+robert Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 How do you cheat at a game with no winners? Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Logical fallacy alert! Since high-numbers cachers are, by definition, a small percentage of cachers, you can always dismiss them as "insignificant." The significance comes, as I said before, in their disproportionate influence on the culture. And it doesn't take much cheating to poison the culture. So yes, I would say it is a significant problem. O.K. So you are saying that because of their high profile one high-finder is much more influential than many low or mid range cachers. I'll buy that. I assume you have someone or ones in mind and I am probably just beyond the edge of your caching area so at this point in time I don't care to know who that or those people might be. But do they "cheat" or otherwise have questionable finds in significant numbers? Are there more than 10, more than 100 questionable finds for an individual cacher? Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 How do you cheat at a game with no winners? Yep. The problem is that too many people think the find count counts for something. Wait ... isn't that what this thread is about. If find count = status (in other words cachers gain some advantage by having a higher find count) then there is some incentive to cheat (inflate your find count). The problem (and it probably deserves its own thread ... wait its already been discussed in many threads here's just oneexample) is that there is disagreement about when you can log a find. Some insist no sign log = no find (a bit easier to argue if you ignore virtual and event caches). Some argue about the legitimacy of beta finds or group finds or group finds where one person solved a puzzle cache and the others just tag along. And what about when you found the cache but forgot a pen and the one in the cache didn't work? If we all agreed on what constitutes a find, the numbers could mean something. But as it stands, each person's find count simple reflects the count of caches they found by their standards (and the cache owner didn't delete their log). There may be a few cachers that "cheat" and create bogus logs. I doubt that anyone with a high find count does this. There are certainly those with high counts that may have a different standard for what they call a find. That just means that your rank may be higher Quote Link to comment
Sadie Posted December 7, 2005 Author Share Posted December 7, 2005 Telling us about someone with one or two questionable finds, or even 10 and then leaving us with the image that they are a major cheater without reading their other 100, 200, 2000 find logs may be doing a disservice to that person and to the forums. Oh, I don't know that this is a standard I use in any other part of my life. I think being a little bit of a cheater is like being a little bit pregnant: no such of a thing. Though, of course, I'd want cheating defined pretty specifically; I'm not above tagging along with better finders for caches I've had trouble with, for example. I don't doubt that some people with a ginormous find count that is dubious around the edges would probably, without those caches, still have a ginormous find count. That almost makes it more frustrating. If you'd put all the work into earning huge numbers, wouldn't you be extra special protective about the integrity of it, so that no doubt could possibly be cast over your achievements? Someone in my family has a really impressive personal resume that I know to be completely genuine. He has a tendency to exaggerate bits of it in the telling, often in ways that are pointless and add nothing. Makes me wanna smack him. So, a person who drives 1 mph over the speed limit deserves the same fine as a person who drives 30 mph over? Some say yes, others so no. We have our opinions and none are wrong. The example provided was to a log entry where the person was granted permission to log the cache as a find. Very questionable, and viewed differently by many people, but all in all is it worthy of having the label "cheater" branded across thier forehead? Quote Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Rarely, though, I admit, you'll see folks take a weekend and tackle the "Tube Torchers" of an area. Now I feel special. X Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 (edited) I have to jump back into the fray seeing as somewhere along the line, I feel slighted due to my cache count and then the reference to "cheaters." Read through all my finds and find a bogus one. If I have claimed a find, it is due to having found the "cache" be it a physical or virtual. I have "ZERO" locationless caches due to personal preference. IF there was a log to sign, we did if at all possible. Several caches have been soaked and no way to even get a pencil mark on the cache logbook/sheet so we dropped our own sheet of paper into the cache with our name signed to it. Yes, it more then likely melted due to the water, so be it. I DID sign in at the cache. Several of the caches where trashed and I cleaned them up, replaced them or worked with the cache owner to solve the problem. If no response from the cache owner, I either adopted the cache or requested it to be archived. As for going out of town and hitting 1/1 caches, IF that is all that is available, what else are you going to do? It is deep winter here in Central Oregon now, as well as a lot of other places. With a temp of 8 degrees and a windchill of dammed cold, very few people are out and about chasing the long hikes caches. They are snagging the easy ones. Human nature is it not? As for a quality cache in a parking lot, I have one. Full sized 6 quart plastic box hidden at a Target store. It gets rave reviews as it is unexpected to find a cache of that size in a parking lot. There are other things in this thread that bother me big time, I just don't feel like wasting my time debating mute points that matter not in the least. The orginal question still stands and this thread is diverting from it. What I want to know is, who is conferring the "status" on the high finders? Are they flaunting their count as a "I'm better then you because I am in the 4 digit club." Or are others conferring this status onto them? Some of us have or had more time to really enjoy the hunt steady. My lifestyle has changed and I only get to do the "binge" cacheing thing now. As I said before, I am working 4 hours away from home, I work "can see to can't" see all week long. The nearest cache to me right now is at about 8,000 feet under about 8 - 10 feet of snow, and I hate snow. But, I still enjoy the game and I will enjoy the game as I get time. As a parting shot, I did not ask for "status" due to my high score. But I will accept the responsibility of having that "status" in trying to promote the game, help the newcomers out, getting events together, answering questions about cache placement, working with the Parks department in solving problems, cleaning up abandoned caches, placing above average caches - subjective I know but I have a standard of my own I work with and it seems to be above average for what I have been finding and reading about - and trying to get others involved in this game on a positive side. In fact, we got tired of the "status" of having the most finds of anyone in Oregon and we backed off cacheing to let others take the lead and the "headaches" involved with that title. No regrets. Logscaler. Edited December 7, 2005 by logscaler & Red Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 As a parting shot, I did not ask for "status" due to my high score. I don't think of your count as particularly high, logscaler. You've been caching since 2001; caching at a very moderate pace, I would say. Of course, that's likely because you and I have pretty similar numbers, and I don't consider my own cache count as very high. In my area, we've had people who reached their 1000th find in less than 6 months. That's a completely different scale. Like you, I have zero locationless finds, and I am considering getting rid of my event "finds," too. I, too, have often declined to log a cache that I determined was missing as a find, even when offered to do so by the hider. I even refuse to have my name on stickers when logging caches. I've used grass, charred wood, and even blood to sign logbooks when there was no writing instrument available. Once, another cacher signed a log for me, and it bugged me so much I drove back the next day to re-sign the log myself. As a result, I feel good about my finds. I know that I did every single one. I don't have to think up excuses for why I can call them finds even though they weren't. But that's one reason why others who apparently value numbers above all else annoy me so much. I feel as if I am being tarred with the brush that they have created. They claim finds that aren't, and that reflects badly upon us all. And the worst part is the insidious development of a culture in which cheating is viewed as OK because "everyone plays their own game." Like it or not, there is a social and cultural aspect to caching. Some actions are acceptable, and some are not. Quote Link to comment
+clearpath Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 ... and even blood to sign logbooks when there was no writing instrument available. Fizzy, I now place you at the top of my respect list ... Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 (edited) You are right fizzymagic, it is not all that high. Not even in the top 150 anymore I don't think. But for somewhere aroound 3 years, we where # 1 in Oregon even when we had to drive 60-75 miles to the nearest cache. That has all changed in the last year or so and a new cacher could get 1,000 or more finds easy in a summer. Good for them. I will still have the memory of "when." Now, the most enjoyment we get out of cacheing is the events and the friends we have made in this game and looking forwards to making new friends. Yes, event cache's are the "gray" area of logs. But seeing as the listing shows "attended" I can accept that. It would not bother me in the slightest if those "finds" where not in the total score. Having "status" in this game should be on your "whole", not just any one section like total finds. I admire a lot of people who I have met in this game who are sub 500 finds after several years of playing. I think that instead of admiring someone and giving them "status" for their count - big deal anyway as far as I care - you should confer "status" on people for what they BRING to the game and not for what they take from the game. Let's change thing slightly. Who would you give more status to? All things being equal, The person who can sit by a little pond and cache 100 Bluegill in a weekend or the person who manages to hook up and land that 65 pound Chinook? I know who's table I would rather stick my knees under. Pass the tarter sauce please! I got a Salmon steak to eat!!!! Nuff said. logscaler. Edited December 7, 2005 by logscaler & Red Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 ... and even blood to sign logbooks when there was no writing instrument available. Fizzy, I now place you at the top of my respect list ... I used the lit end of a cigar. Does that put me up there with Fizzy? Quote Link to comment
+Airmapper Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 (edited) I don't care what they use, I just plain wish people would sign the log. If they go to the trouble to find it, pull it out, look at the stuff, what would it hurt to scribble their name with the provided pencil. Edited December 7, 2005 by Airmapper Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 (edited) How do you cheat at a game with no winners? There may be no winners as in a poker game or a soccer match but there is a certain amount of "celebrity" involved. I've been to events where a "heavy hitter" arrives and is treated like royalty. Some are spoken about with a certain amount of awe in these forums. When I started in this sport things were pretty simple. If you found a cache you logged a "found it" and if you didn't, you logged a DNF. As more people joined and as a high find count became some sort of badge of honor, things changed and people started claiming specious finds just to crank up their numbers and adding all these grey areas. A few years ago there was some discussion here about a certain heavy hitter who was logging dozens of caches in several states and even countries on the same day. Most of these "finds" were armchair virtuals where they were able to Google the verifying info and send it to the owner as "proof" they "found" the cache. In our Jr high school sociology classes we all learned about "folkways", "mores" and "taboos" - which are essentially customs, norms and unwritten rules of society. In geocaching we have these as well - or at least we had them at one time. These have eroded over time and its a reflection of our society in general. The erosion of standards has been going on for years. It all started with the "if it feels good, do it" ethic of the baby boomers, which has devolved into the current "play your own game" ethic. Never mind the effect your actions have on others. Log a find on a missing cache, causing a fellow geocacher to drive 200 miles to go after the same cache? Tough. I'm playing my own game. Move the owner's cache to a "better" spot? Hey, why not? Thats my game. Many of us remember the cache pirate craze of a few years ago where they were stealing caches and hiding them in different spots. Heck, they were "playing their own game" so who were we to judge? Yet a lot of the people here who today beat the "play your own game" drum were absolutely furious over the cache pirate's actions. Why? Because it affected them. So go ahead and keep telling everyone to play their own game. But when your GSAK program tells you that a cache is there because "Joe Cacher" found it yesterday and you drive 10, 50 or 200 miles to look for it only to discover that its been missing for 6 months, don't complain. Because hey, they're playing their own game. Too bad its a different one than yours. Edited December 7, 2005 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 dadgum fine post, Brian. Quote Link to comment
+Polgara Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Everyone has their own synopsis of this. I think it depends alot on the way YOU cache. For example, i'm not a numbers cacher. I'm a terrain, climate cacher, what means to me is, i tend to favor high terrain caches, and caches out of my element. My element is PA, so out of my element would be caching in a desert, etc. I feel high numbers is alot like photography, more isn't necessarily 'better'. Photographers can take thousands of pics of the same model in the same clothes, and only one of all them may be any good for professional publication. Unless its out of your element, the more caches you find, is simply repeating the same action one thousand times. Its the same experience, one thousand times over. However, some cachers value high find count, and what seems to be the new thing, high icon count. In some way, that does something for those cachers, it doesn't do anything for me, but that is the way they play the game. The problem with it all is cachers that play differently are bundled into this by both sides. I don't have a high find count, but i've cached in 4 countries and 2 hemispheres. To the numbers cachers, i don't look like much with my 296 finds. If cachers are to be judged at all, on find count, or terrain / climate level, its not a fair evaluation to lump numbers finding cachers with high terrain cachers, its two different populations. Quote Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 OK. Seriously I could give a s*** about high numbers. I've been caching for two years and tried to hunt only quality caches. We all know the problems there. The only time I got a kick out of a "high numbers" cacher whom I genuinely liked logged a DNF on one of my caches. I got a kick out of stumping them. But then you do think how many others stumped that person. How many DNF's aren't logged? After all it's just you and the unfound cache in the woods. I agree that it degrades the game. And I want it to be different. But I can only play the way I play. X Quote Link to comment
+Show Me the Cache Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 My favorite “Numbers-Equals-Status” story occurred earlier this year at a CITO event in Kentucky. A cacher from Lexington that had met me a few times and heard a few stories about me went along with me and two other folks to do some event caches after the clean-up ended. At that time I had about 5000 finds. Due to circumstances beyond our control, the first two event caches were not properly listed and could not be found. We even read the hints, and nothing matched in any way. Next, we tried a regular cache that I had previously found, but it had been recently moved and we were working from memory, so naturally, we never found it either. As we wandered back to the car, the Lexington cacher said, “Darrell, I’ve known you and heard about "Show Me The Cache" for two years now, but this is the first time I have actually gotten to cache with you, and I’ve gotta tell you…I’m NOT impressed.” We all had a good laugh. Quote Link to comment
+vree Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 god grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change; courage to change the things i can; and wisdom to know the difference. i think it's a shady thing to do for someone to log something they have not found, especially if it affects me (e.g. driving a long way to find something that is not there). i wouldn't do it. would someone else? sure. would i be upset? sure. would i get over it? sure. in the grand scheme of things, that won't affect my overall geocaching experience. if the cache sounds good enough for me to drive a long way to find it, chances are i'll enjoy the search even with a DNF. i don't put any energy into trying to find out if people's finds are legitimate or not. it upsets me if someone cuts in front of me in a construction zone by driving in the merging lane. i wouldn't do it, it's discourteous for them to do it. if they do it, it's done. i'll keep driving my own way and still get to my destination. i just may curse a little on the way there, but i can feel good about the way that i went about following my idea of courteous driving. as far as status goes, i have stopped really paying attention to find counts too much. i like keeping track of mine and even check poobah every so often to see where i am in the state "rankings". as far as other cacher's find counts, i don't pay attention too much unless, like some other people have said, i know them. that way we can celebrate milestones. when a person with 10 finds enjoys one of my caches i am just as tickled as when one of the top number teams enjoys it. Quote Link to comment
+Hunt Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 i have been a cacher since 03 just now pushing my 50th cache find. and there is always an initial aww when you see big numbers like when you see a lifted truck drive by but then you realize that those tires are useless and dont mean a thing about the driver, i know some cachers with high numbers that are as stupid as a cow and others that are brilliant. to know if a cacher realy has nails in his knuckles you gota see What caches he has found, FTF's also are a good indicator becaus it is very hard to get one if you are in an area with other true hard core cachers. But even with all that this is a sport for fun and pleasure, not hollywoods red carpet, i dont care if i am taken for a compleet fool and novice, i dont even take myself that seriously, if someone is status hungry then they have heart problems. and you never know what a novice cacher might be professionally, you could be a desert rat with 2ooo finds and be unknowingly laighing at the CEO of some furtune 100 company then who is the dummy? in short, lets all keep in mind that this is a sport of fun and a comonground for many and respect others as we would expect to reieve it. Quote Link to comment
+The Fixer Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Numbers, high status, make a difference? Sure to some people. It depends on what your doing this for. Yes I read logs, see someone with a high number count. I think, great they are having fun and getting what they want out if this. May be I just look at it differently. To me, I go out and have a good time on the hunt, at my own pace. Enjoying the area that the Cache Owner has brought me to. Learn some interesting history on locations. That's what I am looking for in this hobby. I don't consider it a sport. It's great to see the different styles people have in hiding their caches, signing logs, and leaving trading items. I do it for the fun. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Find count is one component of a geocacher's resume that I take into consideration when forming an opinion about his or her standing in the game.... I read reverrit's post, then flasks post and agreed with both. Then I read this one and only have to say, yeah that's it. What I think is important will vary from me to any other cacher. Plus what's important also varies with the problem I may wish advice on. A person with only three hides, but all 3 of which made my top 10 list is much higher on my list of hiding experts than someone who did 100 hides one of which made my top 10 list. However if I need advice on how to deal with moronic logs...things flip flop. Most people I know have skills, when I need a skill it's time to look at the resume... Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 (edited) I think the answer to our question is made quite plain in this post. Lots of finds apparently makes you a "top cacher" and a "leader." I rest my case. Edited December 11, 2005 by fizzymagic Quote Link to comment
+Bill & Tammy Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 Unless a high cache find count gets me curbside parking at the Wal-mart, no waiting at my doctor's office or the DMV I am not very interested in it myself. I do think it's great that people have dedicated so much time and effort into it but if it's all about the numbers I think there is something lost in that. Quote Link to comment
+JDandDD Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) There are cachers for whom numbers are everything and others that it doesn't mean that much. That's ok, geocaching is about how you want to go about it. We are not number crazy. We use caching to take us to places we might otherwise not have visited and to get us outdoors doing healthy activities and having fun. When we get somwhere we find the cache and then usually spend some time looking at the area and enjoying it. We might spend an hour or more and only get one or two caches done in a day. That's ok, we had a great time. The numbers will happen as they happen. About the only thing we really are interested in keeping track of is our find versus dnf rate, specifically the true dnf when the cache was there and we didn't find it. That tells us how good we are at caching not the numbers we do. JDandDD Edited December 12, 2005 by JDandDD Quote Link to comment
+dogbreathcanada Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 But that's one reason why others who apparently value numbers above all else annoy me so much. I feel as if I am being tarred with the brush that they have created. They claim finds that aren't, and that reflects badly upon us all. And the worst part is the insidious development of a culture in which cheating is viewed as OK because "everyone plays their own game." Like it or not, there is a social and cultural aspect to caching. Some actions are acceptable, and some are not. Exactly, well said. For instance, there's a cacher with 12,000+ finds. She recently logged 15 finds on a single cache. That puts into question the legitimacy of her find total in its entirety. What she did is unacceptable, even if there are apologists who will claim "everyone plays their own game". That's why I argue that geocaching can never be regarded as a sport if the community doesn't regard some clear and simple rules that everyone should abide by. If the activity is just going to be a free-for-all, then all it can be considered as is an activity and nothing more. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 For instance, there's a cacher with 12,000+ finds. She recently logged 15 finds on a single cache. That puts into question the legitimacy of her find total in its entirety. What she did is unacceptable... This type of post will usually get me to respond. Do you know why she logged those finds (as did another cacher on the same cache)? Has anybody asked her yet what she is up to? Is it a temporary statement which will be deleted later? If you don't know the answers to these questions then wouldn't it be a bit premature to draw and quarter. If this is a common practice for her, if those finds don't get deleted within a few months, then we have a story. But until then... This is what happens here, this is the point I've been trying to make for at least two years. We tend to take a small bit of information and construct a skyscraper out of it. Not terribly productive. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 That's why I argue that geocaching can never be regarded as a sport if the community doesn't regard some clear and simple rules that everyone should abide by. If the activity is just going to be a free-for-all, then all it can be considered as is an activity and nothing more. Does anyone have any evidence that the community disregards the find rules in any SIGNIFICANT quantity? I suspect that at least 98% of geocachers are clear and in agreement as to what constitutes a geocache find. The examples of questionable finds presented in this and other topics are... what percentage of the total finds for any specific cacher? Is this a real story? Is it something we really need to get worked up over? p.s. This post by DBC is representative of many other posters - I'm not singling out DBC with this post and my previous one. Quote Link to comment
