Finds Detail View

[+ReadyOrNot]

More information is always better than less information. When you look at a cache page and see someone's log, you see their name

 

"ReadyOrNot (289)" with the 289 being the number of caches found. The number includes the following:

 

- Events attended

- Multiple events attended to account for temp. caches found @ said events

- Multiple found caches

- Moving caches logged

- grandfathered virtual caches found

- Archived caches found

 

"Found" is defined as: To come upon or discover by searching or making an effort. For example: To find a leak in a pipe. Once you have found the leak, you cannot re-discover the leak, because you have already become aware of the leak. If the pipe were to start leaking somewhere else, you could then find the leak again, because it's not the same leak.

 

I would like to see the # of finds alongside with the number of *Other* types of finds listed on the log pages.. For instance:

 

"ReadyOrNot (289,10)", with the ability to drill down to see a detailed breakdown of the different types of finds.:

 

Events Attended: 7

Temp. Event Caches: 1

Mult. Found Caches: 0

Moving caches: 2

virutal caches: 0

Archived caches: 0

Regular finds: 289

 

Let's have a positive discussion about this

[+Mudfrog]

There are a couple or three different ways that would help to make stats more meaningful, at least for me. Separating them into different categories like you have suggested is one that would probably work well as it would make it easy for anyone to look at the categories that are important to them and ignore the ones that aren't. Still, this is something that seems like it would be easier to implement on an owner's profile page.

 

For me, the simpler method of just having a "Total/Unique" caches found would be great next to a cacher's name. I say this because i believe that a cache or event can only be found or attended one time. Yes, i know that there are some legitimate (grandfathered, moving) caches out there that this would have bearing on but even so, it would be minor for the vast majority of us. These numbers will be identical for many but when they're not, then the unique number is the one i see as being more accurate!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Still, this is something that seems like it would be easier to implement on an owner's profile page.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking, the link would take you to a detailed view on the cacher's profile page. That would be a great place for that information to live.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Cool! I'll look forward to seeing this implemented in version 2.0 Seriously, does noone have a problem with this?

[+TrailGators]

Cool! I'll look forward to seeing this implemented in version 2.0 Seriously, does noone have a problem with this?

I don't have a problem with it, but I think Mudfrog's number of unique caches found might be easier to implement.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Cool! I'll look forward to seeing this implemented in version 2.0 Seriously, does noone have a problem with this?

I don't have a problem with it, but I think Mudfrog's number of unique caches found might be easier to implement.

 

It's a different way of saying the same thing... I guess it's better to say, "Unique finds/Finds" versus "Finds/Other".. That math is easier I would be happy as a goat either way.

[+KBI]

I would like to see the # of finds alongside with the number of *Other* types of finds listed on the log pages.. For instance:

 

"ReadyOrNot (289,10)", with the ability to drill down to see a detailed breakdown of the different types of finds.:

 

Events Attended: 7

Temp. Event Caches: 1

Mult. Found Caches: 0

Moving caches: 2

virutal caches: 0

Archived caches: 0

Regular finds: 289

I think that idea is WAY too complicated and completely unnecessary.

 

Let's have a positive discussion about this

Okay: I'm POSITIVE that idea is way too complicated and completely unnecessary.

[Mushtang]

Can we also include:

 

Ammo Cans Found: 463

Tupperware containers Found: 234

Lock-n-Lock Containers Found: 123

Caches Found On Tuesdays: 65

Caches Found in Parks: 269

Caches Found on Playgrounds: 12

Micro Caches Found in Bushes: 78

Micro Caches Found Under That Bench: 0

No, Not That One, The One Beside It: 1

Edited November 20, 2007 by Mushtang

[+ReadyOrNot]

Can we also include:

 

[Guideline Approved Cache] Ammo Cans Found: 463

[Guideline Approved Cache] Tupperware containers Found: 234

[Guideline Approved Cache] Lock-n-Lock Containers Found: 123

[Guideline Approved Cache] Caches Found On Tuesdays: 65

[Guideline Approved Cache] Caches Found in Parks: 269

[Guideline Approved Cache] Caches Found on Playgrounds: 12

[Guideline Approved Cache] Micro Caches Found in Bushes: 78

[Guideline Approved Cache] Micro Caches Found Under That Bench: 0

[Guideline Approved Cache] No, Not That One, The One Beside It: 1

 

I've illustrated the common theme above for you. I'm guessing we could lump those all together?

[Mushtang]

Can we also include:

 

[Guideline Approved Cache] Ammo Cans Found: 463

[Guideline Approved Cache] Tupperware containers Found: 234

[Guideline Approved Cache] Lock-n-Lock Containers Found: 123

[Guideline Approved Cache] Caches Found On Tuesdays: 65

[Guideline Approved Cache] Caches Found in Parks: 269

[Guideline Approved Cache] Caches Found on Playgrounds: 12

[Guideline Approved Cache] Micro Caches Found in Bushes: 78

[Guideline Approved Cache] Micro Caches Found Under That Bench: 0

[Guideline Approved Cache] No, Not That One, The One Beside It: 1

 

I've illustrated the common theme above for you. I'm guessing we could lump those all together?

Why would you lump those together when you're breaking out Event Caches, Moving Caches, and Virtual Caches that were all [Guideline Approved]?

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to look at your stats however you want to, but for someone who recently proposed hiding all find counts on the site you've done a serious 180 and now want them to show stats in huge detail.

[+KBI]

Can we also include:

 

Ammo Cans Found: 463

Tupperware containers Found: 234

Lock-n-Lock Containers Found: 123

Caches Found On Tuesdays: 65

Caches Found in Parks: 269

Caches Found on Playgrounds: 12

Micro Caches Found in Bushes: 78

Micro Caches Found Under That Bench: 0

No, Not That One, The One Beside It: 1

[+Mudfrog]

I would like to see the # of finds alongside with the number of *Other* types of finds listed on the log pages.. For instance:

 

"ReadyOrNot (289,10)", with the ability to drill down to see a detailed breakdown of the different types of finds.:

 

Events Attended: 7

Temp. Event Caches: 1

Mult. Found Caches: 0

Moving caches: 2

virutal caches: 0

Archived caches: 0

Regular finds: 289

I think that idea is WAY too complicated and completely unnecessary.

 

Let's have a positive discussion about this

Okay: I'm POSITIVE that idea is way too complicated and completely unnecessary.

Ok fine, it's complicated and completely unnecessary for you. But please, don't try to speak for me or others on here.

[+KBI]

(scratch)

Edited November 20, 2007 by KBI

[+KBI]

Ok fine, it's complicated and completely unnecessary for you. But please, don't try to speak for me or others on here.

Huh? What does "on here" mean? What did you mean to say?

[+tozainamboku]

I'd be happy to see more statistics and given how strongly some people feel about logging multi-finds, a unique caches found number wouldn't seem too far fetched. But of course you couldn't put everything in the limited space next to the cacher's name in the log. I think there was once a suggestion that each person could provide the formula they preferred for counting found caches and that would be used for calculating the number displayed for everyone that you were viewing. KBI and Mushtang could use the count of all Found It and Attended logs that we now use. ReadyOrNot could use the count of unique traditional, multi, letterbox hybrid, Project APE, and Unknown caches. The only problem would be the overhead in generating a custom web page for each person.

[Mushtang]

The only problem would be the overhead in generating a custom web page for each person.

Jeremy probably had all the programmers working overtime to get the site changed to remove the stats from being displayed at ReadyOrNot's request in his other thread.

 

Right before they pushed the button to set it in place ReadyOrNot started this new thread asking for additional stats, so they all threw their hands up and went home.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Mushtang

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to look at your stats however you want to, but for someone who recently proposed hiding all find counts on the site you've done a serious 180 and now want them to show stats in huge detail.

 

I conceded that hiding the find count was probably not a good idea... I'm looking for solutions to a problem. I'm willing to look at any options from point A to point Z... All you want to do is silence the majority by trying to bully any thread that tries to look for solutions. Do you have anything of worth to add to this discussion or are you just going to bully the thread into a complete derailment? I think what I'm tossing out there is a viable idea.. If it turns out to be a bad idea, I'll concede that and come up with hopefully a better idea.. If you don't have anything to offer to help come up with a solution, then with all due respect, "Close opposite of down".. You're soul purpose it to bully, not to look for solutions.

 

Is there any way to vote you off the island, because I'm sure I wouldn't have any problem getting votes.

[+Mach2003]

I like the finds/unique solution, it provides everything in one simple additional number. The number chasers will get the total that they strive for, others get "their" version of a score. Looks like everyone wil be happy. Of course this does not discourage someone from logging 1000 attendeds, but who realy cares if they do that anyway?

[+The Leprechauns]

I'm not seeing any "bullying" here; just people who have politely disagreed with the proposition, and who have pointed out its ironic juxtaposition with the thread about hiding find counts.

 

I am not seeing a groundswell out in the trenches for the find counts to be "fixed" one way or the other. Rather, I see people who take delight in watching their own numbers increase, and who congratulate fellow geocachers when they reach "milestones." Find counts are nothing more than a measure of how much fun someone's having, as defined by that person. 1000 geocache finds means a person is probably having more fun out in the woods, or the shopping centers, than someone who complains about how to measure other people's fun.

 

The caches which any geocacher chooses to use in order to reach 100 finds or 1000 finds is up to that geocacher. Each is worth one smiley. I've often called the smiley "the great equalizer" because you get the exact same smiley for climbing six miles up the side of a mountain as you do for lifting a lamp post skirt. That makes me laugh. I like it that the numbers are rendered meaningless by the great diversity of geocaches out there. Any comparison of find counts is an apples and oranges proposition. Yet there are continuing attempts to evaluate the statistics as if they were all compiled by players on regulation playing fields 100 yards long with a cache at the far end, and a referee to blow a whistle upon observing a rules infraction.

 

Sounds like competition. No thanks. Now, please excuse me while I go bushwack across a swamp... or kiss a guardrail... my choice.

Edited November 20, 2007 by The Leprechauns

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'm looking for solutions to a problem

 

I see no problem in search of a solution, myself. You're positively welcome to massage your personal stats anyway that makes you happy.

 

Proposals to alter the website to satisfy some about the logs on other peoples caches continue to strike me as a waste of programmer time. If someone logs a cache inappropriately, the cache owner can delete that log. If a cache without an active owner is being heavily abused, it can be archived and locked (see a bunch of old mid west virtuals).

Edited November 20, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

[+sbell111]

I have, what I believe, is a better idea that more cachers will likely embrace (mostly because it's not an original idea and I know other people liked it).

 

Right now, the find count that shows next to our logs is semi-static. It updates each time the cache page is updated, such as when an additional log is made. What I would like to see happen is for another total to also be given that is completely static. It would not update when the cache page is updated.

 

This would result in the log showing the find number that the cache was, as well as your current find count.

 

If I found my 100th cache, my log would look like this:

 

November 11 by sbell111 (100/100 found)

 

As I find more caches and that 100th cache page updates, it would look like this:

 

November 11 by sbell111 (100/150 found)

Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

I like this idea too...not bad sbell

Edited November 20, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+Miragee]

I have, what I believe, is a better idea that more cachers will likely embrace (mostly because it's not an original idea and I know other people liked it).

 

Right now, the find count that shows next to our logs is semi-static. It updates each time the cache page is updated, such as when an additional log is made. What I would like to see happen is for another total to also be given that is completely static. It would not update when the cache page is updated.

 

This would result in the log showing the find number that the cache was, as well as your current find count.

 

If I found my 100th cache, my log would look like this:

 

November 11 by sbell111 (100/100 found)

 

As I find more caches and that 100th cache page updates, it would look like this:

 

November 11 by sbell111 (100/150 found)

That would be really cool . . . Although, I wonder how the site would gather that information, especially if the cacher forgets to log a cache until months, or years, after finding it, thus messing up the "static" number . . .

[+ReadyOrNot]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

[+TotemLake]

I disagree the breakout is needed in any place but the person's profile where it is already provided.

Edited November 20, 2007 by TotemLake

[+sbell111]

I have, what I believe, is a better idea that more cachers will likely embrace (mostly because it's not an original idea and I know other people liked it).

 

Right now, the find count that shows next to our logs is semi-static. It updates each time the cache page is updated, such as when an additional log is made. What I would like to see happen is for another total to also be given that is completely static. It would not update when the cache page is updated.

 

This would result in the log showing the find number that the cache was, as well as your current find count.

 

If I found my 100th cache, my log would look like this:

 

November 11 by sbell111 (100/100 found)

 

As I find more caches and that 100th cache page updates, it would look like this:

 

November 11 by sbell111 (100/150 found)

That would be really cool . . . Although, I wonder how the site would gather that information, especially if the cacher forgets to log a cache until months, or years, after finding it, thus messing up the "static" number . . .

The number would still be an accurate representation of the order that the cacher made his online logs. If I fail to log a cache timely (which I often do), it would be my fault that the cache count is not in perfect order.

[+sbell111]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

I disagree the breakout is needed in any place but the person's profile where it is already provided.

I agree with TotemLake. Things are fine just as they are.

 

If it ain't broke ...

[+Mudfrog]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

Sbell, i like your idea as well and wouldn't mind seeing it implemented at all.

 

However, it does nothing to help with the issue at hand. Like i stated before, i like the idea of having a unique vs total smiley count as it would allow me, as well as others, to view stats the way we would like to see them. Tptb may have their reasons for why they can't or don't want to implement this feature, but i can see no reason why any cacher would have any problem with this format.

[+KBI]

Sbell, i like your idea as well and wouldn't mind seeing it implemented at all.

 

However, it does nothing to help with the issue at hand. Like i stated before, i like the idea of having a unique vs total smiley count as it would allow me, as well as others, to view stats the way we would like to see them. Tptb may have their reasons for why they can't or don't want to implement this feature, but i can see no reason why any cacher would have any problem with this format.

If you want to know how many times a particular cacher has multilogged a cache, why not just ask him? I would expect that most people would be happy to tell you.

 

If they don't want to tell you, however, then how is it any of your business?

[+Mudfrog]

I disagree the breakout is needed in any place but the person's profile where it is already provided.

I agree with TotemLake. Things are fine just as they are.

 

If it ain't broke ...

This site makes changes all the time. Most of them aren't made to fix anything, but to improve functionality. I agree that the breakdown probably needs to stay on the profile but it would be nice, if, since the site allows mulitple finds, to have something like a "temporary cache" stat included there.

 

Forget my viewpoint for a moment. As it stands now, cachers who log lots of temps probably have no idea how many events they have actually attended. I would think that they would like to see the correct number showing just as much as anyone else. Wouldn't you agree that this would improve functionality for just about anyone who is interested in and looks at these numbers?

[+sbell111]

... Forget my viewpoint for a moment. As it stands now, cachers who log lots of temps probably have no idea how many events they have actually attended. I would think that they would like to see the correct number showing just as much as anyone else. Wouldn't you agree that this would improve functionality for just about anyone who is interested in and looks at these numbers?

This information is easily available to them. The total given on their profile page will include any temp caches. However, the list of events will be discrete. Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

 

Well, I invite you to re-read the thread topic. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.

[Mushtang]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

No, it was about removing the find counts to people from abusing other peop.... oh wait, that was his other thread.

 

THIS thread is about expanding find counts to keep people from abusing other people.

[+ReadyOrNot]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

No, it was about removing the find counts to people from abusing other peop.... oh wait, that was his other thread.

 

THIS thread is about expanding find counts to keep people from abusing other people.

 

You still haven't answered my question mushtang. Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the question? Is it because you don't have an answer? Just answer the question and everything will be O.K.!

[+sbell111]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

No, it was about removing the find counts to people from abusing other peop.... oh wait, that was his other thread.

 

THIS thread is about expanding find counts to keep people from abusing other people.

 

You still haven't answered my question mushtang. Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the question? Is it because you don't have an answer? Just answer the question and everything will be O.K.!

What was the question?

[+ReadyOrNot]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

No, it was about removing the find counts to people from abusing other peop.... oh wait, that was his other thread.

 

THIS thread is about expanding find counts to keep people from abusing other people.

 

You still haven't answered my question mushtang. Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the question? Is it because you don't have an answer? Just answer the question and everything will be O.K.!

What was the question?

 

I'm trying to be ironic.. Never mind

[+sbell111]

This thread is not about sbell111's attempt to derail and take it off in his own direction. It's about showing # hides/unique hides.. If you want to start your own thread for your own topic, that would be great! I'd hate to run to the moderators and report your "abuse" of the forum guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that the thread was about ways that we could make the find totals more useful. Toward that end, I made a suggestion.

No, it was about removing the find counts to people from abusing other peop.... oh wait, that was his other thread.

 

THIS thread is about expanding find counts to keep people from abusing other people.

 

You still haven't answered my question mushtang. Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the question? Is it because you don't have an answer? Just answer the question and everything will be O.K.!

What was the question?

 

I'm trying to be ironic.. Never mind

The only thing I found to be ironic was your sig line.

[+ReadyOrNot]

The only thing I found to be ironic was your sig line.

 

What's ironic about my sig line? I think my posts clearly illustrate my opposition to relativism, so somehow Thomas Jefferson's quote is ironic is some way?

Edited November 20, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+sbell111]

The only thing I found to be ironic was your sig line.

 

What's ironic about my sig line? I think my posts clearly illustrate my opposition to relativism, so somehow Thomas Jefferson's quote is ironic is some way?

It was my mistake to respond to your post within the thread. This conversation should go to PM.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Hey,

 

As a point of clarification...what specifically is this thread supposed to be about??? I don't want to cause a storm nor do I want to seem like I am playing sides against eachother...but there really was not a question posed in the OP...

 

I understood the topic as..."Here is my suggestion, what do you think and what do you suggest"...

--If I am way off, let me know...becuase I know I can't be the only one now "confused" by all the back and forth that has gone on in the last couple posts (and yes I have read the previous history in a previous thread ).

 

If we are to specifically look at the OP and only the OP suggestion...then yes I would agree the sbell111 is off topic...but then isn't mudfrog as well as couple others...but I don't see any back and forth between them...becuase what the OP suggested and what mudfrog suggested are two different things (it is not the one thing said two different way...my stats would look very different under either idea--and again, they are my stats so I guess I would work with either one how I see most useful for me...becuase...truthfully...your stats are yours so why should I care about your stats???...I would rather want to know you as a person/cacher, not as a collection of numbers).

 

Again...sorry for the on and on in my paragraph...but please clarify the topic of this thread...I would like to actually post something useful, but not sure if it would be off topic or not...and I can't be the only one that is confused...(but then again, I could be ).

 

If it is specifically what I think of the OP's suggestion...I can respond to that...

or

Is it what I think and what I have for a suggestion (or just what I have for a suggestion)...I can respond to that...

 

...but both are different questions/answers...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+sbell111]

Hey,

 

As a point of clarification...what specifically is this thread supposed to be about??? I don't want to cause a storm nor do I want to seem like I am playing sides against eachother...but there really was not a question posed in the OP...

 

I understood the topic as..."Here is my suggestion, what do you think and what do you suggest"...

--If I am way off, let me know...becuase I know I can't be the only one now "confused" by all the back and forth that has gone on in the last couple posts (and yes I have read the previous history in a previous thread ).

 

If we are to specifically look at the OP and only the OP suggestion...then yes I would agree the sbell111 is off topic...but then isn't mudfrog as well as couple others...but I don't see any back and forth between them...becuase what the OP suggested and what mudfrog suggested are two different things (it is not the one thing said two different way...my stats would look very different under either idea--and again, they are my stats so I guess I would work with either one how I see most useful for me...becuase...truthfully...your stats are yours so why should I care about your stats???...I would rather want to know you as a person/cacher, not as a collection of numbers).

 

Again...sorry for the on and on in my paragraph...but please clarify the topic of this thread...I would like to actually post something useful, but not sure if it would be off topic or not...and I can't be the only one that is confused...(but then again, I could be ).

 

If it is specifically what I think of the OP's suggestion...I can respond to that...

or

Is it what I think and what I have for a suggestion (or just what I have for a suggestion)...I can respond to that...

 

...but both are different questions/answers...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

I'm not sure, either. When the OP asked for our suggestions, I introduced mine. It turns out that this is not what he wanted.

[+TotemLake]

I disagree the breakout is needed in any place but the person's profile where it is already provided.

I agree with TotemLake. Things are fine just as they are.

 

If it ain't broke ...

This site makes changes all the time. Most of them aren't made to fix anything, but to improve functionality. I agree that the breakdown probably needs to stay on the profile but it would be nice, if, since the site allows mulitple finds, to have something like a "temporary cache" stat included there.

 

Forget my viewpoint for a moment. As it stands now, cachers who log lots of temps probably have no idea how many events they have actually attended. I would think that they would like to see the correct number showing just as much as anyone else. Wouldn't you agree that this would improve functionality for just about anyone who is interested in and looks at these numbers?

You're making a paper arguement for those people. None that I can tell have spoken up wanting to have these numbers separate. Therefore I disagree with your assumption. What I do see happening is opening these people up to abusive rhetoric over their stats.

Edited November 20, 2007 by TotemLake

[+Rockin Roddy]

I disagree the breakout is needed in any place but the person's profile where it is already provided.

I agree with TotemLake. Things are fine just as they are.

 

If it ain't broke ...

This site makes changes all the time. Most of them aren't made to fix anything, but to improve functionality. I agree that the breakdown probably needs to stay on the profile but it would be nice, if, since the site allows mulitple finds, to have something like a "temporary cache" stat included there.

 

Forget my viewpoint for a moment. As it stands now, cachers who log lots of temps probably have no idea how many events they have actually attended. I would think that they would like to see the correct number showing just as much as anyone else. Wouldn't you agree that this would improve functionality for just about anyone who is interested in and looks at these numbers?

You're making a paper arguement for those people. None that I can tell have spoken up wanting to have these numbers separate. Therefore I disagree with your assumption. What I do see happening is opening these people up to abusive rhetoric over their stats.

 

I'll bite...how? If the stats don't matter to those people, how would this open them to abusive rhetoric?

[+Mudfrog]

Hey,

 

As a point of clarification...what specifically is this thread supposed to be about??? I don't want to cause a storm nor do I want to seem like I am playing sides against eachother...but there really was not a question posed in the OP...

 

I understood the topic as..."Here is my suggestion, what do you think and what do you suggest"...

--If I am way off, let me know...becuase I know I can't be the only one now "confused" by all the back and forth that has gone on in the last couple posts (and yes I have read the previous history in a previous thread ).

 

If we are to specifically look at the OP and only the OP suggestion...then yes I would agree the sbell111 is off topic...but then isn't mudfrog as well as couple others...but I don't see any back and forth between them...becuase what the OP suggested and what mudfrog suggested are two different things (it is not the one thing said two different way...my stats would look very different under either idea--and again, they are my stats so I guess I would work with either one how I see most useful for me...becuase...truthfully...your stats are yours so why should I care about your stats???...I would rather want to know you as a person/cacher, not as a collection of numbers).

 

Again...sorry for the on and on in my paragraph...but please clarify the topic of this thread...I would like to actually post something useful, but not sure if it would be off topic or not...and I can't be the only one that is confused...(but then again, I could be ).

 

If it is specifically what I think of the OP's suggestion...I can respond to that...

or

Is it what I think and what I have for a suggestion (or just what I have for a suggestion)...I can respond to that...

 

...but both are different questions/answers...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

I'm not sure, either. When the OP asked for our suggestions, I introduced mine. It turns out that this is not what he wanted.

Went back and reread the op and yes, i did get off topic by mentioning the other idea as well. Sorry about that.

 

On the original post, i do like the suggestion. It would be beneficial to alot of people and as i stated with the other idea, i certainly cannot see that it would hurt anyone. Whether tptb will ever consider it though, is another thing.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I disagree the breakout is needed in any place but the person's profile where it is already provided.

I agree with TotemLake. Things are fine just as they are.

 

If it ain't broke ...

This site makes changes all the time. Most of them aren't made to fix anything, but to improve functionality. I agree that the breakdown probably needs to stay on the profile but it would be nice, if, since the site allows mulitple finds, to have something like a "temporary cache" stat included there.

 

Forget my viewpoint for a moment. As it stands now, cachers who log lots of temps probably have no idea how many events they have actually attended. I would think that they would like to see the correct number showing just as much as anyone else. Wouldn't you agree that this would improve functionality for just about anyone who is interested in and looks at these numbers?

You're making a paper arguement for those people. None that I can tell have spoken up wanting to have these numbers separate. Therefore I disagree with your assumption. What I do see happening is opening these people up to abusive rhetoric over their stats.

Hey,

 

I guess...as a point of clarification (I am using that a lot in my posts...and not in just this thread)...I am one of "Those People"...

 

If you asked...I could tell you about my numbers and the events I have attended and the number of temps I have found...mainly becuase they are my numbers and therfore meaningful to me...but I do have an answer to "they would like to see the correct number showing just as much as anyone else"...I assume you meant no offense and I take non, but I guess I never viewed them as not being "correct" and to be honest, in the foreseeable future, I will not see them as being anything but as correct (for once again they are my numbers and I use my numbers as I see fit). If it were ever seperated...fine, it would save me time in answering emails regarding my numbers (at least for that question). However...other/new questions would arise and therefore no time will be saved...but my post is off topic no matter the answer to my previous post so I will end now.

 

On topic no matter the answer to my previous post: From my point of view, I see nothing wrong with the system the way it is...so why change it...if it is changed, I will change with it.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+TotemLake]

I disagree the breakout is needed in any place but the person's profile where it is already provided.

I agree with TotemLake. Things are fine just as they are.

 

If it ain't broke ...

This site makes changes all the time. Most of them aren't made to fix anything, but to improve functionality. I agree that the breakdown probably needs to stay on the profile but it would be nice, if, since the site allows mulitple finds, to have something like a "temporary cache" stat included there.

 

Forget my viewpoint for a moment. As it stands now, cachers who log lots of temps probably have no idea how many events they have actually attended. I would think that they would like to see the correct number showing just as much as anyone else. Wouldn't you agree that this would improve functionality for just about anyone who is interested in and looks at these numbers?

You're making a paper arguement for those people. None that I can tell have spoken up wanting to have these numbers separate. Therefore I disagree with your assumption. What I do see happening is opening these people up to abusive rhetoric over their stats.

 

I'll bite...how? If the stats don't matter to those people, how would this open them to abusive rhetoric?

It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the stats matter to them. The abusive rhetoric will come from the very people who are already very vocal in the forums against such logging. The previous thread to hide the find counts is proof of that very attitude.

There was an individual whom shall remain nameless whom had a bookmark on "fake" finds which caused a huge problem between players on both sides of the fence. They were asked to archive it to help reduce the angst.

 

This thread is merely the flipside of that coin. If I can't hide it, then let me expose it. I disagree with the need to expose these counts in the manner described by the OP. It serves no positive pupose to the game or the gamers and will only provide a disservice to the folks whom chose to play that way. Leave them alone. Leave the numbers alone.

 

=-=-edited to clarify my opinion was not done in conjunction with AD. I can only say GMTA-=-=

Edited November 20, 2007 by TotemLake

[+TrailGators]

I disagree with the need to expose these counts in the manner described by the OP. It serves no positive purpose to the game or the gamers and will only provide a disservice to the folks whom chose to play that way.

If there is nothing wrong with what they are doing then the OPs idea would be no different than stating how many multis or puzzle caches someone has found. Right? Edited November 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TotemLake]

I disagree with the need to expose these counts in the manner described by the OP. It serves no positive purpose to the game or the gamers and will only provide a disservice to the folks whom chose to play that way.

If there is nothing wrong with what they are doing then the OPS idea would be no different than stating how many multis or puzzle caches someone has found. Therefore, it would only be a disservice if they were trying to hide something.

As usual, you're twisting the argument if you have nothing to hide then why worry about it. What are you, a self-appointed geocop? READ AD's comments and comment to that if you really must. He reinforced what I said would happen. He's already answering questions about his find count.

Edited November 20, 2007 by TotemLake

[+Rockin Roddy]

Well, I personally have lost all interest in caring what is or isn't a find. If TPTB won't set guidelines, I certainly won't lose sleep over an extra find or two. I do hope it doesn't become overly popular as I would hate to have to stop reading the event pages.

 

I do like the ideas of different ways to show stats though.