments.

 

I know you think numbers are part of the problem and they are in that they are not the kind of fun you like but others do. However I think you can make a fair comparison to this phrase I've been hearing lately.

 

The difference between medicine and poison is the dosage. Everones dosage for stats would be self adminstered. You can ignore them or revel in them as you see fit.

[+Renegade Knight]

They should forget about the stats, and just declare it an all-out competion and issue points.

 

You get 2 points for finding a terrain 5 cache, and 1 point for a terrain 4 hide. Finding a LPC would be -2

That's the cool thing about real stats. You can do exactly that.

The skydiver system was pretty interesting. You got rewarded more for finding caches that were found less. It generated visits to caches that would languish. The kinds of caches that some folks lament that the numbers game have made less popular. There is an irony there.

 

I wonder how many people opted out of the IQ tests that they were given while growing up. That's one stat that I don't believe in...

[+Kealia]

Did I hear caching and beer? Where does the line start?

 

At Groundspeak HQ - didn't you get the email invite?

 

I agree - leave it alone. I like using INATN for the maps, etc. but I'd rather see it offsite since it's more "opt in" that way and they Lackeys can focus on their core offering(s).

[+gof1]

An easy solution for you. Don't look at your numbers and quit obsessing about all of the others who are looking at your name and numbers on the lists. A simple mind over matter deal, if you don't mind it won't matter. It is not like (I hope) people are running up to you and rubbing their numbers in your face and laughing at you or something. I am not a very active cacher as far as numbers goes so if they laughing at people I should be getting the treatment too and so far nobody has rubbed it in my face.

 

Ron

 

You miss my point. I don't want to see this hobby turned into a competitive sport. Some are urging a stat driven turn to the game, I don't see that as an advantage. I certainly see no reason why I should be included in any such scheme.

 

Look at it this way. Do you ever eat dinner out? Well I want to see how many restaurants you have been to. How many unique restaurants? How many one star? How many 3 star? How often do you eat out? When was the last time? How many days in a row have you eaten out? None of my business is it? If I started collecting that data you would probably get a restraining order filed against me. How is it any different than sites mining similar data about my caching habits?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I don't want folks seeking our caches simply to increment their find count. Period. That's not what we've placed the cache for. There's no assumption involved. If the only reason to seek one of our caches is to increment your find count then I'd just rather you didn't.

 

I like having the numbers available to the owner and the owner having the ability to publicize them if they so choose.

 

I use INATN stats in my profile.

 

I put them there when the flame topic de jour in these forums was multi-logging events. I think temporary event caches are a great thing and multi-logging an event to record each find is a good solution... so the one stat INATN provides that is of interest is Unique Caches vs. Total Caches. If Unique vs. Total is shown no one can accuse anyone of pumping up the numbers using multi-logged events. There is a considerable difference between my Unique number and my Total, but INATN openly deals with that apparant discrepancy so that there's no question why.

 

I have also logged some caches twice when they've changed. I replaced a cache of mine yesterday that had been muggled several times since it was placed in 2001 (the first cache in Alabama). To better protect it I used a different container in a different place about 25' away. Although the listing stays the same it's a different hide... as far as I am concerned anyone who has found it can go find it again. So, duplicate stats can exist and INATN, again through the Unique vs. Total numbers, will take care of that.

 

I don't, however, compare my geocaching experiences to others, and if the subject comes up (outside these forums it rarely has) I tell folks up front that the numbers are wrong in several ways.

 

There are several legitimate ways to judge me as a person and as a cacher - those numbers are not one of them. If someone's opinion of me is guided by those stats then they're too dumb for me to worry about... Life's too short to worry about what the ignorant believe.

 

As previously stated, however, I would be in favor of eliminating the numbers that show on logs and posts or making it a member's choice.

 

A simple "Show Stats?" checkbox option on each members profile would do that.

 

What prompted this post however, is the quote above.

 

Who are these people who hunt caches solely for the numbers?

 

I know a lot of cachers, I attend a lot of events, I have been in some competitions, been on a lot of cache runs... but I have never run across or even heard factually of anyone who caches just for the stats.

 

Can anyone prove that such a cacher even exists?

 

Has anyone ever said "I am in it for the numbers, nothing else matters" or "A cache is just another number to me"?

 

I can tell you this - if there are such cachers then they are an insignifigant minority.

[+Totem Clan]

Did I hear caching and beer? Where does the line start?

At my front door. I have a standing invitation to any and all cachers for homebrews and some caching.

[+gof1]

Did I hear caching and beer? Where does the line start?

At my front door. I have a standing invitation to any and all cachers for homebrews and some caching.

 

Some day, if aren't careful, you'll find a grumpy Old Fart on your doorstep with a stein in his hand. Then you'll wonder if an open invite was such a bright idea.

[+Machuco]

Did I hear caching and beer? Where does the line start?

At my front door. I have a standing invitation to any and all cachers for homebrews and some caching.

 

Hmmm...North Dakota is a long ways away but if I'm ever in the area I'll look you up!