Zuckerruebensirup Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jeremy Irish in this thread: Alternatives are not suggested. This is a yes or no question. Considerations may be made in the future, but they are not part of this poll. Jeremy, I understand that your poll was a simple Yes or No, with no alternate suggestions allowed...but now that the poll is over, I'd like hear your opinion of Jamie Z's idea (that I happen to be in agreement with ). Since logs are a snapshot in time, wouldn't it make more sense that the find count for each log be a static snapshot of where the person was when they posted the log???? ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" [This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on September 19, 2002 at 08:44 AM.] Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:Since logs are a snapshot in time, wouldn't it make more sense that the find count for each log be a static snapshot of where the person was when they posted the log???? Well, that wouldn't provide the data that most people seem to want. The people that were missing the find totals on the log entries seemed to be wanting them back, because they wanted to be able to consider each person's comments along with their amount of finds. These people seem to think that the fewer finds a person has, the less capable they are of finding a cache or providing 'valuable' information in a cache log. That's how it sounds to me, anyway. I've only got a dozen finds at the moment, but I'd bet I'd be more capable of finding a 5/5 geocache than a lot of people out here. I could go out some weekend and snag up another 10 or 20 finds - but I'm in no hurry, and I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone by trying to hurry up and increase my find count. But like I was saying, a snapshot in time - posting the number of finds a person has at the moment they logged the cache... that wouldn't really be useful to anyone other than the person who logged the cache. Someone's log might say "5th cache found" while they might actually have hundreds more under their belt by the time I'm reading that log. - Toe. --==< Rubbertoe's Webcam, Photo Albums, and Homepage >==-- Link to comment
+parkrrrr Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe:These people seem to think that the fewer finds a person has, the less capable they are of finding a cache or providing 'valuable' information in a cache log. ... Someone's log might say "5th cache found" while they might actually have hundreds more under their belt by the time I'm reading that log. I can't reconcile these two statements. If the goal is to figure out how apt they were to make a useful log, wouldn't it be more useful to know how experienced they were when they made the log, rather than how experienced they are now? I agree, though: the whole thing is silly. If you want their find count - and there's no good reason you should - click on the link. how hard is that? Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:I can't reconcile these two statements. If the goal is to figure out how apt they were to make a useful log, wouldn't it be more useful to know how experienced they were when they made the log, rather than how experienced they are now? Hmm. You've got me there... I hadn't considered that. Oh, oh - wait, I found a loophole. If that person logged a cache while only having 5 finds, then they go BACK to that log and edit it after they've found 100 more caches... ummm... yeah... nevermind. I think this is why I pay little attention to people's numbers - they just don't matter to me, plain and simple. - Toe. Now that I've been schooled, I have to admit - static numbers probably would be the best method. I think my brain must be running on 7 cylinders today. --==< Rubbertoe's Webcam, Photo Albums, and Homepage >==-- Link to comment
+Markwell Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 I think there is some merit to Zuckerruebensirup's idea, but I don't know if it's worth the time needed to make it happen. My not found on a cache in May of 2001 shouldn't carry nearly as much weight in the minds of the cache owner as a not found in September of 2002. In May of 2001, I only had 3 finds. Biggest problem I see in implementation would be people logging them out of order. For example, I go out and find a mass of 15 caches in a day ( ) and go back to sit down in front of my computer to log them. I go through and log them all in precise order, except I miss one. When I realize it, I need to go back and CHANGE the order of my finds to have it accurately... Bah. Not worth the trouble. Just type it in yourselves. Markwell Chicago Geocaching [This message was edited by Markwell on September 19, 2002 at 12:48 PM.] Link to comment
+Jamie Z Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 I can't take credit for the idea, by the way. I got it from Team Jiffy in this post. I do like the idea, though. Which is why I repeated it. Markwell has some good points. What if I changed a log, or added a retro log... In any case, I think it's worth looking into, but probably not worth the effort to code. Jamie Link to comment
+parkrrrr Posted September 19, 2002 Share Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe:I think my brain must be running on 7 cylinders today. Not bad if you have one of those newfangled 6-cylinder brains. Link to comment
Zuckerruebensirup Posted September 19, 2002 Author Share Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe: Oh, oh - wait, I found a loophole. If that person logged a cache while only having 5 finds, then they go BACK to that log and edit it after they've found 100 more caches... What I suggested in my original note was to have it regenerate the find total whenever a note is edited. We'll see the 'last edited on' date, so we'll know the find count is relevant to the time the comment was updated. Link to comment
Zuckerruebensirup Posted September 19, 2002 Author Share Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Markwell: Biggest problem I see in implementation would be people logging them out of order. For example, I go out and find a mass of 15 caches in a day ( ) and go back to sit down in front of my computer to log them. I go through and log them all in precise order, except I miss one. When I realize it, I need to go back and CHANGE the order of my finds to have it accurately... If they're all done in a single day, I doubt the order they are logged is going to matter a whole lot in the scheme of how 'experienced' you were at any of the given hunts. I doubt many people will log a couple of dozen finds, and then remember they forgot to enter one from a month earlier. Besides, even if you did that, by the time you logged the entry, you'd be doing it from your current level of experience, so the higher find count would still be relevant to how 'knowledgable' you were at the time you typed your comments. (At least that seems to be the primary argument people have been making about why we need to see the counts...to judge the logger's level of experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Link to comment
+Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 AAAARGH Mateys... Th' Cap'n would like to point ou' tha' th' counts are not in yer Pocket Queries... Just on 'is way fer a week in Portland, OR and would like t' choose a few t' do. Thought he'd be clev'r an' Pocket Query t' th' Laptop. Yah it'd be nice t' know 'ow many finds a 'unter 'ad whilst readin' th' comments...but one more thing... Would like to know 'ow many finds a hider has(had) at the time 'e (she) 'id th' cache. Somethin' like...This be cache #11 of 17 hidd'n by th' blyhter...if I'm usin' th' Pocket Query on th' road, I can't just click on th' username to find out now, can I? Just a li'l complycation t' th' thread... But I do like the idea of Cache find # of # on the logs too! Keep yer sail 'igh, 'nd move swiftly, Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats Link to comment
+Gary and Mary Adventurers Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 I think that the new way that counts are posted is an acceptable way of pleasing everyone. We have a count that should be good at least at the time of posting, and we have faster access to the pages. All in all a good compromise. IMHO It would be nice to see something like 'The 15th of 55 finds for this user' The '15' could be static and indicate the find #, and the '55' could be updated at each new log entry. That would satisfy most everyone. I use the counts to add weight to their comments, but I also admit that the competition of seeing counts adds a little extra to the sport for me. Thanks for the Adventure Gary and Mary Link to comment
Zuckerruebensirup Posted October 14, 2002 Author Share Posted October 14, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Gary and Mary Adventurers: IMHO It would be nice to see something like 'The 15th of 55 finds for this user' The '15' could be static and indicate the find #, and the '55' could be updated at each new log entry. That would satisfy most everyone. I use the counts to add weight to their comments, but I also admit that the competition of seeing counts adds a little extra to the sport for me. Great suggestion! I second it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts