Found Record

[+sTeamTraen]

What Mushtang said

 

On the PC network which I run, we sometimes find ourselves dealing with really, really obscure user problems. Sometimes we spend a day or two fixing something and find that it was a registry glitch in Word or whatever. We often come away from these incidents thinking, wow, what a lot of effort over a minor problem.

 

However, we then need to remind ourselves that if we can spend time on that, it's because we're not fielding hundreds of phone calls from irate users whose e-mail doesn't work at all, or whose network share we just deleted, or whatever.

 

The bottom line is that for any computer system, there will always be improvements possible. I think the fact that we can discuss this kind of item so far into the details, is probably a good sign; it means it's one of the biggest issues we have with the site, and let's face it, it's a tiny one.

 

I regularly recommend this site to people who want to see a real example of what the Web was meant to be. There are very few sites where so many hyperlinks work so well, to give the user exactly what s/he wants.

[+The Blue Quasar]

I agree with Jeremy that the 'find count' beside a Geocachers name in a log entry is rarely looked at.

 

There are two kinds of cachers in my opinion....

 

Those that are the regulars that you know well already from seeing them finding caches and their logs.

Those that have come in to town or just started, so you have no idea what they are like.

 

In the latter case, whenever I see someone the I do not recognize went to visit a cache of mine, regardless of whether they found it or not, I look at their profile after reading their entry log. From their Profile, I know whether to take them seriously or not.

 

But in the first case, unless they post a Did Not Find I don't worry. But if a regular posts a DNF then I would be concerned for my cache. The number of finds is irrelevant there and not looked at since I already know what they are capable of.

 

So as you can see, to me the number of finds being included in the log entry is useless.

 

But like I said in the other thread I would love to see a global stat for the cache at the top to replace the "Logged Visits" with something more of

 

Found - xx / Did Not Find - xx / Posted a Note - xx, and maybe a HTML that would list all the UPDATED COORDS similar to a View Travel Bug History.

 

I'm having a birthday this year, and I'll pass on the pony for that option.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+sbell111]

I think what you are saying is this:

 

If you recognize the name, you know they are somewhat experienced so you take them seriously.

 

If you do not recognize the name, you go to their profile to check their find count. Once you have this information, you know whether to get excited about their comment.

 

How does this differ from looking at their find count on the cache page?

[+The Blue Quasar]

I was only saying that I don't look at their find count on the page, but rather go look at their profile.

 

I thought Jeremy was suggesting the elimination of the "find count" for each visitor to a cache page.

 

I don't think they are needed, and if it is slowing things down or causing some problems, then ditch them as there are more effective ways to get that info and usually more accurate and detailed.

 

The Blue Quasar

[Jeremy]

How does this differ from looking at their find count on the cache page?

Right. If it doesn't make any difference, removing it from the cache listing to reduce confusion on the numbers would make it the better choice.

[+sbell111]

Your jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

[+AtlantaGal]

I like having the find count next to a persons geonick in the logs and think it would be a mistake to remove it.

[+KBI]

I vote for either keeping the status quo, or modifying it per Mushtang's suggestion.

 

You guys say that the find counts next to the names are rarely looked at. Apparently, then, I'm in the minority. I understand Blue Quasar's point, but I, for one, DO look at the numbers. Yes, the count is in their profile, but why bury the information behind two additional mouse clicks? It's a minor inconvenience at best, and a real pain for someone like me who travels frequently and has to use the occasional dial-up connection. I'm sure there are plenty of people still using dial-up as their primary access.

 

Get rid of the counts if they're truly bogging things down, but please don't remove them just for aesthetic reasons.

[+ibycus]

Yep, if they are causing too many database hits, I have no problem not seeing them, but its nice and convenient to see them beside a cacher's name, if nothing else so you can see when a local cacher has recently crossed a milestone. I for one look at them all the time.

[+flask]

i'm going to surprise everyone and come out in favor of the finds counts the way they are.

 

among other things, it makes it much easier to send congratulatory notes to cachers about their recent milestones if the information is on on the cache page. i don't look at everyone's profiles often, but i DO read a lot of logs.

[+Durango!]

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

I agree!

[+AuntieWeasel]

I agree with Jeremy that the 'find count' beside a Geocachers name in a log entry is rarely looked at.

I look at those numbers constantly!

 

If someone criticizes the coords, I want to know if it's a newbie. I'm interested to see someone with very high numbers hit town. I'm interested to watch the progress of familiar names in my area and see someone who started after I did blow past my numbers. It tickles me when somebody makes a rookie mistake and they've got a respectable find count. It tickles me when a rookie breezes through one that gave me a really hard time. I could look up the numbers of everyone who logs, but I probably wouldn't bother.

 

And, of course, I particularly like my find number. I don't have a high count and never will at the rate I go, but that just makes incrementing that number more significant. The logging ritual is important to me. I do log my finds in order, and after I log I look at the cache page to see my log in context and my name with that one-cache-higher number on it. And I think, "woohoo! Who's the weasel? I'm the weasel!"

 

If performance would be significantly improved without that number...eh, even then. Nudging that number up one sadistic multicache at a time is a big part of the pleasure I get out of GC.com.

[+wimseyguy]

I like it just the way it is for many of the reasons already posted.

It isn't all about the numbers, but they do have a positive value (pun intended).

I like seeing the relative experience of the finders of my hides and the caches I'm looking for. I like seeing how my local geopals are doing. I like seeing when someone is approaching a milestone find. I like to know the experience level of a cacher who cannot find one of my hides. As MB pointed out it gives a better perspective on the reality of the situation.

Occasionally I'll look at someone else profile, but I do not like the idea of having to do so to get this info.

I do like Mushtang's concept of showing the static and current counts, but if that isn't technically feasible, then do not change the found counts at all please. They are as much a part of the history of a cache as the words in the log themselves.

[WH]

I say give individual cachers the choice of whether they want their stats public or not. There should be a way to "opt out" of my stats being public if I so choose. This would not affect those who want their numbers kept public.

[+IV_Warrior]

How does this differ from looking at their find count on the cache page?

Right. If it doesn't make any difference, removing it from the cache listing to reduce confusion on the numbers would make it the better choice.

But wouldn't that increase server load (as well as waste our time) if we have to go to each cachers profile if we want to see how many finds they have, when looking at the logs on a cache? Please just leave it as it is currently.

 

I know gc.com preaches "it's not about the numbers" but for some people, frankly it is. We constantly here "play the game the way you want to" UNLESS you want to play "for the numbers". Then you're the evil 'numbers cacher'........

[+southdeltan]

How does this differ from looking at their find count on the cache page?

Right. If it doesn't make any difference, removing it from the cache listing to reduce confusion on the numbers would make it the better choice.

But wouldn't that increase server load (as well as waste our time) if we have to go to each cachers profile if we want to see how many finds they have, when looking at the logs on a cache? Please just leave it as it is currently.

 

I know gc.com preaches "it's not about the numbers" but for some people, frankly it is. We constantly here "play the game the way you want to" UNLESS you want to play "for the numbers". Then you're the evil 'numbers cacher'........

Hey, that's my line!

 

I agree 100%. Don't change anything.

 

sd

[WH]

Then why not give people the choice. Give those of us that want to supress our stats the ability to do so and let the rest keep there numbers visible if they so choose.

[+Markwell]

That's not really the issue. The problem is that many people are confused when their numbers don't match.

[+Mopar]

I mentioned this in another thread yesterday, but it's more on-topic here.

I used to be in favor of keeping the find counts. As a cache owner it does help to evaluate the validity of a DNF.

However, I'm beginning to also think they aren't worth the problems.

 

Between mine, his, hers, and ours, I have 25 active physical caches to maintain. That's not as high as some people, but I suspect it's still WAY more then the average geocacher. On the rare occasions of a DNF, it's not that big a deal to check a profile. If it's a higher-find cacher, chances are I already know the name. If I don't know the name, I was probably gonna look at their profile anyway, no matter what their find count is. The owner notification email doesn't include the find counts, so if I don't recognize the player name I have to either load my cache page, or load their profile to see their find count. Since I need to do one or the other, I go for the profile. It's even more useful in evaluating the log then just a find count. I can see if they are from out of state visiting, and I can see what type of caches they tend to do. Really, when evaluating the validity of a DNF on your cleverly camoed micro, which cacher's DNF is more valid to you? The 100 find guy with 70 locationless, 20 virtual, and 10 1/1 full size caches? Or the 25 find guy who's got 10 3+ star difficulty micros already under his belt?

 

I don't think the argument that removing the count from cache pages will increase the server load is valid. Right now, any time anyone posts to a cache, all the totals on that page are recalculated. That's currently over 80,000 times a week for probably over a million logs. And the cache owner still needs to load a page to see a finder's total.

Do away with the find counts and you still have owners loading a page to see a finder's total, but you eliminate the other 80,000 times the DB gets updated.

 

The easiest way to solve this "problem" if you drop the find counts from the logs is to just add it to the owner notification emails. Adding that would make it even easier for the cache owners then having it on the cache page.

 

The other problem mentioned is knowing when your friends hit milestones. I think I remember Jeremy mentioning in the past adding some sort of friends bookmark/Buddy list. That would solve that problem.

 

My personal preference would be to have them totally static. Your 10th find stays at number 10 on that cache page forever. If it had always been that way, I think it would have worked fine. However, changing to it at this stage would just be too confusing to new players, and make even more problems. Dropping them totally seems to be the next best thing.

[+KBI]

...I used to be in favor of keeping the find counts. As a cache owner it does help to evaluate the validity of a DNF.

However, I'm beginning to also think they aren't worth the problems...

 

...The easiest way to solve this "problem" if you drop the find counts from the logs is to just add it to the owner notification emails.  Adding that would make it even easier for the cache owners then having it on the cache page....

Giving a cache owner an estimate of a no-finder’s experience is, in my opinion, only one of the MANY reasons for keeping the find counts on the cache page. Just go back and read AuntiWeasel’s post again. I agree with her – I, too, look at them constantly, and for the same reasons. I just wish I could have said it as eloquently as she did.

 

The find counts are part of my enjoyment of the game – please don’t take them away!

[+SeventhSon]

...I used to be in favor of keeping the find counts. As a cache owner it does help to evaluate the validity of a DNF.

However, I'm beginning to also think they aren't worth the problems...

 

...The easiest way to solve this "problem" if you drop the find counts from the logs is to just add it to the owner notification emails.  Adding that would make it even easier for the cache owners then having it on the cache page....

Giving a cache owner an estimate of a no-finder’s experience is, in my opinion, only one of the MANY reasons for keeping the find counts on the cache page. Just go back and read AuntiWeasel’s post again. I agree with her – I, too, look at them constantly, and for the same reasons. I just wish I could have said it as eloquently as she did.

 

The find counts are part of my enjoyment of the game – please don’t take them away!

And as Mopar pointed out, altho it didn't make the quote, is that the count does not show the 'type' of experience of a cacher.

 

A cacher with 100 1/1's will have a DNF with (100 finds) on your 3/3 cache, and a cacher with 25 3/3's will have a DNF with (25 finds) on your 3/3 cache. Looking at the numbers alone, which one will you consider to be more experienced for this 3/3?

[Mushtang]

...I used to be in favor of keeping the find counts. As a cache owner it does help to evaluate the validity of a DNF.

However, I'm beginning to also think they aren't worth the problems...

 

...The easiest way to solve this "problem" if you drop the find counts from the logs is to just add it to the owner notification emails.  Adding that would make it even easier for the cache owners then having it on the cache page....

Giving a cache owner an estimate of a no-finder’s experience is, in my opinion, only one of the MANY reasons for keeping the find counts on the cache page. Just go back and read AuntiWeasel’s post again. I agree with her – I, too, look at them constantly, and for the same reasons. I just wish I could have said it as eloquently as she did.

 

The find counts are part of my enjoyment of the game – please don’t take them away!

And as Mopar pointed out, altho it didn't make the quote, is that the count does not show the 'type' of experience of a cacher.

 

A cacher with 100 1/1's will have a DNF with (100 finds) on your 3/3 cache, and a cacher with 25 3/3's will have a DNF with (25 finds) on your 3/3 cache. Looking at the numbers alone, which one will you consider to be more experienced for this 3/3?

As KBI indicated, there are MANY other reasons for looking at the find count.

 

Please don't remove the counts from the cache pages.

[+Cardinal Red]

Jeremy Posted: Feb 4 2005, 06:58 PM

Right. If it doesn't make any difference, removing it from the cache listing to reduce confusion on the numbers would make it the better choice

 

I think there are two issues here: Do we NEED this? Do we WANT this?

 

I think it's clear that we do not NEED this. If this information will infrequently determine the type or timing of a response by the cache owner, they can take the time to look it up.

 

When I read through 50 Logs on a Cache Page, this information is part of each individual discourse that helps explain it's meaning. Even though I WANT this, I am not going to take the time to look up 50 numbers.

 

Many of us want this. You want to "reduce the confusion". CAN you do both of these things simultaneously ?

[+AuntieWeasel]

I would also draw a sharp distinction between "confusion" and "server load". Server load is important -- it costs money and slows down operations. Confusion, not so much. Newbies will be with us always. No matter how you handle it, somebody's going to be confused.

 

I actually like the static number idea. I would rather know where somebody was at when they did this cache than where they're at now. It would be messy to implement in mid-stream, though, with such a big chunk of us stuck at whatever number we were at when the new system came down. Unacceptably messy...I don't know. I'd sure take it over no numbers.

[+mertat]

I agree with Jeremy that the 'find count' beside a Geocachers name in a log entry is rarely looked at.

I look at those numbers constantly!

 

If someone criticizes the coords, I want to know if it's a newbie. I'm interested to see someone with very high numbers hit town. I'm interested to watch the progress of familiar names in my area and see someone who started after I did blow past my numbers. It tickles me when somebody makes a rookie mistake and they've got a respectable find count. It tickles me when a rookie breezes through one that gave me a really hard time. I could look up the numbers of everyone who logs, but I probably wouldn't bother.

 

And, of course, I particularly like my find number. I don't have a high count and never will at the rate I go, but that just makes incrementing that number more significant. The logging ritual is important to me. I do log my finds in order, and after I log I look at the cache page to see my log in context and my name with that one-cache-higher number on it. And I think, "woohoo! Who's the weasel? I'm the weasel!"

 

If performance would be significantly improved without that number...eh, even then. Nudging that number up one sadistic multicache at a time is a big part of the pleasure I get out of GC.com.

Exactly what Auntie Weasel says here (well, except for the "woohoo! Who's the weasel! I'm the weasel!" part). I look at the numbers all the time, too, and for the same reasons.

 

So I'd also like to say please don't remove the counts from the cache page.

[+Jamie Z]

I'm beginning to also think they aren't worth the problems.

What additional problems? The occasional newbie that asks why the nubmers are different?

My personal preference would be to have them totally static. Your 10th find stays at number 10 on that cache page forever.

Me too.

 

Jamie

[+Mopar]

I'm beginning to also think they aren't worth the problems.

What additional problems? The occasional newbie that asks why the nubmers are different?

My personal preference would be to have them totally static. Your 10th find stays at number 10 on that cache page forever.

Me too.

 

Jamie

That and all the other complaints/discussion over who has more finds, who cheats at finds, who's finds are more valid...... etc....etc......etc.......

 

Seems like a large percentage of issues people have relates to find counts. Maybe things would be a bit friendlier if they went away.

[Mushtang]

Seems like a large percentage of issues people have relates to find counts. Maybe things would be a bit friendlier if they went away.

So you think we need to get rid of things if they cause issues in the forums?? Wow.

 

I guess after the find counts we'll get rid of travel bugs (they go missing and people get upset), puzzle caches (newbies are constantly asking for help with those in the forums and the regulars have issues with it), keep locationless caches from coming back as well as getting rid of all virtuals, remove avatars and quotes from people's posts (those cause issues from time to time), and while you're at it you might as well remove the forums completely.

 

Is there any aspect of geocaching that doesn't cause an issue from time to time? The correct way to deal with an issue isn't to get rid of it, it's to try and solve it.

 

The solution might be to let the find count stay and let people use them however they want.

[+Moose Mob]

I'm beginning to also think they aren't worth the problems.

What additional problems? The occasional newbie that asks why the nubmers are different?

My personal preference would be to have them totally static. Your 10th find stays at number 10 on that cache page forever.

Me too.

 

Jamie

That and all the other complaints/discussion over who has more finds, who cheats at finds, who's finds are more valid...... etc....etc......etc.......

 

Seems like a large percentage of issues people have relates to find counts. Maybe things would be a bit friendlier if they went away.

Friendlier? Since I never get frazzled by those who are more harsh, I doubt my opnion would not change... overall, this is a darned good group of folks. But I must agree, some are more apt to make an arguement than others woud.

 

Static numbers... I like that idea. Personally, I wish my first cache said "1 finds", and went from there (although there would need to be a correction ability for the delayed entries).

 

Take them out completely? That would ruffle a few feathers. They are too useful as they are. ANd, we would see a lot of newbies putting in for a feature suggestions

"Can we get a find count for cachers? It seems everytime I get a DNF, I look up the cacher's profile and discover they only have 4 finds"

- or -

"Someone said my new cache was not original? Who are they to say?" only to discover that the finder had 400 finds or so.

 

So, At this point, I would love to see an enhancement. Not only leave the count as it is, I would love to see the logs say

March 6th by SuperCacher (from Little Rock Arkansas, 342 finds)

Where the "from" would be from the cacher's profile.

[+Mopar]

So, At this point, I would love to see an enhancement. Not only leave the count as it is, I would love to see the logs say

March 6th by SuperCacher (from Little Rock Arkansas, 342 finds)

Where the "from" would be from the cacher's profile.

Your enhancement idea was the way things used to be for a long time. The performance hit to constantly keep that number up to date got to be too great, and they were removed. A few people bitched, and we got the setup you see now.

 

What's sort of funny is the valid arguments for them staying were addressed in my earlier post. The only arguments left for them staying have been, "uhm, because I'm curious " and "I'm too lazy to occasionally click to a persons profile to see".

 

So you think we need to get rid of things if they cause issues in the forums?? Wow.

I suspect it also generates plenty of contact@ emails, as well as a performance hit on the site. That equates to real money to pay people to constantly address the problem. When a "feature" costs you time, money, and system performance, it had better be worth it. If it's not, it becomes a problem, not a feature.

 

I'm not exactly a low digit cacher, I've got more unlogged finds then 90% of the site's users have ever found, I'm usually the first to post a congratulations thread when my friends hit a milestone, and between our accounts I have 40 hides to deal with.

Not tooting my horn, just pointing out that I'm more active on the site then 98% of all cachers (according to Jeremy's stats). Such a change would impact me more then 98% of the other cachers out there, and I still don't think it would take away from my enjoyment of the game OR be an inconvenience if he decided to can the inaccurate log totals.

 

In other words; I don't care if they stay or go; but if killing them will make things run faster and smoother over in Seattle, go for it.

[+Nurse Dave]

"uhm, because I'm curious "

Hey, I'm curious and I pay my $30.

[+Nurse Dave]

That and all the other complaints/discussion over who has more finds, who cheats at finds, who's finds are more valid...... etc....etc......etc.......

 

Seems like a large percentage of issues people have relates to find counts. Maybe things would be a bit friendlier if they went away.

Well if people didn't cheat that wouldn't be a problem.

[Mushtang]

and between our accounts I have 40 hides to deal with.

 

If your girlfriend is too lazy (busy, whatever) to maintain her own hides, maybe she should archive a few. In either case, that's not a valid reason to remove the find totals from the cache pages.

 

Not tooting my horn, just pointing out that I'm more active on the site then 98% of all cachers (according to Jeremy's stats).

 

Having more finds than someone doesn't mean you're more active. Someone with less finds than you might gain some enjoyment out of looking at the past caches they've done and part of that fun might be the find counts. They might log onto the site twice as much as you, but do half as much caching. And if they're a paying member they would be contributing to the cost of the bandwidth being used.

 

Such a change would impact me more then 98% of the other cachers out there,

 

I don't follow this logic at all. Just because you've found more caches than 98% of all cachers (I'll take your word on that) doesn't mean that you'll be impacted more than them. It seems to me that if you don't look at find counts, or at least don't put much value in them, than removing them wouldn't have an impact on you at all. However, a lot of the other 98% would miss them. How would it impact you more?

 

and I still don't think it would take away from my enjoyment of the game OR be an inconvenience if he decided to can the inaccurate log totals.

 

So if it's not bad for Mopar than it can't be bad for anyone else? There are a lot of people that do enjoy the numbers, and most of us do understand exactly what these numbers mean (and do not mean). A lot of cachers in this thread have said that they'd miss the numbers if they were removed.

[+KBI]

... The only arguments left for them staying have been, "uhm, because I'm curious " ...

You don't explain what's wrong with the "because I'm curious" argument. You say it like it's a bad thing. It's kinda vague anyway - If we start culling out things that load the servers simply because they serve no purpose other than to satisfy curiosity, wouldn't that logic potentially lead, eventually, to a shutdown of the entire game?

 

If the existing find counts continue to satisfy my curiosity like they do now, then I'll be enjoying good value for my $60/year (yes, I happily pay for two accounts. I LOVE this game!)

 

... and "I'm too lazy to occasionally click to a persons profile to see".

Explain to me how I'm supposed to click on a person's profile when I'm standing half a mile from the nearest trail, Garmin in one hand, printout in the other?

 

I like the find counts. They're part of the fun.

[+SeventhSon]

Explain to me how I'm supposed to click on a person's profile when I'm standing half a mile from the nearest trail, Garmin in one hand, printout in the other?

I've never seen this mentioned before. How would find counts help out on the hunt?

 

A little spoiler from a find log shouldn't matter how many they found since they found this one. Would a DNF with "Well I looked everywhere and came up empty" carry more validity from a 500 finder than a 25 finder?

[Mushtang]

Would a DNF with "Well I looked everywhere and came up empty" carry more validity from a 500 finder than a 25 finder?

I would think so. And a DNF from someone with 500 finds would certainly count more than a DNF from someone with only 2 finds.

 

There are a lot of things you learn to look for as a cacher. Someone who hasn't found a lot of caches might overlook something that a seasoned cacher would pick up on right away.

 

If there are 4 DNFs in a row from newbies, I'll still go look for it. If there are 2 DNFs from experienced cachers, I might wait until the owner verifies it's still there (or has been replaced).

[+SeventhSon]

My quote is a little out of context just by itself. If you're already on the hunt, would there be much difference? If a newbie says he looked everywhere, you'll assume he hasn't figured out what "everywhere" is yet; and if an "experienced" cacher says the same thing, you'll.. what, not even look?

 

If you use previous logs to help in your planning, you will already have looked at profiles before you left the house.

[Mushtang]

My quote is a little out of context just by itself. If you're already on the hunt, would there be much difference?

 

I go paperless caching (unlike KBI - who only upgrades to more advanced technology if forced to) and always bring my PDA filled with the cache pages for 500 caches in my area. I've always got the 5 previous logs with me, and usually read the description and logs for the next cache while still at the cache I've just found.

 

If a newbie says he looked everywhere, you'll assume he hasn't figured out what "everywhere" is yet; and if an "experienced" cacher says the same thing, you'll.. what, not even look?

 

If only one experienced cacher has a DNF I might still go, if more than one does then you're correct, I won't even look. Instead, I'll choose another cache to drive (or walk) to.

 

If you use previous logs to help in your planning, you will already have looked at profiles before you left the house.

 

Not everyone caches the way you do. Even when I was using printouts like KBI, I still never looked at profiles of cachers as part of the planning. Profiles may contain find and hide numbers, but having a find number on the log is way easier than looking at a profile.

 

(Hey KBI - I keed, I keed.)

[+KBI]

I go paperless caching (unlike KBI - who only upgrades to more advanced technology if forced to) ...

Hey, you'd be surprised how many ammo cans give themselves up to a skilled user of the dowsing sticks. Besides, paper is good for lots of things when you're on a long hike in the woods.

 

...Even when I was using printouts like KBI, I still never looked at profiles of cachers as part of the planning...

 

(Hey KBI - I keed, I keed.)

No worries, breaux. (You might want to be real careful next time you start your car, though.)

 

Seriously though, pre-hunt and mid-hunt research are only two of the many reasons I'd like to see the counts remain as they are.

 

Is this a change that's actually being considered soon? Do the find counts really bog down the machines that bad? Unless they're bothering or offending a huge number of users, please don't take them away!

[+SeventhSon]

If you use previous logs to help in your planning, you will already have looked at profiles before you left the house.

 

Not everyone caches the way you do.

I never said I cached that way. I don't use the numbers, or logs to help the hunt unless I'm ready to give up.

 

If only one experienced cacher has a DNF I might still go, if more than one does then you're correct, I won't even look. Instead, I'll choose another cache to drive (or walk) to.

 

It makes a little more sense to me after you said that. Choosing which way to go while in the field.

 

As a side note, I use plucker and spinner for my palm, and the find counts aren't included in the logs.

[+Mopar]

My quote is a little out of context just by itself. If you're already on the hunt, would there be much difference?

 

I go paperless caching (unlike KBI - who only upgrades to more advanced technology if forced to) and always bring my PDA filled with the cache pages for 500 caches in my area. I've always got the 5 previous logs with me, and usually read the description and logs for the next cache while still at the cache I've just found.

 

If a newbie says he looked everywhere, you'll assume he hasn't figured out what "everywhere" is yet; and if an "experienced" cacher says the same thing, you'll.. what, not even look?

 

If only one experienced cacher has a DNF I might still go, if more than one does then you're correct, I won't even look. Instead, I'll choose another cache to drive (or walk) to.

 

If you use previous logs to help in your planning, you will already have looked at profiles before you left the house.

 

Not everyone caches the way you do. Even when I was using printouts like KBI, I still never looked at profiles of cachers as part of the planning. Profiles may contain find and hide numbers, but having a find number on the log is way easier than looking at a profile.

 

(Hey KBI - I keed, I keed.)

Very interesting. It seems having the # of finds in the logs is SO important to you, you've never even noticed that they aren't included in the Pocket Queries, hence not available to paperless cachers.

[Mushtang]

Very interesting. It seems having the # of finds in the logs is SO important to you, you've never even noticed that they aren't included in the Pocket Queries, hence not available to paperless cachers.

You're right. I've only been paperless for about 4 months, and haven't come across the situation where there were several DNFs in a row which would make me want to check the found numbers yet.

 

I just assumed the information was included. My bad.

 

However, that was just ONE example of why find counts are useful to people, and it doesn't remove the reason from those cachers that do print the cache page.

[+RuffRidr]

So you think we need to get rid of things if they cause issues in the forums?? Wow.

 

I say we just get rid of the forums all together. No more problems.

 

--RuffRidr

[+ShadowAce]

I have always felt that the numbers are more indicative of the location of the cacher then anything else.

 

People in LA and San Diego will by fault have more finds then someone who lives in Beaver Utah. Why? Because you cannot spit in San Diego without hitting a cache while in other places people have to drive hundreds of miles to get a cache.

 

It floors me when I hear a cacher make a 'man, you have less then 400 finds, you do not know how to cache' type of statement and I think if peoples stats were removed from the logs then it would not harm anything.

 

Those that want to pump there numbers by logging the same cache or same event can do so. Others, who actually log No Finds and who do not log a 'Your container is missing, thanks for the find' smiley can go on about there business.

 

You know someone is caching for numbers when the log reads:

I could tell where the container was, but it is gone now. Thanks for the find.

 

Those people can still look at there own profile and be happy and brag all they wish.

 

If a vote was taken my choices would be:

1) find count removed from cache page

2) find count made static

3) leave it as it is.

[+Glenn]

How does this differ from looking at their find count on the cache page?

Right. If it doesn't make any difference, removing it from the cache listing to reduce confusion on the numbers would make it the better choice.

I find the number of caches found usefull when looking at a log entry. But I don't need an up to the second update for it to be usefull. However when the numbers don't match it can be confusing for someone new to the site.

 

A system like Ebays seller rating system () could be a better solution. A symbol would be used for say 10-20 caches found then for 20-30 caches found the symbol would be different color and so on.

 

It wouldn't require the cache pages to be up to the second correct but it would allow you to get a feel for how experienced the cacher is. You wouldn't have to update the cache pages as frequently because most caches only get a few caches at a time. So an update delay of even a few days would be reasonable. Thats about the rate that a lot of caches are found anyways.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Bushwhacked Glenn