The New Numbers Game

[+J-Way]

I'm not gonna read all that.

Since this thread is about numbers, karstic was post #1000. Is there a prize?

[BlueDamsel]

On many occasions, I recall seeing Jeremy comment that while he was willing to keep cacher stats on the site as a matter of record- and memory-keeping, he would never condone the use of stats as a form of competition. It has become clear by my laundry list of items above that, based on what our game has now become to so many people, he was right all along.

Well, I'm certainly no veteran cacher but I think that Jeremy was dead on. The numbers should be a matter of record and memory-keeping. I care about my stats because they are memories to me-- each and every one. I don't care if I ever break any records or hit 1000 before someone else did or any of that... but I do care about the record keeping because it's like a personal journal of things I've done and places I've visited. I think pocket caches are silly and would find them totally unfufilling, but I do enjoy urban micros. So obviously my game is different than yours. But does that really matter? I've always been fairly anti-social, non-competitive and extremely sneaky -- so geocaching is a very personal thing with me. If you need to be competitive about it, why not race your buddies for the numbers and enforce the rules you set amongst yourselves? That way, you'll all be playing the same game and you still get to have fun competing. As far as I'm concerned, my family's geocaching stats are important-- but only to us. To others, I see no reason why they should mean a thing .

 

EDIT: to add that I could probably keep track of my own stats and logs, but I love the way Groundpeak does it and the "My Finds" PQ is a really great thing to have. Still, I'd never oppose making the numbers private rather than public.

 

This is exactly how I handle my "numbers". I really don't care who is or is not impressed by my numbers, since that isn't why I value them. I really don't care what others think of how many finds I have. I don't want the numbers to go off-site because then I have to keep my own track of what geocaching.com now does quite well for me, plus it weeds out my finds from my non-finds so I can make pocket queries based on that and not be searching for caches I've already found.

 

The diary aspect of it is extremely important to me, along with my logs, trackable trades, etc. But I do agree that the "numbers found" count could be eliminated from some spots on the site. Maybe only make it accessible if you visit someone's homepage, etc. but not have it show up on individual log entries.

 

Again, another two cents worth just that.

BlueDamsel

[AZcachemeister]

I'm not gonna read all that.

 

Hows about we give you an extra smilie if you do?

 

[+firennice]

Are numbers helpfull yes and no.

 

When i got a needs maintenance or a no find on a cache I wonder about it.

I look at three things to judge if I should go out and check it .

 

1-difficulty of checking it

2-How long they have been playing

3-Number of finds.

 

If its a hairy pain in the butt to find/get to. And they have been playing for 2 months with 33 finds I would most likely wait for another person/group to say they could not find it.

 

It helps me as a cache owner make a determination if I don't know them.

 

If a person that has been playing for 6 years with 200 finds i might go check. If they have been playing for 6 years with 3000 finds then I would be more prone to go check.

 

The number do help. It helps me judge people I dont know.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Are numbers helpfull yes and no.

 

When i got a needs maintenance or a no find on a cache I wonder about it.

I look at three things to judge if I should go out and check it .

 

1-difficulty of checking it

2-How long they have been playing

3-Number of finds.

 

If its a hairy pain in the butt to find/get to. And they have been playing for 2 months with 33 finds I would most likely wait for another person/group to say they could not find it.

 

It helps me as a cache owner make a determination if I don't know them.

 

If a person that has been playing for 6 years with 200 finds i might go check. If they have been playing for 6 years with 3000 finds then I would be more prone to go check.

 

The number do help. It helps me judge people I dont know.

 

Alternatively, my first hide was painfully easy and designed that way. So the 3000+ finds people kept scratching their heads. "How is this a park & grab? This isn't fun!" they said. But it was there. The more experienced cachers have their experience working against them. It becomes Bizarro caching where simple becomes hard, up is down, day is night, and the hamburgers eat people. Or just simple becomes hard. When a less experienced cacher found it, it brought the experienced cachers back for another look.

 

I need two DNFs to make a special check on that one, just because the experienced cachers still don't "think easy" despite a 1/1.5.

 

- Elle

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

10 new caches published 20 minutes ago in my area (35210). I don't know the average but multiple new caches per day is the rule rather than the exception around here.

1822 caches within 50 miles of where I am soon hosting our AGA 6th Birthday event.

5382 caches in Alabama.

752 members in our very peaceful and active DixieCachers.com forum.

0 cachers whom I know who cache just for the numbers.

 

If that is the new numbers game I like it!

[+BAMBOOZLE]

10 new caches published 20 minutes ago in my area (35210). I don't know the average but multiple new caches per day is the rule rather than the exception around here.

1822 caches within 50 miles of where I am soon hosting our AGA 6th Birthday event.

5382 caches in Alabama.

752 members in our very peaceful and active DixieCachers.com forum.

0 cachers whom I know who cache just for the numbers.

 

If that is the new numbers game I like it!

 

I don't think ANYBODY caches ONLY for the numbers. I met the worlds top cachers ( numbers wise) at a cache and they soaked up the scenery and history as much as anyone . It is true, though, that some folks are way more into numbers than others.

[+Glenn]

OK, today's thread on the bogus Find claims on the Iraq cache at GW4 is the latest in a series of happenstances related to what I'll call "The New Numbers Game". My usual caveat on this subject applies: This thread/discussion is only pertinent IF STATS MATTER TO YOU...if they don't, this is a moot discussion.

 

Here's a summary of those happenstances (I'm sure there are others I'm missing here) from where I'm sitting, and MY OPINION (your opinion may vary) of their effect on Geocaching stats:

 

(1) Logging a Find on pocket caches at Events (cheating)

 

(2) Claiming a Find on a cache carried to an Event for logging not at orig. coords, such as the Iraq cache (cheating)

 

(3) Bringing an album of Geocoins and other trackables to an Event for all to log and get new Icons added to their stats (not necessarily cheating because loggers actually see/handle the trackables, but certainly not in the spirit of original purpose - to find them in caches)

 

(4) Trading lists of serial numbers of trackables at Events and elsewhere without actually seeing/handling the trackables, to get new Icons (cheating)

 

(5) Getting "close" to a cache hide area, but for one reason or another not actually reaching the hide area, and still claiming a Find (cheating)

 

(6) Reaching the hide area and finding the cache apparently missing, and claiming a Find (cheating)

 

(7) Micro Spew (not cheating if one actually finds the caches and signs the log sheets, but certainly and unquestionably a cheapening of stats as compared to pre mid-'04 (my unofficial date of when I believe Micro Spew fundamentally changed our game, as I've documented ad nauseum elsewhere in the Forums lately))

 

Also as I've documented elsewhere, I'm a "reformed Numbers Ho", having had my spirit broken from continuing to play the game that way (for stats) by 2 occurrences: (1) The closing of Dan Miller's stats-by-state site in '03 (a key motivator to keep caching, to myself and many of my within-Mississippi caching brethren of the time - we had a wonderful, friendly in-state competition going until then), and (2) Micro Spew.

 

On many occasions, I recall seeing Jeremy comment that while he was willing to keep cacher stats on the site as a matter of record- and memory-keeping, he would never condone the use of stats as a form of competition. It has become clear by my laundry list of items above that, based on what our game has now become to so many people, he was right all along.

 

I know all about the counterpoints to my summary and points above, about how "everyone can play the game however they choose, there are no prizes for stats, we should all mind our own business about how anyone else caches, etc etc etc". I know. I KNOW. I KNOW!!

 

Having participated in many stat-oriented threads lately related to individual items on my list above, I just thought it would be interesting to post them all on one thread and see where the discussion leads. I don't know if such a discussion will lead to any changes in either behaviors or how things ultimately work around here, or if it's just another discussion. So here we go.

 

It is interesting how this thread progresses from a discussion about cheating to a discussion about it being not about the numbers.

 

It appears that most geocache hunters posting here could care less if other cachers are logging caches that they didn't actually find. But then most cache owners seem be saying that the individual find counts are useful to them. I don't understand how cache owners can find a number useful especially since cache hunters themselves say that number isn't an accurate reflection of cache hunting ability.

[+Kit Fox]

LeapFrogging and Container Swapping need to be officially added to the list of shameful logging practices.

[4wheelin_fool]

LeapFrogging and Container Swapping need to be officially added to the list of shameful logging practices.

 

Yes, but I received a warning from another cacher that bumping old angsty threads was shameful also.

Edited February 22, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[Keystone]

Leapfrogging and container swapping are already being discussed in an active thread. I am closing this bumped thread.