Jump to content

Was there a 1 Millionth active geocache notice?


GeoLobo
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

The cache listing # was kept secret to prevent it from being spammed with a thousand congratulatory notes. :D

 

Interesting I didn't give that aspect a thought. Albeit folks would like to go to the 1,000,000 cache for the find and to log it. It is a historic cache IMHO.

 

Thank you.

 

Jeff of Barefoot One & Wench

Edited by Barefoot One & Wench
Link to comment

The cache listing # was kept secret to prevent it from being spammed with a thousand congratulatory notes. :D

 

Interesting I didn't give that aspect a thought. Albeit folks would like to go to the 1,000,000 cache for the find and to log it. It is a historic cache IMHO.

 

Thank you.

 

Jeff of Barefoot One & Wench

 

I was kidding. The 1,000,000th was considered a static number and could not be determined. The 2,000,000th cache was spammed.

Link to comment

The 1,000,000th was considered a static dynamic number and could not be determined.

Fixed it for ya.

 

To address the OP, for the 2,000,000th, they planned ahead of time to capture which specific cache was the first to be the 2,000,000th. I'm assuming they did some programming on the back-end to tell them exactly when the database held 2,000,000 caches. They didn't do this for the 1,000,000th, which would mean they'd have to figure out which one it was after-the-fact. With so many publishes and archives, it makes it very difficult to go back and figure out exactly which one it was. I'm sure they have enough data to do it, but it would be a bit painful to do.

 

...and seeing now what happens when you get targeted like this, I'm sure the owner of the 1,000,000th is happy they didn't get singled out!

Link to comment

The 1,000,000th was considered a static dynamic number and could not be determined.

Fixed it for ya.

 

To address the OP, for the 2,000,000th, they planned ahead of time to capture which specific cache was the first to be the 2,000,000th. I'm assuming they did some programming on the back-end to tell them exactly when the database held 2,000,000 caches. They didn't do this for the 1,000,000th, which would mean they'd have to figure out which one it was after-the-fact. With so many publishes and archives, it makes it very difficult to go back and figure out exactly which one it was. I'm sure they have enough data to do it, but it would be a bit painful to do...

I think it could be figured out using the LUID numbers of publish, archive, retract and re-publish logs. Probably not painful but futile :)

Link to comment

The 1,000,000th was considered a static dynamic number and could not be determined.

Fixed it for ya.

 

To address the OP, for the 2,000,000th, they planned ahead of time to capture which specific cache was the first to be the 2,000,000th. I'm assuming they did some programming on the back-end to tell them exactly when the database held 2,000,000 caches. They didn't do this for the 1,000,000th, which would mean they'd have to figure out which one it was after-the-fact. With so many publishes and archives, it makes it very difficult to go back and figure out exactly which one it was. I'm sure they have enough data to do it, but it would be a bit painful to do.

 

...and seeing now what happens when you get targeted like this, I'm sure the owner of the 1,000,000th is happy they didn't get singled out!

 

I just typed static, rather than dynamic, while referencing it in another of the many thread myself the other day. :laughing:

Link to comment

When was the 1,000,000th cache placed? That is a more interesting question to me, as in, how long did it take to get to the first million and how much less time to get to the second.

According to Groundspeak: "On Monday March 8, 2010, the number of active geocaches listed on Geocaching.com exceeded the million-cache mark."

According to the fanatics running server-crippling searches, the number was reached on the morning of March 7th. As I understand it, at that time Groundspeak was only updating their total cache number once a day, which is why the official statement simply says that when they checked that number on March 8, it was beyond one million.

Link to comment

Wow! Thanks all for the info

 

So, i guess its safe to say that according to Groundspeak: "On Monday March 8, 2010, the number of active geocaches listed on Geocaching.com exceeded the million-cache mark" sometime early March 7, 2010.

 

Is it possible to figure out the actual cache?

Link to comment

Caches are archived and placed all of the time. The number we're identifying (for clarification) is the first cache to cause the threshold of 1,000,000 active caches to cross over. Once that cache is published, if three others are archived, and then four are published, it crosses the line again.

 

So to look back to March of 2010, Groundspeak would have to have a precise date and time for all cache approvals and all cache archive dates (which they do) to determine which cache made it so Groundspeak crossed the line. But it would take a great deal of effort to reproduce which cache it was - and how would anyone benefit? Given the issues of spamming for this poor individual that placed this cache, what would be the benefit?

Link to comment

I found this other forum item that mentioned it and linked to a news article.

 

Edit to add: Even though they named it "One

Millionth Geocache....." and invite people to come and find it, it has just 56 logged visits.

Please do not inundate their mailbox!!! Cache statistics rise and fall. Numbers change. Besides. 2 million was so yesterday. There are over a thousand more already.

Edited by Planet
Link to comment

I found this other forum item that mentioned it and linked to a news article.

 

Edit to add: Even though they named it "One

Millionth Geocache....." and invite people to come and find it, it has just 56 logged visits.

Please do not inundate their mailbox!!! Cache statistics rise and fall. Numbers change. Besides. 2 million was so yesterday. There are over a thousand more already.

 

The dates don't match up at all. I think it's just a cache owner with a zany sense of humor. :anibad:

 

This cache owner contemplates copying that zany sense of humor, and renaming one of his caches. You can do that you know. Not many people know you can totally change the name of your cache. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I found this other forum item that mentioned it and linked to a news article.

 

Edit to add: Even though they named it "One

Millionth Geocache....." and invite people to come and find it, it has just 56 logged visits.

Please do not inundate their mailbox!!! Cache statistics rise and fall. Numbers change. Besides. 2 million was so yesterday. There are over a thousand more already.

The dates don't match up at all. I think it's just a cache owner with a zany sense of humor. :anibad:

 

This cache owner contemplates copying that zany sense of humor, and renaming one of his caches. You can do that you know. Not many people know you can totally change the name of your cache. :ph34r:

Well, it was published on March 7, 2010, which means it might have been the millionth active cache. But, as you noted, a cache owner claiming it as the millionth doesn't make it so.

Link to comment

I found this other forum item that mentioned it and linked to a news article.

 

Edit to add: Even though they named it "One

Millionth Geocache....." and invite people to come and find it, it has just 56 logged visits.

Please do not inundate their mailbox!!! Cache statistics rise and fall. Numbers change. Besides. 2 million was so yesterday. There are over a thousand more already.

The dates don't match up at all. I think it's just a cache owner with a zany sense of humor. :anibad:

 

This cache owner contemplates copying that zany sense of humor, and renaming one of his caches. You can do that you know. Not many people know you can totally change the name of your cache. :ph34r:

Well, it was published on March 7, 2010, which means it might have been the millionth active cache. But, as you noted, a cache owner claiming it as the millionth doesn't make it so.

 

OMG, OMG, OMG. I looked at the date placed date on the top of the cache page: 07/08/2009. Were people sitting on GC numbers hoping to be the 1,000,000th cache? It looks like they might have been. OK, the guy isn't zany then. He's serious. :D

Link to comment

Still. Two million is old news. We are over two thousand over that mark already.

But the news article is what I was pointing out. It was announced.

It was "announced" by the Maritime Geocaching Association, not by Groundspeak. The MGA isn't in any better position to determine the millionth active cache than is the cache owner. I suspect somebody pointed out that particular cache to them, and the MGA bit.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Still. Two million is old news. We are over two thousand over that mark already.

But the news article is what I was pointing out. It was announced.

It was "announced" by the Maritime Geocaching Association, not by Groundspeak. The MGA isn't in any better position to determine the millionth active cache than is the cache owner. I suspect somebody pointed out that particular cache to them, and the MGA bit.

 

I agree, Groundspeak didn't announce jack. The Maritime Geocaching Association did, in a thread that only one person responded to. So the announcement was known to a couple people in like Halifax. :P

 

OK, that cache owner has about 20 caches "placed" 7/8/09, but published months later, including the alleged 1,000,000th active cache, not published for 7 friggin' months. I have no clue what's up there.

 

But for the purposes of this thread and the OP GeoLobo, I'm sure with the intention of making a Geocaching Trading Card, he could probably contact this cache owner. Then it would be up to him if he feels the guy has some legitimate information that his cache was really 1,000,000.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...