+AuntieWeasel Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 So is baseball finished on account of Mark McGwire? Is it no longer a sport? Has everyone ceased to pay attention to the statistics? Quote Link to comment
+Googling Hrpty Hrrs Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 You previously asked this question: But do they "cheat" or otherwise have questionable finds in significant numbers? Are there more than 10, more than 100 questionable finds for an individual cacher? Then DBC finds one single cache with 15 questionable finds by one cacher. (Why would they delete later? It's been 11 days, and they haven't been deleted. Why do this in the first place? Pretty silly to me, but I digress...) Is this a real story? Is it something we really need to get worked up over? I didn't hear anybody getting worked up. Just discussion. Look, numbers mean nothing to me, but you can easily read other people's opinions here on this thread to find a lot of people put value on the find count, and even give people elevated status for them. When one of these caching "leaders" log a 1/1 cache 15 times, expect some people to take issue with it. And people do have the right to discuss it in the forums, just as you have a right to defend who you'd like. Doesn't matter to me, cause they don't elevated "status" in my mind anyway. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 And people do have the right to discuss it in the forums, just as you have a right to defend who you'd like. Well this seems to be a not so uncommon response to my posts. I'm not defending anyone or any practice. That is not usually why I respond. I suspect we have been making mountains out of mole hills; making it appear that there is a big problem when only a little one exists. And it is usually done with an inadequate amount of information. Quote Link to comment
+Googling Hrpty Hrrs Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 I suspect we have been making mountains out of mole hills; making it appear that there is a big problem when only a little one exists. And it is usually done with an inadequate amount of information. I agree with you. I don't think this happens often. I'd defend the integrity of almost every single local cacher in my area. (And the one questionable cacher around here wouldn't even dream of logging a cache 15 times, even in jest. ) Quote Link to comment
+PastorDIC Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 I wish I could say the same around here and in Wisconsin. There is a "Wisconsin Rules of Event Caching" cache GCN3XN that was adopted for an event over in Portland OR. GCPPF5. At GCPPF5 people could log 55 finds if they wanted to, and some did. I logged it once. Quote Link to comment
+dogbreathcanada Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 (edited) Do you know why she logged those finds (as did another cacher on the same cache)? Has anybody asked her yet what she is up to? Is it a temporary statement which will be deleted later? If you don't know the answers to these questions then wouldn't it be a bit premature to draw and quarter. She could have said everything she had to say using the "note" log type, rather than the "find" log type. Not to mention she logged those 15 finds on November 30th ... and it's what ... December 11th now? If they were temporary, perhaps they could have been deleted last week? Seems she has every intention of keeping them as "legitimate" finds. Edited December 12, 2005 by dogbreathcanada Quote Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Logging a bunch of finds for various travails is one way of dealing with being detained by the police because a cache hider screwed up. The owner of the cache in question failed to obtain permission before hiding a cache at an active construction site for a new retail store that hadn't opened yet. Maybe not what I would have done in the same situation, but it's one solution. Quote Link to comment
+dogbreathcanada Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Logging a bunch of finds for various travails is one way of dealing with being detained by the police because a cache hider screwed up. The owner of the cache in question failed to obtain permission before hiding a cache at an active construction site for a new retail store that hadn't opened yet. Maybe not what I would have done in the same situation, but it's one solution. You've got to be kidding. A solution solves something. What did her 15 find logs solve? The proper and generally accepted solution was to post an SBA log entry. Quote Link to comment
+beejay&esskay Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 It is a humorous sequence of logs...especially since I wasn't the one being questioned by police. But multiple SBAs would have served a better purpose. Quote Link to comment
+budd-rdc Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Logging a bunch of finds for various travails is one way of dealing with being detained by the police because a cache hider screwed up. The owner of the cache in question failed to obtain permission before hiding a cache at an active construction site for a new retail store that hadn't opened yet. Maybe not what I would have done in the same situation, but it's one solution. You've got to be kidding. A solution solves something. What did her 15 find logs solve? The proper and generally accepted solution was to post an SBA log entry. The publicizing of that incident solved a lot of things, at least for me: - Find count = status? YES (but not necessarily in a positive way) - Is Geocaching competitive? YES (but more time is needed for a definite answer) - Friendships > find count? YES (note the "allegiances" that are clearer due to this incident) I'm going to wait until after the holidays to see if this ever clears up. What I hope doesn't happen is a "software enhancement" to enforce stricter rules for find counts because people were unwilling or unable to come to a solution due to petty politics. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 A solution solves something. What did her 15 find logs solve? The proper and generally accepted solution was to post an SBA log entry. I agree with this totally, and with b&e's suggestion of multiple sba's. As a cache owner, if I got 30 sba's on one page I think I would guess that something was amiss. Lets check back in February to see if those finds are still in place. Quote Link to comment
+Quiggle Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 I agree with this totally, and with b&e's suggestion of multiple sba's. As a cache owner, if I got 30 sba's on one page I think I would guess that something was amiss. Lets check back in February to see if those finds are still in place. SBA logs are also sent to the local reviewer, so one would be sufficient. If you are trying to get the attention of the cache owner, a regular log ("Found it", note, etc.) is the way to go about it. If you are trying to get the attention the reviewer, then log an SBA. The cache in question is already archived, and the listing locked so no more logs will be added to the page. Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 (edited) I suspect we have been making mountains out of mole hills; making it appear that there is a big problem when only a little one exists. And it is usually done with an inadequate amount of information. Very true. Actual information is always helpful. So I went and calculated the percentage of finds that are multiple logs on the same cache for various cachers. It's not very hard. For the "top" 20 cachers (by number of finds), the average number of excess logs (logs that are not the first find of the cache for the cacher) is 111, or an average of 1.8%. The highest was 300, the lowest was 2. Two cachers in the top 20 had excess-log percentages greater than 5%. Six had percentages less than 1%. The highest excess-log percentage in the top 10 was 3.4%. Just as a point of comparison: Sagefox has 114 excess logs, or 8.0%. Edited December 17, 2005 by fizzymagic Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 For the "top" 20 cachers (by number of finds), the average number of excess logs (logs that are not the first find of the cache for the cacher) is 111, or an average of 1.8%. The highest was 300, the lowest was 2. Two cachers in the top 20 had excess-log percentages greater than 5%. Six had percentages less than 1%. The highest excess-log percentage in the top 10 was 3.4%. Just as a point of comparison: Sagefox has 114 excess logs, or 8.0%. I'm always learning something by reading the forums, sometimes reluctantly and kicking and screaming. But I do learn. And, likewise, I don't always cross over to the opposite camp by the time the topic wears down. Perhaps I'm about to learn something about myself. Cool! I was pleased to see you post real numbers and thought "finally" we've got some facts. It was very interesting and then I was totally shocked by the last line. Outside of two or three multi-posting allowed locationless (or wannabe locationless), where I've only posted a very small handful of allowed duplicates, I can only recall a very few multiple Find posts. You don't happen to have a program that will list the multi posted caches do you. I've be very interested to see if my memory is that poor or if the data is skewed somehow. 8% is way too high. Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 You don't happen to have a program that will list the multi posted caches do you. I've be very interested to see if my memory is that poor or if the data is skewed somehow. 8% is way too high. I got the numbers by comparing the total finds listed on the user page to the number of caches returned when doing a query on "all cache finds." It's the only way you can infer the number for somebody else. If you have your own All Finds PQ, you can run it through FindStats , which will tell you how many multiple logs you have and which caches they are on. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 (edited) If you have your own All Finds PQ, you can run it through FindStats , which will tell you how many multiple logs you have and which caches they are on. Wow, this is a great program. I love the breakdowns. You are on my list of forum cachers dedicated to commenting based on facts. And, regardless of the what follows below, I truely stand by what I just said above. I found the last category for my stats, run through your program, quite interesting. It says: Multiple Finds: 2 finds claimed on GC2362 2 finds claimed on GC5172 2 finds claimed on GC597C One of these is a locationless that allows 2 finds only. I took two. One of these is a locationless that has no limit to the find count. I took two. One of these caches was moved and I claimed an extra find for the second location. The program did not pick up the one missing cache I claimed as a find for supplying a replacement. The cache owner (the founding mother of Delorme Challenge caches) appreciated my effort and did not delete my find. I suspect that somewhere in the past I might have logged one or two other caches where I replaced the container but I have lost memory of that if I did. Potentially 6 excess finds. That comes to a whopping 0.0042% excess logs. Edited December 18, 2005 by Team Sagefox Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 That FindStats program had me wondering so I did all the downloads and runs. Interesting numbers came out. We did have ONE multi log that was on a cache that did not allow multi finds. Multi finds on two redone caches and one moving cache had three finds. What I found more interesting was the percentage of cache type breakdown. I might have to pass this info along to the locals and see what shakes down. Thanks. logscaler. Quote Link to comment
+Nazgul Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I wish I could say the same around here and in Wisconsin. There is a "Wisconsin Rules of Event Caching" cache GCN3XN that was adopted for an event over in Portland OR. GCPPF5. At GCPPF5 people could log 55 finds if they wanted to, and some did. I logged it once. Completely absurd. And the event was even rated 5/5. I'm at a total loss to understand that silliness. I have to admit I also don't understand why the approvers don't just clean up the multiple event finds on that cache, or the 15 finds on that other cache. Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I found the last category for my stats, run through your program, quite interesting. It says: Multiple Finds: 2 finds claimed on GC2362 2 finds claimed on GC5172 2 finds claimed on GC597C Wow. Apparently my method for obtaining the number of multiple finds for others didn't work for you. My apologies. For others, since I can't see their PQs, I simply took the difference between their total finds and the number of records returned when I click "All Cache Finds" on the user stats page. I tested it on myself and a couple of others and it gave correct answers for those, so I guess I just assumed it would work everywhere. I found the problem, though. It turns out that locationless caches are no longer returned when you click "All Cache Finds." So the number of "multiple finds" I was reporting turns out to be the number of locationless finds! My methodology is completely flawed, and the numbers I reported above have no meaning. My guess is that multiple-log finds for the top 20 cachers are much lower than I reported. It now appears that there is no way, using information available publicly, to determine the numbers. I apologize for any trouble I caused. I especially apologize to Team Sagefox, whose reputation I unintentionally besmirched. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I apologize for any trouble I caused. No problem on this end. I chalk it up to beta testing and changes at the website. fm has, no doubt, spent hours creating a fun and useful program and made it avaliable to us at no cost. This was an attempt to work with facts and stats. Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 It was easy for me fizzymagic seeing as we have no locationless caches to get in the way. One thing that has been pointed out in a different forum. In using your program - and by the way, thanks for publishing that, it makes for some interesting numbers - the DNF number is not a true reflection of your DNF's. This program can only list DNF's on your PQ where you have returned and located the cache. Anything else will not show, for obvious reasons. You might want to make this topic a new thread, as it does stray away slightly from the OT. Logscaler. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 How do you cheat at a game with no winners? There may be no winners as in a poker game or a soccer match but there is a certain amount of "celebrity" involved. I've been to events where a "heavy hitter" arrives and is treated like royalty. Some are spoken about with a certain amount of awe in these forums. ... Good point. I see some of that at events. There is a royalty among old timers, most of whom don't want it. They just want to have fun and cache. Some of the newcomers go out and rack up 500 finds in a summer and are disappointed that their 500 doesn't make them rate. That creates some bad blood because now some people feel they are not getting their due especially from the royalty. As if it’s something that is demanded and given as a result. I don't get it, but then I don't get why people return dirty underwear to Wal-Mart. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 ...the first time I have actually gotten to cache with you, and I’ve gotta tell you…I’m NOT impressed.” We all had a good laugh. That was pretty good. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.