+rosebud55112 Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Currently, I have 4304 finds on 4303 unique caches, plus 7 Lab cache finds totaling 4311 finds. On my Statistics page, if I sum up all of the numbers in each category shown, I get 4311, or 4304 for those where Lab caches are specifically excluded, except for the "Distance to Finds" chart. On that chart, the sum of the amounts shown in the various categories is 4302. Since the chart states that Lab caches are not counted, I would expect a total of 4304. I could even understand 4303 if the “double find” cache is excluded for the second find. The only plausible explanation I can think of is that the mileage chart isn’t counting the “double find” cache at all. Not a big deal if this is the case, but odd. Or maybe two caches are for example, exactly 10 miles away, and not being picked up by the <10 or >10 categories? Is anybody else noticing this situation? If so, do you have any caches where you have logged multiple finds? FTR, my double find cache is GC1H5VH, which was a challenge cache which invited you to make multiple finds if you complete the challenge multiple times. I logged this twice in my first year of caching, before realizing that this is generally looked down upon. Still, as it’s part of my history, I’m keeping it this way. Quote Link to comment
+NanCycle Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Yes, now that you mention it. For me, Distance to Finds" chart only gives me 2866 of my 2869 total finds. I have no Lab caches and no duplicate finds. I do have 3 caches that I adopted after I had logged finds on them. Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Is it possible that those finds not used are caches on the "not counted for Souvenirs and Stats" list, ie, moving caches, a handful of virts that behaved as locationless, and just some miscellany from the early days? I have 4916 caches used in the distance module, and 5100 finds, for a difference of 184. Removing Locationless finds (158), and labs (18) means some other 8 caches aren't being counted. For me, I'm reasonably confident the difference IS from caches on that list that are not used for stats. I too have finds on caches I now own, though I doubt that's a source of this. Quote Link to comment
+NanCycle Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Isonzo Karst said: Is it possible that those finds not used are caches on the "not counted for Souvenirs and Stats" list, ie, moving caches, a handful of virts that behaved as locationless, and just some miscellany from the early days? I have 4916 caches used in the distance module, and 5100 finds, for a difference of 184. Removing Locationless finds (158), and labs (18) means some other 8 caches aren't being counted. For me, I'm reasonably confident the difference IS from caches on that list that are not used for stats. I too have finds on caches I now own, though I doubt that's a source of this. Good that you mentioned "Locationless." I also have 3 of those--I'm guessing now that they are the source of the difference. More likely than the adopted caches; that was just the first thing that I thought of. I do not have any finds on the "not counted" list. However, the OP has no locationless caches. Edited August 30, 2017 by NanCycle Edit after looking at OP profile Quote Link to comment
+rosebud55112 Posted August 31, 2017 Author Share Posted August 31, 2017 Yes that could be it. I have one locationless/moving cache, so that plus my duplicate find would explain the difference of two. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Quote Link to comment
+captnemo Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 Just checked and I show 1611 for 1615 finds. I now know that this is do to the 3 locationless I've found. Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 19 minutes ago, captnemo said: Just checked and I show 1611 for 1615 finds. I now know that this is do to the 3 locationless I've found. I realize I'm dyslexic, but wouldn't that make it 1614? Quote Link to comment
+captnemo Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 On 9/16/2017 at 11:08 AM, cerberus1 said: I realize I'm dyslexic, but wouldn't that make it 1614? No makes me dyslexic Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.