Who's on top

[+Pat in Louisiana]

I see logs by cachers with 5, 6 & 7000 finds and more.

Where can I find a list of rankings?

Is there one?

[+Rich the Bushwhacker]

You can find who has the most finds here:

 

Geocachers with More than 200 Finds

[+Pat in Louisiana]

Thanks!

 

How does one find time to log 26,700 caches?

 

WOW

[+UncleJimbo]

Thanks!

 

How does one find time to log 26,700 caches?

 

WOW

By finding a lot of caches that are very quick and easy to find?

[+briansnat]

Thanks!

 

How does one find time to log 26,700 caches?

 

WOW

 

By being totally devoted to the sport, nearly to the point of obsession. Being retired or a stay at home mom certainly helps.

 

Some (not all) of the leaders also have a somewhat unique definition of a "find" and that doesn't always involve finding a geocache.

[+osubrownsfan]

Thanks!

 

How does one find time to log 26,700 caches?

 

WOW

By finding a lot of caches that are very quick and easy to find?

if i figured right, thats an average of 13 per day for over 5 years and 4 monthes ????? wow, now thats a serious addiction/achievement

[+DaMoose & Squirrel]

Thanks!

 

How does one find time to log 26,700 caches?

 

WOW

 

By being totally devoted to the sport, nearly to the point of obsession. Being retired or a stay at home mom certainly helps.

 

Some (not all) of the leaders also have a somewhat unique definition of a "find" and that doesn't always involve finding a geocache.

 

How does one not find a geocache and still log it as found? Thats being naughty!

[+UncleJimbo]

Thanks!

 

How does one find time to log 26,700 caches?

 

WOW

By finding a lot of caches that are very quick and easy to find?

if i figured right, thats an average of 13 per day for over 5 years and 4 monthes ????? wow, now thats a serious addiction/achievement

The top listings are "teams", whatever that means. So, perhaps divide the finds per day by the number of team members.

[+The red-haired witch]

Thanks!

 

How does one find time to log 26,700 caches?

 

WOW

 

Some teams use the "divide and conquer" approach... they cache separately and log on the same account. So, if the team has 10 members, they only had to find and log 2670 caches each...

[+TeamGumbo]

Although I'm new, I have seen many posts slagging off the high-number guys here and there, but I just want to say that TeamAlamo was a class act to me...I posted a note/question to one of their puzzle caches and they took the time to email me with a hint on where to park/access the cache.

 

[+mtn-man]

I think it is sad that people belittle the people that have lots of finds. Anyone who actually knows these people know that they are all very nice people. They are just people who really love the game and play hard and play often. Judging them without knowing them or their caching habits first hand it very sad.

 

If you notice, most of them avoid the forums. They are out geocaching.

 

I've personally met 15 of the top 25. They are all great people.

[+Snoogans]

I think it is sad that people belittle the people that have lots of finds. Anyone who actually knows these people know that they are all very nice people. They are just people who really love the game and play hard and play often. Judging them without knowing them or their caching habits first hand it very sad.

 

If you notice, most of them avoid the forums. They are out geocaching.

 

I've personally met 15 of the top 25. They are all great people.

 

What he said goes double for me. Most of the top 100 cachers are friends of mine or at least friendly acquaintances from my travels and event hopping from coast to coast.

 

In that time I've managed to find 550+ caches, yet I don't feel lesser of a person in the company of a cacher with 5k, 10k, 20k, or 26k caches under their belt. I certainly don't need to knock them down to make myself feel better.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Snoogans

[+The Leprechauns]

Some teams use the "divide and conquer" approach... they cache separately and log on the same account. So, if the team has 10 members, they only had to find and log 2670 caches each...

I ask you to name one of the Top 50 cachers that's a team of 10 members who divide and conquer as you've insinuated.

 

Nope. Didn't think you could. If you got to know them, however, you'd find "teams" like a mom and her daughter in Pennsylvania, a solo cacher in California, or a retired couple in North Carolina. They're fine people.

 

My account name is plural for a reason. My "team" is myself and my daughter -- two of us. She's with me for all my finds. We could have chosen "Team Leprechaun" as our screen name. If you cache with family members, you may as well put "Team" in front of your username if it's not there already. Then we can all throw poo at the "Coven of Red-haired Witches."

[+Snoogans]

You can find who has the most finds here:

 

Geocachers with More than 200 Finds

 

WOOOHOOO!!!! I'm tied for 11,304th place! YAY!

[+OzGuff]

You can find who has the most finds here:

 

Geocachers with More than 200 Finds

 

WOOOHOOO!!!! I'm tied for 11,304th place! YAY!

 

Only 57 more finds and you can break into the top 10,000! Pull up your socks. Pull out your finger. Go caching dude! []

 

Back on topic -- whatever!

 

Back off topic -- cute Sniglet! (Oops! Snooglet!)

Edited March 20, 2008 by OzGuff

[Mr.Yuck]

Some teams use the "divide and conquer" approach... they cache separately and log on the same account. So, if the team has 10 members, they only had to find and log 2670 caches each...

I ask you to name one of the Top 50 cachers that's a team of 10 members who divide and conquer as you've insinuated.

 

Nope. Didn't think you could. If you got to know them, however, you'd find "teams" like a mom and her daughter in Pennsylvania, a solo cacher in California, or a retired couple in North Carolina. They're fine people.

 

Yeah, I wonder how that "divide and conquer" rumor gets started. I do know a couple of husband and wife teams that will log caches if one goes on a business trip. But they're no threat on the Grand High Poohbah's leader board.

 

My account name is plural for a reason. My "team" is myself and my daughter -- two of us. She's with me for all my finds. We could have chosen "Team Leprechaun" as our screen name. If you cache with family members, you may as well put "Team" in front of your username if it's not there already. Then we can all throw poo at the "Coven of Red-haired Witches."

 

If you look at her forum title, I don't really think it bothers her, and she wasn't throwing poo.

[+sbell111]

If you look at her forum title, I don't really think it bothers her, and she wasn't throwing poo.

After the question was answered (in post 2), many of the posts were poo flingers, to some extent. Edited March 20, 2008 by sbell111

[+currykev]

I'm just totally jealous! ..I'm sat behind my desk at work as usual!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

You can find who has the most finds here:

 

Geocachers with More than 200 Finds

 

WOOOHOOO!!!! I'm tied for 11,304th place! YAY!

2524 puts me #982 in the world, #11 in Alabama... bow before me.

 

As to the OP, being retired and taking part in group caching events helps, but the real secret is... just do it!

Edited March 20, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

The top listings are "teams", whatever that means. So, perhaps divide the finds per day by the number of team members

 

These "teams" consist of one or maybe two people who always or nearly always cache together.

[+mtn-man]

If you look at her forum title, I don't really think it bothers her, and she wasn't throwing poo.

After teh question was answered (in post 2), many of the posts were poo flingers, to some extent.

Yeah, no kidding. I think the "they only had to find and log 2670 caches each" comment is rather comical. Of the people that have posted in this topic, only The Leprechauns and OzGuff have found more than that number of caches. I've been caching for over 7 years, have been a dedicated geocacher and I can't even say I've found that many. Over 20,000 is simply amazing.

 

I'm ahead of Snoogans though. He he.

Still behind TAR! I am a semi-slacker!

[+sbell111]

If you look at her forum title, I don't really think it bothers her, and she wasn't throwing poo.

After teh question was answered (in post 2), many of the posts were poo flingers, to some extent.

Yeah, no kidding. I think the "they only had to find and log 2670 caches each" comment is rather comical. Of the people that have posted in this topic, only The Leprechauns and OzGuff have found more than that number of caches. I've been caching for over 7 years, have been a dedicated geocacher and I can't even say I've found that many. Over 20,000 is simply amazing.

 

I'm ahead of Snoogans though. He he.

Still behind TAR! I am a semi-slacker!

I remember when I was ranked something like 70th, now I'm tied for #2347.

[CoyoteRed]

In case you're wondering, here's my take on the bit of animosity you might hear from folks when talking about extreme high numbers of finds. (Not so much that it's my opinion, but an opinion.)

 

A few years ago there was an extremely prolific cacher that far exceeded everyone else's activity in terms of caches logged. The problem was this person's notion of when to use the "Found It" log-type was different than the majority of those who frequent the forums. We, myself and my wife, Sissy, even had a cache that was hit by this cacher. Said cacher logged a find on this cache, but said in the log text the cache was missing. "That's odd," thought us, "If you didn't find the cache why log a find?" We checked on the cache, but it was still where it was supposed to be. Long story short, this cacher deleted the log after we asked them about it.

 

Unbeknownst to us, other folks had been questioning the activities of said celebrated cacher(s). Stuff like caches being left out instead of being put back where they were supposed to be, or even having someone go collect logbooks en masse and brought to this cacher so the logbooks could be signed all at once. These things I can't vouch for, only that which I know first hand. However, such activities do fit the other activities I know of intimately.

 

The atmosphere of the forums became somewhat polarized. One side questioned the celebrity of someone who "didn't play by the rules" and the other defended the accomplishment.

 

The problem comes, for me, when you meet such a person--especially when you find the person likable. The bad-mouthing, for me, stopped. I learned a lesson. It used to be that you either knew someone in real life or your knew someone over the internet. With geocaching, it's likely you'll do both. It's hard to publicly bad-mouth someone you know personally and like.

 

The bad practices aren't just by those with high numbers. Not all high numbers cachers have bad caching practices. Not everyone agrees on just what is "bad practices." Not everyone can agree with just what constitutes a "find." Some say everyone can play their own way. Some point out you can't play your own way and compare yourself with others. Makes sense to me.

 

The leaders in caches logged has changed. I have no experience with the new leaders. Don't know them. Don't care how many caches they've logged. I've learned a long time ago that the numbers are pretty much meaningless. The numbers you see here on gc.com only represent the number of found it and similar logs. It's not the number caches logged because you can log more than once on a single cache. Additionally, there is massive room for cheating where the cache is not even attempted yet logged online. Few audit logbooks. There are even folks here who will celebrate high numbers cachers and refuse to even question the validity of the very numbers they celebrate.

 

Another aspect of the "high numbers angst" is the differing reasons to geocache. For many, geocaching is a pastime for exploring our natural world, finding new places of interest, or spending quality time with friends and family. Going for maximum "yield" deviates from that notion. "Yield" becomes a measure of getting the maximum number of caches in a period of time regardless of the quality of the experience. When you are always focused on the next cache you don't have time to stop of enjoy the view, smell the roses, or contemplate the cache owner's intentions. I know. I've been there. I found pursuing the hobby in this manner very lacking. Sure, we could be high numbers cachers. We could have continued to find caches at the rate we did at one time and probably have many times the logged cache we show today. The numbers, though, became completely disconnected from the quality of our experiences. I can imagine a lot of folks think the same way I do.

 

One aspect of the high numbers geocaching I particularly don't care for is the disconnect between the reason I put out a cache and the reason a high numbers cacher might seek one of my caches. A high numbers will likely see one of my caches as only an excuse to increment his find count. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about incrementing his find count. In fact, if I could turn off the ability of our caches to increment someone's find count, I would. Those who only cache for the smilie would have no incentive to find my cache. This would leave only those who want the experience of finding the cache to seek it. Exactly the reason I placed it.

 

One thing one must recognize, though, a person or team with high numbers may have simply been caching for a very long time though at a reasonable rate. OTOH, a person or team with a lower find count may be caching at the very high rate. The things I've discussed above actually applies to those who cache at a very high rate and not necessarily those with high numbers, especially those numbers that have been built up over a longer period of time.

 

Hopefully, this gives you a bit of insight on the back and forth over very high numbers.

[CoyoteRed]

You can find who has the most finds here:

 

Geocachers with More than 200 Finds

Just to point out something here. You won't necessarily find everyone on that list. Names can be removed if you want to opt out. There is no Sissy-n-CR, for instance. We don't care to be compared to anyone else.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I don't see anyone name-calling here, in fact, I didn't even see anyone NAMED (OK, Team Alamo was...)! BUT, I do know a bit about some things...and I can form my own opinion w/o anyone telling me how good this person is or isn't!

 

Until finds are DEFINED, until the numbers are measured, this doesn't mean much, but any cacher who flaunts her/his finds as being true SHOULD at least try to make sure they were all on the "up & up"!! (and if you check my stats you'll see a few discrepencies...but ask me about them and you'll likely understand)

 

I'm sure there are many great people out there...hey, I'll bet most thought those high-ups with Enron etc were great people too... Being a "nice person" doesn't automatically make you a trustworthy one, and vice versa...peoples' reputations do follow them about!

 

When I started caching, I used to look up to those high number cachers...until I started hearing rumors and reading of little "incidents" in these forums. All that has since flown out the window and I've been shown that numbers are just that...numbers on a paper or screen! After seeing some of the problems first-hand...well, my outlook has certainly changed! To each their own, just don't try to brag to me if your numbers aren't true please....have some respect for yourself!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Amazing how fast this thread went from 'where do I find stats on cachers' to 'that's a big number, they must be cheats!'.

 

Since it has, though, I will add that I have never seen a high-numbers cacher claim every find was 'legitimate and pure' as defined by others.

 

In fact the one's I know cache for fun, the numbers are incidental... I know that I and I suspect most of them would not change our ways one bit if numbers cease to be published. Numbers are not why anyone I know caches.

 

Sure, I often choose a caching area where I can get a lot of caches, but that's fun for me, I choose that area for the fun of getting a lot of caches, not for running up numbers, if you can see the motivational difference.

 

Eliminate the numbers recording and I will still enjoy 60/day cache runs!

 

Pure? Probably not by your standards. A group of ~25 of us did a cache run last week, found 67 caches, most were drive-ups where I never left the car but could watch them find the cache and they signed a team name for all of us.

 

Works for me, and that's why judging and comparing people based on numbers is useless and misguided... the numbers are meaningless except in each cacher's unique experience.

[+sbell111]

... but any cacher who flaunts her/his finds as being true SHOULD at least try to make sure they were all on the "up & up"!! ...

I flaunt my numbers as true (even that Radio KAOS one).

[+Rockin Roddy]

Amazing how fast this thread went from 'where do I find stats on cachers' to 'that's a big number, they must be cheats!'.

 

Since it has, though, I will add that I have never seen a high-numbers cacher claim every find was 'legitimate and pure' as defined by others.

 

In fact the one's I know cache for fun, the numbers are incidental... I know that I and I suspect most of them would not change our ways one bit if numbers cease to be published. Numbers are not why anyone I know caches.

 

Sure, I often choose a caching area where I can get a lot of caches, but that's fun for me, I choose that area for the fun of getting a lot of caches, not for running up numbers, if you can see the motivational difference.

 

Eliminate the numbers recording and I will still enjoy 60/day cache runs!

 

Pure? Probably not by your standards. A group of ~25 of us did a cache run last week, found 67 caches, most were drive-ups where I never left the car but could watch them find the cache and they signed a team name for all of us.

 

Works for me, and that's why judging and comparing people based on numbers is useless and misguided... the numbers are meaningless except in each cacher's unique experience.

Hey TAR....I agree, play by the way it's fun for you. BUT, if you're going to count a find, shouldn't it at least be a find?? If the numbers are incidental, why do these people claim finds which are dupes, which aren't really finds (couldn't find it so I put a cache there and still claimed a find) etc... I mean, if the number didn't matter, why did they feel the need to count it as a find?

 

And that wasn't directed at you or your post about sitting in the car...

[+Rockin Roddy]

... but any cacher who flaunts her/his finds as being true SHOULD at least try to make sure they were all on the "up & up"!! ...

I flaunt my numbers as true (even that Radio KAOS one).

 

sbell sbell sbell...are you trying to sneak a fast one over on us?? Radio KAOS....hmmmmm....

[+sbell111]

... but any cacher who flaunts her/his finds as being true SHOULD at least try to make sure they were all on the "up & up"!! ...

I flaunt my numbers as true (even that Radio KAOS one).

 

sbell sbell sbell...are you trying to sneak a fast one over on us?? Radio KAOS....hmmmmm....

