Longest Slump - Why track in statistics?

[+MNTA]

Something has been bothering me lately and today decided to speak up about this to see what other think.

 

Longest Slump

278 consecutive days without a find from 03/30/2013 to 01/02/2014

Why is longest slump even tracked? I can never fix or improve. It is in a way a negative statistic that at least for me does not help anything in my enjoyment of geocaching.

 

For me this period was between the first time I went caching with my parents and then going caching on a subsequent visit where I got hooked.

 

I'm no longer a fan of streaks after my 423 day of insanity but at least if I chose I could improve on that. Using Challenges requirements: Challenge criteria must be positive and require that a geocaching goal can be achieved.

 

I'm fine with current slump as that can be reset and possibly motivate me to go out and find a cache but longest in my opinion detracts from positive accomplishments.

 

Thoughts?

[+barefootjeff]

My longest slump marks something pretty memorable in my caching career, besides being almost the biggest number in any of my stats:

 

 

That slump wasn't by choice, rather it was during our three-month COVID lockdown in 2021. My previous record of 61 days was during the 2020 lockdown. Seeing it there is a reminder of those challenging times and of the excitement and joy of caching again when those lockdowns were lifted.

[+psychpineapple]

It's funny to read the last message, because my longest slump is 15 days I believe (on project-gc). Guess why? I had covid lol! I grabbed a cache after work, and then a couple hours later found out about a 'close contact'. I had symptoms a few days later, and found out that I had it. It is true that is a negative stat and I don't really like that it is there, but I use it as an incentive to not make that number any bigger. I suppose that only works for me because it is only two weeks. 

I am also kind of impressed that in almost 4 years, I only missed 15 days. Obsessed much lol!

[+Jayeffel]

I guess if you keep track of consecutive days of finds the corollary is days not found. Can be a motivating toll but as mentioned heath issues can interfere and make it more a negative. aspect. How many others notice your track  record anyway?

[+Smitherington]

I suppose it is a negative stat but I have no problem with it.  If I ever approach it again it will be because I have no choice based on health or some such limitation.

[+cerberus1]

I like the "longest slump" feature, and don't see it as a "negative" stat.

  - I see a slump as a part of the hobby's history, and I'd prefer accuracy over someone's odd stat issues.

Friends and families have moved, and children born during those "slumps" of a hobby... 

There's a chance that I can figure out why I can't contact that CO by "slumps" (along with finds/hides, forum use/maybe logging into the site...).  

I've had med issues for some time now.  It's that go in for one issue and the doc finds ten others thing...

Anyone can see my stats, they're not hidden from few like some do (it used to be only the "creative" finders did that...), and if I haven't been somewhere lately, look at the stats for longest and current "slumps". If I'm on forums and logging the site but have a "slump", there might be a reason. 

 

[+barefootguru]

I know a few people who use the stat, as they’re determined to never let it get longer.

[+GeoElmo6000]

I treat my statistics like I treat my souvenirs.  They're on my ignore list.

[+JL_HSTRE]

OP makes a valid point about it being a rare instance of a negative statistic. Since it's been part of the Stats page for a long time, well before Challenge Caches could no longer use negative statistics. And it was undoubtedly added in the first place as an obvious contrast to longest streak.

 

I have no problem with the stat's existence. If I didn't see it on my Groundspeak profile then I would see it on my longer GSAK or Project GC stats instead.

 

My Longest Slump is misleading. I joined geocaching.com on Jan 1, 2010 and logged my first finds the next day. Sometime not long afterwards I looked to see what caches I might have found when I took a big trip in May 2009, without having a smartphone or more than a passing awareness of geocaching. I found three Virtuals at Gettysburg where I had visited the spot on my trip and either remembered the information or could extract it from my trip photos. I send the info to the COs with an explanation of the situation and got the green light. I logged the Finds the actual date of my visit.

 

Thus my longest slump is over 7 months in my profile, but really about 3 months (I don't cache much in the Florida summers). I would be curious to know my real longest slump.

 

Edited February 5 by JL_HSTRE

[Darwin473]

Mine is 200 days. Oops.

 

I can see where MNTA is coming from, my philosophy is that you can't enjoy summer without winter, or day without night. Plus a big dose of GeoElmo6000's "don't stress about it" ideal.

