If Cache Stats Really Don't Matter

February 15, 2004

If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

4.1k · February 15, 2004

The stats are there to let me know when it time to go look for caches and benchmarks! <_<

John

February 15, 2004

For fun. Everyone geocaches for different reasons. While stats mean squat to some, others like to keep track.

1.6k · February 15, 2004

I like to keep track of what I have done. I would be cool with a cache list and a TB list, as these are about the only stats I use.

4k · February 15, 2004

If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

In the same vein, why do we have cache stats? What harm does it do?

1.1k · February 15, 2004

Why do we keep track of our age? Why does everyone know how tall they are? Why is the sky blue? Where do chickens come from? Why can't Jeff Blake be a real quarterback?

3.5k · February 15, 2004

First one to log a million WINS!!!!

9.2k · February 15, 2004

If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

It's not as simple as "stats matter" / "stats don't matter". I care about my own stats. I like to know how many I did, and when I did them. However, I don't give a flip about how my counts compare to others. The only time I pay any attention to someone elses count is when they log a DNF on a cache. If their count is still in single digits, I don't take it too seriously.

1.8k · February 15, 2004

If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

(-1 Flamebait)

4k · February 15, 2004

Where do chickens come from?

Chickens come from eggs.....no....wait......eggs come from chi.......ummm......well, there's another dead horse we can beat while we're at it! <_<

3.1k · February 15, 2004

Posts are much more important than logs, please keep that in mind <_<

4k · February 15, 2004

Posts are much more important than logs, please keep that in mind

So true...without posts, how would we keep our fences off the ground? But, without logs, what would we burn in the fireplace?

5.3k · February 16, 2004

I find post stats very useful. In general, the higher the number of posts a person has, the more likely it is that they are just posting to hear themselves talk and the less likely they have anything interesting to say.

And yes, I include myself in that evaluation.

February 16, 2004

If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

(-1 Flamebait)

I'm not sure I understand this answer.

February 16, 2004

This issue AGAIN !

The forum is starting to look like a recycling bin.

February 16, 2004

nonnipoppy Posted on Feb 15 2004, 04:29 PM
(The Cheeseheads @ Feb 15 2004, 04:14 PM)
(nonnipoppy @ Feb 15 2004, 10:46 AM)
If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

(-1 Flamebait)

I'm not sure I understand this answer.

<_< From the number of your posts, I would say you are new to the Forum Game. Maybe this will shed a little bit more light.

Definition FLAMMING: The mocking, or tourching of one thread participant who opens themselves up for attack by others by posting controversial questions that envoke the sarcasim of the other thread participants.

38.2k · February 16, 2004

First one to log a million WINS!!!!

Careful! A year and a half ago we said "first one to log a thousand wins". Now we have well over a dozen with a thousand finds and a few around 3,000.

2.3k · February 16, 2004

I would like to see an "opt-out" choice that would allow cachers to hide their caching stats. Give each cacher the option instead of forcing their numbers to be public.

February 16, 2004

You guys make things way to hard. Just use your regular account for stashing/finding caches, and setup a sock puppet account for the forum, and don't tell anyone else who you are. Your stats would then be hidden.

9.4k · February 16, 2004

If you don't care about stats, then don't look at them.

I don't care about virtuals, so I don't look for them. If they happen to be near another cache, I might log them.

February 16, 2004

Fair is fair! No geocaching stats - no forum stats!

Who cares about stats? Forum posters obviously! We totally support nonnipoppies question and have a long response - which we will sit on overnight and post tomorrow when tempers aren't quite so much on edge.

Hogarth - we have a real problem with you. Hope you have lots of warnings on your meter! With "only" 238 posts to the forum you want to tell "new" people about flaming? Either have a few less drinks before posting or learn to spell better before we take you too seriously!

We're not puppet accounts - we're cachers. And we take offense at your attitude. If geocaching doesn't want stats, we're fine with that! But, now that nonnipoppy has pointed it out - no stats in ANY part! And that includes forum posts!

February 16, 2004

getting back to the orginal topic:

If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

Is anyone suggesting because they don't like post stats we should nix them for everyone else? sounds kind of selfish doesn't it.

I like stats. Friendly competition is fun with neighbor geocachers. I like looking at my stats and saying to myself "Man pnew, look what you've accomplished" over and over again.

Cache stats/Post stats do matter to some and thats why geocaching.com has them.

To answer nonipoppy's question further we really have to delve into the history of message board systems on the internet. I think all message board systems have stats of some sorts. Some more anal than others. Should we deviate from this because stats don't matter?

Should we get rid of poor people because they don't really matter? Heck no because I'm not going anywhere! <_< And plus I bet that poor person matters to someone (My momma still likes me!) just like stats matter to me.

...and since stats matter to me and many others for their own records, that justifies them staying right where they are. Case closed.

Edited February 16, 2004 by pnew

3.5k · February 16, 2004

Many cachers in the forums have thousands of posts, yet have found very few caches. Confucious says: "Speaking of what you do not know makes both you and your listener a fool".

February 16, 2004

I'm gonna have to politely disagree with Mr Confucious in this situation

I do think the saying:

Its not the post count of the poster in the message board;

but rather the merit of each post he has to contribute.

We should meditate in silence while reading and studying the message board to find which posters hold truth in what they say and follow these truths.

This will bring us closer to total and complete enlightenment...

February 16, 2004

My original question stems from reading lots of posts about stats. I recognize the opposing views. :blink:

But there seems to be a bit of a double standard. There is a quick easy way to see forum posting stats. To see caching stats is more difficult. Thanks to the new undocumented feature a bit easier than before. :blink:

It does seem to me that some of the negative comments about comparison caching stats come from forum members who seem proud of their forum stats. :blink:

I am not trying to beat a dead horse here. It just appears odd.

Hogarth, while not a longtime poster I am a fairly frequent lurker. Since I never learned to type well each of my posts is time consuming. Therefore I do not post a lot. But I do understand what flaming is, I did not understand the oblique (at least to me) -1 reference. Thanks for the clarification. <_< I did not ask the question to get flamed. I ask because I wanted others opinions on the subject and to see if others has sensed the same thing.

1.8k · February 16, 2004

If cache stats really don't matter why do we have post stats?

(-1 Flamebait)

I'm not sure I understand this answer.

First off, that is a Slashdot reference. On that site, users are allowed to moderate other users' posts as appropriate. Moderations range from things like +1 Insightful and +1 Funny down to -1 Troll and -1 Flamebait. A post will then have a rating between -1 and +5 depending on the sum of all moderations done to it. As a reader, you then have the option to hide posts under a certain threshold so you only see the most indightful or informative posts. A nice system, actually.

From Wikipedia: Flamebait is a message posted to an Internet discussion group, such as a newsgroup or a mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame").

I seriously doubt that you had the intent to start a flamewar, but as soon as I saw that post, I figured that this thread could get ugly with people defending post counts and find counts and why numbers do/don't matter.

Nothing against you, personally; I was just making an editorial comment about the post.

1.4k · February 16, 2004

Where do chickens come from?

Chickens come from eggs.....no....wait......eggs come from chi.......ummm......well, there's another dead horse we can beat while we're at it!

Well a chicken and a rooster were drinking in the back seat of a Camero...

February 16, 2004

The stats are there for people that feel the need to keep score even though we're not in competition with each other.

Either that they just want to see how they are doing in relation to fellow cachers.

Whatever . . . who cares?

9.4k · February 16, 2004

Either that they just want to see how they are doing in relation to fellow cachers.

I'll vote for this one

7.2k · February 16, 2004

"...why do we have post stats?"

Probably because the software came that way.

February 16, 2004

Either that they just want to see how they are doing in relation to fellow cachers.

I'll vote for this one

This is my reason for wanting stats as well. With Dan's page it was nice to see how active other cachers were in an area. I would even agree with a system where you could opt out of having your name on a leaderboard and it would instead say "Anonymous Cacher". Unfortunately the way it is now, the anti-stats zealots have ruined it for us all.

--RuffRidr

February 16, 2004

I would like to see an "opt-out" choice that would allow cachers to hide their caching stats. Give each cacher the option instead of forcing their numbers to be public.

Why do you care either way? You've already said in other posts that you don't post your finds online. You're already opted out!! Start logging your finds online for the enjoyment of the cache creator, and then you can worry about being opted out.

--RuffRidr

9.4k · February 16, 2004

Either that they just want to see how they are doing in relation to fellow cachers.

I'll vote for this one

This is my reason for wanting stats as well. With Dan's page it was nice to see how active other cachers were in an area. I would even agree with a system where you could opt out of having your name on a leaderboard and it would instead say "Anonymous Cacher". Unfortunately the way it is now, the anti-stats zealots have ruined it for us all.

--RuffRidr

Our local group had fun watching each other's stats change on that site. That was always one of the big topics whenever we would meet, "You've almost caught up to me, I'll have to go caching more!"

Now that Dan's site is gone we've lost that part of our community.

I happened to see someone's stats the other day on a cache we had both found. I was shocked that we are 60 ahead of him, when he was right on our tail last summer. Another couple has pulled 200 ahead of us and I had no idea until 2 days ago.

2.3k · February 17, 2004

I would like to see an "opt-out" choice that would allow cachers to hide their caching stats. Give each cacher the option instead of forcing their numbers to be public.

Why do you care either way? You've already said in other posts that you don't post your finds online. You're already opted out!! Start logging your finds online for the enjoyment of the cache creator, and then you can worry about being opted out.

--RuffRidr

Well, I would like to log a find on the cache pages, and tell of the story of the search, but that would mean my stats would be posted, and I don't want that to happen. Until the day comes where cachers are the ones making the decisions about whether or not to have their numbers posted, I will have to continue my Underground Geocaching style.

Edited February 17, 2004 by TEAM 360

6.4k · February 17, 2004

This is my reason for wanting stats as well. With Dan's page it was nice to see how active other cachers were in an area. I would even agree with a system where you could opt out of having your name on a leaderboard and it would instead say "Anonymous Cacher". Unfortunately the way it is now, the anti-stats zealots have ruined it for us all.

--RuffRidr

How did anyone HERE, anti OR pro stats, ruin it? Seems to me, the only person who "ruined" the stats was the guy who shut down the server Dan was piggybacking his stats site off of. That's the person who ruined the stats, not anyone on GC.com.

1.3k · February 17, 2004

But there seems to be a bit of a double standard. There is a quick easy way to see forum posting stats. To see caching stats is more difficult. Thanks to the new undocumented feature a bit easier than before.

As much as I'd like to go off on a "Pro-Stats" rant - I don't see the need.

I think we all recall the problems geocaching.com had with their forums a few months ago - due to larger than expected traffic.

These "new" forums (aren't so new) are still very much 'out of the box'.

The forum stats features are stock. GC.com didn't add them on purpose, nor did they remove them because they have bigger fish to fry.

If I recall the order,

Benchmarking (currently in debugging mode now, if you haven't seen the changes, check it out)

"My cache page"

"Locationless" (or whatever they will be called)

then porting the rest of the website to the "new codebase" (and redoing the MAIN geocaching.com page).

Then they will get to OTHER stuff.

-----

Stats never hurt anything. If you'll do some searching you'll see that gc.com isn't totally against it and they realize that they are important to some - but it's not a priority for them.

-----

Anyways - forum stats are STOCK CODE - there's no hidden agenda.

This from one of the "loudest" PRO-stats geocachers.

southdeltan

February 17, 2004

<_< <_< <_<

Isn't there an emoticon with eyes that roll completely around the other way?

February 17, 2004

This is my reason for wanting stats as well. With Dan's page it was nice to see how active other cachers were in an area. I would even agree with a system where you could opt out of having your name on a leaderboard and it would instead say "Anonymous Cacher". Unfortunately the way it is now, the anti-stats zealots have ruined it for us all.

--RuffRidr

How did anyone HERE, anti OR pro stats, ruin it? Seems to me, the only person who "ruined" the stats was the guy who shut down the server Dan was piggybacking his stats site off of. That's the person who ruined the stats, not anyone on GC.com.

OK, maybe ruined it for everyone else was a little strong. But the people constantly complaining about how stats would totally ruin the game aren't helping. I don't get it. If you don't like stats, JUST DON'T LOOK AT THE STAT BOARD. Then you will be just like there was no stats at all. Wala! Of course, making a stat board where where users could opt out of would solve everything. I'm not holding my breath, however.

--RuffRidr

February 17, 2004

I would like to see an "opt-out" choice that would allow cachers to hide their caching stats. Give each cacher the option instead of forcing their numbers to be public.

Why do you care either way? You've already said in other posts that you don't post your finds online. You're already opted out!! Start logging your finds online for the enjoyment of the cache creator, and then you can worry about being opted out.

--RuffRidr

Well, I would like to log a find on the cache pages, and tell of the story of the search, but that would mean my stats would be posted, and I don't want that to happen. Until the day comes where cachers are the ones making the decisions about whether or not to have their numbers posted, I will have to continue my Underground Geocaching style.

Fair enough. I think a stats board where you could opt out of (and be posted as "Anonymous cacher") would make us both happy. Maybe TPTB will take this into consideration.

--RuffRidr

February 17, 2004

I CARE about stats. I have a huge board in my computer room and I track each and every one of your finds...ALL OF YOU!.I just can't stop. I quit looking for caches now, there is no time. I need to watch all of you.

No, no. I actually care about my stats. I like seeing a list of how many I have found. And I have a friendly bet with a cacher I work with. We make bets on how many we will find on our days off, if she will ever pass my count, etc. The loser each week has to buy lunch. Just something funny we do.

But if you don't care about stats, just ignore them. I don't see why this is a huge deal for some people. But...to each his own I guess.

4k · February 17, 2004

This is my reason for wanting stats as well. With Dan's page it was nice to see how active other cachers were in an area. I would even agree with a system where you could opt out of having your name on a leaderboard and it would instead say "Anonymous Cacher". Unfortunately the way it is now, the anti-stats zealots have ruined it for us all.

--RuffRidr

How did anyone HERE, anti OR pro stats, ruin it? Seems to me, the only person who "ruined" the stats was the guy who shut down the server Dan was piggybacking his stats site off of. That's the person who ruined the stats, not anyone on GC.com.

OK, maybe ruined it for everyone else was a little strong. But the people constantly complaining about how stats would totally ruin the game aren't helping. I don't get it. If you don't like stats, JUST DON'T LOOK AT THE STAT BOARD. Then you will be just like there was no stats at all. Wala! Of course, making a stat board where where users could opt out of would solve everything. I'm not holding my breath, however.

--RuffRidr

I'm one that doesn't give a hoot about stats, but I agree....make them available for those that want them. Yeah, if I wanted to see anyone's stats right now, I could...but I don't bother.....and let those of us who don't want to be constantly attacked in the forums for our low cache find count opt out of the stat board. That way, the high and mighties in these forums wouldn't have anything to throw in our face and dance around their throne with to celebrate their immense stat counts in relation to ours....

Oh, by the way, it's "Voila" , not Wala..... <_<

1.4k · February 17, 2004

Oh, by the way, it's "Voila" , not Wala.....

Well actually on Mondays and certain Aztec holidays it is Wala.

4k · February 17, 2004

Oh, by the way, it's "Voila" , not Wala.....

Well actually on Mondays and certain Aztec holidays it is Wala.

Sorry....I should have done a google search first.....you're right.... <_<

9.4k · February 17, 2004

I'm one that doesn't give a hoot about stats, but I agree....make them available for those that want them. Yeah, if I wanted to see anyone's stats right now, I could...but I don't bother.....and let those of us who don't want to be constantly attacked in the forums for our low cache find count opt out of the stat board. That way, the high and mighties in these forums wouldn't have anything to throw in our face and dance around their throne with to celebrate their immense stat counts in relation to ours....

I don't care how many cache finds you have, you only have 2800 forum posts. Until you have as many as I do, then I won't listen to what you have to say

1.8k · February 17, 2004

I'm one that doesn't give a hoot about stats, but I agree....make them available for those that want them. Yeah, if I wanted to see anyone's stats right now, I could...but I don't bother.....and let those of us who don't want to be constantly attacked in the forums for our low cache find count opt out of the stat board. That way, the high and mighties in these forums wouldn't have anything to throw in our face and dance around their throne with to celebrate their immense stat counts in relation to ours....

I don't care how many cache finds you have, you only have 2800 forum posts. Until you have as many as I do, then I won't listen to what you have to say

Please don't feed the kitty. You'll only give him ideas...

4k · February 17, 2004

I'm one that doesn't give a hoot about stats, but I agree....make them available for those that want them. Yeah, if I wanted to see anyone's stats right now, I could...but I don't bother.....and let those of us who don't want to be constantly attacked in the forums for our low cache find count opt out of the stat board. That way, the high and mighties in these forums wouldn't have anything to throw in our face and dance around their throne with to celebrate their immense stat counts in relation to ours....

I don't care how many cache finds you have, you only have 2800 forum posts. Until you have as many as I do, then I won't listen to what you have to say

Yeah, but I'm all about quantity, not quality....no, wait.....oh, dang.

February 17, 2004

Wow! A civil discussion about cache stats that yielded some consensus and no flaming. Did the world end or something?

I don't believe it could have happened before. But I like it.

Thanks to all who answered.

9.4k · February 17, 2004

Wow! A civil discussion about cache stats that yielded some consensus and no flaming. Did the world end or something?

I don't believe it could have happened before. But I like it.

Thanks to all who answered.

Since yesterday was a holiday, many people didn't logon to the forums since they only do it from work. I do it at home and at work, so I was here.

If Cache Stats Really Don't Matter

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

Join the conversation