Some of my letterboxes show a find summary like 15/15 (100%) and others have a bunch of F's and x's. I happened to get a find report on one of my boxes today that was placed in April, 2007 and was curious about the number of finds it has had, but could only see F's, so had to go to Show Finds and count them. There have been 88 finds and no attempts, which is satisfying, but why couldn't I have seen that at a glance instead of having to count, since the capability is clearly in place?

Boots Tex

On the View Finds page it used to have the total, but Ryan removed it when he added the F summary. Some complained and he gave a weak explanation that you just need a ballpark amount, nobody wants the exact number. A few said they in fact did, but it never came back.

The standard F summary shows up to the last ten logs with Fs and Xs. If a planter has chosen to hide finds or attempts, it only displays a total, which again garnered complaints, as that defeated the point of hiding them. For example, if you decided to hide attempts, it used to mean folks could only see the find logs, but now the F summary will display 12/15 for example, revealing that 3 attempts have indeed been logged. Despite this revelation of information a planter chose to hide, complaints again fell on deaf ears, and the F summary remains.

Meanwhile, it also used to display both a Last Found date AND the date you found it. Now it just shows a green check, and you need to look at the View Finds page for when you found it.

End result: after a series of tinkering changes, finders have less or harder to find information that they want, and more information that planters didn't want them to have.

K

Very interesting. Thanks, that makes perfect sense.

why couldn't I have seen that at a glance instead of having to count, since the capability is clearly in place?

One might argue having such a figure readily available might lead to unhealthy competition and bickering about which letterbox has had the most finds registered on AQ. I'm recalling the PAL day competitions when some folks seemed to get upset about how other people counted planted letterboxes to boost counts.

Of course counts of number of finds for a letterbox are inaccurate because some people, including some very illustrious folks, do not register their finds on AQ. I sure enjoy finding their marks in my letterbox logs when I do maintenance.

Some complained and he gave a weak explanation that you just need a ballpark amount, nobody wants the exact number.

I'm not sure I'd have ever said that nobody wanted an exact number, but I'm pretty sure nobody needs an exact number and nobody has made a convincing argument that it's needed.

Unfortunately--at least for everyone on AQ who likes stuff like counting first finds and turning counts into competitions--you have a webmaster that generally doesn't like that stuff and generally prefers to avoid them.

Despite this revelation of information a planter chose to hide, complaints again fell on deaf ears, and the F summary remains.

If you really don't want people to know anything about finds and attempts on your boxes, you can still hide them. If you hide just attempts, AQ will not display individual attempts. Date, person, when they were found kind of stuff. The fact that a box has had attempts but all identifying information about the attempts is hidden is still fair game in my book. And if anyone doesn't like that, they can still opt out. Pick your comfortable level and move on. (Note, you won't find F-summaries on the vast majority of my boxes. That's not a webmaster perk--anyone can do that.)

Meanwhile, it also used to display both a Last Found date AND the date you found it. Now it just shows a green check, and you need to look at the View Finds page for when you found it.

Or you can hover your mouse cursor over it. Yes, I know, it's not as convenient, but until I redesign the series details section again, that's what you're stuck with. Eventually a time comes when I move onto other projects and I'm done messing with the series details box for the time being.

I do, however, intend to revisit it someday and maybe I'll bring it back. Maybe I'll take away the last found date to make room for it, though. ;o)

-- Ryan

Some of my letterboxes show a find summary like 15/15 (100%) and others have a bunch of F's and x's.

On the restrictions page for each box, you can set how much information about finds and attempts you want included with it. It's on a box-by-box level so you can use different settings for different boxes. If you show finds and attempts, it'll display the last 15 finds/attempts. If you hide attempts but are okay showing finds, I'm not going to show a list of FFFFFs since it would imply everyone that looked for the box has found it and no attempts were registered. (A lot of planters would like to see that happen, but I feel that it's misleading and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.) So in that case, it shows a "success rate" of the last 15 finds and attempts but won't give you any information about the individual attempts. And if you hide finds and attempts, it'll show you nothing.

There have been 88 finds and no attempts, which is satisfying, but why couldn't I have seen that at a glance instead of having to count....

Exactly the reason you described. I'm pretty sure that box does not have 88 finds and 0 attempts. That's just how many people have recorded it on AQ and for some reason, a lot people see such numbers and start thinking that they are in some way "accurate."

They aren't and I don't want to put them in numbers to discourage that sort of thinking.

I also don't number the finds/attempts because people seem to think that that's somehow an official "order." I used to get quite a number of people complaining when they were first finders but they showed up as #2 because someone else had recorded a find on the same date even though AQ has no idea what time anyone found the boxes and to this day doesn't track what order the boxes were entered. (Well, it now keeps track of the order boxes were entered by the same person--but not when finds are recorded between two or more different people.)

And it turned out to be more trouble than its worth so I just got rid of it. (Such emails about "first finder" complaints haven't gone away completely, but they did drop dramatically after I dropped the numbers.)

-- Ryan

If you hide just attempts, AQ will not display individual attempts. Date, person, when they were found kind of stuff. The fact that a box has had attempts but all identifying information about the attempts is hidden is still fair game in my book. And if anyone doesn't like that, they can still opt out.

You know, after sleeping on the matter, I'm not even sure why I bother to explain the distinction between listing all of the details about an attempt and the compiled statistics about them. You aren't so stupid that you don't understand the difference--you just don't care about the distinction. But seeing as nobody else seems to care either, I may as well just get rid of it and have that much less code to maintain.

So consider them gone. =)

-- Ryan

Unfortunately--at least for everyone on AQ who likes stuff like counting first finds and turning counts into competitions--you have a webmaster that generally doesn't like that stuff and generally prefers to avoid them.

With all due respect, I don' think the OP's request would change the level of competition on AQ (and I read the other comment to that effect as well). If I understand it correctly, they are simply asking the machine to do something that people can and are presently doing by hand, cause that is what machines are good at. People will compete regardless of the level of technology.

The concept of dumbing down the technology to solve a social problem has always been a bit odd. This was the same argument for not providing an unfound box search to prevent first finder competitions. People are still doing this, its just harder for them (unless things have been changed since that argument).

There is also a presumption here on the part of the webmaster that people want these tasks automated for competitive reasons. I don't see why that has to be true. Maybe they are simply interested. Ascribing uniform motives to people, then attempting to thwart those putative motives, when they may not even exist, seems like an odd approach.

I personally don't see it becoming any more of a hideous competitive free-for-all if the feature the OP is requesting is automated, but I've been wrong before.

Moreover, the comment I'm quoting isn't even consistent with the overall tenor of AQ. There is a "hall of fame" that lists exact counts. "Diamonds" are awarded for certain boxes that some algorithm thinks are worthy. I see "ribbons", "trophies", and "stars" on every member's status line.

Symbolically, in our society, these are symbols of success at competition (and people think symbolically, and associate icons with concepts). I simply mouse over these icons, and see exact counts. How does this not foster competition? How is this consistent with pushing back on the OP's request, which seems minor to me, in light of the competition fostering trappings elsewhere on AQ?

I don't really care that much what is implemented and what isn't, but to suggest that there is a desire for AQ to not foster competition seems disingenuous to me, in light of all the other features that do so. If this were the true sentiment, the features I've described, and others, would be removed. No one needs the exact counts, diamonds, hall of fame, and so forth to go letterboxing.

But, once the Rubicon has been crossed, the best approach, IMHO, that will make the website the best, is to simply accept that it is human nature to compete, and not really worry about attempting to thwart that as the basis of a design decision, especially if there are non-competitive benefits to adding or automating the feature.

JMHO

I see "ribbons", "trophies", and "stars" on every member's status line.

I would love to be able to hide this info from my status line. When a person posts something on the boards, I think this info results in a possibly false set of assumptions about the poster: that is, more ribbons, trophies, and stars means that the poster (and therefore the post) has more validity than someone with less of these. I'd prefer a more egalitarian approach on the boards. People could always go to someone's profile if they really want to know this info.

There is a "hall of fame" that lists exact counts.

I'm not a fan of the Hall of Fame, but that's too much of a digression from this thread.

I don't really care that much what is implemented and what isn't, but to suggest that there is a desire for AQ to not foster competition seems disingenuous to me, in light of all the other features that do so. If this were the true sentiment, the features I've described, and others, would be removed.

But, once the Rubicon has been crossed, the best approach, IMHO, that will make the website the best, is to simply accept that it is human nature to compete, and not really worry about attempting to thwart that as the basis of a design decision, especially if there are non-competitive benefits to adding or automating the feature.

Very well said. The rating system, along with ribbons and diamonds awarded to different boxes are symbols of competition. The fact that they are symbols of competition was one of the reasons there was World War Three here on AQ when they were first implemented.

I agree that healthy competition is human nature. I don't think there is any way to avoid it. The key word is "healthy". And with only rare exceptions I think it is healthy among letterboxers.

But one shouldn't say they don't like competition and try avoid it and then foster it by implementing the awarding of ribbons and diamonds and the creation of a hall of fame.

I think "disingenuous" was a very good choice of words.

I don't really care that much what is implemented and what isn't, but to suggest that there is a desire for AQ to not foster competition seems disingenuous to me, in light of all the other features that do so.

Don't think for a second that I'm necessarily a big fan of "all the other features" you describe that foster competition. There are a lot of features on AQ that I'm not a big fan of.

The Hall of Fame you pointed out happens to be one of my least favorite features on this website and I'd happily get rid of it in a heartbeat if so many people weren't attached to it. Don't mistake my tolerance for a feature as an endorsement. I'll happily remove it if for no other reason than to prove I really mean what I say. =)

PFX counts are all about the numbers and I'm not particularly fond of them, and if they went away completely, I wouldn't miss them. I'm generally tolerate of them because they've always been around (long before AQ even), but I don't necessarily have to like them either.

So please don't point out all of the places where AQ "fosters competition." I know about them, but just because I've allowed them (thus far) doesn't mean they have my support or endorsement. It's part of the give and take. I know others like it so I try to give a certain amount of leeway, but eventually it just gets to a point where I want to start pushing back.

Yeah, I know I sound like a crazy, unreasonable idiot, but I kind of feel like I've caved in to so many other features I wasn't really fond of and now those are being used against me. That's a really bad place to put me because my knee-jerk reaction is just to delete all of those examples used against me which I'm pretty sure isn't what any of you actually wants to see happen.

Hmm..... or maybe I can just make them premium member only features. At least that way, I suddenly have a very good reason for supporting them. =)

-- Ryan, just call me curmudgeon

Hmm..... or maybe I can just make them premium member only features. At least that way, I suddenly have a very good reason for supporting them. =)

You just may have made yourself some lemonade there!

Besides, a better, or at least a more desirable mousetrap for the masses, has always been a good business model.

(Which also reminds me that although I don't really care about most of the features being quibbled about, I need to re up my premium account:)0

healthy competition

And with only rare exceptions I think it is healthy among letterboxers.

PAL day!

PAL day!

Possibly the most inappropriate acronym ever, considering there are no pals on PAL day (as soon as you cross state lines, anyway!).

The Hall of Fame you pointed out happens to be one of my least favorite features on this website and I'd happily get rid of it in a heartbeat if so many people weren't attached to it.

Too bad we can't opt out of appearing in the Hall of Fame, especially considering that the people with the most finds don't appear on it, anyway.

“Turtle, Turtle on the trail,
Come, I pray thee, here to me;
For my wife, good Ilsabil,
Wills not as I’d have her will.”

I have always thought that there were way to many "free" options here, from a business point of view. I think it is $3.25 a month for premium memberships. I think that for as much as you do and for as much work and time that goes into keeping our entertainment working..........asking people to pay a little is a great option. Pushing for more to pay is a great idea. I can't image how many times you walk away in frustration or annoyance. Thank you for your diligence.

I really appreciate all that the site offers and wanted to support it fully, even the stuff I don't care about. I usually give memberships as gifts, mostly to support the site.

Happy hiking!

I need to re up my premium account

Now that I'm premium again, I have the following changes to AQ that I'd like I require.

Shall I list them alphabetically?

Btw, do we have tin foil hat as a premium hat option yet? They could/should be quite popular

Too bad we can't opt out of appearing in the Hall of Fame,

We can opt out of the Blue Diamond thing, or at least we used to be able to. I don't know if that's still the case. But we can opt out of other features so I would assume there is code that can be written to opt out of the Hall of Fame.

We can opt out of the Blue Diamond thing, or at least we used to be able to.

Yes, we still can. I've thought about doing that (and did do it, at one point). The thing is, most people don't opt out, so if someone is searching for boxes and see that none of mine have BDs, they might assume that my boxes aren't worth looking for. So I continue to display them.

But we can opt out of other features so I would assume there is code that can be written to opt out of the Hall of Fame.

Maybe. But it's probably not worth the effort, especially since I don't care all that much.

O.P. request:

There have been 88 finds and no attempts, which is satisfying, but why couldn't I have seen that at a glance instead of having to count

One possible reason for fulfilling that request:

But, once the Rubicon has been crossed, the best approach, IMHO, that will make the website the best, is to simply accept that it is human nature to compete, and not really worry about attempting to thwart that as the basis of a design decision, especially if there are non-competitive benefits to adding or automating the feature.

I think it's possibly a valid reason just to make the website the best it can be IF that is what a webmaster wants. I suppose a case can be made for automation for the sake of automation, but that turns into a lot of work! I don't think I'd want to be webmaster if that was the only motivation! I think I'd prefer to think in terms of benefits to the website on a larger scale.

So I'd be inclined to think more along these lines:

I personally don't see it becoming any more of a hideous competitive free-for-all if the feature the OP is requesting is automated,

Basically, that's more of an assessment of what the possible outcome could be if the change was implemented. Ummm... yeah, I wouldn't be terribly motivated to implement it if I thought that! And then I'd have to factor in is it worth my time to implement?

Personally, all I see from the original request is someone who wants to have the total number of finds on their box counted up for them. And I can't see any benefit to the website for doing that or a mass of people who would even care about looking at that from a marketing standpoint. But I could be wrong.

Ryan, just call me curmudgeon

Can U Really Mean U'D Go Explosive On Non-prems?

I really appreciate all that the site offers and wanted to support it fully, even the stuff I don't care about.

*hugs* =)

-- Ryan

Btw, do we have tin foil hat as a premium hat option yet?

I still need to replace all the hats with better, high-quality icons. I'll keep my eyes open for a tin-foil option for when the time comes. =)

-- Ryan

I would assume there is code that can be written to opt out of the Hall of Fame.

There comes a point when the effort required to write and maintain "opt out" code just isn't worth it, and the Hall of Fame is one of those. I don't think enough people would use it to make the time and effort worth it.

We can opt out of the Blue Diamond thing, or at least we used to be able to. I don't know if that's still the case.

You can still opt out, but I have to admit that it's one of those options that annoy me being there just because so few people actually choose to use it.

-- Ryan

but why couldn't I have seen that at a glance instead of having to count, since the capability is clearly in place?

On the toolbar at the top of the AQ page, one can select My Page and select My statistics and then select plants. One of the pages which will come up is a summary of the top 10 of one's most commonly found boxes. So you don't have to count for your top ten letterboxes.

P.S. I really enjoy these pages.

The rating system, along with ribbons and diamonds awarded to different boxes are symbols of competition.

Not to me. I consider them recognition of accomplishment.

Not to me. I consider them recognition of accomplishment.

I suppose they are. I probably put more weight on the comments people leave on a box (mine, or someone else's) than on whether the box has been rated highly enough to have a BD. But, since people use different criteria to rate boxes and/or don't comment on boxes, I don't know if one method is a better indicator of quality/accomplishment than the other. Fortunately for us, Ryan is very accommodating of different people's styles and so gives us a rating system PLUS the ability to leave comments.

You aren't so stupid that you don't understand the difference--you just don't care about the distinction... So consider them gone.

Thank you. Sincerely. You may not agree with my point, but you understood and respected my perspective, which is all I ask.

K

The thing is, most people don't opt out, so if someone is searching for boxes and see that none of mine have BDs, they might assume that my boxes aren't worth looking for.

Anyone who judges whether my boxes are worth hunting based on whether or not it has a diamond, I don't want looking for my boxes anyway.

K