Do you judge people based on their stats?

[Rubbertoe]

When Jeremy and TPTB temporarily took away the "find totals" from people's log entries, many folks around here had a cow. Some of them seemed to suggest that people base the worth of someone's comments on how many caches they have found. The fewer caches found, the less useful their info probably was. It has been discussed in other threads as well. I'm just tossing out this informal poll to see what people have to say.

 

POLL QUESTION:

 

When you are reading a person's postings here in the forums, do you use their stats to judge the value of their input?

 

( I realize there are more "yes" options than "no" options, but that isn't the point... I'm not asking this question as a "yes vs. no" battle. Each answer has its own usefulness in this poll. )

 

The NEW Toe Pages

[Rubbertoe]

I will go ahead and make the first vote... my vote is "other" because I do sometimes judge people by their stats - but I do it to those who have an insane amount of finds.

 

If I look at an account and they have a few caches hidden, and 385 caches found... well, that just seems like a lot of caches to me. And, even though I try not to let it influence me - I often expect those people with high find counts will be "know it alls" and somewhat snobby towards the people with only a handful of finds.

 

I think it just comes from reading the forums over several months - I mean, I can't even pick out particular people or posts... but I just get the feeling that some of those folks sorta look down on those people who haven't reached the "status" that they have. *shrug*

 

Well, that's my take on it... I'm looking forward to everyone else's.

 

The NEW Toe Pages

[+LarsThorwald]

I think it's about attitude, not number of finds. I rarely check on find totals in the forums, but I will take the total into account when reading a log on a cache I'm going to find, or even on one of my own. If someone complains bitterly about how hard it was to get to a cache, the number of freeways they had to run across and fences they had to climb, and suggests the cache should be archived (which has happened around here), and you see that they've only had one other find, it's worth weighting their comments differently than a more experienced finder who might realize that if the most obvious route was a dangerous one then perhaps they should turn the map around. In this sense, I think find totals are worthwhile.

 

But on the forums? Hey, I've run into as many jerks with 5 posts and one find as with 300 of each!

 

Charlie

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

[+Web-ling]

It depends on the nature of the comment.

 

For instance, in the Benchmarking forum, Survey Tech has zero caches or benchmarks found, and zero caches hidden. However, he is a professional surveyor, so I take his comments about benchmarks and the NGS site seriously. If he were to start commenting on how to hide a cache, or the legitimacy of locationless caches, I wouldn't give his comments as much weight.

 

Comments from newbies about subjects not specific to geocaching - such as land use, website design, batteries, WheresGeorge, etc. - have just as much weight for me as comments from long time cachers.

 

Comments specific to geocaching - best ways to hide a cache, pros/cons of various cache types, container types, coordinates being wrong, etc. - carry more weight for me if I know the cacher has some experience under their belt.

 

If I know an individual has the experience to be knowledgeable in whatever they are saying, I give the comments more weight than if I don't. This applies to geocaching or anything else in life.

 

[+infosponge]

The only thing I judge people on is their avatar.

[+welch]

i rarely if ever bother to look up someone stats. If i do it's probly somehow related to a question they've asked.

 

[Moun10Bike]

...but decided that it would be beneath me to respond to a poster who only owns 4 Travel Bugs.

 

On a serious note, I think that web-ling nailed my feelings on the matter. For me, it depends on the nature of the topic. I think that simply reading the forums regularly and getting an idea about how various recognizable names respond to issues has been more useful to me for judging the value of their comments than their stats ever would. However, occasionally the stats will help me determine how good of a perspective someone whose name I don't recognize will have on a particular topic.

 

I know how you feel about some people here seeming to look down their nose at others, or at least seeming to always have a big chip on their shoulders. I've tried to optimistically assume that they didn't intend for it to come across that way. Heck, even some of the stuff that I wrote and knew what I meant makes me cringe when I reread it. Sometimes what I wrote in an attempt to be quick and/or succinct I'll see in retrospect came off as harsh or patronizing.

 

[umc]

I choose other because I judge people on everything. The way they look their hide/find count, how many travel bugs they've owned/found and how many benchmarks they have found/owned. Not to mention how many forum posts they have. I look very closely at that one. I also look at what date they joined and if they're a member or not (paying that is). I count how many times someone misspells words and check to see if their grammer is correct. I look at avatar pics to see who has the best one. I like to know if they drink beer or not. I like to know what side of the gun battle they are on. Girl or boy. I think it makes a big difference what kind of GPS the person uses. Are they a kiss ***. Are they a dumbass. Do they have a life outside of Geocaching and what is it. East coast West coast, where do you live. What kind of car do they drive and do they live in a home or apartment. What kind of music do they listen to. Almost forgot, what is their screen name, that makes a huge difference. If its brdad, dboggny, leprechaun, rubbertoe, Cachewnut, Briansnat, Planet, MrSnazz, Dinoprophet, Criminal, Acceptable Risk (whos that), Eeyore, DruMorgan, Zartimus, Markwell, welch, Freelens, Kablooey, Beckerbuns, ClayJar, WarmFuzzies, JamieZ, (almost forgot) DrDoug, Leatherman, Trippy1976, OnestepOff, Rusty, brdad and umc I would absolutely not listen to a dadgum thing they have to say. Do they go into the IRC channel. do they use backpacks or fishing vests. Do they make fun of trekking poles. Do they place false logs on a fellow geocachers cache page. Do they talk about you behind your back and force you to leave your mIRC open all of the time.

 

These are just a few of the things that I look at when judging a person here. There are more but I have to pee.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

Not so sure, Somewhat new Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

[+briansnat]

I've read idiotic statements from veteran geocachers in these forums, and have seen excellent input from novices. But the experience of a geocacher does carry some weight with me.

 

For instance, if I get a not found on one of my caches and see the hunter has 1 or 2 finds, I'll chalk it up to inexperience and not pay it much mind. If however, I get a not found from a StayFloopy, or a BassoonPilot, I'll haul my butt out there as soon as I can to check on the status of the cache.

 

I'll also contact experienced geocachers, on occassion, to see if they agree with my terrain and difficulty ratings.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

If I look at an account and they have a few caches hidden, and 385 caches found... well, that just seems like a lot of caches to me. And, even though I try not to let it influence me - I often expect those people with high find counts will be "know it alls" and somewhat snobby towards the people with only a handful of finds.

---

 

I don't believe your find count has anything to do with your personality. Unless someone went through a spectacular metamorphosis, they are most likely the same as how they were before geocaching.

 

If someone with a very large number of finds is a "know-it-all and snobby" towards low-number of find cachers, most likely they were always that way. Sometimes people don't realize how they come off or how they are perceived.

 

If someone is called a know-it-all or a snob all of the time and they don't see themselves that way, they are in denial. All they have to do is ask their closest friend, usually their spouse, since this is the person who will be most honest with them. In most cases, the person will come to the realization that they really know the answer and there is no need to ask.

 

They should ask this friend to tell the truth when they ask, "Am I a know-it-all snob?" A true friend will give them the answer.

 

If the find numbers had anything to do with the personalities, we would be seeing a lot more of these posts than we do. Usually the high number finders like BruceS, JoGPS, Southpaw, etc. are rarely posting in the forums, and when they do, its usually something that's worth reading.

[+BrentC & Pam]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

It depends on the nature of the comment.

 

Comments from newbies about subjects not specific to geocaching - such as land use, website design, batteries, WheresGeorge, etc. - have just as much weight for me as comments from long time cachers.

 

Comments specific to geocaching - best ways to hide a cache, pros/cons of various cache types, container types, coordinates being wrong, etc. - carry more weight for me if I know the cacher has some experience under their belt.

 

If I know an individual has the experience to be knowledgeable in whatever they are saying, I give the comments more weight than if I don't. This applies to geocaching or anything else in life.

 

---

 

Gets my vote!

 

Ciao,

Brent

 

**********************************************

 

Oop's, maybe I shouldn't have hidden that cache there

[+Rusty & Libby]

I think Web-ling about sums up my opinion.

 

... except for people that have less than 100 posts, fewer than 20 combined finds/hides, and just joined this year... I won't even bother looking over the edge of my high horse at those people

 

Rusty...

 

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

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

except for people that have less than 100 posts, fewer than 20 combined finds/hides, and just joined this year... I won't even bother looking over the edge of my high horse at those people

---

 

Yep, they're slime. They're lower than whale dung at the bottom of the Marinas Trench. I'd take pleasure in directing a flatulent episode in their direction. Disgusting offal! Yuk, have to go wash my hands just thinking about them.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on November 20, 2002 at 03:59 AM.]

[+Logscaler and Red]

pretty much sums it up for me but I have to wonder about these guys who are posting to the forums with over 1,000 messages. It seems to me they would not have enough time to be out caching if they are sitting here reading all the logs and responding to them that much. Are those same people going to start sneering at us little sub 1,000 posters? Where will it end? Why did it start? Who cares? TTFN

[BassoonPilot]

I judge people by their signature lines ... the more that appears there, the less I pay attention to what they had to say.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by logscaler:

pretty much sums it up for me but I have to wonder about these guys who are posting to the forums with over 1,000 messages. It seems to me they would not have enough time to be out caching if they are sitting here reading all the logs and responding to them that much. Are those same people going to start sneering at us little sub 1,000 posters?

---

 

Well, logscaler, you have found a respectable number of caches, but you really must do something about that pitiful number of forum postings ... they don't even amount to a "good" evening in the forums for umc.

[+jonboy]

I hadn't really given it much thought, till you brought it up, but now that you mention it, there do seem to be some people who spend more time talking about Geocaching than actually Geocaching. People talk about the find/hide ratio, how about the post/find ratio?

[+Team DaSH]

I would vote, but I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter.

 

The empty can rattles the most...

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

I hadn't really given it much thought, till you brought it up, but now that you mention it, there do seem to be some people who spend more time talking about Geocaching than actually Geocaching. People talk about the find/hide ratio, how about the post/find ratio?

---

 

There's at least one thread already where this was discussed. Markwell?

[+brdad]

I use a different system alltogether. I base the usefullness of someone's post on how many times they agree with me - if they don't agree with me, how much could their info be worth anyway?

 

So far, out of my 653 posts at the time of this writing, 8 people have agreed with me, but 3 of those disagreed with me in another post, obviously Democrats who ride the line, hiding their true agendas until the time is right. That agenda, of course is creating a cache welfare system in which, we will get taxed twice as much, but in return they will bring caches directly to our door so that everyone has an equal opportunity to have the same number of finds. They are also setting up a comittee to decide whether they should provide cameras or photos as well so all cachers had the same ability to log virtuals which require photos as proof.

 

Hmmm, suppose this post will up my "I agree with brdad" numbers?

 

Just because the GPS knows where it is does not mean you do!

[+Team Tecmage]

We too use use stats when we're looking at no find logs.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Markwell?

---

 

Oooooo, here's a chance.....

 

Back in June, Hide/Find Ratio

 

Find/Hid Ratio

 

Reaching back...

 

...and not so far back

 

And way back- early discussion

 

Okay, it was fun being Markwell- let me exit his head.....

[+Treasure Hunters Inc.]

I vote 'OTHER'

 

I don't bother to look at stats. I just read what people have to say and learn from that or dismiss it depending on how helpful it is to my take on the subject. I either gain new insite from them or I don't. It is either my gain or my loss depending on how I react to their comments.

[+Treasure Hunters Inc.]

oh yea! I don't make many posts since I don't usually have to much new to contribute to the thread since I don't get on the forum too often.

[+briansnat]

I posted this thread a while ago about post to hide/find ratio. Posts / hides + finds. At the time it was 6.2.(484 posts / (50 finds + 27 hides) = 6.2. Now it's 9.08! (1145 posts / 79 finds + 37 hides).

 

I REALLY, REALLY have to get out there and find some caches!

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

[+Skully & Mulder et al.]

But not to find more caches - to hide more caches. This way, us spoiled cachers in north Jersey will be happy.

 

All kidding aside, you deserve to take some time and do some finding after all the super caches you have hidden

[ArchieDH]

Well, I judge them by how pretty their wife is.

 

We don't want to listen to you, umc.

 

umc, PUT YOUR WIFE ON WE WANT TO TALK TO HER!

 

ArchieDH

(Way down south)

[+JoeyBob]

I tend to not check out stats for the forums. A not found message from someone with 2 finds obviously won't have me worrying too much about a cache being missing. Critcisms of hiding technique or cache location from someone who bought their gps the day before are good for some chuckles!

[BassoonPilot]

Does the discussion include "Supermodels?"

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brdad:

those disagreed with me in another post, obviously Democrats who ride the line, hiding their true agendas until the time is right. That agenda, of course is creating a cache welfare system in which, we will get taxed twice as much, but in return they will bring caches directly to

 

blah, blah, blah

---

 

First of all, agendas and taxes take up a lot of time and energy that could be better spent on constructive tasks. I can't tell you how many issues of various republican publications that I read were devoted exclusively to falling-outs, betrayals, and selling-outs. Every one of these articles could have been turned to some positive task, whether current events in the world, or history, public policy, philosophy, or what have you. Oftentimes, those writing the book-length purge-statements were great minds, who produced excellent work before they embroiled themselves in in-fighting.

 

Second, agendas and taxes seriously turn off newcomers. When someone first acquires an interest in republicanism, he or she wants to learn, listen, and discuss IDEAS. When they see that more seasoned republicans seem more interested in PEOPLE, they will understandably be turned off. At its worst, it makes republicans seem more like a cult than a community of thoughtful people who value taxation.

 

To further illustrate, I'd like to quote a passage from The Mensheviks' Critique of Bolshevism and the Bolshevik State:

 

The Mensheviks did not favor silencing the bourgeoisie and czarists. Neither did they condemn the Bolsheviks on principle for punishing people for their opinions.

 

I think you see my point.

[+lostinjersey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:

But not to find more caches - to hide more caches. This way, us spoiled cachers in north Jersey will be happy.

---

 

ALthough I havent actually souhg that many of Brian's caches because I dont get out his direction too much, I'll agree that they seem to be some of the more difficult, challenging & interesting caches in the area. So much so I have one I want to do with him eventually.

 

And as for judging, influence etc, I generally go based on the following: 40% coolness of their avatar, 20% their number of posts, 30% number of hides/finds, and 10% if I like them personally or not. Bonus 10% for having a funny sig. lengthy, words sigs get negative 10% unless they're funny, in which case they get a 10% bonuses (that's on top of the first 10% bonus for being funny for a total of 20% bonus...)

 

 

www.gpswnj.com

[dave and jaime]

i try not to judge anyone, as hard as that is. but realistically ive spent time simply looking up peoples profiles and previous postings to see what their experience and background is, this i feel gives me a better understanding of their point of view. so i guess their finds mean nothing but their background, if any, and previous postings does.

[+W8TVI]

quote:

---

Originally posted by umc:

Almost forgot, what is their screen name, that makes a huge difference. If its brdad, dboggny, leprechaun, rubbertoe, Cachewnut, Briansnat, Planet, MrSnazz, Dinoprophet, Criminal, Acceptable Risk (whos that), Eeyore, DruMorgan, Zartimus, Markwell, welch, Freelens, Kablooey, Beckerbuns, ClayJar, WarmFuzzies, JamieZ, (almost forgot) DrDoug, Leatherman, Trippy1976, OnestepOff, Rusty, brdad and umc I would absolutely not listen to a dadgum thing they have to say. Do they go into the IRC channel.

---

 

Boy I'm glad I'm not on that list!

 

W8TVI

 

GeoX Geocaching gear!

[+Planet]

The only person I judge on their stats would be you Rubbertoe, and just because. I totally agree with brdad. And umc, I like what he said but he has to take me off the list of people he wouldn't listen too because I drink beer. And anyone with over 1000 caches is my hero, and I want to emulate them. I just got my sixth state under my caching belt! Is that a statistic anyone pays attention to? Does that count for something?

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[+carleenp]

Well, as someone with unimpressive stats, I will say that I tend to comment only on topics that I feel I am competent to comment on. E.g. I would comment on writing a permission letter because I have done so and had a great response, but I wouldn't comment on microcache containers, because I haven't hid or found any. I figure most people are the same. With that said, I suppose if I saw someone going on about how to hide a cache when they had never done so, maybe I would take their comments less seriously.

 

[Kerry.]

Stats, what Stats. Hidden: 0 Found: 0 so what .

 

Stats will mean whatever people want stats to mean but people shouldn't be fooled by stats alone.

 

Cheers, Kerry.

 

I never get lost everybody keeps telling me where to go

[+Team Finn]

I tend to judge others by the validity or idiocy of their comments. If a 0/0 that had years of outdoor experience were to comment on hiking boots for example, I would probably think they had a good basis for the comment. Likewise, if a city cacher 20/20 were to do the same I would wonder.

 

Dave

 

We go until we get there.....