Cacher Of The Month

1.9k · March 17, 2006

Matt is a decent bloke and probablydidn't realise that coins not released into the wild shouldn't count.

We entered and did not include our coin collection in our submitted stats.

March 17, 2006

Kitty Hawk: I'm afraid I can't find any record for your entry for Feb. When results are submitted, they are emailed to be me and go into the database. I can't find either. You can check that you results have gone in by looking on your profile page. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Others: I'm not sure I want to take the drastic step of removing trackables from the comp altogether. It does seem to continue to cause problems though. In the rules, it says 'travel bugs' includes geocoins since thats what coins are supposed to be.

I think I'll work to clarify the rules then do a mass emailing to all users to clear up any confusion. Please let me know your opinions on the debate.

March 17, 2006

I'd personally be happier if all trackables found are removed and it it just based on caches found, caches hidden and TB's released.

3.1k · March 17, 2006

Me too...

Oh, and I CERTAINLY wasn't accusing anyone of doing anything to bump up their place on the table - all I said was I did overhear dsomething - and it wsan't Matt!!

Matt IS a decent bloke, and have no gripes with him at all!!!! lol!!

I'd be happy for TB's to stay - so long as it was TB's (not coins) and maybe have a sep. section for Coins found in the wild...

Just my 2p worth.

1.7k · March 17, 2006

My personal opinion would be to keep things the way they are, but to clarify the rules to confirm that it is releasing into the wild, not necessarily activating things that counts. For example, we have two of each coin (as do many others). One of those is released into the wild, with mission, to be moved from cache to cache. This, in my mind, should be allowed to count towards stats. Our second coin stays with me, to purr over occasionally, and drag out for events. This we haven't included in the stats, as its not a Travel Bug/coin.... (apart from in my pocket to meets...

Just my opinion, and I believe this is already the rules - but to our fellow cachers actually know this?

Dave

2.2k · March 17, 2006

Well my opinion is that Matt won fair and square within the present rules.

However in future I would like to see it as TB's and coins released into the wild.

Just remember though that it is a bit of fun and not a life threatening event.

Must say the comment about most money spent was out of order. I think Matt deserves an apology to be honest.

He played the game within the rules. Rules that have been in place for quite some time.

Cheers

Tony

Edited March 17, 2006 by mongoose39uk

2.5k · March 17, 2006

Perhaps the easiest to administer the system would be to have ALL trackables count towards COTM, so there would be no more etiquette arguments at all. The score for trackables could then perhaps be revised, so it didn't count as the same as finding a cache?

I would not like to see TBs excluded completely. I personally never bother logging trigpoints, but I would not like to see them removed from the stats either, because other people enjoy finding them. I happen to enjoy finding TBs.

Ultimately, COTM is supposed to be fun, and all the rules discussions, etiquette arguments and assorted cries of foul do somewhat tend to detract from this.

3.1k · March 17, 2006

Well my opinion is that Matt won fair and square within the present rules.

However in future I would like to see it as TB's and coins released into the wild.

Just remember though that it is a bit of fun and not a life threatening event.

Must say the comment about most money spent was out of order. I think Matt deserves an apology to be honest.

He played the game within the rules. Rules that have been in place for quite some time.

Cheers

Tony

Whoa....

I was the one that said I wasn't accusing anyone of doing anything to bump up their place on the table, and that Matt was a decent bloke....

I was referringt to a cacher I'd heard at a meet and that is WAS NOT Matt!!!

I dont' think I need to apologise to anyone!

2.2k · March 17, 2006

Hazel

Sincere applogies for the misunderstanding

Not your post I was reffering to

Cheers

Tony

3.1k · March 17, 2006

Hazel

Sincere applogies for the misunderstanding

Not your post I was reffering to

Cheers

Tony

OOps...sorry to you too then Tony!!! lol!!

(What ARE we like eh!!)

1.2k · March 17, 2006

It seems to me that rule three seems to cover this:

3. Travel bugs and Geocoins will be counted on the day you picked them up. All bugs/coins need to be picked up to be moved to be counted. Travel bugs or Geocoins logged out and then back into caches or events do not count.

So, Matt has acted within the rules - he's released a bunch of coins. Anyone who saw them at the event and counted them to COTM has acted outside the rules.

I doubt anyone would do that deliberately and we can't ask Adam to check, too hard to do.

Lets just live with it.

March 17, 2006

I would be interested to hear what people think to Alibags suggestion, I think this might be a wise move.

Count ALL TBs/Geocoins but at a reduced points score

So maybe have 5 points for a TB/geocoin logged and 10 points for a TB/geocoin activated. In this case ignoring whether or not they are to go into the wild or passed around at events.

I don't think we should start debating past months.

1.7k · March 17, 2006

my personal opinion of adams suggestion is that it is a good one. Its clear and simple, and there are no doubts about whether it was moved or not. It would mean that you could log TBs in caches without moving them, but at a reduced points score, so are we bothered?

Personally, I still won't log a TB unless I moved it, but people play the game their own way!

Am I right in thinking that cache released is 30 points, cache found is 10? How about upping cache found to 15, at the same time?

March 17, 2006

Could we have a separate table with just caches placed and caches found on it in addition to those with the TBs on, that way we could get a good view of the 'cacher' of the month.

With 100+ TBs and coins in a lot of events these days, all you need to do is record all the numbers for the Trackables at 3 events over a month to gain 3000 points (1500 at the reduced score) + 30 points for the events, giving 3030 or 1530 points before you even look at actual caches!

March 17, 2006

My view is that rule 4 just needs to be clarified - although it already includes the word 'released' which i have taken to mean 'to be set free and allowed to travel from cache to cache' . Placing in an event for people to see and log is fine, but breaks the rule if the bug/coin is not free to move on, but waiting to return to a collection.

I would suggest that adding 'for moving to other geocaches' (or something similar) to the end of the current rule would close the current loophole.

As for changing the scoring? not sure - but maybe reducing the points for releasing tbs, coins etc, would return the emphasis to finders of caches and tbs, as after all that is what it is all about. Placing of caches still needs to be recognised as an important part (of course!), though and scored appropriately.

1.7k · March 17, 2006

My view is that rule 4 just needs to be clarified - although it already includes the word 'released' which i have taken to mean 'to be set free and allowed to travel from cache to cache' . Placing in an event for people to see and log is fine, but breaks the rule if the bug/coin is not free to move on, but waiting to return to a collection.

I would suggest that adding 'for moving to other geocaches' (or something similar) to the end of the current rule would close the current loophole.

I already brought this up - see page one of this thread. As for changing rules again, I don't agree. They only used to be reviewed at the start of a new year - at this rate we are going to have new rules every month.

IF there are new rules being thought up, could we have some kind of poll of registered users first. At this rate poor Adam is going to get complaints from all quarters and feel pressured to implement rules every time someone is upset that someone else got a higher score than them.

T

2.2k · March 17, 2006

My view is that rule 4 just needs to be clarified - although it already includes the word 'released' which i have taken to mean 'to be set free and allowed to travel from cache to cache' . Placing in an event for people to see and log is fine, but breaks the rule if the bug/coin is not free to move on, but waiting to return to a collection.

I would suggest that adding 'for moving to other geocaches' (or something similar) to the end of the current rule would close the current loophole.

As for changing the scoring? not sure - but maybe reducing the points for releasing tbs, coins etc, would return the emphasis to finders of caches and tbs, as after all that is what it is all about. Placing of caches still needs to be recognised as an important part (of course!), though and scored appropriately.

So no appology for Matt then I take it

March 17, 2006

My view is that rule 4 just needs to be clarified - although it already includes the word 'released' which i have taken to mean 'to be set free and allowed to travel from cache to cache' . Placing in an event for people to see and log is fine, but breaks the rule if the bug/coin is not free to move on, but waiting to return to a collection.

I would suggest that adding 'for moving to other geocaches' (or something similar) to the end of the current rule would close the current loophole.

I already brought this up - see page one of this thread. As for changing rules again, I don't agree. They only used to be reviewed at the start of a new year - at this rate we are going to have new rules every month.

IF there are new rules being thought up, could we have some kind of poll of registered users first. At this rate poor Adam is going to get complaints from all quarters and feel pressured to implement rules every time someone is upset that someone else got a higher score than them.

T

Adam asked for peoples views - i have given mine, and i am sorry you dont agree, but eveyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am surprised you have just singled out mine to comment on. Having read back now i see that you did raise it earlier, and things were changed - but i see you did not suggest a poll of registered users then - i guess that was because you favoured the change (if there had been a poll maybe i would have raised my view then, and we would not be talking about this now!), so why now?

My apologies now to Adam if i in any way have made you feel pressured to implement rules changes. My comments were made with the best of intentions - to get a level playing field for everyone and not a two tier system! far from being upset with someone getting a higher score than me. if that was the case i wouldnt bother entering!!! anyway tis only for fun.

So thats enough of that, not going to talk about it any more (or probably listen for that matter!) going to look for plastic (well not now - bit too cold!), and i'd suggest others do the same - rather than wasting your time responding to this - get out and have fun instead!

2k · March 18, 2006

For the record, I have no objection to reducing the number of points awarded for bugs and coins (although I don't tend to handle many myself). I think that finding (and certainly placing) caches should be worth much more than TB's etc as there is more effort involved in finding/hiding a cache than carrying around a TB.

Don't forget though, if you (like me) are more interested in the number of caches people have found, all you have to do is click on the column heading and that will sort the order in terms of most caches found :mad:

Above all, COTM is just a bit of fun and should remain so - without creating too much work for Adam or hassle for other cachers.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Nediam

3.8k · March 18, 2006

I think what some people appear to be forgetting is that Adam, and others like him, supply a service to us totally free of charge.

The COTM has always been just for a bit of fun, but has always needed someone to run it. First it was Deego who done a brilliant job, but had to give it up due to the time it took running the competition.

Adam has now stepped up and taken over with an automated site. I would presume that it is automated so that he doesn't have to keep working on it, and only sort out site errors? But it appears from my point of view, that yet again people want something more for nothing.

Let's keep Adams side of this as simple as possible for him, and stop asking for the rules to be changed every month. For the fact it is just for FUN then the rules are simple enough aren't they?

If people keep up their selfishness, then we run the risk of losing things that others volunteer to do to make our hobby that little bit more enjoyable.

Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, saying that I am pointing fingers. Please note that I have not quoted anyones comments and that my comments stretch further than the COTM. As all people appear to do on this forum is argue about wanting something better or stopping others from playing their way.

It has got so bad that people now say that their thread is a humorous one at the beginning. :mad:

It's all a bit like Marmite really? :mad:

3.8k · March 18, 2006

Don't forget though, if you (like me) are more interested in the number of caches people have found, all you have to do is click on the column heading and that will sort the order in terms of most caches found

I've just looked at that, and hopefully once people realise that it can be done, the bickering will stop about the rules. As it looks like a good way for you to see the outcome the way you would like it.

Knowing in some people though, they will want changes to that too? Can't please everyone I suppose?

1.2k · March 18, 2006

I think what some people appear to be forgetting is that Adam, and others like him, supply a service to us totally free of charge.

The COTM has always been just for a bit of fun, but has always needed someone to run it. First it was Deego who done a brilliant job, but had to give it up due to the time it took running the competition.

Adam has now stepped up and taken over with an automated site. I would presume that it is automated so that he doesn't have to keep working on it, and only sort out site errors? But it appears from my point of view, that yet again people want something more for nothing.

Let's keep Adams side of this as simple as possible for him, and stop asking for the rules to be changed every month. For the fact it is just for FUN then the rules are simple enough aren't they?

If people keep up their selfishness, then we run the risk of losing things that others volunteer to do to make our hobby that little bit more enjoyable.

Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, saying that I am pointing fingers. Please note that I have not quoted anyones comments and that my comments stretch further than the COTM. As all people appear to do on this forum is argue about wanting something better or stopping others from playing their way.

It has got so bad that people now say that their thread is a humorous one at the beginning.

It's all a bit like Marmite really?

Seconded.

1.7k · March 19, 2006

Having read back now i see that you did raise it earlier, and things were changed - but i see you did not suggest a poll of registered users then - i guess that was because you favoured the change (if there had been a poll maybe i would have raised my view then, and we would not be talking about this now!), so why now?

Just to put the record straight, I was not for or against any rule change - My suggestion was to clarify what the rule change was that had already taken place.

T

March 20, 2006

Hopefully I won't get the wooden spoon for march :mad:

1.1k · March 20, 2006

Hopefully I won't get the wooden spoon for march

no, that's my regular spot - I just did worse in Feb and didn't find any caches at all. I've found one in march, so I'm on schedule for the much coveted bottom slot.

1.7k · April 9, 2006

Bump! - Get yer March entries in!

April 9, 2006

Mine are in and I don't think I'll be bottom of the table this month, fingers crossed :laughing:

April 12, 2006

Last few days to get your entries in for March.

The website has been going a bit slow this evening, if you're having trouble, either email me your results or try again later.

Edited April 12, 2006 by adambro

April 14, 2006

Final day for entries is tomorrow.

1.9k · April 15, 2006

Entered yesterday <_<

April 15, 2006

entered fo4 the first time today, cant see me getting to high mind...

April 15, 2006

Thanks for entering. The deadline of entries is drawing near. Need to be in by the end of today.

April 15, 2006

Despite receiving an unnecessary attack on me from a sore second placed cacher last month, I have endeavoured to enter again this month.

Thanks for running this Adambro

I'd still appreciate an apology for the unwarranted attack on me!

Matt

2.2k · April 15, 2006

Yup!

Really an apology should be given.

Matt played within the rules

April 16, 2006

An easy question for adam,

Do events count towards Cacher of the Month?

April 16, 2006

March results are now online!

Thanks for entering.

wizard: Yup.

matt+mongoose: Probably best if we don't start that again. Lets leave it be please.

Regarding the rules, as this is likely to come up again, I intend to keep them as they are for now. For any future rule changes, I will consult all participants and conduct a poll.

3.8k · April 16, 2006

Pengy & Tigger 283 caches :anitongue: was that a typo, or do you eat, sleep and just cache you lives away?

That really is an amazing total for one month.

April 16, 2006

Pengy & Tigger 283 caches was that a typo, or do you eat, sleep and just cache you lives away?

That really is an amazing total for one month.

Could be something to do with their trip overseas :grin:

Congratulations to them and The Bolas Heathens for going up 1 place to no 2.

Edited April 16, 2006 by wizard1974uk

April 16, 2006

Congrats to Pengy and Tigger - that's a HUGE amount of caches done. I can feel a caching vacation in Florida coming on....

April 16, 2006

Well Done Pengy & Tigger well done on your first place. I have a brother in MO we may well follow your lead, Don't be surprised if you get an e-mail from us asking for advice. Or even an invite to another caching bonanza albeit not till next year !!!

3.9k · April 17, 2006

Well done girls...

Hmmm.... that's the last of my records gone, time for some planning methinks....

1.8k · April 17, 2006

Whoops - I missed this one. But with my piddling figures I don't think anyone will notice the difference!

April 17, 2006

Blimey well done P&T I think that's more than we did in 2005

Must get out more

and we came lower down than Deego - the shame of it

Definately must get out more

Thanks again Adam for continuing with COTM

April 17, 2006

just under halfway down the table (num 53) - im actually quite chuffed

but 283 in one month - wow! i dont even have 283 since i started ROFL

April 30, 2006

Just a quick question when are entries supposed to close for april? Just tried submitting and it says entries closed. Seeing as today is the last day of april.

3.8k · April 30, 2006

Still today to bag some more caches (for some), I think Adam opens it tonight and closes it on the 15th

Edited April 30, 2006 by Deego

April 30, 2006

Ah yes that sounds logical, haven't woken up fully yet, thanks Brian

May 1, 2006

It's accepting results today. :mad:

May 1, 2006

But no reminder email to say that site was accepting results for april.

May 1, 2006

submitted...and improved very slightly on last month. no where near the big guns tho [LOL]

Cacher Of The Month

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment