Except that lab caches are not and were never meant to be geocaches in any classical sense of the word.
They were, amogst other reasons (see the links below) instituted as an instrument for officials to play around with new ideas. They even reside in their own system on labs.geocaching.com. At some point they decided that somehow very few people would care about them at all if they did not count anywhere so they changed that. First they were added only to the find count in the upper right corner on geocaching.com, later in the profile page and lastly the statistics on geocaching.com.
The problem with labcaches are that they are still not caches in the same sense that other caches are.
If you open up a cache listing (just any cache listing page on geocaching.com), it will exhibit the following attributes:
- GC code
- Difficulty rating
- Terrain rating
- Cache size (optional)
- Listed coordinates
- Placed date
- Related web page (optional)
- Cache owner
- Cache description
- Hint (optional)
- Additional waypoints (optional)
- Gallery of user uploaded images
- Favorite points
- Attributes (like "parking available" or "stealth required", optional)
- Which bookmark lists has the cache on it
- Inventory of trackables and history of past trackables
- Logs with text
A labcache has only title, description and sometimes listed coordinate and lack all the rest of the above. They must be logged within a certain (very limited) timeframe and the only thing you can do is typically enter a code that you were meant to uncover during your quest to log the cache. You do not get to log a DNF or write log text whatsoever. If you get the code right, you just get a message displayed that "that's one more cache added to your find count".
If lab caches are included as caches (even though they clearly are not, since they exhibit just as many characteristics of being a cache as a Honda Civic or the prequal trilogy of Star Wars, both of which also have a title and a description), questions arise as to how they should be included in statistics. That is a seperate and very wide-spanning debate, as there are no clear way as to how it should be done.
Groundspeak has made its decision as to how they indend to treat lab caches in their statistics. You can read about it in the following links:
This does give a guideline as to which statistics in here should include them but makes the resulting statistics more complex since they have to be included in some statistics calculations and excluded from others. Since they don't have a GC code to identify them, they will need some other unique identifier to reference them as well.
TL;DR: Lab caches are not geocaches, and how to handle them is not a trivial matter.