Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jeremy

Return the find count to cache logs?

Recommended Posts

...how else are we to know to post self-congratulatory milestone messages to each other on the local furums.. icon_biggrin.gif

 

Seriously though, I like raising my left eyebrow and muttering 'Impressive!' when seeing a 'SuperGeocacher' log one of my caches etc. therefore I like the totals.

Share this post


Link to post

...how else are we to know to post self-congratulatory milestone messages to each other on the local furums.. icon_biggrin.gif

 

Seriously though, I like raising my left eyebrow and muttering 'Impressive!' when seeing a 'SuperGeocacher' log one of my caches etc. therefore I like the totals.

Share this post


Link to post

Please add me to your fast growing list of geocachers who are disappointed that the 'number of finds' is now missing from the logs of the finders. This is an important statistic eagerly watched by cachers in my area. There is tremendous good fun in a competitive sense in knowing how others are doing, and this creates a great incentive to get out there and find more, as well as hiding more caches for the competition to find. I doubt that I would have maintained as much

geocaching activity if this statistic had not been in place! Further, it is very interesting and useful to see the this statistic to judge the

experience level of the finder as regards his/her comments in the logs.

 

I appreciate the excellent service the site provides, and I understand the new changes have caused it to be dropped, but please try to find some way to reinstate the 'number of finds' statistic in the logs!

 

Cheers,

binthair

Share this post


Link to post

I vote a very emphatic "YES!" Part of the enjoyment I get from this sport (it is a sport, isn't it?) is "keeping score" as in any sport. I was proud of my accomplishment when I hit 100. I wanted to publish it.

 

I also enjoy reading logs of other cachers, and appreciated seeing if they were fairly new or fairly experienced cachers.

 

The pages loaded fast enough the old way -- certainly worth the wait to get the latest scores!

 

Either way it comes out, I think Jeremy and team do a great job overall! Thanks for the "sport"!

 

Trailerman

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the counts were very useful, they helped me to decide how much merit to put on someones comments. If the user was a newbie, I did not put a lot of strenght to their comment, but if it was a veteran, I would take notice.

The best option I could see would be to date stamp the details at the top of each log. I do like the idea of the counts also indicating what find it is for the person. So IMHO a dated detail with total counts and numered find would be ideal if at all possible

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not clear on what the software mechanical problems are but I like the numbers being posted. I use them for the psychological profile I compile for hider/finders. If the numbers only update with each log or edit that is fine with me.

 

I rely on the numbers in many ways: To sort out no-find notes as in, if 5 newbys can't find it I might go for it. I like to see how names I recognize are doing and I don't have time to check out all the profiles. I like to see the experience level of the finder as I read their notes. Its fun to see early cache-maturity in newer cachers and late maturity some of "old-timers". I'm sure there are more reasons but maily I noticed what happend for me when the numbers disappeared. I didn't like it!

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of people say they used the stat to weigh the user's comments. But how does that work when the statistic is dynamic? For example, you might see a Not Found for someone with 200 finds. Hmm, must be tough, or missing, right? But what if it was that person's first hunt ever from a month ago? The only way to determine that kind of info is to go to the user's page anyway. A permanent static count showing how many finds the user had at the time of the log would be more useful in evaluating the logs this way.

 

Numbers not being important to me, I vote for speed.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Just noticed that the tallies are back!!

 

Thanks Jeremy, I missed them!

 

_________________________________________________________

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by The Hornet:

Just noticed that the tallies are back!!

 

Thanks Jeremy, I missed them!


 

They're back, but in what manner? Are they truly static numbers, "stamped" on a log with whatever the total is at the time of the log? Or are they semi-static, only being updated whenever the cache page itself is updated? You'd think he'd make an announcement with everyone being all opinionated about this. icon_smile.gif

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's Webcam, Photo Albums, and Homepage >==--

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by The Hornet:

Just noticed that the tallies are back!!

 

Thanks Jeremy, I missed them!


 

They're back, but in what manner? Are they truly static numbers, "stamped" on a log with whatever the total is at the time of the log? Or are they semi-static, only being updated whenever the cache page itself is updated? You'd think he'd make an announcement with everyone being all opinionated about this. icon_smile.gif

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's Webcam, Photo Albums, and Homepage >==--

Share this post


Link to post

Every cache details page now contains the following statement:

quote:
Cache find counts are based on the last time the page generated.


It was a clear enough announcement for me!

 

Thanks Jeremy for the fine compromise!

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

I keep missing my ex-wife. But my aim is getting better.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we make 'write in' votes here?

 

I'd like to see each logger's total count at the time they found that particular cache. I've seen comments that people like to know how experienced a cacher is before they decide how serious to take the person's comments. If I have 77 finds today, but I left a note on a cache way back on my 2nd ever find, that log should reflect my status at the time, not what it is today (or whenever someone new logs the cache).

 

For any given cache hunt, isn't it more important how many finds the person had at the time they signed log than how many they have at the present? The log itself is static (unless an update is made...and if it is, go ahead and regenerate the number at that time, since we'll get to see the new date anyway), then why shouldn't the find counts for each cache log also be static? That way, there wouldn't have to be any regeneration time used to recalculate the entire list of finds on any given cache page each time a new log is posted.

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

adding a .5 if the cacher is currently out hunting??? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Always wear proper caching safety equipment!

60748_1200.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

adding a .5 if the cacher is currently out hunting??? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Always wear proper caching safety equipment!

60748_1200.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

How about replacing the actual find number with some image indicating the RANGE of finds a person has, something like what eBay does, where the icon next to a person's name changes color depending on their feedback rating?

In our case, something like one "X" for every 10 finds, up to 50, then "L" + one X each for 60/70/80/90 then "C" for 100...kind of like rounded-off roman numerals. icon_smile.gif

Anyway, some simple iconic representation of 1 - 5 characters indicating the general range of finds someone has would be more useful than just having the number there, and it's more likely to stay accurate longer.

Share this post


Link to post

How about replacing the actual find number with some image indicating the RANGE of finds a person has, something like what eBay does, where the icon next to a person's name changes color depending on their feedback rating?

In our case, something like one "X" for every 10 finds, up to 50, then "L" + one X each for 60/70/80/90 then "C" for 100...kind of like rounded-off roman numerals. icon_smile.gif

Anyway, some simple iconic representation of 1 - 5 characters indicating the general range of finds someone has would be more useful than just having the number there, and it's more likely to stay accurate longer.

Share this post


Link to post

In the end my vote will be "YES", but only because it outweighs the "no" for the poll in question.

 

PS:

I too like Jamie Z's compromise to have a static count showing what number the particular cache was in your list of finds (but I guess this is not up for discussion). Anyhow, if it was, then static counts would get my vote hands down.

 

Tripper

Share this post


Link to post

It turned out to be closer than I expected. Since the Yes answers were more insistant than many no's, I have gone the way of the yes and re-added them to cache pages. I also have a note at the top that the number may not be accurate.

 

Since this has been (hopefully) resolved, I will close this thread. In the future we will keep a "live" stat for users in mind. Hopefully we can restore them once we have better caching mechanisms in place (no pun intended).

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...