Total Finds Poll

1k · August 12, 2003

I did a search to see if there has ever been a poll on the find count, but I came up empty.

We have seen this being discussed over and over and yet there have been no changes made to our total find counts. So, with this said, would YOU like to see the total finds on the profile page? I would

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Shibby:
I did a search to see if there has ever been a poll on the find count, but I came up empty.

We have seen this being discussed over and over and yet there have been no changes made to our total find counts. So, with this said, would YOU like to see the total finds on the profile page? I would

I asked for a poll in this thread before seeing this poll had been srarted.

Former EarthNOlink user!!!!!!!!!

Take a chance or you'll never know. Let your spirits soar!

August 13, 2003

Thanks for putting that up.

2.5k · August 13, 2003

I'm afraid you are shooting yourself in the foot with this poll. At most you will receive a couple hundred votes in favor. Jeremy will than say that a couple hundred out of thousands of geocachers must mean there is little interest.

A more fair way of getting the pulse of the geocaching community would be to take a random sampling.

Unfortunately, the beta testers who were used to test the features of the changes did not seem to represent the views of the rest of the geocachers. I'm not sure how they were chosen, I don't believe they were elected, but they were apparently a bunch of 'yes' men.

2.6k · August 13, 2003

I voted aye for totals, but I'd like them to be calculated in the same way they are on the cache logs (the number in brackets). That is, not including e.g. locationless or benchmarks, which are kind of different game.

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Divine:
I voted aye for totals, but I'd like them to be calculated in the same way they are on the cache logs (the number in brackets). That is, not including e.g. locationless or benchmarks, which are kind of different game.

I voted no totals because I can add in my head real quick and I quoted Divine's post because his illustrates the fact that many have differing opinions about which type of finds should be included. My opinion is that I'd like to see all counts included. Who's to say which counts "count" and which are "not real geocaching". The spirit of geocaching is present in all the different types, even benchmarking-why else are they part of this site and this game? I'm out there, I'm using my GPSr, I'm logging on the site, etc. It bothers me a little that benchmarking is becoming a stronger part of this site, but it's still treated as lower class fun along with locationless caches. WTF!

I wouldn't mind seeing totals, but I would probably end up ignoring them. I like very much to see which type of cacher's profile I'm looking at. Diversity is the spice of life (I hate that cliche saying, but it's completely true).

It does seem like (I'm no programmer) a very small and simple thing to ask for, though. I don't see why people who want totals have had to ask for it for so long.

August 13, 2003

I don't get really excited about numbers. There are folks with few finds who seem to really have some really good ideas, and there are some who have higher find totals who make me wonder about the whole hobby.

If I was being paid by the hide and/or find, I would want very specific records. If it was a competition, I would want very specific records.

Since it is just an excuse to get out of the monotony of real life for a an hour or two, I am happy with just being able to log my finds to keep track of things.

I keep my own statistics on the metrics I care about.

Personally, I am more pleased with the fact that there are almost 100 finds on my caches than I am on the number I have found. The rate of finds on my caches has been increasing a lot more than the rate of my finds. I keep pretty detailed records on each of my caches, including finds, DNFs, notes, etc.

Dave_W6DPS

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

1k · August 13, 2003

I did not post this poll as a petiton to TPTB, just to see what the general consensus would be.

I realise that there are many different ways that the totals can be posted, but I think the total number plus the breakdown of cache types would be great.

I do like the fact that the totals are broken down only for the simple fact that there are a lot of folks with tons of locactionless caches (some with multiple posts for the same cache).

I'm sure the folks at Groundspeak have their plates full with all the changes taking place recently but there is no better place for suggestions than this forum.

Thanks to all that have taken the time to post their vote

Kar

TEAM SHIBBY!!!!

Krs, Kar & Na

August 13, 2003

It would unnecessarily encourage people like JoeGPS who log as finds benchmarks by saying I SAW IT--how about a required BM photo or cache log-verified by the cache owner? But why is this important at all?

2.6k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MtnLion:
It bothers me a little that benchmarking is becoming a stronger part of this site, but it's still treated as lower class fun along with locationless caches. WTF!

It's not getting stronger at all in my neck of woods...

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

August 13, 2003

semms like another lenghty discussin on a

non-subject

A CACHE A DAY KEEPS THE BLUES

August 14, 2003

Well, let me try to articulate exactly why this bothers me. It's not like my count is so high or anything. It's simply helpful information. For instance, I've had a couple cachers use my 36-79 geocache as an "anniversary cache" - that is, when they hit a round number. After that, when I heard some other cachers were looking for "anniversary caches," I sort of kept an eye on their numbers, to see when they hit. In general, it's nice to know when folks are approaching and hitting these numbers, because they're kinda like birthdays for some people. And it's easier to have it right on their profile pages, as opposed to some log report that's probably out-dated.

Anyway, since it is useful information, and since it's obviously still out there (as indicated by the log listings), and since a lot of folks do want it, it's hard to understand why it's been taken away. And this may be what bothers me most of all.

-------------

"Thos' Degrees of Longitude and Latitude in Name, yet in Earthly reality are they Channels mark'd for the transport of some unseen Influence, one carefully assembl'd chain…"

– Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:
I'm afraid you are shooting yourself in the foot with this poll. At most you will receive a couple hundred votes in favor. Jeremy will than say that a couple hundred out of thousands of geocachers must mean there is little interest.

A more fair way of getting the pulse of the geocaching community would be to take a random sampling.

Unfortunately, the beta testers who were used to test the features of the changes did not seem to represent the views of the rest of the geocachers. I'm not sure how they were chosen, I don't believe they were elected, but they were apparently a bunch of 'yes' men.

I don't see it that way, Jeremy has been going with the polls in most cases, and I think he will go with what he sees we want on this. He has been very fair with us so far.

Former EarthNOlink user!!!!!!!!!

Take a chance or you'll never know. Let your spirits soar!

9.4k · August 19, 2003

If you were to add totals, what would you add together?

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.7k · August 19, 2003

I still say you should have a checkbox next to each category, and a bit of Javascript at the bottom to add up the numbers for the checked categories. Not too hard to write, and pleases everybody.

pirate.cgi.gif

3k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
If you were to add totals, what would you add together?

All categories where people travel to a specific set of coordinates provided by the author of a cache page, where said author has either hidden an object (traditional cache categories; including traditional, multi-caches, mystery caches, letterbox hybrids and mystery caches) or selected a subject of interest (virtual caches, webcam caches, and perhaps event caches) for the seeker to find.

Actually, I think event caches should only be included if an actual cache (physical or virtual) had been created specifically for the event.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on August 19, 2003 at 08:56 AM.]

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:
I still say you should have a checkbox next to each category, and a bit of Javascript at the bottom to add up the numbers for the checked categories. Not too hard to write, and pleases everybody.

I was just going to suggest that... but you beat me to it. The script could/should? also store cookies to track each users prefered totalling method, so that it has them already selected and totaled by default as soon as we open the page.

I'd even offer to write the script and provide it free of charge if that helped take some of the load off of the real programmers working on real problems (like the lately lethargic PQ's). And I'm sure there are many here who are equally or even more qualified to write and provide the script. It would still take the real programmers to insert it into the page though.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

1.1k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:
I still say you should have a checkbox next to each category, and a bit of Javascript at the bottom to add up the numbers for the checked categories. Not too hard to write, and pleases everybody.

I like this idea. Would anyone do me a favor and work on the javascript for this? If someone gives me a mockup of the page I'll implement it.

Even BassoonPilot doesn't know what to count. Maybe Event caches? Perhaps CITO? What about locationless caches?

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.7k · August 19, 2003

Ask and ye shall receive.

The graphics are broken because it's on my site rather than yours, and I've only done the script for the categories that actually appear on my profile, and only for the "find" column, but the other categories and the other column should be obvious.

The items I've checked by default are only an example and should not be construed to be a recommendation. Personally, I'd default to none checked.

(Mozilla bugs have been fixed; see below.)

pirate.cgi.gif

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on August 19, 2003 at 01:20 PM.]

3.1k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:
The items I've checked by default are only an example and should not be construed to be a recommendation. Personally, I'd default to none checked.

