Jump to content

The New Numbers Game


Recommended Posts

I have never seen so much complaining about something you supposedly dont care about.

 

Reading this thread and all the others where this subject has come up, I have the impression that even though some say that stats dont matter to them apparently they do. Some proudly display stats and maps of states cached in on profile pages and web homepages. I think the problem is that some cachers are angry because they have been around for a while have had their numbers surpassed by cachers who have not been around as long.

 

So you blame it on the micro and you try to justify by saying that if you started caching in 2004, you are a substandard cacher and somehow their finds don't count as much as yours. If that makes you feel better, ok.

 

Why do we concern ourselves so much with what the other person is doing?

We are all adults here and this is just a game. Play it your way. But don't tell me how I should play my game.

 

I don't cheat nor do I inflate my numbers in any way but I do like my stats and I keep track of them, I really don't care nor do I keep track of yours.

Yes, I proudly display my states cached and my stats. They DO matter to me. I also like my stats.

 

Yes, I have posted on these forums that it frustrates me that due to the fundamental change in our game that I believe became widespread in '04 (Micro Spew), since I hate lame micros, I lost my ability to compete in the stats game. I'm a competitive person by nature, and I have no problem admitting my early motivations in this game. Yes, like all, I loved (and still love) the places and adventures Geocaching has brought me, but I also admit I got a thrill in being able to compete with others on stats while still being able to have those places and adventures. It was a friendly competition; no prizes (OK, maybe a Cupie Doll ;) ).

 

No, I never said that YOU (the "generic you", meaning the post-'04 stat-monger; I don't know YOU personally) are a substandard cacher. I HAVE said, I continue to say, that the STATS you've run up since '04 are substandard. Yes, they're legit (if you say so), but the game changed and I believe that stats have become de-valued. I will re-state the caveat I always do on this matter: This is only pertinent IF STATS MATTER TO YOU. If they don't, it's a moot discussion.

 

The "other person" matters from the standpoint of the overall condition of our game, and folks' motivations for how they play and HOW THOSE MOTIVATIONS AFFECT OTHERS - witness Micro Spew, cache defacement (DRR record run issue), unethical logging practices, etc etc.

 

I also have no problem with this respectful disagreement of opinion.

 

(edit: content)

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

 

Why do we concern ourselves so much with what the other person is doing?

We are all adults here and this is just a game. Play it your way. But don't tell me how I should play my game.

 

 

Whether you play it or not, the Numbers Game hurts YOUR game.

 

Those who play for numbers hide caches for other numbers hunters. This adds to the Micro Spew™, and meaningless, unfulfilling caches that are placed NOT for what they contain, or for where they're located, but for the sole purpose of getting someone else another number. All these numbers caches eat up valuable real estate where more meaningful, better thought out caches could have been placed.

 

Many new cachers see the people playing the New Numbers Game™, and they think that's what geocaching is about. They log temporary event caches umpteen times, thinking that's what they're SUPPOSED to do. They hide nothing but lousy micros because they think that's what they're SUPPOSED to do, and that's what everyone wants -- because everyone else seems to be doing it. They're learning by the examples we set, and frankly I see some really poor examples being set by very prominent cachers. The recent "record run" in Dallas is a great BAD example. 8 VERY experienced cachers signed CONTAINERS instead of logs sheets while on the biggest numbers run in history. How many people are now going to think it's perfectly acceptable to sign a cache CONTAINER, rather than the log that's inside it?

 

For those of us who aren't into the New Numbers Game™, imagine how we feel when one of our well thought out puzzle or multi caches is "coopered" by the numbers crowd? (That's a local term we've begun to use when one cacher leads another to the final of a multi, puzzle, or even a traditional cache and basically says "there it is, sign the log" rather than work through the whole cache as the owner intended. It was named after an "overly helpful" big numbers cacher)

 

Devaluing well done caches in this manner doesn't encourage people to hide more. Quite the opposite, actually. Why should anyone spend a lot of time or money on a cache only to have their efforts ignored by those seeking just another smiley?

 

So yes, the New Numbers Game™ hurts all of us - cache hiders, those seeking GOOD caches, and new cachers who are learning from bad examples.

Link to comment

...

 

I don't cheat nor do I inflate my numbers in any way but I do like my stats and I keep track of them, I really don't care nor do I keep track of yours.

 

Then you wouldn't mind if I opted out of having my own personal numbers being publicly visible? (see this thread on a feature request for hiding stats)
Link to comment

My heart be still!! My suggestion that the 'numbers' be viewable only to the account holder doesn't seem so silly afterall now.................do it? ;) And BTW gang, I do most certainly want GC.com to continue tracking The Numbers, just don't make them viewable by the community at large. If I want to inform others of my counts, I'll just send them my stats link or whatever. It's not anything that anyone else needs to worry about.....now is it? :D:):)

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

Very good discussion so far.

 

As an avid cacher who is guided by my integrity, I only log finds on caches I actually found, and signed the logbook. I worked really hard to find a few locationless caches back before they were archived too. My stats are important to me, and so is the enjoyment I get out of caching.

 

I favor the approach of indentifying the cheaters, and suspending their accounts. I also agree with only allowing 1 attended log per cacher, per event. As cachers who feel strongly about other's questionable logging techniques, we should be able to report the activity and have it stopped. A great example was having the Iraqi cache archived.

 

Since stats are important to so many of us, there should also be a "shameful stat" added to cacher's stats who cheat. If you get caught cheating, you should get a "cheater's icon." This way, other cachers, who look at stats, can see if you are in fact, a credible cacher. This is similar to Judges ordering thieves to hold a billboard in public admitting their guilt. Perhaps someone can create a website that lists all the cache cheaters.

 

Shame is a powerful tool.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

I have never seen so much complaining about something you supposedly dont care about.

 

Misrepresenting someones stance and then arguing against this new made-up version is called a straw man fallacy and renders your argument invalid. Caring (or not) about stats, is a seperate issue from caring (or not) about the behaviour love-of-stats inspires in some.

 

Analogy: I don't care about basketball fandom, but If someone want's to beat me up over a team shirt I randomly bought then I am concerned with that behaviour that their obsessive care has caused. Does this concern with behaviour inspired by fandom mean I am a fan myself and care if the team on my shirt wins? NO! 2 seperate issues man.

 

It's easy to see you guys are shifting the argument to one that is more easily arguable. (and yes analogy police, I know no one is getting beaten up over their stats here. that was not the parallel I was drawing on in this analogy)

Edited by Team Cyberlove
Link to comment

If we did not have stats listed we would not be have all this fun in the Forums for the past few days about geocheaters. I have not been in the forums very much over the past few months, the regulars know I use to spend lots of time here. But they were getting to be boring, Now they are fun again. Keep the stats.

 

PS

While I have been around geocaching for a while, I have one question.

What is a pocket cache?

Untill these current threads I had never been aware of such a cache.

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

I don't know what all the fuss is about adding icons to your stats is about. I logged a few after one event and found it to be more work than it was worth. Maybe I'm just lazy. They sure were fun to look at and marvel at the creativity of the designers though.

The coins or the icons? I'm sure I know that YOUR answer to that is the former, but to so many others, it's the latter. :rolleyes:

 

Ya know, that's the beauty of this game. If you don't like someone elses style, don't play that way.

Link to comment

No, I never said that YOU (the "generic you", meaning the post-'04 stat-monger; I don't know YOU personally) are a substandard cacher. I HAVE said, I continue to say, that the STATS you've run up since '04 are substandard. Yes, they're legit (if you say so), but the game changed and I believe that stats have become de-valued. I will re-state the caveat I always do on this matter: This is only pertinent IF STATS MATTER TO YOU. If they don't, it's a moot discussion.

 

See, you may not realize it, but that whole paragraph reeks of condesencion. I don't really think most people disagree with you all that much, but the way you state this sets people's teeth on edge.

 

You say that you don't think that post mid-'04 cachers are substandard, but you go on to say that their counts ARE. You must be able to see that the two things are inextricably linked in the readers' minds. Furthermore, you make this as a blanket statement, almost a universal truth, even if you don't mean it that way. This statement means that not only are these finds substandard, but nothing these cachers (myself included) EVER find will measure up, simply because of when they started caching. Also, this ignores what kinds of caches post mid-'04 cachers are hunting for.

 

Let's follow this line of thinking through an example: You have 1773 caches found, and began caching in 2002. I have 47 caches found, and began in late 2004. Other than stages in a multi-cache containing encrypted clues to the next stage, there is only one micro in my list, and that one was inside a birdhouse that the hider built specifically for that hide. I think you'd agree that this hardly qualifies as a lame urban micro. I would submit that if you have ANY lame urban micros in your find list that it's your stats that have been cheapened, not mine.

 

I'm not trying to fan the flames here; I agree with you, at least in principal. I hardly think that when someone drives around town tossing film canisters into bushes without slowing down that they're contributing anything of value to the game. As far as the argument that micros are taking up space that could host a traditional full size cache, I sympathize, but it's not a problem we have out here in the mountains, so I really can't relate. I suppose a case could be made for hard feelings about a "lame" traditional taking up real estate that could host a really good puzzle cache, but I know not everyone likes to solve a puzzle to get coords. I guess the bottom line is if you want good caches in the best spots, get out and place them. Otherwise you'll just have to wait until the micros are archived. We're all equal in the eyes of Jeremy, and GC.com cannot be expected to rule on the quality of a cache as long as it's within the guidelines. (I know, you didn't say this, I just saying.)

 

I don't think the game is changing so much as people are taking more liberties with grey areas in the existing rules. I don't agree with any of the new exploits like pocket caches, multiple event finds or logging archived caches, that's not how I play. However, other than the recent situation re: Iraq caches, I have a hard time getting worked up about it. TPTB have stated in the past that they're in favor of less rules, not more, and I think that most of these discussions will probably stall in the threads.

Link to comment

Ya know, that's the beauty of this game. If you don't like someone elses style, don't play that way.

 

are you saying "if you don't like something there's no way it can affect you."?

 

...because I don't think he was complaining he has to play the same way, I think he was complaining it affects him.

Edited by Team Cyberlove
Link to comment

 

are you saying "if you don't like something there's no way it can affect you."?

 

...because I don't think he was complaining he has to play the same way, I think he was complaining it affects him.

 

For the first year of caching, I truly believed as Ranger believes, which is that mind my own business, do not judge others, let everyone play the way they want to play, and no-one would get harmed. Perfect harmony and freedom is at play in this sport, or so I thought.

 

I have realized some circumstances where this is not true-

 

1) A string of micros in the woods "blocking" a well-planned regular-sized cache,

2) Bogus finds diminishing the pride of logging a "rare" cache,

3) Somone who spent 4 years caching gets little acknowledgement for hitting a 300 milestone, since relatively, that is nothing "ah, nothing more than someone couldn't do in a day,"

4) Rude comments by a cacher who "does it his own way, and the rest be darned" nearly tearing apart a planned event,

5) Private property trespassed all in the name of finding a cache,

6) Native plants run over by truck tires,

7) A logged "find" of an experienced geocacher who called the owner and "described" the location, and being "granted" a "find," and a follow on cacher, thinking the cache there, spent an hour the same day searching for a cache that was not there,

8) A cache migrating .2 away from placement since finders thought "oh, I would hide this here instead,"

 

You know, I could go on for another 20 or so examples, but this is silly, since my point is that our activities and "doing what we want, and it is ok," does indeed affect others.

 

I still play the way I wish, and I also still will not judge others by comparing them to my style, but I am very cognizant of common practices and accepted behaviors in our geocaching community, and strive to play within those "accepted" parameters.

 

Above all, I attempt to respect my fellow cachers.

Link to comment

While I have been around geocaching for a while, I have one question.

What is a pocket cache?

Untill these current threads I had never been aware of such a cache.

 

Hey there, Johnny V.! You're gonna love this one. I read about them on another thread but I can't find it right now, so someone fill me in if I'm off-- but basically, people are going to events with printouts of archived caches in their pockets. Other cachers say something to the effect of "is there a cache in your pocket" at which point the printout carrier says "yep. there sure is!", busts out the printout and whoopie! another find for a really number hungry cacher. They do something like sign the printout and then go online and log a find for the archived cache :):P:rolleyes:. Truthfully, it's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard of cachers doing and I can see why it has some other cachers scratching their heads :)

Link to comment

Where do TPTB stand on these pocket caches (I think that's what they are)? Is there an official stance, or are the area reviewers left up to their own decisions?

 

I'm only asking because I noticed one cache (from-another state.-"visiting"-GW4) has been archived by the home-state reviewer since that cache received logs from people in Texas, not the home state where the cache is listed as being.

But other similar caches (from-yet another state.-"visiting"-Texas) are not archived, just "temporarily disabled while I take it to an event", and apparently will be replaced after the owners return to the home state after the event.

Is there consistancy on this issue, or is it just something that is so new that nothing has been decided yet?

I think there must not be a consensus, because I think one reviewer has a pocket cache?

 

Any official word, or is it that "no word" is the official word?

I'm confused :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Your post was very long so I didn't read it closely, but basically 'people are too competitive with their numbers (of whatever)'. So are you ready to count things in incremetnal stars or fruit or what???

I'm sorry my original post didn't meet your attention span requirements. Please read it along with the other posts in this thread so that you can get the point being made that the The New Numbers Game speaks to a larger issue related to the overall health of our game.

Can you repeat? slower, and with smaller words please :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I want my stats to mean something, but at best they can only show the total number of caches I have found. They don't show how hard or easy I've worked to get them.

 

I've always known that people can bump their numbers in various ways, false logging, finding their own cache, etc, and I don't really care about them. (Provided they aren't causing me to extra work like verifying their claim on one of my caches).

 

I think the problem I have with the current situation is that it's organized, and shared with others. It's not one cacher doing their own thing, it's a bunch of cachers doing it together.

 

Now if someone asked me if would like gc.com to put the brakes on this caching method, I'd have to say yes.

I don't think logging non-published caches at events or caches in another state or country is caching within GC.COM guidlines. Sure, finding a non-published cache is certainly caching, but just not one you can claim here.

 

To me, saying I shouldn't worry about your caching practices only means to me that you want to claim the right to log caches at gc.com on your own terms. Okay, I can't stop it, but I think if gc.com limited logging like making it so you can only log a cache once, or removed stats, most of these practices wouldn't be worth pursuing. And temporary events caches would only be sought for the fun of caching not the count.

 

That's just my take.

Link to comment

Mopar, as a fellow (but now-transplanted-to-the-South) Northeasterner I'm usually right on board with your sense of humor, but I'm afraid I don't get the Cupie Doll reference. Explain?

I hate when that happens. :P

 

Kewpie (cupie) dolls were coveted prizes at old time carnivals. To win the top prize at a carnival game often meant winning a kewpie doll.

"You're the winner! Give that man a kewpie doll!"

AH! DUH, I should have gotten that! :rolleyes:

 

Thanks for the clarification. :) Yep, that's about the value of the "prize".

 

Seems to me a kewpie doll is worth more than a smiley. (At least you can leave the kewpie doll as swag in a cache). I guess some people would suggest that because someone cheated at a carnival game, they should stop giving out kewpie dolls.

Link to comment

Here is a thought, why doesn't Jeremy just ban a few cheaters and see how fast these practices stop.

 

 

Who would be the "cheat police" and who would say what would be a cheat?

 

If a cache is muggled and the owner replaces it in a different container with a different type of hide in a slightly different area and invites previous finders to locate and log again - is that cheating?

 

Phoning a help line to get hints not listed - is that cheating?

 

Signing the log sheet after an accidental find of the last stage of a multicache - is that cheating?

 

Claiming a find on a cache when you were present during the hide (but not FTF) - is that cheating?

 

I don't think any additional rules are necessary. The cache owner has the say in how to handle logs. Just let them do the police work if they think it is necessary. The delete log function has a lot of say in things.

Link to comment

Here is a thought, why doesn't Jeremy just ban a few cheaters and see how fast these practices stop.

 

 

Who would be the "cheat police" and who would say what would be a cheat?

 

If a cache is muggled and the owner replaces it in a different container with a different type of hide in a slightly different area and invites previous finders to locate and log again - is that cheating?

 

Phoning a help line to get hints not listed - is that cheating?

 

Signing the log sheet after an accidental find of the last stage of a multicache - is that cheating?

 

Claiming a find on a cache when you were present during the hide (but not FTF) - is that cheating?

 

I don't think any additional rules are necessary. The cache owner has the say in how to handle logs. Just let them do the police work if they think it is necessary. The delete log function has a lot of say in things.

 

You are talking about the "old" days when all but you last example were marginal finds but not offensive to most cachers. Being present while a cache is hidden then claiming a find will bother most people.

 

But these new examples: pocket caches, signing the outside of a container in order to achieve a so-called record, a team of cachers finding different caches simultaneously and feeling justified that all individual members of the team should log a find, these excesses get the blood boiling.

Link to comment

They were awful quick to put the clamps on people logging coins out of and then back into events. They made a whole new logging category so people could discover a coin. Maybe the reason GC doesn't put a clamp onto this (purely a thought and not a solid reason at all) is that so many of these people are paying members. GC is a company making profits. What's in it for them to start regulating the paying members who are false logging caches? Maybe we should get GC to have a new logging category for caches like "close enough" and then the numbers hounds wouldn't even have to get out of the car. Maybe a .2 rule would be sufficent enough to log it as "close enough" since they aren't real concerned with much more than padding their virtual stats with virtual smilies.

Link to comment

Here is a thought, why doesn't Jeremy just ban a few cheaters and see how fast these practices stop.

 

 

Who would be the "cheat police" and who would say what would be a cheat?

 

If a cache is muggled and the owner replaces it in a different container with a different type of hide in a slightly different area and invites previous finders to locate and log again - is that cheating?

 

Phoning a help line to get hints not listed - is that cheating?

 

Signing the log sheet after an accidental find of the last stage of a multicache - is that cheating?

 

Claiming a find on a cache when you were present during the hide (but not FTF) - is that cheating?

 

I don't think any additional rules are necessary. The cache owner has the say in how to handle logs. Just let them do the police work if they think it is necessary. The delete log function has a lot of say in things.

 

You are talking about the "old" days when all but you last example were marginal finds but not offensive to most cachers. Being present while a cache is hidden then claiming a find will bother most people.

 

But these new examples: pocket caches, signing the outside of a container in order to achieve a so-called record, a team of cachers finding different caches simultaneously and feeling justified that all individual members of the team should log a find, these excesses get the blood boiling.

 

I agree with those examples. The point I wanted to make was to let the owners handle it. They know what is acceptable in their community and especially with their caches. I personally don't worry about other peoples stats. And I don't see the point in a Californian telling the Texians how to play their game. I'm sure they have a good handle on things over there.

Link to comment

No, I never said that YOU (the "generic you", meaning the post-'04 stat-monger; I don't know YOU personally) are a substandard cacher. I HAVE said, I continue to say, that the STATS you've run up since '04 are substandard. Yes, they're legit (if you say so), but the game changed and I believe that stats have become de-valued. I will re-state the caveat I always do on this matter: This is only pertinent IF STATS MATTER TO YOU. If they don't, it's a moot discussion.

 

See, you may not realize it, but that whole paragraph reeks of condesencion. I don't really think most people disagree with you all that much, but the way you state this sets people's teeth on edge.

 

You say that you don't think that post mid-'04 cachers are substandard, but you go on to say that their counts ARE. You must be able to see that the two things are inextricably linked in the readers' minds. Furthermore, you make this as a blanket statement, almost a universal truth, even if you don't mean it that way. This statement means that not only are these finds substandard, but nothing these cachers (myself included) EVER find will measure up, simply because of when they started caching. Also, this ignores what kinds of caches post mid-'04 cachers are hunting for.

 

Let's follow this line of thinking through an example: You have 1773 caches found, and began caching in 2002. I have 47 caches found, and began in late 2004. Other than stages in a multi-cache containing encrypted clues to the next stage, there is only one micro in my list, and that one was inside a birdhouse that the hider built specifically for that hide. I think you'd agree that this hardly qualifies as a lame urban micro. I would submit that if you have ANY lame urban micros in your find list that it's your stats that have been cheapened, not mine.

 

I'm not trying to fan the flames here; I agree with you, at least in principal. I hardly think that when someone drives around town tossing film canisters into bushes without slowing down that they're contributing anything of value to the game. As far as the argument that micros are taking up space that could host a traditional full size cache, I sympathize, but it's not a problem we have out here in the mountains, so I really can't relate. I suppose a case could be made for hard feelings about a "lame" traditional taking up real estate that could host a really good puzzle cache, but I know not everyone likes to solve a puzzle to get coords. I guess the bottom line is if you want good caches in the best spots, get out and place them. Otherwise you'll just have to wait until the micros are archived. We're all equal in the eyes of Jeremy, and GC.com cannot be expected to rule on the quality of a cache as long as it's within the guidelines. (I know, you didn't say this, I just saying.)

 

I don't think the game is changing so much as people are taking more liberties with grey areas in the existing rules. I don't agree with any of the new exploits like pocket caches, multiple event finds or logging archived caches, that's not how I play. However, other than the recent situation re: Iraq caches, I have a hard time getting worked up about it. TPTB have stated in the past that they're in favor of less rules, not more, and I think that most of these discussions will probably stall in the threads.

Once again, excellent counterpoints and discussion! I can't disagree with any of your points.

 

I WOULD say, however, that having thoughtfully chosen only 47 caches to Find (or maybe a few more than that if you had some DNFs), you're not even my intended "target" for the "stat competition" part of my issue (and as you know, that's only part of my issue...the rest has to do with the overall cache quality issue and the cache logging ethics issues). My "target" is the cacher who ran up 1773 of 'em during that time, and then expects somehow to be "congratulated" on their upcoming 2K either by a Forum thread, a recognition at an Event, or merely by "bragging rights". If that cacher ran 'em up for merely their own enjoyment, I say fine, play the game however you want (seriously). But the MOMENT, the MOMENT, those stats get brought up in the context of a caching conversation, discussion, comparision, or what have you, I'm going to view them as cache stats accumulated during the Spew Era. "Worth" less to me. The STATS, not the cacher.

 

And again, it ONLY matters if the stats are part of the context of the discussion. If any Spew Era Numbers Runner had a great time running 'em up on Spewed Micros or any of the other controversial means of adding stats that we've been discussing, and doesn't wave them our faces or what have you, I say, seriously and with absolutely no sarcasm or condescension: God Bless Ya, I'm glad you had a good time playing YOUR version of our game. And I also say equally seriously: I wish I could have had a similarly good time playing that same game, but sadly, I've seen the past, and I just can't now. I'm still having a good time picking and choosing the caches I wish to hunt, but I'm doing so at the expense of running up my stats now.

Link to comment

I WOULD say, however, that having thoughtfully chosen only 47 caches to Find (or maybe a few more than that if you had some DNFs), you're not even my intended "target" for the "stat competition" part of my issue (and as you know, that's only part of my issue...the rest has to do with the overall cache quality issue and the cache logging ethics issues). My "target" is the cacher who ran up 1773 of 'em during that time, and then expects somehow to be "congratulated" on their upcoming 2K either by a Forum thread, a recognition at an Event, or merely by "bragging rights". If that cacher ran 'em up for merely their own enjoyment, I say fine, play the game however you want (seriously). But the MOMENT, the MOMENT, those stats get brought up in the context of a caching conversation, discussion, comparision, or what have you, I'm going to view them as cache stats accumulated during the Spew Era. "Worth" less to me. The STATS, not the cacher.

 

And again, it ONLY matters if the stats are part of the context of the discussion. If any Spew Era Numbers Runner had a great time running 'em up on Spewed Micros or any of the other controversial means of adding stats that we've been discussing, and doesn't wave them our faces or what have you, I say, seriously and with absolutely no sarcasm or condescension: God Bless Ya, I'm glad you had a good time playing YOUR version of our game. And I also say equally seriously: I wish I could have had a similarly good time playing that same game, but sadly, I've seen the past, and I just can't now. I'm still having a good time picking and choosing the caches I wish to hunt, but I'm doing so at the expense of running up my stats now.

 

Yeah, and I guess, as the current controversy over the record run shows, there's not really any way to compare stats any more. I can see where that would be felt as a loss to those who were competetive. The proliferation of lame micros does affect even those who don't care about comparing stats: I can't tell you how many times I've looked in my Palm for a Target Of Opportunity only to find out that it's a micro and abandoned it without even driving to the site. With apologies to those of you who enjoy micros, I'd really rather spend a week researching a clue for a puzzle or multi.

 

And you're right, that's just how I play the game, and I don't have any wish to foist that off on someone else as THE way to play the game.

 

OK, well argued, I see your point.

Link to comment

OK, well argued, I see your point.

And I see yours.

 

I much prefer a healthy debate, even with totally polar opposite points of view, based on discussion to back up the point of view, over the silly one-line counterpoints with no other merit, that I received which prompted the terse, admittedly condescending post I made yesterday in rebuttal at that time.

 

Of course that doesn't mean that you or I or anyone else doesn't occasionally get our shorts tied up in a knot once in a while, but if we're grown-up enough to admit it, to me that's all good too. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Fine, you say. Don't hunt those caches, you say. Ok, that's an option. But what about all the area that those caches take up? One of the state game lands in our area had roughly 20 permanent caches placed for an event, because everyone needed to get their numbers. Now, almost 2 years later, all those caches placed just to provide numbers are sucking up real estate that could be used for some much better hides. So yes, numbers caches do negatively affect those of us who don't play the game.

 

This is more of a generic "lame micro" complaint than a "numbers ho" situation. This has been going on since the inception of the micro and reflects a general change in the face of geocaching which, although in part might be related to the "numbers game" , is not necessarily so.

 

One of the things I always used to enjoy about caching was reading the logs describing the adventures cachers had while searching for and finding (or not finding) the cache. Not only was it fun to go back and read other's logs on caches I had been to, but it was fun to read them for most caches. Now, most log entries are some variation of "TFTC" or "Team Number Ho's was here" cut and pasted all over the place. Maybe doing away with stats would bring back some of the sharing of our adventures which was one of the contributing factors, I think, in establishing our sense of community back when this hobby started, and it would probably get us back to our roots, to what Geocaching originally was, which to me was a lot more fun.

 

Doubt it. Some people write interesting logs, some don't. The TNLNSL's don't just come from number hos. Sometimes the terse logs are meant to make a statement about how much care the finder believes went into hiding the cache. (we are indeed going in circles here- chicken or egg?) Note that I said "sometimes".

 

But for the record, although I do lament the proliferation of pointless caches, I'm not convinced that your "New Numbers Game" is the cause. I think people would be hiding bad caches even if there were no public stats.

 

Right on.

 

I definitely see your point...I'm in no shape to make some of the more strenuous hikes either, and ticks are indeed out of control nationwide this year. However, as you know, I've posted in many precincts around here that there's a difference between ONE or TWO lame micros here and there, and the PROLIFERATION of them that we've seen in so many areas, which (I believe) is being perpetuated by The New Numbers Game.

 

Should less able cachers have just ONE or TWO lame caches to find? (They don't have to be "lame" but that is another discussion).

 

I believe the key phrase here is "I believe". There comes to mind at least two possibly fallacious assumptions to this belief: 1. That all caches placed to enhance others' numbers are "lame". And 2. That these caches would NOT have been placed if the hiders were not interested in artificailly inflating their stats.

As a secondary issue, can we really call it "cheating" to log lame caches? No matter how lame, an actual find is a find. The issue of Micro Spew is really not relevant to the discussion of the "cheating" by dubious logging methods refered to in the OP (as was stated in the OP)

 

I have realized some circumstances where this is not true-

 

1) A string of micros in the woods "blocking" a well-planned regular-sized cache,

 

This assumes someone else WOULD have placed a "good" cache there. If this was indeed a result of "the new numbers game", and assuming that the woods had been in existence BEFORE the "new" numbers game started, why didn't any "PRE numbers game" cachers take advantage of the spaces?

 

It has been my observation that "lame micros" generally are put in "lame" places. The "new numbers game" participants, seemingly by definition, are not interested in walking (in woods or elsewhere)- walking is slow dontcha know. :rolleyes: I doubt there are many examples of a "string of micros in the woods" that can be truly attributed to "the new numbers game".

 

Micros in the woods are HARD to find. That is why I don't spend too much time on them. I can hardly see a numbers ho being interested in them.

Link to comment

One thing that I'm really disgusted in lately is logging an event multiple times. One person I saw did it 20 times!

 

I went to an event where we were TOLD to do that. This too is not a "New numbers game" issue, but a private interpretation (or mis-interpretation if you will) of how things should be done.

 

The point of this was to log the finds on the temporary event caches. They were all legitimate finds (if you count everyone in a group signing a log on a group find as legitimate), just not of PUBLISHED caches.

 

Since the "event cache" category is listed separately on the profile stats page, I see no reason this is not legitimate. The users found X leegitimate EVENT caches. Considering that GC will NOT PUBLISH temporary caches, there is presently no other way to log them.

 

Personally, I did not think it worth my time to do all the cut-and-paste. I logged the event once. But I don't care much one way or the other how I rank in the "numbers game" be it "new" or "old".

 

Confucius' Cat- ranked #1234 in the nation and #231 in Indiana! GO ME! :rolleyes:

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Link to comment

I am happy to play the game my way. I am happy to respect the way you play the game.

 

I like the numbers, it allows for some friendly competition between me and a few others. No, I dont try to do 100 caches a day, but it does keep me in the game.

 

Yes, I saw it strange when someone logged an event 20+ times but then again, I didnt worry about it. Too much going on in my life to worry about something/someone I dont know.

 

For those that dont like micro caches, please put out ones you like. nothing is stopping you. And with PQs, I can choose to ignore micros/unknowns.

Link to comment

 

This assumes someone else WOULD have placed a "good" cache there. If this was indeed a result of "the new numbers game", and assuming that the woods had been in existence BEFORE the "new" numbers game started, why didn't any "PRE numbers game" cachers take advantage of the spaces?

 

It has been my observation that "lame micros" generally are put in "lame" places. The "new numbers game" participants, seemingly by definition, are not interested in walking (in woods or elsewhere)- walking is slow dontcha know. :rolleyes: I doubt there are many examples of a "string of micros in the woods" that can be truly attributed to "the new numbers game".

 

Micros in the woods are HARD to find. That is why I don't spend too much time on them. I can hardly see a numbers ho being interested in them.

 

Well, this confusion was completely my fault, since apparently I may have gotten off topic. Whatever the topic may have been...

 

I was pointing out where someone else's "style" that does not harm others', hence should be left alone by others, could perhaps actually be a style that disrupts someone else's.

 

I plant micros. I believe all of them are well planned (well, except for one, but my daughter chose the container and placement, but to her it was brilliant) and quite thoughtfully placed. The logs bear this feeling to perhaps be correct. As such, I was not on a rampage against micros.

 

However, thoughtless micros, even thoughtful ones, could cramp someone else's "style" (or, "freedom" to play the game as they like). With this in mind, I am careful about placing caches the way I play the game. In other words, I think through the consequences. I know I cannot make everyone happy all of the time, but is there a balance between MY desires from the game and other folks' desires from the game.

 

Oh, to answer your question, the micro planter knew a mystery multi was being planned for that spot. Why didn't I capitize on the terrain? Well, for a second time in my life, a war got in the way of my entertainment plans...

 

At any rate, my real argument was missed. See how easy it is to overlook someone else's perspective? THAT was my point.

Link to comment

Where do TPTB stand on these pocket caches (I think that's what they are)? Is there an official stance, or are the area reviewers left up to their own decisions?

 

I'm only asking because I noticed one cache (from-another state.-"visiting"-GW4) has been archived by the home-state reviewer since that cache received logs from people in Texas, not the home state where the cache is listed as being.

But other similar caches (from-yet another state.-"visiting"-Texas) are not archived, just "temporarily disabled while I take it to an event", and apparently will be replaced after the owners return to the home state after the event.

Is there consistancy on this issue, or is it just something that is so new that nothing has been decided yet?

I think there must not be a consensus, because I think one reviewer has a pocket cache?

 

Any official word, or is it that "no word" is the official word?

I'm confused :rolleyes:

From a previous discussion about using a GC.com cache page to log a non-GC.com cache (and a cache in someone's pocket at an event is not a GC.com cache by their guidelines) Jeremy had this to say on the subject:

I frown heavily on any form of abuse of the Geocaching.com web site. Groundspeak has the right to take action against such abuse, such as locking cache listings and banning users if it comes to that.

 

Does that answer your question? Let me know if I need to be more direct.

 

In another thread that I can't find at the moment he commented something to the effect of not wanting to be the log police, but if someone is abusing the features of the site they will be dealt with.

Since several of these caches have been archived in the last 24hrs as a result of this discussion, it would seem TPTB to not consider them valid uses of the site.

Link to comment

Oh, to answer your question, the micro planter knew a mystery multi was being planned for that spot. Why didn't I capitize on the terrain? Well, for a second time in my life, a war got in the way of my entertainment plans...

 

Thanks for your service.

 

I have been "beat out" before in a placement also (in the early days of my caching experience). I know your pain. I posted my lament on the forums and the old timers basically said "things happen", and "play on- I bet it never happens again".

 

Interesting that the cache "spewer" KNEW about your plans. I assume that means you TOLD him/her. What are friends for, anyway? :rolleyes:

 

Bet you wont make that mistake again.

Link to comment

Where do TPTB stand on these pocket caches (I think that's what they are)? Is there an official stance, or are the area reviewers left up to their own decisions?

 

<snip>

 

Any official word, or is it that "no word" is the official word?

I'm confused :rolleyes:

 

There has been no official word on ARCHIVED caches made in to pocket caches. It seems that TPTB have turned a blind eye to any and all activity on archived caches. Even though logging a find on an archived cache, even logs dated after the archvie date, will increase your find count.

 

Active caches that are turned in to pocket caches are seen as traveling caches by the TPTB and are then archived for violating the guidelines. Which can then continue to collect found logs as a pocket cache.

Link to comment

One of the things I always used to enjoy about caching was reading the logs describing the adventures cachers had while searching for and finding (or not finding) the cache. Not only was it fun to go back and read other's logs on caches I had been to, but it was fun to read them for most caches. Now, most log entries are some variation of "TFTC" or "Team Number Ho's was here" cut and pasted all over the place. Maybe doing away with stats would bring back some of the sharing of our adventures which was one of the contributing factors, I think, in establishing our sense of community back when this hobby started, and it would probably get us back to our roots, to what Geocaching originally was, which to me was a lot more fun.

 

I think a lot of that stems from the explosion in lame micros. How much could there be to write about your "adventure" in the 7-Eleven parking lot?

 

I had a homeless guy try and attack me while I was in my car. We encountered someone who was having a domestic crisis, and very pregnant, at another one. You can have adventures in 7-Eleven parking lots. Although that first one, I would rather have done without.

Link to comment

...

 

I don't cheat nor do I inflate my numbers in any way but I do like my stats and I keep track of them, I really don't care nor do I keep track of yours.

 

Then you wouldn't mind if I opted out of having my own personal numbers being publicly visible? (see this thread on a feature request for hiding stats)

 

As I stated before, do what you wish with your stats. I don't care. Is there any reason you could think of why I would mind?

Link to comment

Making the stats not pubic is ok with me.

 

How about making a web site called geocheats.com and list cachers who participate in pocket caches and logging multiple caches during one event? Peer pressure and public humiliation is always a motivator to keep people honest.

 

OMG someone all ready owns geocheats.com. :rolleyes: I thought I was making that up. geocheats.net is available.

Link to comment

Ya know, that's the beauty of this game. If you don't like someone elses style, don't play that way.

 

are you saying "if you don't like something there's no way it can affect you."?

 

...because I don't think he was complaining he has to play the same way, I think he was complaining it affects him.

 

After re-reading drat's reply tp my comment I've determined that I misunderstood him and responded accordingly (albeit wrong). I now chastise myself for poppoing off with a nonsence reply.

Link to comment

The solution can be found in two little words:

 

No Stats

 

Already done. :rolleyes:

 

Not only do I like to track how many real caches I've found. I like being able to filter them out in PQs.

 

But I'm begining to understand your side better.

 

(sigh) for now I'll stick to peer pressure

Link to comment

After looking at the Team 360 profile, I have some concerns.

 

It would be nice to know if we had found any caches in common. It would be nice to be able to read his logs perhaps for purposes of sharing in his adventures or just making judgements about his geocharacter (whatever that means).

 

I don't know how he did it, but if this were to be the norm I think the caching community would lose a lot of its camaraderie.

 

If this change is up for a vote, put me down as a resounding NO!

Link to comment

After looking at the Team 360 profile, I have some concerns.

 

It would be nice to know if we had found any caches in common. It would be nice to be able to read his logs perhaps for purposes of sharing in his adventures or just making judgements about his geocharacter (whatever that means).

 

I don't know how he did it, but if this were to be the norm I think the caching community would lose a lot of its camaraderie.

 

If this change is up for a vote, put me down as a resounding NO!

 

I understand your concerns. Allow me to explain.

All the details of my caching adventures are in every cache logbook I sign. I simply don't log online (neither does Dave Ulmer!), but I DO keep track of every single cache myself and know exactly how many I have found. Yes, I sign 'Team 360' in every single logbook, I would never claim it otherwise. I even send an email to the cache owner if the cache needs maintenance, or just take care of it on the spot (I carry EVERYTHING to fix up a cache in my van).

 

You see it all the time: cachers get judged by too little finds, by too many finds, by not enough hides or no hides at all...not having numbers is freedom from being judged, or being in the 'numbers race'...

 

Now, as far as my 'geocharacter' goes, I will let you be the judge of that...sure, I have been caching since 2001, and yes, I have some strong opinions and have gone head-to-head with many of the forum 'heavyweights', like Mopar, Briansnat, etc...but I would love to sit down and have a beer, a shot of vodka, and a good geochat with all of them, anyday...shoot, I might actually get along with some of them... :rolleyes:

I just got in from GeoWoodstock4. 2100 miles and 32 hours of driving round-trip, over $300 in gas alone.

I claimed two caches, the Snoogans Meet and Greet Event, and the GW4 Event. That's it.

Worth every penny.

While I was there I ran into Mtn-Man, AlabamaRambler, and JoGPS, ALL OF WHOM I have had some big-time arguments with in these forums. While I thought they might want to take a shot at me, we had a good laugh and got along fine. I spent the entire day under the pavilion in that Texas heat, making sure cachers could come up and get a look at the O.C.B. Good camaraderie all around, even without online logs to share.

I was actually REALLY glad to meet them and to know they are GOOD PEOPLE, every one of them. Don't make your final judgement of someone until you meet them and get to know them. Typing on a keyboard across the country won't allow you to really know someone...

Well, back to the numbers (or lack thereof)...since I can't hide my stats, not logging online is the only way I could think of keeping them off the radar. As I state in my profile, I hope the cache owners understand.

Edited by TEAM 360
Link to comment

After looking at the Team 360 profile, I have some concerns.

 

It would be nice to know if we had found any caches in common. It would be nice to be able to read his logs perhaps for purposes of sharing in his adventures or just making judgements about his geocharacter (whatever that means).

 

I don't know how he did it, but if this were to be the norm I think the caching community would lose a lot of its camaraderie.

 

 

That's where this is headed, a division is being created here. And that is a shame.

Link to comment

After looking at the Team 360 profile, I have some concerns.

 

It would be nice to know if we had found any caches in common. It would be nice to be able to read his logs perhaps for purposes of sharing in his adventures or just making judgements about his geocharacter (whatever that means).

 

I don't know how he did it, but if this were to be the norm I think the caching community would lose a lot of its camaraderie.

 

 

That's where this is headed, a division is being created here. And that is a shame.

 

There is a simple answer to that: if you want to read my logs online, then give me an option to hide my stats. I have held to this for the last 5 years.

Link to comment

<lengthy explanation deleted to save bandwidth... can be read a few posts above>

Don't make your final judgement of someone until you meet them and get to know them. Typing on a keyboard across the country won't allow you to really know someone...

 

Thanks for the explanation. I see that this has been an issue to you forever. For those who have already made online logs but might not like their numbers known, your request (ability to optionally hide stats) would be the only logical course.

 

In the event of optionally hiding stats, my vote would be YES. After all, I am a proponent of "play the way you want (and I do allow for exceptions when things are obviously "wrong").

 

I would never make a final judgement about anyone based on online contact. The medium is way too flawed for that.

 

However unless one DOES travel to meet and greets and such, the online logs are their only point of contact with the rest of the caching community. And even then one only meets a very FEW cachers and generally just those who are locals. (exception for "Woodstock" type events)

 

Your posts here help explain the many paper logs that are not backed up by online logs. I have often wondered why some people never log online. At least now I have one explanation.

 

If you perchance were to log one of my caches, i would appreciate an online log. They have several advantages:

 

1. I don't have to visit my cache to read them.

2. I get them faster (see #1)

3. When the cache gets muggled/destroyed/waterlogged (whatever) the online logs remain.

 

As for me, the online log is more important than the paper. If eliminating stats means eliminating online logs then IMHO we would have a great loss of the coolness of caching.

Link to comment

As for me, the online log is more important than the paper. If eliminating stats means eliminating online logs then IMHO we would have a great loss of the coolness of caching.

 

Right I agree. I enjoy writing the online log. Sometimes I get quite wordy, and give a lengthy blog in my post. That too is part of my fun. I dont think TPTB would eliminate the log entry, just the running total of caches next to the name.

Link to comment

What seems odd to me is that some of the same people that say it isn't about the numbers are some of the same people that log caches like these and are some of the same people who are againt allowing others to hide their find counts from public view. If it isn't about the numbers and we are not in competition with each other then why should I be forced to show my find count to you? My number of finds shouldn't matter to you.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...