Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Lab Cache Counting...

35 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Well here is my take on how Lab Caches are counted... It is stupid.

 

1. They count towards your total finds.

2. They don't count towards milestones (GC milestones list in your stats).

3. While some say they are counted like benchmarks they are not.

 

My simple thought... either count them like benchmarks, ie they don't count in your find count

or

count them like finds and make them count towards milestones.

 

Adding to the confusion is that they are not included in your found PQ so you have to add them to GSAK manually and then they don't have an icon either....

 

 

 

Thoughts???

Edited by ohl hockey guy
DangerKitties likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I agree. It is ridiculous how they have it right now. It is very confusing to see one number on my finds at the top of gc.com but a completely different actual find count...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good luck deleting the finds.  I added them manually to my Found database in GSAK, using the "Other" cache type.  Folks have petitioned Clyde to add the icon to GSAK but so far he hasn't.  First I've noticed about them not counting towards milestones, since I haven't hit a milestone since finding the labs caches last summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I waited until after logging the mega as my 500th cache milestone before hunting the lab caches.  Does that mean that next milestone at 600 will actually show the cache that I got at 607? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I waited until after logging the mega as my 500th cache milestone before hunting the lab caches.  Does that mean that next milestone at 600 will actually show the cache that I got at 607? 

 

that's what it looks like to me.  powerdog02 hit his 400th cache milestone at the mega and he stopped logging last night when he got that.  we forgot he had a lab cache in February, so when I started looking at it, the count was off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This was like the superman challenges.  First they counted them.  Then they didn't.  And it hosed everyone's stats.  Thanks, GC.com!  :buck2:

Cache Control likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good luck deleting the finds.  I added them manually to my Found database in GSAK, using the "Other" cache type.  Folks have petitioned Clyde to add the icon to GSAK but so far he hasn't.  First I've noticed about them not counting towards milestones, since I haven't hit a milestone since finding the labs caches last summer.

 

Milestones.   Our next GC.com milestone will be 20000.  It may be a few more years before we get there.

Probably would have forgotten about lab caches by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And this is why when people asked me at the Challenge if I had gotten any of the lab caches I said I wasn't going to. I could tell it was going to be a mess, and since my OCD insists on having my GC.com find number match my GSAK find number, I simply threw the baby out with the bath water. It seemed justified in this case. I do the same thing with rude people. I'd just rather not deal with them at all...  

mztrob, green-eyed and CANINE QUEEN like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What others said, but aside from skewing the stats, why not just bring back virtuals?  They made more sense.

 

This is what I've been saying to anyone who would listen. My wife and I have had some of our very best caching experiences around virtuals. I understand that there were problems with people abusing the cache type, but rather than implement a solution to validate a virtual before publishing it and eliminate (or at least minimize) the problem, they threw the baby out with the bath water (there's are times to toss the baby, but that wasn't one of those times).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't have a problem with labs caches, per se -- how the are implemented and logged or the temporary nature of them -- I just wish they would show up as finds in my milestones, statistics, My Finds PQ, etc.

 

If you want to see what can happen with unregulated virtuals, just look at Munzee... :coolsmiley:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

If you want to see what can happen with unregulated virtuals, just look at Munzee... :coolsmiley:

 

Yeah!  Munzee!  Just as we would clear out an area, someone (not to be named....)  would deploy a new one right behind us.   :knuppel2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So I added the lab caches to GSAK also but the BadgeGen macro complains about not having a log. I have yet to figure out how to manually add a log to them in GSAK. Obviously you can't use publish log feature. I used the old logging procedure but that didn't work. Anybody know how to edit or insert a log to a waypoint in GSAK? Google didn't help here so I'm wondering if it is purposefully designed to only get legit logs from GC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

HD:

 

I'm not in front of my GSAK, but I wonder if it is the "type" chosen. Since you said Waypoint, GSAK is smart enough to know that Waypoints do not have a data field for a log. Until Clyde and or GS define the cache type Lab Cache as on that has a log, we may have to call a lab cache a "type" that has a log by default. 

 

I'm totally speculating here, as I have yet to look at any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What others said, but aside from skewing the stats, why not just bring back virtuals?  They made more sense.

Because they are making money from business who have to pay for a lab cache.  It's all about the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What others said, but aside from skewing the stats, why not just bring back virtuals? They made more sense.

Because they are making money from business who have to pay for a lab cache. It's all about the money.
Is that true? May have been in Seattle but if there were kick backs in Bastrop for highlighting those businesses I bet it went to the local effort to do the challenge. Do we know if GC.com gets something from the businesses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

What others said, but aside from skewing the stats, why not just bring back virtuals?  They made more sense.

Because they are making money from business who have to pay for a lab cache.  It's all about the money.

 

 

Now, CC.  That statement makes you sound bitter.  Are you bitter?

cachestacker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I went to update our finds using mygeocachingprofile.com and noticed they have a field where you can manually add in your number of lab caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

What others said, but aside from skewing the stats, why not just bring back virtuals? They made more sense.

Because they are making money from business who have to pay for a lab cache. It's all about the money.

 

Is that true? May have been in Seattle but if there were kick backs in Bastrop for highlighting those businesses I bet it went to the local effort to do the challenge. Do we know if GC.com gets something from the businesses?

 

I seriously doubt it.  What... is someone going to go by the Bronze Foundry to get the lab cache and decide, "Hey, think I'll commission a $10,000 sculpture of myself!" 

Edited by HoustonControl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

What others said, but aside from skewing the stats, why not just bring back virtuals? They made more sense.

Because they are making money from business who have to pay for a lab cache. It's all about the money.

 

Is that true? May have been in Seattle but if there were kick backs in Bastrop for highlighting those businesses I bet it went to the local effort to do the challenge. Do we know if GC.com gets something from the businesses?

 

I seriously doubt it.  What... is someone going to go by the Bronze Foundry to get the lab cache and decide, "Hey, think I'll commission a $10,000 sculpture of myself!" 

 

Hey, I thought we weren't going to talk about that, and anyway, it was only $9,950.

Cache Control and Jhawk! like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

What others said, but aside from skewing the stats, why not just bring back virtuals?  They made more sense.

Because they are making money from business who have to pay for a lab cache.  It's all about the money.

 

 

Now, CC.  That statement makes you sound bitter.  Are you bitter?

 

Well you can't list a businesses on your cache page  but if GC.com gets a kick back it's far game.  LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0