Beauty! A "Check All" button would be nice, too...

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

3k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
Even BassoonPilot doesn't know what to count. Maybe Event caches? Perhaps CITO? What about locationless caches?

Oh, yes I do. Go back and re-read the definition. I wrote it to conform to your stated vision of geocaching.

CITO and other event caches don't fit that definition, (unless the event includes an actual cache hunt) so they shouldn't 'count.' It was also clear from the definition that Locationless caches (and benchmarks, for that matter) should be excluded.

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:
http://parkrrrr.com/News/profile.html

The graphics are broken because it's on my site rather than yours, and I've only done the script for the categories that actually appear on my profile, and only for the "find" column, but the other categories and the other column should be obvious.

The items I've checked by default are only an example and should not be construed to be a recommendation. Personally, I'd default to none checked.

Sweet! Very well done, and faster than I could have put it together.

I still would like to see it save MY preferences (i.e. whatever I had checked last time), and make that the default. Would require the script to update a cookie every time a box got checked or unchecked, but as I recall, that's not very difficult.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

August 19, 2003

quote:
Who's to say which counts "count" and which are "not real geocaching".

Um, Jeremy?

Whether he likes it or not, as his is the only site in town, he's setting the rules for geocaching.

Ode to a Pigeon: Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, You Lookin' at Me? YOU LOOKIN' AT ME?! (b. katt, 7/14/03)

August 19, 2003

quote:
by Jeremy:
If you were to add totals, what would you add together?

I thought that was settled, given that a number still appears in parentheses after our user names on each of our logs. OTOH, I really like that bit of javascript Warm Fuzzies came up with. That's quite cool.

-------------

"Thos' Degrees of Longitude and Latitude in Name, yet in Earthly reality are they Channels mark'd for the transport of some unseen Influence, one carefully assembl'd chain…"

– Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon

1.1k · August 19, 2003

And how about the same type of check boxes for the caches you've hidden, since they are on the same page.

As to what caches should be counted in the total # found...the same ones that currently are now, which does include locationless caches. The current locationless caches should definately remain as part of the count as they have always been. it wouldn't be fair to someone if it was all of a sudden removed.

Another way to get your total count very quickly is to just do a search by your user name and this will give you a current total and listing.

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada <---NEW!

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

3k · August 19, 2003

Fuzzy,

You're my hero! It's not that numbers count, but that Jeremy asked for the favor at 8:57AM, and you had it posted by 9:37Am of the same day.

You're good. And you do so much for geocaching.

Cache you later,

Planet

So many caches, so little time.

1.7k · August 19, 2003

There were a number of bugs with the implementation that caused it to not work on Mozilla, so anyone who's looked at the code (that means you, Elias) should consider looking at it again.

pirate.cgi.gif

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
If you were to add totals, what would you add together?

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Use the same total as shown on the cache logs now.

Former EarthNOlink user!!!!!!!!!

Take a chance or you'll never know. Let your spirits soar!

1.2k · August 19, 2003

How about totals like Dan Miller's site had (It totaled all finds plus hides).

[This message was edited by The Navigatorz on August 19, 2003 at 07:42 PM.]

2.7k · August 19, 2003

Voted for totals. Should be fairly simple to do....just add up the vars and post.

August 19, 2003

Here's my variation on a theme.

Copied Warm_Fuzzies code and added several lines (marked with comments) to the Update function, added a SetDefaults function, and changed the OnLoad property of <body> to point to SetDefaults.

On the first load of the page, no boxes are checked. Checking boxes saves those that were checked so next time the page is loaded, the same are prechecked and totalled.

Requires cookies to be enabled to for preferences to stick. Tested in IE and Mozilla.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
If you were to add totals, what would you add together?

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Why not keep it easy and implement totals they way they use to on the old profile page. Sum the total number of finds; be it a locationless, a virtual, a traditional, an event...same goes for hides. That is my vote. There are already enough buttons, bells, and whistles on the page...keep it simple.

-Wily Javelina

August 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Wily Javelina:

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
If you were to add totals, what would you add together?

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Why not keep it easy and implement totals they way they use to on the old profile page. Sum the total number of finds; be it a locationless, a virtual, a traditional, an event...same goes for hides. That is my vote. There are already enough buttons, bells, and whistles on the page...keep it simple.

-Wily Javelina

That is what most of us want. Have the total a link to a list of the finds in the order they were found, as it was before the change.

Former EarthNOlink user!!!!!!!!!

Take a chance or you'll never know. Let your spirits soar!

[This message was edited by rldill on August 20, 2003 at 07:11 AM.]

2.5k · October 30, 2003

Fuzzy came up with a Javascript totalizer over 2 months ago (see his message, about 12 messages up) at Jeremy's request. It seems to work well. Why hasn't this been implemented yet?

1.1k · October 30, 2003

This hasn't been high on the priority list. It will be added.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.4k · October 30, 2003

It would unnecessarily encourage people like JoeGPS who log as finds benchmarks by saying I SAW IT

If JoGPS says he "saw it", then he saw it. He has gone to great lengths to recover some very historical benchmarks that had not been logged in ages, and yes, he took pictures. Take a look at his avatar as proof.... While I do take some pictures at some benchmarks, I don't at all of them... does this mean that you are saying that I haven't visited them? After all, it's not like the NGS leaves log books at the benchmark

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

November 1, 2003

Why show the list of details with a line at the bottom and no totals? I don't know. People want to see the totals.

People also want to see leaders for Overall Geocaching and by State. This should be part of Geocaching.com

3.3k · November 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zinnware:
People also want to see leaders for Overall Geocaching and by State.

"State"? Another cacher who hasn't got off USA soil? What about the rest of the world?

--

Cheers,

Stuey

November 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rocky Road and Annie:
It would unnecessarily encourage people like JoeGPS who log as finds benchmarks by saying I SAW IT--how about a required BM photo or cache log-verified by the cache owner? But why is this important at all?

How incredibly offensive.

Just incase you never bothered to read it, I quote "How do I log a benchmark?

On the benchmark's page, click on "Log this benchmark" at the top right corner of its page to log your find. If you have a digital camera, we ask that you take a picture of the mark, and one or two pictures of the area around the mark. Even if you don't have a digital camera, just log your find for others to read." It appears that the photo is requested, and while requested and required use many of the same letters and even look similar, they do have different meanings.

It looks to me like you are questioning the honesty of my friend. Just because Jogps has found more than you does not make him a liar, why didn't you just come out and say that. Here's why, because if you openly called him a liar everybody would say "oh look, what a lovely case of sour grapes." Why is it that the folks who would rather post than cache always show such disdain for the hardcore cachers. I have hunted with 5 of the "Big dogs" and let me tell you something, it is not about the numbers. It is about the hunt, the thrill of the find, over and over. Why shouldn't people be proud of their accomplishments. This is not a competition. But to answer your "Why is it important at all?" In my neighborhood, there are people who tend their yards well and people who do not. If I decide to keep my gardens in good order it is not a competitive thing with my neighbors. However, if you tell me that we must build a wall in front of all the houses so no one can tell whose yard is tended I would be find that very silly. If after building the wall there were people standing out on the street giving gardening tips while their own yards were left untended, I would find that mildly offensive, but of no real import. If those same folks start standing in the street shouting that the beautiful well-kempt gardens you have heard about and strived to achieve are all lies...we then, where I come from, them's fighting words.

Jogps is a friend of mine, he is one of the most prolific cachers I know and he is a man of his word. I have hunted with him on many occasions and seen him stay in the woods for hours looking for a little disk which frankly I just do not understand. I haver never known him to log anything that he did not find and knowing him well, I know that he would not ever do that. It would offend his sense of the game.

Flame on! I have let many things I have seen slide on these forums, because in the great scheme of things, they just do not matter. But I will nopt sit idly by as a friend of mine is slandered in a public forum. If you spoke the truth I would not say a word. If these words were spoken face to face my response would have been the same.

I apologize to all responsible members of the geocaching.com forums for this unpleasantness. I am just sick and tired of seeing good people slandered.

Total Finds Poll

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment