Jump to content

Restore the number of distinct caches to stats


niraD
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I for one am glad that the distinct word has been removed. It should never have been included in the first place in my opinion. I hope they do not ever bring it back, period.

 

Why would this stat matter to you? Do you have a guilty conscience or something? :o

 

I have no guilty conscience, however, this stat has been the source of much angst on these forums and in the geocaching community at large. If the stat goes away, it will likely become a non-issue, eventually.

 

Yeah, i've seen the angst come up on this a few times. The thing is, it doesn't matter because the angsty people will just find something else to yell about. Human beings are in the mix so it's not ever going away.

Link to comment
I wonder how many semi-puritans have actually found that they had a duplicate log based on the Distinct Caches count.
I've caught a couple duplicate logs that way. Not many, but I'm pretty careful to log only one Find per cache. Still, it's easy to get stuck in auto-pilot mode and select "Found" instead of "DNF" or "Note" or "Owner Maintenance" or whatever. Sometimes I notice that the log says "niraD found [some cache]" instead of "niraD posted a note for [some cache]" or "niraD performed maintenance for [some cache]". Sometimes I don't.

 

And it's pretty easy to post duplicate field notes too. I can see someone who logs their field notes in auto-pilot mode posting unintentional duplicates logs too.

Link to comment

I for one am glad that the distinct word has been removed. It should never have been included in the first place in my opinion. I hope they do not ever bring it back, period.

 

Why would this stat matter to you? Do you have a guilty conscience or something? :o

 

I have no guilty conscience, however, this stat has been the source of much angst on these forums and in the geocaching community at large. If the stat goes away, it will likely become a non-issue, eventually.

 

Yeah, i've seen the angst come up on this a few times. The thing is, it doesn't matter because the angsty people will just find something else to yell about. Human beings are in the mix so it's not ever going away.

 

I've seen more consternation and concern than angst. People ask a lot in these forums how to get the two numbers in sync. They are grateful when they learn that they have duplicate (triplicate, etc) "found it" logs.

 

What number does Groundspeak consider as being sufficient to return the dinstinct caches figure to our profile?

 

 

B.

Link to comment

What number does Groundspeak consider as being sufficient to return the dinstinct caches figure to our profile?

200 :unsure:

That was the number of people who supposedly were actively using the Google Earth KML link to view caches. When Groundspeak removed it there as was big to do in the forum about how much people were using this, so they brought it back.

 

Frankly, I don't see this number being anywhere near as useful as the Google Earth link.

 

What you have are people who are unaware that the found count is a count of found, attended, and photo taken logs. Some may be assuming that the count is the distinct number of caches found. When they find out it is a different number they may panic and want to "fix" the numbers so they agree. However the number itself doesn't help with finding the duplicate logs.

 

Without the number, most people would remain blissfully ignorant and not get into a tizzy over they mismatched statistics. With it you have a lot of people contacting Groundspeak for support.

 

If you have a semi-puritan streak that make you obsess over whether you might have inadvertently logged something twice, I would think rather than asking for this number back, you would demand that there be a query to find duplicate logs. I would not oppose something on your private profile page that says "You have duplicate logs on one or more caches" and lets you click it to get a list of the duplicates so you can "fix" your problem.

Link to comment

I wish GS would be consistent...

 

Your Caching Chronology

You've found 1036 cache(s)

 

Caches You've Found in the World

You have cached in 1 country:

United Kingdom 1030

 

They are telling me I've FOUND 1036 caches, but the map says/shows 1030 caches. :unsure:

 

(I know why, but there's no explanation as to why the numbers differ. The "Distinct Finds" did at least address the issue, to some degree)

Link to comment

So far throughout this discussion, it seems like everyone uses that stat to check for duplicate logs. If that's the case, then I think it would be better to not bring back the stat (which has been shown to be confusing to some users and problematic for Groundspeak) and instead implement one or both of the following:

-The suggestion to display a warning when submitting a find* for a cache you've already found*

-A count and/or list of caches where more than one find* has been submitted

 

The former would help prevent duplicates in the first place, so I'd prioritize that over the latter, though the latter would help with any pre-existing duplicate logs.

 

*"Find" has been used in this context to include the "Found it", "Attended", and "Webcam photo taken" log types

Link to comment

I never even noticed it was gone.

 

I don't miss it. Having a number of grandfathered moving caches in our local area (and an event that recycled the same cache page every month) means I've logged multiple finds on the same GC-code lots of times. 200+ times on GC43F3 alone.

Link to comment

So far throughout this discussion, it seems like everyone uses that stat to check for duplicate logs. If that's the case, then I think it would be better to not bring back the stat (which has been shown to be confusing to some users and problematic for Groundspeak) and instead implement one or both of the following:

-The suggestion to display a warning when submitting a find* for a cache you've already found*

-A count and/or list of caches where more than one find* has been submitted

 

The former would help prevent duplicates in the first place, so I'd prioritize that over the latter, though the latter would help with any pre-existing duplicate logs.

 

*"Find" has been used in this context to include the "Found it", "Attended", and "Webcam photo taken" log types

 

That would actually be better. It would let me know right away that i was making a mistake so i wouldn't have to go back at a later time and figure out where that mistake was made. Others who log duplicates on purpose can just ignore the warning. And the best part of all, it would help alleviate angst simply because the distinct info isn't easily seen by busy bodies who let other cacher's stats bother them.

Link to comment

I don't see any use for it. My duplicates are on cache types that permitted more than one find: Moving caches, The photography caches, and Locationless Caches, where the objective changed. Maybe if I go to the event again that changes every month, but keeps the same GC code.

My pocket queries eliminate caches that I have already found, so, the more normal ones do not show up on my Gupy. The duplicates I have, I am happy with. Caches that I have already found do not show up, so I will not find them again. I guess I'll never understand how anyone could go hunting for a cache s/he's already found.

Link to comment

I don't see any use for it. My duplicates are on cache types that permitted more than one find: Moving caches, The photography caches, and Locationless Caches, where the objective changed. Maybe if I go to the event again that changes every month, but keeps the same GC code.

My pocket queries eliminate caches that I have already found, so, the more normal ones do not show up on my Gupy. The duplicates I have, I am happy with. Caches that I have already found do not show up, so I will not find them again. I guess I'll never understand how anyone could go hunting for a cache s/he's already found.

 

I'm starting to lean in the direction of the last three posters, as well. My three duplicates were done on purpose.

Link to comment

According to Moun10Bike, "I've been told that if the community demands [the separate count for distinct caches found], we will bring it back."

 

So, does anyone support the idea of bringing back the separate count for distinct caches found?

 

Personally, I liked it, because it was an easy way to verify that I hadn't inadvertently double-logged a find (e.g., by clicking the submit button an extra time).

 

Bring it back!

 

There are other ways, on other sites...

 

But. It was a 'Quick and Easy' way of seeing if you'd Double Logged.

Link to comment

According to Moun10Bike, "I've been told that if the community demands [the separate count for distinct caches found], we will bring it back."

 

So, does anyone support the idea of bringing back the separate count for distinct caches found?

 

Personally, I liked it, because it was an easy way to verify that I hadn't inadvertently double-logged a find (e.g., by clicking the submit button an extra time).

 

Bring it back!

 

There are other ways, on other sites...

 

But. It was a 'Quick and Easy' way of seeing if you'd Double Logged.

Link to comment

its not that you look for a cache twice its my computor & or phone sends it twice & dont always go back to read the log on the web page have other to log lol on the trail :rolleyes::rolleyes: (bring it back for the simple man)

 

its not that you look for a cache twice its my computor & or phone sends it twice & dont always go back to read the log on the web page have other to log lol on the trail :rolleyes::rolleyes: (bring it back for the simple man)

 

Good example. :)

Link to comment

According to Moun10Bike, "I've been told that if the community demands [the separate count for distinct caches found], we will bring it back."

 

So, does anyone support the idea of bringing back the separate count for distinct caches found?

 

Personally, I liked it, because it was an easy way to verify that I hadn't inadvertently double-logged a find (e.g., by clicking the submit button an extra time).

Link to comment

This thread started June 6th and almost two weeks later less than two dozen people have expressed an opinion. It could be that very few people have noticed this thread, or maybe nobody really wants the distinct caches count brought back. I'd personally like to see it brought back but with so few supporters in this thread it doesn't look promising. I know I can get the info elsewhere but it was convenient to see that info when I opened up my stats page. I agree with an earlier comment that it would be even better if there was a duplicate logs count instead.

 

It may be a case of you don't need it until you need it. About a week ago I sent an old pending log that I meant to delete, and now my stats are off, and I've been searching all over for where the Unique Cache info was (I swear it used to be there). It wasn't until I came looking here that I realized I couldn't find it because they removed it. So duplicate log (with a pointer to which it is) or unique cache number, either works for me. Now I just have to find the trick to figuring out which is the duplicate.

Link to comment

I am also in favor of bringing back the 'distinct caches found' info. It was a quick an easy way of identifying double log issues. As an even better alternative, remove the possibility of double logging caches.

Ulf / DK_Titan

I was all for that idea (mostly for mutiple attends at events), until I found that there are a few caches designed to be allowed multiple logs and approved by Groundspeak.

One, allows to log benchmarks in a Country other than the US (though in the US, they don't count as smileys...).

Link to comment
I am also in favor of bringing back the 'distinct caches found' info. It was a quick an easy way of identifying double log issues. As an even better alternative, remove the possibility of double logging caches.

Ulf / DK_Titan

I was all for that idea (mostly for mutiple attends at events), until I found that there are a few caches designed to be allowed multiple logs and approved by Groundspeak.

One, allows to log benchmarks in a Country other than the US (though in the US, they don't count as smileys...).

Both groups could be accommodated if the system allowed duplicate logs, but included an "Are you sure?" confirmation before posting the duplicate logs.
Link to comment

I have used the "unique finds" as a sort of checksum when making sure I haven't accidentally submitted duplicate logs.

 

A quick search as to where the unique find count had gone brought up this thread, I didn't realize that it has been gone for several months.

 

Just to weigh in: I do use the unique finds statistic, and would like to see it implemented again.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

"NH Nomads"

Link to comment

I think I might be in the international minority but I don't want it back either.

 

There is one particular popular moving virtual cache in the UK which allows multiple finds (at differing and varied locations). It's called Ye Ole Survey Monuments and you can legitimately claim the one cache more than once, but only once at each trig point location that it has "visited". It's a rare virtual icon and has had several thousand finds by hundreds (if not thousands) of UK cachers and has long been an annoying source of a differentiation in the 'actual' and 'distinct' finds counts.

 

I quite like not having the difference showing on my stats page (after all these multiple finds on the same cache listing ARE distinctly different finds at different virtual locations around the country). If I want to check for actual bad logs, I can use project GC for that - and it tells me which ones are to blame, which the geocaching dot com stats page doesn't.

Link to comment

I may be overlooking it, but is there anywhere at all in the geocaching.com interface where we can find our "unique" or "distinct" cache count?

 

I am using GSAK now, but as far as I'm concerned, it's an extra step since for years I've been able to just glance at my profile page to see if I had any duplicate logs!

Link to comment

6 months on since my last post, and it still looks like most people don't really want the distinct count back, but rather just some way to identify duplicate logs.

 

I don't know how computationally-intensive it might be on the current database, but it would seem to me to be fairly straightforward to generate a list of caches where (count(found_it_logs_by_user) > 1). It sounds like this is all people want.

Link to comment

And what with those cyclic events, that happen many times with the same GC code? They are actually distinct events and I'd like to log each time I've attended them, but the only way to do so is to put multiple attended logs on the single listing.

 

Personally, I'd be happy if there were a separate listing for each event.

Link to comment

And what with those cyclic events, that happen many times with the same GC code? They are actually distinct events and I'd like to log each time I've attended them, but the only way to do so is to put multiple attended logs on the single listing.

 

Personally, I'd be happy if there were a separate listing for each event.

 

There is another thread about an event in Ohio that reuses the same event listing but moves to different locations (the published coordinates are updated each time). In this case, the continuation of the event is a tribute to a cacher that passed away awhile back that had created the first instance of the event. I don't really see this as an issue if an indication that a GC code has been previously been logged with a Found It (or attended) is just a notification and doesn't prevent one from posting an additional Found It/Attended log. A dialog box which simply has something like "You have already logged this cache as found." with a "Continue" and "Cancel" button would inform those that want of avoid posting duplicate finds but wouldn't prevent someone from logging another Found It if that's what they wanted to do.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

6 months on since my last post, and it still looks like most people don't really want the distinct count back

 

Uh, did you mean to say "most people who bothered to post on this thread"?

 

I still want my "distinct caches" stat back.

 

Do I need to keep posting that over and over again to count as "most people"?

 

Like it makes a difference to TPTB, any way. :rolleyes:

 

How hard or time-consuming can it be to put back what was originally there?

 

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Do I need to keep posting that over and over again to count as "most people"?

You do understand what distinct count means?

 

Like it makes a difference to TPTB, any way. :rolleyes:

If only 200 people want the distinct number back.. no.

 

How hard or time-consuming can it be to put back what was originally there?

Groundspeak has already indicated that the distinct number was confusing and they spent far more time trying to explain what it meant and how to 'fix' the number to those who wanted it to be the same as the total number than it was worth. It does seem we are seeing far few thread asking why their numbers don't match. Even this thread had a quiet period of 3 months. It just isn't that important to most people - no matter what you think.

 

For those who say it's important, the reason most often given is to be able to find caches that were accidentally logged more than once. Posting the distinct count doesn't actually help find these caches/logs. If that is really the issue wouldn't another solution make more sense? Perhaps a warning if you log a find on a cache you have already found (though I don't know if this is possible in the app API), or a button "Find caches I've logged 'Found' more than once".

 

Restoring something that was confusing and didn't do what people really wanted doesn't make sense no matter how easy it would be to put back.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
You do understand what distinct count means?

 

:rolleyes:

 

No need to be insulting and condescending. I think if you check my posting history, you will see that I was helpful (hopefully) in posting replies to folks who were asking about the difference in their stats.

 

If only 200 people want the distinct number back.. no.

 

How do you know, without reservation, and with hard stats, that only 200 of us want the "distinct number" back?

 

Groundspeak has already indicated that the distinct number was confusing and they spent far more time trying to explain what it meant and how to 'fix' the number to those who wanted it to be the same as the total number than it was worth. It does seem we are seeing far few thread asking why their numbers don't match. Even this thread had a quiet period of 3 months. It just isn't that important to most people - no matter what you think.

 

For those who say it's important, the reason most often given is to be able to find caches that were accidentally logged more than once. Posting the distinct count doesn't actually help find these caches/logs. If that is really the issue wouldn't another solution make more sense? Perhaps a warning if you log a find on a cache you have already found (though I don't know if this is possible in the app API), or a button "Find caches I've logged 'Found' more than once".

 

Restoring something that was confusing and didn't do what people really wanted doesn't make sense no matter how easy it would be to put back.

 

"Confusing"? Not sure how it could have been confusing.

 

What a lot of people did not know, and posted on the forum for help, was how to rectify the difference.

 

From what I could see in the forum, Groundspeak didn't spend much time at all explaining it. It was the forum members who did the donkey work...as usual.

 

Gauging members' desires by the number of forum posts isn't really productive. There are an awful lot of members who don't know about the forums, or ones who don't wish to participate in the forums. How do you gauge what they want?

 

But, then, it's a phone-game now, and those folks don't notice anything to do with the information that is on the website or in their profile.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak could create a video explaining things. :rolleyes:

 

Toz, I know you like to try and denigrate people's opinions with your wordy and authoritative-sounding posts, but I have my own opinions and my own thoughts. I don't need someone to try and make it sound like what I would like is somehow juvenile and unnecessary.

 

I have my own reasons for wanting MY distinct number stat back again. Whether that has anything to do with other people's reasons doesn't come into it for me.

 

Thank you,

B.

Link to comment
If only 200 people want the distinct number back.. no.

 

How do you know, without reservation, and with hard stats, that only 200 of us want the "distinct number" back?

I believe the 200 is a tongue-in-cheek reference to when Groundspeak wanted to eliminate the Google Earth plugin, and they said something along the lines of "well, only 200 people were using it anyway".

 

From what I could see in the forum, Groundspeak didn't spend much time at all explaining it. It was the forum members who did the donkey work...as usual.

Apparently the support section at GSHQ was getting a lot of questions about it. Moun10Bike posted this in the release notes when the count was removed:

...

We have in fact removed the "distinct" line from the stats, as it seems to generate tons of support tickets from people who don't know what it means or why their numbers are different, and it was failing to properly count lab caches after the release.

 

Gauging members' desires by the number of forum posts isn't really productive. There are an awful lot of members who don't know about the forums, or ones who don't wish to participate in the forums. How do you gauge what they want?

You're absolutely right. However, in a case like this where the vast majority of forum respondents provide similar responses, is it really necessary to query the entire global community?

 

I have my own reasons for wanting MY distinct number stat back again. Whether that has anything to do with other people's reasons doesn't come into it for me.

This discussion is for the purpose of providing feedback to Groundspeak regarding the distinct find count. Providing your reasons would help Groundspeak make a decision. You don't have any duplicate logs, so I have to assume it has something to do with viewing other cachers' profiles?

Link to comment

 

This discussion is for the purpose of providing feedback to Groundspeak regarding the distinct find count. Providing your reasons would help Groundspeak make a decision.

 

You have got to be kidding. Do you really think discussion in this forum provides feedback?

We were told to do so.

I've been told that if the community demands it, we will bring it back. I'd encourage you to write in or post a forum thread on the topic (and get others to post to it) to show your support.
Link to comment

There are two main reasons for which I would personally like to see the "distinct" stats feature re-implemented. The one I mentioned above was that I liked to use it as a "checksum". This is probably the more practical of reasons. I liked to be able to tell at a glance, after a day of caching, if I had accidentally hit the submit button twice on a cache (easy for me to do with the mobile device). As it is now, I don't see any discrepancy until I have loaded a PQ into GSAK and generated my stats there.

 

For this reason, having "distinct" located SOMEWHERE in our profile (not necessarily our public profile) would be a handy reference.

 

The second reason may be more controversial. I realize that there are many cachers (at least, in our area) that will attend events that have temporary caches placed (caches which are not published on geocaching.com, nor would they even be considered for publication). The event coordinators allow - even encourage - logging those temporary caches by re-submitting an "attended" log for the event. This skews the statistics page in several ways. I guess the controversy here is that I like to be able to "brag" that I have actually made a specific effort for each of the officially published caches that I've logged. For this purpose, I will continue to use the findstatgen macro in GSAK (I have other issues with the geocaching stats page anyway!). Maybe part of me just likes to know if other users are "purists" like me, when I see how quickly their cache counts are racking up!

 

For that reason, having a "checkbox" option on the stats page to allow a user to hide the distinct cache count from the publicly-viewable profile may accomplish its purpose (similar to the way we now have the option to hide the stats page completely).

Edited by NH Nomads
Link to comment

I only noticed this page because I was doing a word search to see why my numbers (currently officially 5,200) have been listed on my profile as 5,201. I noticed the "unique finds" element had gone some time ago and mildly rued the fact. Having had a caching friend going through my PQ to see where I've duplicated, he says it's not making sense as the PQ has 5,190 caches + my 10 lab cache finds, so it should read 5,200. I've never duplicated a log as far as I'm aware.

 

So for that reason, I'd like to see the "unique finds" restored. This doesn't really solve my own problem and it was only because I'd reached a mini milestone that I knew it was out, so off to contact GS directly to see what's going on...

 

:blink:

Link to comment

I'm voting please return them. For personal tracking purposes. To discourage artificially inflating stats. And sorry- but I don't log a cache twice- even if it's a moving cache that I've found twice, so that's not an issue with me. If you have your reasons, fine, this stat can reflect that and you'll know the reason.

Link to comment

. I've never duplicated a log as far as I'm aware.

 

http://coord.info/GC2559M in Christmas Eve 2010 - Project-GC is your friend! see http://project-gc.com/Profile/FindBadLogs

Thank you so much. That makes sense because I returned to that cache a couple of nights ago to dip in a TB which was being back-dated. Although I thought I'd gone back through all the caches I'd written notes for to see whether one had accidentally been a find, including this one, I must have overlooked it. Blame it for being after my bedtime.

 

Sorted now and thanks again.

 

:)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...