Who has logged the most finds?

1.4k · November 13, 2006

How can you equate a guy that has hiked up 30 mountains to find 50 caches with someone who has lifted up 500 roadside lamp post covers?

For the record, "Mega Cachers" are who they are because they do both. :laughing: Some of the remote caches I've visited in the state still have the names of those 5 out of 8 cacherstats.com people in the log book.

You'll have to start a new thread mocking urban-only cachers.

2.1k · November 13, 2006

How can you equate a guy that has hiked up 30 mountains to find 50 caches with someone who has lifted up 500 roadside lamp post covers?

That shouldn't be too hard.

Lamppost caches make up about 10 to 15% of an indiscriminate day of caching in a metro area. That means that Lampy500 has found 4500 other caches that are not lampposts.

Fizzymagic and Cheesehead have shown us that most cachers have between 8 and 15% 2.5 and above terrain and difficulty caches. (I am rounding and cutting corners here but 10% seems to be a safe number as a rate for most cachers for caches that they had to work for.)

So that tells us that Lampy has found 500 difficult caches, 50 of which required hiking up 30 mountains.

That was easy.

(Don't get me wrong. I think lamppost caches suck.)

14.3k · November 14, 2006

How can you equate a guy that has hiked up 30 mountains to find 50 caches with someone who has lifted up 500 roadside lamp post covers?

For the record, "Mega Cachers" are who they are because they do both. Some of the remote caches I've visited in the state still have the names of those 5 out of 8 cacherstats.com people in the log book.

You'll have to start a new thread mocking urban-only cachers.

Hmm, I've never heard the term "Mega Cacher." It that something new? Anyhow, I wasn't mocking "Mega Cachers." I was pointing out that difficulty (and beer) should factor into the equation. Now that I know that there is such a thing as a "Mega Cacher," it would be really interesting to see what a "Mega Cacher's" stats look like! So all you "Mega Cachers" feel free to load up your latest Finds PQ here: It's Not About the Numbers. This site will tell how many caches you have found by day and by month as well as a bunch of other things. It is very cool! :laughing:

Edited November 14, 2006 by TrailGators

2.1k · November 14, 2006

... No one has presented any evidence here that I have read that shows this is prevalent or that when someone does it that it is more than 1 to 3% of their find total.

I take that back. It appears to be a bit more prevalent than I thought. Probably not greatly but certainly, for some people, it exceeds this estimate.

1.4k · November 14, 2006

How can you equate a guy that has hiked up 30 mountains to find 50 caches with someone who has lifted up 500 roadside lamp post covers?

For the record, "Mega Cachers" are who they are because they do both. Some of the remote caches I've visited in the state still have the names of those 5 out of 8 cacherstats.com people in the log book.

You'll have to start a new thread mocking urban-only cachers.

Hmm, I've never heard the term "Mega Cacher." It that something new? Anyhow, I wasn't mocking "Mega Cachers." I was pointing out that difficulty (and beer) should factor into the equation. Now that I know that there is such a thing as a "Mega Cacher," it would be really interesting to see what a "Mega Cacher's" stats look like! So all you "Mega Cachers" feel free to load up your latest Finds PQ here: It's Not About the Numbers. This site will tell how many caches you have found by day and by month as well as a bunch of other things. It is very cool!

Well... the thread is about "who has logged the most finds" so for a lack of a better term, I decided to label the cachers on the top of the cacherstats.com leaderboard as "Mega Cachers." You can call them whatever you wish.

It'd be a shame to promote TheCheesehead's cool site for a "let's do a witch hunt" sort of thing. I know you are joking, but still, some people don't take jokes too well in the forums. :laughing:

14.3k · November 14, 2006

I know you are joking, but still, some people don't take jokes too well in the forums.

Ain't that the truth! :laughing:

A witch hunt wasn't what I had in mind. I thought it would be interesting to see who has found the most caches with a terrain over 2.5. Who has found the most puzzle caches? Who has found the most multi caches? Stuff like that.... Edited November 14, 2006 by TrailGators

4.5k · November 14, 2006

I know you are joking, but still, some people don't take jokes too well in the forums.
Ain't that the truth! A witch hunt wasn't what I had in mind. I thought it would be interesting to see who has found the most caches with a terrain over 2.5. Who has found the most puzzle caches? Who has found the most multi caches? Stuff like that....

Myself, i'd like to see cachers post their "my finds" query on a site like Itsnotaboutthenumbers.com.

And no, i'm not trying to start a witch hunt or try to imply that there are cheaters out there. Numbers don't amount to a hill of beans as far as what kind of person you and i are, but they are part of the fun for me. I do like to keep up with my numbers and i do like to compare them with others at times. Unfortunately, that has been impossible because of all the different ways that smileys are grabbed these days. It would just be cool to see everyone's stats on a site like this, since it does bring back the apples to apples comparison!

3.9k · November 14, 2006

How can you equate a guy that has hiked up 30 mountains to find 50 caches with someone who has lifted up 500 roadside lamp post covers?
I have to agree with what tailGators says.

If you only do lamp post micros you can rack up hundreds of finds. Also with Florida having well over 10000 and California having well over 30000 active caches. it is not hard to rack up mega finds.

lamp post micros have there place and they are sometimes welcome after a long day of hiking. But I have to draw the line went you are able to spend 10 hrs and be able to find 105 caches (and 90% of them lamp posts)

I think it may be time to just say no to any more lamp post micros, and focus on quality rather than quantity.

On the other hand, who cares?

Usually those that are loudest to scream "It's not about the numbers, and the numbers don't matter" are also the loudest ones to scream, "Lamp post hides make it too easy for others to rack up high numbers, and since I don't want to do those kinds we should ban them."

2k · November 15, 2006

I don't care about who has lamppost caches or urban finds. Looks to me like both these cachers have mighty impressive stats and should be applauded for their dedication to this sport. I personally am a bit jealous.

:laughing:

November 15, 2006

Actually I've been caching with TeamAlamo many times. The 'team' is Lee and his wife (who is a saint, let me assure you.) She has found 5 caches on her own. He has found the rest, some with, many more without her. He is retired and quite... energetic. On any given day, it's not "will I geocache", or even "where will I geocache" - it's "where can I geocache where there is enough density to make it worth the 40+ mile drive." Those somewhere's are not necessarily strings of lampposts. He does 4, 5, 12 mile hikes every few days, and I've gone out with him for a whole day hike to do 2 caches over 4,000 feet of elevation change. I have also seen him beat the bushes, literally, because otherwise he'll have to DNF what he is looking for, and he does DNF caches. Since other local SF-bay cachers compete with him on numbers everyone keeps an eye on him - and each other - and the pressure to sign a logsheet before logging a smiley is very real.

I can't speak for the East Coast.

oh, and for what it's worth, I've met and cached with many of the numbers leaders and i know that they don't give a frogs patootie about the forums. They're too busy caching...

November 15, 2006

QUOTE(TrailGators @ Nov 13 2006, 01:01 PM)

How can you equate a guy that has hiked up 30 mountains to find 50 caches with someone who has lifted up 500 roadside lamp post covers?

Ooohhh...the lamp post! Soo. that is where those caches are! Thanks for the tip, TG! :laughing:

20.7k · November 15, 2006

I can't speak for the East Coast.

The east coast is pretty much the same except the water is on the other side.

3.5k · November 15, 2006

I can't speak for the East Coast.
The east coast is pretty much the same except the water is on the other side.

:blink:

1.4k · November 15, 2006

I can't speak for the East Coast.
The east coast is pretty much the same except the water is on the other side.

We gotta come up with a label for you Texans... South Coast? :blink:

Even the "Mega Cachers" will get their :laughing: moments when they find allegedly lame urban caches. But since they are addicted to numbers, they'll still do them while I can happily skip them and feel good about my experience.

I'm sure people who have gone caching with them have heard the grumbles, so I don't think it's all fun and glory for the "Mega Cachers." :laughing:

20.7k · November 15, 2006

Does anyone remember what this thread was about?

November 15, 2006

:laughing:

We can log beer?! :laughing: Then I better get logging! I could have the record! :blink: Can we log 100 caches for a good microbrew? The funny thing is that we were talking about logging slices of pizza at events in our local thread. Since we heard that other people were logging 50-100 pocket caches at events; we thought pizza would be much better! :laughing: But how many slices of pizza do think think should equal a cache? Is one OK?

What is a pocket cache?

1.7k · November 15, 2006

Cache on! I personally think that you should only be able to log beer and pizza if you find them under lampskirts after a 12 mile hike to find a 4.5 terrain cache. ;P

November 15, 2006

Does anyone remember what this thread was about?

Who has logged the most finds? :blink:

20.7k · November 15, 2006

Does anyone remember what this thread was about?

Who has logged the most finds?

I think TeamAlamo is the current logger leader.

14.3k · November 15, 2006

Does anyone remember what this thread was about?

Who has logged the most finds?

I think TeamAlamo is the current logger leader.

Yes they are in the lead but CCCooperAgency is catching Team Alamo and only lags by a nose. Here they come down the back stretch! :blink:

November 15, 2006

You may want to ask if they "found it" or were just along for the ride? If you Geo-Solo there's never a question as to who found it.

3.7k · November 15, 2006

load up your latest Finds PQ here: It's Not About the Numbers. This site will tell how many caches you have found by day and by month as well as a bunch of other things. It is very cool!

Wow, it is cool! :laughing: I just loaded my Finds PQ for the first time and the stuff you learn is pretty interesting. I also discovered I had logged one cache twice without ever knowing it (a year apart, funny how you forget); changed the second one to a note just to keep myself honest.

20.7k · November 15, 2006

You may want to ask if they "found it" or were just along for the ride? If you Geo-Solo there's never a question as to who found it.

Why would I care?

8k · November 15, 2006

You may want to ask if they "found it" or were just along for the ride? If you Geo-Solo there's never a question as to who found it.

If you geo-solo you miss the fun and social interaction of hunting with other cachers. If you geo-solo you might also miss the satisfaction of finding it all by yourself. If you don't call a friend for a lifeline you may get a DNF and not have the satisfaction of a find. If you don't call a friend for a lifeline you may get the satisfaction of finding it without help. The point is to have fun and personnal satisfaction. What is fun or satisfying for one person is different from what is fun or satisfying for another. It may even be different for the same person on different days. The find count is useless for comparing cachers. After all, who is to say that the person who found 500 lamp post hides didn't have as much fun as the person who hiked up 30 mountains to find 50 caches? I raise a beer in toast to both of these accomplishments. :blink:

14.3k · November 15, 2006

The find count is useless for comparing cachers.

Exactly!

3.2k · November 17, 2006

As of three minutes ago, TeamAlamo’s account shows 17535 posted finds. According to my math, TeamAlamo’s account has now been active for 1481 days (from October 27, 2002 to today). 17535 finds divided by 1481 days equals approximately 11.84, or almost 12 caches per day.

That’s an average of 12 caches per day – EVERY DAY – for more than six years. Average! Skip a day and you have to find about 24 the next day just to keep up that average.

Pretty impressive.

3.6k · November 17, 2006

The cache ranker's site, is that US only or World wide?

6.7k · November 17, 2006

As of three minutes ago, TeamAlamo’s account shows 17535 posted finds. According to my math, TeamAlamo’s account has now been active for 1481 days (from October 27, 2002 to today). 17535 finds divided by 1481 days equals approximately 11.84, or almost 12 caches per day.

That’s an average of 12 caches per day – EVERY DAY – for more than six years. Average! Skip a day and you have to find about 24 the next day just to keep up that average.

Pretty impressive.

Trying to 'average' the numbers gives you a meaningless number!

I 'average' 1.64 a day according to CacheStats, or 11.5 a week, but don't cache but maybe ten days a month.

When I do cache though it's likely to be with a group of friends who find 20+ in a day.

Ed

20.7k · November 17, 2006

Isn't this entire thread about (relatively) meaningless numbers?

5.9k · November 17, 2006

The 'numbers' have been rendered meaningless. Look at this example, one attendee celebrated her 400th ‘find’. Was that 400 geocaches? No, they logged the event as attended a dozen times to represent the temporary caches. The temps are not geocaches since they were never reviewed and published on the site. Some players log terracaches or other alternate site caches under their geocache stats by fictitious logging.

If you mention it, they become indignant and hostile. “We’re playing the game our way! Leave us alone!” While they are playing a game, they are not playing the game, so the ‘numbers’ have become completely meaningless.

14.3k · November 17, 2006

The 'numbers' have been rendered meaningless. Look at this example, one attendee celebrated her 400th 'find'. Was that 400 geocaches? No, they logged the event as attended a dozen times to represent the temporary caches. The temps are not geocaches since they were never reviewed and published on the site. Some players log terracaches or other alternate site caches under their geocache stats by fictitious logging.

If you mention it, they become indignant and hostile. "We're playing the game our way! Leave us alone!" While they are playing a game, they are not playing the game, so the 'numbers' have become completely meaningless.

I couldn't agree more!

20.7k · November 17, 2006

Given that, and the fact that individual caches are different enough that they cannot be directly compared anyway, I recognize two issues regarding finds. First, a cacher who has 15,000 logged finds probably has found a honking lot of caches by anyone's standard. Second, the specifics of their 'finds' to caches that I do not own matter very little to me.

3.6k · November 17, 2006

Given that, and the fact that individual caches are different enough that they cannot be directly compared anyway, I recognize two issues regarding finds. First, a cacher who has 15,000 logged finds probably has found a honking lot of caches by anyone's standard. Second, the specifics of their 'finds' to caches that I do not own matter very little to me.

Those who do it dishonestly maybe misleading others but are only cheating themselves ought of the true adventure of the game.

3.9k · November 17, 2006

The 'numbers' have been rendered meaningless. Look at this example, one attendee celebrated her 400th ‘find’. Was that 400 geocaches? No, they logged the event as attended a dozen times to represent the temporary caches. The temps are not geocaches since they were never reviewed and published on the site. Some players log terracaches or other alternate site caches under their geocache stats by fictitious logging.

If you mention it, they become indignant and hostile. “We’re playing the game our way! Leave us alone!” While they are playing a game, they are not playing the game, so the ‘numbers’ have become completely meaningless.

I agree with them. They are playing the game the way they enjoy. Let them. Until they start giving out awards for finds, or making this a rewarding competition, then it shouldn't be skin off anyone else's nose how they count their finds.

El Diablo

November 17, 2006

Given that, and the fact that individual caches are different enough that they cannot be directly compared anyway, I recognize two issues regarding finds. First, a cacher who has 15,000 logged finds probably has found a honking lot of caches by anyone's standard. Second, the specifics of their 'finds' to caches that I do not own matter very little to me.

Those who do it dishonestly maybe misleading others but are only cheating themselves ought of the true adventure of the game.

Those who have found 15,000+ caches have not cheated themselves out of the "true adventure" of the game.

8k · November 18, 2006

The 'numbers' have been rendered meaningless. Look at this example, one attendee celebrated her 400th ‘find’. Was that 400 geocaches? No, they logged the event as attended a dozen times to represent the temporary caches. The temps are not geocaches since they were never reviewed and published on the site. Some players log terracaches or other alternate site caches under their geocache stats by fictitious logging.

If you mention it, they become indignant and hostile. “We’re playing the game our way! Leave us alone!” While they are playing a game, they are not playing the game, so the ‘numbers’ have become completely meaningless.

:anicute: Sometimes I feel sympathy with the puritans. Those who abuse find logs and the find count on geocaching.com by logging temporary event caches, bonus caches, terracaches, or other caches that are not listed on geocaching.com have ruined any enjoyment that the puritans might be able to get in comparing one cacher's find count to another's. They have made the 'numbers' meaningless and I guess that has made the puritans enjoyment of the numbers impossible. :wub:

Even if we all followed the puritans' rules, it still would not make sense to compare geocachers based on their find count except for fun. It still would not make sense to celebrate milestones except as a novelty. Nobody would win anything for getting the highest find count.

Some people do look up the "mega cachers" - but if the admiration is based purely on the numbers it is misplaced. The mega cachers' numbers indicate that they do a lot more caching than the rest of us. But that is all their numbers mean. It still might be fun to have East Coast vs. West Coast rooting for their favorite. Go TeamAlamo

Edited November 18, 2006 by tozainamboku

5.9k · November 18, 2006

The 'numbers' have been rendered meaningless. Look at this example, one attendee celebrated her 400th ‘find’. Was that 400 geocaches? No, they logged the event as attended a dozen times to represent the temporary caches. The temps are not geocaches since they were never reviewed and published on the site. Some players log terracaches or other alternate site caches under their geocache stats by fictitious logging.

If you mention it, they become indignant and hostile. “We’re playing the game our way! Leave us alone!” While they are playing a game, they are not playing the game, so the ‘numbers’ have become completely meaningless.

Sometimes I feel sympathy with the puritans. Those who abuse find logs and the find count on geocaching.com by logging temporary event caches, bonus caches, terracaches, or other caches that are not listed on geocaching.com have ruined any enjoyment that the puritans might be able to get in comparing one cacher's find count to another's. They have made the 'numbers' meaningless and I guess that has made the puritans enjoyment of the numbers impossible.

Boy, I hope you can find some way to get past your displeasure. Yes, we know they have to tell a lie to log that way, but you really shouldn't let it get to you. Trust me, if I can just laugh at their feeble attempts to puff themselves up, you can too. Really, it’s not worth getting upset over!

3.9k · November 18, 2006

The 'numbers' have been rendered meaningless. Look at this example, one attendee celebrated her 400th ‘find’. Was that 400 geocaches? No, they logged the event as attended a dozen times to represent the temporary caches. The temps are not geocaches since they were never reviewed and published on the site. Some players log terracaches or other alternate site caches under their geocache stats by fictitious logging.

If you mention it, they become indignant and hostile. “We’re playing the game our way! Leave us alone!” While they are playing a game, they are not playing the game, so the ‘numbers’ have become completely meaningless.

Sometimes I feel sympathy with the puritans. Those who abuse find logs and the find count on geocaching.com by logging temporary event caches, bonus caches, terracaches, or other caches that are not listed on geocaching.com have ruined any enjoyment that the puritans might be able to get in comparing one cacher's find count to another's. They have made the 'numbers' meaningless and I guess that has made the puritans enjoyment of the numbers impossible.

Boy, I hope you can find some way to get past your displeasure. Yes, we know they have to tell a lie to log that way, but you really shouldn't let it get to you. Trust me, if I can just laugh at their feeble attempts to puff themselves up, you can too. Really, it’s not worth getting upset over!

The question comes down to what is a cache? Or as you would probably question...what is a legit cache? A cache is a cache. It dosen't matter if it's a Navicache, Terracache or a temp cache. It's a cache that was found.

El Diablo

14.3k · November 18, 2006

The 'numbers' have been rendered meaningless. Look at this example, one attendee celebrated her 400th 'find'. Was that 400 geocaches? No, they logged the event as attended a dozen times to represent the temporary caches. The temps are not geocaches since they were never reviewed and published on the site. Some players log terracaches or other alternate site caches under their geocache stats by fictitious logging.

If you mention it, they become indignant and hostile. "We're playing the game our way! Leave us alone!" While they are playing a game, they are not playing the game, so the 'numbers' have become completely meaningless.

Sometimes I feel sympathy with the puritans. Those who abuse find logs and the find count on geocaching.com by logging temporary event caches, bonus caches, terracaches, or other caches that are not listed on geocaching.com have ruined any enjoyment that the puritans might be able to get in comparing one cacher's find count to another's. They have made the 'numbers' meaningless and I guess that has made the puritans enjoyment of the numbers impossible.

Boy, I hope you can find some way to get past your displeasure. Yes, we know they have to tell a lie to log that way, but you really shouldn't let it get to you. Trust me, if I can just laugh at their feeble attempts to puff themselves up, you can too. Really, it's not worth getting upset over!

The question comes down to what is a cache? Or as you would probably question...what is a legit cache? A cache is a cache. It dosen't matter if it's a Navicache, Terracache or a temp cache. It's a cache that was found.

El Diablo

You can log slices of pizza for all I care. I'm not in it for the numbers. That's why I would never log any cache more than once. What's the point?

November 18, 2006

:anicute: Numbers are just numbers. My last find will be the highest number until I log my next find, But my most memorable will be #1. I will never forget my first find.

Who has logged the most finds? I’ve seen some pretty high numbers so I’m wondering who has the most? Is there a scoreboard somewhere? What about hides?

November 21, 2006

Those who abuse find logs and the find count on geocaching.com by logging temporary event caches, bonus caches, terracaches, or other caches that are not listed on geocaching.com have ruined any enjoyment that the puritans might be able to get in comparing one cacher's find count to another's. They have made the 'numbers' meaningless and I guess that has made the puritans enjoyment of the numbers impossible.

This gets trotted out often. "Why does it matter?"

It matters. And the thing that proves that it matters is that people abuse the numbers. If it didn't matter, than people wouldn't abuse the numbers, yet they do, ergo, it matters. Simple.

20.7k · November 21, 2006

Those who abuse find logs and the find count on geocaching.com by logging temporary event caches, bonus caches, terracaches, or other caches that are not listed on geocaching.com have ruined any enjoyment that the puritans might be able to get in comparing one cacher's find count to another's. They have made the 'numbers' meaningless and I guess that has made the puritans enjoyment of the numbers impossible.

This gets trotted out often. "Why does it matter?"

It matters. And the thing that proves that it matters is that people abuse the numbers. If it didn't matter, than people wouldn't abuse the numbers, yet they do, ergo, it matters. Simple.

Interesting use of circular logic. It's not very compelling, but still it's interesting.

4.5k · November 21, 2006

I was originally posting this to the other thread but it got closed before i hit the submit button...

People do play and "score", if ya wanna call it that, in a few different ways. I personally don't feel that too many out there are trying to cheat. They have their own reasons for logging their finds like they do.

One example, finding temporary caches at an event. Cachers find something so they want to log it. I guess i can understand that they want to keep up with every cache they find, but i'm not sure why they want to log this unapprovable against GC.com guidelines cache on the GC.com website. The main thing to me, and i would think most would care about this as well, is that logging these like this would screw up my own stats. Why would i want to look at my stats and not be able to tell how many events i've really been to?

The question comes down to what is a cache? Or as you would probably question...what is a legit cache? A cache is a cache. It dosen't matter if it's a Navicache, Terracache or a temp cache. It's a cache that was found.

El Diablo

You log the TC on the TC site, you log the NC on the NC site, i guess you could even make up your own spreadsheet and log your temporary cache finds on your computer. But why would you log any of these on the GC.com site?

38.2k · November 21, 2006

But why would you log any of these on the GC.com site?

Duh, because its about the numbers and heaven forbid that some of these people miss an opportunity to pad their counts. Same reason they log "pocket caches", "retirement cards" and caches they don't find.

4.5k · November 21, 2006

This gets trotted out often. "Why does it matter?"

It matters. And the thing that proves that it matters is that people abuse the numbers. If it didn't matter, than people wouldn't abuse the numbers, yet they do, ergo, it matters. Simple.

Exactly. It's blatantly evident that numbers do matter for those who log multiple find logs on a single cache!

8k · November 21, 2006

This gets trotted out often. "Why does it matter?"

It matters. And the thing that proves that it matters is that people abuse the numbers. If it didn't matter, than people wouldn't abuse the numbers, yet they do, ergo, it matters. Simple.

A newbie starts a thread like this one - Who has logged the most finds? This seems to indicate that there is some reward in having the most finds - perhaps the admiration of the newbies or even of experienced cachers. Go to an event with high number cachers and you'll see the people lining up to meet the geocaching celebrities. So if there is a reward for having a higher find count, there is a motivation to cheat. Plenty of threads showing where a high numbers cacher claimed a find on a cache that wasn't there or logged attended an event for each temporary cache at the event. So it becomes clear to the puritan, if you are counting caches that a puritan wouldn't allow its because you are a cheater motivated to get higher numbers and the rewards to go with it.

I suspect that high numbers cachers are not inflating their numbers in order to receive a reward. Its just a game and having a higher number than someone else may serve to motivate you to find more caches and has no reward beyond personal satisfaction. The high number cacher are probably not out there plotting new ways to claim an illegitimate find so they can pass someone one the list.

The number of found it logs (find count) does not equal the caches you have found. This is because Geocaching.com has given the resposibility to maintain the cache logs to the cache owner. Although Jeremy has posted that the intent is to have the owner delete cache logs that bogus, the actual result it that the smiley has become a reward that a cache owner can give or deny. Event owners in some areas have decided to allow you to attend their event additional times for each temporary cache you find. Other cache owners have awarded smiley for doing a bonus task after finding a cache. Still others will allow you to claim a find when you didn't find the cache because you were able to prove you were at the correct location. Some cache owners will delete a found log unless you complete some additional logging requirement. So it may be that some high number cachers, like some average cachers, choose to accept these bonus smilies as part of the game, while other cachers have decided that accepting these smilies would not be keeping with the way they see the game being played.

Just to be clear when I use the term puritan, I do not refer to the many cachers who don't accept the bonus smilies. I am one of them. A puritan is a someone who objects to those who do accept the smilies and calls them cheaters and liars for doing so.

6.7k · November 21, 2006

I know for a fact that I am not alone in logging events multiple times for pocket or temporary event caches.

Quite a lot of this has happened, is happening and will happen. Many of us find it perfectly legitimate.

I personally like both hiding and finding these types of caches.

When my Evil Cache that I take to events and hide was archived in the forum witch-hunt after GW4 many people let me know that they didn't think that was right, so I made it into a TB that I take to events and hide.

Finders seek it and sign a log inside it just like any cache, and can log it as a TB if they wish. You don't get a smilie for finding it unless the event owner allows multiple logging of the event (I have never had one tell me no!), but folks still hunt and enjoy it - In fact if I don't take it I am asked about it!

That these caches do not have a listing page is of no interest to me. A cacher created and hid them to be found, I found them - that's the game, right?

This topic is much discussed, and my style of caching is rarely defended online.

I suspect that it is rarely defended because of carp like this:

--This message was sent through http://www.geocaching.com --

Yeah...go on and read my proof...it's sad you have such a hardon for CCC that you cannot see facts for facts. Apparently this blind defense is just a symptom of a greater issue with you...you know...losing your job with Groundspeak over violating the very rules you're supposed to enforce? So how's those fake record runs going? LOL...pathetic.

User's Profile:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=69...bc-9fd88d9f31c3

Anyone who admits to caching in anything but the prescribed manner of some loudmouth is subject to such attacks, so no wonder they don't speak up! I don't blame them!

If I had bothered to respond to that email I would tell the sender that he not only owes CCCooper an apology, but now me as well!

At the moment CacheStats shows me to have 1952 logged caches, 1736 of which are unique. That means I have logged 216 pocket caches by logging events multiple times.

I had fun with all 216, thank the hiders, and am in no way ashamed to have them in my numbers!

Around 80 of those multiple-event-logs came from a single event held a couple of years ago, a fun and memorable happening intended to thumb our noses at Pocket Cache haters, that I thouroughly enjoyed and, as did the other attendees, had fun logging a record number of Pocket Caches for!

Of course, CacheStats does not show the hundreds of caches that I have found and did not log, but as of yet no one has called me a liar for under-reporting the numbers!

Anyone that caches with me knows that I do not log a lot of my finds. I sometimes go months without logging a cache, though I cache several times a week, almost always in the company of others!

No one I have ever cached with questions my numbers, calls me a cheat or a liar; that only happens in this forum.

Of course, in three years and at dozens of events and in caching 23 states with hundreds of cachers I have never used numbers to evaluate someone, nor to my knowledge do they judge me by such foolishness!

So, as I have said repeatedly, my numbers mean absolutely nothing to anyone except me, just like yours should mean nothing except to you.

And, anyone who caches in a different manner than you is not a cheat or a liar!

Ed

Edited November 21, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

38.2k · November 21, 2006

I suspect that high numbers cachers are not inflating their numbers in order to receive a reward. Its just a game and having a higher number than someone else may serve to motivate you to find more caches and has no reward beyond personal satisfaction.

I'm sure these people are padding their numbers because there is a reward beyond personal satisfaction. Perhaps they were the last kid picked for the ball team in school, and now they can introduce theirselves as "the best" in their county, state, country or world at something. Perhaps its the semi-celebrity status that you alluded to. Maybe a little of both, but if the motivation was simple personal satisfaction there would be no inducement to cheat.

The number of found it logs (find count) does not equal the caches you have found...

This is where you are totally off base. With many geocachers found it logs do equal the caches they've found. It does with me and with every person I can think of in my local geocaching community.

There is a segment of the community that uses "found it" logs for purposes other than documenting cache finds, but I venture to say that in most areas they are in the minority.

20.7k · November 21, 2006

I know for a fact that I am not alone in logging events multiple times for pocket or temporary event caches. ...

Why do you keep digging this hole? Do you honestly believe that you are going to change people's minds if you keep repeating the fact that you and others do this? Let it go.

6.7k · November 21, 2006

I'm sure these people are padding their numbers because there is a reward beyond personal satisfaction. Perhaps they were the last kid picked for the ball team in school, and now they can introduce theirselves as "the best" in their county, state, country or world at something. Perhaps its the semi-celebrity status that you alluded to. Maybe a little of both, but if the motivation was simple personal satisfaction there would be no inducement to cheat.

Brian, as Forum Moderator you should know better!

Your job is to keep control of the forum guidelines, not influence the discussion or use it as a bully pulpit.

You really shouldn't use your Moderator icon to express personal opinion.

If you want to cast accusations and insults please log in as a personal account so that your words do not carry the weight of a Moderator.

Ed

Who has logged the most finds?

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