Jump to content

Random or not-so random thoughts about numbers.


Recommended Posts

After listening to some cachers at a local event talking about the number of finds of many of the locals, myself included, and the numbers of some of the more well know cachers, I started thinking about numbers in general. Here's some of the conclusions I came to. What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

------------------------------------------------

Big numbers don’t make a good cacher and low numbers don’t make a bad cacher.

 

Most of you are from places where caches are thick, and yes I’ll concede the Micro Spew™ point here. For you numbers can be big. However for some cachers there are no big numbers of caches. When I moved to ND a just over two years ago, there were 37 caches within 50 miles of my house. Of them 7 were mine.

It’s been great to see more caches placed up here so I could hunt them. Notice I said ‘hunt’ them, not find them. I’m one of those weirdos that like the hunt as much or more than the find. Any cache for me to hunt is a good cache. I, like any decent cacher, would prefer high quality caches. I will be first to stand and fight for quality over quantity, however, here, for now at least, any cache almost seems a God-send.

 

When you make the argument that big numbers means you’re a good cacher, I have to say, NO. Even if all the cachers out there today started caching on the same day, they all have the physical ability, and the same caching enthusiasm, they would not have the same numbers. Your arguments are based, and understandably so, on your caching habitat.

Some habitats are very diverse. In that environment even specialist that takes only a certain types of caches can thrive. In that same environment even a sloth could come up with big numbers.

Then you have caching habitats where one has to be a generalist, and a darn good one at that, just to get by.

 

Now let’s factor in the mobility differences. Once again all the cachers started caching on the same day, with the same physical ability, and the same desire to cache. If a cacher in a cache light area can’t take off and travel miles and miles to find that one cache, they won’t have the numbers. While others, even if from a cache light area, travel a lot, due to business or what-have-you, that cacher, even though his home habitat maybe low, has more opportunities to find the caches.

 

Now let’s bring this back to the real world. Just because you started caching before of after someone has no direct bearing on your ability or knowledge. I know a lot of old idiots. Your numbers may have more to do with your environment than your ability. Not only that, your time as a cacher and your cache count is in no way a gauge to your enthusiasm for, or value to the sport. You could be a burned out cynical old husk doing more harm than good.

 

So numbers are not always what they seem. I would rather be a noob that loves the sport and is dam good at it, than a grumpy grizzled old veteran that does more griping than caching and couldn’t find a cache if it was glued to his back side.

 

Too many of us obsess over numbers, and because GC tracks numbers as a service to it members, we fixate on GC when talking about numbers. GC is not there to be the governing body of the PCWA*. It is there as an aid to those of us in the world that love to cache. I completely understand your idea when say that it’s a journal, because in many ways it is. Yet it is the means by which we engage in our hobby so it is also something more than just a journal. I think to see it as either one ONLY is to miss the broad view. The one thing I don’t think GC is or ever should be is a scoreboard for the reasons stated above.

 

*Professional Cachers of the World Association

 

 

(Note: This has not been an endorsement for or against big numbers, but merely the cobwebs shaken lose for an old soldier's cerebellum.)

Link to comment

I don't get discouraged or by the same token impressed by big numbers that cachers have. It usually boils down to them having a larger cache density, more resources to travel and longer time under their belt.

 

I only have 351 finds and 14 hides. In the scheme of things, it's not so much, but much like the OP, I live in a relatively low cache density area. There are people who live a mere 90 miles away from me who have numbers in the thousands. The cache density in that area (St. Louis) is huge.

 

That is one reason why numbers do not impress me. A person could cache the same amount of time as I and get three times as many because they have the access to them.

 

I would be more likely to congratulate a person living in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota hitting for 1000 caches than someone in St. Louis simply because they have to work harder for it.

 

In my own case, I find what I can. If my budget allows for a longer drive to find some, I do, but more often than not I wait for the random cache to be published in my area. I am very passionate about caching but I simply do not have the resources to travel far for the most part so my numbers stagnate.

 

I don't mind, either.

Link to comment

After listening to some cachers at a local event talking about the number of finds of many of the locals, myself included, and the numbers of some of the more well know cachers, I started thinking about numbers in general. Here's some of the conclusions I came to. What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

------------------------------------------------

Big numbers don’t make a good cacher and low numbers don’t make a bad cacher.

 

Most of you are from places where caches are thick, and yes I’ll concede the Micro Spew™ point here. For you numbers can be big. However for some cachers there are no big numbers of caches. When I moved to ND a just over two years ago, there were 37 caches within 50 miles of my house. Of them 7 were mine.

It’s been great to see more caches placed up here so I could hunt them. Notice I said ‘hunt’ them, not find them. I’m one of those weirdos that like the hunt as much or more than the find. Any cache for me to hunt is a good cache. I, like any decent cacher, would prefer high quality caches. I will be first to stand and fight for quality over quantity, however, here, for now at least, any cache almost seems a God-send.

 

When you make the argument that big numbers means you’re a good cacher, I have to say, NO. Even if all the cachers out there today started caching on the same day, they all have the physical ability, and the same caching enthusiasm, they would not have the same numbers. Your arguments are based, and understandably so, on your caching habitat.

Some habitats are very diverse. In that environment even specialist that takes only a certain types of caches can thrive. In that same environment even a sloth could come up with big numbers.

Then you have caching habitats where one has to be a generalist, and a darn good one at that, just to get by.

 

Now let’s factor in the mobility differences. Once again all the cachers started caching on the same day, with the same physical ability, and the same desire to cache. If a cacher in a cache light area can’t take off and travel miles and miles to find that one cache, they won’t have the numbers. While others, even if from a cache light area, travel a lot, due to business or what-have-you, that cacher, even though his home habitat maybe low, has more opportunities to find the caches.

 

Now let’s bring this back to the real world. Just because you started caching before of after someone has no direct bearing on your ability or knowledge. I know a lot of old idiots. Your numbers may have more to do with your environment than your ability. Not only that, your time as a cacher and your cache count is in no way a gauge to your enthusiasm for, or value to the sport. You could be a burned out cynical old husk doing more harm than good.

 

So numbers are not always what they seem. I would rather be a noob that loves the sport and is dam good at it, than a grumpy grizzled old veteran that does more griping than caching and couldn’t find a cache if it was glued to his back side.

 

Too many of us obsess over numbers, and because GC tracks numbers as a service to it members, we fixate on GC when talking about numbers. GC is not there to be the governing body of the PCWA*. It is there as an aid to those of us in the world that love to cache. I completely understand your idea when say that it’s a journal, because in many ways it is. Yet it is the means by which we engage in our hobby so it is also something more than just a journal. I think to see it as either one ONLY is to miss the broad view. The one thing I don’t think GC is or ever should be is a scoreboard for the reasons stated above.

 

*Professional Cachers of the World Association

 

 

(Note: This has not been an endorsement for or against big numbers, but merely the cobwebs shaken lose for an old soldier's cerebellum.)

 

I tend to agree, high numbers does not per automatique constitute a 'good' cacher (whatever THAT is...). I have found caches where cachers with thousands of finds have DNFed. Does that make me a better cacher? Ehh... no... Does that make the 'experienced cacher a worse cacher than me? Ehh.... nooo..... It makes him a cacher with more finds than me and quite possible me a cacher with better luck.

 

Numbers is just that; numbers. When you start caching for the numbers solely or to make sure you have more caches than ‘that guy down the road’ it’s time to find another hobby before you hurt yourself.

 

All though in my humble opinion I'm probably one of the best cachers around. For sure. :o

Link to comment

After listening to some cachers at a local event talking about the number of finds of many of the locals, myself included, and the numbers of some of the more well know cachers, I started thinking about numbers in general. Here's some of the conclusions I came to. What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

------------------------------------------------

Big numbers don’t make a good cacher and low numbers don’t make a bad cacher.

 

Most of you are from places where caches are thick, and yes I’ll concede the Micro Spew™ point here. For you numbers can be big. However for some cachers there are no big numbers of caches. When I moved to ND a just over two years ago, there were 37 caches within 50 miles of my house. Of them 7 were mine.

It’s been great to see more caches placed up here so I could hunt them. Notice I said ‘hunt’ them, not find them. I’m one of those weirdos that like the hunt as much or more than the find. Any cache for me to hunt is a good cache. I, like any decent cacher, would prefer high quality caches. I will be first to stand and fight for quality over quantity, however, here, for now at least, any cache almost seems a God-send.

 

When you make the argument that big numbers means you’re a good cacher, I have to say, NO. Even if all the cachers out there today started caching on the same day, they all have the physical ability, and the same caching enthusiasm, they would not have the same numbers. Your arguments are based, and understandably so, on your caching habitat.

Some habitats are very diverse. In that environment even specialist that takes only a certain types of caches can thrive. In that same environment even a sloth could come up with big numbers.

Then you have caching habitats where one has to be a generalist, and a darn good one at that, just to get by.

 

Now let’s factor in the mobility differences. Once again all the cachers started caching on the same day, with the same physical ability, and the same desire to cache. If a cacher in a cache light area can’t take off and travel miles and miles to find that one cache, they won’t have the numbers. While others, even if from a cache light area, travel a lot, due to business or what-have-you, that cacher, even though his home habitat maybe low, has more opportunities to find the caches.

 

Now let’s bring this back to the real world. Just because you started caching before of after someone has no direct bearing on your ability or knowledge. I know a lot of old idiots. Your numbers may have more to do with your environment than your ability. Not only that, your time as a cacher and your cache count is in no way a gauge to your enthusiasm for, or value to the sport. You could be a burned out cynical old husk doing more harm than good.

 

So numbers are not always what they seem. I would rather be a noob that loves the sport and is dam good at it, than a grumpy grizzled old veteran that does more griping than caching and couldn’t find a cache if it was glued to his back side.

 

Too many of us obsess over numbers, and because GC tracks numbers as a service to it members, we fixate on GC when talking about numbers. GC is not there to be the governing body of the PCWA*. It is there as an aid to those of us in the world that love to cache. I completely understand your idea when say that it’s a journal, because in many ways it is. Yet it is the means by which we engage in our hobby so it is also something more than just a journal. I think to see it as either one ONLY is to miss the broad view. The one thing I don’t think GC is or ever should be is a scoreboard for the reasons stated above.

 

*Professional Cachers of the World Association

 

 

(Note: This has not been an endorsement for or against big numbers, but merely the cobwebs shaken lose for an old soldier's cerebellum.)

 

Very perceptive. When I see someone who started in the first year or two of caching, with thousands of finds to their name, I understand that they went through some significant effort to reach those numbers. Now, this is not to minimize the effort that some of the more recent cachers went through to get similar numbers, but the efforts involved are often quite different.

 

The "old-timers" had to drive and/or hike many miles for their numbers. The newer cachers have to carefully plan their day trips to minimize the time between finds. I've done some of each "style", and I have to say that there are rewards in both styles for me. But they are very definately different styles of caching.

 

We have one notable local cacher that is about to reach his 3000th find in well under a year. I've cached with him many times and I know that he doesn't neccessarily select only easy caches in either terrain or difficulty raitings. He makes his numbers by driving to the high density areas, careful trip planning, and existing on nothing but Crystal Lite and Ritz crackers for an entire weekend (or more). I have several flaws... I enjoy taking my time to enjoy beauty, I like good food, and I enjoy sleeping until the sun rises.

 

All that said, though... I will admit to one more "flaw" that will prove that I'm no better than anyone else... I too enjoy seeing my number of finds increase, and I do secretly compare them with other cachers. But I'd never admit that publically! :o

Link to comment

Those are some excellent points. Very well said.

 

I've always said, "Don't just count your finds, make your finds count." It's all about the experience. Anyone can find a lamp post. What matters to me is the friends I've found, the places I've been, the experiences I've shared with people I have met and people I have yet to meet.

 

God help me if the last thought on my death bed is, "Man, I sure found a lot of caches!" But if I'm thinking about the moments I shared with my friends and family, then that will be enough.

 

On the other hand, if my last thought is, "I thought that guard rail looked loose!!! IIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"...well...that'll suck.

Link to comment

take a look at My Cache Stats as of 6/6/08

Cache Finds:

Total Found: some. probably not more than you.

Find Rate: whenever i get a chance. with an eight-year-old, two jobs, and a college class, it's not as often as I'd like.

Avg. in 1 day: a couple. it depends on when my kid get pooped out.

 

Milestones

#1: Grayhook's Beltrami Park, I think

#100: Posen's Fishing Hole

#200: dunno. I really don't keep track.

#300: not yet done

 

Size

Micro: way too many

Small: enough

Regular: not enough for my son

Large: not many out there

Not chosen: why can't the owner just pick a darn size?

Other: what da heck??

Webcam: one. (happy? it's an actual stat!)

Virtual: who has time to sightsee??

 

Cache Type

Traditional Cache: yeah, baby!!

Multi-cache: too bad each stage doesn't count as a smiley

Event Cache: bring on the caffeine!!

Mystery: is the answer 42?

Cache In Trash Out Event: i'm always doing that

Earthcache: aren't they all??

 

Difficulty

1: easy

1.5: a little harder than easy

2: slightly less easy

2.5: a little harder than less easy

3.0: slightly difficult

3.5: a little harder than slightly difficult

4.0: hard

4.5: a little harder than hard

5.0: OMG!!!

 

Terrain

see above: see above

 

Locations

Minnesota: a bunch

Iowa: like two

 

So, to answer your question, it's not about the numbers for some of us!

Edited by meralgia
Link to comment

take a look at My Cache Stats as of 6/6/08

Cache Finds:

Total Found: some. probably not more than you.

Find Rate: whenever i get a chance. with an eight-year-old, two jobs, and a college class, it's not as often as I'd like.

Avg. in 1 day: a couple. it depends on when my kid get pooped out.

 

Milestones

#1: Grayhook's Beltrami Park, I think

#100: Posen's Fishing Hole

#200: dunno. I really don't keep track.

#300: not yet done

 

Size

Micro: way too many

Small: enough

Regular: not enough for my son

Large: not many out there

Not chosen: why can't the owner just pick a darn size?

Other: what da heck??

Webcam: one. (happy? it's an actual stat!)

Virtual: who has time to sightsee??

 

Cache Type

Traditional Cache: yeah, baby!!

Multi-cache: too bad each stage doesn't count as a smiley

Event Cache: bring on the caffeine!!

Mystery: is the answer 42?

Cache In Trash Out Event: i'm always doing that

Earthcache: aren't they all??

Difficulty

1: easy

1.5: a little harder than easy

2: slightly less easy

2.5: a little harder than less easy

3.0: slightly difficult

3.5: a little harder than slightly difficult

4.0: hard

4.5: a little harder than hard

5.0: OMG!!!

 

Terrain

see above: see above

 

Locations

Minnesota: a bunch

Iowa: like two

 

So, to answer your question, it's not about the numbers for some of us!

 

Awesome answer!

 

And I've yet to do any non-Earth caches. But I did get a level 5 difficulty today! I am proud of that one!!!

Link to comment

i used to be in love with my numbers. just mine; not yours, and not yours in relation to mine. and i loved crashco's numbers because he's my friend and i love him and he doesn't care if his numbers are bigger or smaller than yours or mine.

 

while he was finding his 500th, i was stomping out letters in the snow nearby: CRASHCO 500 WOO HOO.

 

we went out to FF every new cache and were successful most of the time. ok, almost ALL of the time. then people started making bookmark lists of their FTFs and putting FTFs on cache pages. i couldn't stand it anymore. i quit looking for the FTFs.

 

a thing maybe you need to know about me is that i'm intensely competitive. but i wasn't geocaching for numbers, and i didn't want to be. for a while i was the cacher with the most finds in my state. i hated it. people kept wanting to beat me. and you know how people are: they make (what they think to be) good-natured jibes. they were comparing themselves to my score on the pobah list. i got my name taken off of it. people kept competing with me anyway, whether i wanted them to or not.

 

for a while i quit caching at all.

 

my style of geocaching is to go all-out, as many caches as i can do in a day. but maybe i get sidetracked and spend an hour taking pictures of a pretty snail, or playing a game with rocks. what i first loved about geocaching was the invisible network on the land, standing in a lonesome place with the same logbook other people have signed.

 

more than anything else i loved telling the story. that's what it's about. every time i read a TFTC and that's it, i mourn a little for a day when people at least wrote out a few words, even boring ones.

 

a couple of weeks ago i met a cacher at a cache in the adirondacks. my heart just about broke when the first thing he wanted to know was my find count.

 

i don't want to be known for finding more caches than anybody. i want to be known for telling the story in a way that's meaningful to people. i want to reach into their chests and grab that little place where they keep their hearts and give it a little shake. i want to take them on a ride. i want to make them laugh and cry and be surprised.

 

when you go caching, you are handing the choice of your destination over to the hider. it is a leap of faith. you end up going wherever it is you're going and if you're lucky you get to see something interesting or funny or beautiful and i think the rush to get numbers has really eaten into that.

 

people just starting out in this newer, more "modern" climate never had the chance to see what it was like before we had so many guardrail caches to be picked up like just so much fast food, barely worth noticing and even less to tell about.

 

and then in a blur of numbers, the good caches get lost, too, because they're just a data point in your giant "logic-weave" statistic orgy. not me, thanks.

Link to comment

Thanks for sharing that flask. :o

 

I know my numbers because they're mine. I know the numbers, or roughly know anyway, of two of mine close friends because they just both hit a big milestone. I know the approximate number of some of the locals that are in my caching group just because we always seem to be doing the same caches, or they're finding my caches so I see their numbers often in the logs.

Beyond that I really don't know any numbers and don't really care to. I would like to say I've gone beyond the point of caring about numbers but that's not quite true. I haven't gone beyond caring, I've gone back to not caring. I've returned to that time when I first started caching, and caches only for the thrill of the next cache.

Link to comment

We don't worry about the numbers anymore, it was never a driving factor anyway, just a cool side fact to go along with the geostories. We started back in 2/2001, the closest cache was 10.2 miles from home, as of today there are 666 closer caches than San Juan Hill. We once drove 500 miles to get two caches ( you can tell gas was not $4.50 a gallon back then) We enjoy the experience of the cache, the hike, the hide and the memorable things that we did. I can still recall with vivid detail the first couple of hundred caches we found because back then most all of the caches where in interesting places, most that we did not know about before the cache. That is to me the biggest letdown of geocaching today. The cache density now days is partly a direct effect of the desire for large numbers. It is kind of hard to find a hundred caches in a day if your hike several miles to get to it. The cool thing about Geocaching is that you can get out of it what you want, for us, we will continue to take the road less traveled, and the Ventura Kids can have their light pole micros and their seven minute rule.

Link to comment

Numbers? :o

 

There are big ones and little ones. :D

 

Sometimes they just don't add up. :D

 

They just 'are' in the end. :D

 

No real meaning except for what one will make of them. :D

 

We shouldn't waste too much time on them. B)

 

We should talk about more important things... :D

 

Capitalization for instance... :D

 

i don't know about you, but between an innate lack of left/right coordination and an old injury, it's difficult for me to work the shift key along with the letters on the keyboard, so with me you'll have to be content with proper grammar and punctuation and leave the capitals be.

 

you may be pleased to know that when writing by hand i use only capitals for mostly the same reasons, so there's an odd sort of balance.

Link to comment
Big numbers don’t make a good cacher and low numbers don’t make a bad cacher.

 

Great post.

 

 

Time and the cost of fuel have affected many cachers.

 

It seems a good portion of cache hunters prefer finding as many caches as possible, in the shortest amount of time. This type of caching has fueled "micro spew" which I dislike.

 

Those of us who like to place nice caches, in scenic locations that require additional time and effort to find, get discouraged because our caches rarely get more than one or two finds per year.

 

Here are two great examples of caches that used to require a good hike for a single cache, but misguided cachers decided to make the hike a power trail rather than one great hike for a single cache. Check out the google map.

 

Gods eye view

and

Slip Slidin' Away

 

 

I've learned to master the art of PQs, studying maps, and reading past logs to choose which caches I like to hunt.

 

I reward cachers that hide super nice caches, by posting long "found it" logs, uploading lots of pictures, and bookmarking the best caches. This lets other cachers know why said caches are worth hunting.

 

If it wasn't for a tight budget, lack of time, and a small familiy, my total average terrain rating would be double what it is today. I'd spend far more time hiking for my favorite caches.

 

I tend to spend more time planning, researching and hiding nice caches than I do looking for carpy caches.

 

Feel free to view my profile to check my "stats"

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

Wow, this is some serious insight. As a newbie cacher, I can't imagine what it was like before there were 100's of caches within 50 miles of me, and I would think it would have been easy to get discouraged/bored with going months between finding caches. I bow to those who've been able to keep the caching spirit alive during the lean years.

 

I'm just happy to be out caching most of the time. If it's a multi that takes several hours, or a quick park n grab that gives me something to look forward to whilst running errands, I just want to go log it! I prefer the bigger caches with a bit of a hike, but that isn't always possible.

 

When I'm caching, I get that pulse quickening excitement when I'm close to ground zero, and the excitement of discovering the cache, so much fun! Then I'm happy to sign the log, and if there's cool swag, even better! A good story, a pretty view, a park I never knew existed, some local history...all welcomed and enjoyed.

 

I also love caching with my friends. We've had several girls' night out cache runs, and even if it's micros, it's usually laughing and funny stories, better than sitting around drinking coffee in my book.

 

So does the excitement lessen with time, or do y'all still get that rush?

 

And if one of us wet behind the ears cachers asks you how many you've found, it doesn't necessarily mean we are competing or into the numbers. Sometimes it's just conversation. Don't write us all off as drooling numbers hounds. I'm just interested. Thanks for letting me play.

Edited by TMDMom
Link to comment

Big numbers do make good cachers ! :D

 

I know a lot of cachers with tiny little numbers. :D

Some are so ashamed of them, they stopped logging finds. :o

 

Those extremists out there create "logical" arguements to try and make sense of this strange practice.

 

The website was designed to help you sort the caches you've found from those you would like to find...nothing more, nothing less. So log those finds, and stop being so ashamed of your tiny little find counts. :D

Link to comment
Big numbers don’t make a good cacher and low numbers don’t make a bad cacher.

 

Great post.

 

 

Time and the cost of fuel have affected many cachers.

 

It seems a good portion of cache hunters prefer finding as many caches as possible, in the shortest amount of time. This type of caching has fueled "micro spew" which I dislike.

 

Those of us who like to place nice caches, in scenic locations that require additional time and effort to find, get discouraged because our caches rarely get more than one or two finds per year.

 

Here are two great examples of caches that used to require a good hike for a single cache, but misguided cachers decided to make the hike a power trail rather than one great hike for a single cache. Check out the google map.

 

Gods eye view

and

Slip Slidin' Away

 

 

You crack me up !!! Hey.... I just wanted to correct one statement you made.

In NO manner is Gods Eye View now a powertrail. Please do not attempt this MOUNTAIN without the proper preparation...ie... water, good shoes, and plenty of time. It is a toughy. Even Toz had to skip many of the caches along the top of the ridge (bushwacky area) on his recent trip up there.

Link to comment

here's a fun fact: want to know who it was that unseated me from my long-standing position of #1?

 

my dad.

 

when i told him about caching, he looked at me like i was mentally defective. i have no idea what moved him to try it out. but he and my stepmother love it so much they spend most of their time at it.

 

and you know what's funny? they don't give two hoots about their find count either, which i think bothers some people. my dad'll be the first one to tell you his find count is only as big as it is because he spends half his year in florida.

 

he doesn't write logs the way i do, but i know for him it's all about the story, too. my dad, bless his heart, has always loved to be the life of the party. you know, some jokes, a little piano bar, he's good. and he makes a lot of friends caching and they'll talk and talk about it.

 

way to go, old guy.

Link to comment

Well this is one of the most interesting threads I've read on here. Lots of helpful information, brought out lots of old-timers (in caching years), and stayed on topic without degrading into typical message board griping and sniping.

 

I haven't met many cachers yet...but only once have numbers come up...and I was the one that asked.

One of my best friends showed me her GPSr, a travel bug, and told me all about caching about 3 years ago. I finally got myself one a month and a half ago (already on my 3rd!) and decided to start playing. About a week after getting here she told me her username and I checked out her profile. That was my one time asking about numbers...she has 4 finds in 4 years :D I had twice as many after my first 3 days. We're planning a meet-in-the-middle caching daytrip (She lives about 3-4 hours away) and I'm looking forward to getting the person that got me into the game more into it when I show her how much easier the modern units make it (she's got a 2 dots and a line no map one, I'll be bringing a PQ loaded Colorado :D ).

 

As for the helpful info part...I'll be spending more time writing in the log at cool caches (and their online log, I usually tell a little story there anyway)...especially since I've FINALLY started getting hip to the idea of using bug spray when I go out caching. Not so bad while moving around, but getting eaten alive when I finally stop has caused some VERY short entries in the physical cachelog.

 

I'll probably end up finding out how to do those charts and graphs on my profile page because I think looking at that sorta stuff is fun. But does it mean anything? No. Less than 2 months in and I already couldn't tell you how many I've found (Pretty sure I'm getting close to 40 though) without checking. I could tell you about some of the really cool multis I've found in the woods...and I could tell you A LOT about the couple in the woods I haven't found yet but have spent multiple hours on multiple trips looking for them!! (7 minute rule? Are you insane? :D ) And one of them is in the middle of a swamp!

 

So...long winded way of saying...I think some people are just hung up on numbers and they're competitive. Bully for them. The bummer is that it seems to have affected the way some of the older folks (again...caching years) are playing and not in a good way. Sometimes 'who cares?' and 'so what?' are pretty useful phrases (even if you're only saying them in your head).

 

And I second the Thanks from a noob sentiment for what you've built for us all!!!

It's silly and cool all wrapped up in a Star Trek cloaking device.

The other day when I was showing my mom one I found when she sent me off hunting (in the hospital parking lot) while she was having a test done, she said I had the same smile on my face that she saw from the boat ~20 years ago when I finally got up on the water skis for the first time ever...after a bunch of wipeouts. That's why I play! for the :o and :D on my face...not so much the :D on the map.

 

Link to comment

When I started I wanted to get the fastest hundred ever.

That was until I found out other people had more caches around them and could do it quicker.

So then I wanted it in under a month, then under one hundred days.

They passed by too and with the passing of missed goals came the realisation that my husband just isn't into geocaching like I am and that I am going to have to make the most of what opportunities come my way.

So now I look at other things rather than just how many I have found.

Like terrain/difficulty ratings, and more mulits and puzzles than traditionals.

At some stage getting a letterbox and webcam cache and getting enjoyment from the planning, reading well done cache pages and logs.

Coming on line to be able to discuss the ins and outs of geocaching with others because as I said my husband is not interested.

At least my numbers are never going to get smaller they might just take awhile for them to get as big as I would prefer.

Link to comment

For us it's not about the numbers. Yeah, we recently made our 250th find and were with some friends who made it special for us in by presenting us with a certificate and a coin/pin set. That made the moment a truly memorable one, however, it's more about the "Journey" and the adventures we have had along that "Journey" that we care about. We've had some really great ones and not so great ones, learned even more about each other during the past year of geocaching then we have during our 26 yrs of marriage! :o:D J/K..sorta of. As far as numbers go, it's just like age...you stop counting after a certain number...that number being different for each of us. Live your life in the moment, enjoy the journey along the way. And when the hunt becomes a find, take a look around and appreciate all fellow geocacher's who were there before you and will be there after you. We come from all walks of life with one common goal < if you find your self smiling after reading that, then we're on the same page, whatever that page number may be. :D

Edited by Flatouts
Link to comment

Those are some excellent points. Very well said.

 

I've always said, "Don't just count your finds, make your finds count." It's all about the experience. Anyone can find a lamp post. What matters to me is the friends I've found, the places I've been, the experiences I've shared with people I have met and people I have yet to meet.

 

God help me if the last thought on my death bed is, "Man, I sure found a lot of caches!" But if I'm thinking about the moments I shared with my friends and family, then that will be enough.

 

On the other hand, if my last thought is, "I thought that guard rail looked loose!!! IIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"...well...that'll suck.

 

Bret, I couldn't agree more. And your post cracked me up! :o

 

Find numbers really don't mean much of anything.

Last year when we were less experienced, we searched for a cleverly hidden forest cache that was meant to be a tough find, with no clues given, no container size, zip.

A group of about 6 cachers were there before us and spent over a half hour looking for the cache. Two of the group had over 10,000 finds. A couple of others were in the 2,000-3,000 find range. I figure that collectively they had over 20,000 finds among them. They failed to find the cache.

We had about 200 finds to our names then. We found it in about 35 minutes with just the two of us.

Does that mean anything about our finding skills? Nah...we just happened to look in the right place at the right time.

Link to comment

I remember when we second generation cachers were moving over 100 finds. 100 meant we had bout thousands of miles on our rigs and hiked. We had all done the same caches and knew the tough ones and the easy ones. Hell we'd done them all. Then the third and fourth generations came in and the numbers were easy. They would try to compare their 100 to our 100. it wasn't the same. 100 on Navicache and that's something. 500 on GC.com...yawn.

 

Still numbes do mean something. 100 means you will stick around. While you may never be a great cacher at 20,000 caches, you probably deserve a little respect. At some point numbers do mean you have seen most hide types, and won't make rookie mistakes...which you forget about until you go out wiht a novice with no numbers at all.

 

Numbers led to some fun. Back when we had stats I'd get a kick out of going to my friends home town, finding all the caches and planting one so that I'd be the top cacher for his town. Until he took a look at the stats and get off his duff and go caching himself. Then he would sneak out into my town and do the same. Numbers and Status lead to all kinds of variations of geocaching that can help keep it interesting for us all.

 

Someone said, "anyone can find a lampost" yeah, but when that was a new hide it was brillian, brutal, and quit the revelation that the skirt lifted.

 

At the end of the day, numbers are numbers. They are helpful within their limits. Constrained as to how much fun they can add to geocaching (no real stats thus not allowing caching games and other things) but exist none the less.

 

The last thing I know about numbers is the catch prhase "It's not about the numbers". Those who believe it, don't say it. Those who say it resent them because they care. Dismissing numbers to make yourself feel better about your numbers is a waste of time.

 

The last number I cared about was beating a cacher I knew was going to pass me up to 1000. I did. I was happy. They passed me up. They were happy. Win Win.

 

Numbers are a tool, a motivator, a way to count, a place to put your logs. Ignore them and they don't matter, use them and they help. They are nothing more than a tool.

Link to comment

I don't think about numbers much, and have seen a marked move away from most other cachers caring either.

 

I very much enjoyed flask's post.

Her reference to her father caching in Florida got me wondering, "whodat?"

 

So I went to the stats site and looked up the Vermont cachers, recognized a username as being part-time in Fl.

 

Then I went to the Florida section, and laughed. I know a lot of Fl cachers - I can say that quite a few of them have asked to be removed - it's apparent by their absence. A lot of folks like their own numbers, but not being engaged in some sort of competition.

 

There are going to be a handful of cachers who really are numbers competition driven, that being a facet of human nature. And that's fine, they can enjoy the competition and the chase. I can observe and even enjoy their enjoyment.

Link to comment
you may be pleased to know that when writing by hand i use only capitals for mostly the same reasons, so there's an odd sort of balance.
You must be ex military?? My hubby is--he writes in all caps. Drives me nuts. Maybe it's because I'm a secretary and value the delicate balance between upper and lowercase. Or maybe it's because I'm a Mac... and everyone only capitalizes the first letter of our name. My poor son couldn't convince his first and second grade teachers to capitalize the middle portion of our name.

 

Numbers? Yeah. Who needs 'em? :o

Link to comment

I don't pay very much attention to the numbers. Sometimes, I'll take a look at somebody elses finds to validate something that say in the forums. They can also be handy to determine whether to get excited if someone can't find your cache.

 

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that I can guess my find count within 100 caches. I just checked to see how close my guess was. My guess was low by over three hundred finds.

Link to comment

Those are some excellent points. Very well said.

 

I've always said, "Don't just count your finds, make your finds count." It's all about the experience. Anyone can find a lamp post. What matters to me is the friends I've found, the places I've been, the experiences I've shared with people I have met and people I have yet to meet.

 

God help me if the last thought on my death bed is, "Man, I sure found a lot of caches!" But if I'm thinking about the moments I shared with my friends and family, then that will be enough.

 

On the other hand, if my last thought is, "I thought that guard rail looked loose!!! IIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"...well...that'll suck.

 

Good post. I think some people are missing out when their only goal is to increment their find count, and they don't look up from their GPS to enjoy the view and stop and smell the skunk cabbage.

 

A find count is just a number, but some folk seem to think that number gives them standing in the community and a sense of worth. I noticed that when one state's geocaching organization decided that people could no longer log their events multiple times, there were some cachers who said they would no longer attend those events. Apparently events to a segment of geocachers are simply a venue to pump up find counts and not a place to meet people and make friends.

 

It reminds me of the "He who dies with the most toys wins" bumper stickers I sometimes see. Just change "toys" to "finds" and it's the same mindset, but one that I think is myopic.

Link to comment
with the passing of missed goals came the realisation that my husband just isn't into geocaching like I am and that I am going to have to make the most of what opportunities come my way.
I LOVE what you said! And I'm so happy to run into another woman cacher (I have to assume, anyway in this day and age) with a GC widower at home.

 

My brother was so excited last Summer to make it to 300, I think it was. I was excited for him and expectant of when my stats would reach that number. Recently he's deciding that he's not really interested in caching anymore. Perhaps it because he's not a "social cacher" (doesn't attend events), doesn't visit the forums to chat, and is a mathematician by trade so is more focused on the stats.

 

I, on the other hand, being a laid-back, second-born enjoy aspects of caching that numbers could never satisfy. I can't tell you how many fabulous people I've met through the GC events, how many laughs I've gotten on the forum, and how much connection I've received from a few that I've met that I'd consider my "best friend".

 

The other day, I was caching with a 5000+'er "best friend". He assures me that it's not about the numbers, and (at first) I don't believe him. I try to pick an area that on his way home and one that he hasn't done. After I relax about the fact that he's only going to get three new smileys, I relax, and we have a blast! I can't imagine caching without my new friend--now it seems kinda dull caching solo.

Link to comment
Those are some excellent points. Very well said.

 

I've always said, "Don't just count your finds, make your finds count." It's all about the experience. Anyone can find a lamp post. What matters to me is the friends I've found, the places I've been, the experiences I've shared with people I have met and people I have yet to meet.

 

God help me if the last thought on my death bed is, "Man, I sure found a lot of caches!" But if I'm thinking about the moments I shared with my friends and family, then that will be enough.

 

On the other hand, if my last thought is, "I thought that guard rail looked loose!!! IIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"...well...that'll suck.

Good post. I think some people are missing out when their only goal is to increment their find count, and they don't look up from their GPS to enjoy the view and stop and smell the skunk cabbage.

 

A find count is just a number, but some folk seem to think that number gives them standing in the community and a sense of worth. I noticed that when one state's geocaching organization decided that people could no longer log their events multiple times, there were some cachers who said they would no longer attend those events. Apparently events to a segment of geocachers are simply a venue to pump up find counts and not a place to meet people and make friends.

 

It reminds me of the "He who dies with the most toys wins" bumper stickers I sometimes see. Just change "toys" to "finds" and it's the same mindset, but one that I think is myopic.

But who cares, really. 'Those people' are enjoying the game and not causing me to not enjoy it. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I've never felt that Numbers was among Moses better works. It was a pretty dry read, kinda like reading a census report.

 

Not sure what numbers have to do with caching...but thats just me.

 

barely tangentially related:

 

a while ago someone went to publish this cache and the reviewer said it was too religious. we had to explain to him that the hider was only referring to the place names near the cache. get out a map. kinda funny.

Link to comment

Here here!!!! I posted this in another topic but it fits here.

 

Tell me what's the goal in Geocaching? In other words when it started what was the goal? I should say.

 

Was it the Numbers?

The FTF's?

The Hides?

 

Or was in the thrill of the search ,getting out and seeing stuff, walking in the woods, doing stuff with friends and or family in a healthy environment.

 

To many People take this game way to serious, It's not like your going to lose, get kicked off your team and not be able to play again ,Go out and enjoy what it was made for. Sorry had to get that off my chest.

Edited by 24kilo
Link to comment

I remember when we second generation cachers were moving over 100 finds. 100 meant we had bout thousands of miles on our rigs and hiked. We had all done the same caches and knew the tough ones and the easy ones. Hell we'd done them all. Then the third and fourth generations came in and the numbers were easy. They would try to compare their 100 to our 100. it wasn't the same. 100 on Navicache and that's something. 500 on GC.com...yawn.

 

Still numbes do mean something. 100 means you will stick around. While you may never be a great cacher at 20,000 caches, you probably deserve a little respect. At some point numbers do mean you have seen most hide types, and won't make rookie mistakes...which you forget about until you go out wiht a novice with no numbers at all.

 

Numbers led to some fun. Back when we had stats I'd get a kick out of going to my friends home town, finding all the caches and planting one so that I'd be the top cacher for his town. Until he took a look at the stats and get off his duff and go caching himself. Then he would sneak out into my town and do the same. Numbers and Status lead to all kinds of variations of geocaching that can help keep it interesting for us all.

 

Someone said, "anyone can find a lampost" yeah, but when that was a new hide it was brillian, brutal, and quit the revelation that the skirt lifted.

 

At the end of the day, numbers are numbers. They are helpful within their limits. Constrained as to how much fun they can add to geocaching (no real stats thus not allowing caching games and other things) but exist none the less.

 

The last thing I know about numbers is the catch prhase "It's not about the numbers". Those who believe it, don't say it. Those who say it resent them because they care. Dismissing numbers to make yourself feel better about your numbers is a waste of time.

 

The last number I cared about was beating a cacher I knew was going to pass me up to 1000. I did. I was happy. They passed me up. They were happy. Win Win.

 

Numbers are a tool, a motivator, a way to count, a place to put your logs. Ignore them and they don't matter, use them and they help. They are nothing more than a tool.

As a fellow 2G cacher, I agree with every word of your post, RK (esp. the part about going to someone else's town and out-stat'ing the locals back in the day...I did that over a 2-week period my first business trip to Minneapolis back in '03...all the locals wanted to know who that guy was from Mississippi who was slamming through all their caches and running up numbers (I bagged 61 caches over a 2-week period and that was considered PROLIFIC!)) (oh, and also about how 100 finds back in the day meant 1000s of miles on our rigs - too true!).

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

Many of the people I respect the most in regards to Geocaching have very, very low numbers, but have been around for a long time.

 

SBell111 wrote:

Sometimes, I'll take a look at somebody elses finds to validate something that say in the forums.

 

I hadn't run into this issue until recently, but it was an interesting experience.

 

Along with a certain 'game-maturity' level that is usually very self evident, I, too, tend to validate what people say in the forums, but use the "Joined:" figure just to the left of every person's posts.

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

...

I hadn't run into this issue until recently, but it was an interesting experience.

 

Along with a certain 'game-maturity' level that is usually very self evident, I, too, tend to validate what people say in the forums, but use the "Joined:" figure just to the left of every person's posts.

 

 

michelle

Most times I don't check numbers for forum posts. However the higher the pulpit and the bigger the megaphone, the more likely I am to check. There are exeptions to using numbers as a tool to check experience. You and Team360 being two that I know about. Your numbers exist but are not posted. Knowing that comes from experience. Experience is a different sort of number.

Link to comment

To me, finding 3.0+ difficulty/terrain caches makes you a good cacher, ut that is just me. Also if you cache solo and do not call for hints, then that puts you up a notch in my book.

 

Many around here try to get their numbers up so they can then feel good about taking time to do more quality caches. While I like to say I have a lot of finds, many of them are not memorable at all. A few urban ones are but mostly the ones I remember are the ones I had to hunt 3-4 times and were at a higher difficulty level (A certain micro on an old unused train trestle comes to mind as well as a few others)

 

I am an urban cache hider, but I prefer finding the ones in the wooded areas better. I enjoy long walks in the country but a good hide in an urban setting is worth a lot too. I remember when I found "Harry the Haggler" WITHOUT a GPSr and I got several e-mails telling me they were impressed. TO be honest, it was my first nano hide and it was mostly luck, but I did find it...by myself without a phone a friend.

Link to comment

Many of the people I respect the most in regards to Geocaching have very, very low numbers, but have been around for a long time.

 

SBell111 wrote:

Sometimes, I'll take a look at somebody elses finds to validate something that say in the forums.

 

I hadn't run into this issue until recently, but it was an interesting experience.

 

Along with a certain 'game-maturity' level that is usually very self evident, I, too, tend to validate what people say in the forums, but use the "Joined:" figure just to the left of every person's posts.

 

 

michelle

 

I understand that, but it makes me a little sad. Some of us may have just found geocaching, or just got a gps recently, but I'd like to think I've learned a little from my time on this planet, even if it wasn't geocaching. Some of us noobs have been letterboxers, skydivers, rockclimbers, scouts (or scout moms), campers and hikers long enough to have an appreciation and understanding of the great outdoors, even if it wasn't exactly geocaching. As I said before, I can respect the fact that the long term cachers have had to go to great lengths to continue caching before the cache explosion that you are experiencing now. But allow us to show you that we aren't all here to ruin your game. I'm sure it's a difficult thing to watch the changes. I try to encourage other new cachers to come to the forums because I've learned so much about what people like and don't like. There is a wealth of information here, and not just from the cachers with the most finds, most posts, or oldest join date.

Link to comment
What the heck happened??

If your computer spazes after you make a post, don't hit refresh. Back up to the page.

 

I asked the mods to remove the extra posts. Hopefully they will. On a few other BB's I can remove them myself.

I removed them for you. Reporting them to call attention was the perfect thing to do. Our pleasure. :o

Link to comment

Another random synapse just fired.

 

I've heard it said that, "Intelligence is the collection of knowledge, but wisdom was the ability to use that knowledge to make proper decisions.

 

If acquiring numbers can be related to gathering a base of knowledge, then having big numbers doesn't make you geo-wise and having small numbers doesn't make you a geo-fool. It's what you do with the cache knowledge you have that matters.

Link to comment
Many of the people I respect the most in regards to Geocaching have very, very low numbers, but have been around for a long time.
SBell111 wrote:Sometimes, I'll take a look at somebody elses finds to validate something that say in the forums.
i hadn't run into this issue until recently, but it was an interesting experience. Along with a certain 'game-maturity' level that is usually very self evident, I, too, tend to validate what people say in the forums, but use the "Joined:" figure just to the left of every person's posts. michelle
I understand that, but it makes me a little sad. Some of us may have just found geocaching, or just got a gps recently, but I'd like to think I've learned a little from my time on this planet, even if it wasn't geocaching. Some of us noobs have been letterboxers, skydivers, rockclimbers, scouts (or scout moms), campers and hikers long enough to have an appreciation and understanding of the great outdoors, even if it wasn't exactly geocaching... allow us to show you that we aren't all here to ruin your game...
Don't stress out about your joined date. we're not making fun of the newbies or implying that they don't have experience. i've run into a couple of newbies that have big mouths and no sense, and I think that's what CurmudgeonlyGal and Renegade are trying to get at--the maturity of the post generally goes along with the maturity of the cacher, but there are exceptions in every case. Keep posting, keep finding! Don't let the numbers or someone's comment(s) dissuade you! Edited by meralgia
Link to comment

I always know my numbers if asked.

 

They are as follows

 

41

17

10

1

 

So what are they and what direction are they heading?

 

41. States that I have less than 50 finds in

17. States that I have finds in less than 10% of the counties

16. Remaining terrain/difficulty combinations for me to complete

10. Cache across America states left to find

1. Number of states I have never found a cache in.

 

What numbers do I want to increase?

 

Number of countries I have cached in. I would like to to match the number of countries I have been to in my life.

 

Caching friends that I have met and dined with.

 

As a result of lowering my numbers the numbers of finds I have naturally increases.

 

Anyone who wants to help me meet my increasing number goals and have a meal with me let me know. I travel all the time and would love to eat a meal with a friend instead of by myself.

Link to comment

Anyone who wants to help me meet my increasing number goals and have a meal with me let me know. I travel all the time and would love to eat a meal with a friend instead of by myself.

I can help there.

 

I have a standing offer open to any and all cachers to join me for some caching and a homebrew or two. Let me know ahead of time and I'll smoke a brisket too.

Link to comment

I consider myself very lucky to have started out caching in Savannah, GA. From what I can tell, it is pretty rare in not having much microspew at all. Lots of ammo cans and lots of good, but solvable puzzles - oh and a great caching community to top it all off.

 

I like going to visit places with microspew b/c it's fun to rack up some high numbers of finds in one day - I like it b/c it's NOT the norm for where I usually cache (just recently moved away from Savannah and haven't cached there much yet). If I lived in a place where microspew ruled, I am sure the novelty would wear off quickly :o

 

I like numbers - but I am a numbers and charts and graphs kinda person. I like my numbers b/c they're mine. I couldn't care less about anyone else's numbers!

Link to comment

Another random synapse just fired.

 

I've heard it said that, "Intelligence is the collection of knowledge, but wisdom was the ability to use that knowledge to make proper decisions.

 

If acquiring numbers can be related to gathering a base of knowledge, then having big numbers doesn't make you geo-wise and having small numbers doesn't make you a geo-fool. It's what you do with the cache knowledge you have that matters.

Those who can do more with less can do more still with more. :o

Others...it takes a lot of repitition to make the lesson stick.

Link to comment

When I first started playing, I remember being in awe of those cachers with high numbers. It doesn't take long to realize (as many people have posted above) that high find counts have little to do with skill and much more to do with other factors (such as living in a particular location, having the time to be able to cache a lot etc).

 

This thread did get me thinking about the hypothetical situation that would have to exist for numbers to actually equate to skil. Here's what I came up with:

 

- everyone would have to live in the same location

- everyone would need to have exactly equal amounts of geocaching time

- everyone would need to have equal access to all caches

- it would not be possible to phone a friend or ask previous finders for hints.

- everyone would have access to exactly the same information about a cache and nobody could have additional info from past logs

- only one visit to each cache would be allowed.

 

Only if all these factors were met could find numbers being used as a yardstick for skill.

 

In the real world, I've only been able to judge other cacher's skill by actually caching with them on several occasions. The difference between a cacher that has good finding skills and a cacher with poor skills (like myself) is pretty subtle.

 

My find count certainly doesn't reflect the number of times I've DNF'd caches or had to ask for more help before I could log another smiley.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...