Private profiles?

[+sbell111]

My post allowed for this fact. No alteration was necessary.

Only for those that do not need bluntness.

The best solution I can see that can make more people happy is....

Give us the ability to selectively hide stats. ie turn off the display for hides and or finds.

Should an individual decide to hide their find count, display a link that will display links to 5 random logs by said user.

The thing is, a very, very small subset of people want this change while at least as many want to keep the proposed change form happening because it would negatively affect their enjoyment. Why should TPTB make a change that will dissatisfy as many customers as it would please, given that there is no operational reason for the change?

Do you mean a very small subset of vocal people?

I know one person that is active on the forum who thinks that it should be changed but is to meek to voice the opinion.

I'm related to an idiot (his coords are always 20' off W by SW and wont listen) who wont post in the forums (and rightly so) because of numbers issues.

I also know two others who use puppets in the forums because the don't want any one to falsely give respect or disrespect based on their numbers.

 

This wish to hide stats is gradually growing it's vocal supporters but it doesn't appear that anti-proponents are increasing.

 

Out side of catching sloppy trolls and puppets or reading logs, why shouldn't the ability to hide stats be given?

Here's the thing. Good reasons to not make the change have been given. While the reasons to make the change do not ring true, in my opinion. I simply cannot remember any "I have more finds than you, so your opinion doesn't count" posts where the person taking that position wasn't quickly pummeled for taking such a silly position. That leaves only "I want it because I want it" as a reason for the change, which in my opinion is an insufficient reason to make a change that would negatively impact others.

Actually take a troll out of the equation because they are quickly spotted without using stats.

First, stats are very helpful at catching many of our trolls. The simple fact that they are new to the forums and have unpopular opinions is insufficient. Also, once again you are ignoring my example of the experienced forum participant who makes statements that differ from the reality of their caching history. Access to their stats is necessary to catch such disingenuousness.

[sdarken]

Personally I dont have a problem with the status quo when it comes to profiles and stats but it would seem relatively simple to add some privacy options to the profile maintenance screen.

 

eg:

 

Show my profile to :

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Show my find counts to

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Having the "friends" option on find counts may add a performance hit since the database server would need to resolve the friends relationship when displaying past logs on every cache page.

 

I see the profile privacy option being something that very few people will use. People who dont like sharing information leave their profiles blank now anyway.

 

Since I'm making stuff up, I'd like to see an option to easily share DNF (or all) logs, not just find counts. I'd like to be able to click a link on a friends profile and see all their activity, not just finds. DNFs and other non-find logs are already visible but there is no easy way to locate them without visiting indivdual caches. If there were people with objection I guess additional controls could be added to the suggestions above.

[+markandsandy]

 

I also can't say what you do or do not know about the trend in posts all I can say is that every time I see this topic come up I see new pro-ers speaking up and the and the anti-ers are the same people.

 

Put me down in the anti list.

 

There, that adds a new anti voice speaking up, not one of your 'same people'.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

I also can't say what you do or do not know about the trend in posts all I can say is that every time I see this topic come up I see new pro-ers speaking up and the and the anti-ers are the same people.

 

Put me down in the anti list.

 

There, that adds a new anti voice speaking up, not one of your 'same people'.

'bout time a new one showed up but why are you against? I mean, to say you are for or against anything without giving reason...

I'm gonna go out on a limb without making a click to verify for myself and just ask "You have less than 500 finds to go along with your new chiming in, don't you?"

 

~~~edit~~~

added missing r

Edited February 10, 2009 by Vater_Araignee

[+trunx]

Put me down in the anti list.

 

There, that adds a new anti voice speaking up, not one of your 'same people'.

 

Anti as well.

 

I hope the total number of my forum posts don't exclude/diminish my opinion

[+Rockin Roddy]

Personally I dont have a problem with the status quo when it comes to profiles and stats but it would seem relatively simple to add some privacy options to the profile maintenance screen.

 

eg:

 

Show my profile to :

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Show my find counts to

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Having the "friends" option on find counts may add a performance hit since the database server would need to resolve the friends relationship when displaying past logs on every cache page.

 

I see the profile privacy option being something that very few people will use. People who dont like sharing information leave their profiles blank now anyway.

 

Since I'm making stuff up, I'd like to see an option to easily share DNF (or all) logs, not just find counts. I'd like to be able to click a link on a friends profile and see all their activity, not just finds. DNFs and other non-find logs are already visible but there is no easy way to locate them without visiting indivdual caches. If there were people with objection I guess additional controls could be added to the suggestions above.

 

Why?

[+sbell111]

 

I also can't say what you do or do not know about the trend in posts all I can say is that every time I see this topic come up I see new pro-ers speaking up and the and the anti-ers are the same people.

 

Put me down in the anti list.

 

There, that adds a new anti voice speaking up, not one of your 'same people'.

'bout time a new one showed up but why are you against? I mean, to say you are for or against anything without giving reason...

I'm gonna go out on a limb without making a click to verify for myself and just ask "You have less than 500 finds to go along with your new chiming in, don't you?"

 

~~~edit~~~

added missing r

Wouldn't your position on this issue suggest that a person with few finds would be 'for' hiding their stats?

[+sbell111]

Personally I dont have a problem with the status quo when it comes to profiles and stats but it would seem relatively simple to add some privacy options to the profile maintenance screen.

 

eg:

 

Show my profile to :

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Show my find counts to

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Having the "friends" option on find counts may add a performance hit since the database server would need to resolve the friends relationship when displaying past logs on every cache page.

 

I see the profile privacy option being something that very few people will use. People who dont like sharing information leave their profiles blank now anyway.

 

Since I'm making stuff up, I'd like to see an option to easily share DNF (or all) logs, not just find counts. I'd like to be able to click a link on a friends profile and see all their activity, not just finds. DNFs and other non-find logs are already visible but there is no easy way to locate them without visiting indivdual caches. If there were people with objection I guess additional controls could be added to the suggestions above.

 

Why?

I would be against this change because I think that it would make people less likely to log DNFs and, therefore, withhold important information from cache owners (and other cachers).

[+Rockin Roddy]

Personally I dont have a problem with the status quo when it comes to profiles and stats but it would seem relatively simple to add some privacy options to the profile maintenance screen.

 

eg:

 

Show my profile to :

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Show my find counts to

0 Everyone (default)

0 My friends

0 Nobody except me

 

Having the "friends" option on find counts may add a performance hit since the database server would need to resolve the friends relationship when displaying past logs on every cache page.

 

I see the profile privacy option being something that very few people will use. People who dont like sharing information leave their profiles blank now anyway.

 

Since I'm making stuff up, I'd like to see an option to easily share DNF (or all) logs, not just find counts. I'd like to be able to click a link on a friends profile and see all their activity, not just finds. DNFs and other non-find logs are already visible but there is no easy way to locate them without visiting indivdual caches. If there were people with objection I guess additional controls could be added to the suggestions above.

 

Why?

I would be against this change because I think that it would make people less likely to log DNFs and, therefore, withhold important information from cache owners (and other cachers).

 

My thought as well.

[sdarken]

Since I'm making stuff up, I'd like to see an option to easily share DNF (or all) logs, not just find counts. I'd like to be able to click a link on a friends profile and see all their activity, not just finds. DNFs and other non-find logs are already visible but there is no easy way to locate them without visiting indivdual caches. If there were people with objection I guess additional controls could be added to the suggestions above.

 

Why?

I would be against this change because I think that it would make people less likely to log DNFs and, therefore, withhold important information from cache owners (and other cachers).

 

I find DNF logs to be interesting. Quite often they are more interesting than Found logs. I think the **option** (similar to what I was suggesting with the privacy controls) to share DNFs with your friends would be a nice addition. I'm still waiting for the Friends feature to be enhanced with something more useful than a quick link to their profile. Like all these issues, I can see why some people wouldn't use it and why it would be important to allow people to control it.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Wouldn't your position on this issue suggest that a person with few finds would be 'for' hiding their stats?

Of course my position would assume that a good number would have higher counts but I am also a suspicious person and would find it quite coincidental that nobody new would voice for the opposition until after I mention these concepts.

[+Vater_Araignee]

If finding DNF's from another cacher was to be initiated it should only be an opt in.

I'd be the first to turn it on so people could read things like

 

November 24, 2008 by Vater_Araignee [Click to add Vater_Araignee to the VIP list] (89 found)

It was a cold and dreary day, no leaves where on the trees and it had just stopped snowing. I thought clear skies, no leaves, I can get a waas lock and find it!

NOPE!

Seems this spot hates my mio, I never get waas, I can only receive a max of 4 sats and every few seconds my distance to target changes from 2 - 90 feet and in a random direction. Frell yesterday it told me once that the target was inside the carpet store and the previous attempt it told me once that it was about 20 feet into the lake.

 

I figure with my max error I have 19965.69 square feet to search and in that much space even the hint doesn't help.

 

If you spot blood in the area it is probably from a frustrated nose bleed unless its on a tree, then I was just beating my own face in.

 

This is DNF 11 for Baby Boy Zukey I think..

 

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[+flask]

 

Of course my position would assume that a good number would have higher counts but I am also a suspicious person and would find it quite coincidental that nobody new would voice for the opposition until after I mention these concepts.

 

maybe the new people didn't feel a need to pile on until their opinion was challenged.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

Of course my position would assume that a good number would have higher counts but I am also a suspicious person and would find it quite coincidental that nobody new would voice for the opposition until after I mention these concepts.

 

maybe the new people didn't feel a need to pile on until their opinion was challenged.

And yet their opinion was challenged from the get go, if in fact it is their opinion and not just an attempt to make my statements appear false just because they are in a position to do so.

You may have noted that they only said "Me Too" and voiced no real opinion.

To me, agreeing with one side or another without articulating why appears to be an attempt at getting on someones good side.

I'm not saying that this is the intention, just that it looks that way.

[+Star*Hopper]

Forgot to mention in an earlier response that all those "swappy li'l campfire stories" etc. aren't found in the profiles -- they're neatly arranged in an orderly timeline right there on each & every cache page, right where they belong. Read 'em there - a record of my & anyone else's responses to that particular cache, & that's all you need.

 

Vis-a-vis providing the feature:

No hurry or timeline or urgency vs "other needed fixes" or what have you ... that's not what the subject is about. You "Anti's" are free to call it any way you want -- all I'm sayin' is, me, I'd like the option of locking mine. OPTION, mind you, so we EACH could choose whichever course we want; you can lock yours or leave it flung wide open to the world - I couldn't care less what you do with yours, & what I do with mine's no skin off your burro either.

 

AFA 'security' issues....not gonna play your game. I could sit here for hours trying to make you 'see the light', but you have your mind made up, and what would be really stupid is me "wasting my breath" trying to convince you to change it. I'll just leave it with the friendly reminder that it's difficult to see the greener grass when your head's buried in the sand.....and that's the end of it for me.

 

~*

Edited February 11, 2009 by Star*Hopper

[Trinity's Crew]

I'm with sbell on this one. There just aren't a whole lot of people ridiculing posters with low find or post counts. When it does happen they are called on it.

 

Some people DO suggest that new cachers get a few under their belt before attempting a hide, but that's not the same as someone saying "You have only found 184 caches. I have found a gazillion more caches than you so your opinion on <insert topic here> is worthless and stupid." There's no need to hide stats or profiles IMHO.

[Trinity's Crew]

Now if only I could get this darned sand out of my hair...

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Forgot to mention in an earlier response that all those "swappy li'l campfire stories" etc. aren't found in the profiles -- they're neatly arranged in an orderly timeline right there on each & every cache page, right where they belong. Read 'em there - a record of my & anyone else's responses to that particular cache, & that's all you need.

 

But there's no timeline for a cacher by looking that way and if we only had those to go by most of us would never be looking at caches which would lead us to such logging methods as flask's. Others don't "connect the dots" as well but it is possible to do so with some if you check the profile and follow along.

 

Don't know where my stats fall in y'all's calculations but count me with the "antis". The social aspect provided by public profiles is part of the game to me.

[+emmett]

.

 

Sometimes I wonder if the average age of the geocaching community is about 2.

 

People won't log DNFs and make all kinds of lame excuses for this lame practice.

 

People don't want others to know their find/hide counts as if there is some harm generated by this information.

 

People routinely trade down, turning a nicely stashed cache into a trash container in very short order.

 

People routinely exercise poor care in replacing caches in the manner they were hidden.

 

People complain a cache is too hard.

 

People complain a cache is too small.

 

People complain there are too many crappy caches.

 

People complain there are not enough caches.

 

Come to think of it, average of of 2 may be generous.

 

End of rant.

 

Emmett, age 5

 

.

[tttedzeins]

Emmett

 

I noticed a constant throughout your post "PEOPLE COMPLAIN". No matter what the situation people will complain, it is their nature.

 

Ted, age 6 ('cos I gots more posts than you, so I's gots to be better then u)

[+emmett]

Emmett

 

I noticed a constant throughout your post "PEOPLE COMPLAIN". No matter what the situation people will complain, it is their nature.

 

Ted, age 6 ('cos I gots more posts than you, so I's gots to be better then u)

 

See, if they would let me hide my stats, then I could claim to be your equal and no one would know any better.

 

By the way, I have a 40% DNF ratio this year, bet you can't top that.

 

Emmett, still age 5 (not likely to experience a growth spurt soon)

 

.

[+sbell111]

Wouldn't your position on this issue suggest that a person with few finds would be 'for' hiding their stats?

Of course my position would assume that a good number would have higher counts but I am also a suspicious person and would find it quite coincidental that nobody new would voice for the opposition until after I mention these concepts.

Unlike those of us who have an unhealthy need to wade into every angsty topic, many people will not post to a thread if someone has already fleshed out their position.

 

Simply put, not every person has a need to post 'me, too'. After all, these threads are conversations, not polls.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Wouldn't your position on this issue suggest that a person with few finds would be 'for' hiding their stats?

Of course my position would assume that a good number would have higher counts but I am also a suspicious person and would find it quite coincidental that nobody new would voice for the opposition until after I mention these concepts.

Unlike those of us who have an unhealthy need to wade into every angsty topic, many people will not post to a thread if someone has already fleshed out their position.

 

Simply put, not every person has a need to post 'me, too'. After all, these threads are conversations, not polls.

see post #64 refering to "Me Too" posts.

[+sbell111]

Sometimes I wonder if the average age of the geocaching community is about 2.

 

People won't log DNFs and make all kinds of lame excuses for this lame practice.

 

People don't want others to know their find/hide counts as if there is some harm generated by this information.

 

People routinely trade down, turning a nicely stashed cache into a trash container in very short order.

 

People routinely exercise poor care in replacing caches in the manner they were hidden.

 

People complain a cache is too hard.

 

People complain a cache is too small.

 

People complain there are too many crappy caches.

 

People complain there are not enough caches.

 

Come to think of it, average of of 2 may be generous.

 

End of rant.

 

Emmett, age

People dragging their personal peeves into every thread. Edited February 11, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

Forgot to mention in an earlier response that all those "swappy li'l campfire stories" etc. aren't found in the profiles -- they're neatly arranged in an orderly timeline right there on each & every cache page, right where they belong. Read 'em there - a record of my & anyone else's responses to that particular cache, & that's all you need.

 

Vis-a-vis providing the feature:

No hurry or timeline or urgency vs "other needed fixes" or what have you ... that's not what the subject is about. You "Anti's" are free to call it any way you want -- all I'm sayin' is, me, I'd like the option of locking mine. OPTION, mind you, so we EACH could choose whichever course we want; you can lock yours or leave it flung wide open to the world - I couldn't care less what you do with yours, & what I do with mine's no skin off your burro either.

 

AFA 'security' issues....not gonna play your game. I could sit here for hours trying to make you 'see the light', but you have your mind made up, and what would be really stupid is me "wasting my breath" trying to convince you to change it. I'll just leave it with the friendly reminder that it's difficult to see the greener grass when your head's buried in the sand.....and that's the end of it for me.

 

~*

 

I'm betting some of us are feeling the same way toward some of you "FOR" people...

Edited February 11, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

Wouldn't your position on this issue suggest that a person with few finds would be 'for' hiding their stats?

Of course my position would assume that a good number would have higher counts but I am also a suspicious person and would find it quite coincidental that nobody new would voice for the opposition until after I mention these concepts.

Unlike those of us who have an unhealthy need to wade into every angsty topic, many people will not post to a thread if someone has already fleshed out their position.

 

Simply put, not every person has a need to post 'me, too'. After all, these threads are conversations, not polls.

see post #64 refering to "Me Too" posts.

I read post 64. I simply disagree with it. Here it is:

Of course my position would assume that a good number would have higher counts but I am also a suspicious person and would find it quite coincidental that nobody new would voice for the opposition until after I mention these concepts.

maybe the new people didn't feel a need to pile on until their opinion was challenged.

And yet their opinion was challenged from the get go, if in fact it is their opinion and not just an attempt to make my statements appear false just because they are in a position to do so.

In order for this to be true, one would have to believe that they have an oxe to grind against you personally. If you can show this to be true, great. Otherwise, I think it's more likely that they disagreed with you because they think your position is wrong.

You may have noted that they only said "Me Too" and voiced no real opinion.

Agreement or disagreement is a real opinion.

To me, agreeing with one side or another without articulating why appears to be an attempt at getting on someones good side.

I'm not saying that this is the intention, just that it looks that way.

I fail to see why anyone would wish to get 'on the good side' of any of the participants of this thread. It's much more likely that people are merely agreeing with the positions that they share. (If at a later date they disagree with these same positions, you can then play 'gotcha'.)

 

I wonder if you would be making this much fuss if they new participants agreed with you.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I haven't seen people say "I've found more, so I'm smarter than you are" in here, but maybe I've missed it?? I have seen people try to compare their stats with others, but most of us realize this is meaningless.

 

It might have been slightly more subtle than that from time to time, but you've definitely missed it if you've never noticed it before. I've been called out for my numbers after offering advice. I had a good laugh because my online numbers have very little to do with our actual numbers and nothing all to do with the validity of my advice. So while this experience might promote the idea of keeping stats private, I actually feel quite strongly against it and I'm sure by now the person who called me out has been around the block enough times to know those stats mean little to nothing around here anyway.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

 

See, if they would let me hide my stats, then I could claim to be your equal and no one would know any better.

 

By the way, I have a 40% DNF ratio this year, bet you can't top that.

 

Emmett, still age 5 (not likely to experience a growth spurt soon)

 

.

 

Now THAT's an impressive caching number!!! I wildly admire anyone with so many DNFs who hasn't given up yet!

[+Frank Broughton]

Sit back and read this thread all over again - what will you see? I see.... hmmm

[+sbell111]

I haven't seen people say "I've found more, so I'm smarter than you are" in here, but maybe I've missed it?? I have seen people try to compare their stats with others, but most of us realize this is meaningless.

It might have been slightly more subtle than that from time to time, but you've definitely missed it if you've never noticed it before. I've been called out for my numbers after offering advice. I had a good laugh because my online numbers have very little to do with our actual numbers and nothing all to do with the validity of my advice. So while this experience might promote the idea of keeping stats private, I actually feel quite strongly against it and I'm sure by now the person who called me out has been around the block enough times to know those stats mean little to nothing around here anyway.

How about a linkie?

Sit back and read this thread all over again - what will you see? I see.... hmmm

[+Vater_Araignee]

In order for this to be true, one would have to believe that they have an oxe to grind against you personally.

Not necisarily true, there are people that will do things like that just because they can.

Agreement or disagreement is a real opinion.

I gauge a persons sincerity towards a subject by their attempt to formulate a statement that goes beyond "Me too" or "I agree" where it a poll those would suffice but is not a pole it is a discussion.

And frankly just simply saying those things only leaves an impression that they lean towards one side or another and an impression is not an opinion considering an opinion is stronger than an impression.

I fail to see why anyone would wish to get 'on the good side' of any of the participants of this thread.

Because humans will schmooze whether the schmoozie knows it or not.

 

I wonder if you would be making this much fuss if they new participants agreed with you.

Maybe not so publicly but I would still distrust their motivation and if I started to see a pattern I'd call 'em out.

 

I have to wonder if you have any automatic distrust of human social machinations or not. [distrust] Or are you just simply trying to counterpoint me. [/distrust]

[+markandsandy]

 

I also can't say what you do or do not know about the trend in posts all I can say is that every time I see this topic come up I see new pro-ers speaking up and the and the anti-ers are the same people.

 

Put me down in the anti list.

 

There, that adds a new anti voice speaking up, not one of your 'same people'.

'bout time a new one showed up but why are you against? I mean, to say you are for or against anything without giving reason...

I'm gonna go out on a limb without making a click to verify for myself and just ask "You have less than 500 finds to go along with your new chiming in, don't you?"

 

~~~edit~~~

added missing r

 

The reasons that I didn't give any details were:

1. I was short of time

2. The other "anti's" were doing a good job already.

 

The reason I chose to chime in was to show that although the trend you saw was only the same people posted anti this, that there were others of us around.

 

I'm loath to point this out but I also notice that the anti crowd also have nice stats that protect them from garbage accusations.

 

Yet you assume that I have less than 500 finds.

Early this morning it occurred to me .. dunno why .. but think for a moment how much more angst-free geocaching - and especially these fora - could be if members could choose to toggle or set their own geocaching profiles to 'private', so only they could access them.

 

Thoughts?

~*

Very little of the angst that I've seen on the forums has anything to do with anything that would be hidden by making a profile private. Angst-ridden people are always going to find something.

I'm with sbell on this one. There just aren't a whole lot of people ridiculing posters with low find or post counts. When it does happen they are called on it.

 

Some people DO suggest that new cachers get a few under their belt before attempting a hide, but that's not the same as someone saying "You have only found 184 caches. I have found a gazillion more caches than you so your opinion on <insert topic here> is worthless and stupid." There's no need to hide stats or profiles IMHO.

 

Well put.

 

As others have stated, the profiles help provide a sense of community in geocaching. If people start hiding their profiles, the angst-ridden will start wondering "what are they trying to hide?". Cachers can already decide how much personal information to share on their profile, and there are other ways to get their hide/find counts (unless all of these are locked down as well). For those who try to look important by using number of hides as a measure of self-worth, if hide counts are hidden, the number of forum posts and/or 'member since' dates will replace those numbers.

 

As far as the argument that 'other sites allow hiding profiles', this is not a site where a lot of real personal information is expected in your profile. Cachers names aren't even typically included. If you look at our profile, you can see what city we live in, but if you try to find a couple named Mark and Sandy in this town, you won't find us.

 

In summary, and without specifically addressing every argument for or against in this thread, I have yet to see anything that convinces me that there is any real benefit to being able to hide profiles, and more benefits from leaving it as is.

[+sbell111]

 

I also can't say what you do or do not know about the trend in posts all I can say is that every time I see this topic come up I see new pro-ers speaking up and the and the anti-ers are the same people.

 

Put me down in the anti list.

 

There, that adds a new anti voice speaking up, not one of your 'same people'.

'bout time a new one showed up but why are you against? I mean, to say you are for or against anything without giving reason...

I'm gonna go out on a limb without making a click to verify for myself and just ask "You have less than 500 finds to go along with your new chiming in, don't you?"

 

~~~edit~~~

added missing r

 

The reasons that I didn't give any details were:

1. I was short of time

2. The other "anti's" were doing a good job already.

 

The reason I chose to chime in was to show that although the trend you saw was only the same people posted anti this, that there were others of us around.

 

I'm loath to point this out but I also notice that the anti crowd also have nice stats that protect them from garbage accusations.

 

Yet you assume that I have less than 500 finds.

Early this morning it occurred to me .. dunno why .. but think for a moment how much more angst-free geocaching - and especially these fora - could be if members could choose to toggle or set their own geocaching profiles to 'private', so only they could access them.

 

Thoughts?

~*

Very little of the angst that I've seen on the forums has anything to do with anything that would be hidden by making a profile private. Angst-ridden people are always going to find something.

I'm with sbell on this one. There just aren't a whole lot of people ridiculing posters with low find or post counts. When it does happen they are called on it.

 

Some people DO suggest that new cachers get a few under their belt before attempting a hide, but that's not the same as someone saying "You have only found 184 caches. I have found a gazillion more caches than you so your opinion on <insert topic here> is worthless and stupid." There's no need to hide stats or profiles IMHO.

 

Well put.

 

As others have stated, the profiles help provide a sense of community in geocaching. If people start hiding their profiles, the angst-ridden will start wondering "what are they trying to hide?". Cachers can already decide how much personal information to share on their profile, and there are other ways to get their hide/find counts (unless all of these are locked down as well). For those who try to look important by using number of hides as a measure of self-worth, if hide counts are hidden, the number of forum posts and/or 'member since' dates will replace those numbers.

 

As far as the argument that 'other sites allow hiding profiles', this is not a site where a lot of real personal information is expected in your profile. Cachers names aren't even typically included. If you look at our profile, you can see what city we live in, but if you try to find a couple named Mark and Sandy in this town, you won't find us.

 

In summary, and without specifically addressing every argument for or against in this thread, I have yet to see anything that convinces me that there is any real benefit to being able to hide profiles, and more benefits from leaving it as is.

Cut it out. You're already on 'my good side'.

[+JBnW]

 

I also can't say what you do or do not know about the trend in posts all I can say is that every time I see this topic come up I see new pro-ers speaking up and the and the anti-ers are the same people.

 

Put me down in the anti list.

 

There, that adds a new anti voice speaking up, not one of your 'same people'.

'bout time a new one showed up but why are you against? I mean, to say you are for or against anything without giving reason...

I'm gonna go out on a limb without making a click to verify for myself and just ask "You have less than 500 finds to go along with your new chiming in, don't you?"

 

~~~edit~~~

added missing r

 

The reasons that I didn't give any details were:

1. I was short of time

2. The other "anti's" were doing a good job already.

 

The reason I chose to chime in was to show that although the trend you saw was only the same people posted anti this, that there were others of us around.

 

I'm loath to point this out but I also notice that the anti crowd also have nice stats that protect them from garbage accusations.

 

Yet you assume that I have less than 500 finds.

Early this morning it occurred to me .. dunno why .. but think for a moment how much more angst-free geocaching - and especially these fora - could be if members could choose to toggle or set their own geocaching profiles to 'private', so only they could access them.

 

Thoughts?

~*

Very little of the angst that I've seen on the forums has anything to do with anything that would be hidden by making a profile private. Angst-ridden people are always going to find something.

I'm with sbell on this one. There just aren't a whole lot of people ridiculing posters with low find or post counts. When it does happen they are called on it.

 

Some people DO suggest that new cachers get a few under their belt before attempting a hide, but that's not the same as someone saying "You have only found 184 caches. I have found a gazillion more caches than you so your opinion on <insert topic here> is worthless and stupid." There's no need to hide stats or profiles IMHO.

 

Well put.

 

As others have stated, the profiles help provide a sense of community in geocaching. If people start hiding their profiles, the angst-ridden will start wondering "what are they trying to hide?". Cachers can already decide how much personal information to share on their profile, and there are other ways to get their hide/find counts (unless all of these are locked down as well). For those who try to look important by using number of hides as a measure of self-worth, if hide counts are hidden, the number of forum posts and/or 'member since' dates will replace those numbers.

 

As far as the argument that 'other sites allow hiding profiles', this is not a site where a lot of real personal information is expected in your profile. Cachers names aren't even typically included. If you look at our profile, you can see what city we live in, but if you try to find a couple named Mark and Sandy in this town, you won't find us.

 

In summary, and without specifically addressing every argument for or against in this thread, I have yet to see anything that convinces me that there is any real benefit to being able to hide profiles, and more benefits from leaving it as is.

Ditto.

[+Vater_Araignee]

markandsandy,

 

I'm only for one small privacy change because everything else has already been addressed by saying "Don't fill it out" so so when you quoted my saying "Put me down in the anti list." a naturally believed you where talking about what I am for. I will also add you have stilled failed to address what I was talking about.

The anties have done a good job at pointing out why it it unnecessary to make the whole profile private but the only viable argument against hiding counts so far only involve GS and all the other bugs.

You will note that I said I am loath to point out nice stats blah blah... have said it before you posted and as I have stated in posts after the ones you decided either to ignore or not to even read "I'm a suspicious person" You'll also not my usage of smillies declaring basically that it would be just my luck if you did. And a question does NOT equal an assumption until it goes unanswered. Care to answer?

 

Unfortunately I have allowed myself and others to steer away from getting a good reason as to why stats should not be hidden.

 

Can I get 1 convincing reason as to why a user should not be given the choice to hide their stats that does not invoke the all mighty name of Groundspeak.

[+Sioneva]

I strongly oppose the idea of offering the option of making profiles private, and for all of the reasons that have been advanced already by other posters. Besides, how could I geo-stalk Sioneva, or, in turn, how could she stalk me, if profiles were private?

 

*evil cackle* Oh, wouldn't you like to know...

 

But I don't think profiles should be private either.

[sdarken]

 

See, if they would let me hide my stats, then I could claim to be your equal and no one would know any better.

 

By the way, I have a 40% DNF ratio this year, bet you can't top that.

 

Emmett, still age 5 (not likely to experience a growth spurt soon)

 

.

 

Now THAT's an impressive caching number!!! I wildly admire anyone with so many DNFs who hasn't given up yet!

 

While my DNF ratio for this year is probably only about 20% (because I've been caching with other people a couple of times this year), I'm quite proud of my DNF log count which now stands at over 300 DNFs posted. I think this puts me well up the list in the World DNF Rankings.

 

I've been told it's important to have a goal in life.

[+markandsandy]

markandsandy,

 

I'm only for one small privacy change because everything else has already been addressed by saying "Don't fill it out" so so when you quoted my saying "Put me down in the anti list." a naturally believed you where talking about what I am for. I will also add you have stilled failed to address what I was talking about.

I never quoted you saying "put me down in the anti list". That was my statement, not a quote. It was in response to a statement you made about "this topic", which I assumed was the topic of this thread.

 

... as I have stated in posts after the ones you decided either to ignore or not to even read "I'm a suspicious person"

Your being a suspicious person is your problem to deal with, not mine.

And a question does NOT equal an assumption until it goes unanswered. Care to answer?

The assumption was implicit in the phrasing of the question. If you want the answer, its right there in my profile, not hidden, where you can get it without the drama.

 

The anties have done a good job at pointing out why it it unnecessary to make the whole profile private but the only viable argument against hiding counts so far only involve GS and all the other bugs.

...

 

Unfortunately I have allowed myself and others to steer away from getting a good reason as to why stats should not be hidden.

 

Can I get 1 convincing reason as to why a user should not be given the choice to hide their stats that does not invoke the all mighty name of Groundspeak.

I have yet to see a convincing reason to hide them.

[+sbell111]

The anties have done a good job at pointing out why it it unnecessary to make the whole profile private but the only viable argument against hiding counts so far only involve GS and all the other bugs. ... Unfortunately I have allowed myself and others to steer away from getting a good reason as to why stats should not be hidden.

 

Can I get 1 convincing reason as to why a user should not be given the choice to hide their stats that does not invoke the all mighty name of Groundspeak.

Perhaps you should reread the thread. Perfectly valid examples of why it would be bad to allow the counts to be hidden have been given.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The anties have done a good job at pointing out why it it unnecessary to make the whole profile private but the only viable argument against hiding counts so far only involve GS and all the other bugs. ... Unfortunately I have allowed myself and others to steer away from getting a good reason as to why stats should not be hidden.

 

Can I get 1 convincing reason as to why a user should not be given the choice to hide their stats that does not invoke the all mighty name of Groundspeak.

Perhaps you should reread the thread. Perfectly valid examples of why it would be bad to allow the counts to be hidden have been given.

 

The question should be "what convincing reason can you give for hiding the stats?" If you can come up with even 1 good reason that the majority can stand behind, some might be swayed to give it more thought, but I've yet to see this!

[+Vater_Araignee]

markandsandy,

 

I'm only for one small privacy change because everything else has already been addressed by saying "Don't fill it out" so so when you quoted my saying "Put me down in the anti list." a naturally believed you where talking about what I am for. I will also add you have stilled failed to address what I was talking about.

I never quoted you saying "put me down in the anti list". That was my statement, not a quote. It was in response to a statement you made about "this topic", which I assumed was the topic of this thread.

I suggest you reread what I said and take the context in it entirety.

but if you did you would have less to ***

... as I have stated in posts after the ones you decided either to ignore or not to even read "I'm a suspicious person"

Your being a suspicious person is your problem to deal with, not mine.

My problem, ever hear the phrase about Sherlock Holmes? Yet it being my problem doesn't not make it any less a answer. An answer I might add that it is absolutely imposable for you to counter. Once again you are ***

 

And a question does NOT equal an assumption until it goes unanswered. Care to answer?

The assumption was implicit in the phrasing of the question. If you want the answer, its right there in my profile, not hidden, where you can get it without the drama.

Obviously you are so busy *** that you can't see the point I was trying to make by refusing to look.

The anties have done a good job at pointing out why it it unnecessary to make the whole profile private but the only viable argument against hiding counts so far only involve GS and all the other bugs.

...

 

Unfortunately I have allowed myself and others to steer away from getting a good reason as to why stats should not be hidden.

 

Can I get 1 convincing reason as to why a user should not be given the choice to hide their stats that does not invoke the all mighty name of Groundspeak.

I have yet to see a convincing reason to hide them.

That is called a dodge.

 

So basically you have *** and dodged.

 

***= quibble,ing,ed

[+Vater_Araignee]

I guess I have to leave this alone now because it is going to degrade into a bidirectional prove it.

 

But before I do, I'll point out...

We have a recent example of an over exuberant kid who couldn't be bothered to read being accused of Trolling because of his numbers.

There ARE people that refuse to post because they have low numbers and don't want to risk the following

There ARE people that claimed because somebody has low numbers their counter points are invalid.

 

So in short, if you don't want to add an extra level of comfort then you are correct "there is no valid reason".

And I thought I was tactless.

[+sbell111]

And I thought I was tactless.

You are correct, sir!!

[+Happy Bubbles]

I totally judge people based on the information I find on their profile page.

 

If someone logs my webcam cache but doesn't upload a picture properly, I'll use the information on their profile page to decide what to do next. If they've got a bazillion finds, I'll think they've just forgotten or made an honest mistake and start with a message just reminding them to upload their picture. If they've got very few finds and no webcam finds in particular, I'll include detailed instructions on how to upload a picture. If they've got a lot of webcam and virtual finds that aren't logged properly, I'll be more suspicious and less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt before I start deleting logs. I remember when a virtual cheater was found by looking at their profile page and gallery and seeing that they had logged virtuals all over the world by photoshopping the same hand and GPS into many different pictures.

 

When someone DNFs my traditional caches, I'll look at their find statistics to judge whether my cache has likely been muggled or if they just didn't look in the right place. If someone DNFs my cache on their second or third cache hunt ever, I'll be less likely to dash out and check on it than if a veteran cacher writes a log implying that they found the right spot but couldn't find the cache. I've got a cache that's a fair distance away from my home coordinates, and a couple that are on top of mountains that require a hike. I can't go check on them after every DNF, so I use information about the DNFer to judge how urgently I need to make time to go check it.

 

Similarly, when I'm planning to hunt a cache and see that the last log is a DNF, the DNFer's find stats will influence my actions.I look for a potentially muggled cache in a different way than I normally look for caches, and I use previous DNF logger's statistics to judge how likely it is that the cache has been muggled. If a low-stat cacher DNFs it I'll guess that it's probably still there and look the same as I always would, but if a high-stat cacher has DNF'd a cache I'll be more likely to think it may have been muggled and either skip it if I'm short on time, spend less time on it, or be more alert to the signs of where a cache might once have been. I don't want to beat my head against a brick wall by going over an area with a fine-toothed comb looking for a cache that isn't there anymore, and previous loggers' stats help me judge how likely that is.

 

When I go looking for a cache, I like to know a bit about the person who hid it. I have different expectations for a newbie than I do for a veteran cache hider. Honestly, I tend to expect newbie hides to be lame, frequently wet, and prone to muggling. But it's not like I actually say anything about that to the hider. Then, when I find that someone's first hide is a good container in a good hiding spot in a good location, I'll be pleasantly surprised. If I find a lame first hide, I'll mix up my log with positives and negatives. "Congratulations on your first hide, great location, but maybe a styrofoam take-out box wasn't the best cache container. I recommend Lock and Lock plastic containers. Thanks for the cache [smileyface]!" If it's a lame hide by a veteran, I'll be more terse. "Found it. Cache is wet and needs a more waterproof container. TNLN."

 

If someone is holding on to a TB for a long time, a high find count and a good history of prompt TB moves means I'll hope that maybe they've just misplaced the bug in the wrong pocket of their caching bag and forgotten about it. But if the bug was taken by someone with few finds who hasn't logged in for a while, I resign myself to the possibility that they're done with caching and the bug isn't going anywhere ever again. I'll still be polite in emails to both the veteran and the newbie, but I'll brace myself for disappoint more with the latter.

 

And in my area, some cachers speak English but many of them don't. If I'm going to log someone's cache or send a message to them about one of their hides, I'll look at their profiles and their previous logs to judge whether I can write to them in natural English or whether I should use simplified English or just Japanese.

 

This is a community game, built upon interactions between cache finders and cache hiders. The more information you have about the other players, the better you can interact with them in an appropriate manner. In Warcraft or some other online game, you can see the other player's level and judge how they compare to you. It's not nice to pick on someone who's at level 1 when you're at level 99, and most decent players refrain from doing so, although you'll always have a few bullies who like to pick on others. But for the most part, knowing another player's level is important when judging whether someone needs a bit of gentle correction or a smack upside the head.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Happy Bubbles

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I consider it to be a game between me and the caches not the cache hiders. YMMV

[+Happy Bubbles]

I consider it to be a game between me and the caches not the cache hiders. YMMV

 

But caches don't exist in a vacuum. My hides affect everyone who finds them, and anyone who finds my hides affects me.

[+brenda&&rew]

One of the best aspects of Geocaching to me has always been the sense of community that comes from sharing logs, stories, adventures, journeys and personal tidbits. I would be a bit saddened if dozens of cachers started blocking all of that from view.

 

I completely agree... I love the community feeling of geocaching!!! I would miss it if everyone was hiding, scared behind closed profiles. I don't have a chatty profile (only because I have never bothered to type things in) but I do include my email address and my msn nickname. I don't mind others reading where I have been and I would welcome anyone contacting me with questions about a particular cache or the area I live in, etc. I love to read chatty profiles to get to know fellow cachers, I read statistics to see how well other people have done. It is all good!

 

brenda

[rapriebe]

One of the best aspects of Geocaching to me has always been the sense of community that comes from sharing logs, stories, adventures, journeys and personal tidbits. I would be a bit saddened if dozens of cachers started blocking all of that from view.

 

I completely agree... I love the community feeling of geocaching!!! I would miss it if everyone was hiding, scared behind closed profiles. I don't have a chatty profile (only because I have never bothered to type things in) but I do include my email address and my msn nickname. I don't mind others reading where I have been and I would welcome anyone contacting me with questions about a particular cache or the area I live in, etc. I love to read chatty profiles to get to know fellow cachers, I read statistics to see how well other people have done. It is all good!

 

brenda

 

I agree with both of these opinions. Most of the time I've spent reading in the forum I've seen what seems to be a cohesive community. There will always be bad apples, but people like that will always find a way to be a pain regardless of profile information availability. Most of the people here are good folks who just want to have fun playing a game where the game board is the whole world. Being able to size up the competition is just part of playing any game. Personally I'm not in it to compete, just participating is victory enough for me. But I still like to see how I compare to the other players, and locking the profile info just seems a bit extreme... some of the statements I've read even seem to border on paranoia.

 

So I join with the side that asks the question: What real substantive reason is there to hide our profiles other than to diminish the game for a lot of players?

 

I realize that my opinion will be relegated to irrelevance once I'm exposed as a rank beginner... but so be it. I'm still having my say.

[+emmett]

.

 

Hiding profiles and other related data will, of course, kill geocaching.

 

Why? Simple.

 

A CSI investigator cannot solve a crime if he is not allowed to examine evidence. If I can't read profiles and track the activities of area cachers and therefore follow evidence to mystery caches, then I will be forced to solve puzzles to find those very same caches.

 

Based in recent Emmett brain scan and EEG analysis, pigs will fly before that happens.

 

As a result, I will be forced into retirement and will have to do something productive with my time at home, or worse yet, will be forced to enter the woods without GPS, for the simple joy of hiking or biking.

 

I will soon learn that life is still good when lived this way and will share this experience with others.

 

Over time, others will retire from geocaching to enjoy normal life.

 

Then geocaching will die.

 

... in the year 2213.

 

But if all goes well, Obama's great great great grandson will be president and he will advance an $850 gazillion dollar stimulus plan that will pay people to geocache, thus saving the sport.

 

.

[+scuba dude]

I guess I have to leave this alone now because it is going to degrade into a bidirectional prove it.

 

But before I do, I'll point out...

We have a recent example of an over exuberant kid who couldn't be bothered to read being accused of Trolling because of his numbers.

There ARE people that refuse to post because they have low numbers and don't want to risk the following

There ARE people that claimed because somebody has low numbers their counter points are invalid.

 

So in short, if you don't want to add an extra level of comfort then you are correct "there is no valid reason".

And I thought I was tactless.

 

Since you are calling out MY comments (without naming me I will add), I will respond to this post.

 

I see that you are skewing things based on your own preconcieved notions. I called the "kid" a troll based on his first half dozen or so posts on this forum. The comments were aimed only at his behavior. If you will go and re-read that thread (although I agree with it's OP that it should be left to die) you will see that I called up NOT his "find count" but his complete lack of ever even attempting the sport of geocaching prior to his comments here. This was also done at the end of the thread after comments from others that he wasn't a troll. This "kid" has also gone on to post much more intelligent comments and questions as a result, and has even begun learning what geocaching is really about.

 

There are an overwhelming majority of geocachers who never step foot in this forum. They have more of a life that us most likely.

 

I have never seen in the few years I have been here anyone saying to the effect of "I have more finds than you, so your opinion doesn't matter". Yet this concept of such buffoonery is constantly being talked about. Has it happened before? I'm sure it has, but it's extremely low frequency makes it a non-issue.