Hit list improvement?
-
- 1850 or more caches found
- Posts: 116
- Joined: 17 December 09 1:41 pm
- Location: Kingborough
Hit list improvement?
I like looking at the Cache Density and Cache Hitlist views, but I find with both that the frogs and gnomes really clutter it up - even when they're not there.
For example: inside 20km, the reports show I have 34 unfound caches. Of these:
13 are traditionals, multis or trigpoints.
1 is an event that has already been held
20 are moveables, reading the logs of which suggest only 2 or 3 are likely to actually be at the coordinates at which they're listed - the others have had a string of DNFs, the last log was a found (picked up), or they were dropped off at events.
Is it worth modifying the reports so that they exclude moveables and events?
For example: inside 20km, the reports show I have 34 unfound caches. Of these:
13 are traditionals, multis or trigpoints.
1 is an event that has already been held
20 are moveables, reading the logs of which suggest only 2 or 3 are likely to actually be at the coordinates at which they're listed - the others have had a string of DNFs, the last log was a found (picked up), or they were dropped off at events.
Is it worth modifying the reports so that they exclude moveables and events?
- caughtatwork
- Posts: 17016
- Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Hit list improvement?
But then someone else will say they want moving cache in their hitlist.RebornCyclist wrote:I like looking at the Cache Density and Cache Hitlist views, but I find with both that the frogs and gnomes really clutter it up - even when they're not there.
For example: inside 20km, the reports show I have 34 unfound caches. Of these:
13 are traditionals, multis or trigpoints.
1 is an event that has already been held
20 are moveables, reading the logs of which suggest only 2 or 3 are likely to actually be at the coordinates at which they're listed - the others have had a string of DNFs, the last log was a found (picked up), or they were dropped off at events.
Is it worth modifying the reports so that they exclude moveables and events?
I'm happy to do either, but what one does not want another does.
- Just a cacher
- Posts: 630
- Joined: 03 July 10 3:01 am
- Location: Northside, Canberra, Australia
Re: Hit list improvement?
Oh, C@W, can't you make EVERYONE happy?!!!!
-
- 10000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 05 October 10 10:20 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Hit list improvement?
I thought we resolved the "movables not actually there" problem last time it came up???
- caughtatwork
- Posts: 17016
- Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Hit list improvement?
Nope.Laighside Legends wrote:I thought we resolved the "movables not actually there" problem last time it came up???
-
- 10000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 05 October 10 10:20 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Hit list improvement?
Yes we did! http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... =1&t=17019
Just nothing was done... (that I know about)
Just nothing was done... (that I know about)
- caughtatwork
- Posts: 17016
- Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Hit list improvement?
Hence the nope. Not resolved.Laighside Legends wrote:Yes we did! http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... =1&t=17019
Just nothing was done... (that I know about)