guyfromdenver

Very true, and yet another reason why numbers alone don't tell much. Numbers are fun. It's only when we start to take them too seriously that we get into trouble. Of course, same goes for many other things. Like geocaching. And ourselves. I have sort of been awaiting for an opening for describing all the different reasons why numbers alone don't tell much and this is as good as any. It might be interesting to some to know who has the most finds (Alamogul, 41925 and counting) but once you go down the list the numbers don't mean all that much for a variety of reasons. Someone that has been geocaching since 2001 is likely going to have more finds than someone that has only been caching for a year or two (BobCam seems to be an obvious exception). It's like running a race against someone with a several year headstart. Those that live in cache rich areas are more likely going to have more finds than someone living in a cache sparse area. Someone living in San Diego where there are over 2000 caches available caches within a 10 miles radius is just going to have a lot more opportunities to add to their find count then someone living in area where there are only a couple of hundred within a 10 mile radius. Couple that with the fact that areas with a high density of caches generally have a lot more people hiding new caches (faster than one can find them all) there are always new caches to be found. In areas with a low density of caches, anyone that has been in the game for more than a couple of years can quickly clear out a radius such that the time required to travel the nearest unfound cache would be greater than the amount of free time one has available. I've read lots of accounts from those that are able to go caching on their lunch break or at the very least be able to out and find a cache every day. Those that live in cache sparse areas effectively can't go geocaching as often as those in dense area simply due to the distance and time involved to get to the nearest unfound cache. Those that live in areas where "power trails" have become popular have the opportunity to add numbers to their find count at ridunculous proportions to those that live in areas where power trails are non-existent. There is no consensus as to what constitutes a find. Some have no qualms about armchair logging of virtuals. Some will post multiple finds on event caches based on the number of temporary caches for the event. Some will log finds on caches that they have placed themselves, taken to the extreme of logging over 600 finds on caches placed for a power trail as part of a team of hiders. Some won't log a cache unless they found the cache on their own and physically signed the log themselves. Others will cache as part of a group and once one has found the cache, they'll sign for everyone else. Some will log a find if they got "close" to the location but didn't actually put their hands on the cache. Some cachers use a team account with multiple members finding caches in different locations but all logging under the same team account. Some predominately cache as a group, providing more eyes to search for a cache and quicker find times then someone that primarily caches alone. I've seen lots of logs from some that cache as a group which indicate that they "got help" from someone in the group that, as it turns out, had found the cache during a previous visit. Some people just have a lot more free time available to go geocaching than others. Someone that has a full time job and full time family obligations just doesn't get the opportunity to find caches than someone that is retired (and doesn't have financial constraints). For those that do have family obligations, some of the families are less supportive about free time to go caching. I've noticed this especially when looking at the find numbers while traveling on vacation for others where the whole family is involved in geocaching versus, in my case, where my family mostly tolerates it. Some geocachers prefer to find different cache types. If I wanted to find a lot of geocaches there are a few places that I can drive to (granted, they're typically an hour away) where I can rack up some relatively high find counts by grabbing caches off of guard rails, LPCs, and other park-n-grabs. Or I can spend the same amount of time taking some long hikes, visiting areas where caches are few and far between, and end up with a few finds in a day. Those that one can describe as "numbers hounds", where the smiley is more important than the smile, can rack up some large numbers finding easy park and grabs while those that are looking for a good hike are going to achieve find counts while pale in comparison. Given all the different factors that can influence the total number of finds for any given geocacher it's absurd to compare one geocachers find count to another. The find count numbers really don't mean all that much. [Removed]! Find it and log it. If you go out of your way to defy this fundamental basis of Geocaching then you are playing a differnt game all together! Guyfromdenver [Edited by moderator to remove potty language. Don't use potty language.]

You only need to find 42,109 more to beat Alamogul. But, of course, this increased during the time I was typing this. This Alamogul guy seems kind of fishy to me! He claims a daily best of 917 finds. Dusting off the old calculator, this means that if her was on for 24 hours straight he would have had to have found every 94.22 seconds. Assuming that they were not in violation of the anti-swamping rule, meaning that they must be at least 0.1 miles apart (and of course if they were not then they could not have been official caches and therefore rendering his claim invalid), and neglecting any allowance for actually finding the cache, signing the log and returning it to it location, he would have had to really be moving! I prefer quality caches that are more difficult and require a greater degree of thought and stealth then running around like an ant on crack! Guyfromdenver