drat19

I don't think the intended use of stats on GC.COM is to compare anything... Fair counterpoint. I think what I was getting at was, "If you were gonna compare...". Of course, one aspect of my sledge hammer rant has always been the fact that before '04, I think it was fair to say that one COULD compare with a reasonable degree of apples/apples, at least within a given geographic area (hence our friendly, no-prizes-awarded-but-it-was-still-much-fun-and-encouraged-more-caching-of-all-types competition in MS back then). Can't do it anymore...too many ways that the apples compare to oranges now.

Scroll up to post #128...a WI cacher *has* checked in.

Re worrying just about yourselves and how much fun you're having individually as cachers: Sounds good! Seriously. BUT: The MOMENT anyone there chooses to use their stats as a basis for ANY sort of comparison with other cachers, well, there's your issue. Apples, oranges, onions. While it's true what others on this thread (and countless others) have said about how you can't "really" compare Micro Spew caching to mountain/hiking caching, you CAN compare the stats in one regard: 1 cache listing, 1 cache found, 1 logsheet signed, per cache listing...the intended use (I think) of stats on GC.COM. Can't do that with multi-event-cache logging.

I'll stand corrected, then...I haven't attended a MS event in some time due to the fact that I've been spending most of my time in MN for the last year. I'm sad to hear that MS events have joined the ranks of this practice, on which I stand by my opinion that it is a contributing factor to the de-valuation of Stats, for those of us who once used to value them for various reasons (and now can no longer do so!).

GREAT counterpoint/question, GHH. I'm looking forward to seeing those replies. Meanwhile, here's my wise-a** reply: What could be more fun than typing all those extra logs...especially on a Sunday evening when the GC.COM website is performing/responding at the peak efficiency that it does at that time??

You missed the original link he provided...wasn't the one you cited.

I've posted variations of this personal story multiple times in the past; here it is again: In Mississippi back in the '02-'04 timeframe, back when Dan Miller's stat site was still active, we used to have an INFORMAL, FRIENDLY in-state stats competition...no prizes, and plenty of good-natured ribbing about it. There was no Micro Spew back then (and I'm proud to report that in MS we still have very little of it in general...come on down!), and our informal competition encouraged cachers to drive all over the state and crank as many caches as possible. Even among urban caches in our few cities within the state, one could generally be assured of a quality caching experience, so it was about both The Numbers and also about The Fun. One time I found a cache and before completing my processing of it, got sidetracked by some local wildlife. When I returned home to log it, I correctly and honestly reported that I found the cache but failed to sign the logbook. I got SHREDDED (good naturedly) on our local forums for being a "false logger"...for taking a Smiley ONCE on a cache on which I failed to sign the log (and on which I had publicly owned up to it!). Needless to say, I never made THAT mistake again - the peer pressure was too great. In our little Mississippi caching subculture, if you wanted to play the stats game, you played it honestly or you suffered suitable wrath in the public forums. Oh, and if you attended one of our wonderful state Events, you logged it ONCE. With the growth of the game since '04, and the growth of ways in which folks can pump up their stats, either honestly (Urban Micro Spew runs - cheap finds, but honest), or dishonestly (Google caching, pocket caches and other multi-event-log-finding, etc etc), the Stat has become completely de-valued and meaningless. I'm now a Reformed Numbers Ho. (However, in MS, since honest logging is still HIGHLY encouraged, we do hold events to honor cachers on their Milestone (1K, etc) finds. It's what I like to think of as Southern-style Hospitality with a bit of Yankee-style Enforcement!). I still get as much enjoyment as I can by being selective about my cache hunts (avoiding Spew, logging honestly, etc.), but the de-valuation of the Stat has indeed taken away one aspect of enjoyment from my play of the game. I readily admit it. Anyone else care to admit that they, too, have been similarly affected by the de-valuation of Stats?

Sigh, the gold rush is over. I guess that makes all of us pre-'04 cachers "49ers". And the only panning we can do now is the panning of uninspired caches.

FUM MATTERS FUM?? FUM. Fundimentally Underhanded Methods. You dog...you beat me to it (I'm not sure I would have thought of the exact same acronym, but I was thinking right along with you...).

FUM MATTERS FUM??

Good thing The Numbers Don't Matter.

TG, this may help: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2669254 and http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2649416 I've had a happier time in the Forums since I discovered and implemented that late last week.

Glad to see a newcomer taking some time and thought to plan next hides. Thing to think about: Proximity to elementary school could create a tricky situation for cache searchers who might be mistaken for child stalkers by locals. This has always been an issue for cache searchers (esp. middle-aged males like myself), but it's particularly heightened now with the visibility of the case in Missouri. If the hide location could even POSSIBLY put cache searchers in a compromising perception position, you might want to think about a different hide location (and add this very real issue to your future consideration in planning other hides).

Here is my experience. At one time I used geocaching as a tool to see interesting sites when I visited a new area. Since most caches were placed at points of scenic, historic or other interest all I had to do when visiting a new city was load a few hundred waypoints for the area into my unit and when I arrived there I would select some at random and be taken to many wonderful places, many of which don't appear in any tourism brochures. Now there is so much "chaff" I can no longer do this. I attempted to do this recently on a trip to a city 3 hours from home and we soon found ourselves on a tour of the local strip malls. Driving 20 minutes in another direction gave us more of the same. And this was in an area known for its history, scenery and tourism. End result, we couldn't geocache in the manner we liked to and had to put the GPS away and pick up a few brochures from the hotel. Thank you, Brian. For the record, as someone who travels extensively both for a living and also for personal reasons, as well as someone who's been around this game since before the Micro Spew explosion, I echo and amplify your observations. I have had the exact same experiences, numerous times.

Add me to the "I search until it's no longer fun" camp. For micros of the lame/urban variety, my time limit is generally 5-10 minutes. If it's a worthwhile location, however, micro or not I'll often go as long as 45 minutes...in that case I'm glad the cache hider brought me to that location whether or not I can earn a smiley for the effort. Case in point, here's a micro that stumped me, but I still spent over 45 minutes lingering around the location and taking photos: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...cd-26ecd4a0eca7

Ummm...yeah, you do. I've tried to keep a sense of humor with you while debating with you, but I'm frankly tired of the reality...you argue for the sake of arguing. Again, say what you will about my so-called agenda, but I'm consistent...and anyone may feel free to do to me what I'm doing to you... Say hello to my little friend: PLONK. (<--ack and thanks to TheWhiteUrkel for adding this to my repertoire... )

That is your opinion. I agree that not everyone who is Google-finding is obsessed with their stats. However, it's just opening up another avenue for those who ARE obsessed, to do it. And to that end, I stand by my assertion that the overall issue of Worship at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat is at the root of the fundamental changes to our overall game which have occurred. We have a bigger issue than just Google-finding. (There goes my sledge hammer again.) If you choose to disagree because you honestly believe your alternative point of view, I respect that and we can agree to disagree. However, if you're just doing that "arguing an alternative point of view just for the sake of arguing" thing that you seem to do all the time, then I'll see you in the land of Plonk. Believe whatever you want, but it's my feeling that you are trying to twist all threads to meet your agenda. In doing so, you do those threads and the people who care about the issues addressed in those threads a disservice. I don't insert my so-called agenda into every thread...only those where I believe it's obviously pertinent. This is one of them. Clearly other posters on this and other threads where the discussion has led down The New Numbers Game path agree...even if they don't wield the sledge hammer as blatantly as I do. I've always been brutally consistent on this issue...everyone here knows it. Similarly, everyone here also knows that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

That is your opinion. I agree that not everyone who is Google-finding is obsessed with their stats. However, it's just opening up another avenue for those who ARE obsessed, to do it. And to that end, I stand by my assertion that the overall issue of Worship at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat is at the root of the fundamental changes to our overall game which have occurred. We have a bigger issue than just Google-finding. (There goes my sledge hammer again.) If you choose to disagree because you honestly believe your alternative point of view, I respect that and we can agree to disagree. However, if you're just doing that "arguing an alternative point of view just for the sake of arguing" thing that you seem to do all the time, then I'll see you in the land of Plonk.

GS, you're right, how you choose to log and obtain your smiley/stat is totally between you and the cache owners whose caches you log. However (and sbell, save yourself the trouble of your usual reply to me...yes, I'm wielding my sledge hammer again), this issue speaks to the larger issue of an increasing number of folks doing everything they can to pad/increase their stat totals. True, no one's giving out any prizes for higher numbers (except for, of course, "perceived prestige" ), but this pursuit of the almighty stat has changed the very fabric of our game, especially in terms of how caches are placed for consumption. Google-caching, and the tacit acceptance of it, presents one more way for folks who choose to worship at the altar of the church of the almighty stat to do just that. To me, folks like myself and others on this thread railing against it are simply trying to maintain our tenuous hold on the integrity of the game (a hold that's obviously and rapidly slipping away). (Sidebar: Hmmm, "worshipping at the altar of the church of the almighty stat"...I liked that the moment I typed it - I may have to add a to it! )

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses....

Spoken like the three-eyed cat that you are...

Actually, I believe "plonk" referred to the sound of your name being deposited into said Ignore List. At first I thought The Ignore List must be a metal bucket of some sort (or an ammo can!) , but I followed TheWhiteUrkel's link further, and in fact it refers to the sound of fecal matter dropping into the toilet. Here's the thread/entry where I first saw it (and yes, it WAS directed at you...): http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2649416

I'll echo/amplify my displeasure for this situation; I'm sorry to hear about this. I visited the I-95 Travel Port near Aberdeen while road tripping I-95 last March...a quality cache and TB Hotel, easy on/off with great parking, perfect for quick swaps and good TB movement/mileage.

There beliefs were based on a failure to read the guidelines. Therefore, I don't but their justification. BTW, do you just cut and paste most of your posts? I wield my point of view on this issue with a sledge hammer, you know that. Isn't it interesting that over the months more and more folks have come to agree with it, as they see the game continuing to evolve in the direction I (sadly) predicted over 2 years ago? So do tell: Have you ever encountered a thread where you didn't feel it necessary to bait an argument? (I sense another "Plonk" in your future...)

Well, given the explanations of the European cachers above in this thread, I'll give a slight bit of benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps they thought they were playing a different game. I don't agree with it, obviously, but willing to cut just that slight bit of slack. Here in the States, though, the answer to your question remains four words: The New Numbers Game. It's the fundamental change to our game that has made the pursuit of stats primary, and the pursuit of the original enjoyment that drew so many of us to the game 3-5 years ago secondary. It has changed the way caches are placed, and the way caches are "found". (<---quotes intentional!) On a separate note: Briansnat, I saw your original post above earlier this morning...glad you edited it. I agreed with the spirit of the post, of course, but the analogy you chose was obviously a little too strong in the scheme of what we're doing here (this game). Obviously you realized that as well.