Would you stop geocaching if...

1.6k · August 19, 2003

Would you stop geocaching if there were no statistics on this site at all?

If there was no record of how many caches you had found, would you become disinterested?

How important is the statistical component of geocaching to you?

Would you miss being able to view other geocachers statistics, especially their quantity of caches found, if this ability were removed?

August 19, 2003

I doubt it. I have been geocaching for over two years and sometimes I never get around to logging a find.

The fun is in the hunt. In fact, it was a couple of months before I ever got around to regestering on the site.

3.1k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Would you stop geocaching if there were no statistics on this site at all?

No.

quote:
If there was no record of how many caches you had found, would you become disinterested?

No.

quote:
How important is the statistical component of geocaching to you?

I liked seeing my count approach 100, but since then I haven't paid it much attention. Maybe once I near 200, I'll care again.

quote:
Would you miss being able to view other geocachers statistics, especially their quantity of caches found, if this ability were removed?

I'd miss it if it also meant I couldn't see a summary of the caches someone has found. It's fun to see where people have been.

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

9.4k · August 19, 2003

You'll probably want to make this an unscientific poll instead.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

August 19, 2003

If the stats were gone, I would still geocache. But, if there was no way to filter finds - that could get very frustrating.

2.1k · August 19, 2003

No...I guess if it didn't tell me how many I've found, then I would be doing it myself if it mattered. I would probably keep up with it for the first few, but then would start forgetting to add them. The way they have it where it's broken down as to type is nice, but it makes no difference to me.

As far as others statistics, I don't care for theirs. If it were a contest and the most was getting something, then I might. But there's no reward for having more finds than any other, except for the personal rewards.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

August 19, 2003

Hard to say if I would stop altogether. I do like the statistical portion as it is somewhat of a badge of honor. However, it wouldn't be all that hard to develop a personal tracking system if I needed to.

I do like being able to see other people's stats as it kind of adds an unofficial competitive piece to the activity and it gives me something to shoot for. It also helps to add to a player's credibility in the forums. Are they someone (like me) who may have an opinion on something but doesn't have a whole lot of experience to rely on or are they a very experienced cacher with an informed opinion. It can work the other way too. If someone has been caching since 2001 and has seen first-hand the evolution of the activity, they may be somewhat jaded. Relative "newbies" however may be less biased on certain issues (see virtual vs. traditional cache arguments).

Kind of a long answer to the questions but in short, I don't think I would stop altogether but I think it might lose some of its appeal.

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

I am Lothar, King of the Hill people. I have many tales to tell....

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not. - Stephen Wright

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

August 19, 2003

I have absolutely no interest in stats. I cache for me and it has nothing to do with how I happen to rank with others.

From the tone of your post, and other threads here, my guess is you are about to take a giant leap from removing something that already exists here (find counts), to adding more stats (cachers rankings).

1.6k · August 19, 2003

Aren't all these polls 'unscientific'?

More interested in the thoughts about, than the actual agreeing with the premise that geocaching is largely based on statistical interests of one kind or another...

Do people REALLY read all the stats in the sports section of their regional rag? And yet enough of them must. We seem addicted to stats.

5.7k · August 19, 2003

If I could still get pocket queries, I would just create a way for me to filter out my finds. The stats are cool, but not as cool as geocaching.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

4.8k · August 19, 2003

I like the stats because I like to keep track of things and it is nice to have someone else do it for me!

Wouldn't quit caching if they were not there though.

quote:
Do people REALLY read all the stats in the sports section of their regional rag?

I do, or I read most of them at least!

[This message was edited by carleenp on August 19, 2003 at 08:24 AM.]

2.3k · August 19, 2003

I doubt I would stop geocaching if there weren't any numbers, although I am glad there is a way to keep track. I felt like a newbie with less than 100 finds, now I am getting closer to 200; after that, I think I will relax a bit as I have been going "find-crazy" with 55 caches in the last 19 days. See? Numbers again! Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

2.3k · August 19, 2003

O.K. I am going to do a scientific poll here... so everyone roll up your sleeves!

I would keep geocaching if there were no stats or record of finds... I would jusk keep my own records.

How everyone else is doing, I could care less...

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

1.4k · August 19, 2003

Wouldn't bother me not to have stats. It's more of a personal/family activity to me rather than a competition. I'd keep track of caches that I've done for my own records though.

*****

August 19, 2003

Yes

I'd probably lose interest pretty quickly if there were no stats whatsoever. I've never gone to the Dan Miller site. I never saw a reason to. So I guess I'm not a "stat junkie". The way the stats are displayed now is fine with me.

Hmmm? I just had a thought.... It seems lately that this forum has taken an ugly turn. Could this be the result of the Miller site going down? Stat withdrawals?

Og

Prophetically Challenged (or is that Pathetically?)

2.3k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Doc-Dean:

I would keep geocaching if there were no stats or record of finds... I would jusk keep my own records.

How everyone else is doing, I could care less...

Exactly! I print out a sheet on every cache I do, and keep it in a binder, just in case this website ever goes down. No way am I ever going to "catch" some of the teams out there, so I just do this at my own pace....

9.4k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Aren't all these polls 'unscientific'?

Yes.

quote:
Do people REALLY read all the stats in the sports section of their regional rag? And yet enough of them must. We seem addicted to stats.

Competitive sports are crazy with stats. Why? Because they're competitive.

Competitive sports have The Rules of The Game. The Rules dictate how a game is played, the rules on scoring, etc. In soccer there are timed quarters. In golf there are strokes.

In geocaching there is a point in space you have to reach. Once you reach that point you mark it as a find. It is all in good faith, there is no referee, and every cache is different.

Scoring, as a result, is pointless. Simply with find counts people have issues with only getting one find for a multicache. Others complain that Jack is logging his own cache to bump up his *score*. The pitch of competitive whine is more than sufficient without thrusting upon everyone ranking on the site.

Not that I'm ignoring the rumblings in the forum, however. We have been considering two concepts which could find its way on the web site, depending on interest:

1. Users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." Only those people become ranked in the system.

2. People can join groups and see rankings of their stats on the web site as a group.

I prefer #2. Both are opt-in and in this situation if everyone understands the complexity of "scoring" and doesn't come b!tch to me if someone cheats, we will consider adding it.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.4k · August 19, 2003

No I wouldn't. I don't care who's in 1st, 2nd or 99th place. I like finding hidden stuff in places I never would have known about.

_________________________________________________________________________

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

38.2k · August 19, 2003

It's nice that the website keeps a record of my finds because I'm too lazy to do so myself.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

August 19, 2003

OK, keep the stats as long as you keep the virtuals.

4.8k · August 19, 2003

quote:
1. Users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." Only those people become ranked in the system.

2. People can join groups and see rankings of their stats on the web site as a group.

I prefer #2. Both are opt-in and in this situation if everyone understands the complexity of "scoring" and doesn't come b!tch to me if someone cheats, we will consider adding it.

Interesting idea, but I wouldn't take part in it. If I did so, I would probably start feeling like it really was a competition and feel like I had to cache for numbers instead of fun. Of course for people who want to be competitive, it is a good idea.

1.4k · August 19, 2003

I'll bet that BruceS makes 4000 finds before the end of this year.

*****

3k · August 19, 2003

I'll stop geocaching when they pry my GPS from my cold, dead fingers.

Cache you later,

Planet

So many caches, so little time.

1.1k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by carleenp:

quote:

2. People can join groups and see rankings of their stats on the web site as a group.

Interesting idea, but I wouldn't take part in it. If I did so, I would probably start feeling like it really was a competition and feel like I had to cache for numbers instead of fun.

Not necessarily. It would probably be just one tab as part of a group feature. So you could at a glance see all your friends on one page and their updates.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

2.1k · August 19, 2003

Ahhhh...I see where you are going with this Jeremy. Kind of a "watch others finds" kind of thing. Not sure if I would be interested in it, but it would be a neat extra.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

4.8k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Not necessarily. It would probably be just one tab as part of a group feature. So you could at a glance see all your friends on one page and their updates.

OK, I can see myself using it for that purpose in a group of just my family and a few best friends.

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Would you stop geocaching if there were no statistics on this site at all?

Nope.

quote:
If there was no record of how many caches you had found, would you become disinterested?

Nope

quote:
How important is the statistical component of geocaching to you?

Not so much. As I said in another thread, at any one time I couldn't tell you how many caches I'd found without looking it up, and to be frank, I'm not fussed.

I could talk for hours about the walks I've had to some really great cache sites though - that's what matters to me, I guess.

quote:
Would you miss being able to view other geocachers statistics, especially their quantity of caches found, if this ability were removed?

Ironically, yes, I would. Sometimes it is interesting to see how many caches a person had found, but usually I only look at that sort of info to quell my own interests. It wouldn't really affect me badly.

------

"There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

3k · August 19, 2003

My answer to the topic of the thread is "maybe." Something has to be 'the final straw,' and in my opinion geocaching isn't nearly the sport it was when I discovered it almost two years ago.

In my opinion, the quality of the average cache experience has fallen precipitously; I've cut back my geocaching by more than 50% so far in 2003. I'm not one of those cachers who finds enjoyment in driving hundreds of miles solely to log another 15 non-descript, uninspired cache placements for every 'good' one.

While it would seem a contradiction, following the stats/rankings had become at least as much fun as the average cache hunt. (Dan's page was so slow, waiting for the Leaderboard page to load also took more time than the average cache hunt. )

August 19, 2003

Do I care if I'm ahead or behind someone? Not really. Do I take folks who have more finds than me more seriously than folks who have less? It depends (who can take Mopar seriously? ). But as Lothar69 said, the numbers are a badge of honor. I worked dadgum hard for some of those finds and I want something to reflect that. Since we don't get actual badges when we complete a cache, those numbers take on added meaning.

It also doesn't help things that this whole "No Stats" nonsense hit just as I'm approaching my first century.

Oh, and I definitely wouldn't join a team to get numbers. One of the joys of caching is that you can go alone and don't have to wait on others schedules.

Ode to a Pigeon: Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, You Lookin' at Me? YOU LOOKIN' AT ME?! (b. katt, 7/14/03)

August 19, 2003

Caution, on-topic newbie: No and I don't see this changing.

For me it's the hunt and the places the hunt take me to. I far prefer to hunt a cache that involves a strenuous hike through areas I've never been to before, than to push my find count higher by "pocketing" many quick finds. That's the adventure I seek here.

I don't need no stinkin stats, I need mother nature.

August 19, 2003

geocaching.com rule #1: there shalt be no stats.

But seriously, I have been soul searching lately, trying to figure out why I miss the stats. There was no way I would ever make it even to page 1 in my state, nevermind come close to the great WR, so what's the deal?

I think it's just more online-geocaching eye candy to me. If you live a busy life like I do, you can't cache 24x7. I just finished the dishes and have about 15 minutes before heading to the kids soccer practice. I can't exactly head out for a quick 3-2 multi. So I sit down and check for any new caches, planning the next outings, looking at maps, reading logs, checking the forums etc... and yes, Dan's stat page was yet another stop over. Not competition, just curiosity I guess. Fun to watch the other cachers in my local area.

I think geocaching.com could replace it easily with almost anything that shows information about other local cachers, while honoring privacy issues of course.

Ask these related questions of yourself: would you quit if they removed the forums? free-form logging? the ability to buy official geocaching stuff? geocaching existed before geocaching.com and it would continue afterward. I don't think that the stats issue will be as devisive to the community of cachers as it looks to be right now, it's just stats hangover. But give me something else to look at quickly! Like maps!!

thanks Jeremy

[This message was edited by Pluckers on August 19, 2003 at 10:53 AM.]

1.1k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by enfanta:

Oh, and I _definitely_ wouldn't join a team to get numbers. One of the joys of caching is that you can go alone and don't have to wait on others schedules.

Um, no. That's not what I meant. What I did mean was you could be in a group and be able to see statistics of everyone in the group. Maybe there'd be a total "count" but the point would be to track all the folks in your group so you see their scores and log history.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.1k · August 19, 2003

I think that Stats definately enhance the game (fun factor) and make it more interesting. If not, why even log a find if you are not interested. I think it is fun to see where I rank in my town, province, country, world compared to other people...and maybe it even gives me more motivation to go caching...although without stats I would still go geocaching too.

If anyone wants to keep track of their own cache finds and log their mileage, I have a really neat spread sheet which you can find near the bottom of my web site under the Files heading:

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada/geocaching.html

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada <---NEW!

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

2.6k · August 19, 2003

I think the people that, truly, don't care about stats don't log finds.

My highest traffic cache only has 100 logs online. Even though I'm on my second log book.

About 1/3 of the finders do not log their finds. I spoke to shoeman at his cache in Yakima. He explained to me that when he travels he caches so much that he would have to spend a couple of hours a night logging. So he just skips it all together.

POWDER!!!!!!

[This message was edited by leatherman on August 19, 2003 at 11:10 AM.]

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
I think the people that, truly, don't care about stats don't log finds.

I beg to differ.

I log my finds on site because I think the cache owner will want to know of my experience while doing the cache. I could email them, granted, but logging it also allows others to find out about my experiences - was it positive, negative, etc.

I could just post a note - but then, at a glance, a user or cache owner would not be able to tell if the last find was a DNF, which is especially important if you are going out of your way to a cache.

On at least one occasion, because of my DNF log, a cache was discovered as missing, and replaced almost immediately. Logs serve a purpose.

So yes, I log my finds, but for different reasons than for the numbers - flawed reasons they may be, but reasons nonetheless.

------

"There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

August 19, 2003

I don't know that I would necessarily stop caching if the stats were gone, but I can say that the stats (among other things on the website) were what got me interested enough to actually try my first cache.

Kudos to Jeremy and the Admin who keep it all running.

Keep on Caching! (and Benchmarking!)

- Kewaneh

1.3k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

Not that I'm ignoring the rumblings in the forum, however. We have been considering two concepts which could find its way on the web site, depending on interest:

1. Users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." Only those people become ranked in the system.

2. People can join groups and see rankings of their stats on the web site as a group.

I prefer #2. Both are opt-in and in this situation if everyone understands the complexity of "scoring" and doesn't come b!tch to me if someone cheats, we will consider adding it.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

I think both ideas are fine ones. I want to thank you for finally taking notice (or, at least addressing this subject). It may not be about competition, and there may not be officials keeping score, but I beleive numbers do play a significant part in this sport/game/hobby/pasttime/fill-in-the-blank. Not everybody who used insidecorner.com was doing it to see where they 'ranked' (although that was a very interesting thing to numerous people). That site made it easy to keep up with who was active, who wasn't active - who was new (in states with less cachers, of course more populated states could still find this out).

I think the 2nd option would be better choice, but I don't see why you wouldn't automatically go into an 'overall' group (similar to option #1) if you joined any group. That way the people who cared could check nationally/globally to see where they ranked. I'm sure that would be a stress on the servers, but it would be interesting.

The 2nd option would also allow some defaults - like 'regional' (grouped like the discussion forums), state, national (for those non-americans ), and even city or county groups.

Sounds like a good idea, I hope to see it in place one day

southdeltan

ps - any word on the maps? (Take this as a reminder to remind the vendor? hehehe)

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

4.2k · August 19, 2003

No way.

The stats for me are just keeping track of where I've been. If they weren't here I would keep an Excel sheet, but I'm glad they are here so don't remove them!

Seriously, I play hockey and volleyball to satisfy my competitiveness so I don't do this for the rankings. Would it be cool to see where I stood next to others in the city/state....maybe I'd check it out but maybe not.

Just like others have said, it's the outdoor activity and the hiking that I really like not the count numbers.

2.6k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:
On at least one occasion, because of my DNF log, a cache was discovered as missing, and replaced almost immediately. Logs serve a purpose.

So yes, I log my finds, but for different reasons than for the numbers - flawed reasons they may be, but reasons nonetheless.

There's nothing flawed about what your doing. I think everyone in here understands the important info in a log.

My point is that there are many cachers that have no interest in anything on the web site other than the coordinates.

POWDER!!!!!!

3.1k · August 19, 2003

I agree with Kouros. Another reason to log finds even if you don't care about the stats is so that the ones you've found don't show up in your searches.

Let's make a distinction here between the logs and the count. I like the automatic online record that gc.com provides. It's nice to know at a glance how many I've found, but if that count went away today I'd be just a happy with the site. I do like to go back and look over my logs. On many caches, I have several Not Found logs before my eventual Found. It would be a pain to sort through those and find the one I want if they were all the same kind of log.

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

August 19, 2003

I will admit that I do use the My Cache Page to keep track of finds and as a quick shortcut to specific caches. This said, I still would have no interest in an overall ranking. I'm not competing with anyone.

August 19, 2003

quote:
What I did mean was you could be in a group and be able to see statistics of everyone in the group.

Oh, that sounds good!

I choose the United States as my group.

Ode to a Pigeon: Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, You Lookin' at Me? YOU LOOKIN' AT ME?! (b. katt, 7/14/03)

August 19, 2003

NO I would not stop.

Would I become disinterested, definately.

I would definately miss the STATS.

quote:
Not that I'm ignoring the rumblings in the forum, however. We have been considering two concepts which could find its way on the web site, depending on interest:

1. Users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." Only those people become ranked in the system.

2. People can join groups and see rankings of their stats on the web site as a group.

I prefer #2. Both are opt-in and in this situation if everyone understands the complexity of "scoring" and doesn't come b!tch to me if someone cheats, we will consider adding it.

This ROCKS!

I promise not to cheat or whine!

Now common everyone, PROMISE.

9.4k · August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by enfanta:

Oh, that sounds good!

I choose the United States as my group.

I can't see why not. And anyone who joins the group can see that group's stats.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

3.8k · August 19, 2003

Call me old fashioned...Stats don't mean that much to me, but they can be interesting. I say just leave the current system in place.

And no I wouldn't quit if there were no stats.

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

August 19, 2003

Hi,

Statistics and ranking is not important to me.

What I did like to see from Dan Miller was the function: "most recent logs" in my country Switzerland.

From geocaching.com I can only see "most recent caches". Or, does the function "most recent logs" also exist in geocaching.com??

Regards from Bern

August 19, 2003

There is a link on the bottom of the main page for recent logs.

hydee

I work for the frog

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Would you stop geocaching if there were no statistics on this site at all?

Perhaps. Definately would not be as interested. I'm a competitive person by nature. I like to see how I'm doing as compared to others. I would still probably go after caches that are held in high regard and are often praised. I just wouldn't have any incentive to go after those crappy caches that seem to be prevalent.

quote:
If there was no record of how many caches you had found, would you become disinterested?

Like I said above, I'd be way more selective.

quote:
How important is the statistical component of geocaching to you?

It's a big part of what makes it "fun" for me. Take away that and all there is McToys.

quote:
Would you miss being able to view other geocachers statistics, especially their quantity of caches found, if this ability were removed?

As I've said in other threads, the big part I liked about Dan's site was that I could tell by the stats who the active cachers were in my state. Then I could see what caches they were visiting and what they were posting about them. You could find cachers whose opinions were similair to yours and go by them to decide what caches you want to hunt down.

--RuffRidr

August 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:
There is a link on the bottom of the main page for http://www.geocaching.com/seek/recent_logs.asp.

hydee

_I work for the frog_

Thats way too broad. If there was recent logs for each state page, I'd be a lot happier.

--RuffRidr

August 19, 2003

Why is Groundspeak so opposed to all inclusive stats in a traditional leaderboard format?

I understand that the sport is not intended to be competative, and that bottom line numbers aren't really very meaningful, but there are obviously a significant number of users who are interested in this information. The information we're discussing is already available on the website, and the fact that Groundspeak has chosen not to make that information available to third parties in an easy to use format actually costs them bandwidth from screen scraping apps.

I have yet to hear from any users who are opposed to having this information posted in an organized format. Was there ever a thread calling to shut down Dan Miller's site? There have already been several people who have volunteered their own resources for designing/hosting such a stats site if it would not require extensive ongoing maintenance.

Why not just write a daily report in a standard format available to anyone with a legitimate use for it? It gives Groundspeak distance from the competative stats which they don't endorse and separates them from the presumed "whiners" they would have to endure. Furthermore, it saves them time and money in the form of maintenance and bandwidth.

Thoughts?

-Vb

Would you stop geocaching if...

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