Mushtang

Close. My view is that looking at someone else's numbers and applying meaning where there is none, is what is to be scoffed at. To look at someone else's numbers and using them to tell that other cacher that they're doing it wrong is what is to be scoffed at. To claim that numbers don't matter in one thread, and then in the next to talk about the fact that someone has gotten credit for finding caches that they never really found is what is to be scoffed at. If you look at my find count and decide that I haven't found enough caches for my opinion on a subject to matter, I'm scoffing. If you have a problem with my find count being higher than yours because you see that I find mostly D1T1 Lamp Post Caches and you find mostly D3 or higher, I'm scoffing. If you're one of those that regularly shout that the numbers don't matter in the forums but then you complain that people log events as being attended multiple times when they want to get credit for the temporary caches, I'm scoffing. Those are all examples of someone being hypocritical about how important other people's numbers are. I don't recall anyone having a problem with, or scoffing, that kind of interest in someone else's numbers. It's a lot of fun to see how many states someone I know has finds in, or how many APE caches they've found, etc. This is where we differ. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if someone decided to fill their stats with 1,000 challenges in each state while sitting at their computer. What they do with their stats is their business. And I sure as heck fire don't want anyone trying to tell me that I shouldn't find a Challenge because they don't like what it will do to MY stats!! (Sorry for the bad language)

From the request page to have the Challenges not added to the Find count: I just want to ask how this person is forced to ask such a stupid question? They haven't complained about having to ask how many are difficult finds vs easy PnGs, and they haven't complained about having to ask how many are virtuals or locationless or events that weren't really a container with a log book either. This is totally a Dursley, and the person that posted this request definitely cares about other people's meaningless numbers for some reason.

I love this! I'm in. I also think a Dursley should include those that are always saying that the numbers don't matter, while at the same time talking down about those that do a lot of PnGs or Power Trails just to boost their numbers.

Of course you can compare the find counts. It's how many caches they've found. It wasn't the same caches and it doesn't tell anyone who's "better" than the other or whatever, but it is what it is: a raw count of how many caches they've found. And it's accurate at that.Exactly my point. The number represents a number of times a certain kind of log has been made, and that's it. There's nothing about that number that represents how a person caches, and you certainly can't use it to tell how another person's caching compares to yours. Which is what I said in the part of my post you didn't quote. I agree. Unless a person has attended a lot of events and logged a lot of virtuals. Then the meaningless number doesn't even represent the number of caches found very well. You don't know if the meaningless number will become more or less meaningless? Um... I'm guessing it'll stay exactly as meaningless as it was.

If two players have each found exactly the same number of Traditional Caches, but the first player finds mostly high difficulty and the second finds mostly LPCs, their find counts can't be compared to each other. Neither one is meaningless, but neither is a representation of how their caching career compares to anyone else. They know what their number means, and that's all that matters. The find counts aren't scores. Throw events into the mix and they're not even a representation of how many times a player has found a cache. So if anyone is using the find counts to compare themselves to others, they're fooling themselves. Other people's find counts are completely meaningless. Why worry that someone else may take a meaningless number and make it even more meaningless by finding a bunch of Challenges? I can't understand the angst. I also can't understand why anyone would get upset that a Challenge would count towards their own finds. If you don't want to do them, then don't. Problem solved. But to not do them only because you don't want your meaningless number to have less meaning is silly.

I'm glad you had the idea to start a thread about it in the forums. We didn't have any of those.

How?? Help me to understand this concept please. If I decide that I love Challenges and I do 2000 of them (either legit or bogus), and my find count increases by 2000, I don't see how that changes the game you play - at all. How does this "ruin the game" for anyone???

There's one group of people that play this game, and they LOVE having a large find count. They LOVE that other people see their find count. They LOVE to pretend the find count actually means something. They're very concerned about other people's find count too. They want to make sure that everyone else has an "honest" find count, because it would be a shame if too many people's find count passed their own. These people use their find count to compare themselves with other cachers. Ironically these are the same people that are most vocal in the forums shouting "The numbers don't matter" and referring to people that enjoy finding LPCs as "numbers whores". These people claim that they don't care about the numbers, but in reality they are the ones that care the most. Those people are the ones that are complaining about the Challenges adding to the find count. There is another group of people that don't care about other people's find count. They like their own, and they know what their own find count means and doesn't mean, but they don't use find counts to compare themselves with others. These are the people that don't care what does and doesn't count towards someone else's find count, because it doesn't matter. These are the people that realize there's no cheating possible in this game because there isn't a meaningful score kept. These people probably enjoy geocaching more than those that care about the numbers.

Anything at the Dollar Store.You haven't been to a Dollar Store for a while, have you? The last one I was in had prices all over the map, and not even rounded to the nearest dollar. They've gone the way of the dime stores of the past. I have a 5 year old son, and we're in there often to buy crap. I also go there to get snacks before going to see a movie in the theater since they sell the exact same candy at 20% of the price. Also, at Xmas I buy wrapping paper there, it's probably cheaper quality than more expensive stuff, but it keeps presents covered just fine. I don't shop there for groceries or anything substantial, so those items might be more than $1. So yeah, I've been in there recently. Maybe not everything in the store, so I guess it was wrong saying "anything", but lots of stuff still costs the same there as it did six years ago.

Anything at the Dollar Store.

But will you renew? They took away the ability to delete threads years ago. Maybe you could storm off because of that? That is a myth. Mods do delete threads. But generally it's been commercial promotions, not embarrassing ones. Mods can, yes. Original posters of a thread, not so much.

But will you renew? They took away the ability to delete threads years ago. Maybe you could storm off because of that?

It's always been $30 a year. Maybe your memory is a little faulty? If a company kept the same yearly membership rates for a decade yet constantly increased their features and benefits, I'd storm off too. I give your membershipcide a 0.4. You showed spirit even though it was misplaced.

It amazing how many people think thats a Duke Nukem line.Probably a lot of the same people who think that Dire Straits "I want my MTV was the first video aired on MTV back when they actually showed videos!" A lot of other people think that Dire Straits' song Money For Nothing was the first video aired on MTV back when they actually showed videos!

I don't think so. I'd say that when an egg comes from a lizard, it's a lizard egg, no matter what comes out of it. If it's a lizard that lays a freak egg producing a chicken, it's still a lizard egg, because it was made by a lizard. Then we should change the saying from "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" to "What does the egg belong to, the parent or the offspring?"

This one is easy. The egg came first. Dinosaurs were being hatched from eggs long before chickens existed, so the egg came way before the chicken. Chicken eggs, however, also came before the first chicken. As chickens evolved from whatever they were before, the previous animals were laying eggs and the animal that came out was slightly more chicken-like. Eventually an egg was laid by a non-chicken that produced a chicken. Again, the egg came first. Aside from the fact (ahem! a "fact") that what you state is no more than a fashionable theory about birds and lizards, those were not chicken eggs. They were lizard eggs. Lizards still lay eggs, but not bird eggs. Humans still have eggs... we just don't extrude them before birth. If a chicken comes from an egg, it's a chicken egg. Yes? If a lizard comes from an egg, it's a lizard egg. Still agree? IF chickens evolved from something (I'm going to use lizards in my example but you can put whatever you believe they came from in here and it still works) then every generation was slightly different than the previous one. Gen 1 Lizard laid an egg that produced Gen 2 Lizard. Gen 2 Lizard laid an egg that produced Gen 3 Lizard. ... Gen 10,000,000 Lizard laid an egg that produced Gen 10,000,001 Lizard. Gen 10,000,001 Lizard was different from Gen 1 Lizard, probably by a great deal, but may not have been a chicken yet. ... Gen ???? Lizard was dang near a chicken by then, and finally laid an egg that produced a Chicken. THAT was the first chicken egg, which existed before the chicken did.

Coldgears, don't highlight and read the text below in the quote box!!

This one is easy. The egg came first. Dinosaurs were being hatched from eggs long before chickens existed, so the egg came way before the chicken. Chicken eggs, however, also came before the first chicken. As chickens evolved from whatever they were before, the previous animals were laying eggs and the animal that came out was slightly more chicken-like. Eventually an egg was laid by a non-chicken that produced a chicken. Again, the egg came first. If the animal came out slightly more chicken like, wasn't that the first chicken? So the chicken came before the egg! I don't think your supposed to answer that question btw... Slighly more chicken like = all the way a chicken??? No, I meant that if chickens evolved from some sort of lizard, and one day a lizard was hatched with little buds that would eventually become feathers on down the evolution line, those buds would make him slightly more chicken like than his mother which didn't have them. But, that doesn't mean the lizard is a chicken. Eventually an egg was laid by a non-chicken that produced a chicken. Again, the egg came first.

This one is easy. The egg came first. Dinosaurs were being hatched from eggs long before chickens existed, so the egg came way before the chicken. Chicken eggs, however, also came before the first chicken. As chickens evolved from whatever they were before, the previous animals were laying eggs and the animal that came out was slightly more chicken-like. Eventually an egg was laid by a non-chicken that produced a chicken. Again, the egg came first.

Spoiler Alert!!! The shark dies at the end of Jaws, and Rocky wins the fight at the end of Rocky II.

I'm not allowed to post in this thread, so I won't.

Bring flowers home from work, compliment her a lot, make her laugh, light a lot of candles in the bedroom, have soft music playing, etc. Or try alcohol.

Better define "killed" please. I don't see that geocaching has even slowed down a little in the decade since it's been going on. I think it's awesome that you've hidden several micros yourself. You came back later to try and make it sound like you were only complaining about lamp post and guardrail micros, but your first post clearly identifies micros in general as the issue. You've had your fill of micros, so you want to seriously limit them from the entire geocaching community and force everyone else to play the way you (recently) like. The good news is that you can filter out Micros (and Small, just to be sure), and you'll never have to see another micro cache... EVER. But why should you be inconvenienced to put forth a little effort to increase your enjoyment? It would be far easier if you could change the entire game and deprive those that enjoy micros just so you won't have to find any. Again, you're willing to change the entire game to suit your whims, and then claim it's because it would help sustain a game that is having no problem whatsoever being sustained.

I think I remember the issue being the danger that a nail in a tree would cause (someday when the cache is gone but the nail has been left behind) to someone with a chainsaw. If they cut up the log for whatever reason and hit the nail, bad things could happen. I don't remember the reviewers being concerned that a nail would harm a tree.

Don't know a thing about greasemonkey scripts... but the new ICON comes to mind... a monkey on a crutch, limping... awarded for... Any Parking lot Experience... AKA a lame LPC in a parking lot.... anyone wanting one simple edits their log to put A.P.E. as the first six characters... standard slicing should handle that as a trigger... if a picture or name can do it... why not. Doug 7rxc Why would.... someone want to.... put a monkey on a.... crutch.... for an LP.... C..... cache? I just wrote a script that changes my profile and adds an APE icon. Go look for yourself, now it shows I have 1 APE find. Hooray!