It's all about the numbers!

[+Don_J]

 

I just asked 2 people I know if they'd keep cachiing if GS did away with find count one as I expected said no, the other is on a 320 day streak, going for a year, he's been going out every day to find his daily cache with his kids, and his reply was that he probably wouldnt quit but would cache a lot less so I asked him if he'd renew his premium membership and he told me that he probably wouldn't cache enough to justify it but wasn't sure.

 

So we have a confirmed 2nd person and possible third, so how many would quit and could GS afford to lose those that do?

For the love! Is it about "numbers" in general? Find counts? Stats? Competition? Funding for Groundspeak? You are flitting around on this subject like a fruit fly. Pick something and stop trolling.

 

Groundspeak WILL NOT BE TAKING AWAY VISIBLE FIND COUNTS. Who ever said they were? Or that they should?

 

Again, as has been pointed out before, if you ask a crowd you hang out with, I'm guessing that your found answers (really, 2 or maybe 3 is your scientific backing for your hypothesis?) will be nearly in line with how you think about the subject. Also, how did the conversation come up? Context? How did you word it? How long have they been caching?

 

You can see, as I have researched for you, that this issue goes back to at least 2002 or 2003, and people were clear that they liked numbers, but it wasn't the sole reason for them to be geocaching. Many of those are still active members, and I'm guessing their opinion is still about the same. (Why don't you give them your unscientific poll?)

 

Well, without numbers you have no find counts thus no stats thus no competition thus far fewer paid memberships thus less money thus no Groundspeak thus Jeremy is out looking for a job and in today's economy it's not that easy to find.

 

Countless people that have responded to your thread tell you one thing, so you go out and ask someone that is in the middle of a numbers streak what he thinks, and then take his answer as confirmation that everyone else is wrong?

 

Time to move on, I'm spitting back the bait. Good luck hooking another.

[+Roman!]

 

I just asked 2 people I know if they'd keep cachiing if GS did away with find count one as I expected said no, the other is on a 320 day streak, going for a year, he's been going out every day to find his daily cache with his kids, and his reply was that he probably wouldnt quit but would cache a lot less so I asked him if he'd renew his premium membership and he told me that he probably wouldn't cache enough to justify it but wasn't sure.

 

So we have a confirmed 2nd person and possible third, so how many would quit and could GS afford to lose those that do?

For the love! Is it about "numbers" in general? Find counts? Stats? Competition? Funding for Groundspeak? You are flitting around on this subject like a fruit fly. Pick something and stop trolling.

 

Groundspeak WILL NOT BE TAKING AWAY VISIBLE FIND COUNTS. Who ever said they were? Or that they should?

 

Again, as has been pointed out before, if you ask a crowd you hang out with, I'm guessing that your found answers (really, 2 or maybe 3 is your scientific backing for your hypothesis?) will be nearly in line with how you think about the subject. Also, how did the conversation come up? Context? How did you word it? How long have they been caching?

 

You can see, as I have researched for you, that this issue goes back to at least 2002 or 2003, and people were clear that they liked numbers, but it wasn't the sole reason for them to be geocaching. Many of those are still active members, and I'm guessing their opinion is still about the same. (Why don't you give them your unscientific poll?)

 

Well, without numbers you have no find counts thus no stats thus no competition thus far fewer paid memberships thus less money thus no Groundspeak thus Jeremy is out looking for a job and in today's economy it's not that easy to find.

 

Countless people that have responded to your thread tell you one thing, so you go out and ask someone that is in the middle of a numbers streak what he thinks, and then take his answer as confirmation that everyone else is wrong?

 

Time to move on, I'm spitting back the bait. Good luck hooking another.

 

Nice of you to put words in my mouth and basically make up a lie but for the record I said that since at least one other person feels the same then it's safe to assume even more do, question is how many.

 

I also asked 4 people, 2 responded yesterday, one more responded today and he is an earth cache guru so find count would not ange his Geocaching habits.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Roman!

[Clan Riffster]

I have to question your math nerdiness. How can a self proclaimed math nerd not love analyzing numbers, of any kind. I am always analyzing some numbers. If not my cache stats, it's the standard deviation of church members arrival time or something else. It is alway something.

If you are a math nerd then you know that is no way you can use caching numbers to obtain in useful information to compare cachers.

That.^

The applicable data is only relevant to a single source.

Any end result you might crunch is meaningless.

 

Well over half the cachers I know do take interest in their numbers and want to pass the next person on cacherstats list.

How many cachers do you know?

I only know a few hundred cachers by name. Maybe a dozen of them really care where they fall on some internet list.

[+redsox_mark]

I am tied for the most finds in Brunei by a UK based geocacher. (one)

[knowschad]

Competition is one of the most basic functions of nature. Those best able to compete within an environmental niche survive. Those least well adapted die out. Competition remains a powerful instinctual drive in human nature. We compete against each other, we compete against ourselves, and we compete as groups against other groups. Even when the negative aspects of competition inspire us to attempt to intellectually deny this aspect of our nature, we typically end up competing at being non-competitive

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

Edited November 29, 2012 by knowschad

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Hmmm, that's classic competing at being non-competitive.

 

Hmmm...that's classic avoiding the question.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Some areas seem to be more bothered about numbers than other areas. I'd rate NC as a low pressure area, very very few people are bothered by find count in relation to other players (phew). It's never talked abut at events or in other gatherings. It's a false comparison anyway... folks might prefer different style of caches to other people, or be retired, or have 25 kids to look after... apples and oranges to compare total find count.

 

I enjoy some of the personal goals you can set up using numbers (eg most finds in a day, most types in a day etc) rather than competition per se. I'm more likely over the last couple of years to use caching as an excuse to see a new town or hang out with folks, or set other odd personal challenges... can I clear small town X of all caches in a day and take whatever it throws at me without huge amounts of planning.

Outside of this forum I have NEVER once heard any cacher ever talk about numbers as a competition. I have heard people congratulating others on reaching a milestone, be that 100, 500, 1000 or whatever. Beyond that I've never heard any cacher mention numbers outside of these posts ever.

 

I haven't either, what I have heard and seen is a lot of drama where cachers are bashing others for how they cache an what they consider a find, this is done by high number cachers, the reason being, numbers matter, you'll find the same things on the forums, people trying to belittle others find counts. How many posts are there about how people cache the E.T. Highway?

 

If you had 2 people walking down te street side by side and off in the distance someone raised a finish line at some point they'd break into a run then one would accuse the other of cheating or something like that.

You haven't? Then what is this all about you saying that people at events are talking about who has more finds, and how the people you talk to are competitive about numbers, and then how you think the game will die if there weren't competition.

 

How is any of what you said previously able to exist with your comment above? You even contradict yourself in the post!

 

I find the last line interesting:

 

Competition is one of the most basic functions of nature. Those best able to compete within an environmental niche survive. Those least well adapted die out. Competition remains a powerful instinctual drive in human nature. We compete against each other, we compete against ourselves, and we compete as groups against other groups. Even when the negative aspects of competition inspire us to attempt to intellectually deny this aspect of our nature, we typically end up competing at being non-competitive

 

I think most of us understand the importance of competition for survival. I think that most of us recognize that competition is inherent in the business world and the education system. We all know that organized sports are based upon completion.

 

Where your argument fails is in your insistence that competition must be integral to the game we call Geocaching. We are not a pack of dogs competing for a scrap of meat for our very survival. We're playing a simple game that involves finding hidden objects. We are not highly trained athletes with bodies honed to perfection. We're just people of all ages, of all shapes and sizes, and from all walks of life. The person that may find that cache after you do could be a 9 year old girl, a college student, or retired couple in their 80's.

[+Ma & Pa]

Where your argument fails is in your insistence that competition must be integral to the game we call Geocaching. We are not a pack of dogs competing for a scrap of meat for our very survival. We're playing a simple game that involves finding hidden objects. We are not highly trained athletes with bodies honed to perfection. We're just people of all ages, of all shapes and sizes, and from all walks of life. The person that may find that cache after you do could be a 9 year old girl, a college student, or retired couple in their 80's.

 

AND THAT IS WHY WE LOVE IT. You can be a nerd or a super athlete or just an ordinary person.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Ma & Pa

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Where your argument fails is in your insistence that competition must be integral to the game we call Geocaching. We are not a pack of dogs competing for a scrap of meat for our very survival. We're playing a simple game that involves finding hidden objects. We are not highly trained athletes with bodies honed to perfection. We're just people of all ages, of all shapes and sizes, and from all walks of life. The person that may find that cache after you do could be a 9 year old girl, a college student, or retired couple in their 80's.

 

AND THAT IS WHY WE LOVE IT. You can be a nerd or a super athlete or just an ordinary person.

 

It's also why it's absurd to compare geocaching to organized sports, survival of a species, or being successful in business.

[+Roman!]

Competition is one of the most basic functions of nature. Those best able to compete within an environmental niche survive. Those least well adapted die out. Competition remains a powerful instinctual drive in human nature. We compete against each other, we compete against ourselves, and we compete as groups against other groups. Even when the negative aspects of competition inspire us to attempt to intellectually deny this aspect of our nature, we typically end up competing at being non-competitive

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

Are you then saying that cachers do not compete or shouldn't?

 

Why do you think the FTF game started? Why is cacherstats such a popular website? It gives people a way to compete. If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Roman!

[+niraD]

If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION.

 

Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc.

 

Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble.

 

Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one.

[+NeverSummer]

Hmmm, that's classic competing at being non-competitive.

 

Hmmm...that's classic avoiding the question.

Yup.

 

Just because I'm competitive with a retort doesn't mean that the game of geocaching is competitive. Roman!'s repsonse to me disassembling his source and reasoning gets us that type of response.

[knowschad]

Competition is one of the most basic functions of nature. Those best able to compete within an environmental niche survive. Those least well adapted die out. Competition remains a powerful instinctual drive in human nature. We compete against each other, we compete against ourselves, and we compete as groups against other groups. Even when the negative aspects of competition inspire us to attempt to intellectually deny this aspect of our nature, we typically end up competing at being non-competitive

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

Are you then saying that cachers do not compete or shouldn't?

 

Why do you think the FTF game started? Why is cacherstats such a popular website? It gives people a way to compete. If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

 

I think that what I said was quite clearly stated. I said that your argument was a poor one.

[knowschad]

If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION.

 

Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc.

 

Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble.

 

Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one.

 

Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well.

[+NeverSummer]

Competition is one of the most basic functions of nature. Those best able to compete within an environmental niche survive. Those least well adapted die out. Competition remains a powerful instinctual drive in human nature. We compete against each other, we compete against ourselves, and we compete as groups against other groups. Even when the negative aspects of competition inspire us to attempt to intellectually deny this aspect of our nature, we typically end up competing at being non-competitive

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

Are you then saying that cachers do not compete or shouldn't?

 

Why do you think the FTF game started? Why is cacherstats such a popular website? It gives people a way to compete. If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Roman!. ROMAN!! Listen.

 

What is being said back to you is this:

Humans are competitve by nature, yes. But we have many other basic urges that we have learned to temper down to exist in a civil, modern, enlightened society. Claiming that, because we are competitive at our primeval core, we must compete in everything denies that we live in a modern, civil society. If you want to live like a neanderthal, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

 

What you are doing is asking the community of geocaching to give up more ground than we should. You will only be happy when someone admits that competition is what drives this game. It isn't. This game is driven by many things, and the basis of that is the users who want to hide, find and log hidden items. If competition forms, it is natural, yes. But, it is not a recognized part of the game here at Geocaching.com.

 

We have admitted that competition exists, yet you want the whole of the arguement. We have discussed the middle ground, and yet you come here to badger, bully, bloviate and troll about the game being more than what it is. Enough. Stop it.

 

You clearly can't see the big picture, and you certainly have shown with your posts here, in other threads, and ones that you have started, that you see the game as a completely diffent process than it is. You are entitled to use the game how you want, but save the "Archive Puzzles, CITO, Events" stuff for somewhere else. This game accepts those as integral. Stop telling everyone that competition must exist in this game. It doesn't.

 

Nobody is stopping you from having these opinions, however. You are entitled. But when you start making your version of the game seem like it should be the new rule and guiding principle, you are way, way off base. You need to settle down, see the game here for the bigger picture, see your place in this community as accepted as a cog of a greater machine, and have some respect.

[+Roman!]

If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION.

 

Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc.

 

Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble.

 

Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one.

 

Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well.

 

I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

[+Ma & Pa]

I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

 

I see very little financial effect based on what I see around here.

[+NeverSummer]

If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION.

 

Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc.

 

Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble.

 

Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one.

 

Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well.

 

I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

Doublespeak.

 

You are saying that competition is enough of an important factor here, that people would quit altogether. The thing is, competition already isn't a part of what geocaching.com does. Find counts are not going to be taken away, and that was never going to be an issue. Your argument started with saying that finds=numbers=competition to be the best=financial foundation for Groundspeak. Then you say that taking away the "competition" will be the downfall of Groundspeak.

 

But then, here is the flow:

Finds=numbers=financial foundation of Groundspeak

 

In actuality, there are key differences:

Hides<->Finds=Part of financial structure for Groundspeak.

 

You see? Stop. You are allowed to compete. Numbers are part of the game, but mean different things to everyone. Sub-games exist. But Geocaching.com is not defined by what you claim it is, or should be.

 

Oh, and:

Roman!, on 28 November 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

 

Competition is one of the most basic functions of nature. Those best able to compete within an environmental niche survive. Those least well adapted die out. Competition remains a powerful instinctual drive in human nature. We compete against each other, we compete against ourselves, and we compete as groups against other groups. Even when the negative aspects of competition inspire us to attempt to intellectually deny this aspect of our nature, we typically end up competing at being non-competitive

 

When was it, again, that you were not saying everyone is competing?

[+NeverSummer]

I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

 

I see very little financial effect based on what I see around here.

I dunno...3 people sounds like a lot!

[+Roman!]

You seem to be awfully eager telling me what I'm saying but I'm telling you what I'm saying is not what you're saying I'm saying and I sure hope you understand what I'm saying.

[+cheech gang]

I'm just sayin'...

[+niraD]

I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

As I said before in another thread: There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own that geocaching.com doesn't track. There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own even though geocaching.com now tracks those numbers. I am not convinced that Groundspeak could eliminate the numbers or the competition even if they tried.

 

Sure, Groundspeak could stop tracking stats and find counts on the geocaching.com site. There's not much upside to doing so, and as unlikely as it may be, they could do it. But among the people who care about stats and numbers, the tracking of stats and numbers would continue. And among the people who want to compete for stats and numbers, the competition for stats and numbers would continue.

 

And exactly 17 angels can sit on the head of a pin.

[+Roman!]

I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

As I said before in another thread: There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own that geocaching.com doesn't track. There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own even though geocaching.com now tracks those numbers. I am not convinced that Groundspeak could eliminate the numbers or the competition even if they tried.

 

Sure, Groundspeak could stop tracking stats and find counts on the geocaching.com site. There's not much upside to doing so, and as unlikely as it may be, they could do it. But among the people who care about stats and numbers, the tracking of stats and numbers would continue. And among the people who want to compete for stats and numbers, the competition for stats and numbers would continue.

 

And exactly 17 angels can sit on the head of a pin.

 

I beg to differ, pin heads are different sizes.

[+DragonsWest]

I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

As I said before in another thread: There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own that geocaching.com doesn't track. There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own even though geocaching.com now tracks those numbers. I am not convinced that Groundspeak could eliminate the numbers or the competition even if they tried.

 

Sure, Groundspeak could stop tracking stats and find counts on the geocaching.com site. There's not much upside to doing so, and as unlikely as it may be, they could do it. But among the people who care about stats and numbers, the tracking of stats and numbers would continue. And among the people who want to compete for stats and numbers, the competition for stats and numbers would continue.

 

And exactly 17 angels can sit on the head of a pin.

 

I beg to differ, pin heads are different sizes.

 

They all look the same size to me!

 

[+Roman!]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Roman!

[+Legochugglers]

If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION.

 

Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc.

 

Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble.

 

Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one.

 

Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well.

 

I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

 

Some are proud of their own numbers and just like to keep count!. Some are proud of the caching challenges they have achieved. Only a very small minority are actually in any sort of external competition other than within their own personal enjoyment. I don't think we can agree that 'if the find count was eliminated' because that is never going to happen and as nobody is really interested in it happening it is really just another one of your pointless assumptions. As it is never going to happen your 'next question' is completely irrelevent because no premium memberships will be lost and GS will not be drowned in financial problems as your pointless hypothetical scenario suggests.

[+Roman!]

If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION.

 

Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc.

 

Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble.

 

Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one.

 

Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well.

 

I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

 

Some are proud of their own numbers and just like to keep count!. Some are proud of the caching challenges they have achieved. Only a very small minority are actually in any sort of external competition other than within their own personal enjoyment. I don't think we can agree that 'if the find count was eliminated' because that is never going to happen and as nobody is really interested in it happening it is really just another one of your pointless assumptions. As it is never going to happen your 'next question' is completely irrelevent because no premium memberships will be lost and GS will not be drowned in financial problems as your pointless hypothetical scenario suggests.

 

Never is a long time and it already happened once.

 

In fact it kinda happened twice when the introduced challenges which messed with people stats.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Roman!

[+Legochugglers]

If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION.

 

Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc.

 

Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble.

 

Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one.

 

 

Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well.

 

I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership.

 

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

 

Some are proud of their own numbers and just like to keep count!. Some are proud of the caching challenges they have achieved. Only a very small minority are actually in any sort of external competition other than within their own personal enjoyment. I don't think we can agree that 'if the find count was eliminated' because that is never going to happen and as nobody is really interested in it happening it is really just another one of your pointless assumptions. As it is never going to happen your 'next question' is completely irrelevent because no premium memberships will be lost and GS will not be drowned in financial problems as your pointless hypothetical scenario suggests.

 

Never is a long time and it already happened once.

 

In fact it kinda happened twice when the introduced challenges which messed with people stats.

 

Thank you, your examples clearly confirms and supports my point.

[+Ma & Pa]

I can no longer follow the arguments

 

1) because I no longer want to

 

2) Because I can no longer follow them. This reminds me of a philosphy course I took many many years ago

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

 

I'll take that bet.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Competition is one of the most basic functions of nature. Those best able to compete within an environmental niche survive. Those least well adapted die out. Competition remains a powerful instinctual drive in human nature. We compete against each other, we compete against ourselves, and we compete as groups against other groups. Even when the negative aspects of competition inspire us to attempt to intellectually deny this aspect of our nature, we typically end up competing at being non-competitive

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

Are you then saying that cachers do not compete or shouldn't?

 

Why do you think the FTF game started? Why is cacherstats such a popular website? It gives people a way to compete. If you find a way to keep score then eventually you will have people competing.

 

I don't think you'll find anyone that will dispute an argument that *some* people compete in the game of geocaching. That doesn't mean that the existence of the FTF game or sites like cacherstats is evidence that all or even most geocachers see geocaching as a form of competition. The cacherstats site is probably well known because it's really the only one of its kind, and I suspect many that look at it don't use it as a way to compete, but merely to compare.

[knowschad]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

[+niraD]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

So...

 

What is the best way to get coffee out of a computer keyboard?

[+Roman!]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

 

Thank you sir, this discussion is over.

 

 

 

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

So...

 

What is the best way to get coffee out of a computer keyboard?

 

Put it in a bag of rice overnight.

[+Ma & Pa]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

 

Thank you sir, this discussion is over.

 

 

 

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

So...

 

What is the best way to get coffee out of a computer keyboard?

 

Put it in a bag of rice overnight.

 

before or after you spill the coffee?

[+Roman!]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

 

Thank you sir, this discussion is over.

 

 

 

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

So...

 

What is the best way to get coffee out of a computer keyboard?

 

Put it in a bag of rice overnight.

 

before or after you spill the coffee?

 

Do I sense some kind of competition brewing?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

 

Thank you sir, this discussion is over.

 

 

 

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

So...

 

What is the best way to get coffee out of a computer keyboard?

 

Put it in a bag of rice overnight.

 

before or after you spill the coffee?

 

Do I sense some kind of competition brewing?

 

Anyone that thinks this is some kind of competition is full of beans.

[knowschad]

So is our sex drive, but if we want to get along in our society, we have to control it. Simply to say that a behavior is acceptable because it is a basic function of nature is a bad argument.

 

My point exactly, without sex our species dies, without competition Groundspeak dies.

Yes, that's it... I was trying to make your point for you. I'm glad I was able to help.

 

Thank you sir, this discussion is over.

Rats!! I was just coming here to discuss arm wrestling for the answer. Whoever wins has the correct opinion.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Do I sense some kind of competition brewing?

 

Anyone that thinks this is some kind of competition is full of beans.

The problem here is Roman! is picking a fight in his own echo chamber. Many, many people have weighed in over and over with the same information, and he is not letting it sink in. Instead, we're feeding it. So, I would like to say the proof is there, the discussion is clear. One person thinks his narrow view of geocaching the underlying, hidden secret of how the business and game are run. Unfortunately, the facts are presented over and over clearly by others, and ignored.

 

 

Let's stop the feeding.

[+dprovan]

If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems.

It's always sad when people lose sight of the game by concentrating on the competition. Instead of enjoying the game no matter what the outcome, they define something called "losing" as a failure for them to suffer, and the game becomes pointless unless they can "win". Some go so far as to think winning is so important that it justifies breaking the rules.

 

I hope you're wrong that a significant fraction of geocachers have fallen into that trap.

[+Totem Clan]

Let's stop the feeding.

That's the best idea of heard in this thread for some time now.

[knowschad]

Let's stop the feeding.

That's the best idea of heard in this thread for some time now.

 

Is somebody implying that we may be underneath a bridge?

[+Totem Clan]

All we need is a goat or two or three.

[+Roman!]

 

Do I sense some kind of competition brewing?

 

Anyone that thinks this is some kind of competition is full of beans.

The problem here is Roman! is picking a fight in his own echo chamber. Many, many people have weighed in over and over with the same information, and he is not letting it sink in. Instead, we're feeding it. So, I would like to say the proof is there, the discussion is clear. One person thinks his narrow view of geocaching the underlying, hidden secret of how the business and game are run. Unfortunately, the facts are presented over and over clearly by others, and ignored.

 

 

Let's stop the feeding.

 

Yes, we've moved on to the after dinner coffee.

[knowschad]

Do I sense some kind of competition brewing?

 

Anyone that thinks this is some kind of competition is full of beans.

The problem here is Roman! is picking a fight in his own echo chamber. Many, many people have weighed in over and over with the same information, and he is not letting it sink in. Instead, we're feeding it. So, I would like to say the proof is there, the discussion is clear. One person thinks his narrow view of geocaching the underlying, hidden secret of how the business and game are run. Unfortunately, the facts are presented over and over clearly by others, and ignored.

 

 

Let's stop the feeding.

 

Yes, we've moved on to the after dinner coffee.

 

You forgot the dash between "after" and "dinner". I'm a better speller than you.

[+Roman!]

Do I sense some kind of competition brewing?

 

Anyone that thinks this is some kind of competition is full of beans.

The problem here is Roman! is picking a fight in his own echo chamber. Many, many people have weighed in over and over with the same information, and he is not letting it sink in. Instead, we're feeding it. So, I would like to say the proof is there, the discussion is clear. One person thinks his narrow view of geocaching the underlying, hidden secret of how the business and game are run. Unfortunately, the facts are presented over and over clearly by others, and ignored.

 

 

Let's stop the feeding.

 

Yes, we've moved on to the after dinner coffee.

 

You forgot the dash between "after" and "dinner". I'm a better speller than you.

 

I learnt one thing from this thread, not to be so competitive so I left out the "-" so you could share in the joy of victory of being a better speller.

 

Winning does feel good too.

[Keystone]

This thread has devolved into a quotefest among a small number of participants. They're welcome to continue their side discussion by email or PM. For everyone else, it's time to call a close to the most recent "It's all/not about the numbers" thread. Let's give that topic a rest for awhile. Thanks.