Find Count = Status?

[+briansnat]

When you talk to a cacher, does thier find/hide count factor in to conversations about caching and how much weight you give thier opinion?

 

Of course experience counts. Someone with extensive experience generally knows what the heck they are talking about. As far as the find/hide count itself, it depends. There are some geocachers with high find counts who are - to be polite - very imaginative as to what they count as a find. Most people know who these folk are and personally, their find count carries very little weight with me.

 

Similarly there are people out there with many hides, but they are mostly unmaintained film canisters dropped anywhere and everywhere, with no regard to finding iinteresting and/or appealing places for their caches. A person with 50-100 quality hides would carry more weight with me than some with 300 drive n dump micros.

[+Moose Mob]

I'll go with that.

 

It also seems that folks with ficticiously acquired high find counts (and TB miles,

etc) tend to not last long in the game. Like solitaire, when it becomes a game where cheating is the normal then the challenge is gone. They don't last long or otherwise keeps a low profile.

[+sbell111]

When you talk to a cacher, does thier find/hide count factor in to conversations about caching and how much weight you give thier opinion?

Yes, and no.

 

If someone logs a 'no find' on my cache, I look to see how many finds he/she has. I use this information to kind of give me an idea of whether I should rush out to check on the cache.

 

If I'm in a conversation with someone or communicating in the forums, I pay no mind to his stats unless it pertains to the topic. For instance, if someone posts that he skips the urban micros in his area because of concerns over stray bullets '24/7', I'll pull up his history to see where he caches and whether he is communicating through the wrong orifice.

 

In general, a person's knowledge and experience comes through in his speaking or writing and there is no need to check his stats to assign worth to his words.

[+flask]

huh. the last time i pulled up someone's stats to see if i trusted their opinion was when they made some comment suggesting that i was incompetent if i could not find their cache and phrased in the terms of "in ALLL my finds..."

 

the number was six.

 

the only other time i pull stats is if a new cache shows up in my area and i suspect the hider of being a sockpuppet. we have a number of talented sockpuppets, and it's fun to identify which ones they are.

 

i was a thorough searcher at the beginning of my career. and i was suspicious of rocks, bolts, and strings. i don't have any better found/not found ratio now than i did then.

 

tonight i may have totally missed an obvious cache.

 

will you still respect me in the morning?

[+mapchasers]

I'm a newbie with very few finds. I have met a couple of very nice groups, while caching. It is my belief that this hobby/sport lends itself to attracting people who are generally 'good' people.

If I feel compelled to give an opinion on a subject, I will do so respectfully. If others choose to wiegh my opinion based on my find count, so be it. I trust they have thier reasons for doing so. Either way it has no effect on me or my enjoyment of this hobby.

If I log a DNF and they choose to wait for a more experienced cacher to have trouble, before they check on it, again, so be it. It has no effect on me or my enjoyment of this hobby.

If I place a hide people choose not to search for it based on my numbers, so be it. It has no effect on me or my participation in this hobby.

If you let someone esle's basically irrelevant actions take the fun out of a hobby you enjoy, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Edited December 5, 2005 by mapchasers

[+AuntieWeasel]

Well, without checking your numbers or anything, I can't be 100% positive, but I am at least 99% sure that if I live life right I hope to be reincarnated as flask or Auntie Weasel...

Oh, no, honey...no. I won't speak for flask, but you have no idea how much medication it takes to prevent Auntie running down the median strip of I-95 waving a saber and shouting "The end is nigh! Repent, you stupid shaved monkeys!!"

 

Me, I want to come back as some old lady's fat, indolent housecat. Ideally, I'd come back as my own cat, but I think that would cause a rip in space/time or something.

 

Needless to say, a fat, indolent housecat with very, very high numbers.

[+flask]

Well, without checking your numbers or anything, I can't be 100% positive, but I am at least 99% sure that if I live life right I hope to be reincarnated as flask or Auntie Weasel...

Oh, no, honey...no. I won't speak for flask, but you have no idea how much medication it takes to prevent Auntie running down the median strip of I-95 waving a saber and shouting "The end is nigh! Repent, you stupid shaved monkeys!!"

 

Me, I want to come back as some old lady's fat, indolent housecat. Ideally, I'd come back as my own cat, but I think that would cause a rip in space/time or something.

 

Needless to say, a fat, indolent housecat with very, very high numbers.

yep, medication.

 

...except it's I-89 and in addition to the saber i have a sequined pirate blouse and a vest made of old coins wired together.

 

and i don't want to come back.

[+DiskDevil]

Numbers...Hmmm

 

Numbers don't make you a better cacher, although they make you a more experienced one. Numbers to some represent a God-like complex and those are the cachers I avoid. Numbers to some are an obsession...one more...one more. I know people that have found thousands and are very respectable,on the other hand I know a few that have found thousands and would drown if it came a hard rain. A person is only as good as their word or actions. I believe in helping others enjoy the sport just as much as I do. If I could count all the times I have been to the same caches with newbies, I too would be in the thousands. So for now, I will gladly take my few hundred and catch more as I get a round to it. My personal favorite rule of caching is to pay it forward. The rewards of a smiling face and an "I found it!" make the game worthwhile to me!

Edited December 5, 2005 by DiskDevil

[+clearpath]

... you have no idea how much medication it takes to prevent Auntie running down the median strip of I-95 waving a saber and shouting "The end is nigh! Repent, you stupid shaved monkeys!!"

That pretty much defines most of us ...

[+Logscaler and Red]

Easy. When folks recognize some cachers live in areas where you can easily get  well into the two digits of caches everyday for days on end.  It would take weeks, if not months, to put a dent in their Nearest Page.

 

While others live in very cache poor areas and the same effort as the above cacher might net them a tenth of the number.

 

Does that mean the cache poor cacher has less status than the cache rich one?  Apparently is does in some folks eyes.  Not mine.

 

A very good reason why numbers can't equate to status is the amount of effort of find the same number of cache can vary widely from region to region.  That's not to mention life styles, disposable income, and more.

 

Yes, I do agree with this line of thought.

 

We where going to go to Eastern Montana last summer until the finance's fell through. One spot I look at only had something like 29 caches in a 200 miles radius. Other spots we had looked at had something like 30 pages in a 10 mile radius. I wonder which cacher gets the higher numbers?

 

The more we play this game, the more we look for quality. Seems to be lacking anymore. Still we go out and get a "cache fix" even if it is cheesy micro's under a lamp post, magnetic key holder under a bench, etc. Mostly due to time constraints but more along the line of after working 60 + hours a week and driving 300 - 1000 miles a week, just sitting back and doing nothing hits the spot.

 

Logscaler.

[+TeamVilla5]

Oh, no, honey...no. I won't speak for flask, but you have no idea how much medication it takes to prevent Auntie running down the median strip of I-95 waving a saber and shouting "The end is nigh! Repent, you stupid shaved monkeys!!"

 

You mean I could've saved myself that trip with some simple medication?!?! I'm taking the wrong sh*$!!!

 

Me, I want to come back as some old lady's fat, indolent housecat.

 

You can come back as our 14# cat, Circus... her personal motto... "Hey! A _____ (insert any noun here)! I can play with that!"

 

 

Her numbers are very high, too... she's found 8,743 caches of dustbunnies, refrigerator magnets, and a plethora of other doody, and she's hidden 342 catnip-filled mice!

 

Happy Cachin'!

Lori V.

TeamVilla5

[+TeamVilla5]

Okay, time for a serious answer... it depends... I agree that QUALITY speaks VOLUMES more than quantity regarding numbers. Someone who has 300 micros hidden with nothing more than a log to speak of hidden under every lightpost and cedar tree around? They have no wisdom of which I wish to partake. Same with the person who has padded their find count to an "impressive" number. Yes, it makes an impression... is it a GOOD impression? Not in the least!

 

Happy Caching!

Lori V.

TeamVilla5

[+flask]

Okay, time for a serious answer.

now, why on EARTH would you want to do that?!?!?

[+clearpath]

A high number of cache finds has EARNED the cacher respect (status) in this game

Only by a sub-set of cachers--those who put a simple number above many other attributes.

Yes, but doesn't it stand to reason that someone with a high cache count quite possibly experienced MANY quality caches along the way. Also, whose to say the 5,000 caches were not scattered all over the globe. And they had to take out a second mortgage to find the money to travel all over to find these quality caches. Numbers do mean something to the overwelming majority of people, there is however a subset that refuses to accept the obvious ...

 

PS-I'm in no way discounting what other cachers have achieved to earn their status (whatever that means). All I'm saying is someone with a lot of finds has EARNED a certain level of respect. Even if they are an anti-social, brain-dead whack job who never says hello at the annual geocachers picnic ...

[CoyoteRed]

A high number of cache finds has EARNED the cacher respect (status) in this game

Only by a sub-set of cachers--those who put a simple number above many other attributes.

Yes, but doesn't it stand to reason that someone with a high cache count quite possibly experienced MANY quality caches along the way.

No, not necessarily.

 

There are two basic types of extreme high number cachers (and extreme high number cachers are completely irrelevant to the topic, because the topic is about find counts in general), the ones that go out and find an extreme number of caches in a weekend and the ones that steadily cache day in, day out just to have fun.

 

The weekend warrior will by pass any cache they deem to waste too much of their time. They completely miss the majority of caches that many folks would consider to be worthy. They probably will not ever in a million years skip a "special gift" as that would be a score padding opportunity missed.

 

Then there is the true extreme cacher who just steadily caches just to have fun and who has the wherewithal to stay on the road for days on end.

 

Now, which has a higher status? I would say the one that caches for the fun of it and not the one that caches to pad their score.

 

Problem is, that "score" doesn't tell you which is which.

 

Additionally, isn't there a recent thread about some turkey logging hundreds of caches that he didn't find? He has more status than the person who actually found those 10 caches?

 

What about the person who finds caches but doesn't log them? That's whole different ball of wax.

 

No number you can find on this site gives a person status in my eyes. The find count on gc.com is only a representation of the number caches a person has logged, nothing more. It is not even an accurate representation of the number of caches a person has actually found.

 

But, like I said, a subset of cachers will give status to a person based on a number. I just hope no one gets in a tizzy or throws a fit if I don't bow to their "superiority" at a meet.

[CoyoteRed]

Numbers do mean something to the overwelming majority of people...

I forgot to address this statement above.

 

Of course, this is true. It is the nature of the beast. Many times folks will use the easiest way to compare and gc.com sees fit to provide only a useless number to compare each other.

 

I would prefer the find count to go away. Sure, some folks would even quit over it, but I figure those who do are only in it for the find count, and the "status" it provides anyway. I'd say good riddance.

 

Then maybe the trend on comparing each other would revert to each person's reputation. That, IMHO, would be a much better indicator of "status."

[+briansnat]

Yes, but doesn't it stand to reason that someone with a high cache count quite possibly experienced MANY quality caches along the way.

 

Not necessarily. I do know some high numbers cachers who won't bother with anything that takes more than 5-10 minutes to find. 1/1 in the the Home Depot parking lot, they're there.

 

But, put a nice cache at an awesome view at the end of a pleasant 4 mile hike and they will avoid it like the plague. Same for a 4 star difficulty cache. The may make a half hearted effort, but once they're over their 10 minute mark they move on.

[Sadie]

Why do people persist in say ing that a quality cache cannot exist in a parking lot and also imply that it must include a hike in the woods?

 

Also, where does it state that a lot of cachers with 1000 or more legitimate finds never take a hike in one of these quality woods?

[+clearpath]

Why do people persist in say ing that a quality cache cannot exist in a parking lot and also imply that it must include a hike in the woods?

 

Also, where does it state that a lot of cachers with 1000 or more legitimate finds never take a hike in one of these quality woods?

Exactly my point ... Also, who cares if someone found 5,000 caches and ALL of them were lamp post micros ... they've earned my respect for finding 5,000 freaking caches. Last time I checked, 5,000 of ANYTHING is a hell of a lot. I am not saying they are better than someone with 280 finds, only that they've earned my respect for finding the time, desire, money and passion for just doing it. They have EARNED the respect. Consequently, there are others ways of earning respect, as well ...

Edited December 6, 2005 by clearpath

[+briansnat]

Why do people persist in say ing that a quality cache cannot exist in a parking lot and also imply that it must include a hike in the woods?

 

I don't think anyone says a cache must include a hike in the woods. Nor do I think anyone says that a quality cache cannot exist in a parking log. Its just that they generally don't.

 

Also, where does it state that a lot of cachers with 1000 or more legitimate finds never take a hike in one of these quality woods?

 

I'd like to know where it states that too because I've never seen it.

[+clearpath]

Also, where does it state that a lot of cachers with 1000 or more legitimate finds never take a hike in one of these quality woods?

 

I'd like to know where it states that too because I've never seen it.

Umm, Brian, I think you kinda said it here ...

But, put a nice cache at an awesome view at the end of a pleasant 4 mile hike and they will avoid it like the plague.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Why do people persist in say ing that a quality cache cannot exist in a parking lot and also imply that it must include a hike in the woods?

 

I've never found a quality cache in a parking lot. Might be one out there, but I haven't seen it. Doesn't have to include a long hike, though either.

 

I am not saying they are better than someone with 280 finds, only that they've earned my respect for finding the time, desire, money and passion for just doing it. They have EARNED the respect.

 

I definitely agree about respecting the accomplishment of a high count. I just don't believe it confers higher STATUS.

 

The OP asked:

n a different thread, the question of high find count giving a person a higher status than another person without the high count.

 

It's not "should a high count be respected."

 

Several cachers in my area have "elevated" status for me, but for way different reasons than the number of caches they found.

1.) A couple of cachers found some dirty graffiti near one of my caches. (I hadn't seen it.) They liked the cache and wanted others to enjoy it, so they cam back with some paint and CITO'd the area.

2.) A local cacher found his ol' GPS'r wasn't as waterproof as he'd hoped. He thought he'd have to retire for a while, as he couldn't afford a new one, but another cacher came forward and he just gave him one, no strings attached.

3.) Another cacher works hard on events to bring other cachers together.

4.) A CenTex cacher put together "Hurricaches", care packages to be delivers for Katrina victims.

Etc, etc, etc

 

Do I believe that "status" exists in every walk of life? Of course I do. I'm not that full of, what was it, oh yeah, crap. I just disagree that find count is the key. Best statement I've read yet on this topic-

 

if my find count (and currently i am celebrating my 52d find in my grand tradition of celebrating all those divisible by 3) is what gives me respect in your eyes, i am not interested in having your respect.

 

if the quality of my play with regard to those 52 finds is what garners your respect, i will be honored to accept it.

[+Jhwk]

I go for content and my "perception"

 

Can generally spot the BS artists and loons from across the way.

 

"loons" = the ones with 14 antennae sticking out of their gear/belt/pack so they can talk to the local, county, state and federal first responders as well as the FAA and DHS if needed during their caching run.

[+Wacka]

I have cached with 5 of the top 10 cachers. They go for ALL of them, not just the easy lampost hides. In fact, it is sometimes hard keeping up with them, they are moving so quickly on the trails.

Edited December 6, 2005 by Wacka

[Earthdog Patrick]

When you talk to a cacher, does thier find/hide count factor in to conversations about caching and how much weight you give thier opinion?

Yes, of course. Do you want to talk to Barry Bonds about how to hit home runs, or Harold Wilcoxson?

[+briansnat]

Also, where does it state that a lot of cachers with 1000 or more legitimate finds never take a hike in one of these quality woods?

 

I'd like to know where it states that too because I've never seen it.

Umm, Brian, I think you kinda said it here ...

But, put a nice cache at an awesome view at the end of a pleasant 4 mile hike and they will avoid it like the plague.

Did I say "a lot" and "never"? I think I said that "I know some" and they will "avoid it like the plague".

Edited December 6, 2005 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

They have EARNED the respect.

Sorry, they've earned squat.

[+Sagefox]

Sure, some folks would even quit over it, but I figure those who do are only in it for the find count, and the "status" it provides anyway.

You have polled a significant number of high-find count cachers and determined that they do all that work "only" for the status?

 

I'd say good riddance.

 

You seem to have made some sort of determination about who belongs in this game and who doesn't.

 

- - -

 

Comments containing these types of generalizations don't convince me that there is a real problem.

[CoyoteRed]

Sure, some folks would even quit over it, but I figure those who do are only in it for the find count, and the "status" it provides anyway.

You have polled a significant number of high-find count cachers and determined that they do all that work "only" for the status?

No need to twist my words. Just read them. Don't try to turn the argument your way by making believe I said something I didn't.

 

Besides, consider a lot of folks are always vying for status in the pack and many here are trying to say find count is status. Why not poll them? They seem to be making my argument for me in this respect.

 

I'd say good riddance.

 

You seem to have made some sort of determination about who belongs in this game and who doesn't.

In a way, I sure have. Now, making the determination and trying to force it on others is two different things, now isn't it?

 

Comments containing these types of generalizations don't convince me that there is a real problem.

Not trying to convince you of anything. I'm stating an opinion. Second, it's not a generalizations. I'm commenting on a demonstrated segment of the geocaching population, those who mostly only cache for the high smilie count versus effort expended.

[+Sagefox]

There are some geocachers with high find counts who are - to be polite - very imaginative as to what they count as a find. Most people know who these folk are and personally, their find count carries very little weight with me.

This seems like an odd comment to me.

 

Are there a significant number of high find cachers who's find counts contain a significant number of "very imaginative" finds?

 

Are they in such significant numbers that we need to "be Polite" when referring to them?

 

Are they in such significant numbers that "most" people know who they are?

 

I am not convinced by these generalizations that a real problem exists. I do believe that often when people perceive there is a problem they collect a few factual tidbits and then create an offensive persona to drag about in public. Sure we all hate that guy. But is he real???

[+clearpath]

They have EARNED the respect.

Sorry, they've earned squat.

I was thinking 'squat' is a good word to summarize your thoughts on this matter. However, I'm going out on a limb and saying that a high cache find will have the respect (and somewhat higher status) with some and maybe most geocachers. You being out of that mix could well be preferred by the high achievers ... Your indignation on this topic is really kinda of amusing ...

[CoyoteRed]

Your indignation on this topic is really kinda of amusing ...

And here I was thinking the same thing about your admiration of a simple number as well.

 

But to each their own.

 

I do have to agree, the numbers hounds will have little regard for me and those like me. (Kind of like the "cool kids" in high school.) They'll only listen to those who buy into their viewpoint.

 

...and all the while there is a whole different segment who could care less about their "achievements."

[+Moose Mob]

Please keep it civil and the keep the quotes accurate and in the intended perspective.

 

Thanks.

[+clearpath]

Also, where does it state that a lot of cachers with 1000 or more legitimate finds never take a hike in one of these quality woods?

 

I'd like to know where it states that too because I've never seen it.

Umm, Brian, I think you kinda said it here ...

But, put a nice cache at an awesome view at the end of a pleasant 4 mile hike and they will avoid it like the plague.

Did I say "a lot" and "never"? I think I said that "I know some" and they will "avoid it like the plague".

You also said, "awesome", "pleasant" and "plague" in the same sentence ...

[+Sagefox]

Comments containing these types of generalizations don't convince me that there is a real problem.

Not trying to convince you of anything. I'm stating an opinion. Second, it's not a generalizations. I'm commenting on a demonstrated segment of the geocaching population, those who mostly only cache for the high smilie count versus effort expended.

I'm not trying to be a smart a**. I'm actually a bit perplexed. These concerns of yours are perpetually voiced by many in the forums and I'm not convinced that there are a significant number of people fitting this profile that it should take as much air time as it does.

 

What convinces you that this "demonstrated segment" exists system wide?

 

The high find count people I've met or emailed with or about or read their find logs all seem to be having fun and have been to a lot more upper level difficulty and terrain caches than most people.

[+clearpath]

Your indignation on this topic is really kinda of amusing ...

And here I was thinking the same thing about your admiration of a simple number as well.

 

But to each their own.

 

I do have to agree, the numbers hounds will have little regard for me and those like me. (Kind of like the "cool kids" in high school.) They'll only listen to those who buy into their viewpoint.

 

...and all the while there is a whole different segment who could care less about their "achievements."

You're not going to let me have the last word in this argument, are you?

[+yumitori]

I've never found a quality cache in a parking lot. Might be one out there, but I haven't seen it. Doesn't have to include a long hike, though either.

 

 

As is common with matters of opinion, 'quality' is in the eye of the beholder. But I liked Shari's Breakfast For Two enough to included it among my favorite bookmarks. I suspect many folks would agree it's a nice hide once they find it.

[+briansnat]

There  are some geocachers with high find counts who are - to be polite - very imaginative as to what they count as a find. Most people know who these folk are and personally, their find count carries very little weight with me.

This seems like an odd comment to me.

 

 

Are there a significant number of high find cachers who's find counts contain a significant number of "very imaginative" finds?

 

I've never taken a survey. I personally know of some and I'm sure there are many others that I don't know about.

 

Are they in such significant numbers that we need to "be Polite" when referring to them?

 

See above. I don't know if they are significant numbers but they do exist.

 

Are they in such significant numbers that "most" people know who they are?

 

I think most people who have spent a lot of time in the forums over the years know the people who use "creative methods" for claiming "finds".

 

I am not convinced by these generalizations that a real problem exists.  I do believe that often when people perceive there is a problem they collect a few factual tidbits and then create an offensive persona to drag about in public.  Sure we all hate that guy.  But is he real???

 

He is real.

Edited December 6, 2005 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

What convinces you that this "demonstrated segment" exists system wide?

 

The high find count people I've met ...

This is where the failure to connect exists.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about the ultra high numbers folks. I know of at least one legendary cacher who probably could care less what that number actually said. Some cachers are simply driven and want to experience everything. I haven't asked, but I would not be the least surprised they didn't have a daily goal of a certain number of caches or that they "only" got X number that day.

 

What I'm talking about is some folks who plan on only getting low difficulty caches in general, especially away from home. Actually, it's not really low difficulty cache, but caches don't take a long time.

 

I'm trying not to single any group or region, but I see it happening. You can follow different cacher's weekend trips to get an idea of the caches they go after.

 

Rarely, though, I admit, you'll see folks take a weekend and tackle the "Tube Torchers" of an area. But that is few and far between. Most of the time it's the quick and the easy.

 

But you asked if this is system wide. I don't know, I've only been following my region.

 

You can though easily check your own area. Look at yoru local caches. You will likely see the easy ones have a lot more finds than the harder ones. I suspect you will find that the easy of out of town finders, as a precentage, than the harder ones.

 

I know that this phenomena is not solely because of the numbers hounds. The locals will have the extra time to tackle the puzzles or make multiple trips. But on a whole, the out of towners will trend towards finding mostly the easier caches.

 

In short, don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself to see if it holds true for your area.

[CoyoteRed]

You're not going to let me have the last word in this argument, are you?

Sure, there you go.

 

Opps.

[+fizzymagic]

In my opinion, the real problem is that numbers lead to influence, and that higher-numbers cachers have more influence, and that some of those influential cachers are basically cheating and that those who admire them for their numbers are creating an environment in which cheating is considered acceptable.

 

The significance of the problem lies in how significant you think a culture of cheating is. From what I have seen on the boards, most people don't seem to care very much. Me, I find it annoying, but hardly life-threatening. Mostly, it's sad to see people so willing to sacrifice their integrity and self-respect for numbers that ultimately don't have much meaning.

 

Edit: I see that I have basically missed the point, which is more about people going only after easy caches and not the harder ones. Still, I'm gonna leave this post because I see the main problem as the "cheating culture."

Edited December 6, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+Sagefox]

Yes, but doesn't it stand to reason that someone with a high cache count quite possibly experienced MANY quality caches along the way.

 

Not necessarily. I do know some high numbers cachers who won't bother with anything that takes more than 5-10 minutes to find. 1/1 in the the Home Depot parking lot, they're there.

Maybe we need to define "many".

 

Someone with 500 finds might have 50 (10%) 4-4+ cache finds and might have 200 (40%) 3-3 and above. This is a very respectable mix.

 

Someone else with 3000 finds might currently be on a cache-hound jag avoiding anything above 1.5-1.5 but could have in their history 100 (.03%) 4-4+'s and 500 (17%) 3-3 and above.

 

Does their current goal of high numbers erase their history? Should we discount their experience because we don't like their current practices?

 

(Are we absolutely sure that they don't throw in a 4-4 every once every few months and a 3-3 once every few weeks? What percentage of cachers do a 4-4 more often once every few months?)

 

My premise here is that there are no high-find count cachers (2000 plus – arbitrary number) that don't have at least 10% 3-3 and above finds. Find 200 caches rated over 3-3 and you ARE experienced.

 

If there are any cachers that have never done caches above 2-2 as the quoted post might be implying, the number of them is too insignificant to warrant all this animosity.

[Sadie]

I am having trouble understanding where a lot of these posts are coming from.

 

I have met many high find count cachers and every one are very deserving of respect and the implied status that goes with that achievement. Every one of them have found and ploaced thier share of terrain 4 caches. Thier caches are maintained.

 

Why is there the tendancy to discredit those with high cache find counts? None of theses pepole have given any reason to suspect that theier finds are ficticious.

 

For the sake of argument, lets say a "high find count' is over 1500 caches.

[+Sagefox]

...and that some of those influential cachers are basically cheating and that those who admire them for their numbers are creating an environment in which cheating is considered acceptable.

And this is happening in significant numbers? That high find cachers are cheating? And that they are cheating with a significant percentage of their finds?

[+briansnat]

Why is there the tendancy to discredit those with high cache find counts?

 

There is no tendancy to discredit people with high find counts. There is a tendency to discredit cheaters.

 

 

None of theses pepole have given any reason to suspect that theier finds are ficticious

 

I call your attention to this thread. Have a look at the find counts of many of those claiming these questionable finds including one very prominent high numbers cacher who has quite a few mentions throughout the thread.

Edited December 6, 2005 by briansnat

[+fizzymagic]

And this is happening in significant numbers? That high find cachers are cheating? And that they are cheating with a significant percentage of their finds?

 

Ah. Now I can include the text I deleted from my last post.

 

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.

[Sadie]

Why is there the tendancy to discredit those with high cache find counts?

 

There is no tendancy to discredit people with high find counts. There is a tendency to discredit cheaters.

 

 

None of theses pepole have given any reason to suspect that theier finds are ficticious

 

I call your attention to this thread. Have a look at the find counts of many of those claiming these questionable finds including one very prominent high numbers cacher who has quite a few mentions throughout the thread.

Brian, did you note how you just claimed there is no tendancy to discredit high count cachers, and immediately followed it with a link that discredits the person with the highest count?

[+Sagefox]

Are they in such significant numbers that "most" people know who they are?

 

I think most people who have spent a lot of time in the forums over the years know the people who use "creative methods" for claiming "finds".

Maybe what you say is so but I am stressing the word "significant" for two purposes: percentage of high-find cachers (or any experienced cachers) involved with questionable finds and, percentage of finds of those cachers that are questionable.

 

This is really a separate topic but it ties in with the OP because people are diminishing level of respect for some experienced finders based on what I believe is incomplete knowledge of the facts.

 

I am not convinced by these generalizations that a real problem exists.  I do believe that often when people perceive there is a problem they collect a few factual tidbits and then create an offensive persona to drag about in public.  Sure we all hate that guy.  But is he real???

 

He is real.

 

Thank you. This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. The topic link you quote is a fun one and I submitted an example myself for a find that I deleted.

 

Everyone has probably read at least one find log that represents a questionable or outright bogus find. But to take that one log and transform the writer into a cheater and then assume they do it in numbers that are somehow significant, without factual knowledge, is perhaps a disservice not only to the individual but to the forums at large

 

Tell us about someone with 50 or 100 or 200 bogus finds and then we got something interesting to talk about. Bring them here and expose them.

 

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.

[+briansnat]

Why is there the tendancy to discredit those with high cache find counts?

 

There is no tendancy to discredit people with high find counts. There is a tendency to discredit cheaters.

 

 

None of theses pepole have given any reason to suspect that theier finds are ficticious

 

I call your attention to this thread. Have a look at the find counts of many of those claiming these questionable finds including one very prominent high numbers cacher who has quite a few mentions throughout the thread.

Brian, did you note how you just claimed there is no tendancy to discredit high count cachers, and immediately followed it with a link that discredits the person with the highest count?

That's exactly what I said. There is no tendency to discredit high number cachers. There is a tendency to discredit cheaters. There are many, many high number cachers who don't appear in that thread.

[+AuntieWeasel]

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.