How can both be right?

[+Totem Clan]

I’ve been reading and posting to the forums for some time now and noticed that the same topics are recycled and the same answers are given in response. I’ve thought about some of the answer and they have led me to some questions. I will address one of those questions in this thread.

 

Mind you, I am not defending or attacking any one argument, group or mindset here. I am just looking for answers and trying to reach a better understanding of the various, often addressed issues on this forum. I am not stating that I am for or against anything with this post. Many of you know how I feel on most topics and that’s enough for now. If anything I’m usually somewhere in the middle.

 

My question for now is this. Many times the issue of numbers is brought up here. Often one side will take the position that numbers don’t matter. Some will say you can’t tell anything based solely on numbers. It has even been stated that the numbers should be removed from the game.

I can understand this argument. In the context of the one thread where it might appear it is a reasonable logical point. Once again this post is not speaking for or against in one position. Now while this can be a valid point in one case, the same debaters will post in another thread that it is wrong to post more than one find per cache. Some will state that it is not proper to log a find unless you sign the log, even with the owner’s permission.

 

Maybe I’m missing something here, but if numbers don’t matter, then what difference does it make if someone logs more that one find per cache or logs a find on a missing cache with the owner’s permission? The two don’t seem to mesh but they are argued by the same folks at times.

 

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

[+StarBrand]

A few thoughts......

 

A false found log when it was really a DNF gives other cachers the impression that it was in place and findable on a certain date. This could cost time and money on a wasted search effort.

 

For the same reason a few cachers in a row that fail to log a DNF may cause the same problem.

 

Folks who do not log online may cause an owner to go out and check on a cache after a DNF or 2 when another has found it and it is ok but there is noway to know this.

[+CM-14]

I’ve been reading and posting to the forums for some time now and noticed that the same topics are recycled and the same answers are given in response. I’ve thought about some of the answer and they have led me to some questions. I will address one of those questions in this thread.

 

Mind you, I am not defending or attacking any one argument, group or mindset here. I am just looking for answers and trying to reach a better understanding of the various, often addressed issues on this forum. I am not stating that I am for or against anything with this post. Many of you know how I feel on most topics and that’s enough for now. If anything I’m usually somewhere in the middle.

 

My question for now is this. Many times the issue of numbers is brought up here. Often one side will take the position that numbers don’t matter. Some will say you can’t tell anything based solely on numbers. It has even been stated that the numbers should be removed from the game.

I can understand this argument. In the context of the one thread where it might appear it is a reasonable logical point. Once again this post is not speaking for or against in one position. Now while this can be a valid point in one case, the same debaters will post in another thread that it is wrong to post more than one find per cache. Some will state that it is not proper to log a find unless you sign the log, even with the owner’s permission.

 

Maybe I’m missing something here, but if numbers don’t matter, then what difference does it make if someone logs more that one find per cache or logs a find on a missing cache with the owner’s permission? The two don’t seem to mesh but they are argued by the same folks at times.

 

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Exactly, it doesn't matter. It seems everyone finds their little happy spot way of doing things and that is fine by me.

 

Edit: spelling (this in no way guarantees any other words are spelled correctly, offer void in GA).

Edited May 23, 2007 by cmelton14

[+briansnat]

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Because we do nothing in a vacuum. Nearly everything we do can affect someone else.

[+Too Tall John]

Maybe I’m missing something here, but if numbers don’t matter, then what difference does it make if someone logs more that one find per cache or logs a find on a missing cache with the owner’s permission? The two don’t seem to mesh but they are argued by the same folks at times.

 

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

This game/sport/whatever has a loose enough set of guidelines that it leaves a lot of room for a lot of people to play it in many different ways. Some look at numbers, others don't care about 'em.

 

The only time it really matters how you play the game is when your gameplay effects someone else's. People who do stuff to "pump up" their numbers are free to do so, as long as it doesn't effect others. If a cache owner thinks someone's log should be deleted, for example, because the logger didn't actually visit the cache, then the logger has effected the cache owner's gameplay. False logging of virtuals also leads to their archival, effecting many players. Basically, I'm of the mind of:

 

"If it'll bother someone else, don't do it." Within reason, of course.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+CSpenceFLY]

A few thoughts......

 

A false found log when it was really a DNF gives other cachers the impression that it was in place and findable on a certain date. This could cost time and money on a wasted search effort.

 

For the same reason a few cachers in a row that fail to log a DNF may cause the same problem.

 

Folks who do not log online may cause an owner to go out and check on a cache after a DNF or 2 when another has found it and it is ok but there is noway to know this.

 

All good points. I say if you're going to play with numbers just get one good cache and log it everyday.

Edited May 23, 2007 by CSpenceFLY

[+Totem Clan]

I must agree with the point that what we do effects others. Except in cases where a find is logged in deception, does it matter how a cacher logs?

 

As an example, I have seen folks post that numbers don't matter in one thread and then in the next thread flame another cacher for logging more than one attend at an event. How can that be? If numbers don't matter than what difference does it make if they log it thousand times?

[+Miragee]

I guess as long as GC.com posts the numbers next to a person's user name in their online logs and in their Stat bar, I would appreciate some level of consistency. Since the logging of a single Event 80 or 100 or more times is a Regional thing , and not done everywhere, that makes someone look more "experienced" than they really are if they travel out of their area.

 

Let's say someone who has logged 200 "caches" DNFs one of my caches. I guess I could check their Profile to see that 187 of those were logged on Events before I consider going and checking on my cache, but normally someone with a find count of 200 would make me think they other than a newbie cacher.

 

If someone thinks logging each stage of a Multi-cache as a "Found It" is okay , that skews their total caching "experience" compared to everyone else who doesn't do that. If someone logs revisits to caches they have previously found as another "Found It" , that also makes them look more "experienced" than someone who doesn't do that.

 

Now, if the numbers next to our user name were broken down the way the statistic sites do, so you could see that a person had 'x' number of GC#'s logged once, 'x' number of GC#'s logged twice, and 'x' number of GC#'s logged fifty times, you would know more about their total caching experience.

[vtmtnman]

I’ve been reading and posting to the forums for some time now and noticed that the same topics are recycled and the same answers are given in response. I’ve thought about some of the answer and they have led me to some questions. I will address one of those questions in this thread.

 

Mind you, I am not defending or attacking any one argument, group or mindset here. I am just looking for answers and trying to reach a better understanding of the various, often addressed issues on this forum. I am not stating that I am for or against anything with this post. Many of you know how I feel on most topics and that’s enough for now. If anything I’m usually somewhere in the middle.

 

My question for now is this. Many times the issue of numbers is brought up here. Often one side will take the position that numbers don’t matter. Some will say you can’t tell anything based solely on numbers. It has even been stated that the numbers should be removed from the game.

I can understand this argument. In the context of the one thread where it might appear it is a reasonable logical point. Once again this post is not speaking for or against in one position. Now while this can be a valid point in one case, the same debaters will post in another thread that it is wrong to post more than one find per cache. Some will state that it is not proper to log a find unless you sign the log, even with the owner’s permission.

 

Maybe I’m missing something here, but if numbers don’t matter, then what difference does it make if someone logs more that one find per cache or logs a find on a missing cache with the owner’s permission? The two don’t seem to mesh but they are argued by the same folks at times.

 

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Exactly, it doesn't matter. It seems everyone finds their little happy spot way of doing things and that is fine by me.

 

Edit: spelling (this in no way guarantees any other words are spelled correctly, offer void in GA).

[+Renegade Knight]

...Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Short and sweet. Numbers matter.

 

For some they hate numbers so much they would ban them all.

For some they love numbers so much, that that is their fun.

For some they could take or leave numbers but amazingly like milestones.

Some few have a mortal fear of any kind of numbers leaves them numberphobic.

Some don't care about their own numbers but use other numbers to know when to fix a cache.

 

The only ones I know who don't really care about it at all, don't log, don't have accounts, and only accompany me when I'm caching for the enjoyment of the outdoor activity and the company. Not because it's their hobby. Those folks are not in the forums even discussing numbers, or logs, or the weather.

[+Renegade Knight]

... If numbers don't matter than what difference does it make if they log it thousand times?

Their number of logs pushes the other important logs off the last 5 in my PQ. Bonehead logger hogs my limited space with their "Found it" prattle and I can't see that another cacher bumped into a rattlesnake nearby. Plus I like reading the other found it logs. It's part of my enjoyment.

 

Even boneheaded numbers matter in that they should not be there.

[+ShadowAce]

Sad to say, this conversation will always come back.

 

Which is better? Ford or Chevy?

 

People will do what they want to do. Yes it is a game. Yes each person can play as they wish.

 

When a cacher in Arizona started to log many fake logs a group of cachers got together and started taking pictures of log books to prove if someone came to the cache or not.

 

I no longer care about FTF for example, but many do. So logging fake FTF logs gets people upset.

When you hiked 14 miles with over a mile of elevation profile to find a cache that others claimed was here only to find out they live 2 states away and have never been to the cache, it seems to upset people as they now lose some bragging rights if 'just anyone' can log it without even going.

 

I get real frustrated when I do a cache that pushes me to the limit to see later a 'found log' reading "I had no desire to make that climb, it was too much for me. Thanks for the cache".

 

Should it matter? Well it does when I try to teach my kids that cheating in any game, sport or hobby is never going to make you a better person. Then we get to hear the 'But they did it, why can't I?' at events.. Thats always a fun one.

 

So is your topic about fake logs and number inflation through cheat? Or are you asking should it be bad to get 100+ caches in a day? I see these as unrelated. If someone wants to go bag 100+ lamp pole caches in one day, more power to them. I would lose my mind after a few and have to go for a hike to get real air.

 

If your asking about fake logs? Well, that just smacks of cheaters and I have no need for them in the family hobby we enjoy called geocaching. If they will lie about a cache find, what stops them from stealing coins and lieing about that? If they lie about a hike, will they not also lie about other things? Yep, lost respect is hard to gain back.

[+Totem Clan]

 

So is your topic about fake logs and number inflation through cheat? Or are you asking should it be bad to get 100+ caches in a day? I see these as unrelated. If someone wants to go bag 100+ lamp pole caches in one day, more power to them. I would lose my mind after a few and have to go for a hike to get real air.

 

If your asking about fake logs? Well, that just smacks of cheaters and I have no need for them in the family hobby we enjoy called geocaching. If they will lie about a cache find, what stops them from stealing coins and lieing about that? If they lie about a hike, will they not also lie about other things? Yep, lost respect is hard to gain back.

The topic is.....

 

How can the same person says that numbers don't matter but also say the multiple logs on one cache are wrong?

 

I take you feel numbers do matter and multiple logs are wrong.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The topic is.....

 

How can the same person says that numbers don't matter but also say the multiple logs on one cache are wrong?....

 

Answering that question.

 

If they really don't care about numbers then they don't matter.

However if they think a found it log is just that a found it log, then any fake log matters in that it's a lie. Claming an unerned find, is wrong. If they believe you can only find a cache once, then two find logs is also a lie. Simply because they didn't find it again.

 

Logging ethics are different from numbers. However logging leads to numbers.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Do the numbers count? Well, kind of.

 

I don't feel like I do this for the numbers, but I do like to compare stats to others in my area. And I do enjoy celebrating the milestones. We have lots of folks in our area with thousands of finds, including Team Alamo with over 20,000 finds! I suppose someday I'll reach the "thousand" mark, but I'm not in a hurry.

 

When someone decides to break the rules or "make them up as they go along" it pollutes the stats pool and ruins the fun of comparison.

 

I've followed at least one game/sport where in the rules they mention the "spirit of the game". You may not be breaking any rules, but if what you're doing isn't in the spirit of the game, you're still doing wrong.

 

DCC

[+cache_test_dummies]

As an example, I have seen folks post that numbers don't matter in one thread and then in the next thread flame another cacher for logging more than one attend at an event. How can that be? If numbers don't matter than what difference does it make if they log it thousand times?

I'd have to see the posts in context to know for sure, but I think that the expression "the numbers don't matter" in that sense is meant as a simple statement that find counts can't realistically be used as a point of comparison between geocachers, and therefore, 'artificially' increasing a find count serves no useful positive purpose.

 

Taken that way, the statement can easily coexist with a position that logging a cache a thousand times is wrong:

 

Written: the numbers don't matter

Because: artificial number inflation serves no useful purpose

 

Written: multiple "found it" logs on a cache, multi "attends" per event, etc, are wrong

Because: [fill in reason that these logs have a negative impact on geocaching]

[+eagletrek]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

[+TrailGators]

Logging ethics are different from numbers. However logging leads to numbers.

This is the key point.

[+TrailGators]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

Just double checked mine...Whew! I'm OK!

[+ShadowAce]

The topic is.....

 

How can the same person says that numbers don't matter but also say the multiple logs on one cache are wrong?

 

I take you feel numbers do matter and multiple logs are wrong.

 

My opinion then

 

As stated by others, context...

Numbers don't matter = You could have 2000 finds without leaving San Diego, does this make you a better cacher then someone with 10 finds that included trips to other countries? Numbers dont matter.

 

Numbers don't matter = You have 3,000 finds and your better then someone with only 8 finds including telling them why they are an idiot when they log a DNF? Numbers dont matter.

 

Numbers don't matter = You have 150 'finds' on the same event because you feel you earned them by playing the game at an event? I agree, numbers dont matter. If you need a number that badly, then go ahead and do your logs. If I own the cache, most likely your log will be deleted and I will be called names.

 

I have been to some caches over 20 times, yet I log 1 find + lots of notes.

 

I have 1 cache that I logged twice, because it was a 'goal' locationless where the goal changed. It changed, I logged it again. Why? Cause it was our family photo doing what was required and we had a great time with it. Some complain that it should not be legal to do so. The cache owner said do it, so I did. Numbers dont matter.

 

Numbers matter ONLY when it comes to playing local competition with my friends!

 

Then again, I am wrong more then right, so take it for what it is....

[+flask]

of course numbers matter. the thing is that we value different sets of numbers.

 

i'll tell you mine:

 

i like to see my find count and feel that it's a lot.

i don't care if yours is bigger than mine.

i like to know that all of my finds are legitimate.

i know that legitimacy is a concept that is not universally agreed-upon.

i don't like it when cachers use questionable logging practices. to me this represents a failure of integrity.

i prefer to think that people will behave with integrity.

i don't care so much if the questionable practices inflate someone's log count, since i don't care if theirs is bigger than mine.

as far as i'm concered, cachers with questionable practices simply do not exist.

 

so what this means relevant to the question is that while i'm bothered by people who doble log, or log pocket caches, or double their find counts if they cache on tuesdays, i really don't care what their numbers are relative to mine, yours, or your aunt martha.

 

i know of one cacher who logs caches sometimes on behalf of her dog at caches to which he has not been.

 

what's the point in caring?

[+sbell111]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

[+TrailGators]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

If they did matter what would do do with them?

[+Totem Clan]

Ok.

 

I can see the point that numbers don't matter because they have been "corrupted." That's a very good obsevaton.

 

What about the statements like......

 

"This is not a competition," or "No one's keeping score any way." Are those statements true?

 

And if they are true, does that meaning the multiple logs don't matter in the long run?

 

 

Please continue discussing this. I think it's been informative so far.

[+flask]

 

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

 

they sort of matter because other people put us into their number games. i would prefer to have my numbers visible only to me. they matter TO ME and i want to keep them allllllllll to myself. it's fine with me if you want to get your numbers on a billboard for all i care, but i really hate the number competition subculture and i don't want to be a part of it.

 

i was at an event once and was asked more than once what state i claim as my residence, because the guys i was talking to were frustrated that they couldn't find my numbers on the leaderboard.

 

...because i'm not on the leaderboard.

 

...because i don't want to play for numbers.

 

they could not comprehend it.

[+geomann1]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

 

Numbers in some ways add an enjoyable aspect to the sport. I enjoy looking for the single cache as part of an enjoyable day of hiking. However, I also had fun last week trying to bag as many caches as I could on my drive back from a business trip, even though most were easy guardrail types.

[+sbell111]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

If they did matter what would do do with them?

Huh?

[+canobeans]

Okay, aren’t numbers like elevator musak? If you want to listen it’s there – but you can totally block it out when you’ve got something more interesting to think about...

 

Seriously, I think numbers play a role besides being a controversy.

 

I wanted to find at least 100 before placing my first cache - seemed appropriate to see a small sample of what was out there before attempting to place one.

 

If a see a new listing by a newbie - I might move that cache up on my list (just in case it wasn’t placed very well) and I’ll try and log the find in case it gets muggled.

 

A DNF log from a cacher with 3 finds verse a cacher with 3000 is different. After I check out the cache, I’ll send the 3 finds an email of encouragement. I might chuckle before sending the 3000 the same email.

 

I’ll ignore a DNF from low number cachers when searching for a cache, a high number cacher’s DNF? I’ll go try and find that sucker with a touch more adrenaline.

 

I think benchmarks are just reasons to go after those “5/5 puzzle-multi-hybrid-letterbox-micro-located 2 states away” caches. To me, my 100th and 200th benchmarks just gave me a reason to do a little dance at the cache site.

 

"Play it the way you want to play it." Was some of the best advice given to me.

 

Canobeans

[+SeventhSon]

No matter what you do on this site, someone in these forums will find fault with it. And the more you rely on others, the more chance you have of being disappointed.

[+TrailGators]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

If they did matter what would do do with them?

Huh?

According to you, if you leave your numbers visible that means that you really don't care about the numbers. So because I leave my numbers visible that means that I don't care about the numbers. Now I was wondering what someone should do if they really do care about the numbers? I guess, according to what you said, those people should hide their numbers, because that would mean that they do care about their numbers....Right? <I'm joking because what you said doesn't make any sense to me>

[+TrailGators]

No matter what you do on this site, someone in these forums will find fault with it. And the more you rely on others, the more chance you have of being disappointed.

This is very true. We all have some things in common and we all have differences. It would be nice to focus on the common things more, and the differences less...

[+sbell111]

According to you, if you leave your numbers visible that means that you really don't care about the numbers. ...

That is not my position.

[+Totem Clan]

So if the numbers were remove from veiw, would that solve the "cheating problems?"

[+StarBrand]

Now that I have re-read the thread and thought about it for a while.

 

I guess I am in the camp of folks that don't see a double standard. They really are different things. The statistical analysis of my numbers only matters to me. The "ethics" of how to log have really very little to do with comparing stats. I only use find count as a weighting factor in reading/understanding a DNF log or other comment in logging. Multi logging or logging non GC caches on this site is a lie (IMHO) and is an ethical issue.

[+Mudfrog]

I personally don't believe there are very many people out there who actually mean it when they say that numbers don't matter.

 

There was a time when alot of caches were cleverly hidden or took you to a nice spot. While these caches are still around, they have certainly been overshadowed with way too many caches that aren't very good. Because of this, numbers have become more important in that they keep geocaching more interesting for many of us. Speaking for myself, stats are important and make geocaching more fun for me. I can also guarantee you that i wouldn't be running around wasting time and $3 a gallon gas to find lameo LPCs if i didn't get to keep up with my stats. I would bet that alot of people would drop out of the hobby if numbers were somehow taken away.

 

This is but one reason why i believe they are an important aspect to the game and since i think they are important, i feel that they should be recorded properly to keep them meaningful. As with most every game/hobby/sport these numbers help to provide structure to our activity. There are some out there that don't even log a cache and that is fine, but when you do log then you need to do it right. Yes, there are some "iffy" circumstances that may make logging one way or another unclear but for the most part, it's pretty much black and white. One find per cache, only the logging of GC.com approved caches on the site, etc,,,. It's not a life or death situation but why does it seem so hard for some out there to demonstrate integrity and honesty when recording their numbers?

[+briansnat]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

 

Are they really there to proclaim their caching prowness or are they just there for the fun of it? I have the charts and graphs on my profile page and with barely 550 finds in 6+ years at this sport I'm hardly proclaiming any sort of prowness.

[+Totem Clan]

Well the threads off to a good start. I don't see the flame throwers out yet but I'm sure they are within arm's reach. So I guess I'll state where I stand on this.

 

I think numbers do matter. At least my numbers matter to me. Not to the extent that it is competition, but in so much as it lets me see what I have done as a cacher.

 

As far as multiple logs. I don't like them. I won't log them. Because it's not "against the guidelines," I can't point my finger at anyone for doing it, but I wish it wasn't done. And yes I do think it's an ethics issue. BTW good post StarBrand.

 

Still how can someone say, "I cache for the experience so I don't care about the numbers," Then turn around and label another cacher a lair for logging multi finds? I can understand not liking the practice, but how can you take it to that extreme if you really don't care about any one's numbers but your own?

[+tozainamboku]

I was one who use to think that the puritans complained about certain logging practices because they were concerned about numbers. Finally some posters, particularly fizzymagic, set me straight. The puritans want there to be some consistency in what a find log means. It should at least mean that you found the cache. More extreme puritans may insist that you signed the log. Almost all puritans agree that you should only log found one time except for a few grandfathered moving caches and you shouldn't use multiple attended at events to keep track of caches which aren't "official" Geocaching.com caches. Many puritans feel it is the people who use questionable logging practices who are concerned about numbers. If you didn't think that having a bigger number wasn't important, what was your excuse for logging the DNF as a found when the owner said you could or for logging multiple times for temporary caches at events. So the puritans sometimes come across as attacking people for putting too much emphasis on numbers, when in fact these people are probably logging these caches because the find count only matters to them and they get some enjoyment in taking part in the event owners game of allowing temporary caches or a cache owners game of allowing finds on a missing cache. It's like a friendly game of golf where the foursome agrees to allow mulligans if someone has a bad shot.

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

The only numbers on my profile page are to let the puritans make adjustments for finds I took credit for that they might not have.

[+Totem Clan]

I personally don't believe there are very many people out there who actually mean it when they say that numbers don't matter.

 

 

Thank you. Excellent point.

 

If numbers didn't matter at all, we wouldn't care what others did or didn't do.

[+eagletrek]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

 

Are they really there to proclaim their caching prowness or are they just there for the fun of it? I have the charts and graphs on my profile page and with barely 550 finds in 6+ years at this sport I'm hardly proclaiming any sort of prowness.

 

I do believe that I used the word "some" instead of "all" in my statement. I guess you don't fit within the "some" category.

[+Team LaLonde]

This, too, has probably been mentioned before. Wouldn't it be nice if geocaching.com issued a number you could put inside the cache that was needed to log a find? Maybe something like a TB number? With TBs you need to physically handle the bug to be able to log it. This would cut down on all the numbers bickering. (Yes, you would still have a few 'cheaters' but not nearly as many.)

 

Just a thought - carry on.

[+sbell111]

This, too, has probably been mentioned before. Wouldn't it be nice if geocaching.com issued a number you could put inside the cache that was needed to log a find? Maybe something like a TB number? With TBs you need to physically handle the bug to be able to log it. This would cut down on all the numbers bickering. (Yes, you would still have a few 'cheaters' but not nearly as many.)

 

Just a thought - carry on.

That would work, right up to the point where someone misplaces the number prior to logging or forgot to write it down while they were on-site or when a team breaks up and one member has to log 300 old finds or when someone passes on the number to someone who didn't make the find.

[+welch]

...

My question for now is this. Many times the issue of numbers is brought up here. Often one side will take the position that numbers don’t matter. Some will say you can’t tell anything based solely on numbers. It has even been stated that the numbers should be removed from the game.

I can understand this argument. In the context of the one thread where it might appear it is a reasonable logical point. Once again this post is not speaking for or against in one position. Now while this can be a valid point in one case, the same debaters will post in another thread that it is wrong to post more than one find per cache. Some will state that it is not proper to log a find unless you sign the log, even with the owner’s permission.

 

Maybe I’m missing something here, but if numbers don’t matter, then what difference does it make if someone logs more that one find per cache or logs a find on a missing cache with the owner’s permission? The two don’t seem to mesh but they are argued by the same folks at times.

 

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

Do you think people would still have an opinion of the right/wrong way (or time, or reason) to log a cache, even if numbers were not calculated anywhere?

 

I would guess at least some still would. Just because theres no winner and the 'score' doesn't matter, is not the same as "Cheat however you want". If we play poker just for the fun of it, does this mean cheating would be ok

[+geomann1]

...

My question for now is this. Many times the issue of numbers is brought up here. Often one side will take the position that numbers don’t matter. Some will say you can’t tell anything based solely on numbers. It has even been stated that the numbers should be removed from the game.

I can understand this argument. In the context of the one thread where it might appear it is a reasonable logical point. Once again this post is not speaking for or against in one position. Now while this can be a valid point in one case, the same debaters will post in another thread that it is wrong to post more than one find per cache. Some will state that it is not proper to log a find unless you sign the log, even with the owner’s permission.

 

Maybe I’m missing something here, but if numbers don’t matter, then what difference does it make if someone logs more that one find per cache or logs a find on a missing cache with the owner’s permission? The two don’t seem to mesh but they are argued by the same folks at times.

 

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

Do you think people would still have an opinion of the right/wrong way (or time, or reason) to log a cache, even if numbers were not calculated anywhere?

 

I would guess at least some still would. Just because theres no winner and the 'score' doesn't matter, is not the same as "Cheat however you want". If we play poker just for the fun of it, does this mean cheating would be ok

 

Why this concern about cheating. My count is only of interest to me as a personal goal, and I could care less about anyone else's count. I am competing against my self, as I assume most others are doing. To me cheating at a personal competetion, if it is that, is more than just a little pathetic, but then again I could care less if someone else in cheating even on my caches. Let the loosers have some fun, its no skin off my back and it does not prevent anyone else from having legitimate fun findng the caches.

[+cache_test_dummies]

So if the numbers were remove from veiw, would that solve the "cheating problems?"

Another fair question is "If there were no Forums, would that solve the 'cheating problems?' "

[+Totem Clan]

So if the numbers were remove from veiw, would that solve the "cheating problems?"

Another fair question is "If there were no Forums, would that solve the 'cheating problems?' "

 

That is a good question.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

This, too, has probably been mentioned before. Wouldn't it be nice if geocaching.com issued a number you could put inside the cache that was needed to log a find? Maybe something like a TB number? With TBs you need to physically handle the bug to be able to log it. This would cut down on all the numbers bickering. (Yes, you would still have a few 'cheaters' but not nearly as many.)

 

Just a thought - carry on.

A goog number of my extreme 5/5 Psycho Urban Caches and Psycho Backcountry caches employ an andditional logging requirement, much as you have cited, and, in addition to signing the log book, those who wish to be allowed log a claim online must also send me the secret code number which is found on the cover of the logbook and on the first page of the logbook. This system works well, and many extreme 5/5 caches employ this screening method.

[+Totem Clan]

 

I would guess at least some still would. Just because theres no winner and the 'score' doesn't matter, is not the same as "Cheat however you want". If we play poker just for the fun of it, does this mean cheating would be ok

I've already stated how I feel about this, so let me set that aside and play Devil's advocate here for a second.

 

[attitude=Devil's advocate]

In poker you keep score even if it is for fun. There is a winner every time a hand is dealt even it's just for fun. If you "cheat" then you are doing so to get an advantage over the other players.

 

In caching, if there is no score, and there is no winner. Who are cheat to get an advantage over? Yourself? It's not like cheating at poker. It's like cheating at solitaire.

[/attitude]

[+TreeSqueezers]

I don't have a whole lot of finds, but I look at it this way.

 

Geocaching is kind of like Calvinball - the only consistant thing is that the rules change every time its played. (For Geocaching I interpret that to mean, everyone has their own set of rules). Sure there are guidelines for hides, but those are meant for safety and keeping things from getting out of control.

 

I'm perfectly OK with that. I don't look at it as a competition, and definitely not a sport. To me, it's an activity. I'm glad others do it too because that means there is more of it for me to do.

 

I added stats to my profile for my first find, my first out of state find, that's the kind of stuff that is important to me. Not that I don't enjoy seeing the other numbers too, They kind of give me an idea of how much time I've spent outdoors.

 

I can understand how some people would want to log events, or games. Maybe it would help if there can be a way to differentiate between standard caching activities and event and game caching activities in the logs. That could keep both sets happy, the ones that don't want to see padded logs could ignore the event logs but the numbers would be there for the ones who care.

 

I used to think that no one cared if I didn't log DNFs but since reading and participating in the forums, I can see that DNFs do serve a useful purpose so I intend to log them when I believe I have made a serious effort to find the cache.

[+Miragee]

So if the numbers were remove from veiw, would that solve the "cheating problems?"

Another fair question is "If there were no Forums, would that solve the 'cheating problems?' "

No. But, it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone who logged a false find on a difficult cache met others at an Event when they all started comparing notes about their approach to the cache, and how they finally got it, and how many bee stings they got that day, and who sprained their ankle, and who had to call AAA because they lost their keys when they fell down the embankment into the creek . . . and he knew he had never left his house on the day of his "Found It" log . . .