Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
GOF and Bacall

Hide the find counts.

Recommended Posts

Programming-wise, it is simplistic to add checkboxes for inhibiting the display of elements of a website.

It always amuses me when someone claims to know how easy or difficult it would be to modify a Web site when they know little or nothing about the actual internals of the site. As a former Web developer, I'm all too aware that something that looks "simplistic" on the surface might be a whole lot more complicated under the hood.

 

--Larry

 

Well we can't know for sure without input from GC management. Why even have a Geocaching.com Web Site forum if the lackeys aren't going to read and respond?

Share this post


Link to post

It always amuses me when someone claims to know how easy or difficult it would be to modify a Web site when they know little or nothing about the actual internals of the site. As a former Web developer, I'm all too aware that something that looks "simplistic" on the surface might be a whole lot more complicated under the hood.

 

--Larry

 

What could be less complicated than

 

IF HIDE_COUNT_CHECKBOX=TRUE THEN COUNTER_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE=HIDDEN

 

Its not rocket science - I don't have to know the internals of THIS site to know how .NET works.

 

fire.gif

Share this post


Link to post
I suspect there are more important things for the lackeys to work on.

 

Does it have anything to do with mt'ing brown bottles?

 

I think that it might, why do you ask? :)

Share this post


Link to post

It always amuses me when someone claims to know how easy or difficult it would be to modify a Web site when they know little or nothing about the actual internals of the site. As a former Web developer, I'm all too aware that something that looks "simplistic" on the surface might be a whole lot more complicated under the hood.

 

--Larry

 

What could be less complicated than

 

IF HIDE_COUNT_CHECKBOX=TRUE THEN COUNTER_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE=HIDDEN

 

Its not rocket science - I don't have to know the internals of THIS site to know how .NET works.

 

fire.gif

That's a rather interesting oversimplification.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a rather interesting oversimplification.

 

Can you explain how it would be any more complicated than that?

Share this post


Link to post

It always amuses me when someone claims to know how easy or difficult it would be to modify a Web site when they know little or nothing about the actual internals of the site. As a former Web developer, I'm all too aware that something that looks "simplistic" on the surface might be a whole lot more complicated under the hood.

 

--Larry

 

What could be less complicated than

 

IF HIDE_COUNT_CHECKBOX=TRUE THEN COUNTER_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE=HIDDEN

 

Its not rocket science - I don't have to know the internals of THIS site to know how .NET works.

 

fire.gif

That's a rather interesting oversimplification.

 

Yes, I agree, it might be more complicated than that.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I agree, it might be more complicated than that.

 

Can you explain how it would be any more complicated than that?

Share this post


Link to post

Programming-wise, it is simplistic to add checkboxes for inhibiting the display of elements of a website.

It always amuses me when someone claims to know how easy or difficult it would be to modify a Web site when they know little or nothing about the actual internals of the site. As a former Web developer, I'm all too aware that something that looks "simplistic" on the surface might be a whole lot more complicated under the hood.

 

--Larry

 

It always amazing me when some former of something lays claim to a piece of knowledge .... haha never mind I am just pulling yer leg Larry!

Share this post


Link to post
I suspect there are more important things for the lackeys to work on.

 

Does it have anything to do with mt'ing brown bottles?

 

I think that it might, why do you ask? :rolleyes:

 

Seen some on one of the tables in the war room. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Also, I wouldn't mind knowing my DNF count, and I wouldn't have a problem sharing it with others.

 

You can do this, but it's not completely straight forward.

 

1. Go to this link: http://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=3

For me anyway, this displays all of my logged DNFs, one per line.

2. Copy and paste this into a text editor that will give you the current line number (such as Notepad++)

Edited by rob3k

Share this post


Link to post
And that right there is always going to be true and it is always a dismissive cop-out.

 

Not a dismissive cop-out at all.

 

Every organization has a finite number of resources.

Every organization will have a user base that wants infinite changes/improvements to be made.

Every organization needs to look at requests and do a cost/benefit review to see where to put the resources.

 

There are three results from that review:

 

Yes, we need to do this now.

Yes, we need to do this but not until other priorities are done.

No, there is not enough value to do this.

 

Just because someone in an official capacity doesn't come forward and say "Here is the current list of priorities with your request ranked accordingly." doesn't mean that analysis isn't happening.

 

Just because something else comes along that bumps your request from the top of the priority list doesn't mean your request is being dismissed or that the people doing the work are copping out.

Share this post


Link to post

Also, I wouldn't mind knowing my DNF count, and I wouldn't have a problem sharing it with others.

 

You can do this, but it's not completely straight forward.

 

1. Go to this link: http://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=3

For me anyway, this displays all of my logged DNFs, one per line.

2. Copy and paste this into a text editor that will give you the current line number (such as Notepad++)

 

Hey cool!

 

For the record (so I can be seen as sharing) that showed 31 DNFs

 

Now to automate that, and add it as a stat. If it isn't too programmatically complicated.....

Share this post


Link to post
You need to take another look at what I asked for. What I'd like is to have the option to hide my numbers.

You are correct. My mistake. You did in fact ask for an option, not a ban.

 

In that case, please ignore the parts of my post that are contaminated with my mistaken assumption -- and tell me what you think about my main point, which addresses what I think is a much better way for you to view this issue.

 

In fact, I asked you a couple of direct and very relevant questions:

 

You wouldn’t start taking your meals in seclusion over the mere existence of a local hot dog eating contest, would you?

 

You wouldn’t pave over your lawn just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

Would you please do me the honor of answering those two questions?

 

I have never had anyone show any interest in what I was eating. At least not past "That looks good. What is it?" Certainly not in any competitive way. And never has anyone counted how many dogs I was eating because there was a dog eating contest in town. People have and do keep track of how many finds I have. I have actually had a user comment on how many finds I had during a conversation on not counting finds.

 

I don't do anything just to keep up with my neighbors. Of course my neighbors are dead and only stick around for a couple of days.

 

Not that hot dogs and neighbors have anything to do with geocaching. I still do not understand why you care if I don't keep score. What advers effect does it have on you?

Share this post


Link to post
And that right there is always going to be true and it is always a dismissive cop-out.

 

Not a dismissive cop-out at all.

 

Every organization has a finite number of resources.

Every organization will have a user base that wants infinite changes/improvements to be made.

Every organization needs to look at requests and do a cost/benefit review to see where to put the resources.

 

There are three results from that review:

 

Yes, we need to do this now.

Yes, we need to do this but not until other priorities are done.

No, there is not enough value to do this.

 

Just because someone in an official capacity doesn't come forward and say "Here is the current list of priorities with your request ranked accordingly." doesn't mean that analysis isn't happening.

 

Just because something else comes along that bumps your request from the top of the priority list doesn't mean your request is being dismissed or that the people doing the work are copping out.

 

How are we going to know if a request is actually being heard and being considered? It would stop a lot of the speculation and bickering that occurs if the PTB gave us some feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
And that right there is always going to be true and it is always a dismissive cop-out.

 

Not a dismissive cop-out at all.

 

Every organization has a finite number of resources.

Every organization will have a user base that wants infinite changes/improvements to be made.

Every organization needs to look at requests and do a cost/benefit review to see where to put the resources.

 

There are three results from that review:

 

Yes, we need to do this now.

Yes, we need to do this but not until other priorities are done.

No, there is not enough value to do this.

 

Just because someone in an official capacity doesn't come forward and say "Here is the current list of priorities with your request ranked accordingly." doesn't mean that analysis isn't happening.

 

Just because something else comes along that bumps your request from the top of the priority list doesn't mean your request is being dismissed or that the people doing the work are copping out.

 

How are we going to know if a request is actually being heard and being considered? It would stop a lot of the speculation and bickering that occurs if the PTB gave us some feedback.

 

There are many things that come up here. Seldom do we ever get someone from the lily pad letting us know what the thoughts are from the hierarchy. I can understand that it is a tough balancing act but a bit of feed back from TPTB wouldn't hurt every once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
I suspect there are more important things for the lackeys to work on.

 

Does it have anything to do with mt'ing brown bottles?

 

I think that it might, why do you ask? :rolleyes:

 

Seen some on one of the tables in the war room. :)

 

You have been to the Pentagon? Cool. Did you get a guided tour?

Share this post


Link to post
And that right there is always going to be true and it is always a dismissive cop-out.

 

Not a dismissive cop-out at all.

 

Every organization has a finite number of resources.

Every organization will have a user base that wants infinite changes/improvements to be made.

Every organization needs to look at requests and do a cost/benefit review to see where to put the resources.

 

There are three results from that review:

 

Yes, we need to do this now.

Yes, we need to do this but not until other priorities are done.

No, there is not enough value to do this.

 

Just because someone in an official capacity doesn't come forward and say "Here is the current list of priorities with your request ranked accordingly." doesn't mean that analysis isn't happening.

 

Just because something else comes along that bumps your request from the top of the priority list doesn't mean your request is being dismissed or that the people doing the work are copping out.

 

It's not the 'something else' or 'the people doing the work' that I am referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
You need to take another look at what I asked for. What I'd like is to have the option to hide my numbers.

You are correct. My mistake. You did in fact ask for an option, not a ban.

 

In that case, please ignore the parts of my post that are contaminated with my mistaken assumption -- and tell me what you think about my main point, which addresses what I think is a much better way for you to view this issue.

 

In fact, I asked you a couple of direct and very relevant questions:

 

You wouldn't start taking your meals in seclusion over the mere existence of a local hot dog eating contest, would you?

 

You wouldn't pave over your lawn just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

Would you please do me the honor of answering those two questions?

 

I have never had anyone show any interest in what I was eating. At least not past "That looks good. What is it?" Certainly not in any competitive way. And never has anyone counted how many dogs I was eating because there was a dog eating contest in town. People have and do keep track of how many finds I have. I have actually had a user comment on how many finds I had during a conversation on not counting finds.

 

I don't do anything just to keep up with my neighbors. Of course my neighbors are dead and only stick around for a couple of days.

 

Not that hot dogs and neighbors have anything to do with geocaching. I still do not understand why you care if I don't keep score. What advers effect does it have on you?

 

I get it - I finally get it. Duane I have you figured out! :) I know why you don't count! Yipeeeee....

Share this post


Link to post

There are many things that come up here. Seldom do we ever get someone from the lily pad letting us know what the thoughts are from the hierarchy. I can understand that it is a tough balancing act but a bit of feed back from TPTB wouldn't hurt every once in a while.

 

Only us crazies read the posts here - what a bazillion posts a day - the company would never get any work done if they read em all. Impossible.... we go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and then some and then all over again. Soon it repeats and then it happens again.

Share this post


Link to post
I suspect there are more important things for the lackeys to work on.

 

Does it have anything to do with mt'ing brown bottles?

 

I think that it might, why do you ask? :rolleyes:

 

Seen some on one of the tables in the war room. :)

 

You have been to the Pentagon? Cool. Did you get a guided tour?

 

No, saw a picture..... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

There are many things that come up here. Seldom do we ever get someone from the lily pad letting us know what the thoughts are from the hierarchy. I can understand that it is a tough balancing act but a bit of feed back from TPTB wouldn't hurt every once in a while.

 

Only us crazies read the posts here - what a bazillion posts a day - the company would never get any work done if they read em all. Impossible.... we go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and then some and then all over again. Soon it repeats and then it happens again.

 

As someone else asked, what is the point of having a website forum if no one from the website is going to participate? I think that someone keeps an eye on this stuff. I just wish they'd comment a bit more often.

Share this post


Link to post

As someone else asked, what is the point of having a website forum if no one from the website is going to participate? I think that someone keeps an eye on this stuff. I just wish they'd comment a bit more often.

 

I hear ya. While it would be nice to have the occasional acknowledgment, I suspect that before long a standard "We'll take that request under consideration." response wouldn't satisfy us anymore.

 

Personally, I don't expect Groundspeak to ever come forth with an itemized list of priorities and say "Here is what we are working on.", all I can gather is when a new website update is released that those items which were added/corrected were the next ones on the list. :)

Share this post


Link to post

It always amuses me when someone claims to know how easy or difficult it would be to modify a Web site when they know little or nothing about the actual internals of the site. As a former Web developer, I'm all too aware that something that looks "simplistic" on the surface might be a whole lot more complicated under the hood.

 

--Larry

 

What could be less complicated than

 

IF HIDE_COUNT_CHECKBOX=TRUE THEN COUNTER_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE=HIDDEN

 

Its not rocket science - I don't have to know the internals of THIS site to know how .NET works.

That's a rather interesting oversimplification.

 

That's a rather interesting oversimplification.

 

Can you explain how it would be any more complicated than that?

 

IF HIDE_COUNT_CHECKBOX

- I don't see any checkbox with this name. I guess that it is doesn't take any programming to add a GUI element some where where some one can select this option :) . Maybe with a a little effort it might go somewhere where the people who want to make the display of find count optional can find it. Maybe it can be programmed to show what the current state is so you can unselect it if you want to change back to displaying your find count. And perhaps while this is being added, the lackeys may want to added some other options people have asked for to allow the format of the website to be customize (like the date format).

 

COUNTER_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE = HIDDEN

- I'd really be surprised that that there is such a thing. But lets suppose that the Find Count is its own display element on the cache page and it has a visible attribute that can be set to False to hide that field. First of all this isn't the same page as the checkbox so the user selection in the checkbox first has to be stored someplace. Probably this is a new field in a table in the database that stores users specific values. So first the database schema would have to be modified to add this field, and SQL code would have to be written to populate wiht the default values (which I assume would be show). Then the page with the checkbox on it would have to be tied to this field. It should display the current value and when the page is submitted it should update the value based on whether the box was checked. Now when the cache page is displayed for each log we need to look up the user in the database. One needs to test first if the user has opted out of displaying the find count. If not the current code for displaying the find count could be executed. If the user has opted out there may be nothing to do or there might be a need to generate some element so the page retains the proper formatting. The actual code is more like

 

IF NOT USER_OPTION_HIDE_FIND_COUNT THEN

DO CURRENT CODE THAT DISPLAYS THE FIND COUNT

ELSE

HIDE THE FIND COUNT FIELD

END IF

 

And of course there may be other places where the find count is displayed. One would need to look at each of those. It could be that OP would be statisfied with just hidding the count in the logs. But there is no guarantee that the people who want to see his numbers won't go look in any of the other places.

 

Of course making all these changes is likely to cause something else on the page to not display correctly, so once this trivial change to the code is made, I guess there is no need to check it out :rolleyes: The lackeys could do this in the next iteration.

Share this post


Link to post

It always amuses me when someone claims to know how easy or difficult it would be to modify a Web site when they know little or nothing about the actual internals of the site. As a former Web developer, I'm all too aware that something that looks "simplistic" on the surface might be a whole lot more complicated under the hood.

 

--Larry

 

What could be less complicated than

 

IF HIDE_COUNT_CHECKBOX=TRUE THEN COUNTER_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE=HIDDEN

 

Its not rocket science - I don't have to know the internals of THIS site to know how .NET works.

That's a rather interesting oversimplification.

 

That's a rather interesting oversimplification.

 

Can you explain how it would be any more complicated than that?

 

IF HIDE_COUNT_CHECKBOX

- I don't see any checkbox with this name. I guess that it is doesn't take any programming to add a GUI element some where where some one can select this option :) . Maybe with a a little effort it might go somewhere where the people who want to make the display of find count optional can find it. Maybe it can be programmed to show what the current state is so you can unselect it if you want to change back to displaying your find count. And perhaps while this is being added, the lackeys may want to added some other options people have asked for to allow the format of the website to be customize (like the date format).

 

COUNTER_DISPLAY_ATTRIBUTE = HIDDEN

- I'd really be surprised that that there is such a thing. But lets suppose that the Find Count is its own display element on the cache page and it has a visible attribute that can be set to False to hide that field. First of all this isn't the same page as the checkbox so the user selection in the checkbox first has to be stored someplace. Probably this is a new field in a table in the database that stores users specific values. So first the database schema would have to be modified to add this field, and SQL code would have to be written to populate wiht the default values (which I assume would be show). Then the page with the checkbox on it would have to be tied to this field. It should display the current value and when the page is submitted it should update the value based on whether the box was checked. Now when the cache page is displayed for each log we need to look up the user in the database. One needs to test first if the user has opted out of displaying the find count. If not the current code for displaying the find count could be executed. If the user has opted out there may be nothing to do or there might be a need to generate some element so the page retains the proper formatting. The actual code is more like

 

IF NOT USER_OPTION_HIDE_FIND_COUNT THEN

DO CURRENT CODE THAT DISPLAYS THE FIND COUNT

ELSE

HIDE THE FIND COUNT FIELD

END IF

 

And of course there may be other places where the find count is displayed. One would need to look at each of those. It could be that OP would be statisfied with just hidding the count in the logs. But there is no guarantee that the people who want to see his numbers won't go look in any of the other places.

 

Of course making all these changes is likely to cause something else on the page to not display correctly, so once this trivial change to the code is made, I guess there is no need to check it out :rolleyes: The lackeys could do this in the next iteration.

 

I have no idea how this stuff works. To me it is just another form of magic.

 

Just to be clear I am looking to keep the find count private. To me that means not displayed anywhere that the caching public looks. Personally I don't care if even I can see my count but I know some have stated that they would like to be able to see it for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
You need to take another look at what I asked for. What I'd like is to have the option to hide my numbers.

You are correct. My mistake. You did in fact ask for an option, not a ban.

 

In that case, please ignore the parts of my post that are contaminated with my mistaken assumption -- and tell me what you think about my main point, which addresses what I think is a much better way for you to view this issue.

 

In fact, I asked you a couple of direct and very relevant questions:

 

You wouldn’t start taking your meals in seclusion over the mere existence of a local hot dog eating contest, would you?

 

You wouldn’t pave over your lawn just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

Would you please do me the honor of answering those two questions?

I have never had anyone show any interest in what I was eating. At least not past "That looks good. What is it?" Certainly not in any competitive way. And never has anyone counted how many dogs I was eating because there was a dog eating contest in town. People have and do keep track of how many finds I have. I have actually had a user comment on how many finds I had during a conversation on not counting finds.

 

I don't do anything just to keep up with my neighbors. Of course my neighbors are dead and only stick around for a couple of days.

 

Not that hot dogs and neighbors have anything to do with geocaching. I still do not understand why you care if I don't keep score. What advers effect does it have on you?

If you don't understand the analogies I presented, or that I am merely trying to help you, then I give up.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
You need to take another look at what I asked for. What I'd like is to have the option to hide my numbers.

You are correct. My mistake. You did in fact ask for an option, not a ban.

 

In that case, please ignore the parts of my post that are contaminated with my mistaken assumption -- and tell me what you think about my main point, which addresses what I think is a much better way for you to view this issue.

 

In fact, I asked you a couple of direct and very relevant questions:

 

You wouldn’t start taking your meals in seclusion over the mere existence of a local hot dog eating contest, would you?

 

You wouldn’t pave over your lawn just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

Would you please do me the honor of answering those two questions?

I have never had anyone show any interest in what I was eating. At least not past "That looks good. What is it?" Certainly not in any competitive way. And never has anyone counted how many dogs I was eating because there was a dog eating contest in town. People have and do keep track of how many finds I have. I have actually had a user comment on how many finds I had during a conversation on not counting finds.

 

I don't do anything just to keep up with my neighbors. Of course my neighbors are dead and only stick around for a couple of days.

 

Not that hot dogs and neighbors have anything to do with geocaching. I still do not understand why you care if I don't keep score. What advers effect does it have on you?

If you don't understand the analogies I presented, or that I am merely trying to help you, then I give up.

 

Good luck.

 

GOF & Bacall, I congratulate you for not taking the bait.

 

I do not believe that this discussion would have been very different even if the changes could have been completed during a coffee break next Tuesday and the only result were that others could not see your found count unless you allowed it.

 

Again, thank you for holding your ground. A wonderful example for others.

Share this post


Link to post

KBI I get it. I understand what you are saying but try to understand what I am saying. There has been nothing said that makes an argument for not giving us such an option. Why is it so wrong to not want to advertise a score in the game of geocaching?

Share this post


Link to post

...

Why is it so wrong to not want to advertise a score in the game of geocaching?

Really nothing "wrong".....

 

However, I haven't seen any terribly compelling arguments as to why it needs to change from the way it is now either....... (just me maybe)

Share this post


Link to post

Team Cotati I hope the post I was typing while you posted yours doesn't change your opinion. I appreciate your kind thoughts but this isn't a competition. KBI is trying to give me perspective. I think I have perspective on the subject. It just isn't from the same angle.

 

As for if it could be done and how long or if any of that translates into action I couldn't say. I know that there are a bunch of us out there that wish we could just sidestep the competition aspect of geocaching without having to take a bunch of extra steps. And hey! You never know when those that pull the strings at Groundspeak will see an idea and think "Heck! We can do that."

Share this post


Link to post

...

Why is it so wrong to not want to advertise a score in the game of geocaching?

Really nothing "wrong".....

 

However, I haven't seen any terribly compelling arguments as to why it needs to change from the way it is now either....... (just me maybe)

 

I'd like to think that making the caching experience a bit more enjoyable for a segment of the caching public would make it worthy of at least some consideration. Particularly when it is an option and not a requirement that would force everyone to change.

Share this post


Link to post
KBI I get it. I understand what you are saying but try to understand what I am saying. There has been nothing said that makes an argument for not giving us such an option.

It has been said; you just don’t understand it.

 

Or if you do understand it, you’re not letting on.

 

If you really understood what I’ve been trying to say, you would have had a meaningful response to my questions.

 

Why is it so wrong to not want to advertise a score in the game of geocaching?

It isn’t wrong. It is unnecessary.

 

There is a big difference, but either way your question is moot.

 

And I believe your question is inappropriate. If you want the status quo changed, then the burden of proof is on you. I can’t speak for others, but you have not convinced me that the change you propose will do anything for anyone they can’t already do for themselves by simply ignoring the buffoons who make an issue of their numbers.

 

And further, the wording of your question is inaccurate and misleading. Geocaching is not a "game," and the find count is not a "score." Anyone who can grasp that basic truth should have no trouble ignoring the schmucks.

 

Here is another question for you: Any comparison of find counts between any two geocachers for the purpose of competition is completely meaningless. Do you understand what makes that statement true, G&B?

Share this post


Link to post
I know that there are a bunch of us out there that wish we could just sidestep the competition aspect of geocaching without having to take a bunch of extra steps.

But that’s just it! You don’t need to take ANY steps! You are already there!

 

Look at me. I have never taken any steps to sidestep the competition aspect of geocaching. Do you see me competing? Do you see me anguishing over the behaviors or comments of others? No, you do not – because I do not participate in those things. Doesn’t that mean, then, that I am already where you wish to be? If so, then why do you need a new feature installed to the website to get you to where you already are?

 

I don’t have anything against those who choose to compete; I just don’t care to participate. Why isn’t that good enough for you?

 

Geocaching is not a competition. There is nothing about Geocaching that inherently lends itself to supporting any kind of meaningful competition. If you give the question at the very bottom of my last post some serious thought, the reason for that will become crystal clear.

Share this post


Link to post
You wouldn’t pave over your lawn just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

He's not asking to pave over his lawn he's just asking to be screened off i.e. not visible, while mowing his lawn so the neighbors can't compare and compete with his lawn mowing speed. He would rather not be on display.

What’s the difference? Fence or asphalt, either way he is trying to hide his lawn from busybodies who do not deserve his attention, much less his respect for their opinion.

 

But just in case he likes your version of my analogy better than mine, allow me to rephrase my question:

 

You wouldn’t screen off your lawn from view just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

 

And to help ensure that my analogy is understood, let me ask the same question a different way – multiple choice:

 

A few of your neighbors have begun to compete informally to see who can mow their lawn the fastest. They start giving you a hard time for not keeping up with their arbitrary silliness.

 

Which response is more mature:

 

(1) Throw up a solid wooden fence which completely obscures your lawn from view.

(2) Ignore them and enjoy your lawn as you always have.

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to think that making the caching experience a bit more enjoyable for a segment of the caching public would make it worthy of at least some consideration. Particularly when it is an option and not a requirement that would force everyone to change.

It is clear that a number of Geocachers already have determined, like GOF & Bacall, that not advertising their find count makes their caching more enjoyable. I don't know whether this is just their way of protesting what they see as a detrimental fixation with numbers, a way to remove numbers as having any possible sort of influence on how they personally go about geocaching, or some other reason. It probably doesn't matter. What these people do is they stop logging their find. Some will only log certain finds - perhaps a memorable cache or a FTF (to let others know the cache has been found). Some stop logging altogether.

 

The argument is being made that you lose some of the site functionality when you don't log your finds. GOF & Bacall seems to be asking for a way to hide their count but still log Found Its. I suppose this is a good thing beacause other users will be able to see when a cache was last found (and if GOF & Bacall are FTF, others will see that cache as having been found). One can't make a big argument about hiding your found caches when you do searches or pocket queries. Some put the cache caches they find on their Ignore list, and others use offline tools to gain back this functionality. But, if you aren't logging Found Its, what does it matter if you go back to the same cache and sign the log again. If you remember that you found the cache after you get there, you may have a nice story to tell. Perhaps the cache has changed since you last found it or the area, and therefore the nature of the search, is completely different in a different season. Since you aren't logging a Found It, the puritans probably won't care how many times you find a cache and since you are not interested in a numbers game, you aren't really going to be to concerned that you went back and found something a second or third time when you could've been finding a new cache.

Share this post


Link to post
KBI I get it. I understand what you are saying but try to understand what I am saying. There has been nothing said that makes an argument for not giving us such an option.

It has been said; you just don’t understand it.

 

Or if you do understand it, you’re not letting on.

 

If you really understood what I’ve been trying to say, you would have had a meaningful response to my questions.

 

Why is it so wrong to not want to advertise a score in the game of geocaching?

It isn’t wrong. It is unnecessary.

 

There is a big difference, but either way your question is moot.

 

And I believe your question is inappropriate. If you want the status quo changed, then the burden of proof is on you. I can’t speak for others, but you have not convinced me that the change you propose will do anything for anyone they can’t already do for themselves by simply ignoring the buffoons who make an issue of their numbers.

 

And further, the wording of your question is inaccurate and misleading. Geocaching is not a "game," and the find count is not a "score." Anyone who can grasp that basic truth should have no trouble ignoring the schmucks.

 

Here is another question for you: Any comparison of find counts between any two geocachers for the purpose of competition is completely meaningless. Do you understand what makes that statement true, G&B?

 

This is a simple request that I suspect could be worked into the system as part of other changes that happen all the time. If you wish to attempt to argue against it because it isn't needed then what changes have been made that are needed.Certainly didn't need an IPhone app or text notices. PQs and on page links to driving directions were critical? Heck geocaching itself isn't needed. So no, that argument doesn't work.

 

And yes, I know what the numbers represent. It still doesn't stop all the constant comparisons. It doesn't stop people from looking at my find count before deciding what kind of cacher I am or how much weight my opinion should carry. Given the option I would also hide my post count.

 

So, do you have a reason that this should not be done? Is it that you have something more important to ask for? Is it that there is a negative impact that it would have? Or is it just that it isn't something you want done? What changes would you like to see? What makes them unique and desirable for the geocaching community?

Share this post


Link to post

Team Cotati I hope the post I was typing while you posted yours doesn't change your opinion. I appreciate your kind thoughts but this isn't a competition. KBI is trying to give me perspective. I think I have perspective on the subject. It just isn't from the same angle.

 

As for if it could be done and how long or if any of that translates into action I couldn't say. I know that there are a bunch of us out there that wish we could just sidestep the competition aspect of geocaching without having to take a bunch of extra steps. And hey! You never know when those that pull the strings at Groundspeak will see an idea and think "Heck! We can do that."

 

No, it doesn't change my opinion of you or your motives. Nor does it change my opinion wrt others and their motives. We just have a different perspective.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to think that making the caching experience a bit more enjoyable for a segment of the caching public would make it worthy of at least some consideration. Particularly when it is an option and not a requirement that would force everyone to change.

It is clear that a number of Geocachers already have determined, like GOF & Bacall, that not advertising their find count makes their caching more enjoyable. I don't know whether this is just their way of protesting what they see as a detrimental fixation with numbers, a way to remove numbers as having any possible sort of influence on how they personally go about geocaching, or some other reason. It probably doesn't matter. What these people do is they stop logging their find. Some will only log certain finds - perhaps a memorable cache or a FTF (to let others know the cache has been found). Some stop logging altogether.

 

The argument is being made that you lose some of the site functionality when you don't log your finds. GOF & Bacall seems to be asking for a way to hide their count but still log Found Its. I suppose this is a good thing beacause other users will be able to see when a cache was last found (and if GOF & Bacall are FTF, others will see that cache as having been found). One can't make a big argument about hiding your found caches when you do searches or pocket queries. Some put the cache caches they find on their Ignore list, and others use offline tools to gain back this functionality. But, if you aren't logging Found Its, what does it matter if you go back to the same cache and sign the log again. If you remember that you found the cache after you get there, you may have a nice story to tell. Perhaps the cache has changed since you last found it or the area, and therefore the nature of the search, is completely different in a different season. Since you aren't logging a Found It, the puritans probably won't care how many times you find a cache and since you are not interested in a numbers game, you aren't really going to be to concerned that you went back and found something a second or third time when you could've been finding a new cache.

Actually being able to easily search for new caching experiences is a part of the why. It can be done by adding caches to the ignore list but that is just one more step that needs to be done. A couple more clicks every time you log a cache. Yes, I still log. I just log online using notes instead of found it logs.

 

All your reasons figure into it. Those and more. Some combination of all or some of them for each cacher who chooses to stop logging finds. Or just stop logging all together. Wouldn't it be nice for the COs to start seeing found logs from people who haven't been giving them?

Share this post


Link to post

If allowing the hiding the find count means that more people will log finds, I am for it.

 

It is fun to read other log entries. And entries from cachers unconcerned with their find count would probably represent a perspective on which we are currently missing out.

Share this post


Link to post
This is a simple request that I suspect could be worked into the system as part of other changes that happen all the time.

Yes, I’m sure it could.

 

If you wish to attempt to argue against it ...

I’m not really arguing against it. As you have correctly pointed out, the change you are suggesting would have very little effect on me. If you want the number next to your name to appear as a blank in your cache logs, it really won’t change my caching experience enough to matter.

 

As I tried to say before: I am not against it; I simply see it as unnecessary.

 

And yes, I know what the numbers represent. It still doesn't stop all the constant comparisons. It doesn't stop people from looking at my find count before deciding what kind of cacher I am or how much weight my opinion should carry.

 

So, do you have a reason that this should not be done?

No, I guess I really don’t. I am only interested in the reasons why you seem to think you can’t simply ignore those busybodies the way the rest of us do.

 

I am convinced that if I could get you to try doing so, even if it were for just a few days as an experiment, you would see there is no need for your proposal.

 

If it doesn’t work you could always go back to fretting over the opinions of people who don’t deserve the respect you are currently giving them.

 

It doesn't stop people from looking at my find count before deciding what kind of cacher I am or how much weight my opinion should carry.

Why do you care about that? That is my question. I can’t understand why the opinions of those people should matter to you.

 

If you can explain that to me convincingly, I will happily join your cause. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you care about that? That is my question. I can’t understand why the opinions of those people should matter to you.

 

If you can explain that to me convincingly, I will happily join your cause. :)

 

Pendantically speaking, my question back would be

 

Why do you care that they care?

 

If it doesn't affect you and it means that we might get more input, why NOT join the cause?

Share this post


Link to post
... snip

Why do you care about that? That is my question. I can’t understand why the opinions of those people should matter to you.

 

If you can explain that to me convincingly, I will happily join your cause. :)

For me it's not the "opinions of those people" that matter at all.

 

It is a desire to not be subjected to the drama that ensues when people look at find counts/post counts/salary information or any other private information and draw conclusions of their own.. It is my choice and should be (in my opinion) the choice of others who desire not to be subjected to this unnecessary drama.

 

It's perfectly okay that some people choose to just ignore the drama as this is THEIR choice. This is what works for them. But that choice should not be imposed on other who desire to choose something else. Ignoring them entails energy that I (for one) prefer not to expend. Avoid the situation to be being with works better (for me).

 

So just because it doesn't bother you (or anyone else) does not mean that others should have to ascribe to your same way of thinking.

 

So saying that it is unnecessary doesn't necessarily pertain to or work for everyone.

 

 

Note, that I also do not expect this change to be made on the website, however, so people will just have to continue to employ whatever methods are currently working for them.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you care about that? That is my question. I can’t understand why the opinions of those people should matter to you.

 

If you can explain that to me convincingly, I will happily join your cause. :)

Pendantically speaking, my question back would be

 

Why do you care that they care?

I am simply trying to help. I care because I care.

 

As I explained before: Worrying about the conclusions others draw about my find count is not something I waste any time over. If G&B could adopt the same policy, there would be no need for his proposal.

Share this post


Link to post

So G&B, is it clear now what this is all about?

 

"As I explained before: Worrying about the conclusions others draw about my find count is not something I waste any time over. If G&B could adopt the same policy, there would be no need for his proposal."

Share this post


Link to post
You wouldn’t pave over your lawn just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

He's not asking to pave over his lawn he's just asking to be screened off i.e. not visible, while mowing his lawn so the neighbors can't compare and compete with his lawn mowing speed. He would rather not be on display.

What’s the difference? Fence or asphalt, either way he is trying to hide his lawn from busybodies who do not deserve his attention, much less his respect for their opinion.

 

But just in case he likes your version of my analogy better than mine, allow me to rephrase my question:

 

You wouldn’t screen off your lawn from view just because a few neighbors started competing and trash-talking each other over how fast they can mow, would you?

 

And to help ensure that my analogy is understood, let me ask the same question a different way – multiple choice:

 

A few of your neighbors have begun to compete informally to see who can mow their lawn the fastest. They start giving you a hard time for not keeping up with their arbitrary silliness.

 

Which response is more mature:

 

(1) Throw up a solid wooden fence which completely obscures your lawn from view.

(2) Ignore them and enjoy your lawn as you always have.

 

Let's say that he's mulled it over and he decides he wants to screen off his lawn. Then you come along and tell him, "No, you can't screen off your lawn, I want to see it. If you screen off your lawn, it's going to bother me. We've never screened off our lawns so you shouldn't be allowed, even if it has no effect on me or how I cut my lawn."

Share this post


Link to post
... snip

Why do you care about that? That is my question. I can’t understand why the opinions of those people should matter to you.

 

If you can explain that to me convincingly, I will happily join your cause. :)

For me it's not the "opinions of those people" that matter at all.

 

It is a desire to not be subjected to the drama that ensues when people look at find counts/post counts/salary information or any other private information and draw conclusions of their own.

I have read this portion of your post three times, and I still don’t see any difference between those two concepts.

 

You state that the "opinions of those people" don’t matter to you, but then you go on to explain why they do.

 

If I am missing something feel free to bonk me over the head with it. I have already demonstrated, in this very thread, than I can be pretty dense.

 

It's perfectly okay that some people choose to just ignore the drama as this is THEIR choice. This is what works for them. But that choice should not be imposed on other who desire to choose something else. Ignoring them entails energy that I (for one) prefer not to expend.

Again, maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that it is the other way around: Ignoring the busybodies is the zero-energy option; worrying about the opinions of those busybodies is the option that requires effort.

 

Maybe someone can convince me otherwise. I'm open-minded.

 

So just because it doesn't bother you (or anyone else) does not mean that others should have to ascribe to your same way of thinking.

No, it doesn’t. I am only offering a suggestion. I have neither stated nor implied that my suggestion should be forced on anyone. I am only asking G&B, out of nothing but pure curiosity on my part, to explain why he prefers to let those "schmucks" bother him.

 

He is always free to ignore my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
I know that there are a bunch of us out there that wish we could just sidestep the competition aspect of geocaching without having to take a bunch of extra steps.

But that’s just it! You don’t need to take ANY steps! You are already there!

 

Look at me. I have never taken any steps to sidestep the competition aspect of geocaching. Do you see me competing? Do you see me anguishing over the behaviors or comments of others? No, you do not – because I do not participate in those things. Doesn’t that mean, then, that I am already where you wish to be? If so, then why do you need a new feature installed to the website to get you to where you already are?

 

I don’t have anything against those who choose to compete; I just don’t care to participate. Why isn’t that good enough for you?

 

Geocaching is not a competition. There is nothing about Geocaching that inherently lends itself to supporting any kind of meaningful competition. If you give the question at the very bottom of my last post some serious thought, the reason for that will become crystal clear.

When I see this kind of post I really have to wonder. Do you say these things just to make an "argument". Do you really have so little understanding of human emotion. Some people can take anything. Make fun of them, laugh at them, call them names etc and it all just rolls off their backs. Others are very upset it they only "think" someone is saying something negative about them. Do you think it would work if you just tell them to ignore it. If someone is self conscious about their weight, would you just tell them "Look at me, my weight doesn't bother me" so why should you "let" your weight bother you? I understand why you might think that, but do you really think that will change how they "feel". These are not computer programs that you can rewrite as you please to get the desired output. Human emotions are what they are. Argue for or against the issue for whatever reasons, but it seems silly to suggest that someone should only feel the way you feel. I like the idea of the option to hide find counts. No one is going to decide to do a maintenance check based on my one dnf, so they don't need to know either. I can understand why you might not support using resources to make this change. I don't understand why you can't understand that not everyone feels the same way about numbers that you do, and that telling them to "look at me" is of absolutely no help.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's say that he's mulled it over and he decides he wants to screen off his lawn. Then you come along and tell him, "No, you can't screen off your lawn, I want to see it. If you screen off your lawn, it's going to bother me. We've never screened off our lawns so you shouldn't be allowed, even if it has no effect on me or how I cut my lawn."

I am not telling him he can't do it. In fact, I have made clear statements to the contrary.

 

I am not saying his proposal bothers me. I have made clear statements to the contrary there as well.

 

I am merely asking him why he lets the opinions of others allow him to feel the need to "screen off" his find count.

 

Geez, this is getting tedious. I have said the same thing a dozen different ways now. Is my writing really that ambiguous? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Do you say these things just to make an "argument".

I care. I honestly care.

 

I offer what I sincerely intend as a helpful suggestion ... and I get flamed.

 

Screw it. I'm outta here.

Share this post


Link to post

KBI consider it my way of promoting a score free caching experience. My statement that the numbers are of no meaning what so ever. If I could promote the idea of caching for the pure, score free, joy of finding a cache by having that blank space next to my name when I log a find then maybe the world would be just a tiny little bit better.

 

MM thanks. I like the way you think, mostly. I don't think those who herd the GS electrons will go out of their way to add this option. I do hope that at some point they will be at their job and think "Hey, as long as we are here it wouldn't take much effort to add that option GOF was looking for." :rolleyes::) At any rate it will never happen if no one ever asks.

Share this post


Link to post

At any rate it will never happen if no one ever asks.

 

I take it there is no formal mechanism for submitting feature requests.

 

Too bad - I have communicated with another experienced cacher who does not log finds. When asked if they'd log with no visible count, they said "Probably"

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...