I think that I counted that online virtual one, also, but I can't find it.

[+mtn-man]

It was archived a couple of years ago. I was the fifth finder and was the first in America to log it. At the time, it was a new, out-of-the-box idea.

 

Radio KAOS

 

At first it was a virtual cache but was eventually changed rightfully so to a locationless cache.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I too wonder what the animosity is involving these folks. While I don't know Team Alamo personally, I've met him on a couple of occasions (he's been at every event I've attended) and he's always seemed very cool.

 

I can tell you that "Team Alamo" consists of he and his wife (and if I've heard correctly, she's not really into caching).

 

I remember going on a FTF hunt for a Team Alamo puzzle cache (which I DNF'ed). I got home and logged my DNF and got an email from Team Alamo who "rooted me on" and because of that I went back and searched again that afternoon (with no luck). I finally made the FTF a couple days later.

 

Last November I attended an event hosted by Team Alamo celebrating his 25,000th find. He prepared a great day of caching for us attendees in the open space where he found his very first geocache. We were all invited to come and find the cache which started his obsession, and he treated us to 5 brand new caches launched as part of the event (all of which were GC.com approved and are still out there!).

 

I appreciate his contributions to our local caching community and his enthusiasm for caching in general.

 

DCC

[+sbell111]

It was archived a couple of years ago. I was the fifth finder and was the first in America to log it. At the time, it was a new, out-of-the-box idea.

 

Radio KAOS

 

At first it was a virtual cache but was eventually changed rightfully so to a locationless cache.

I found that one (I logged it on 5/1/02). I couldn't find the one that you had to search for the cache virtually online. It was kinda video gamey.

[+brokenoaks]

I am rather new at all this but I do consider myself reasonably intelligent and I just don’t get this number game problem. My wife and I go geocaching to get out and have some time with each other away from the home place. We could care less about anyone’s numbers or for that matter how they got them. My time is too valuable to waste it on trying to figure out how someone I don’t know got to some given number of finds. I don’t do extreme caching either. At 60 years old I am not going to climb the highest mountain or dive to the depth of the oceans to retrieve a box of trinkets and I really doubt if I am going to find thousands of catches. From my perspective everyone that is involved in geocaching has their own personal reason and way of doing things, who am I to sit in judgment of anyone?

[+sbell111]

I am rather new at all this but I do consider myself reasonably intelligent and I just don’t get this number game problem. My wife and I go geocaching to get out and have some time with each other away from the home place. We could care less about anyone’s numbers or for that matter how they got them. My time is too valuable to waste it on trying to figure out how someone I don’t know got to some given number of finds. I don’t do extreme caching either. At 60 years old I am not going to climb the highest mountain or dive to the depth of the oceans to retrieve a box of trinkets and I really doubt if I am going to find thousands of catches. From my perspective everyone that is involved in geocaching has their own personal reason and way of doing things, who am I to sit in judgment of anyone?

Please post more often.

[+Machuco]

I too have had the opportunity to chat with Team Alamo on several occasions. He and his wife have always been very nice. I have even gotten a phone call or two when he is having trouble finding a cache that I have already found.

 

Although his caching addiction seems a bit abnormal, he seems fine!

[Mr.Yuck]

I am rather new at all this but I do consider myself reasonably intelligent and I just don’t get this number game problem. My wife and I go geocaching to get out and have some time with each other away from the home place. We could care less about anyone’s numbers or for that matter how they got them. My time is too valuable to waste it on trying to figure out how someone I don’t know got to some given number of finds. I don’t do extreme caching either. At 60 years old I am not going to climb the highest mountain or dive to the depth of the oceans to retrieve a box of trinkets and I really doubt if I am going to find thousands of catches. From my perspective everyone that is involved in geocaching has their own personal reason and way of doing things, who am I to sit in judgment of anyone?

Please post more often.

 

Yes, this is a great post. But do you have an opinion of it? Sounds like you don't even care about it enough to have an opinion about it, and that's great. Certainly people, for example people with thousands of posts in these forums discussing geocaching have opinions about it. Too many people confuse stating your opinion on a subject with "sitting in judgement" of someone. I don't get it, and never will

[+sbell111]

I am rather new at all this but I do consider myself reasonably intelligent and I just don’t get this number game problem. My wife and I go geocaching to get out and have some time with each other away from the home place. We could care less about anyone’s numbers or for that matter how they got them. My time is too valuable to waste it on trying to figure out how someone I don’t know got to some given number of finds. I don’t do extreme caching either. At 60 years old I am not going to climb the highest mountain or dive to the depth of the oceans to retrieve a box of trinkets and I really doubt if I am going to find thousands of catches. From my perspective everyone that is involved in geocaching has their own personal reason and way of doing things, who am I to sit in judgment of anyone?

Please post more often.

 

Yes, this is a great post. But do you have an opinion of it? Sounds like you don't even care about it enough to have an opinion about it, and that's great. Certainly people, for example people with thousands of posts in these forums discussing geocaching have opinions about it. Too many people confuse stating your opinion on a subject with "sitting in judgement" of someone. I don't get it, and never will

I agree with it completely. I assumed that that was clear from my response, my other posts in this thread, and my history of posts. Edited March 20, 2008 by sbell111

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Hey TAR....I agree, play by the way it's fun for you. BUT, if you're going to count a find, shouldn't it at least be a find?? If the numbers are incidental, why do these people claim finds which are dupes, which aren't really finds (couldn't find it so I put a cache there and still claimed a find) etc... I mean, if the number didn't matter, why did they feel the need to count it as a find?

 

And that wasn't directed at you or your post about sitting in the car...

I can only answer for me, but I think you have to at least be there when a cache is found and signed if you don't actually sign it yourself.

 

The overwhelming agreement on this in the geocaching community was made clear by the outcry after my 24-hour world record attempt at GW4 where my team split into two groups for 17 of the 312 caches that we found that day, and I think it was a lesson not only for me but for everyone who operates as a team. Don't log them if you weren't there is now accepted as the only way to do it and I believe that most if not all teams abide by that today (FWIW, I was team driver and did not log a single one of them!).

 

Armchair logging or claiming a find when a friend or team-mate found it without you is silly to me and I don't do it.

 

On multi-logging events to record finds of temp caches at the event I think everyone knows my position, I think it's a great idea! That's why I chose to put INATN in my profile, however, as it clearly shows the total number of logged finds but more importantly shows the number of UNIQUE finds, eliminating the multi-logging issue from the find count. The stats summary in my profile, for example, shows 2459 total finds but only 2242 unique finds, the difference clearly showing multi-logs.

 

As far as counting a find when you replace a cache I advise extreme caution... I do it when I can get the cache owner or a previous finder I trust on the phone to verify my belief that it is gone and that I indeed did find the right spot; in those rare circumstances I will replace the cache, sign the log and count it as a find.

 

I have a very cavalier attitude about logging finds anyway... I went for a long time, a year and a half or so, where I logged very few of my finds. I rarely cache alone and the vast majority of the folks I have cached with will attest that I logged less than we found, if any at all. I logged 37 on the 36-cache run I mentioned a few weeks ago, I found one the others chose to skip, but I haven't logged the 13 I have found since then, so for me it all balances out. My sig is probably in 4000 caches but I only claim those that I have logged online.

 

Again, I can only speak for me, but I have cached with perhaps a dozen cachers that have 6000 plus and they pretty much do things the way I do... I don't know where CCCooper stands in the ratings at this time, but I do know that I have cached with her many times in perhaps seven states and know that she didn't log all that we found. She's one who like me would not change her caching energizer-bunny approach if numbers were no longer published!

 

I regularly cache with all of the top 10 cachers in Alabama with find counts above mine and can tell you not one comes to this forum to discuss numbers (or anything else!) and does not have a signature on our local forum that shows their find count. If it wasn't posted by the system you would never know that they had high numbers, they certainly don't brag about it.

 

Other than in obvious jest I have never heard a geocacher say that their numbers made them anything but just a geocacher with time and passion.

 

Numbers are fun to play with, it's fun to get or give a milestone award, but numbers are not the game or the reason we play it.

Edited March 20, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler