Jump to content

It's all about the numbers!


Roman!
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

As humans we are born to be competitive and raised that way as well, take that away and maybe natural selection will make sure we join the extinct list.

Maybe this is our confusion. Sure, people compete all the time. That's different than saying people play only to compete.

I'm not saying people only play to compete.

 

Groundspeak costs a lot of money to run and they make that money from their member base. If you took away stats and the ability for cachers to compete amongst themselves then I feel enough of the user base would either stop or reduce their financial support through not caching, not being premium members, etc. that the company could not function to the capacity it does today.

 

Thus as my original post said you can thank the people that. Are in it for the numbers for the fact the company is as strong as it is.

You've kind of been all over the map on this point. In your original post, you implied that if it wasn't for the competitive geocachers, geocaching wouldn't exist as a legitimate hobby/sport.

 

The next day, you made this claim:

 

But if Groundspeak did away with visible stats and there was no way to see others numbers would the company exist? Absolutely not.

That's quite different than saying geocaching would exist but just not at the capacity it does today.

 

If GS did away with stats at midnight tonight within a year there income would start substantially dropping and not long after the layoffs would start. Within 2 years Jeremy would be shutting down his office and either running the company from his garage or be looking for a new job or more probably he would have sold out to garmin and we'd all be open caching.

 

Of course this is only my prediction.

Link to comment

I'm not saying people only play to compete.

 

Groundspeak costs a lot of money to run and they make that money from their member base. If you took away stats and the ability for cachers to compete amongst themselves then I feel enough of the user base would either stop or reduce their financial support through not caching, not being premium members, etc. that the company could not function to the capacity it does today.

That sure sounds to me like you're saying many fewer people would play if they couldn't compete, and I can't think of why that would be unless people only play to compete. Since you also deny that's what you're saying, I guess we just have a language barrier.

 

Well, we all agree Groundspeak would be stupid to stop supporting counts and statistics. I guess we don't have to worry too much about agreeing what would happen and why if they did.

Link to comment

I'm not saying people only play to compete.

 

Groundspeak costs a lot of money to run and they make that money from their member base. If you took away stats and the ability for cachers to compete amongst themselves then I feel enough of the user base would either stop or reduce their financial support through not caching, not being premium members, etc. that the company could not function to the capacity it does today.

That sure sounds to me like you're saying many fewer people would play if they couldn't compete, and I can't think of why that would be unless people only play to compete. Since you also deny that's what you're saying, I guess we just have a language barrier.

 

Well, we all agree Groundspeak would be stupid to stop supporting counts and statistics. I guess we don't have to worry too much about agreeing what would happen and why if they did.

 

Reason being people cache for multiple reasons not just one (i don't cache solely for numbers, it's one of several reason I do but combined all these aspects of the game attract me enough to participate), if you take one of those reasons away then those that enjoy that part of the game just might not participate anymore.

Take away puzzle caches and people will quit, take away events and people will quit, question is how many? I believe numbers play a big enough impact that it would be enough that the company couldnt sustain itself.

Link to comment

I'm not saying people only play to compete.

 

Groundspeak costs a lot of money to run and they make that money from their member base. If you took away stats and the ability for cachers to compete amongst themselves then I feel enough of the user base would either stop or reduce their financial support through not caching, not being premium members, etc. that the company could not function to the capacity it does today.

 

Thus as my original post said you can thank the people that. Are in it for the numbers for the fact the company is as strong as it is.

You've kind of been all over the map on this point. In your original post, you implied that if it wasn't for the competitive geocachers, geocaching wouldn't exist as a legitimate hobby/sport.

 

The next day, you made this claim:

 

But if Groundspeak did away with visible stats and there was no way to see others numbers would the company exist? Absolutely not.

That's quite different than saying geocaching would exist but just not at the capacity it does today.

There's a lot of that flippity floppity going around. <_<

 

I'm especially getting a kick out of any number being mentioned as support for "It's all about the numbers". Just because someone happened to look up where they "rank" doesn't mean that it matters to them, or that there is sudden, obvious, overwhelming support for the arguments presented in the two conflicting quotes.

 

Trying to make a sub-game the rule of the land is silly. Some like numbers, some don't. It isn't even that black and white. There's many, many shades of geocaching styles and preferences out there. Simply citing your "friends" or generalized observations about the use of GSAK outputs is not supporting the hypothesis Roman! presented.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If crowing your love of beating other cachers' scores, getting more FTFs than someone else, and/or your desire to be the "best" cacher in your area is what you want to do, go ahead. But stop rubbing it all in everyone's faces.

 

It's not what geocaching.com is here for. It is a listing service. These sub-games Roman! keeps bloviating about are nice and all, but don't tell me that your opinion about how you play the game is "right", and the way someone else plays is is "wrong".

Link to comment

Reason being people cache for multiple reasons not just one (i don't cache solely for numbers, it's one of several reason I do but combined all these aspects of the game attract me enough to participate), if you take one of those reasons away then those that enjoy that part of the game just might not participate anymore.

Take away puzzle caches and people will quit, take away events and people will quit, question is how many? I believe numbers play a big enough impact that it would be enough that the company couldnt sustain itself.

Do you really believe that people are that singular in their reasoning for geocaching, that they would quit over these things?

 

You yourself say that you geocache for many reasons. Why would it be any different for anyone else? I have to think this would likely be put into a bell curve, and those that would "quit" for any one, singular reason you mention above would be in such small numbers, it wouldn't impact the game any more than the natural loss of active cachers when they simply move on.

 

Numbers, stats, etc are great, and can be used by many for whatever purpose they like. But to say that taking away the "competition" would cause massive defection is just plain silly.

Link to comment

I believe the numbers and being able to compete are a large enough factor for a large enough number of people that GS could not sustain itself if they did away with them.

That is a strange opinion, then. The fact that you "believe" it implies that there is some verifiable fact that I am not privy to about the dynamics of the geocaching.com user base.

 

Your use of personal experience (my caching friends use cachestatarmyknife and are trying to beat each other at this game) is trying to define a trend. Out of the geocaching communities I've been exposed to for long periods of time (OR, MN, NC, AK), very, very few of the people I have met were focused on "competition". Most were focused on community, and consistency/improvement of the game. That's my experience. I'd say this makes my opinion that geocaching.com would not suffer from no competition.

 

But here's the funny thing...geocaching.com is not a competition site for cache finds. It is a listing service. It is up to each individual to abide by the guidelines. From there, you can use the game however you want...outside of this site. Luckily for those that want to show stats, you can display them on your individual account page.

 

Now, if you, or others want to make this a competition for most finds, most FTFs or whatever, go ahead! Just stop saying that you are "right" and others are "wrong". So long as geocaching.com is the largest listing service for active geocaches, it will survive. Its name is synonymous with "geocaching" in general, and they have had that fact on lockdown for many years. Tell me how many other "geocaching" sites have really taken off to the scale of geocaching.com? Do you really think that this growth is because of competition?! If yes, your understanding of social and business dynamism is really hurting.

 

Edit: speeeling iz hard

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

I don't believe the majority of people are that shallow that they only play for the number. If GS did away with find counts I'm sure they would sustain just as well tomorrow as they have since the beginning of the game. I feel for most it's more about getting off the couch and into the outdoors than anything else

 

I disagree,. Why are there so many LPCs and power trails? Because they're getting found a lot. Who'd go find a parking lot LPC if it didn't add +1 to the smiley count.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I don't believe the majority of people are that shallow that they only play for the number. If GS did away with find counts I'm sure they would sustain just as well tomorrow as they have since the beginning of the game. I feel for most it's more about getting off the couch and into the outdoors than anything else

 

I disagree,. Why are there so many LPCs and power trails? Because they're getting found a lot. Who'd go find a parking lot LPC if it didn't add +1 to the smiley count.

You assume a lot about what a find is for "everyone". You or I can't even begin to put light to how many dynamic reasons there are for a person to find a geocache.

 

I, for example, ignore LPCs as long as possible. When it comes to finding NRV caches, it comes down to my desire to clear a section of a map. For the most part, however, I don't bother at all with them.

 

Now, do my finds give me one more to my count? Yup. But that "+1" isn't my motivation.

Link to comment

I don't believe the majority of people are that shallow that they only play for the number. If GS did away with find counts I'm sure they would sustain just as well tomorrow as they have since the beginning of the game. I feel for most it's more about getting off the couch and into the outdoors than anything else

 

I disagree,. Why are there so many LPCs and power trails? Because they're getting found a lot. Who'd go find a parking lot LPC if it didn't add +1 to the smiley count.

 

you have edited your comment where you mentioned that you thought people would quit if GS did away with numbers on profiles, guess you must have remembered saying that you would possibly quit if they took away numbers

 

 

Generally the ones with less than 200 finds are not paying for premium membership and lackeys don't work for free.

 

And yes, if I was the only one who could see my numbers I would either quit or at the very least not pay for premium membership and cache a heck of a lot less.

Edited by roundnround we go
Link to comment

I don't believe the majority of people are that shallow that they only play for the number. If GS did away with find counts I'm sure they would sustain just as well tomorrow as they have since the beginning of the game. I feel for most it's more about getting off the couch and into the outdoors than anything else

 

I disagree,. Why are there so many LPCs and power trails? Because they're getting found a lot. Who'd go find a parking lot LPC if it didn't add +1 to the smiley count.

 

you have edited out where you asked where mentioned that you thought people would quit if GS did away with numbers on profiles,

 

 

Generally the ones with less than 200 finds are not paying for premium membership and lackeys don't work for free.

 

And yes, if I was the only one who could see my numbers I would either quit or at the very least not pay for premium membership and cache a heck of a lot less.

 

but you pretty much said you would quit if they took numbers away

 

Yes if they did away with numbers my interest in geocaching would wane. I might find the odd one on hikes or bike rides but not enough to justify paying for a premium membership.

 

IMHO so would enough other cachers that GS would not make enough to sustain itself.

Link to comment

I don't believe the majority of people are that shallow that they only play for the number. If GS did away with find counts I'm sure they would sustain just as well tomorrow as they have since the beginning of the game. I feel for most it's more about getting off the couch and into the outdoors than anything else

 

I disagree,. Why are there so many LPCs and power trails? Because they're getting found a lot. Who'd go find a parking lot LPC if it didn't add +1 to the smiley count.

 

you have edited out where you asked where mentioned that you thought people would quit if GS did away with numbers on profiles,

 

 

Generally the ones with less than 200 finds are not paying for premium membership and lackeys don't work for free.

 

And yes, if I was the only one who could see my numbers I would either quit or at the very least not pay for premium membership and cache a heck of a lot less.

 

but you pretty much said you would quit if they took numbers away

 

Yes if they did away with numbers my interest in geocaching would wane. I might find the odd one on hikes or bike rides but not enough to justify paying for a premium membership.

 

IMHO so would enough other cachers that GS would not make enough to sustain itself.

Honestly, do you think that geocaching.com would do away with your ability to track your finds numerically? That would be plain silly.

 

The point you are creating is that numbers matter more than just as numbers. You continue to go back and forth about numbers-based competition driving the enrollment at geocaching.com. I'll say it again:

Your use of personal experience (my caching friends use cachestatarmyknife and are trying to beat each other at this game) is trying to define a trend. Out of the geocaching communities I've been exposed to for long periods of time (OR, MN, NC, AK), very, very few of the people I have met were focused on "competition". Most were focused on community, and consistency/improvement of the game. That's my experience. I'd say this makes my opinion that geocaching.com would not suffer from no competition.

 

But here's the funny thing...geocaching.com is not a competition site for cache finds. It is a listing service. It is up to each individual to abide by the guidelines. From there, you can use the game however you want...outside of this site. Luckily for those that want to show stats, you can display them on your individual account page.

 

Now, if you, or others want to make this a competition for most finds, most FTFs or whatever, go ahead! Just stop saying that you are "right" and others are "wrong". So long as geocaching.com is the largest listing service for active geocaches, it will survive. Its name is synonymous with "geocaching" in general, and they have had that fact on lockdown for many years. Tell me how many other "geocaching" sites have really taken off to the scale of geocaching.com? Do you really think that this growth is because of competition?! If yes, your understanding of social and business dynamism is really hurting.

Link to comment

I'm not saying people only play to compete.

 

Groundspeak costs a lot of money to run and they make that money from their member base. If you took away stats and the ability for cachers to compete amongst themselves then I feel enough of the user base would either stop or reduce their financial support through not caching, not being premium members, etc. that the company could not function to the capacity it does today.

That sure sounds to me like you're saying many fewer people would play if they couldn't compete, and I can't think of why that would be unless people only play to compete. Since you also deny that's what you're saying, I guess we just have a language barrier.

 

Well, we all agree Groundspeak would be stupid to stop supporting counts and statistics. I guess we don't have to worry too much about agreeing what would happen and why if they did.

 

Reason being people cache for multiple reasons not just one (i don't cache solely for numbers, it's one of several reason I do but combined all these aspects of the game attract me enough to participate), if you take one of those reasons away then those that enjoy that part of the game just might not participate anymore.

Take away puzzle caches and people will quit, take away events and people will quit, question is how many? I believe numbers play a big enough impact that it would be enough that the company couldnt sustain itself.

Then how did they do it before the numbers crowd start pay for all of us to cache?

Link to comment

I believe Jeremy had another job and ran the site from his garage. If from tne the beginning there were no stats then he'd still be in his garage or would have sold out but there is no way he'd be able to afford what he has now.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I believe Jeremy had another job and ran the site from his garage. If from tne the beginning there were no stats then he'd still be in his garage or would have sold out but there is no way he'd be able to afford what he has now.

You really have no understanding of how the site was created and run, do you?

 

Geocaching.com stats didn't come around until recently, and having your find/hide count posted with each of your logs came and went and came back.

 

How do you not understand that geocaching.com is a listing site, and that the growth of the game was a complicated balancing act of site maintenance, server use and creation, marketing, corporate sponsorships and advertising, creation of Premium Members, product sales, etc?

 

In the very beginning, geocaching.com was a glimmer of what it is today. Even back when I signed up for an account in 2005 it wasn't anything like it is today for advertising, marketing and promotions. The site grew, but it wasn't because of cachers coming so they could compete in the game of finding more tupperware in the woods with a consumer GPS unit than someone else... It was fueled by the draw of a "treasure hunt", and use of expanding consumer GPS technology and products. Combine that with product promotions, marketing, and such, and you get growth. A segment of geocachers who started in the game might now be competitive, but that isn't the main fuel source for this site.

 

Whereas I'm sure that a big portion of income for Groundspeak is Premium Membership fees, there are obviously going to be other forms of income for this site to be as big as it is, with as many staff members as it has. Geocachers keep coming to the game to find a cache, sign the log, and log it online. What they do with that process is up to each of them. Groundspeak is a big tent, and your sub-game of numbers-based competition, FTF races, etc are all welcome under the big tent. But those games don't define the broader game (tent) of geocaching, no matter how much you try to make it seem that way.

Link to comment

I believe Jeremy had another job and ran the site from his garage. If from tne the beginning there were no stats then he'd still be in his garage or would have sold out but there is no way he'd be able to afford what he has now.

 

You owe me a new keyboard. I spilled my Coke on it laughing so hard. Thanks for the hilarity.

Link to comment

I believe Jeremy had another job and ran the site from his garage. If from tne the beginning there were no stats then he'd still be in his garage or would have sold out but there is no way he'd be able to afford what he has now.

 

You owe me a new keyboard. I spilled my Coke on it laughing so hard. Thanks for the hilarity.

 

No worries, I get good discounts on keyboards

 

And the number kept the site growing.

 

How so? Are you saying that people only join the site and start geocaching because another person has X number of finds???

 

No, I'm saying a large number of people pay for premium membership because they enjoy the competitive side of geocaching, if you took that away the revenue would decrease significantly.

 

Just curious, why did they remove find count at one point, was it requested by the forums.

 

Why did they bring it back?

Link to comment

 

And the number kept the site growing.

 

How so? Are you saying that people only join the site and start geocaching because another person has X number of finds???

 

No, I'm saying a large number of people pay for premium membership because they enjoy the competitive side of geocaching, if you took that away the revenue would decrease significantly.

 

Just curious, why did they remove find count at one point, was it requested by the forums.

 

Why did they bring it back?

 

I beg to differ. I bet if you were to ask why people get premium memberships, the top 2 answers will be access to pocket queries, and to support the site/game. I think you if got something from the numbers (i.e. a spot on a leader board, or a title, prizes, etc.) then maybe you might have something. At best, your arbitrary find count number and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Premium memberships have been around much longer than the hardcore numbers game, which with power trails and the like, is a relatively new aspect. I would say it has more to do with the growth of smartphone users than premium memberships. And a smartphone user does not necessarily need a premium membership.

Link to comment

 

And the number kept the site growing.

 

How so? Are you saying that people only join the site and start geocaching because another person has X number of finds???

 

No, I'm saying a large number of people pay for premium membership because they enjoy the competitive side of geocaching, if you took that away the revenue would decrease significantly.

 

Just curious, why did they remove find count at one point, was it requested by the forums.

 

Why did they bring it back?

 

I beg to differ. I bet if you were to ask why people get premium memberships, the top 2 answers will be access to pocket queries, and to support the site/game. I think you if got something from the numbers (i.e. a spot on a leader board, or a title, prizes, etc.) then maybe you might have something. At best, your arbitrary find count number and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Premium memberships have been around much longer than the hardcore numbers game, which with power trails and the like, is a relatively new aspect. I would say it has more to do with the growth of smartphone users than premium memberships. And a smartphone user does not necessarily need a premium membership.

 

I bought premium membership for the PQs and access to PMO caches because the game is what it is and that includes stats, if they did away with the find count I would have no need for a premium membership as I'd cache very little if at ll.

 

I can not be the only one that feels this way the, and if I'm not the question is how many others feel the same? I think it's enough to have a serious negative impact on the game..

 

Any answers to why they took away the find count and brought it back?

Link to comment

I believe the numbers and being able to compete are a large enough factor for a large enough number of people that GS could not sustain itself if they did away with them.

 

As you are relatively new, I wonder if you are aware of what happened when the web site added the "Stats" tab to our profiles? The outcry from people that did not want others looking at their stats was so strong that they added the option to hide them with the next site update.

 

It's undeniable that find counts and stats are the driving force behind a large segment of geocachers, but don't discount or underestimate the amount of cachers that really don't care and the faction that would rather just get rid of them altogether.

Link to comment

Any answers to why they took away the find count and brought it back?

Pretty sure that "stats" (number of user finds displayed on logs, etc) were taken away at first because of a code/security issue. The were put back (find counts) because people wanted to see their count for many, many reasons. So, they came back.

 

(Please, stop me if I've got the story wrong folks who were on the forums back in 2003 or so...)

Link to comment

Let's timewarp to 2003. Similar conversation, but very marked differences in interpretation of what "numbers" mean.

 

Of 54 posts, 4 or 5 don't deal with the question, specifically, so I tossed them out. 8 state that they are "all about the numbers". (16%) The remainder said, "no" to the question of how much your cache count motivates you. (84%)

 

Now, here is where, historically, this all gets different. Only 1 time is a cache count against someone else's mentioned as a motivator. The rest discuss how numbers matter to them as an individual, and most often as a motivator as they approach a "milestone". I'm also very fond of how the OP handled the discourse versus how the current OP is handling this one.

 

The argument Roman! is presenting is trying to paint this issue as a "numbers matter to maintain competition, as to keep Groundspeak's 'majority' member base happy and active" case. However, that is not the case. The idea that "numbers matter, but only to me" is supported here, in 2004 again.

 

And, interestingly enough, our ol' buddy brainsnat has a gem on the topic that still rings true today:

Whether you're a geocaching "purist", a numbers hound, or somewhere in between, who cares? You do what pleases you (drawing the line where your actions effect others).

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

That thread continues what was said in 2003, and likely before then too. Numbers matter, but not so much in a way as to make a competition. Those that posted "back then" are pretty clear on their understanding that numbers are cool, but don't have to matter. (see quote above) Here is another great way to put it.

Link to comment

Let's timewarp to 2003. Similar conversation, but very marked differences in interpretation of what "numbers" mean.

 

Of 54 posts, 4 or 5 don't deal with the question, specifically, so I tossed them out. 8 state that they are "all about the numbers". (16%) The remainder said, "no" to the question of how much your cache count motivates you. (84%)

 

Now, here is where, historically, this all gets different. Only 1 time is a cache count against someone else's mentioned as a motivator. The rest discuss how numbers matter to them as an individual, and most often as a motivator as they approach a "milestone". I'm also very fond of how the OP handled the discourse versus how the current OP is handling this one.

 

The argument Roman! is presenting is trying to paint this issue as a "numbers matter to maintain competition, as to keep Groundspeak's 'majority' member base happy and active" case. However, that is not the case. The idea that "numbers matter, but only to me" is supported here, in 2004 again.

 

And, interestingly enough, our ol' buddy brainsnat has a gem on the topic that still rings true today:

Whether you're a geocaching "purist", a numbers hound, or somewhere in between, who cares? You do what pleases you (drawing the line where your actions effect others).

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

That thread continues what was said in 2003, and likely before then too. Numbers matter, but not so much in a way as to make a competition. Those that posted "back then" are pretty clear on their understanding that numbers are cool, but don't have to matter. (see quote above) Here is another great way to put it.

 

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?

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I believe the numbers and being able to compete are a large enough factor for a large enough number of people that GS could not sustain itself if they did away with them.

 

As you are relatively new, I wonder if you are aware of what happened when the web site added the "Stats" tab to our profiles? The outcry from people that did not want others looking at their stats was so strong that they added the option to hide them with the next site update.

 

It's undeniable that find counts and stats are the driving force behind a large segment of geocachers, but don't discount or underestimate the amount of cachers that really don't care and the faction that would rather just get rid of them altogether.

Or the people that like them, but not as a way to gloat, bloviate, troll or rub others' faces in it. I like seeing my stats, but just so I can see what I've been up to.

 

There is a reason that, even after all of the bellyaching in 2003 or so asking for it, a leaderboard was never implemented at geocaching.com. Because this game is about hiding, finding, signing a log, and logging it online for each individual geocacher, not as a competition. How we use our stats and find count is our choice, but in the interest of the greater community of geocaching, we shouldn't cross a line where our actions affect others negatively.

Link to comment

 

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?)

Link to comment

 

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.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

 

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?

 

 

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.

So now you are trolling about numbers in general again? Or, wait, how numbers are in our find counts? Oh, and how find counts mean competition? And lack of competition means less... KABOOM!

 

Your thought process ignores so many facts, it is mind blowing.

Link to comment

One thing I was here for was the introduction of challenges, and a challenge like kissing a frog added to your find count. people came out of the woodwork to complain, so much so that GS removed them from the find count and gave them their own count. Why? Because people were upset challenges skewed the numbers so its already been proven (seems like twice) how much numbers matter.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

Any answers to why they took away the find count and brought it back?

Pretty sure that "stats" (number of user finds displayed on logs, etc) were taken away at first because of a code/security issue. The were put back (find counts) because people wanted to see their count for many, many reasons. So, they came back.

 

(Please, stop me if I've got the story wrong folks who were on the forums back in 2003 or so...)

Also, looks like in 2005 the "stats" (your finds number) for players was removed. The way Jeremy described it, it was about server load and how much it took to constantly have the code updating every log someone had created. There was some stink about it being changed, so they put it back. Now, I'm guessing they have enough hamsters to keep that part of each cache page and logs update everyone's find number on every cache they've logged any type of log for.

 

As an aside, it is also very important to note that many people were also voicing a desire to hide their find stats from people altogether. That number of people was not small and unworthy of Jeremy's attention. So, please don't paint a picture that the world will end for Groundspeak. It won't.

 

Edit to add link

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

One thing I was here for was the introduction of challenges, and a challenge like kissing a frog added to your find count. people came out of the woodwork to complain, so much so that GS removed them from the find count and gave them their own count. Why? Because people were upset challenges skewed the numbers so its already been proven (seems like twice) how much numbers matter.

Wow, yeah, Roman! You're onto something! [/snark]

The same process came around when Waymarks came out in 2005. There was some debate going on about having those count toward/not toward your find count. Challenges came about to try and calm some of the lamentations about virtuals going away. Clearly the Challenges were not beta tested enough to know that they were not a good equivalent to what Virtual caches once were. So, once that error was recognized, they were put in a separate place like Benchmarks and Waymarks. Benchmarks were probably discussed as possibly counting as "finds" at some point as well. You see, there is a trend to keep the game clear of silly ways to pad a find count, or things that really are not "geocaches" from counting as a find. (Don't you dare let yourself hijack this thread about getting rid of puzzles or events like you've talked about in the past...)

 

Your statement above does a great job of proving how numbers can screw this game up.

Link to comment

 

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?

 

Wow...you asked two people you know if they care about the numbers. So that means the thousands of other cachers around the world all care about the numbers. Wrong.

 

That means you hang out with people like yourself, that care about the numbers.

 

A sample size of two (or even three) is meaningless.

Link to comment

For me it was all about the numbers til I hit 10k and now I don't even care anymore. I just thought it was kinda cool to see the 5 digit find counts when I first started. :laughing: So I always said I would make it to 10k before i quit. :laughing:

 

20k is the new 10k.

 

Alamogul has 79,518. He's held the lead for at least six years.

 

There's your competition. How are you doing?

Link to comment

No it means that its some, the question is how many and I do not hang out with these people I've met them at caches and we use each other for PAF so quit making stuf up about me.

 

My bad. You *know* two people who would cache less if their find counts disappeared.

 

It still doesn't change the fact that 3 is an invalid sample size.

Link to comment

-"Numbers don't matter/geocaching isn't a competition"

-"I'm all about the numbers!"

-"Anyone who is into the numbers is hurting the game"

-"Anyone who is into the numbers is an idiot"

-"Anyone who isn't into the numbers is an idiot"

-"Numbers don't have anything to do with the spirit of geocaching"

You forgot the silliest bit of hyperbole ever to grace the forums:

Show me someone that says it's not about the numbers and I'll show you someone that can't count.

 

Being somewhat of a math nerd, I can assure you, (the collective you), that I actually do know how to count.

Yet, contrary to that bit of silliness, I will say, for me, it's not about the numbers.

Never has been. Never will be.

 

We know, we know. It's about paddling through a swamp full of gators.. which sounds pretty cool to me too.

Link to comment

And the number kept the site growing.

 

How so? Are you saying that people only join the site and start geocaching because another person has X number of finds???

 

People join the site for any number of reasons. But I believe that people become premium members and become power cachers BECAUSE the numbers are there.. for better or for worse.

Link to comment

Reason being people cache for multiple reasons not just one (i don't cache solely for numbers, it's one of several reason I do but combined all these aspects of the game attract me enough to participate), if you take one of those reasons away then those that enjoy that part of the game just might not participate anymore.

Take away puzzle caches and people will quit, take away events and people will quit, question is how many? I believe numbers play a big enough impact that it would be enough that the company couldnt sustain itself.

Ah, thanks for isolating our disagreement. I doubt many people at all would quit just if they removed statistics, certainly not enough to seriously damage the bottom line. But we'll never know because statistics do add to the game, so Groundspeak would never eliminate them even if they were sure they wouldn't lose any customers over it. It's a good feature that attracts and engages customers, but I don't think it's a critical feature that the product couldn't get along without.

Link to comment

Reason being people cache for multiple reasons not just one (i don't cache solely for numbers, it's one of several reason I do but combined all these aspects of the game attract me enough to participate), if you take one of those reasons away then those that enjoy that part of the game just might not participate anymore.

Take away puzzle caches and people will quit, take away events and people will quit, question is how many? I believe numbers play a big enough impact that it would be enough that the company couldnt sustain itself.

Ah, thanks for isolating our disagreement. I doubt many people at all would quit just if they removed statistics, certainly not enough to seriously damage the bottom line. But we'll never know because statistics do add to the game, so Groundspeak would never eliminate them even if they were sure they wouldn't lose any customers over it. It's a good feature that attracts and engages customers, but I don't think it's a critical feature that the product couldn't get along without.

Now that I really think about it, of the hundred or more cachers I know well enough to speak of, I don't know ANY that would quit if you took away any one of the things you mentioned.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

If you honestly believe that I fell sorry you. You have no idea about the true nature of humanity.

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment

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!

Link to comment

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

Link to comment

 

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

From the same citationless writing you found:

 

Individuals seek to form groups in order to gain advantage over other individuals, or for defense against the advantages of other groups. We also suffer from a legacy limitation on the membership size of groups. We're psychologically incapable of dealing with being a member of all of humanity, and instinctively seek ways to divide the population into more humanly manageable sized groupings.

 

The criteria for group membership are often entirely artificial, and based on whatever factors are handy. Immediate family is arguably the oldest and most familiar group definition, followed by tribe. When physical appearance doesn't provide a convenient means of differentiation, abstractions like religion, language, or the color of a team's uniforms will suffice.

 

Once a group has been defined, it becomes in the self-interest of those who most benefit from group membership to reinforce the advantages of being in that group. Group dynamics tend to be inefficient, and tend to result in some form of membership cost. That cost may be simply financial, or may also involve the sacrifice of some combination of individual freedoms, psychological wellbeing, social status, or other intangibles.

 

Since reducing the cost of membership would in turn reduce the value of members to the group, it's in the self-interest of groups to instead artificially suppress the relative advantages of the independent individual, thereby minimizing the perceived relative cost of group membership. As a result, groups seek to create artificial distortions whose primary purpose is to enhance the perceived cost/benefit ratio of group membership. Over time, these distortions tend to get ever more artificial and disconnected from their original purpose.

 

Competition within a group inevitably creates an elite who most benefit from the existence of the group. This elite has a strong self-interest in directing the group in ways that maintain their privileged positions - even when that direction is directly contrary to the individual self-interests of the group members.

 

I'll assume that critical reading of the entire piece proved to be boring once you cherry-picked the piece that could be used toward your argument. The entire writing has no factual, scientific background, yet brings up some resonant ideas about humanity and competition. The short of the story is that this person wrote to say that people are competitive by nature, yet what is best for modern humanity is individualism. Individualism is a sign of a growing, enlightened humanity, according to the writing you cite. By pitting yourself as an "us", like you have been trying to do in many threads, you seek to strengthen your advantage over others. But there is another side trying to do the same thing...

 

But that side isn't trying to compete. They are simply trying to say that there are many strokes for many folks, it's more than black and white, to each their own, etc. You want to say that competition is important, necessary for geocaching.com in fact, and that you see it as a natural part of the game. The issue is that yes, people are, and can be, competitive in this game. It can be about the numbers. However, the construct of geocaching.com exists to only provide service for a game to be played on simple premise of "hide, find, sign, log online". If you want to compete, go ahead. Just don't try to convince others that your need for competition is anything more than a primal, undeveloped regression to an unenlightened version of a human.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...