Who's in favour of hiding all "found" counts?

May 20, 2002

From another thread, it appears there are a large number of people who feel that the "caches found" count doesn't matter. Jeremy said on a recent thread:

"Who's Line is it Anyway?

Points don't matter.

Really.

Points don't matter. Unless we employ a statistician it will never be fair. I'll continue to say that Geocaching is not a competition but a pasttime. If folks want to get into friendly competition that is fine, but the site was designed to keep competition a nonissue."

I think its about time that individual found counts be removed from view from everyone except that individual player.

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

9.4k · May 20, 2002

Overall, I think the counts help more than they hurt. Someone that only has a few finds that goes around logging "couldn't find it" might be of little concern to a cache's owner. The "new guy" just doesn't have enough experience to search well enough for a cache. But a cacher with many finds who logs a "couldn't find it" might raise a flag to the owner to go check on it and make sure it is still there.

Also, there have been many cases where someone will find out about geocaching, find a few, then never go out again. They might even continue to post here, but are no longer an "active" geocacher. How credible are their opinions when they don't even play the game anymore? "Date registered" doesn't tell us if they are still caching.

1.7k · May 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Also, there have been many cases where someone will find out about geocaching, find a few, then never go out again. They might even continue to post here, but are no longer an "active" geocacher. How credible are their opinions when they don't even play the game anymore? "Date registered" doesn't tell us if they are still caching.

The opposite is also true, though. Our travel bug took an undocumented trip recently, and the evidence indicates that it was in the hands of someone who hasn't logged any finds online since last December but is still actively caching (and logging in the physical logbook; someone who was concerned about our bug went back to the physical cache and looked up the appropriate entry for us.) If the person who moved our bug were posting here regularly, y'all might dismiss him as not playing the game any more, but in fact he might just be playing it by his own slightly-different rules.

2.6k · May 20, 2002

Ive been caching since early 2001, and I'm proud of what Ive found. Someone says its not a competition, BULL. it may be friendly but it is a competition.

Also I think by showing the count it shows your experience

All who look are not lost

May 20, 2002

Give the individual cacher the option of showing or hiding his/her finds.

May 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by craggy (nightcrawler):
Give the individual cacher the option of showing or hiding his/her finds.

Good one. I'll go along with that. My find count is my business, but if other people are happy to show theirs, then let them.

alex.

May 20, 2002

I'm not too hard over either way. The find counts do give me an idea of howI should take the log writeup of a particular cacher. I tend to give more weight to the comments of someone who has more "experience". On the other hand, eventually you learn the character of the cachers from the logs, so you can get a feel that way as well.

May 20, 2002

Keep the counts visible. It's a part of the individual geocacher's character. Shows newbie and experienced cacher alike. Holds a lot of weight when I read cache logs online as to whether a cache is do-able for me or not. I tend to disregard 'Couldn't find' when it a first-timer. Don't you?!

The harder you work,the harder it is to give up.

Vince Lombarde

May 20, 2002

Personally, I think I'll wait until I have 100 finds to my name before I pose a question like this.

1.7k · May 20, 2002

I think we should keep the find counts, too, but I just wanted to ask all of y'all who say counts indicate who's a newbie and who's not... what does my find count tell you? What if my profile didn't tell you where to go look for it?

May 20, 2002

Believe me I have nothing to be proud of if you look at my found counts. But I enjoy looking at others. I think its fun to see who's active, who's really active, and who's obssesed. Its more of a voyeristic pleasure - or maybe its envy - wishing I was out geocaching as much as so-so is. Keep the counts. Its all in good fun even for those of us who will never be competitive.

May 20, 2002

...my count is low, but if you look at my dates you'll see I've been caching for over a year. Is that a newbie? How many caches do you have to have to not be a newbie? The numbers can be deceptive in that regard.

Also agree that I can base my ability to do the cache on what other cachers that I know have said or done. Several local cachers may say one my husband hid was easy, but I know them and I know him and I know I won't be attempting to find it any time soon.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. - Eleanor Roosevelt

May 20, 2002

...my count is low, but if you look at my dates you'll see I've been caching for over a year. Is that a newbie? How many caches do you have to have to not be a newbie? The numbers can be deceptive in that regard.

Also agree that I can base my ability to do the cache on what other cachers that I know have said or done. Several local cachers may say one my husband hid was easy, but I know them and I know him and I know I won't be attempting to find it any time soon.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. - Eleanor Roosevelt

May 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by vagabond:

Someone says its not a competition, BULL. it may be friendly but it is a competition.

I agree with that 100%. Too much weight is put into the numbers. I am curious how I can see the number of "not founds" a person has recorded.

The best things in life are not things...

Now Open... http://www.geoindiana.com <-Click It! You know you want to!

1k · May 20, 2002

Oh who cares ... if your find count is larger than mine ... it just means you've got more time to cache hunt than I do ... Jealous ... yes, I'm jealous ... but I can live with it.

Leave them ... hide them ... I don't care.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

May 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ride Bent:

I agree with that 100%. Too much weight is put into the numbers. I am curious how I can see the number of "not founds" a person has recorded.

Go to Dan Miller's leaderboard pages. You can find that information there, although it won't show you how many "not founds" somebody was too embarrassed or competitive to log.

May 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by EliJoMikMiNi:
Keep the counts visible. It's a part of the individual geocacher's character. Shows newbie and experienced cacher alike. Holds a lot of weight when I read cache logs online as to whether a cache is do-able for me or not. I tend to disregard 'Couldn't find' when it a first-timer. Don't you?!

Webster's = New= 1.)unfamiliar

After a few cache finds you do become more aware of maybe where the cache 'might' be hidden, and/or where you would possibly find/hide them. After awhile you even start to see good cache hiding places 'everywhere' you go.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply more is better, just more experienced.

The harder you work,the harder it is to give up.

Vince Lombarde

24.7k · May 20, 2002

There were counts when you started using this site to track your finds, there should remain counts. Evne if it becomes 'individual option' to show your counts, I still want to know where I'm at compaired to all the counts I can't see.

May 20, 2002

Seneca,

If found counts don't matter, then why are you so concerned about it?

4.5k · May 20, 2002

Never mind cache counts. I think we should eliminate the counting of posts a person has made to this forum. I'm embarrassed by my high count number. You'd think I need a life?

Alan

May 20, 2002

I don't give a Rat's derriere about cache find counts. I've seen some that were close to 1000, and others on down the count to their first.

Me, I've less than 30 and I worked and earned every one. Virtual, locationless, and boxes hidden in the woods. All took effort.

I don't think that if you've found one or 1000 that it means anything, actually. It's a reflection of how much time one has to devote to the hobby. Me, I've got many pots on the fire and this one I attend to occasionally, as I do the other pots.

Yes, I'd like to see the cache counts hidden in all cases. If someone doesn't find my cache, I then check on it to make sure it's still there and OK. I then send them a note to let them know that it really is still there and hope they search again. If they don't, ain't no skin offa my snozzola.

It an ego thing, I think. As in, "Hey, look at me! I've found XXX caches! Ain't I great?"

It's a game, with no winners and no losers.

May 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Peanuthead:
Seneca,

If found counts don't matter, then why are you so concerned about it?

I am not so concerned as curious. There has been considerable forum discussion over the last few days over the changes in scoring locationless caches. It seems that almost every person was saying "Well as for myself, I don't care, I'm not at all interested in the score - numbers of finds are meaningless - they are not at all important to me -- I am only interested in the great outdoors - the search ...blah... blah... blah..."

And I thought to myself, yeah right... I wonder what the reaction would be if there was a possibility that find counts might be eliminated from public view. Based on what everybody has been saying, nobody should care. But I was pretty positive that wouldn't be the result. Hence my poll question (the question someone suggested I don't really have the right to ask because I don't have 100 finds yet!). Well, as I suspected I was right - those find counts are VERY VERY important to MANY MANY players. Almost everybody says that find counts aren't important to them, but 84% still want to keep the score. (I was somewhat surprised that 16% didn't).

My concern, if any, is, that it is impossible to judge players based on numbers of finds (because of all the inconsistent variables) and yet as long as a number is attached to a name we will continue to do so... as the general response to thread demonstrates.

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

3k · May 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by EliJoMikMiNi:
Keep the counts visible. It's a part of the individual geocacher's character. Shows newbie and experienced cacher alike. Holds a lot of weight when I read cache logs online as to whether a cache is do-able for me or not. I tend to disregard 'Couldn't find' when it a first-timer. Don't you?!

Indeed. I found a cache today that had only been found once, back on 8/12/01. Since then, the cache had received two "couldn't find" logs, by cachers with 19 and 29 finds. It took only a few minutes to find the cache, which was well hidden but in a predictable location. (The cache had a 2.5/2.5 rating, which I felt was pretty accurate.)

At another cache I logged recently, the next seeker was a person with only one find, who wrote in his "couldn't find" log that "the cache must be missing." I think that cache is probably 1/2 star harder than its 2.5/2 rating, and feel this was clearly a case of a cacher exceeding his current level of experience, because the cache is hidden in a clever and safe location very unlikely to be stumbled upon accidently.

After gaining a bit of experience, I'll bet that cacher returns and has a real "doh!" experience. (Who among us hadn't had a couple of those??)

I've got to add, I enjoy taking a peek at the profiles to check the rudimentary find/hidden stats therein, and I will often browse an individual's list of finds to get an idea of the type of caches they like to seek or are available in their area. It's fun.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 20, 2002 at 10:30 PM.]

May 20, 2002

the wife and i like to explorer...me, i still have the macho bs in me, and i think of this as a game...like making my first 100 in 6 monthes, which i may now that the wife's cast is off from breaking her leg,while trying to be the first to find a new cache, and i dont have to carry her anymore while geocaching!!!...this is what ever you make of it...folks i drive to la everyday for work...so if "fighting to be #1" saves me from going postal, let the numbers speak for themselfs...

May 21, 2002

I have no problem admitting that the counts are important to me, but not as much for my ego as for other reasons. Yes, it's fun when someone else in your area has a count that is close to yours and you can have a friendly competition, but the real fun to me is in hiding not finding. If a person with a low count likes my cache I am pleased because we don't have a lot of players in my area and maybe I just hooked another one. Now if a player with 2 or 3 hundred finds likes my cache, I am really pleased because that person probably knows what they are talking about, and I know that I did a good job. The main thing to me is to get people playing, and to keep them playing. Is there an ego boost when someone says "great cache"? Hell yes.

If your question was some kind of sociological experiment, I have one that I think would be much more interesting. How about looking into the motives of people whose post count is 10, 20, or even 30 times what their find count is. How can people spend so much time talking about something they rarely do?

9.4k · May 21, 2002

For the sake of scoring, find counts don't matter. However there is a definite benefit of seeing hit counts in that you have an idea how experienced they are in the use of GPS. I would prefer trying to find a cache by someone who has hidden caches before over someone who hasn't. And someone who has never hidden a cache before has a lot of finds under their belt would be better than 0/0.

Jeremy

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

May 21, 2002

I say keep the count......

I do use it as a reference to see if the cacher who placed the cache that I'm looking for is a "hider" or a "seeker". And gives me some indication as to how serious they are about this sport.

I do get a bit curious with cachers that have over 500 finds......But on the plus side on our Easter Vacation I found one that said cacher had placed....and it was very well done.......

On the "couldn't find it" side. I must honestly say that I haven't logged one on this site...I just can't do it!! To date we have had 2 not initially found exps.

The first one was a cache that was on another site. I logged a no find there and the cacher e-mailed me back. I encouraged her to list the cache here...which she did and I was the first geocaching.com finder (but I did report that I was not the first to sign the log BTW..the reason I couldn't find it the first time was that I put the wrong coordinates in....)

The second not first find was 2 weekends ago. A multi...we got the wrong dates from a cemetary. I logged as nonfind on the other site...went back this weekend and found it right off. Logged it here and said that i couldn't find it the first time but did the second.......

It's just that it's sssoooooooo hard to hit that can't find button....ok I'll work on it..I know that it ups my honesty count

Dx

"Have you no news on your travels?" the Book of fairy & folk tales of Ireland (1888)

May 21, 2002

I don't have an issue with logging Not Found when I can't legitimatly find it. I did place a note on a cache I didn't find this past Saturday since I was the 5th person in a row to not find it since March 30th. (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=9139&logs=y&decrypt=)

I can take being beaten by a cache and am not to proud to say so. (See http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=22696)

Also, it is easy to get more posts in the forum than caches found. I have done all the caches close enough for a lunch visit so as I eat my bologna sandwhich, I hit the forums at several of my favorite sites.

http://www.yummylikecandy.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi

http://forums.bicycling.com/bic/

and here natually.

The best things in life are not things...

Now Open... http://www.geoindiana.com <-Click It! You know you want to!

May 21, 2002

Yep, the counts are helpful in judging the probable level of experience of another cacher. I know there's no chance I'm going to be able to catch up with the most prolific hiders nor the most successful seekers, as I'm only getting out hunting one weekend in three at the moment...

Being nosey , I'd quite like to see not-found counts, and the counts split into Standard/Multi/Virtual/Locationless/difficulty/whatever too, though I'll accept most folks would find that over-kill.

I can also see the case for someone wanting to hide that information from others, though.

Maybe an option, with the default being "show them", would keep most folks happy?

Whatever. (It's no big deal to me.

Purrs... LazyLeopard http://www.lazyleopard.org.uk

May 21, 2002

For us here in Az it really doesnt matter because we have This Pagethat keeps track of just about everything to do with Geocaching in Az (including not founds, if logged)

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

May 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:
Now there's a quote of mine out of context.

My purpose in quoting Jeremy at the beginning of this thread was to set out the general feeling of what was being said about the issue of "find" scoring and competition. That was the intended "context". It was not intended to suggest that Jeremy was in favour of discontinuing find counts (in fact I had presumed he would likely be opposed to my suggestion). If that was the impression that I gave, then I apologize.

By the way, I have just thought of one benefit of keeping score - if we didn't, there would be greater liklihood that players might "forget" to log their finds - and I think that everybody agrees that find logs are VERY important!

Now that the jury has clearly decided this one - I better get out and increase my count so what I say on this forum has a little more impact!

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

3.5k · May 21, 2002

I don't think that's quite how that saying goes, but hey....I wouldn't argue with it.

May 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by EraSeek:
I don't think that's quite how that saying goes, but hey....I wouldn't argue with it.

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/2573_200.jpg

Hey.. its a joke...OK? (sorry, I forgot to post on my profile that I have a warped sense of humor)

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

May 21, 2002

[tap-tap] This thing still on?

Anyway, what I'd like to see happen is that we'd adopt something like eBay or Paypal.

Instead of listing that Jane Blow has found 29 caches, we could give her a gold star.

Her little nephew Billy has only found five caches so his star would still be green.

Anything under twenty gets a green star (we can make the transitional number higher or lower if needed)

If we *really* wanted to have a reference, Geocachers could verify that others have been to caches (a quick glance at the logbook) and place a checkmark next to the initial cachers found log. Only member cachers would be allowed to do this.

This would give (a non MOC) motive to sign up and would encourage people to re-check caches they've previously been to.

Plundered logbooks and fake teams might be a problem, but I doubt this would be a very large segment.

May 21, 2002

I happen to like them and would ask that they be kept as is. It seems that some people really lose sleep over them though. Too them, I say go find a new hobby. This one obviously has become not fun for you anymore if a "found" count has got you this worked up. And it seems to be a certain few that are bugged by these little things.

I say leave them as they are.

Dave

20.7k · May 21, 2002

That Jane Blow thinks she's so cool with her gold star.

May 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:
My concern, if any, is, that it is impossible to judge players based on numbers of finds (because of all the inconsistent variables) and yet as long as a number is attached to a name we will continue to do so... as the general response to thread demonstrates.

If you want to see how much cache found counts matter to everyone, take them away for a day or two...

It's not whether or not you pick your nose that matters, but where you put the booger...

May 21, 2002

Ok off Topic but related to the last comment...

I was working with a preschooler the other day (I'm a speech pathologist) and he puts his finger up his nose and starts aiming at me....

And his Mom was laughing.......

Man I gotta get outta here andon the Trails!

Dx

"Have you no news on your travels?" the Book of fairy & folk tales of Ireland (1888)

May 21, 2002

Lets get one thing straight: finds do matter, it's only a matter of degrees. Some people do everything possible to get their hit count as high as possible, whether for status, ego, whatever. Others claim to not care but if that's the case then why bother logging the finds? If all we wanted was exercise, we could do that without spending money for equipment, trinket & gas. We ALL get some level of satisfaction from a successful find.

I think to totally seperate out from the count the cirtuals & the locationless caches does a diservice to those types. Will YOU seek a virtual or locationless knowing it won't give you a hit? Some virtuals are interesting enough to be worth the trip, but I bet a fair amount of folks will say "natch" and pass them by. I think that's even more so for locationless caches because you're not seeing something new, you're finding something preexisting that you previously knew about, so it's somewhat pointless without getting a hit.

I think it should be a complete total but with a breakdown. i.e in my case I would be 38/21/13/4. 38 total finds, 21 real, 13 virtual, 4 locationless. Simple, it tells the story, and it gives me credit for every find. Yeah, I've hit about as many real ones as virtuals/locationless ones, but thats me. I don't have the time to spend 6 hours on a 4/4 hike or to hit 10 in one day like some people, or travel distances to find something that's more then 10 miles away. I earned all 38 & they should all be represented. if anything, listing it that way is a motivator to seek more real caches to lower the disparity, especially since it's public. (if it bothers you, which it does for me marginally)

WUHOO TEAMGWHO!

May 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
That Jane Blow thinks she's so cool with her gold star.

Ill bet she had fun in high school with that name...

Does anyone have her email address???

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

May 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:

It's not whether or not you pick your nose that matters, but where you put the booger...

You can pick your nose and you can pick your friends

But you cant pick your friends nose....

boy are we getting off topic...

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

1.4k · May 21, 2002

Just don't log your finds on the site here, and nobody will have an accurate idea of what you do. It works. Log it in the cache log book, and E-mail the owner directly. This will give you the option of adding to the brag or quietly enjoying the hobby without entering into the frey.

Mike. KD9KC.

May 21, 2002

Make each cacher's numbers available to them (even with a break down of each type), but too many people are judging others based solely on a number of finds.

All you really need to "judge" whether someone should be taken seriously as a cacher is a particular number at which we can all agree (yeah, right) that a cacher has "earned his/her stripes".

Let's use 25 as an example. Once a person has found 25 caches he/she earns a "star" or some other indicator. (Think about it, after 25 finds you pretty much "GET" geocaching. You've "proven" your ability to find caches.) More stars, or different color stars, aren't needed as people would just continue to fudge their numbers to earn new stars. Two levels, newbie or cacher.

May 21, 2002

Maybe you guys dont get it...there are sites out there that post the stats ( like the one I linked to earlier in this thread). One site is even international ( dont have the link right now )and I know there are others. They do this with software that "crawls" the geocaching.com Wed site and pulls all the log info and compiles it into statistical format. So even if Jeremy were to remove them they are still just a click away....get over it they are just stats...

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

May 21, 2002

Like all statistics, found counts can be manipulated and distorted but it's still a feature. I like features. The more, the better. You want higher numbers? Go for the drive-by "gimme" caches. I have a low count because I try to stick to quality caches that challenge me in some way.

"There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night. Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently."

3k · May 22, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Quest:
Like all statistics, found counts can be manipulated and distorted but it's still a feature. I like features. The more, the better. You want higher numbers? Go for the drive-by "gimme" caches. I have a low count because I try to stick to quality caches that challenge me in some way.

But like everybody else, a significant percentage of your finds are challenging 1/1's.

May 22, 2002

Ok. Starting now I only try to go for quality caches that challenge me in some way.

I admit some of my caches (5 of 23) are 1/1's. Hey, with so many 1/1's out there I had to hit a few. Especially when I cache with my kids.

"There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night. Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently."

May 22, 2002

It is real important to have find counts so that it is easier to identify the people new to the sport and help and encourage them along the way. On my first couple finds I found it extremely frustrating to not find something that seemed so easy. What I recieved was an abundance of help, tips, and encouragement. The best advise I received was " Think like a cacher hiding a cache and examine the obvious" seems pretty obvious now but was invauluable then.

4.5k · May 22, 2002

Wanting to feel competent at whatever you do is a normal human desire. The counting helps. Whenever i can't find a cache (I've posted 9 of those), I look at the count of the ones I found (29) and that reminds me that I am competent, just not perfect. Sometimes just average (Arggh).

But that's OK too.

Alan

6.1k · November 18, 2011

From another thread, it appears there are a large number of people who feel that the "caches found" count doesn't matter. Jeremy said on a recent thread:

"Who's Line is it Anyway?

Points don't matter.

Really.

Points don't matter. Unless we employ a statistician it will never be fair. I'll continue to say that Geocaching is not a competition but a pasttime. If folks want to get into friendly competition that is fine, but the site was designed to keep competition a nonissue."

I think its about time that individual found counts be removed from view from everyone except that individual player.

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

I agree. Eventually it will turn into a numbers game and the participants will just be competing for points. Caches will lose trade items and become scattered around as part of a road rallye. :rolleyes:

Who's in favour of hiding all "found" counts?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment