Jump to content

SILVER AMMO CAN TRIBUTES


Rustynails

Recommended Posts

...while the guy who organized the regional geocaching club or volunteered to help bring off a successful major event or negotiated with a park to reverse a ban on geocaching or contributed to the sport in countless other ways be ignored because he only has 404 finds?

But as a guy with 404 finds who has helped organize a a regional geocaching club, volunteered to help bring off a successful major event and negotiated with a park to reverse a ban on geocaching and contributed in other ways (not countless), I don't begrudge celebrating someone else's milestones.

 

I haven't been married for 50 years yet, but I'm going to be happy for and congratulate someone that does - when all they really accomplished was keeping a promise and not dying. And that "50" is nothing more than an arbitrary round number. :P

 

Nor do I begrudge celebrating milestones. I still think the emphasis on find count is detrimental to the sport. New geocachers enter the sport see these kinds of awards and think finding a lot of caches will give them some sort of status. That promotes the idea that increasing their find count is the ultimate goal, rather than the adventure that this sport offers and the wonderful places it can bring you. r

 

The idea that bagging as many finds as possible is paramount lends to practices such as phony finds, short cutting, trespassing ,scorched earth searching and similar practices that are detrimental to geocaching.

Link to comment

The idea that bagging as many finds as possible is paramount lends to practices such as phony finds, short cutting, trespassing ,scorched earth searching and similar practices that are detrimental to geocaching.

No it doesn't. A lack of pride, ethics and lax personal morals and a desire to cheat and flaunt the rules leads to those things.

 

And what drives that in the geocaching world? There has to be an incentive - a perceived reward.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

The idea that bagging as many finds as possible is paramount lends to practices such as phony finds, short cutting, trespassing ,scorched earth searching and similar practices that are detrimental to geocaching.

No it doesn't. A lack of pride, ethics and lax personal morals and a desire to cheat and flaunt the rules leads to those things.

 

And what drives that in the geocaching world? There has to be an incentive.

No sir, people are going to be who they are regardless. You can't make a bad man be a good geocacher, and you can't make a good geocacher be a bad man. A good man is not motivated to do bad things for numbers, a bad man does bad things because he's a bad man.

Link to comment

The idea that bagging as many finds as possible is paramount lends to practices such as phony finds, short cutting, trespassing ,scorched earth searching and similar practices that are detrimental to geocaching.

No it doesn't. A lack of pride, ethics and lax personal morals and a desire to cheat and flaunt the rules leads to those things.

 

And what drives that in the geocaching world? There has to be an incentive.

No sir, people are going to be who they are regardless. You can't make a bad man be a good geocacher, and you can't make a good geocacher be a bad man. A good man is not motivated to do bad things for numbers, a bad man does bad things because he's a bad man.

 

Good people do bad things and bad people do good things.

Link to comment

Numbers and geocaching fame can lure a good cacher to do evil. If they take the bait, are they really bad? Perhaps we can peruse the writings of Hobbs, Rousseu, Kant and Voltaire to find the answer..

Are there any real heroes? All men are capable of falling, just as all men are capable of picking themselves up and moving on. :P

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

If I could re-phrase what Briansnat is trying to say...

 

People respond to incentives. That's not my opinion, it is a known fact. If the incentives are set up to reward numbers caching, then you will get more numbers cachers. If the incentives are set up to reward quality caches, you will get more quality caches.

 

In this forum, it has previously been argued that there do not exist any real incentives for numbers caching. I disagreed, as did Briansnat. All he is doing is pointing out that this thread vindicates our position: there do indeed exist incentives for numbers cachers.

 

All of the above is fact, not opinion. If you want to argue with the facts, go find an economist somewhere and argue with him/her. I am sure they will provide you ample evidence that you are wrong..

 

FWIW, here's my opinion:

 

The incentives for numbers caching are greater than the incentives for quality caching, and the two are not the same thing. And the structure of geocaching is such that the incentives for quality caches are becoming less valuable with time (e.g. nice logs), while the incentives for numbers caching are static or increasing. This thread is an illustration of that.

Link to comment

I think it's unfair for people to try and tell others what caching is all about. Caching is different things to different people.

 

Yes, it's not about the numbers. Or is it about the numbers. No, it's not about the experience, yes it is about the experience.

 

Why not just let caching be what it is to each player as long as they aren't interfering with the enjoyment of another player?

 

Why worry about whether or not someone is in it for the numbers? Why worry if numbers are recognized? Why worry if someone contributes more, or less, than another player?

 

It's ridiculous to pet the sweaty things.

 

I would like to know why anyone has a problem with a cacher playing for the numbers? And, are there any cachers who begrudge those who are in it for the long difficult hikes? Be serious now. What difference does it make?

Link to comment
Be serious now. What difference does it make?

Good try at a joke, but Not Funny.

 

On the off chance you were actually serious, there is a great deal to be learned on the subject by perusing past forum threads on how to find non-lame caches, the explosion of micros, etc. Whether you love micros and caches by dumpsters or not, there is no doubt that numbers caching has affected the game.

Link to comment
I would like to know why anyone has a problem with a cacher playing for the numbers?

 

As I said in an earlier post, I have no quarrel with people who cache for numbers. If they enjoy that aspect of the sport it is their prerogative.

 

I do have an issue with promoting the idea that numbers are the quintessential element of geocaching by heaping accolades on people who reach a certain round number.

 

As this concept is pushed and becomes the prevalent reason that people geocache it changes the game for the rest of us.

 

I also think it promotes practices that are detrimental to geocaching. I'd bet money that the guys who got their car stuck in the mud driving across an athletic field to a cache aren't the sort who prefer long hikes.

Link to comment

 

Nor do I begrudge celebrating milestones. I still think the emphasis on find count is detrimental to the sport. New geocachers enter the sport see these kinds of awards and think finding a lot of caches will give them some sort of status. That promotes the idea that increasing their find count is the ultimate goal, rather than the adventure that this sport offers and the wonderful places it can bring you. r

 

The idea that bagging as many finds as possible is paramount lends to practices such as phony finds, short cutting, trespassing ,scorched earth searching and similar practices that are detrimental to geocaching.

 

 

Briansnat, You state in the above quote ”I still think the emphasis on find count is detrimental to the sport”

 

Yet your profile page boast fancy graphs, pie charts and maps of your number of finds. I find no logic here. :laughing:

Edited by rustynails.
Link to comment

FWIW, here's my opinion:

 

The incentives for numbers caching are greater than the incentives for quality caching, and the two are not the same thing. And the structure of geocaching is such that the incentives for quality caches are becoming less valuable with time (e.g. nice logs), while the incentives for numbers caching are static or increasing. This thread is an illustration of that.

 

So create some local incentives for your definition of quality caching. Create a local website with a greatest hits list if it doesn't already exist. Provide the incentives that you and Brian feel are missing from the game.

 

In NC we created a state wide greatest hits list covering several categories of hides from evil micros to great views and everything in between. Then someone used that list to create a design that won the annual NCGO T-shirt design contest. Then someone created a challenge cache around the caches in the design.

 

Stirring the pot a bit more-one could argue that the Fizzy Challenges might encourage misrated caches simply to allow one's friends to complete that task. That could be construed as a negative incentive, and also detrimental to the game.

 

I don't see the awarding of a ceremonial painted ammo can as a bad thing. I suspect that the good people who do bad things like get their Chevy stuck in the outfield are not in geocaching for the long haul, and people like that will always come and go.

Link to comment
Last week knowschad mentioned the local cache term geobeacon. It made me wonder about silver ammo can tribute caches.

 

We also have something here called silver ammo can tribute caches. This is a silver ammo can hidden in honor of obtaining a milestone cache find such as the 1000th. Example GC2058R. It is put out by a fellow cacher or cachers.

 

:surprise: Does anyone else do this? Or is it a local custom?

See what you started, with such a silly little question, Rusty? Perhaps your OP should have asked if they were" detrimental to the game" instead of "does anyone else do this". Please be more careful next time, OK? :laughing:

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
In my home area, there are cases of silver, gold and platinum milestone caches. But you really only get one from your buddies in a close-knit clique. They don't just grant them to anyone who's crossed a milestone. :surprise::anicute::yikes::laughing:
Hey, we're still working on yours, Bart. We'd have put it out sooner, but we realize that it has to be triple-ninja difficult, and that's tough to achieve with an ammo can.
Link to comment

A-ha, so there really is an inner click of geokashers. I just new it.

 

I know your post is in gest but one could falsely assume from this thread that in areas where it happens it happens for all crossing a milestone. When in reality, it only happens when a select individual decides to make it happen for another select individual. Use of the word clique may or may not apply.

Link to comment
In my home area, there are cases of silver, gold and platinum milestone caches. But you really only get one from your buddies in a close-knit clique. They don't just grant them to anyone who's crossed a milestone. :surprise::anicute::yikes::laughing:
Hey, we're still working on yours, Bart. We'd have put it out sooner, but we realize that it has to be triple-ninja difficult, and that's tough to achieve with an ammo can.

 

TheCollector, BEFORE he disappeared, put one out for me once. But it was more of a needle than it was for a milestone. I got a tremendous kick out of it... but then it ended up getting stolen a few months later.

Link to comment

A-ha, so there really is an inner click of geokashers. I just new it.

 

I know your post is in gest but one could falsely assume from this thread that in areas where it happens it happens for all crossing a milestone. When in reality, it only happens when a select individual decides to make it happen for another select individual. Use of the word clique may or may not apply.

 

Your right not everyone here gets a siver ammo for 1000. I did not put that in the start post because I wanted to keep it positive. Little did I know. :surprise::anicute::laughing:

Link to comment

 

Nor do I begrudge celebrating milestones. I still think the emphasis on find count is detrimental to the sport. New geocachers enter the sport see these kinds of awards and think finding a lot of caches will give them some sort of status. That promotes the idea that increasing their find count is the ultimate goal, rather than the adventure that this sport offers and the wonderful places it can bring you. r

 

The idea that bagging as many finds as possible is paramount lends to practices such as phony finds, short cutting, trespassing ,scorched earth searching and similar practices that are detrimental to geocaching.

 

Briansnat, You state in the above quote ”I still think the emphasis on find count is detrimental to the sport”

 

Yet your profile page boast fancy graphs, pie charts and maps of your number of finds. I find no logic here. :laughing:

 

When I talk about an emphasis on find counts what I'm referring to is the trend toward lots of finds being the ultimate goal of this sport. It has little to do with keeping statistics. Statistkcs are fun to me (I guess it comes from being a long time baseball fan where discussing ERAs, BA,s Slug pct s and numerous other stats are a big part of the enjoyment of the game) . But increasing my find count is not why I geocache. That is the difference.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Once again, you hit the nail right on the head.

The only people that I believe really don't care about any numbers (including yours truly) are those souls who don't log finds! Period!

 

I totally disagree with that. I know people who don't log online who care a great deal about their numbers. They keep detailed logs and statistics. They just don't want others to know.

 

I also know many people who log online who don't give a whit about their find counts. They long online to let the cache owner know they found the cache (it is the considerate thing to do) and/or to keep found caches out of their pocket queries.

 

The idea that online logging is necessarily related to a concern with numbers is absurd.

 

You have your opinion and I have mine. Disagree all you want but as I said, I believe. Your beliefs

may be different! Disagreeing is one thing but isn't it kinda personal using absurd.

I give up! I thought you were one of the keepers of board decorum!

Maybe I should modify my statement to: The only people that I believe really don't care about any numbers begin with not logging their finds on line! If you don't have the numbers, then you can't be concerned with them. That's not absurd!

Link to comment
The only people that I believe really don't care about any numbers (including yours truly) are those souls who don't log finds!

You have your opinion and I have mine. Disagree all you want but as I said, I believe. Your beliefs

may be different!

True - but there are many instances of individuals that can shoot this statement through the foot, myself included.

 

I log all of my finds online. I have a map of my finds, and can produce statistics. Do I CARE about the numbers? No. If I cared, I would have far more than I do now. Since you espowsed that the only people that don't care about the numbers are those souls that don't log online, my own personal story as a single instance refutes your belief as false. I now think that's the end of story. Period. :laughing:

 

Now, can you BELIEVE that I'm lying. Sure. You can believe the sky is plaid, that the planet is resting on a the back of a huge swamp buggy, and that traveling salesmen are waking up in tubs of ice in Las Vegas after having their kidneys stolen. You can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make it true for everyone else, does it? :surprise:

 

That's the problem with saying all-encompassing statements like "only".

Maybe I should modify my statement to: The only people that I believe really don't care about any numbers begin with not logging their finds on line! If you don't have the numbers, then you can't be concerned with them.
To make your statement true you would need to revise it to: "The people that don't log their finds online don't care about their numbers." That's true. But your logic is like stating "I have seen that dogs chase after mailmen and try to bit them - therefore dogs hate mailmen." While true in some instances, it's not true of all dogs. My dog loves the mailman, because the mailman carries milkbones. Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

In my home area, there are cases of silver, gold and platinum milestone caches. But you really only get one from your buddies in a close-knit clique. They don't just grant them to anyone who's crossed a milestone. :surprise::anicute::yikes::laughing:

 

I guess I'm not a member of that clique, eh Bart.

 

Where's my Minnesota Silver box? :o

Edited by lagrac
Link to comment

When I talk about an emphasis on find counts what I'm referring to is the trend toward lots of finds being the ultimate goal of this sport. It has little to do with keeping statistics. Statistkcs are fun to me (I guess it comes from being a long time baseball fan where discussing ERAs, BA,s Slug pct s and numerous other stats are a big part of the enjoyment of the game) . But increasing my find count is not why I geocache. That is the difference.

The bolded part is the very heart of our disagreement, because I know not a single geocacher, and you know I've met a few, for whom lots of finds is the "ultimate goal of this sport". Finding a lot of caches may be A goal, but it is not THE goal... THE goal is slightly different for everyone but mostly at its core it's about having fun doing something that we enjoy.

 

Can you point me to anyone who will state "I cache only for the numbers. Don't care if it's no fun, don't care about getting fit, friends don't interest me, a mile hike to an overlook is a total waste of my time, I'm just out here running up numbers. Numbers is the ultimate goal for me in this game."?

 

Even one?

 

That is what is at the core of so many forum flames... some of us enjoy finding a lot of caches in a day or year and we DO recognize number milestones, our own and others - but numbers are not the REASON we do it. We do it because that's how we like to play the game. Numbers are just a way of keeping score in a game that has no winners or losers.

 

I know some folks who would just about cry if they couldn't log a cache that they had found, and others who may go hundreds of finds without logging any... but none of them make those choices based on numbers.

 

Yes, inarguably easier caches and the ability to find a lot of them in a short period of time has changed the game... and if you want to criticize folks for playing that way, fine, but until you can come up with proof of cachers who do what they do solely for the numbers I tell you that accusation is an urban myth... widely touted in this forum but totally groundless!

 

Even the milestone ammo cans are not really about the number. You get an ammo can when you have made friends in the game who wish to recognize you. That's why there is no stat counter on accounts which sets off an alarm saying "CacherX hit 1000, give her an ammo can".

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

My 1000th find was a tribute ammo can placed in my honor:

GC1XPME

 

Silver and Gold just wouldn't do for a cheeto.

 

If your cache had a little geochecker html integrated into it's write up, I'd make a visit the next time I'm in the Fox Valley.

 

The artistic cheeto image is a geochecker link. It wasn't when I solved it...

Link to comment

I think the only "increase in numbers" that has attributed to a perceived and bemoaned "detriment to caching" is the number of cachers worldwide. Some people are jerks. The more people that come into a hobby, the more jerks there are going to be. It's inevitable and unavoidable.

 

Those of you that are seeing a decline in the quality of cache placements/containers/swag/etc may be only seeing a result in an overall increase in the number of caches placed.

 

I just can't believe that there was some magical Golden Age of Caching when only "perfect" caches were placed and everybody feasted on milk and honey and manna flowethed frometh the springeth. I'll admit that I'm a relative newcomer and I have not received my Golden Can and probably won't for at least another couple of years, but it could just be that "Large Number as Motivation Caching" is perceived to be a recent development because in the early days, there were no large numbers to find.

 

It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? As more and more caches were placed, the caching landscape changed and new types of cachers crawled out of the sea, forgoing gills and flippers for lungs and legs, and they saw that there was an option to hunt many caches in one day that had not previously existed. The change of environment created a niche and the Cacherous Numericus filled the niche. As more and more caches were placed, it became possible to break daily find records in ever-rising amounts.

 

Now maybe if a Catascopic Caching Event were to befall the hobby... say a meteor or perhaps the Groundspeak Servers falling into the ocean, then there would be an evolutionary "reset" that would result in a temporary decline of the Numbers Cacher.

 

In short, if you want to reverse the tide of hunting for numbers, throw a meteor at the servers or induce an Ice Age.

 

Merry Christmas,

 

The End.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

When I talk about an emphasis on find counts what I'm referring to is the trend toward lots of finds being the ultimate goal of this sport. It has little to do with keeping statistics. Statistkcs are fun to me (I guess it comes from being a long time baseball fan where discussing ERAs, BA,s Slug pct s and numerous other stats are a big part of the enjoyment of the game) . But increasing my find count is not why I geocache. That is the difference.

The bolded part is the very heart of our disagreement, because I know not a single geocacher, and you know I've met a few, for whom lots of finds is the "ultimate goal of this sport". Finding a lot of caches may be A goal, but it is not THE goal... THE goal is slightly different for everyone but mostly at its core it's about having fun doing something that we enjoy.

 

Can you point me to anyone who will state "I cache only for the numbers. Don't care if it's no fun, don't care about getting fit, friends don't interest me, a mile hike to an overlook is a total waste of my time, I'm just out here running up numbers. Numbers is the ultimate goal for me in this game."?

 

Even one?

 

That is what is at the core of so many forum flames... some of us enjoy finding a lot of caches in a day or year and we DO recognize number milestones, our own and others - but numbers are not the REASON we do it. We do it because that's how we like to play the game. Numbers are just a way of keeping score in a game that has no winners or losers.

 

I know some folks who would just about cry if they couldn't log a cache that they had found, and others who may go hundreds of finds without logging any... but none of them make those choices based on numbers.

 

Yes, inarguably easier caches and the ability to find a lot of them in a short period of time has changed the game... and if you want to criticize folks for playing that way, fine, but until you can come up with proof of cachers who do what they do solely for the numbers I tell you that accusation is an urban myth... widely touted in this forum but totally groundless!

 

Even the milestone ammo cans are not really about the number. You get an ammo can when you have made friends in the game who wish to recognize you. That's why there is no stat counter on accounts which sets off an alarm saying "CacherX hit 1000, give her an ammo can".

 

Well said.

 

And I would like to add that if it's OK to mock the cachers who prefer the park and grab then you must accept the mocking of the cachers who place ammo cans at the end of an impossible journey for many.

 

One of the great things about geocaching as an activity is it has an element available for just about everyone.

Link to comment

I have placed about 20 of the silver or gold ammo cans, in the northwest Wisconsin area, starting in 2006. Here is the bookmark list of the tribute cans I have placed:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...86-2f4a33026820

 

I stole the idea of placing silver ammo cans after visiting the Chicago area in 2006, and seeing it done there, and thought it was a great idea, and started doing it here. My practice is to place a silver ammo can for all WI cachers within 100 miles of Eau Claire.

 

Since I started doing it, others have copied me, which is fine because I was copying the Chicago people. Da Bloodhound took the tradition to Minnesota, Lagrac took it to Iowa, and Trekkin and Birdin took it to the La Crosse area. So far, it has not spread to the rest of Wisconsin beyond 100 miles of Eau Claire much, with a couple of exceptions here and there.

 

These are all the large ammo boxes, silver for 1K and gold for 5K.

 

Interestingly, not a single one of the large ammo boxes has yet gone missing, mostly because I try to place them off of the beaten trail in areas that nongeocachers are unlikely to visit.

 

zuma

Link to comment
The only people that I believe really don't care about any numbers (including yours truly) are those souls who don't log finds!

You have your opinion and I have mine. Disagree all you want but as I said, I believe. Your beliefs

may be different!

True - but there are many instances of individuals that can shoot this statement through the foot, myself included.

 

I log all of my finds online. I have a map of my finds, and can produce statistics. Do I CARE about the numbers? No. If I cared, I would have far more than I do now. Since you espowsed that the only people that don't care about the numbers are those souls that don't log online, my own personal story as a single instance refutes your belief as false. I now think that's the end of story. Period. :laughing:

 

Now, can you BELIEVE that I'm lying. Sure. You can believe the sky is plaid, that the planet is resting on a the back of a huge swamp buggy, and that traveling salesmen are waking up in tubs of ice in Las Vegas after having their kidneys stolen. You can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make it true for everyone else, does it? :surprise:

 

That's the problem with saying all-encompassing statements like "only".

Maybe I should modify my statement to: The only people that I believe really don't care about any numbers begin with not logging their finds on line! If you don't have the numbers, then you can't be concerned with them.
To make your statement true you would need to revise it to: "The people that don't log their finds online don't care about their numbers." That's true. But your logic is like stating "I have seen that dogs chase after mailmen and try to bit them - therefore dogs hate mailmen." While true in some instances, it's not true of all dogs. My dog loves the mailman, because the mailman carries milkbones.

 

I give up. I cannot fight two mods!

I stand by my statement. Once again, those who truly don't care what-so-ever about numbers don't log on line! That's a fact because there is nothing to care about if you haven't got the numbers in the first place!! That is neither a positive or a negative statement. Frankly, I don't give a hoot with what anyone does with his or her numbers. That doesn't mean that all other cachers (like me) who do log go nuts over their numbers.

My only objection regarding numbers is becoming obsessed with them. Obsessions often lead to bad behavior. I see nothing wrong with simply keeping numbers and/or setting goals. I also don't see anything wrong with groups or caching organizations sponsoring and giving out awards. If a person sets out to reach a goal like 1,000,000 finds, that's fine. It's all in how that person behaves as they attempt to reach the goal.

At the risk of being redundant, my logic is correct! If you don't have numbers (as in not logging and/or keeping them) then isn't it kind of obvious, you don't care about numbers!

Frankly, the thing that gives me the most heartburn regarding numbers are those who deny caring, but do anything to beat or keep up with other cacher's numbers. I know a few cachers who swear that hate numbers, but do 50 or 75 finds a day runs. What's the point? Numbers!

I also stand by my opinion of using the word absurd was rude and behavior unbecoming.

P.S. Speaking of logic, I have never heard of a statement being shot through the foot. Geez, all this time I thought statements were inanimate!

Link to comment
I give up. I cannot fight two mods!

 

Actually, neither one is a mod in this forum, and both can handle countering opinions. I wouldn't let the fact that they are mods get in your way, as long as you continue to be polite.

 

 

I stand by my statement. Once again, those who truly don't care what-so-ever about numbers don't log on line! That's a fact because there is nothing to care about if you haven't got the numbers in the first place!!

What about those that really, truely do not care about numbers (they don't even know how old they are, or when their license tabs are due) but they log online to give feedback to the cache owner and their caching community?
Link to comment

I know a few cachers who swear that hate numbers, but do 50 or 75 finds a day runs. What's the point? Numbers!

Wrong! The point is getting out with some friends and having a good day finding a bunch of caches... the point is the experience they enjoyed, not the numbers.

 

I offer you the same challenge I offered above... get a cacher, any cacher, to state that he caches only for the numbers and that nothing else matters and I will concede that some cachers cache solely for the numbers. Until then I maintain that cachers cache the way they like to cache and numbers are just scorekeeping for fun.

Link to comment
I give up. I cannot fight two mods!

 

Actually, neither one is a mod in this forum, and both can handle countering opinions. I wouldn't let the fact that they are mods get in your way, as long as you continue to be polite.

 

 

I stand by my statement. Once again, those who truly don't care what-so-ever about numbers don't log on line! That's a fact because there is nothing to care about if you haven't got the numbers in the first place!!

What about those that really, truely do not care about numbers (they don't even know how old they are, or when their license tabs are due) but they log online to give feedback to the cache owner and their caching community?

Thanks, I do appreciate an honest and non-personal discourse.

Please, I am not really disagreeing with you, but allow me to address your two points. "neither one is a mod in this forum" What's the difference? They post as moderators! I wish to be polite but being called absurd isn't exactly polite!

Second, I also believe that giving feedback to the cache owner is very important. For an example, I always log DNFs, but finds as well as DNFs can be logged as 'Notes" which do not generate stats. Look, I don't hate numbers. Log them, don't log them, keep a private diary whatever. My only complaint are those who hypocritically say I don't care about numbers and then set out to 'beat' every known cacher and stoop to any means to achieve their goals! That's all! :laughing:

Link to comment
I give up. I cannot fight two mods!

 

Actually, neither one is a mod in this forum, and both can handle countering opinions. I wouldn't let the fact that they are mods get in your way, as long as you continue to be polite.

 

 

I stand by my statement. Once again, those who truly don't care what-so-ever about numbers don't log on line! That's a fact because there is nothing to care about if you haven't got the numbers in the first place!!

What about those that really, truely do not care about numbers (they don't even know how old they are, or when their license tabs are due) but they log online to give feedback to the cache owner and their caching community?

Thanks, I do appreciate an honest and non-personal discourse.

Please, I am not really disagreeing with you, but allow me to address your two points. "neither one is a mod in this forum" What's the difference? They post as moderators! I wish to be polite but being called absurd isn't exactly polite!

Second, I also believe that giving feedback to the cache owner is very important. For an example, I always log DNFs, but finds as well as DNFs can be logged as 'Notes" which do not generate stats. Look, I don't hate numbers. Log them, don't log them, keep a private diary whatever. My only complaint are those who hypocritically say I don't care about numbers and then set out to 'beat' every known cacher and stoop to any means to achieve their goals! That's all! :laughing:

I have to agree with you that anyone with "MODERATOR" in their account details should be a model for what these forums are supposed to be about, and that they sometimes do fall short of that mark. However, I also did not here them accuse YOU of being absurd, but only of an argument of yours being absurd (not making any judgement call here regarding absurdity of that argument!).

 

 

That said, isn't it about time that a moderator insist this thread get back on track? This is about the regionality of tribute caches, not about the importance of numbers in geocaching! :surprise:

Link to comment

I cannot post to this forum without the "moderator" tag, even though I'm only a moderator for the Getting Started Forum (I've asked).

 

My point is that you are saying two different things.

 

One statement is that people who don't log their finds don't care about the numbers. I agree.

 

But you take it further to state that the ONLY people that truly don't care about their numbers are the ones that don't log online. That's an over-generalization that I can prove as false. As I stated - I log my finds online, but don't really care about the numbers. Until it was pointed out to me in this thread, I didn't know my find count was above 400.

 

I'll state it another way - there's another group of people that don't care about their find count: people who got into the game, logged a few finds online, but are now out of the game for whatever reason. These people log their finds online, but don't care about their find count, because they're NOT PLAYING.

 

Your statement that the ONLY people that truly don't care about their find count is incorrect because it over-generalizes the statement. However, if you say that the people that don't log their finds online don't care about their find counts, I would agree with you.

 

See the difference?

Link to comment

I know a few cachers who swear that hate numbers, but do 50 or 75 finds a day runs. What's the point? Numbers!

Wrong! The point is getting out with some friends and having a good day finding a bunch of caches... the point is the experience they enjoyed, not the numbers.

 

I offer you the same challenge I offered above... get a cacher, any cacher, to state that he caches only for the numbers and that nothing else matters and I will concede that some cachers cache solely for the numbers. Until then I maintain that cachers cache the way they like to cache and numbers are just scorekeeping for fun.

I am sorry but I am not following you. "get a cacher, any cacher, to state that he caches only for the numbers and that nothing else matters." Is that a challenge because I know several cachers who will tell you that they cache for the numbers. Pardon the pun, but numbers is number one with them! That's no problem. It's those who stand on the roof tops and say numbers don't count, but only go for low terrain (they are physically able) caches and find 50 or 75 or more in a day. Maybe to you it's the fun, and I accept that, but someone is after numbers. Five minutes for lunch, none or very short potty breaks. Yeah, no one is after numbers!

Again, I don't care if folks go on numbers runs. Wait! did I say "numbers runs"? Funny, how that term has crept into the geocachiing vernacular! Where did it come from? The 50 to 100 finds day trips are not called fellowship runs. They are not called experience runs. They are called numbers runs! Now who said that and why?

Please don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with numbers runs. I just hate the phony exclamation that numbers don't count from those who count them the most!

Link to comment
I cannot post to this forum without the "moderator" tag, even though I'm only a moderator for the Getting Started Forum (I've asked).

With all respect, Markwell... you may not be a moderator in this forum (ditto, Briansnat) but you are a moderator, which means that you are a representative of Groundspeak, and you are helping to take what started as a fun and friendly conversation about tribute caches into an angsty discourse about the importance of numbers and what is certainly to turn into a lenghty discussion about differences in opinion. As a responsible member of the forums, would you and Briansnat please try to keep this discussion on track? If you want to start a new thread on how tribute caches are contributing to the detriment of our activity, fine... but that is NOT what this thread is about (IMHO). Moderators, no matter which forum they are in, should be setting an example of what IS acceptable here, not of what should be avoided.
Link to comment

I cannot post to this forum without the "moderator" tag, even though I'm only a moderator for the Getting Started Forum (I've asked).

 

My point is that you are saying two different things.

 

One statement is that people who don't log their finds don't care about the numbers. I agree.

 

But you take it further to state that the ONLY people that truly don't care about their numbers are the ones that don't log online. That's an over-generalization that I can prove as false. As I stated - I log my finds online, but don't really care about the numbers. Until it was pointed out to me in this thread, I didn't know my find count was above 400.

 

I'll state it another way - there's another group of people that don't care about their find count: people who got into the game, logged a few finds online, but are now out of the game for whatever reason. These people log their finds online, but don't care about their find count, because they're NOT PLAYING.

 

Your statement that the ONLY people that truly don't care about their find count is incorrect because it over-generalizes the statement. However, if you say that the people that don't log their finds online don't care about their find counts, I would agree with you.

 

See the difference?

Look, I have no quarrel with you. You are probably a very nice person but we don't agree.

Of course I see a difference, but let's start from the beginning. Do you dispute that those who don't log their finds don't care about numbers? That's all! Yes, there are others who don't care and I'll even grant that you are one of them, but you have got to admit.,if a person doesn't keep track or allow any method of keeping track of their numbers, they don't care about numbers.

I still stand by my statement. Let's look at it this way by circumstantial evidence. If you ain't got the numbers you ain't got them! Certainly that person cannot be accused of obsessing over their numbers! The proof makes the case that we know they (that group) are the only one's we can say for certain don't care for numbers. Others may fit the class (not caring for numbers) and I sure there are thousands out there, but we cannot be certain because they accumulate the numbers. How they care for them is open for question!

P.S. It would also be nice if you addressed my other complaint. Why use the word absurd used and viva painted and awarded ammo cans! Wasn't that the topic?

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment
I cannot post to this forum without the "moderator" tag, even though I'm only a moderator for the Getting Started Forum (I've asked).

With all respect, Markwell... you may not be a moderator in this forum (ditto, Briansnat) but you are a moderator, which means that you are a representative of Groundspeak, and you are helping to take what started as a fun and friendly conversation about tribute caches into an angsty discourse about the importance of numbers and what is certainly to turn into a lenghty discussion about differences in opinion. As a responsible member of the forums, would you and Briansnat please try to keep this discussion on track? If you want to start a new thread on how tribute caches are contributing to the detriment of our activity, fine... but that is NOT what this thread is about (IMHO). Moderators, no matter which forum they are in, should be setting an example of what IS acceptable here, not of what should be avoided.

 

And they have. It's fair to disagree with people if done so respectfully. Or is it not?

Link to comment

I offer you the same challenge I offered above... get a cacher, any cacher, to state that he caches only for the numbers and that nothing else matters and I will concede that some cachers cache solely for the numbers. Until then I maintain that cachers cache the way they like to cache and numbers are just scorekeeping for fun.

 

Perhaps it is just a matter of semantics. Scorekeeping can be fun. If it were not, then the various cacher stat programs and leaderboards would not be so popular. At the same time, I know people who have been into what they define as "competitive geocaching:" planning a numbers run almost every day, getting up in the morning to think about where they are going to cache, aware of their position on the leaderboard, trying to get to a certain spot or maintain a lead. One person who I used to cache with on occasion finally dropped out of the race. But for awhile that was the goal of his caching.

 

I have known other cachers who have become focused on creating specific niches. Visiting every fire house during the days of locationless caching to log firetrucks, a category for which there was no limit. His goal was to be the worlds leader in that category and I believe he might have succeeded. For awhile, another goal was to be the world's leader in earthcaches.

 

These things may be fun. It may be how they like to cache. It may be that they are doing certain caches solely for the numbers. It may be an obsession. In fact, my wife thinks I am obsessed and I have never even gotten a silver ammo can. Got a couple of green ones though for being the first to find a cache.

Link to comment
I cannot post to this forum without the "moderator" tag, even though I'm only a moderator for the Getting Started Forum (I've asked).

With all respect, Markwell... you may not be a moderator in this forum (ditto, Briansnat) but you are a moderator, which means that you are a representative of Groundspeak, and you are helping to take what started as a fun and friendly conversation about tribute caches into an angsty discourse about the importance of numbers and what is certainly to turn into a lenghty discussion about differences in opinion. As a responsible member of the forums, would you and Briansnat please try to keep this discussion on track? If you want to start a new thread on how tribute caches are contributing to the detriment of our activity, fine... but that is NOT what this thread is about (IMHO). Moderators, no matter which forum they are in, should be setting an example of what IS acceptable here, not of what should be avoided.

 

And they have. It's fair to disagree with people if done so respectfully. Or is it not?

I hear you, in the limited scope of your reply, but my reply had more to do with staying on topic. This thread started life as a light-hearted topic about friends honoring friends for milestones, and I'd like to see it get back to that. This thread is NOT about the Evils of Numbers.
Link to comment

This thread started life as a light-hearted topic about friends honoring friends for milestones, and I'd like to see it get back to that.

 

Conversations evolve. But I have never seen any type of reward (like a silver ammo box) honoring milestones in our area. There is a milestone cache that was stocked with unactivated geocoins for those who hit specified milestones at the time they found that cache. There are also caches that have been designed to honor people for certain milestones. A few years ago, we set up a series of caches to honor someone who was about to hit 10,000 -- they were all supposed to be difficult to solve puzzles and harder to find caches, (one required scuba equipment), that provided certain clues until the final cache in the series was completed. Now that number seems relatively common -- but a few individual caches pop up for certain milestones.

Link to comment

This thread started life as a light-hearted topic about friends honoring friends for milestones, and I'd like to see it get back to that.

 

Conversations evolve. But I have never seen any type of reward (like a silver ammo box) honoring milestones in our area. There is a milestone cache that was stocked with unactivated geocoins for those who hit specified milestones at the time they found that cache. There are also caches that have been designed to honor people for certain milestones. A few years ago, we set up a series of caches to honor someone who was about to hit 10,000 -- they were all supposed to be difficult to solve puzzles and harder to find caches, (one required scuba equipment), that provided certain clues until the final cache in the series was completed. Now that number seems relatively common -- but a few individual caches pop up for certain milestones.

Really! No milestone caches in California (or at least not in your part of CA). Interesting.
Link to comment

This thread started life as a light-hearted topic about friends honoring friends for milestones, and I'd like to see it get back to that.

Conversations evolve. .
Yes, they certainly do. But it is always preferable when they return to topic after a diversion, and ALWAYS preferable when they stay positive. If, for example, this conversation had started during a nice dinner with friends, how would you feel towards the end of this particular conversation? Relaxed and satisfied? Or ready to hit the bathroom? Sure... solving problems are not always peaches and cream, but I don't really think that we are solving anything here this time, any more than we were able to solve the last 100 times we have discussed the issue of number counting.
Link to comment
Really! No milestone caches in California (or at least not in your part of CA). Interesting.

 

They pop up here and there. But not on a regular basis. I don't see the kind of caches that used to honor 5 or 10k. Perhaps it's simply that more people have reached high numbers, so the milestone caches have become less of a community event. I suppose when alamogul reaches 50k there will be something big.

 

I like the idea of silver ammo cans. But the Milestone Reward cache provides an opportunity for some level of recognition as well - unless you are like me and had to forego the reward in order to get instant gratification.

Link to comment
Really! No milestone caches in California (or at least not in your part of CA). Interesting.

Not many. There have been a few to honor Alamogul, who lives in the area, but for the most part people are not that number-obsessed in this area. Perhaps that's because there are many thousands of caches within 30 miles here.

 

Or perhaps it's because some of us have deliberately worked to create incentives for different things than numbers.

 

For example, every year kablooey does a puzzle series of one cache per month. He awards points for order of solving and order of finding, and we have a fun get-together at the end of the year where he hands out nice awards he's bought out of his own pocket.

 

Every year we have the Venona "activities" when an evil commie ex-KGB agent poses a series of puzzles and clues that have to be solved by the caching community as a group. Individual puzzle-solving is both discouraged and nearly impossible. People who contribute get "Order of Venona" awards, which last year were coins with a puzzle for a special cache.

 

We have a tradition of "deathmarches," which are defined as hikes over 12 miles and 1500 feet elevation gain that involve at least 6 local cachers and must be open to all. People who complete one can get a special coin.

 

As a result of these things, the Bay Area geocaching community is pretty close-knit and supportive. We really don't have any FTF or numbers angst, because in general we have more fun things to do. But it didn't happen that way by accident; it is the result of people intentionally creating positive group experiences and discouraging harmful competitiveness.

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...