brdad

Maybe they should just test the option to hide find counts on charter members. Probably a high percentage of those who want to hide their count are charter members. With very few exceptions, charter members are seasoned cachers, meaning you probably don't need to know what their find count is to validate a DNF or other log. Or, limit it to cachers who have been premium members more than X number of years if that was possible. Maybe we need a "Seasoned Cacher" status. Over 100 finds and 4 years as a premium member.

Can you give an example of a such a shenanigan? I can't for the life of me think up any foul situation where knowing the logger's find count will help you determine a cacher might be deceptive. Are we talking someone compromising your caches? I can't imagine that - If I compromise your cache, you're going to need more about me than my find count to help you determine if I did it. Are we talking about faking finds? You can't beleive half the posted finds you see - If I tell you I have X number of finds, you have to choose whether to beleive that or not as well as how much it matters to you. I'm addicted to my numbers enough to know exactly how many gc.com approved caches I have found, and I am telling you that is it one more than what my posted count it. Believe it or not. On your own caches, do you suspect a cacher is logging a fake find when he has only 2 finds listed or 2000 listed? Or are you talking about some other form of shenanigan? Half of the arguments in this thread seem like they are concerned the logs would be hidden as well as the find count. That would be a different story. But we are only talking about missing the find count in a select number of logs.

So, then, you agree that this is a "low number of cachers"? That's what I was trying to say earlier, when you missed orbital re-entry and demanded I explain how I polled every cacher on earth to determine the same thing. My point, that you managed to completely miss earlier, was that most cachers would rather see the numbers than hide them. I don't think that you can argue with that. I have no idea how many cachers would care about not seeing the find count in some logs. I never stated or intended to imply that. I was wondering how you found out, since you quite clearly stated you knew there was a majority. What I am stating is that I think the number of people who would choose to hide their logs would be low, and therefore it would have minimal impact on anyone's playing of the game. And as I stated previously, there may even be an extra log or two on the cache page from finders who would opt to log online if their numbers could remain hidden. That is an assumption, not based on any numbers or any discussions other than what tiny percentage of the caching world I have been in contact with. Would you or anyone else be willing to give up seeing 3 logs with find counts out of 25 on a cache page if there was an extra log from someone who doesn't normally log online? I would.

Where do you get the idea you would not be seeing ANY numbers??? This discussion has to do with what appears to be a relatively low number of cachers not showing their numbers. And are you implying that the people who do not show their numbers would be dishonest? What does the desire to hide or not hide your find count have to do with honesty? As far as the competitive people driving the creativity - I'm not sure I agree with that, either. Many of the competitive types are the ones pushing for the placement of caches under every light pole and park bench. Creativity has little to do with how many finds someone has. And what does it has to do with this subject, anyway? I can't imagine any of the competitive types wanting to hide their numbers. I would not opt for hiding of the logs - But if you hide the numbers, you may actually see a few more logs from people who won't log now because the numbers are there.

A majority, huh? When you can explain to me how you polled 1,111,880 members and determined 555,941 or more agree with you, I'll move over to your side. Actually, you said HUGE majority, so I am guessing it's a list of about 833,910 that you have? Until then, I'll admit I don't know how many care about the numbers, but that I do know some do and some don't. And I also know no one has convinced me that the loss of a few find counts is going to hurt anything. Also, as has been mentioned, some of those who choose not to show their numbers may be the people who don't log at all now. I would rather get a log with no find count than no log at all.

I could not agree more, Markwell....

I remember that. But again, we're talking about occasional logs, not every log. Or do you think a larger percentage of cachers would choose to hide theirs? It seems to me a larger percentage of the community likes to promote their numbers than not. If I had to make my own guess (And it is just a guess), I'd say less than one in ten would opt not to show their numbers.

Well of course it's going to give some weight to a decision. But only as much as I use the number of posts made by posters here as a determination of how knowledgable they are, or using the amount of money someone has to determine how much they know about making money. I really think there would be a relatively low number of people that would opt to hide their numbers AND that would be someone you didn't have an idea of their credibility by other means. The odds of that one number missing in a log making a huge difference in how you handle a situation is minimal at best.

Sure there is. I would miss seeing the find counts on online logs - while a few do not log online consistently - the vast majority of users do (based on my own sample polling of cachers I know). I use that count to lend credibility to what is said in the online log entry. I don't think you can use the numbers accurately to determine credibility. Just knowing the logger is a much better method. If I get a log by someone I don't know, I can't use his numbers to determine how good a cacher he is. Maybe all of his finds up until mine were easy LPCs. We have people stretching the numbers by not logging as well as multiple logging. So I don't see where a few logs not listing find counts are a big deal. It may be such a small number you may not even notice. Perhaps they could even make that posted number adjustable - Meaning, instead of listing the actual found count, listing an offset or a percentage of the real number. In truth, I would not really want to see that, but a percentage of the numbers listed don't represent the actual value anyway. I'd be all for having the option to show/hide my numbers. Would I use the option? Not sure....

Move the lamp post from behind Wal-Mart to a nice location, and then hide the final cache in an ammo box at least 500 feet from it at an even nicer location. And then don't place another unless it's 50 miles from that one and not hidden in the same manner. That's the ideal LPC.

At one time there were no rules about defrauding insurance companies. They had to be enacted because more and more people took advantage of the fact there were no rules. Geocaching should not have to have half the rules it does, yet they keep coming. Look over the few years Geocaching has existed and how many rules have been added, often to the point of removal of entire cache types (like virtuals). I think Groundspeak does a half decent job keeping rules to a minimum, but when people take every loophole they can find, they have no option but to make rules which should be common sense. It takes more than rules to keep the world in line. Just because there is not a rule against something does not make it right.

If they are true (geocaching.com) caches, they will have been approved by gc.com. If they are temporary event caches and not approved, they are not worthy of a found count. They are just there for extra fun while you are at the event.

It's not about the numbers. It's about MY numbers. You can't compare my numbers to yours or vise-versa. There are way to many variables in our cache finds to make any comparison worthwhile. And even if we had done the same exact caches, Our capabilities and the conditions make the variables there too large to compare as well. In other words, the numbers do have value, but comparing them is useless. However, a find is a find. But If you say you have found 100 caches, then that should mean you have found 100 caches, not that you have found 25 caches 4 times each. You can't rightfully say you found a cache when you have allready found it. You can't rightfully say you have found a cache when you sat at the locked gate for 30 seconds and took a picture of it. You can't rightfully say you have found a cache when your GPSr says 0 feet and you see a spot where a cache could have been. To do this cheapens the value of the find count of everyone who has ever found the cache. If we go this route we might as well be teaching our young people - if you visit a University, you should feel free to claim you attended the university on your job application. Or if they have watched The Amazing Race on TV, they should feel free to claim they have travelled the world. Or if they attended an OSHA safety course, they should feel free to claim they have attended 10 of them. Or if they had a consultation with an military recruiter, they should feel free to claim they served in the military. It's obvious caching is much less important than my examples, but generally an individual's ethics are consistent through all his actions. Perhaps the question should be to the multiple-loggers - if the numbers do matter, why don't they care enough to have numbers they could be proud of?

I think it's quite the contrary here - Many of the caches placed by new cachers are better than many of the ones placed by seasoned cachers. Many of the seasoned cachers get caught up in the numbers, and do all they can to promote their own and other cachers numbers, overlooking the original ideals of caching for the sake of the excitement of the smiley. For these cachers, the numbers are more of an attraction than even the old schoolers have for traditional caching, keeping them in the game even longer. Another big factor is where they got their idea of what a cache was. If the first 20 caches you found were LPCs, you stand a good chance of thinking that's what a cache is. If your first caches were of nice views, that would influence you in that direction. All the more reason to set an example and set caches that are better than what you would like to find.

I've never heard of a Mystery/Puzzle cache type being used for a non-standard container. There is (or at least used to be) an "Other" size for that purpose. While it can be argued mystery and puzzle caches should be separated, it does not seem that that cache type should be used for a non-standard container.

I think most people that ask that are referring to the online logs. I try to add a little extra to mine, like "Yet another lamp post / guardrail / dumpster I would not have known about if not for caching". Another way is just to mention it's a nice day to be out caching, ignoring any references to the cache or location.

The problem with ratings is many cachers would rate a cache on their experience, not the quality of the actual cache. I've had a great time finding some pretty lame caches, and a few not-so-fun times finding some great caches. I am with the crowd that feels that education is the best tool. It doesn't always work, but I don't know of a way it could hurt. I have an article on our local site entitled Anatomy of a Great Cache Hide which I push when I can. Most that read it like it, but there are a few that seem to read the title and assume it's anti-micro and talk it down. As far as what has changed since the old days - Back then, a caches were never (or at least very rarely), placed for the sole purpose of placing them. They had either some hide or location value, and often both. Some were pretty basic and hidden just to help populate an area with a cache. Nowadays there is a third cache value - a numbers value - caches that have no value other than to increase your count. As stated in other posts, there is no way to filer these out. At least until there is either an attribute or a cache type "numbers only cache". When the Virtual cache explosion came, it was required that you prove that the place was worthy of placing a virtual cache there. Even that didn't save their existance on gc.com. Regular caches don't need to meet that criteria, but as much as I hate more rules sometimes I think it'd be a good idea.

Heh, nice one. Here's one I made up a few years ago. You may not understand all the subjects unless you were around then, but they were the big issues at the time...

d - Caches with no hide or location value other than to increase one's hide count and finders count. Nothing to see, No puzzle, Not hard to find. Often behind Wal-Mart in a light pole or on a guardrail by the town dump. Can be any size cache but is typically smaller so there is no trade value either. e - Caches hidden 529 feet from another cache just because they can, usually meeting the hide method in (d).

I agree with this. I agree with this too. Despite any cache ethic disagreements we have here localy, we seem to get along well at events. The key is to keep your feelings for types of cache hides apart from your feelings of the cache placers.

Maine only has 98 pages of caches. I could search through the pages, but since I have a list of nearly every cache published here, so I can tell you: There were 158 total caches in Maine when I joined, 3 of those had been archived, leaving 155 available for me to find. Maine's oldest cache is still active, and I have found it. I have hidden 5 caches, all of which are still active. They were the 218th, 253rd, 260th, 359th, and 460th caches placed here. There are now about 2400 total caches placed, a little over 1900 available. I guess I am an OG, but it doesn't seem that way to me. When I had 20 finds, I can remember there were a couple prolific cachers that were nearly up to 50! I use my list to create some state stats.

SORRY! I didn't mean to call your baby ugly just: That's all. You could say the same thing if someone asked if cars worked. The answer - maybe, especially with homebrew. There is nothing I have ever heard of in this world, natural or man-made, which you can say always works. I'm pretty sure the OP can look at our information and make the assumption he may or may not have as much luck as I or Lap have. I don't see the need to beat into us the fact that it may not work great. As my page suggests, it did help in my tests, for whatever reasons. I don't care if it's because the antenna was somewhere other than where I would usually hold the GPS, or if there are surveying hampsters in the unit adjusting my numbers. I would guess I have received 25 0r 30 emails from people all over the world who have made such units, all but two I think were happy with what they got for the price. One of them had the wiring incorrect, and I am almost guessing the other had a faulty reradiating antenna. I never heard back from either, so I am not sure. If car salesmen didn't want to give false hopes, we'd still be riding horses.

I built my own reradiating antenna and have had decent sucess with it. The results I got are shown on the page. It helps for hiding caches but with all the LPCs and guardrail caches around I find I don't even need the GPSr, let alone a better signal. But a fun project nonetheless.

I stand corrected. It no longer works on my XP laptop. The problem is with IE7. I upgraded and have similar issues. However, if I opt to allow the scripts every time I get the error, it seems to work fine.

It's been a while, but I'll taka e a stab at it. It runs fine on my XP laptop. Do you have the VB 6 runtime files installed? If not, download vbrun60sp5.exe from http://www.clayjar.com/gc/temp/misc/ You may also need ComDlg32.ocx.exe from the same directory.