should our hides count toward our number

[+Team sixgun]

I know I'll catch flak for this but, GC allows you to log your own caches as a find, is this allowed, after all it is more work to hide a cache than it is to find one, so many people care about having the highest number of finds, that maby giving them credit toward that number for hiding a cache would encourage more people to hide them and we would have more caches to find, I know some people would abuse this and hide crapy caches but some may get into hidding them more, well I love hidding mine I think I may actually prefer it. I just want your opinion not an argument. (by the way as I said above you can already do this).

[+BlueDeuce]

It does, check your stat page. Some people even think you need a find/hide ratio.

[+El Diablo]

People already hide crappy caches. As soon as cachers get over the numbers game and just concentrate on fun, we will have better caches. I wish this site would stop posting numbers for the public to see.

 

El Diablo

[+Lil Devil]

We have a find count, and separately we have a hide count. I wouldn't want them combined.

 

[+TrailGators]

We have a find count, and separately we have a hide count. I wouldn't want them combined.

 

Neither do I...

[+briansnat]

If you want to log finds on your caches nobody is stopping you, or anybody from doing so.

[+PhxChem]

I just want your opinion not an argument.

 

If you know it's going to be headed that way........

[+ventura_kids]

You want an opinion instead of an argument? .... and you came to the forums?

 

My opinion....

Your HIDES should not be included in your FINDS.

 

FINDS are just FINDS

Edited April 29, 2008 by ventura_kids

[+DocDiTTo]

I know I'll catch flak for this but, GC allows you to log your own caches as a find, is this allowed, after all it is more work to hide a cache than it is to find one, so many people care about having the highest number of finds, that maby giving them credit toward that number for hiding a cache would encourage more people to hide them and we would have more caches to find, I know some people would abuse this and hide crapy caches but some may get into hidding them more, well I love hidding mine I think I may actually prefer it. I just want your opinion not an argument. (by the way as I said above you can already do this).

 

Some of us believe that the "find count" is just that - a simple count of the number of caches you've found. That's separate from the "hide count" which is the number of caches you've hidden. Numbers aren't a reward, they're simple statistics. If you'd like to confuse your stats, pad your stats, or create fake numbers for yourself, nothing is stopping you. I prefer to keep my numbers as they are -- an accurate reflection of the number of caches I've found and hidden.

[+Renegade Knight]

We have a find count, and separately we have a hide count. I wouldn't want them combined.

 

You already get credit for them both just like above.

[+Happy Humphrey]

We have a find count, and separately we have a hide count. I wouldn't want them combined.

 

You already get credit for them both just like above.

I think that what he means is you should be able to (freely and without criticism) post finds on each of your hides, thus boosting your find count by your hide count.

 

I don't think that there would be much criticism if that's what he really wants to do. It's harmless enough (but I'd find it pointless).

 

If it encourages people to hide more caches so they can improve their find numbers: well, I doubt it would happen but wouldn't be pleased if it did.

[+KerBear]

I don't log my hidden caches as finds. if one is-it's a mistake and will be changed to maint. log or a note.

 

now I do log an event I've put together as an attended, which adds one to my find count.

[+StarBrand]

Seems like a cheesy thing to do - after all you already KNOW where they are so it seems like you couldn't really find them. At least not the way you find other caches.

 

But nothing really stops you from doing it.

[+wimseyguy]

Find: to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort

Hide: to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret

 

They mean two completely different albeit related things.

Why would you want the quantity of one counted in the other's total?

 

Do you add your hight to your weight to have one number for them as well?

[+uktim]

I don't log my hidden caches as finds.

 

Caching in itself is pretty cheesy so why not go the extra mile and log our own caches

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I think that what he means is you should be able to (freely and without criticism) post finds on each of your hides, thus boosting your find count by your hide count.

 

You are currently able to post finds on each of your hides, thus boosting your find count.

 

As for that being free from criticism... it isn't, and in the opinion of many (including myself) shouldn't be.

 

You can't "find" something that you hid yourself.

 

I also wouldn't want to encourage hides from cachers who aren't really enthused about hiding something. That just leads to poorly conceived caches. I think the best "credit" you can get for your hides are the compliments of those who find it, especially if you end up on someones "all time favorites" bookmark list!

 

DCC

[+TeamGumbo]

You can't "find" something that you hid yourself.

 

I'll agree with you there...you should *see* the geo-drift I've had on a few of my caches.

 

[WashoeZephyr]

now I do log an event I've put together as an attended, which adds one to my find count.

I have done the same, since I was there, did participate, therefore I did attend. I'm going to log it. But logging one's own hides. I don't get the point?

[+Kit Fox]

You can't "find" something that you hid yourself.

 

I'll agree with you there...you should *see* the geo-drift I've had on a few of my caches.

 

 

As an owner of many caches, ive fully experienced "cache migration." Heck one of my best camouflaged caches took me ten minutes to find. Someone moved it 40 feet from where I originally placed it . Did I log a find for my own cache? Heck No! I logged a performed maintenance log.

 

The concept of logging one's own caches to increase your find count is even cheesier than logging temp caches as "attended logs" for event caches.

[Neos2]

Personally, I prefer my stats to reflect the way I was involved in the cache. If I am the one who hid the cache I want it to go in my finds category, and if I was the one who looked for it I prefer it to count in my finds category.

 

I like to see my numbers. I like having lots of stats to look at (Comes with being a science teacher, I think). I wish my DNFs showed up publically, too. I like being able to see if I am slowing down or doing more caches than I did last year, I like to know if I usually find more caches in spring than in summer, etc. It is all about the numbers (my numbers, not yours--I don't care about your numbers-- sorry, but there are just tooooo many of you for that!).

 

but ....Really, my hides are such a small subset of my total involvement in the game it wouldn't be worth confusing myself. And it's easy enough to do the math. I mean, it's easy to say "I found x number of caches and hid y number of caches, so together, I have been involved with z number of caches."

 

If it would encourage you to hide more caches if you count them as finds, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other (after all, you are the cache owner).

[Dinoprophet]

Here is a handy applet that will combine your hides and finds for you.

[+CSpenceFLY]

You can also log finds on caches you never found. That would do the same thing. Sounds silly doesn't it?

[+SidAndBob]

I know what the OP is saying, but as others have said, this isn't the solution.

In the UK we have Cacher of the Month (I'm sure you have something similar), which awards points, for finds, hides, TB's moved etc. It's not perfect, but it's just for a laugh and a bit of friendly competition.