Milestones and (fuzzy) numbers

[+user13371]

I hit the milestone of 400 caches today. Sort of.

 

I kinda think my first six caches shouldn't count -- because from 2001 until early 2009, I didn't take it at all seriously; I just puttered about. I didn't really start actively caching until early 2009.. As for the 394 found since then, the numbers are a bit fuzzy because

 

• At least one of them is a duplicate. I found a two caches on the same spot, one was the original the CO had presumed "lost" and the other was its replacement. I signed both logs and logged it as two distinct find with the CO's permission.
  
• A small number were really found by my lovely (and sharp eyed) wife, who has no GC account of her own (nor real interest in the game) but who tolerates my silliness on long walks.
  
• I may have forgotten or failed to log a few finds, before I went with completely paperless caching and more careful record keeping.

So it may seem silly, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that 400 milestone. I'd like to have at least 6 more to make up those "shouldn't count" old finds, and a few extras to cover any other fuzzy miscalculations. Call it 410 and I'll feel like I have a "real" 400 under my belt.

 

Does any one else view their own numbers with this kind of self-critical appraisal?

Edited May 9, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[GOF and Bacall]

I think you need to ease up on yourself. This isn't pro tiddlywinks. The "score" doesn't really matter.

[AZcachemeister]

I completely understand your desire for accuracy.

 

But, it's only a game!

 

I have some inconsistencies between my GSAK find count, my online Groundspeak find count, and my EXCELL spreadsheet find count.

 

I assume (ARRGH!) I will eventually resolve the inconsistencies...but so far they have proved very elusive.

 

In the meantime I assume (AYIEEEEE!) the Groundspeak number to be correct.

[+StarBrand]

I used some questionable practices on 2 or 3 of my early ones but we all live and learn and grow so I see no good reason to look back. I'm proud of my count and my travels and my fun.

[+BaylorGrad]

I completely understand. I hold myself to ridiculously high standards. In fact, each of my caching logs (go look at them) begin with "Cache #___." That way, I can keep track of my finds. Has worked perfectly so far. 336 finds on 336 distinct caches.

[+sword fern]

Just got my first FTF yesterday. At 'school dayz' in washington state.

[+gsmX2]

I hit the milestone of 400 caches today. Sort of.

 

I kinda think my first six caches shouldn't count -- because from 2001 until early 2009, I didn't take it at all seriously; I just puttered about. I didn't really start actively caching until early 2009.. As for the 394 found since then, the numbers are a bit fuzzy because

 

• At least one of them is a duplicate. I found a two caches on the same spot, one was the original the CO had presumed "lost" and the other was its replacement. I signed both logs and logged it as two distinct find with the CO's permission.
  
• A small number were really found by my lovely (and sharp eyed) wife, who has no GC account of her own (nor real interest in the game) but who tolerates my silliness on long walks.
  
• I may have forgotten or failed to log a few finds, before I went with completely paperless caching and more careful record keeping.

So it may seem silly, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that 400 milestone. I'd like to have at least 6 more to make up those "shouldn't count" old finds, and a few extras to cover any other fuzzy miscalculations. Call it 410 and I'll feel like I have a "real" 400 under my belt.

 

Does any one else view their own numbers with this kind of self-critical appraisal?

 

I have spend dozens of hours over the years reconciling my numbers so they match and I don't have multiple finds on any caches. So I feel your pain. There is a recent thread on how to reconcile GSAK numbers with geocaching.com numbers.

 

If you know which cache contains duplicate logs, go to that cache and delete the extra log. That will lessen your geocaching.com numbers by one. It is quite likely that those first caches have been archived, but maybe not. Good luck.

[+power69]

I hit the milestone of 400 caches today. Sort of.

 

I kinda think my first six caches shouldn't count -- because from 2001 until early 2009, I didn't take it at all seriously; I just puttered about. I didn't really start actively caching until early 2009.. As for the 394 found since then, the numbers are a bit fuzzy because

 

• At least one of them is a duplicate. I found a two caches on the same spot, one was the original the CO had presumed "lost" and the other was its replacement. I signed both logs and logged it as two distinct find with the CO's permission.
  
• A small number were really found by my lovely (and sharp eyed) wife, who has no GC account of her own (nor real interest in the game) but who tolerates my silliness on long walks.
  
• I may have forgotten or failed to log a few finds, before I went with completely paperless caching and more careful record keeping.

So it may seem silly, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that 400 milestone. I'd like to have at least 6 more to make up those "shouldn't count" old finds, and a few extras to cover any other fuzzy miscalculations. Call it 410 and I'll feel like I have a "real" 400 under my belt.

 

Does any one else view their own numbers with this kind of self-critical appraisal?

So delete those found its and continue on.

[+DanOCan]

I kinda think my first six caches shouldn't count -- because from 2001 until early 2009, I didn't take it at all seriously; I just puttered about.

 

Interesting. My first year I hit 38 caches, it took me two years to reach 100. I was very much just puttering about as well. It never would cross my mind that those finds were any less legitimate than the ones I found in 2007 when I sort of went numbers-crazy for a year.

 

So, I guess to answer your question, I personally don't put much "self-critical appraisal" into my numbers.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would be inclined to delete any duplicate Finds, even if there were issues with multiple containers for the same cache. I've got 'N finds on N distinct caches' and like keeping it that way.

 

Other than that: I don't really worry. Some caches I found by myself, some caches I found with friends. Some I needed the Hint, some I didn't. Some I got a trip from a previous finder or the CO, some I didn't. Some caches I didn't find as the CO intended (left in the open, damaged containers, shrubbery died off or was cut down making the cache visible, etc). Sometimes I didn't sign the log because it was soaked or I couldn't get the blasted thing out of the nano blinkie. A few I walked up to without ever pulling out my GPS (and some cachers never use a GPS for ANY of their finds).

 

To me the important thing is that one way or another I found the geocache. That's all my Finds stat represents. To nitpick how each Find counts we'd need some complex scoring system and that doesn't exist. Nor I think do most of us really feel that's the point of caching anyway.

[+PokerLuck]

Yeah, I think you're being too hard on yourself. I like getting the numbers up (not obsessively), and I like using really cool caches for my milestones. My 1000th find was a cache called "The End of a Long Run...", which seemed very appropriate to me. Yet, it wasn't really my 1000th find, because I have two duplicates somewhere, but for the life of me I can't find them. I could take my logs and pore through them one by one to find the duplicates, but that seems like a lot of work for a game that's supposed to be fun. So, I just live with it.

[+captnemo]

Congrads I just pasted my 400 milestone too. The answer to first 6 finds is easy just go find 6 more, then your milestone is still in order and corrected it in the most fun manner.

Edited May 10, 2011 by captnemo

[+Ratbas]

Is there an easy way to figure out the duplicates other than going through all of my entries? I got one pretty easily because it was a recent double post (same cache back to back finds). But I have two others I'm still looking for.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I would be inclined to delete any duplicate Finds, even if there were issues with multiple containers for the same cache. I've got 'N finds on N distinct caches' and like keeping it that way.

 

I have no qualms about my 'finds' being different from my 'distinct' finds. One was a moving cache that I found at two locations thirty miles apart. The others were for Locationless or Locationless disguised as Mystery. The hunt/quarry/requirement changed. The finds were distinct, though the GC numbers were not.

[+dfx]

Is there an easy way to figure out the duplicates other than going through all of my entries? I got one pretty easily because it was a recent double post (same cache back to back finds). But I have two others I'm still looking for.

 

Upload your "my finds" to http://www.mygeocachingprofile.com/, it will tell you.

[+sword fern]

I hit the milestone of 400 caches today. Sort of.

 

I kinda think my first six caches shouldn't count -- because from 2001 until early 2009, I didn't take it at all seriously; I just puttered about. I didn't really start actively caching until early 2009.. As for the 394 found since then, the numbers are a bit fuzzy because

 

• At least one of them is a duplicate. I found a two caches on the same spot, one was the original the CO had presumed "lost" and the other was its replacement. I signed both logs and logged it as two distinct find with the CO's permission.
  
• A small number were really found by my lovely (and sharp eyed) wife, who has no GC account of her own (nor real interest in the game) but who tolerates my silliness on long walks.
  
• I may have forgotten or failed to log a few finds, before I went with completely paperless caching and more careful record keeping.

So it may seem silly, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that 400 milestone. I'd like to have at least 6 more to make up those "shouldn't count" old finds, and a few extras to cover any other fuzzy miscalculations. Call it 410 and I'll feel like I have a "real" 400 under my belt.

 

Does any one else view their own numbers with this kind of self-critical appraisal?

So delete those found its and continue on.

 

Yes, it's that simple.

[+Doctroid]

I would be inclined to delete any duplicate Finds, even if there were issues with multiple containers for the same cache. I've got 'N finds on N distinct caches' and like keeping it that way.

 

I have no qualms about my 'finds' being different from my 'distinct' finds. One was a moving cache that I found at two locations thirty miles apart. The others were for Locationless or Locationless disguised as Mystery. The hunt/quarry/requirement changed. The finds were distinct, though the GC numbers were not.

I logged finds on one cache twice, because I needed to drop off a travel bug I'd been hanging onto far too long, and making a return trip to the nearest ammo can cache was the quickest way to do that. And I logged it again because, well, I did find it again. Lets the CO know it's still there and still OK. If it were something like a 5/5 cache I would hesitate to claim two finds on it... then again, if it were a 5/5, I wouldn't have gone to it for a TB drop, would I?

 

Now, I could delete that second log to make my finds and distinct finds equal, but what for? To me it's no big deal if my "100th find" was really my 99th. They're both about 100, give or take a percent, and 100 is an arbitrary milestone anyway, an artifact of base 10 counting.

 

(Would it mess up the TB log if I deleted my duplicate cache log?)

 

I like the fact that GC keeps separate "finds" and "distinct finds" counts. I kind of wish they'd give higher emphasis to the latter instead of the former. But I refuse to nitpick over one or a few duplicates.

[AZcachemeister]

 

I logged finds on one cache twice, because I needed to drop off a travel bug I'd been hanging onto far too long, and making a return trip to the nearest ammo can cache was the quickest way to do that. And I logged it again because, well, I did find it again. Lets the CO know it's still there and still OK. If it were something like a 5/5 cache I would hesitate to claim two finds on it... then again, if it were a 5/5, I wouldn't have gone to it for a TB drop, would I?

 

Now, I could delete that second log to make my finds and distinct finds equal, but what for? To me it's no big deal if my "100th find" was really my 99th. They're both about 100, give or take a percent, and 100 is an arbitrary milestone anyway, an artifact of base 10 counting.

 

(Would it mess up the TB log if I deleted my duplicate cache log?)

 

I like the fact that GC keeps separate "finds" and "distinct finds" counts. I kind of wish they'd give higher emphasis to the latter instead of the former. But I refuse to nitpick over one or a few duplicates.

 

No, the TB will stay dropped even if you delete your spurious log.

 

I suppose I could say I 'found' the cache every time I go to do maintenance on my owned caches...but I don't.

 

You are free to be as sloppy as you like, it doesn't matter to us that much.

[+WRASTRO]

I logged finds on one cache twice, because I needed to drop off a travel bug I'd been hanging onto far too long, and making a return trip to the nearest ammo can cache was the quickest way to do that. And I logged it again because, well, I did find it again. Lets the CO know it's still there and still OK. If it were something like a 5/5 cache I would hesitate to claim two finds on it... then again, if it were a 5/5, I wouldn't have gone to it for a TB drop, would I?

 

Now, I could delete that second log to make my finds and distinct finds equal, but what for? To me it's no big deal if my "100th find" was really my 99th. They're both about 100, give or take a percent, and 100 is an arbitrary milestone anyway, an artifact of base 10 counting.

 

(Would it mess up the TB log if I deleted my duplicate cache log?)

 

I like the fact that GC keeps separate "finds" and "distinct finds" counts. I kind of wish they'd give higher emphasis to the latter instead of the former. But I refuse to nitpick over one or a few duplicates.

 

No, the TB will stay dropped even if you delete your spurious log.

 

I suppose I could say I 'found' the cache every time I go to do maintenance on my owned caches...but I don't.

 

You are free to be as sloppy as you like, it doesn't matter to us that much.

I have been to a fair number of caches multiple times when moving travel bugs and coins. Only the first "find" got a found it log. The others got notes.

[+scout_toujours]

I just hit 400 a couple of weeks ago. I just set personal goals for myself. It's all about the adventure. Don't be so hard on yourself and have fun! It's the whole point of the game!

[+Doctroid]

I have been to a fair number of caches multiple times when moving travel bugs and coins. Only the first "find" got a found it log. The others got notes.

 

Hm, that works, I suppose — I wasn't sure if that was appropriate use of a note.

[+BlueDeuce]

Does any one else view their own numbers with this kind of self-critical appraisal?

 

Yes, but then again I avoid being too hard on myself by having the peace of mind by not having to justify why I should claim a second Found it. I would rather miss a milestone when I knew reached it than to have to add a footnote to get there.

[+d+n.s]

most of the time, we just forget about them or can't find them on the site to log them later. I love virtuals, but we don't lof them someimes because you don't get a response from the CO despite thm saying that you cannot log it without a response.

 

Long story short, I think we have somehwere around 15 caches that will never get logged, but we're going to Seattle for #200 just the same

[+TerraViators]

I completely understand. I hold myself to ridiculously high standards. In fact, each of my caching logs (go look at them) begin with "Cache #___." That way, I can keep track of my finds. Has worked perfectly so far. 336 finds on 336 distinct caches.

I'm right there with you. I'm also a bit OCD and my wife claims I may be mildly autistic. I don't know about that one...never been diagnosed. I find my personal stats fascinating and the different categories very interesting to study. I've always enjoyed numbers and statistics, since a child. Therefore, I try to maintain the most accurate statistics as possible and I have very strict rules about it. It's fun for me but probably a headache for others.

[+kellye&jeremy]

Bless your little pea picking heart. A find is a find. We don't list them twice if he finds one & then takes me back & lets me find it later that day since I couldn't go on the original trip. Pluck that bottle out of that owl's butt & sign away.I think your honesty speaks for itself. I'm all for accuracy in the numbers, I keep up with a million dollars in inventory, but this is for fun & I don't even remember which logs were soggy by the time we get home, I'm just excited to have been out finding them. Just don't go moving them to where you think they intended them to be or where you think is a better spot. That's just wrong. So far the only milestone we have is that we couldn't stop for the day on number 13. And we (ok, I' am) committed to going back & finding those we didn't find. Congrats on 400, I(we)look forward to finding that many!