[+Gill & Tony]

200?  "Tis but a scratch!  My longest is 437 days, between my daughter introducing me to the game and me deciding that I could have fun with it

[+Northern Trekker]

 

I was out of it for w while but have come back now that I have a bit more free time.  Been geocaching since 2002.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

My current slump shows as 220 days. However, I still haven't logged the 20 or so caches I found last summer. Wonder what happens when you backdate a found it log? I find all of the stats kind of silly, as they are your own, and you control them.  Reminds me of the old joke:

 

CEO interviewing three candidates for CFO.

CEO to Candidate 1: What is 2 + 2?

Answer: 4

 

CEO to Candidate 2: What is 2+2?

Answer: 4

 

CEO to Candidate 3: What is 2+2?

Answer: What do you want it to be?

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

I find all of the stats kind of silly, as they are your own, and you control them.

 

Depends on your definition of "control," I suppose.

 

My longest slump is a 4-week period without a find in 2015. I was "in the box" at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, unable to leave unless I hijacked a HMMWV and went caching. Could I have? sure, but I imagine my career would be over, at best.

 

Before that, my longest slump was a 17 day period without a find in 2008...once again, because of a military exercise, this one in Grafenwöhr, Germany.

 

I suppose I could have controlled these by either not joining the Army in the first place, or resigning my commission, but I didn't. Instead, my goal from this point on is not to have any longer slumps. So far, so good; even though my numbers have been down for the last few months due to injuries, I've still managed to get out a bit.

 

 

[+hzoi]

On 2/4/2023 at 12:44 AM, MNTA said:

Why is longest slump even tracked?

 

I suppose you'd have to ask the folks at mygeocachingprofile.com, since they were the ones who developed the stats module before Groiundspeak adopted it.
 

On 2/4/2023 at 12:44 AM, MNTA said:

I can never fix or improve.

 

Sure - but you can try not to do any worse!

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

On 2/3/2023 at 9:44 PM, MNTA said:

I can never fix or improve.

 

Sure - but you can try not to do any worse!

 

That's my reason for checking on that stat.  We started in 2017, and my longest slump so far is 26 days, in 2021.  We were in the midst of a kitchen remodel and simply did not go geocaching - there was too much else to do!  Still, if I go for more than a couple of weeks, I start getting itchy to get out and FIND something!  I don't want that #, 26 days, to increase!!

[+Brainzane & Yossface]

Hi all!  Cameron from mygeocachingprofile.com here.  I find this conversation super interesting - never thought about this being a negative stat but more of a historical stat.  However, I totally see how it can bother some people.  Although the folks at geocaching.com might not change their statistics, I still develop and make changes/fixes on mygeocachingprofile.com.  I'm going to add an option to turn this individual statistic off.  It won't be right away as I'm working on pulling in the 2020 census data for US county maps () but I'll update when it's available.  

[+CAVinoGal]

9 hours ago, Brainzane & Yossface said:

Hi all!  Cameron from mygeocachingprofile.com here.  I find this conversation super interesting - never thought about this being a negative stat but more of a historical stat.  However, I totally see how it can bother some people.  Although the folks at geocaching.com might not change their statistics, I still develop and make changes/fixes on mygeocachingprofile.com.  I'm going to add an option to turn this individual statistic off.  It won't be right away as I'm working on pulling in the 2020 census data for US county maps () but I'll update when it's available.  

 

I thought I would check out my profile on this site, just for fun.  A couple of things I took note of (the first is off-topic but interesting; the second is on topic):

• Adventure Labs are not counted unless you want them to be, so I can easily see my %traditionals, and other statistics WITHOUT Ad Labs being added in.  All this without creating an account just for Ad Labs, or doing them and deleting the smilies later.
• Back on topic, I saw that my slump on this site was 1 day longer than that shown on my profile at geocaching.com, and it was a full 6 months before the one shown on geocaching.com.

It's only one day difference, but why would it be different?  Both the screenshots below are from today:

This from geocaching.com

And this from mygeocachingprofile.com

 

 

[+baer2006]

20 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

It's only one day difference, but why would it be different?  Both the screenshots below are from today:

This from geocaching.com

And this from mygeocachingprofile.com

 

Your project-gc stats show 5 lab cache finds in February 2021. Maybe mygeocachingprofile.com doesn't count them for the "slump" stats?

[+CheekyBrit]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:10 AM, Brainzane & Yossface said:

never thought about this being a negative stat but more of a historical stat. 

I agree, I try to see it through the lense of a historical stat. It's not a reminder of negativity but a landmark to overcome in positive. There are some streak versus slump challenges near me.
But you are right, it is odd that such a stat is recorded.
I have some challenges coming out focusing on odd stats, like longest multi cache hidden date streak on the cumulative years calendar. Super weird stat.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 2/8/2023 at 10:10 AM, Brainzane & Yossface said:

Hi all!  Cameron from mygeocachingprofile.com here.  I find this conversation super interesting - never thought about this being a negative stat but more of a historical stat.  However, I totally see how it can bother some people.  Although the folks at geocaching.com might not change their statistics, I still develop and make changes/fixes on mygeocachingprofile.com.  I'm going to add an option to turn this individual statistic off.  It won't be right away as I'm working on pulling in the 2020 census data for US county maps () but I'll update when it's available.  

 

Would it also be possible to give an option to specify what date to start looking for longest slump? A user-selected start date for stats where older stats count towards total finds but not towards slumps, streaks, busy days, etc. 

 

As noted in other posts by me and several others that have commented in this thread, our first logged find doesn't correspond with when we began caching in earnest. This could also apply to someone who occasionally cached with their parents under a family account and later creates a separate account, backlogging finds with their family.

 

I'd like to find out my real longest slump rather than just my technical longest slump.

 

Edited February 9 by JL_HSTRE

[+HuggableHamster]

14 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

I agree, I try to see it through the lense of a historical stat. It's not a reminder of negativity but a landmark to overcome in positive. There are some streak versus slump challenges near me.
But you are right, it is odd that such a stat is recorded.
I have some challenges coming out focusing on odd stats, like longest multi cache hidden date streak on the cumulative years calendar. Super weird stat.

That's my feeling too.  Although for me I only started caching in late 2019 so my longest slump came after 6 months caching with an enforced 3 month lockdown. 

 

I always worry if I start a streak I'd not enjoy caching once I stopped so for me my longest slump is a sort of positive that I will always aim to find at least one cache every 3 months.

[+CAVinoGal]

22 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Your project-gc stats show 5 lab cache finds in February 2021. Maybe mygeocachingprofile.com doesn't count them for the "slump" stats?

 

Nice catch - and that does apear to be the case.  They (Adventure Lab caches) don't count in their profile stats either, unless you specifically include them, so it would make sense they don't count in the slump stats either.

[+Harry Dolphin]

My Longest Slump will always remind me of the death of my caching partner, who was diagnosed with lung cancer.  Many treatments.  Hospice care.  And finally went to Heaven to go geocaching with God.

[WolfWalker]

I have no idea where to locate this information, but I can say my longest "slump" is most likely several years long.  LOL!

 

[+Thraxman]

We all play the game different, I guess. You may not care for the Longest Slump statistic, but for some of us it is a key feature of the game. I am sad to say I just destroyed an epic slump the other day:

19 days away from the coveted 2.5 kilo-day award and I totally blew it! I don't know if I have it in me to start over on that one. 

[+Brainzane & Yossface]

On 2/10/2023 at 2:10 PM, CAVinoGal said:

 

Nice catch - and that does apear to be the case.  They (Adventure Lab caches) don't count in their profile stats either, unless you specifically include them, so it would make sense they don't count in the slump stats either.

 

This is likely the cause of the difference.  Honestly, mygeocachingprofile.com *would* automatically count adventure labs if it could, but it is built by using your "My Finds" PQ to get a list of all of your caches.  For some reason, geocaching.com doesn't put adventure labs in the PQs...it's all kept separately.   That's why you need to manually input your adventure lab finds and then they will start counting into your stats.

[+thebruce0]

Yeah Adventures won't be in Pocket Queries because PQs are based on geocache data.  Adventures would have to be programmed explicitly by HQ to be patched into PQ data somehow with some data transformation undoubtedly.  Possibly alternatively, they could at some point in the future provide downloadable data of your Adventure stats which MGP could import.  But I wouldn't count on that

[+GeoElmo6000]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:22 AM, Brainzane & Yossface said:

 

This is likely the cause of the difference.  Honestly, mygeocachingprofile.com *would* automatically count adventure labs if it could, but it is built by using your "My Finds" PQ to get a list of all of your caches.  For some reason, geocaching.com doesn't put adventure labs in the PQs...it's all kept separately.   That's why you need to manually input your adventure lab finds and then they will start counting into your stats.

 

Because they're not geocaches.

[+geodarts]

I hide my stats in part because either slumps or streaks are nobody’s business but my own.  However I looked in response to this thread 

[+Gill & Tony]

On 2/16/2023 at 3:31 AM, thebruce0 said:

Yeah Adventures won't be in Pocket Queries because PQs are based on geocache data.  Adventures would have to be programmed explicitly by HQ to be patched into PQ data somehow with some data transformation undoubtedly.  Possibly alternatively, they could at some point in the future provide downloadable data of your Adventure stats which MGP could import.  But I wouldn't count on that

Or, they could stop lab caches being "experimental" and make them "real" so they could be treated like any other cache type.  But I'm not counting on that either.

[+Team Canary]

33 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

Or, they could stop lab caches being "experimental" and make them "real" so they could be treated like any other cache type.  But I'm not counting on that either.

 

That ship has sailed and that's why I ignore the half-caches.

[+Gill & Tony]

8 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

 

That ship has sailed and that's why I ignore the half-caches.

More like it is still tied up at the wharf, rotting quietly away.  I don't think it will ever sail

[+thebruce0]

On 2/16/2023 at 4:49 PM, Gill & Tony said:

On 2/16/2023 at 4:39 PM, Team Canary said:

 

That ship has sailed and that's why I ignore the half-caches.

More like it is still tied up at the wharf, rotting quietly away.  I don't think it will ever sail

 

Yup, as it would require a complete overhaul of the Adventure system and importing all the data into the existing geocache system patchworked to make Adventures a new cache type, in some way, which I would think would look absolutely nothing like Adventures do currently... they are simply fundamentally different experiences with functionalities that are miles apart.

[+Gill & Tony]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yup, as it would require a complete overhaul of the Adventure system and importing all the data into the existing geocache system patchworked to make Adventures a new cache type, in some way, which I would think would look absolutely nothing like Adventures do currently... they are simply fundamentally different experiences with functionalities that are miles apart.

I wasn't suggesting that adventures become a new cache type.  I would just like Groundspeak to take the existing "experimental" lab cache type and make it a "real" cache type.  

 

An adventure isn't a cache type any more than a Geo Tour is a cache type.  Some (lab) caches are part of a wrapper called an adventure and some caches are part of a wrapper called a geo tour.  You get some bonus for finding all the caches in an adventure and some bonus for finding all the caches in a geo tour, but you don't get a "find" for either wrapper.

[+barefootjeff]

15 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

An adventure isn't a cache type any more than a Geo Tour is a cache type.  Some (lab) caches are part of a wrapper called an adventure and some caches are part of a wrapper called a geo tour.  You get some bonus for finding all the caches in an adventure and some bonus for finding all the caches in a geo tour, but you don't get a "find" for either wrapper.

 

But the things inside an Adventure wrapper are nothing like other cache types as far as the database goes. They don't have GC codes for starters, nor do they have D/T ratings, attributes, hidden dates or even logs. They're a completely separate entity and any attempt to merge the two will always be a cludge.

Edited February 19 by barefootjeff

[+Gill & Tony]

8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

But the things inside an Adventure wrapper are nothing like other cache types as far as the database goes. They don't have GC codes for starters, nor do they have D/T ratings, attributes, hidden dates or even logs. They're a completely separate entity and any attempt to merge the two will always be a cludge.

That is exactly my point.  They are, according to Groundspeak, an experimental cache type and they lack most of the things which make a real cache type. 

 

What I am suggesting is that Groundspeak add to lab caches the things they lack.  D/T, attributes etc.  It won't be a cludge because they already exist in the geocache database,  It should simply be a matter of adding fields to the database records and populating the fields.  The latter bit would need AL owners to update the records and then its all done.

[+thebruce0]

15 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I wasn't suggesting that adventures become a new cache type.  I would just like Groundspeak to take the existing "experimental" lab cache type and make it a "real" cache type.  

 

There's no difference between the two. A cache type is a cache type as far as the data framework goes. We may talk about other types of cache experiences like puzzle caches or challenge caches or (in some places) an adventure lab considered as one (and this has been discussed before), and even Benchmarks may have been referenced as a cache type by some (showing up in the find count of 'cache types', eg). Doesn't change the fact that something either is or is not a "real" cache type. If it's not, then it has special code if there are places where its usage mimics that of actual cache types (Traditional, Multi, Virtual, Event, Earthcache, etc), like the counts of finds in our stats under "cache types".

 

A Geotour is a category of cache types, not a cache type itself. An Adventure is similar to a Geotour in that it's a wrapper for a set of Adventure Locations. And that's harping back to the initial setup of Adventure Labs, individual 'finds' that added +1 smiley in a separate data source that was wrapped into a user's public stats.  So there's already a pseudo-parallel between Geotour and Adventure. But that's a far cry from making Adventures a new actual cache type.

 

3 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

What I am suggesting is that Groundspeak add to lab caches the things they lack.  D/T, attributes etc.  It won't be a cludge because they already exist in the geocache database,  It should simply be a matter of adding fields to the database records and populating the fields.  The latter bit would need AL owners to update the records and then its all done.

 

Right, however, the structure of an actual cache type is not similar to the structure of an Adventure. And the Adventure experience is its own app, its own functionality, its own framework, and its own code.  And that's why I said:

it would require a complete overhaul of the Adventure system and importing all the data into the existing geocache system patchworked to make Adventures a new cache type, in some way, which I would think would look absolutely nothing like Adventures do currently... they are simply fundamentally different experiences with functionalities that are miles apart.

[+thebruce0]

In theory, we already can create an Adventure-style experience using the existing geocache type framework.  Unknown cache. Wherigo.  AR caches were similar.

 

Create a series of 5 geocaches that are effectively puzzles, using a certitude checker. There's your Adventure.

 

They created the Adventure platform specifically on its own because they didn't want to just create a new 'cache type'. The Adventure experience is simply fundamentally a different one, with its own app, and as they've implied, even its own audience and demographic that aren't necessarily 100% crossed over to geocaching.

[+Gill & Tony]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

There's no difference between the two. A cache type is a cache type as far as the data framework goes. We may talk about other types of cache experiences like puzzle caches or challenge caches or (in some places) an adventure lab considered as one (and this has been discussed before), and even Benchmarks may have been referenced as a cache type by some (showing up in the find count of 'cache types', eg). Doesn't change the fact that something either is or is not a "real" cache type. If it's not, then it has special code if there are places where its usage mimics that of actual cache types (Traditional, Multi, Virtual, Event, Earthcache, etc), like the counts of finds in our stats under "cache types".

 

A Geotour is a category of cache types, not a cache type itself. An Adventure is similar to a Geotour in that it's a wrapper for a set of Adventure Locations. And that's harping back to the initial setup of Adventure Labs, individual 'finds' that added +1 smiley in a separate data source that was wrapped into a user's public stats.  So there's already a pseudo-parallel between Geotour and Adventure. But that's a far cry from making Adventures a new actual cache type.

 

 

Right, however, the structure of an actual cache type is not similar to the structure of an Adventure. And the Adventure experience is its own app, its own functionality, its own framework, and its own code.  And that's why I said:

it would require a complete overhaul of the Adventure system and importing all the data into the existing geocache system patchworked to make Adventures a new cache type, in some way, which I would think would look absolutely nothing like Adventures do currently... they are simply fundamentally different experiences with functionalities that are miles apart.

I think we agree.  An adventure is not a cache type.  Trying to make an adventure into a new cache type would be a very difficult and, IMHO utterly pointless, exercise.

 

All I want is for Groundspeak to end the lab cache experiment and say "Well, that worked well, we can now turn lab caches into real caches".  I don't want, and have never suggested, that adventures be made an official cache type.

[+barefootjeff]

15 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

What I am suggesting is that Groundspeak add to lab caches the things they lack.  D/T, attributes etc.  It won't be a cludge because they already exist in the geocache database,  It should simply be a matter of adding fields to the database records and populating the fields.  The latter bit would need AL owners to update the records and then its all done.

 

I wonder how many AL owners would actually do that, I suspect very few. There'd then be a great swathe of "caches" with whatever default D/T rating HQ decided to give them (probably 1.5/1.5), a hidden date of 1/1/2000 or whatever, no attributes and a long list of logs all set to a default "TFTC" or, perhaps more fittingly, "That's another easy smiley for me!".

 

Also, as thebruce0 said, it's their stated goal to make ALs available to non-cachers, so there'll be auto-generated logs on them that don't even have a geocaching account.

[+thebruce0]

41 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I don't want, and have never suggested, that adventures be made an official cache type.

 

But then, how would expect this to work?  "Well, that worked well, we can now turn lab caches into real caches"

What's a "real cache" if not an actual cache type or Adventure?

 

 

Anyway I think we're kind of straying from the stats slump topic 

 

 

On a side note, recently a local cache owner created an Adventure hoping to make a bonus for each location. Of course that was denied as (at least in our region?) as the limit is one bonus cache allowed per Adventure. So, he just create an Unknown cache at each Location. Essentially what I described above.  There was an Adventure+Bonus, and there were 4 other Unknown caches, independent of the Adventure, one at each of the other 4 Locations, using the same questions with checkers. You could skip the Adventure and get 4 finds (or do the Adventure to get the 5th) - or do everything and get 10 smilies (5 being geocache Finds).

[+Gill & Tony]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I wonder how many AL owners would actually do that, I suspect very few.

I suspect that most would do it.  After all, setting up an adventure is a fair amount of work - going to 5 locations, getting coordinates for each, getting a Q&A for each, getting a description for each and then putting it all together.  Quite different from bunging a mint tin in a guard rail.  

 

I see AL owners as more like people who spend a lot of time working on their caches and doing the work to make it a good experience.  Yes, there are exceptions, but I think most would do the necessary.

 

The log issue is the one which worries me, but so many logs are just  TFTC on real caches, I don't think it is a major problem.

[+Gill & Tony]

42 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But then, how would expect this to work?  "Well, that worked well, we can now turn lab caches into real caches"

What's a "real cache" if not an actual cache type or Adventure?

 

A real cache is one with all the database fields in place.  The only reason lab caches aren't real caches is because the don't have D/T, attributes and all the other stuff that traditionals do have.  That is a (relatively) simple database change to make those features available.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Gill & Tony said:

A real cache is one with all the database fields in place. 

A real cache is one where the owner can perform maintenance, including deleting logs that are false or inappropriate. That might be a much bigger change to the database.

[+thebruce0]

What niraD said, and

 

22 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

A real cache is one with all the database fields in place.  The only reason lab caches aren't real caches is because the don't have D/T, attributes and all the other stuff that traditionals do have.  That is a (relatively) simple database change to make those features available.

 

It's not just the fields, it's where the data is stored, and how the data is stored, and the intended user experience on our end. You can't just add database fields and boom it's all good. As I said, from what we understand they are two entirely different coding and data frameworks. It's data transformation, conversion, transfer, and then recoding of the Adventure platform for users (web and app), R&D to ensure the functionality remains as identical as possible (given this is the intended way they wanted Adventures to work), R&D to determine the best way to inform and 're-train' users to the newly updated system, and hoping that users will actually make that transfer, plus who knows what other work is beyond our knowledge. 

Nope, it's far from a simple fix....

[+GeoElmo6000]

10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What niraD said, and

 

 

It's not just the fields, it's where the data is stored, and how the data is stored, and the intended user experience on our end. You can't just add database fields and boom it's all good. As I said, from what we understand they are two entirely different coding and data frameworks. It's data transformation, conversion, transfer, and then recoding of the Adventure platform for users (web and app), R&D to ensure the functionality remains as identical as possible (given this is the intended way they wanted Adventures to work), R&D to determine the best way to inform and 're-train' users to the newly updated system, and hoping that users will actually make that transfer, plus who knows what other work is beyond our knowledge. 

Nope, it's far from a simple fix....

 

I keep saying this but Adventures are really a separate location-based game than geocaching, the game just happens to have been made by Groundspeak as well.  I think part of the issue is that they combined the find count so that confuses things.  Two games with one find count.  But at this point they can't really separate the find counts even though I'd love to see that happen.  

 

Edited February 20 by GeoElmo6000
Grammar

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

I think part of the issue is that they combined the find count so that confuses things.

I don't that's just a "part of the issue". It's THE issue!

 

If it weren't for the find count, Adventures wouldn't be anywhere as popular with the geocaching community as they are now, and the question, if and how they are included in various caching stats, wouldn't exist.

[+GeoElmo6000]

24 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

I don't that's just a "part of the issue". It's THE issue!

 

If it weren't for the find count, Adventures wouldn't be anywhere as popular with the geocaching community as they are now, and the question, if and how they are included in various caching stats, wouldn't exist.

 

I agree.  I'm wondering if part of the thought process was that Groundspeak had a player base to jump start their new game, but now it's too late to separate it out into something separate.  There would be a lot of people upset if Groundspeak announced that the two games would be made separate including their find counts.

[Keystone]

The topic of the thread is about why "longest slump" is tracked in statistics.  The last 20 or so replies have all been about Adventure Labs, and duplicate discussions in the forum section dedicated to Adventures.  So, I am closing this thread because it's gone off-topic.