New Stat: Unique Caches Found

[+ThePropers]

I couldn't find this, but I'm sure this has been brought up before, but because it comes up every 30 minutes in the forums, wouldn't it be great if in addition to the "Total Caches Found" stat in your profile, it listed "Unique Caches Found" as an aditional stat right under it?

 

Sure in theory numbers don't matter, but in reality people do get worked up when someone reaches 1000 finds and 150 of them are for so-called "pocket caches" or something similar that is basically the result of them logging the same event cache 20 times...etc. I won't go into a long explanation since people here are familiar with the arguments on both sides, but the simple addition of this other stat would help alleviate some of the arguments...at least I would hope.

 

Another side benefit of this is I just noticed yesterday that I had logged the same cache twice about 6 months ago (I must've pressed the "submit" button twice and never noticed that it entered two "found" logs). If I had my unique caches found, I would have noticed the discrepancy (since in my case my unique caches would equal my total caches).

 

I can't imagine this would take anything other than a SQL SELECT DISTINCT statement to pull this stat, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

Anyways, I would love to see this added.

 

Waits while posts to other threads discussing same idea are posted, and then idea is ripped to shreds and/or ignored.

[+Lasagna]

I couldn't find this, but I'm sure this has been brought up before, but because it comes up every 30 minutes in the forums, wouldn't it be great if in addition to the "Total Caches Found" stat in your profile, it listed "Unique Caches Found" as an aditional stat right under it?

 

Sure in theory numbers don't matter, but in reality people do get worked up when someone reaches 1000 finds and 150 of them are for so-called "pocket caches" or something similar that is basically the result of them logging the same event cache 20 times...etc. I won't go into a long explanation since people here are familiar with the arguments on both sides, but the simple addition of this other stat would help alleviate some of the arguments...at least I would hope.

 

Another side benefit of this is I just noticed yesterday that I had logged the same cache twice about 6 months ago (I must've pressed the "submit" button twice and never noticed that it entered two "found" logs). If I had my unique caches found, I would have noticed the discrepancy (since in my case my unique caches would equal my total caches).

 

I can't imagine this would take anything other than a SQL SELECT DISTINCT statement to pull this stat, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

Same comment applies for TB's and other trackables ... I don't know how many times I've alomost logged someone's personal geocoin twice.

 

Anyways, I would love to see this added.

 

Waits while posts to other threads discussing same idea are posted, and then idea is ripped to shreds and/or ignored.

 

I agree ... I found I had accidentally logged the same cache twice one time -- fortunately just before I reached a milestone and not right after it. Would hate to have all my planning for doing a special cache for a milestone ruined and replaced by a lame micro find because of a miscount.

 

Same applies to TB's and other trackables ... would be nice to be able to avoid accidentally logging the same coin (such as a personal geocoin at an event) twice.

Edited May 25, 2006 by Lasagna

[+ThePropers]

I agree ... I found I had accidentally logged the same cache twice one time -- fortunately just before I reached a milestone and not right after it. Would hate to have all my planning for doing a special cache for a milestone ruined and replaced by a lame micro find because of a miscount.

 

Same applies to TB's and other trackables ... would be nice to be able to avoid accidentally logging the same coin (such as a personal geocoin at an event) twice.

 

In a OT note, you are familiar with my 700 milestone dilemma....imagine my disappointment when I found out that I had accidentally logged a cache twice. For those of you not in the know:

1) I thought I was at 699 and had my 700 milestone planned

2) I realized I had forgot to log a cache from 4 months ago. So now I thought I had "accidentally" done my 700 as a parking lot micro. D'oh!

3) Continues on with finds #701 and #702.

4) Discovers I had logged a cache twice...accidentally....so #700 could have actually been something cool.

 

The TB thing would be nice, but there have been a few times where I have found the same TB twice, in different cache (the most recent one was 18 months and 100+ miles between finds).

 

Anyways, I thought it would be a nice stat, and doesn't "limit" anybody to not logging caches more than once or force them to not log their own caches...etc.

[+The Leprechauns]

You can run Fizzymagic's excellent "FindStats" program on your All Finds Pocket Query, in order to determine the number of unique caches logged, and to identify each duplicate. Through it, I learned that I had logged the same moving cache in two different places, more than 800 miles apart!

 

Given the availability of an offsite tool I do not see a need to provide an onsite tool.

Edited May 25, 2006 by The Leprechauns

[+ThePropers]

You can run Fizzymagic's excellent "FindStats" program on your All Finds Pocket Query, in order to determine the number of unique caches logged, and to identify each duplicate. Through it, I learned that I had logged the same moving cache in two different places, more than 800 miles apart!

 

Given the availability of an offsite tool I do not see a need to provide an onsite tool.

 

I think the idea of the onsite tool is more to alleviate discussions like the current thread over in topics: or any of the other dozen that pop up each week arguing about it. Then we can all argue about something more important, like micros!

 

Plus, for myself, no matter how many times I say "numbers don't matter and I'm only really playing by myself" there is still a stigma that it is associated with "500 finds" and "1000" finds and "15000" finds, as well as I am in a sortof friendly (I stress friendly) competition to "stay ahead" of a few other cachers.

[+The Leprechauns]

I am of the school which believes that numbers and statistics and analyzing them in detail is FUN... but ONLY my own numbers. I could care less about anyone else's numbers, but I will slice and dice my own history a million different ways on days when I am not out there adding to that history. I love Fizzymagic's little program because it helps me with my *personal* analysis of my stats.

 

I am lucky, in that the philosophy of the website owners seems to be aligned with this view. Comparative statistical tools have never been a big priority here.

 

I respect the fact that others hold contrary opinions, and enjoy statistics in a comparative and/or competitive sense. If you are competing against two friends, encourage them to run FindStats and share the resulting text file with you.

Edited May 25, 2006 by The Leprechauns

[+ThePropers]

I am of the school which believes that numbers and statistics and analyzing them in detail is FUN... but ONLY my own numbers. I could care less about anyone else's numbers, but I will slice and dice my own history a million different ways on days when I am not out there adding to that history. I love Fizzymagic's little program because it helps me with my *personal* analysis of my stats.

 

I am lucky, in that the philosophy of the website owners seems to be aligned with this view. Comparative statistical tools have never been a big priority here.

 

I respect the fact that others hold contrary opinions, and enjoy statistics in a comparative and/or competitive sense. If you are competing against two friends, encourage them to run FindStats and share the resulting text file with you.

 

Yeah, I've used Fizzymagic's thing before. I think it's generally understood that not everyone agrees that "numbers don't matter", and it really is a source of contention....

 

I just realized these arguments have been made 1000+ times already, so I'm not going to repeat it all here.

 

I really think it would be nice to have as an additional stat on profiles. If numbers don't matter and it's only for "personal" use then why even have it in the profile, or behind your name in the logs? Why not just put it in your "My Account" profile so only you can see it? Just having it as "public information" makes it a competitive figure. I don't see the big deal in listing another stat that would alleviate some of the arguments occurring on a regular basis. It's not like it limits anything, or even replaces the other stat. I'll leave it at that I guess.

Edited May 25, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Cardinal Red]

I think the idea of the onsite tool is more to alleviate discussions like the current thread over in topics: or any of the other dozen that pop up each week arguing about it. Then we can all argue about something more important, like micros!

 

Plus, for myself, no matter how many times I say "numbers don't matter and I'm only really playing by myself" there is still a stigma that it is associated with "500 finds" and "1000" finds and "15000" finds, as well as I am in a sortof friendly (I stress friendly) competition to "stay ahead" of a few other cachers.

 

Nothing will ever alleviate that discussion. You will always have the Cache Logging Purists and the Cache Logs that are deemed not quite as Pure. Democrats and Republicans.

 

But how very interesting that you used the word Stigma in the "wrong?" context. I wonder what Freud would have to say about that.

 

Stigma - something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, group, etc.; mark of disgrace or reproach

[+ThePropers]

But how very interesting that you used the word Stigma in the "wrong?" context. I wonder what Freud would have to say about that.

 

Stigma - something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, group, etc.; mark of disgrace or reproach

 

Right you are. What word am I thinking of then? Stupid brain.

 

I still don't see a problem with listing this additional stat though. If you're a purist (as I admittedly am) then I can compare numbers...or if I am not a purist, I still have the old stat to do comparisons.

 

And yeah, I know, it's not a competition, so what's the point of comparing numbers anyways? Well, people do, regardless of how many times you say numbers don't matter.

 

I seriously don't see the problem with adding the stat to the site, but maybe I'm just beating a dead horse. Take that dead horse! And that! How you like them apples? Huh?

[+Cardinal Red]

Right you are. What word am I thinking of then?

 

Just off the top of my head I might have chosen the word "aura".

 

Yes, I guess I have to admit to also being a purist.

My puny 75 represents 75 unique physical Caches found and Logs signed.

And no, it's not a coincidence that there are darn few Micro's on that list.

That's my game and I am the only one who has to care.

 

And certainly anyone with 500, 1000, 15000 Logs has Cached a Lot more than I have.

[+ChileHead]

I wouldn't mind seeing this, as it might make people be more honest in their numbers. The stupid pocket caches and multiple finds on events (for tmp event caches) would slow down or come to a stop.

 

There was an event nearby recently that many people attended 20 times or more. Amazing.

[+Glenn]

You can run Fizzymagic's excellent "FindStats" program on your All Finds Pocket Query, in order to determine the number of unique caches logged, and to identify each duplicate. Through it, I learned that I had logged the same moving cache in two different places, more than 800 miles apart!

 

Given the availability of an offsite tool I do not see a need to provide an onsite tool.

 

Is there anything like FindStats written for the Mac, Linux or Pocket PC?

[+jon & miki]

I wish there was a per-account option to "hide" stats in such a way that I could see my own stats page but no one else could. That would effectively give folks the choice of opting out of the numbers game.

[+fizzymagic]

Is there anything like FindStats written for the Mac, Linux or Pocket PC?

FindStats was written in platform-neutral code, and has been successfully compiled and run on Linux and Macs. I don't see why you would want to run it on a PocketPC, but it should be no problem there at all, either.

 

Details in this thread. There is somebody currently working on making a server-based version of it, as well.

 

You might have to get a (free) account there to see the thread.

Edited May 26, 2006 by fizzymagic

[+Glenn]

Is there anything like FindStats written for the Mac, Linux or Pocket PC?

FindStats was written in platform-neutral code, and has been successfully compiled and run on Linux and Macs. I don't see why you would want to run it on a PocketPC, but it should be no problem there at all, either.

 

Details in this thread. There is somebody currently working on making a server-based version of it, as well.

 

You might have to get a (free) account there to see the thread.

 

Very cool, I'll have to do that. I saw the Windows executables and the required .DLL and assumed that the code wasn't cross platform. About PPCs. I try to keep as much GC stuff on PPC as I can. It really handy to have in the field and at event. I just wish that the .pdf cache pages were a lot more vertical and less horizontal.

[+fizzymagic]

FindStats was written in platform-neutral code, and has been successfully compiled and run on Linux and Macs. I don't see why you would want to run it on a PocketPC, but it should be no problem there at all, either.

Very cool, I'll have to do that. I saw the Windows executables and the required .DLL and assumed that the code wasn't cross platform. About PPCs. I try to keep as much GC stuff on PPC as I can. It really handy to have in the field and at event.

If you get it running on the PPC, I would be most interested to hear about it. I actually think it should be pretty easy to do.