Found Record

[+laker2]

Why is it that the number of caches that I have found various from one page of a found cache to another page of a found cache site? Related to this: for any log that I have entered onto a cache page, how is the number of found caches that is shown for me determined?

 

Thanks.

[+Moose Mob]

I had to read this a couple times, so I hope I got the question right.

 

Are you asking if the #caches shown next to your name on a cache log entry?

If so, the cache count is updated when ever the cache page is updated. That occurs if the is edited or another log entry is made. Perhaps other triggers may occur, but those are the main reasons.

 

So, for a persons cache log entry would read (10 finds) and after entering a cople more, that new page will say (12 finds). The (10 finds) will stay on the other cache page until it's regenerated.

 

In other words, it will fix itself in a matter of time.

 

Hope that this answers your question.

[+sbell111]

Moose Mob has it right. Each time you make a find, it does not update every cache page that you've ever visited. Each time a cache is logged, the page regenerates. Each cacher's info is updated at that time.

 

If you check a cache that was archived long ago, you might find that your count is hundreds of finds off because it hasn't been updated since archival.

 

Related to this, I wish these counts never were updated. It would be interesting to go back and see how many finds one had when they found a specific cache and see how you logged/traded way back then.

[+sTeamTraen]

Perhaps the count could say

 

Found by sTeamTraen: 211 finds at <found date>, 227 finds at <page date>

 

The reason why it isn't your exact actual count, is because that would require hitting the database every time the cache page was displayed. This way it only gets generated once for every N updates.

[+Moose Mob]

Continueing the tangent this thread is taking....

 

What would happen if there was a late cache entry for a missed log from a couple weeks prior, where a person's 73rd find was actually thier 74th find? I think I have 5 or 6 of those.

[+sbell111]

...What would happen if there was a late cache entry for a missed log from a couple weeks prior, where a person's 73rd find was actually thier 74th find?...

Then those few caches would be out of order. No big deal. If you cared about that sort of thing, you'd just have to remember to log them in order.

Edited February 1, 2005 by sbell111

[+sTeamTraen]

That would be a nightmare to administer, since you'd have to keep a complete history of the count on every day. I only have had one such case, but it meant that the 200th find which I posted on my profile was in fact my 201st. I decided I could probably live with that

 

As long as the count is "number of finds recorded on GC.com on that day" and not "a guaranteed exact reflection of the number of finds this person had ever made up till then", I think it's probably good enough.

[+sbell111]

Well, sure. It would only be the "number of finds recorded on GC.com by that day as reported by the cacher." Any mistakes would be that of the individual cacher, not of the site.

 

Its all academic, of course. This suggestion would never be taken. Things are fine as they are.

[+Markwell]

Each cache doesn't show what order the caches are found. Each cache (when updated) shows the total number of finds. For example, I went back and looked at the first cache I found from back in March of 2001. My entry says

March 13, 2001 by Markwell (280 found)

 

This was my first, but it doesn't say "1 found" - the cache page was updated sometime later. As I kept finding caches, the page kept updating. At some point, Jeremy made the cache pages static, in that they don't updated unless there's a change made to the cache page by the owner, or someone posts a log/note to the page. I found my 280th cache back on 10/13/2004 and my 281st on 10/17/2004 - so that tells me that this cache page was last updated sometime between those dates.

 

I also noticed that it had the plainer, older version of the smiley instead of the newer . Geocaching.com changed the file sometime after October 13 2004 so the "icon_smile.gif" produced a new graphic, but since the page is not a dymanic generation, the icons haven't been updated.

 

If I went back to that page and posted a note, it would bump my found count up to 303 and change all of the icons for smiles to . Chances of that happening are slim, as the cache is now archived.

[+Markwell]

Dang, I got called on a service call and had to finish the last paragraph of that post. By the time I did, two other answers...

[Jeremy]

How about I get rid of the find count on cache listings altogether? This information will still be available on the profile pages. There was a huge stink the last time I did this but I do want the logs to start looking the same across all the different areas.

[+Moose Mob]

It works well the way it is. Any issues it causes are minimal, and doesn't stop me from having a fun time out caching!

[+sbell111]

How about I get rid of the find count on cache listings altogether? ...

You da boss.

[+sbell111]

Each cache doesn't show what order the caches are found. ...

You missed that the thread took a left at a wish I verbalized in the third post.

 

edit: Can you verbalize in written form in a forum. Probably not. Oh well.

Edited February 1, 2005 by sbell111

[+SeventhSon]

How about I get rid of the find count on cache listings altogether? This information will still be available on the profile pages. There was a huge stink the last time I did this but I do want the logs to start looking the same across all the different areas.

How bout getting rid of post counts too ... (bait for those taking the week off

 

Losing the find count would be nice since they are cacher specific and not cache specific

[+Monkeybrad]

I find that having the find counts on the logs is helpful as a cache owner. If one of my tougher ones has a no find by someone with 6 finds, I honestly do not get as worried about it as a no find from someone with more experience. Maybe that is not fair, but I know that many others handle these no finds the same way. The find count is not the only measure of caching experience but it is a valuable tool for cache owners. It also helps me as a finder when I review old logs on a cache I am hunting.

 

Edit to add:

 

I agree that this game is not all about the numbers, but these numbers are still a valuable tool.

Edited February 1, 2005 by Monkeybrad

[+sbell111]

I actually agree with the big monkey. It would be just as helpful if they were completely static, however.

[+Monkeybrad]

And in return I agree with sbell, the numbers would probably be more helpful if they were static.

 

Yes, I think that would be great, the find counts on the page would also serve as a historical record, they would show what stage of a cacher's "career" they were in when they found a particular cache.

[+SeventhSon]

I find that having the find counts on the logs is helpful as a cache owner.  If one of my tougher ones has a no find by someone with 6 finds, I honestly do not get as worried about it as a no find from someone with more experience.  Maybe that is not fair, but I know that many others handle these no finds the same way.  The find count is not the only measure of caching experience but it is a valuable tool for cache owners.  It also helps me as a finder when I review old logs on a cache I am hunting.

 

Edit to add:

 

I agree that this game is not all about the numbers, but these numbers are still a valuable tool.

As Jeremy said, they will still be available on the profile. One click and you can see if the cacher is "experienced" enough to warrant your concern.

Edited February 1, 2005 by SeventhSon

[AJK]

I would second a move to a static found count.

[+Monkeybrad]

Weekend before last I spent the day doing cache maintenance. Why, because my wife and I had a couple of no finds on several caches in the same basic area. In this case, all of the caches were there and in good shape. The no finds had all come from people with less than twenty finds, mostly they were from people who had gotten a gps for christmas and were trying out the game. I have no problem with doing the maintenance, that is my responsibility as a cache owner, but being able to see their find counts alerted me as to how urgent the need to do maintenance was. It is the same deal when hunting for a cache, a higher find count mean that cacher has been exposed to more hides and therefore has a broader experience to draw on while searching. That does not make them a better person or a better cacher, necessarily, but it does give a general idea of their level of experience.

 

Frankly, if someone with 3 finds logs a no find on a cache I am hunting, I am inclined to think that there is a better than average chance that the cache is still there, if someone with 3,000 finds logs a no find I am inclined to think that there is a better than average chance that the cache is missing. This is not a hard and fast rule, but a general guide. These numbers are useful. The only problem with having to go to their profile to get their find count is when their profile page has lots of graphics (like yours or mine). When using a cell phone to look things up from the road graphics kill, so the info becomes very difficult to access.

[+sbell111]

It would be nice to get the find counts in the notification emails and in PQs.

[+Monkeybrad]

I will definitely second that, if they were in the gpx files we would not be on the cellphone online checking the logs in the first place.

 

I also offer a third for the static logs.

[Jeremy]

Static find counts don't work. I certainly don't log my finds in any particular order, and neither do many people I know. And you think its bad now with people asking about why their finds don't match up on the page? Imagine if you made them static and they were always wrong. I doubt many people would understand the subtle change.

 

The data is still available on the profile page. I can understand that it can give you *some* information when you are offline but that data doesn't exist on GPX files anyway.

[+tiki-4]

Cant you cut the link that updates the various cache pages? A static number for when you created the log entry, would be better than the updating number. My newbie DNF on my 7th day now shows that i have found a lot and based on statements made earlier, it could be misconstrued....

Even though i enter my finds in the order found, they come out upside down. I do not think it would be a big impact if i was entering 20-30 finds and the find numbers were jumbled by that amount. IMO it would still be in the neighborhood and have a more acurate historical progression.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I find that having the find counts on the logs is helpful as a cache owner. If one of my tougher ones has a no find by someone with 6 finds, I honestly do not get as worried about it as a no find from someone with more experience. Maybe that is not fair, but I know that many others handle these no finds the same way. The find count is not the only measure of caching experience but it is a valuable tool for cache owners. It also helps me as a finder when I review old logs on a cache I am hunting.

 

Edit to add:

 

I agree that this game is not all about the numbers, but these numbers are still a valuable tool.

 

I'm afraid we have a different outlook on this.

 

We have a #5 difficulty cache and the 'newbies' find it easier than the 'old timers'. Some of the 'oldtimers have been there several times and still haven't found it, while the 'newbie' (FTF) found it in less than 1 hour.

 

We also have a #2 1/2 difficulty cache that someone with 1,000 finds couldn't find (and it was visible from 20+ feet away).

 

It seems as though some 'old timers' get into a mindset as to how the caches will be hidden (as in - have been found by them) and have trouble thinking outside the "box".

 

Just a different perspective, here.

 

John

[+laker2]

Wow!! Never quite anticipated stirring up such a thread and thank you very much to all who replied. Shortly after posting my question I went back to the cache pages and saw the entry about update day and time. Once I realized that this was GMT, and once I factored this time into my records as to what my found caches were at that same time, it all made sense.

 

As to whether or not these counts should even be there, the main question is what essential information does it convey? Clearly if someone wants to see our found record, they can do this through our profile. The note that a found record might be important in trying to determining whether or not there is a problem with cache maintenance has some validity, but again could not this same information be obtained by consulting the cacher's profile? In short, I would suggest that the found record on cache pages be eliminated.

 

thanks again to you all!!

[+Hemlock]

Losing the find count would be nice since they are cacher specific and not cache specific

I find that having the find counts on the logs is helpful as a cache owner.  If one of my tougher ones has a no find by someone with 6 finds, I honestly do not get as worried about it as a no find from someone with more experience.

Here's a novel idea. What if instead of the number of finds a cacher has, the logs show a bar, similar to the Google PageRank bar. It would be completely filled in for the person with the most finds. The person with the fewest finds would have 1 pixel. Everyone else would be scaled accordingly. Only people who logged that particular cache would be included in the calculations.

 

That way you would see the relative experience of the finders of the cache, AND the data would be cache specific.

 

Just a thought. Don't hurt me.

[+Wacka]

I solved this problem when I started caching. I put the # of the find in the log. this is for my use and if I go back and look, I can see how experienced I was when I found it.

[+Escapades]

I do the same as Wacka. At the end of my log I write Find #XXX just so when I look back I can see how many I had at the time.

Mike

[Jeremy]

Here's a novel idea. What if instead of the number of finds a cacher has, the logs show a bar, similar to the Google PageRank bar. It would be completely filled in for the person with the most finds. The person with the fewest finds would have 1 pixel. Everyone else would be scaled accordingly. Only people who logged that particular cache would be included in the calculations.

 

That way you would see the relative experience of the finders of the cache, AND the data would be cache specific.

 

Just a thought. Don't hurt me.

It's definitely an interesting idea. I'll give you that.

 

When approaching any situation on a high-traffic web site, I have to take into account the underlying database load (computer workload) whenever a new feature is implemented on a page. To allow for some complicated data on the cache listings I do a combination of file and memory storage for faster retrieval. Additionally we offload a lot of other queries (like nearest cache pages and pocket queries) to a secondary database.

 

Behind the scenes there is also a lot of upkeep that happens to make some often queried info (like cache finds) current.

 

For the non-technical folks, imagine a locationless cache with over 2,000 entries. For each of these entries i have to ask the database "How many finds did this user have at this current timestamp in the history of his/her career?" You can imagine if there were 10 entries it would be one thing, but as I'm asking the question for each log entry there is a backlog of other queries by other geocachers happening at the same time. If this happened within a short period of time, the database has a mycardial infarction and gives up the ghost. That's why we used to get database timeouts.

 

So looking at all of these issues I have to ask the question: Does the everyday user really need to see the hide and find count of every user who logs a geocache? If not, I could remove that from the page and use it for other items, like bookmark lists, attributes, etc.

 

Personally I like the convenience of the find counts on the log page but after a while I have tuned them out. Instead I just read the log entries which gives me a lot of insight into the user's finds (and not finds). At the end of the day I agree that a first find by a cache hunter and a thousand finds can have no difference on the user's talent in locating caches.

[+sbell111]

Jeremy-

 

I think I understand your concerns (although most of what you said I didn't understand). To my non-technical mind, it seems like it would be a smaller load on the site to have the cache pages show a static number. With each new log, the current process updates the find count for all of the cachers who had ever logged the cache. With a static count, only the most recent finder's find count would have to be added.

[+sTeamTraen]

I think I understand your concerns (although most of what you said I didn't understand). To my non-technical mind, it seems like it would be a smaller load on the site to have the cache pages show a static number. With each new log, the current process updates the find count for all of the cachers who had ever logged the cache. With a static count, only the most recent finder's find count would have to be added.

That's right... but the number of updates to a log is presumed to be (substantially) less than the number of times people read it. If logs were mostly written to and only rarely read, the count could be fully dynamic without greatly increasing the overhead. You're ready for "Database 101"

[+sbell111]

Honestly, I don't understand what you just wrote.

 

In my mind there are two ways to include find totals.

 

The first is how they are now. Each time a cache is logged, all of the counts for every cacher who has ever found it is updated.

 

The second is for the counts to be static. If this cache is my 100th find logged, the cache page will show '100 find' next to my log no matter how many future logs are made by me on other caches or by future loggers to this cache page.

 

How does the number of updates to a log come into play? How does the number of times a page is viewed affect this? In the first scenario, all of the cache counts are updated when the page is logged, not viewed. In the second scenario, the counts are never updated.

 

edited to make the first sentence more clear.

Edited February 2, 2005 by sbell111

[Jeremy]

How does the number of updates to a log come into play? How does the number of times a page is viewed affect this? In the first scenario, all of the cache counts are updated when the page is logged, not viewed. In the second scenario, the counts are never updated.

My first point where I indicated that most folks do not log their finds in order, and would be confused if there was a number based on your finds at the time you logged it. Additionally, deleting one log before that count would have to update all your logs.

 

In the case of static finds listed on a cache listing it will cause more confusion than it would benefit. We'd get a constant barrage of "my find count doesn't match my log entry" posts instead of just the occasional issue with a cache that doesn't get hit that often.

[+sbell111]

I see your point. Even though any errors would be the fault of the finder, it could cause alot of questions.

[+sbell111]

I still go by what I said waaay up there:

 

Its all academic, of course.  This suggestion would never be taken.  Things are fine as they are.

[+sTeamTraen]

Honestly, I don't understand what you just wrote.

 

In my mind there are two ways to include find totals.

I was a bit brief; let me try to be clearer:

 

As I see it, there are three possible find counts which could appear on a page.

 

Let's say I find a cache on January 1 when my count is 1000 (I wish!). Then on January 15 Jeremy finds it, when my count is 1200. Then on January 20 you read the log; on that day my count is 1300.

 

Currently in the log, you will see "sTeamTraen (1200 found)" (man, that sounds good), and your suggestion seems to be that the choice is between 1200 or 1000. My point is that the site could also be set up so you could see 1300 - my correct, current count, the same as you would get if you clicked on my name. One could argue that either 1000 or 1300 are more "correct" than 1200, which is a more or less arbitrary figure - why should the count you see for me, depend on when Jeremy logged the cache ?

 

My previous post was about the difference in processing power required to show (in this example) 1300 rather than 1200 - it's substantial (see Jeremy's example of the cache with 2000 finders). So the 1200 figure (updating when the page is modified, not when it's read) is a classic compromise. If GC.com could get Dell to donate a bunch of 8-processor servers with shiny new disks and many gigabytes of RAM, I'm sure that "live" counts would be a strong contender to replace "last modified" counts.

 

I hope that makes things clearer. You were talking about one 2-way choice and I jumped in and started talking about a different one. My fault if you didn't understand that first off - I didn't, either, and I was the one jumping in

 

Nick

[+Moose Mob]

This problem seems to be pretty much cosmetic, and to regenerate pages on a constant basis would be pretty intense on the hardware at Groundspeak.

 

IMO: I would rather see efforts placed on "lists" project, "caches along a route", as well as the "Near Major Highway" and "RV Accessable" attributes.

[+Markwell]

My point is that the site could also be set up so you could see 1300 - my correct, current count, the same as you would get if you clicked on my name.

Many moons ago, the site did just that. It was because of the processor utilization that the site compromised for this static number. The change to a less dymanic find count is documented in this announcement.

[Jeremy]

Thanks Markwell. I think I'll wait until the forums are quiet before I stir the pot some more. Gotta keep the Groundspeak haters on their toes you know

[+sbell111]

...As I see it, there are three possible find counts which could appear on a page...

The reason I only mentioned two options is because the third had already been tried and changed to help alleviate strain on the servers (if my old memory serves me correctly).

[+sTeamTraen]

I can see I'm heavily outranked on seniority and "folk memory" here , so I'll leave it to the experts...

Edited February 3, 2005 by sTeamTraen

[Mushtang]

I want to vote that the number of finds stay on the cache pages with the logs. It's helpful for me to see that number when reading a log. Several times I've read something that was a little shocking, and then I looked up and saw that it was a 2nd or 3rd find. People actually do get more experienced with finding caches as well as posting logs.

 

I also would like to see a static number on the page to indicate the number found at the time of the log. If it were possible I'd love to see my 134th find later listed as:

 

January 28 by Mushtang (134 / 418 Found)

[+sbell111]

Not one or the other, but both. Sweet.

[Jeremy]

Guess you didn't read my posts.

[+Anonymous']

I did Jeremy.

[+sbell111]

I read them. I still want what I want.

[+CO Admin]

I want a pony

 

 

 

[Mushtang]

Guess you didn't read my posts.

I did read them, and I saw that static find numbers weren't something you thought were a good idea for the reasons you listed.

 

One reason you gave was that it would confuse people more, and I thought that my example of (134 / 418 Found) would keep that from being the case.

 

Another reason you mentioned was that it would be a big load on the servers to have to generate the count number each time, but if you only updated the total finds and not the first number, it wouldn't be any different than you're doing now.

 

You also said that most people don't log their finds in order and the number wouldn't be relevant. Okay, so if the number wouldn't represent the order that they found them, but the order that they logged them online. It would be close to the number found even if it's not in the exact order. So looking way back at a Find that was number 52 of 108 they'd have an idea that it was about halfway through their history, instead of now seeing the log and only remembering that it was one they found a year ago. Granted, it's not super important information to have, but it would add a little bit to the fun of re-reading older logs.

 

A reason you gave that I didn't really consider was that the numbers would be wrong if a log were ever deleted. But perhaps instead of updating the first number each time the page changed, you could only update the count number for a member when a log of theirs gets deleted. So if someone deleted one of my finds it would trigger a re-write of the finds in my logs only. This would keep the servers from updating everyone's "static" count number constantly.

 

However, this Groundspeak fan loves the site and I realize I get way more out of it than I put in. I also love my numbers as well as the numbers of my friends and family, so at the very least I hope they aren't removed from the pages completely.

 

Keep up the great work.