mygeocachingprofile.com

[Mr.Yuck]

That's sad. Totally unimpressed with that stats package. Well, guess I can just ignore that tab like I ignore the souvenir tab. Wasted cycles and bytes.

 

Huh. I kind of like it. And I am usually very picky about these things.

 

Good job, Groundspeak.

 

My only concern is that the ability to display FTF stats will make FTFs seem like an "official" Groundspeak thing.

 

Which would be bad, IMO.

 

I've never used this program. But I've used Cachestats, in which the FTF tracking is totally manual, i.e. you have to check a little box in front of the cache name if you consider yourself to have been FTF of that cache. Sounds like what they used to do at mygeocachingprofile.com, and the programs are just generating an HTML table of what caches you tell it you were FTF on.

 

I predict this feature will not be in the Geocaching.com version. How could it be anyways? It appears as if you'll just refresh your statistics by hitting an "update these statistics now" radio button on the top of the page.

That is not how mygeocachingprofile.com works. You tell MGP.com what key phrase you have in all your FTFs. Myne is "FTF...Yah". So whenever MGP.com sees that phrase in one of my found logs, it adds it to the FTF list. You can also add them manualy by entering the cache code.

 

Interesting, thanks. That being said, I still predict the FTF tracking ability will not appear in the Groundspeak version of these stats on the Geocaching.com website. But I've been wrong before, I could be wrong again.

[+Castle Mischief]

Interesting, thanks. That being said, I still predict the FTF tracking ability will not appear in the Groundspeak version of these stats on the Geocaching.com website. But I've been wrong before, I could be wrong again.

 

As much distance as GS has put between them and recognition of FTF in the past, I can't imagine this will change overnight. But then we used to have anti-power caching rules, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[+tozainamboku]

But then we used to have anti-power caching rules, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

When did we ever have anti-power caching rules? At most there was a rule that discouraged the creation of power trails. But since "power trail" was never defined, I'm not sure it did much to prevent them from from forming and it certainly didn't say you couldn't try to find as many park n grabs as you could.

 

My guess is that there will be a demand to list FTF statistics and given the mygeocahingprofile has a mechanism to do it, I suspect that it will eventually be added. These statistics, like the find count now, need to be understood that they are based on the logs the cacher has posted online. TPTB shouldn't make an official definition of FTF any more than they make an official defintion for when to log a find. (Unlike puritans who define find as signing the physical cache log). Comparing one person's stats to another's is meaningless since you don't know what protocol each cacher used in deciding when to post a find log.

 

So long as there is not going to be some sort of official leader board or official rewards given out based on these statistics, I don't see them as meaning that Groundspeak wants to turn geocaching into some kind of competitive sport with a big rule book of when you can log finds or claim FTF. The statistics provide a way for geocachers to mark personal acheivements and see how their friends are marking achievements and shouldn't be taken as anything more that this.

[+addisonbr]

But then we used to have anti-power caching rules, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

When did we ever have anti-power caching rules? At most there was a rule that discouraged the creation of power trails. But since "power trail" was never defined, I'm not sure it did much to prevent them from from forming and it certainly didn't say you couldn't try to find as many park n grabs as you could.

I'm fairly certain that CM was referring to the guideline against power trails.

 

I'll take the other side of their effectiveness. They didn't completely prevent power trails, but I think they contributed to keeping them from forming. I suspect that the two most famous / notorious trails wouldn't have been published if the guideline against power trails (as ill-defined as it was) was still in place.

[+Castle Mischief]

But then we used to have anti-power caching rules, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

When did we ever have anti-power caching rules? At most there was a rule that discouraged the creation of power trails. But since "power trail" was never defined, I'm not sure it did much to prevent them from from forming and it certainly didn't say you couldn't try to find as many park n grabs as you could.

 

As fond as you are of posting a four paragraph historical "summary" in the majority of your posts I'm sure you must be kidding when say you don't recall that there used to be a specific reference to "power trails" in the guidelines. Reviewers used to specifically disallow "power trails" once-upon-a-time.

 

Surely you remember this?

[+tozainamboku]

But then we used to have anti-power caching rules, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

When did we ever have anti-power caching rules? At most there was a rule that discouraged the creation of power trails. But since "power trail" was never defined, I'm not sure it did much to prevent them from from forming and it certainly didn't say you couldn't try to find as many park n grabs as you could.

 

As fond as you are of posting a four paragraph historical "summary" in the majority of your posts I'm sure you must be kidding when say you don't recall that there used to be a specific reference to "power trails" in the guidelines. Reviewers used to specifically disallow "power trails" once-upon-a-time.

 

Surely you remember this?

I guess you made a typo then when you said anti-power caching rules and must have meant anti-power trail rules. This is what I found on the wayback machine

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

What it basically did was allow the reviewer to decide when a series of closely placed caches should be listed as a multi cache instead of a series of caches. So essentially it didn't ban power trails but instead it allowed a reviewer to decide that some of the caches should be combined into a mult-cache. As it turned out, many reviewers would allow quite long series of individually listed caches. They might allow these so long as the caches were 1000 feet apart instead of 600. Or they might allow a group of 3 or 4 cachers to put out a trail by alternating who owned the individual caches. There were so many ways to put together a series with many caches and get them approved that the rule was laughable. On top of this many cachers objected to being force to hide a multi. It is commonly believed that many cache seekers avoid multis (possible because if an intermediate stage is missing they won't get the find), and many cache seekers would choose a trail with many caches on it over one with just a few. The reviewers ultimately decided they didn't want to be in the position of telling geocachers when to make their cache a multi instead of a series of traditionals, so the guideline was changed. Did this result in the mega power trails like the ToTG and ET trail in California and Nevada? Possibly. Certainly people may not have attempted to list these before when reviewers could come back and say they needed to make some of the caches multis. My guess it that they would eventually have been placed by groups so that no one account owned the whole trail and they would have been approved.

[+Castle Mischief]

But then we used to have anti-power caching rules, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

When did we ever have anti-power caching rules? At most there was a rule that discouraged the creation of power trails. But since "power trail" was never defined, I'm not sure it did much to prevent them from from forming and it certainly didn't say you couldn't try to find as many park n grabs as you could.

 

As fond as you are of posting a four paragraph historical "summary" in the majority of your posts I'm sure you must be kidding when say you don't recall that there used to be a specific reference to "power trails" in the guidelines. Reviewers used to specifically disallow "power trails" once-upon-a-time.

 

Surely you remember this?

I guess you made a typo then when you said anti-power caching rules and must have meant anti-power trail rules.

 

!

 

Indeed I did do that. My bad.

[+fizzymagic]

(Unlike puritans who define find as signing the physical cache log).

 

Please stop using the term "puritans" to refer to those who believe the cache log should be signed in order to log a find. The term is insulting, offensive, and violates the forum guidelines. Thanks.

 

Now. As for FTFs. The site explicitly acknowledges that there is such a thing as a "find," even though it does not define it to everyone's satisfaction. The same is not true for the term FTF.

 

I hope that the term is never used in any official Geocaching.com page anywhere.

[+solo63137]

(Unlike puritans who define find as signing the physical cache log).

 

Please stop using the term "puritans" to refer to those who believe the cache log should be signed in order to log a find. The term is insulting, offensive, and violates the forum guidelines. Thanks.

 

Now. As for FTFs. The site explicitly acknowledges that there is such a thing as a "find," even though it does not define it to everyone's satisfaction. The same is not true for the term FTF.

 

I hope that the term is never used in any official Geocaching.com page anywhere.

 

1st, I think people get offended way to easy these days...

 

With that said, maybe I don't know what I'm talkin about...

 

What is insulting and offensive about ''Puritans""???

 

I'm still new at some of the talk or lingo in this hobby...

 

Is it because of the Puritans of the 16th century business??? Only thing I could think of...

 

More importantly, why would one not want to sign a log?

 

To me it shows proof that one actually did find it in person, and did not do a Keyboard commando finding....

 

One could log finds all day like that if so inclined...

[+J the Goat]

(Unlike puritans who define find as signing the physical cache log).

 

Please stop using the term "puritans" to refer to those who believe the cache log should be signed in order to log a find. The term is insulting, offensive, and violates the forum guidelines. Thanks.

 

Now. As for FTFs. The site explicitly acknowledges that there is such a thing as a "find," even though it does not define it to everyone's satisfaction. The same is not true for the term FTF.

 

I hope that the term is never used in any official Geocaching.com page anywhere.

 

1st, I think people get offended way to easy these days...

 

With that said, maybe I don't know what I'm talkin about...

 

What is insulting and offensive about ''Puritans""???

 

I'm still new at some of the talk or lingo in this hobby...

 

Is it because of the Puritans of the 16th century business??? Only thing I could think of...

 

More importantly, why would one not want to sign a log?

 

To me it shows proof that one actually did find it in person, and did not do a Keyboard commando finding....

 

One could log finds all day like that if so inclined...

 

[I!]

... a true privacy concern ... closest cache to my home ... do not want to make public.

+1

[+Chrysalides]

I hope that the term (FTF) is never used in any official Geocaching.com page anywhere.

Alas, poor fizzy, you hope in vain.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx

 

FTF

First to Find. An acronym written by geocachers in physical cache logbooks or online when logging cache finds to denote being the first to find a new geocache.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p...page&id=184

 

1.8. Instant Notifications - Chasing First to Finds

Edited December 19, 2010 by Chrysalides

[+solo63137]

(Unlike puritans who define find as signing the physical cache log).

 

Please stop using the term "puritans" to refer to those who believe the cache log should be signed in order to log a find. The term is insulting, offensive, and violates the forum guidelines. Thanks.

 

Now. As for FTFs. The site explicitly acknowledges that there is such a thing as a "find," even though it does not define it to everyone's satisfaction. The same is not true for the term FTF.

 

I hope that the term is never used in any official Geocaching.com page anywhere.

 

1st, I think people get offended way to easy these days...

 

With that said, maybe I don't know what I'm talkin about...

 

What is insulting and offensive about ''Puritans""???

 

I'm still new at some of the talk or lingo in this hobby...

 

Is it because of the Puritans of the 16th century business??? Only thing I could think of...

 

More importantly, why would one not want to sign a log?

 

To me it shows proof that one actually did find it in person, and did not do a Keyboard commando finding....

 

One could log finds all day like that if so inclined...

 

 

What is this High School?

 

Anyone can be offended at anything they want, but merely asking a few question to learn about this great hobby and people are lining to to watch a fight... (Putting in a smiley so folks know my tone is in a lighthearted joking manner)

 

I didn't say anything that I would think was inflammatory....

 

But I maybe thats just me and others see it differently...

Edited December 19, 2010 by solo63137

[+Castle Mischief]

(Unlike puritans who define find as signing the physical cache log).

 

Please stop using the term "puritans" to refer to those who believe the cache log should be signed in order to log a find. The term is insulting, offensive, and violates the forum guidelines. Thanks.

 

Merry Christmas. I have a present for you: "opt-outians". Please use it frequently and with glee.

[+tozainamboku]

Anyone can be offended at anything they want, but merely asking a few question to learn about this great hobby and people are lining to to watch a fight... (Putting in a smiley so folks know my tone is in a lighthearted joking manner)

 

I didn't say anything that I would think was inflammatory....

 

But I maybe thats just me and others see it differently...

I guess it's time to remind everyone of the story of the puritans (with a small 'p' so as to not be confused with religious movement of the 16th and 17th century).

 

The debate over whether you can (or should) log a find online if you haven't signed the physical log in a cache goes back to the earliest days of this website. TPTB realized that they were not able to check that someone had signed the log and prevent them from logging a find. They further realized that there may be extenuating circumstances where a cacher was unable to sign the log. So they decided to give the cache owner the ability to delete logs which appeared to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within stated requirements. This is just a game, after all, so they expected that cache owners would follow these guidelines and only delete logs in rare instances.

 

However the debates began in the forums right away. Could a cache owner have additional logging requirements? Could the cache owner allow their friends to log a find when they hadn't been to the cache? Could a cache owner allow a cacher to log multiple finds on her cache? Could a cache owner log a find on his own cache?

 

At the time, the geocaching FAQ said there were only three rules for geocaching:

1) Take something.

2) Leave something.

3) Write about you experience in the log book.

 

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I began a thread on new rules for geocaching where I tried to write the defacto way the website worked to answer the many debates on when to log a find online. Since there is nothing that prevents you from logging a find online other than the cache owner's ability to delete the the log, the defacto rules are that you can count whatever you want as a find so long as the cache owner agrees. However, in my post I referred to the "purists" who say you must sign the physical log in order to log a find online.

 

Well, some "purists" objected to being called "purists". It seems that whatever label you use, someone will find it insulting. Another cacher suggested that the correct label would be "puritan". This made sense to me, since the point I was trying to make was that this is just a game. The original Puritans (with a capital P) were know for being overly concern with religious propriety and morality. They objected to certain games and other amusements because they felt these would lead people to sin. The term "puritan" with a small p has come to have a meaning where it applies to anyone who takes an overly strict view of rules and morality. It is this context that I use the term.

 

I'm not surprise that puritans don't like the label. Of course they would not see their view that a rule to sign the log in order to claim a find is overly strict. I am a little surprised at the people who self identify as puritans and get insulted. fizzymagic has posted some wonderful comments that indicate he understands there are times when the log doesn't get signed and yet the find should stay. He recently gave an example where he himself logged a cache where he didn't sign the log. I don't use the word puritan to refer to the many people who will not log a find unless they sign the log. Everyone is free to not log a find online unless they want to. Most cache owners will accept an online find where the log is not signed if the finder's excuse for not signing is reasonable. The term puritan refers only to the people who insist on the log being signed and no excuse for not signing is good enough for them.

[Keystone]

The topic of this thread is the acquisition of MyGeocachingProfile.com by Groundspeak. Let's get back to that. Thanks!

[+Bushma]

This doesn't show my finds in Washington state. It shows the data for Oregon and California, but not Washington. Any ideas?

[+hzoi]

This doesn't show my finds in Washington state. It shows the data for Oregon and California, but not Washington. Any ideas?

 

Try going to your profile page, http://www.geocaching.com/my and then clicking the statistics link there. (or just go to http://www.geocaching.com/my/statistics.aspx ) You should see a button that says "Update My Statistics Now." Click it and see if that fixes it.

[+Bushma]

Try going to your profile page, http://www.geocaching.com/my and then clicking the statistics link there. (or just go to http://www.geocaching.com/my/statistics.aspx ) You should see a button that says "Update My Statistics Now." Click it and see if that fixes it.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've tried that and it hasn't helped. Many of the finds in Washington were over a year a ago, and some from a few months ago. They show up correctly when I use GSAK, but not on the statistics page. My number of finds is correct, so it knows about the caches but doesn't log them as being my Northern most caches.

[+addisonbr]

What are the caches that are missing, and what does the system think are your Northernmost?

[Moun10Bike]

Try going to your profile page, http://www.geocaching.com/my and then clicking the statistics link there. (or just go to http://www.geocachin...statistics.aspx ) You should see a button that says "Update My Statistics Now." Click it and see if that fixes it.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've tried that and it hasn't helped. Many of the finds in Washington were over a year a ago, and some from a few months ago. They show up correctly when I use GSAK, but not on the statistics page. My number of finds is correct, so it knows about the caches but doesn't log them as being my Northern most caches.

 

Bushma, I mapped your finds and show the Oregon caches you have found in Astoria to be further north than the Washington caches you have found:

 

[+Bushma]

 

Bushma, I mapped your finds and show the Oregon caches you have found in Astoria to be further north than the Washington caches you have found:

 

 

Hum... as usual my perception of reality and actual reality don't quite line up. This is why I shouldn't be allowed to use forms! Thanks.