Jump to content

Adventure Lab stages incorrectly counted as finds?


bneiman

Recommended Posts

Today (4/18/21 EDT) I started out with 2996 finds, intending to locate 4 more and make a specific cache my 3000th find.  When I sat down to log finds this evening, I was already at 3001 finds.  My statistics / milestone page lists my 3000th find as "Flanders", which is the fourth stage of a five-stage Adventure Lab I did during the day ("Historic Kent", in Kent, Connecticut - do Labs have reference numbers?).  Apparently the individual stages have been incorrectly accrued as finds in my statistics.  Why did this happen, and how can I get it corrected?

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, bneiman said:

Apparently the individual stages have been incorrectly accrued as finds in my statistics.  Why did this happen, and how can I get it corrected?

That is how it's designed. You can delete any Adventure Lab finds you want to. The help center tells you how. 

On your profile under finds go to Labs and from there you can delete whatever you want.

Link to comment

Well, that certainly violates the Principle of Least Astonishment.  I wouldn't expect individual waypoints of a Lab cache to count as finds any more than I'd expect individual stages of a multi-cache to count as finds.  Can you or anyone else point me to documentation that states that this is the intended behavior?

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bneiman said:

Well, that certainly violates the Principle of Least Astonishment.  I wouldn't expect individual waypoints of a Lab cache to count as finds any more than I'd expect individual stages of a multi-cache to count as finds.  Can you or anyone else point me to documentation that states that this is the intended behavior?

Welcome to the world of AL that have opposites rule then the remaining of geocaching.

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, bneiman said:

Well, that certainly violates the Principle of Least Astonishment.  I wouldn't expect individual waypoints of a Lab cache to count as finds any more than I'd expect individual stages of a multi-cache to count as finds.  Can you or anyone else point me to documentation that states that this is the intended behavior?

Many agree with you. It's ridiculous. The only reason I can think of why HQ is doing this, is to attract 'muggles' with phones, so they can build up their number of finds quickly and maybe get excited about the game. Quantity over quality. While they do that, it's a slap in the face for experienced caches who might have taken years to get their finds, now cheapened by ALs with five smilies for each completed one.

I did a multicache of many WPs that I drove 12,000kms for. One smilie. It is caches like that that most attract me to this game, but HQ appears to think differently. It's about number of smilies, not the experience getting them.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

This is the intended behavior.  If you ever went to a Mega-Event that had Labs, you were under no obligation to complete all of them.  I would find the ones which were on my travel path as I moved around the event venue.

 

The same is true for the updated version of Adventure Labs.  You are under no obligation to find each Lab within an Adventure.

 

There's no bug to report.  If you wish to register an opinion against counting each Lab as a find, there are active threads in the Adventure Lab forum section.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Keystone said:

This is the intended behavior.  If you ever went to a Mega-Event that had Labs, you were under no obligation to complete all of them.  I would find the ones which were on my travel path as I moved around the event venue.

 

The same is true for the updated version of Adventure Labs.  You are under no obligation to find each Lab within an Adventure.

 

There's no bug to report.  If you wish to register an opinion against counting each Lab as a find, there are active threads in the Adventure Lab forum section.

There is if you want to find the bonus cache, as each WP must be completed, and in a certain order. Has this changed, and AL WPs can be done in any order now?

Those I have done at a MEGA could be done in any order, and each was challenging. Most ALs away from a MEGA, can't be compared to that, and all I have done have had to be done in order, unlike at the MEGA.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is if you want to find the bonus cache, as each WP must be completed, and in a certain order. Has this changed, and AL WPs can be done in any order now?

Those I have done at a MEGA could be done in any order, and each was challenging. Most ALs away from a MEGA, can't be compared to that, and all I have done have had to be done in order, unlike at the MEGA.

 

Adventure Lab creators are under no obligation to create a bonus cache at the end.  If you don't like having to collect five smilies on an Adventure in order to learn the location of the Bonus Cache, then you can either (1) skip that cache, (2) delete your Lab finds after discovering the bonus cache coordinates, or (3) urge the bonus cache owner to provide an alternate solution method, like a tough puzzle.

 

I have found portions of a complete Adventure and skipped the bonus cache.  No alarm bells sounded.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Keystone said:

You are under no obligation to find each Lab within an Adventure.

 

Unless you want to say something about your experience in a log. Finds on each Lab within an Adventure are completely anonymous, not even the CO will know you've done it unless you're in the first three finders. You can only write an Activity Log if you complete all the stages (and even then you're limited to 400 characters with no photos).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I did a multicache of many WPs that I drove 12,000kms for. One smilie. It is caches like that that most attract me to this game,  . . .

This is exactly how I feel about it.

 

9 hours ago, Keystone said:

You are under no obligation to find each Lab within an Adventure.

You're under no obligation to find each stage of a multicache or Wherigo either, but you don't get to collect a find unless you do.

 

I have no desire to start - or apparently, continue - a religious war, so I'll just accept that this is the Way Things Are.  Final notes:

  • I work in software development, and this certainly looks to me like what we refer to as a "feature" (always written with double quotes): An unintended behavior or side effect discovered and exploited by users, which must then be preserved forever, and even justified and documented, because of compatibility concerns.
  • Fortunately, I have only completed three AL caches, each of 5 stages, so I have deleted the extraneous 12 "finds" from my totals and will have to remember to do that going forward for each new AL I pursue.  That leaves me several finds short of my milestone, so I'll have to go pick a new target for number 3000.
  • I'll start a new thread, either in this forum or one dedicated to ALs, requesting the introduction of a user-specified switch to specify how a given user wants AL stages to be counted, either 1 stage = 1 find, or 1 AL = 1 find.   Or if there already is such a thread, and I can find it, I'll voice my support.

Thank you all for your responses.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bneiman said:

I work in software development, and this certainly looks to me like what we refer to as a "feature" (always written with double quotes): An unintended behavior or side effect discovered and exploited by users, which must then be preserved forever, and even justified and documented, because of compatibility concerns.

 

It's not really a "feature" because it was intended.  In the past, lab caches were standalone and counted as one find.  GCHQ sort of put this umbrella over a group of (in theory) similarly-themed lab caches and called it an Adventure.  So, lab caches haven't really changed, but are now listed under Adventures.  

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, bneiman said:
  • I work in software development, and this certainly looks to me like what we refer to as a "feature" (always written with double quotes): An unintended behavior or side effect discovered and exploited by users, which must then be preserved forever, and even justified and documented, because of compatibility concerns.

I've also seen the terms misfeature and feecher used to describe intended (but suboptimal) software behavior.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, bneiman said:

Well, that certainly violates the Principle of Least Astonishment.

LOL! Yeah, that's a good way to describe it. I think almost everyone that's done ALs has been surprised the first time they realize they're got 5 finds for an AL. On the other hand, the choice is, the way I see it, arbitrary. There's nothing illogical about the find per stage approach, it's just not what most people initially expect because the labs are presented and generally act like a single entity, not a collection of different entities.

 

I have no particular preference, but, I have to admit, now that I've done a lot of ALs, I kinda like the partial credit. Some ALs that I could start I just know for a fact that I won't complete for one reason or another. There would be little motivation for starting a good AL if I new I would never complete it.

 

9 hours ago, bneiman said:

I work in software development, and this certainly looks to me like what we refer to as a "feature" (always written with double quotes): An unintended behavior or side effect discovered and exploited by users, which must then be preserved forever, and even justified and documented, because of compatibility concerns.

I have a hard time believing the behavior was unintended. I think it was just an arbitrary choice based on ease of implementation.

 

And I also don't see any problem with GS changing it if they wanted. For one thing, ALs haven't been around log enough for the kind of entrenchment you're talking about.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, dprovan said:

And I also don't see any problem with GS changing it if they wanted. For one thing, ALs haven't been around log enough for the kind of entrenchment you're talking about.

I don't agree. Been over 2 years now since the new app has been introduced so they would receive a lot and a lot of complaints if they would reduce from 5 to 1 smiley now.

 

They should have done that at the beginning like the community asked them but they decided to ignore us.

 

 

Edited by Lynx Humble
Add link
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I don't agree. Been over 2 years now since the new app has been introduced so they would receive a lot and a lot of complaints if they would reduce from 5 to 1 smiley now.

Meanwhile, some of us will just continue to ignore them (or possibly find them but not log them) as long as they keep behaving in ways that would muck with our statistics.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, bneiman said:

Today (4/18/21 EDT) I started out with 2996 finds, intending to locate 4 more and make a specific cache my 3000th find.  When I sat down to log finds this evening, I was already at 3001 finds.  My statistics / milestone page lists my 3000th find as "Flanders", which is the fourth stage of a five-stage Adventure Lab I did during the day ("Historic Kent", in Kent, Connecticut - do Labs have reference numbers?).  Apparently the individual stages have been incorrectly accrued as finds in my statistics.  Why did this happen, and how can I get it corrected?

 

Sounds to me that you create drafts when caching and then log your finds later. If you are also doing an Adventure Lab at the same time, those finds are added to your total in real time. So, if you started the day with 2996 finds and found 4 caches and saved them as 'drafts', the fourth draft would be your 3000th cache. But, you also found 5 adventure labs which registered immediately making your total 3001 before logging your drafts. All you really need to do is go into your milestones and select the cache that was your intended 3000th cache. It doesn't matter that the lab caches were registered before your official 3000th cache log was created. It really is just a number at the time of logging.  You know which cache was your intended 3000th, so tell the site which one it is by locking in your milestone. No one is going to know after the fact that you logged 5 adventure labs before you changed your draft log into an official 'found it' log. This just happened to me for my 6000th. cache. If you look at my milestones you will see which cache I chose. Because I also did an adventure lab before converting my 6000th cache find draft to an official Found It log, a lab cache was listed as my milestone. I simply went into the milestones and changed it to the intended cache.  It's no big deal.

 

I really don't understand all the angst towards lab caches. They have always counted as one smiley per lab stop before there was even an app. I also don't think they should be compared to multis. They are each their own separate cache type for a reason.  Multis have multiple stages for one find. Each lab stop counts as a find.  It's always been this way, hasn't it? At least since I joined in 2012. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide which caches you want to seek and how much effort you want to put into seeking those caches. Personally, I think labs are a really fun addition to the game.  Most everyone I know loves the 5 easy finds and can't seem to get enough of them. 

  • Funny 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Twinklekitkat said:

 

I really don't understand all the angst towards lab caches. They have always counted as one smiley per lab stop before there was even an app. I also don't think they should be compared to multis. They are each their own separate cache type for a reason.  Multis have multiple stages for one find. Each lab stop counts as a find.  It's always been this way, hasn't it? At least since I joined in 2012. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide which caches you want to seek and how much effort you want to put into seeking those caches. Personally, I think labs are a really fun addition to the game.  Most everyone I know loves the 5 easy finds and can't seem to get enough of them.

 

Prior to ALs, my finds-per-month and finds-per-year were a pretty good measure of my caching activity, and when I reached my 1000th cache in 2019 I felt like I'd actually put in that amount of effort to be worthy of the milestone. Starting with my first AL in August last year, it didn't take long to realise that the way they were scored was throwing my statistics way out, making them almost meaningless. In the end I decided to delete all my AL finds and just let the bonus cache be my record of the activity, since you can't write a log on them, post photos, see them in your profile or do anything else with them that you can do with a normal cache.

 

I think the current Science of Discovery promotion says it all. To receive all the souvenirs, you have to find 60 traditionals, 50 multis, 43 mysteries, 38 Earthcaches or, wait for it, compete 6 ALs. Equivalent efforts? Hardly. Yes, I know the promotion is designed to promote ALs, but really. Especially now with the multi-choice questions, you don't have to even find anything for your smiley, just get within the geofence and make up to four guesses.

 

But I suppose I'm just not a most everybody.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

There are no Premium players in your area at all?

 

I have 22 under 10 miles.

I was saying I only have to complete three Adventure labs in my area to earn the highest level souvenir for the Discover Science promotion.

Sorry I wasn't clear. 

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment
On 4/19/2021 at 5:51 PM, Lynx Humble said:

I don't agree. Been over 2 years now since the new app has been introduced so they would receive a lot and a lot of complaints if they would reduce from 5 to 1 smiley now.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think it's much more common for GS to ignore opinions expressed in the forums, regardless of whether the opinions are for or against changes GS has implemented.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 4/19/2021 at 11:21 PM, barefootjeff said:

Prior to ALs, my finds-per-month and finds-per-year were a pretty good measure of my caching activity, and when I reached my 1000th cache in 2019 I felt like I'd actually put in that amount of effort to be worthy of the milestone. Starting with my first AL in August last year, it didn't take long to realise that the way they were scored was throwing my statistics way out, making them almost meaningless. In the end I decided to delete all my AL finds and just let the bonus cache be my record of the activity, since you can't write a log on them, post photos, see them in your profile or do anything else with them that you can do with a normal cache.

 

Further to this, I recently checked my milestone history in my stats, after re-enabling some AL finds from long ago, and saw different caches marked as milestones. It used to be that you could trust the order of your finds as your actual caching history, and planning trips so that your "nth find" gets logged as your milestone. No need to "lock in" unless you had a day where you knew something would be logged (by your knowledge) out of place.  But now starting with the AL labs, locking cache milestones is pretty much essential if you want to highlight them, which kind of defeats the purpose and value of automated "here's your nth find!" milestone tracking.

 

On top of that, trying to find the cache that was originally planned to be highlighted as a milestone is a pain now with the other recent update, being unable to easily (on the website at least) get to that nth find in your timeline and lock in the original/intended GC.  One option is downloading your Finds PQ and using GSAK for easy browsing of cache finding history to more easily figure out what your milestones are. Also, GC stats and PGC stats don't necessarily sync either.

 

Basically there are quite a few aesthetic issues with non-listing "finds" being mixed in with "finds" - actual logs on listings - than merely a smiley count bump.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, dprovan said:

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think it's much more common for GS to ignore opinions expressed in the forums, regardless of whether the opinions are for or against changes GS has implemented.

I completely agree that Groundspeak has their own agenda and our opinion on this forum are 99% of the time not considered at least publicly. We have a great example with the recent ''update'' removing a bunch of useful feature.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On 4/22/2021 at 8:06 PM, the Seagnoid said:

A lab cache is a single find, an adventure lab is a set of five (sometimes more) lab caches.

Lab caches have always been counted in statistics.

They also used to be restricted to megas and felt like more work for your smiley,  not littering the map and collected with minimal effort.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 2
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...
×
×
  • Create New...