Alamogul Topping 100,000

[+Alkhalikoi]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

 

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

[+SwineFlew]

I have no idea, but if I were to guess, I am sure there will be some people there to help celebrate!

You were there... at GWXII!

 

So was I!

 

Yep, I met him for the first time.

[+ArtieD]

I have no idea, but if I were to guess, I am sure there will be some people there to help celebrate!

You were there... at GWXII!

 

So was I!

 

Yep, I met him for the first time.

 

Yes, yes I was...and I did, too!

 

Nice meeting you, by the way...

Edited May 27, 2014 by Arthur & Trillian

[+SwineFlew]

I have no idea, but if I were to guess, I am sure there will be some people there to help celebrate!

You were there... at GWXII!

 

So was I!

 

Yep, I met him for the first time.

 

Yes, yes I was...and I did, too!

 

Nice meeting you, by the way...

You too! Thanks for hosting that crazy flash mob right on main street and yep we blocked the traffic! The city police was right there and did nothing.

Edited May 27, 2014 by SwineFlew

[+wimseyguy]

917 finds in one day? This means every 95 seconds a found with fetching the container, getting out the logbook, writing a name or a sticker on it, putting the logbook back, closing the container and put it back again?

Welcome to the wonder of modern numbers run trails. I believe that Lee has completed a few of them.

 

Oh jeez, those guys again?

I'll bet Lee can run a lot faster than they can.

[jamjar58]

In fact they really have a lot of finds. But are you all sure, that they really made this number?

All I can tell you is that I cache in one of the areas Alamogul hangs out, I've run into him a few times, and I've seen his signature in many logs. In four years, I've never once seen anything to make me think he has or would even consider logging caches he hasn't actually found. When you see the man in action, it's easy to believe he's found 100,000.

 

I have also seen his stamp in logs, but it seems like some people say there may be a question as to whether one man did all the stamping.

[+Sagefox]

 

I have also seen his stamp in logs, but it seems like some people say there may be a question as to whether one man did all the stamping.

 

Are they the same people who say it is impossible to find 100 caches in one day?

[+Roman!]

My record where I signed every light is just over 500 caches, did this on Route 66 with my daughter driving.

 

My record as part if a team is 768 caches, did this just last week with 2 friends on the heart of the Mohave series, we also took a three hour break during the hottest part of the day.

 

Just because you think you can't do it doesn't mean someone more determined can't.

[Mr.Yuck]

In fact they really have a lot of finds. But are you all sure, that they really made this number?

All I can tell you is that I cache in one of the areas Alamogul hangs out, I've run into him a few times, and I've seen his signature in many logs. In four years, I've never once seen anything to make me think he has or would even consider logging caches he hasn't actually found. When you see the man in action, it's easy to believe he's found 100,000.

 

I have also seen his stamp in logs, but it seems like some people say there may be a question as to whether one man did all the stamping.

 

Well, I have personally seen him use the stamp. This guy became No. 1 around 2006, and hasn't looked back yet. I am convinced he's a man of integrety, and every single find is legit. You wouldn't want your reputation tarnished if you were No. 1, would you? Now that I mention it though, the person he passed way back then was from an area where logging multiple attends for events for temporary caches was commonplace. He is in fact shot out of a cannon though.

[+fizzymagic]

In fact they really have a lot of finds. But are you all sure, that they really made this number?

 

I've cached with Alamogul several times. He finds every cache and he now stamps the logs himself. Every single find he has claimed has been a signed (or stamped) log where he was present. I've never known him to do any leapfrogging or the like.

Edited May 27, 2014 by fizzymagic

[jamjar58]

 

I have also seen his stamp in logs, but it seems like some people say there may be a question as to whether one man did all the stamping.

 

Are they the same people who say it is impossible to find 100 caches in one day?

 

Maybe. This wasn't my experience or accusation, just something I had read somewhere in these forums.

[knowschad]

I have also seen his stamp in logs, but it seems like some people say there may be a question as to whether one man did all the stamping.

 

Are they the same people who say it is impossible to find 100 caches in one day?

 

Maybe. This wasn't my experience or accusation, just something I had read somewhere in these forums.

 

In that case, you just passed along gossip.

[+niraD]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

[+Alkhalikoi]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

Are you operating under the assumption that I agree with any suggestion that Lee has padded his numbers? Because I don't see how you could fairly read what I wrote and think that.

 

This doesn't merit much disagreement, really, since I believe Lee's numbers. That said, if you want to play logic games, "HONK IFF YOU LIKE FORMAL LOGIC"

[+DragonsWest]

I knew all along that he was going to get 100K at GW XII.

 

Congrats to him for that, I've got 9.5% of that (catching up on logs) and find the caching is the easy bit, having to sit down and put in all the logs, especially the fiddly ones like Earth and Virtual caches, that takes real dedication.

[Mr.Yuck]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

True on all counts about a handful of duplicate logs. Does he have any? I wasn't paying attention. I can remember there were at least a few Locationless that would allow multiple finds. Finding different waterfalls is one that pops into my head. And some newer people think I'm nuts when I tell them this, but there was a cache the next town over from me that was converted from a traditional to a 4 leg multi with the same GC number (in 2004 or 2005). And the traditional was removed, and it's location not even used in the multi. People did stuff like that. Or move their cache 1/4 mile, and invite new finds.

[+Roman!]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

True on all counts about a handful of duplicate logs. Does he have any? I wasn't paying attention. I can remember there were at least a few Locationless that would allow multiple finds. Finding different waterfalls is one that pops into my head. And some newer people think I'm nuts when I tell them this, but there was a cache the next town over from me that was converted from a traditional to a 4 leg multi with the same GC number (in 2004 or 2005). And the traditional was removed, and it's location not even used in the multi. People did stuff like that. Or move their cache 1/4 mile, and invite new finds.

 

As The_Incredibles_ already posted, all other multi logs on a GC# aside there is one log (at least) that is a duplicate hence Geowoodstock was only find #99,999.

 

[+The_Incredibles_]

Not 99,999 because there are other duplicate logs.

 

This guy's so busy finding caches, maybe he needs a manager to keep his find count accurate. Just so we can all sleep at night.

[+Roman!]

Not 99,999 because there are other duplicate logs.

 

This guy's so busy finding caches, maybe he needs a manager to keep his find count accurate. Just so we can all sleep at night.

 

I don't know if he cares or if anyone else really cares but I was so looking forward to him hitting 100K at Geowoodstock that knowing that duplicate logs exist was disappointing. He will, if he hasn't already crossed the 100k mark but for me it was a let down as how this threshold was crossed.

[+SwineFlew]

Here is the full list of duplicate logs of his..

 

http://project-gc.com/Profile/findbadlogs/?profile_name=Alamogul&submit=Filter

 

[+Roman!]

Here is the full list of duplicate logs of his..

 

http://project-gc.com/Profile/findbadlogs/?profile_name=Alamogul&submit=Filter

 

 

one event logged 10 times

one event logged 7 times

one event logged 4 times

one moving cache logged 3 times

one locationless cache logged 3 times

Two caches double logged

[+K13]

I'm sure there are 24 caches he failed to log at all (probably more than that), so the numbers are OK.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I'm sure there are 24 caches he failed to log at all (probably more than that), so the numbers are OK.

 

Anyone doing a lot of caching before field notes failed to log plenty caches.....my field note uploads have left off caches as well ( my wife records finds on a legal pad as backup ).

[+SwineFlew]

As many of you can see... you can see that he logged a cache and a quite some time later, he logged them again. That tell me he forgot about it. GPS today does a much better job at keeping track of finds. When you are caching very heavy, you cant remember them all.

[+ArtieD]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I am sure I have logged caches I have found before accidentally and I am sure some of the duplicate logs I have are from legit caches that allow a second (or more) log. There's far better things in this life to worry about.

[+The Leprechauns]

As I used to say years ago when similar nitpicking was directed at CCCooperAgency, "let he who is without sin throw the first fake rock."

 

There are posts here, and in local forums, all the time where someone asks how to detect and fix their duplicate finds. There are caches where multiple finds are allowed. It used to be common practice for owners to move their caches and invite second finds for the "new location." I own one like that, and I found one like that.

 

Thinking of my own finds: (1) I deleted a bunch of "pocket cache" finds from ten years ago, but there's a few that I missed; (2) I have an intentional double-log on a moved cache, (3) I logged a cache with the owner's permission after I DNF'd it, and (4) I claimed two finds without signing the log because the containers were frozen in ice and snow. I have around 5000 finds, a half dozen of which might be challenged if put under a microscope. Multiply that by 20 to match Alamogul's stats. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter very much at all.

Edited May 29, 2014 by The Leprechauns

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Here is the full list of duplicate logs of his..

 

http://project-gc.co...l&submit=Filter

 

 

one event logged 10 times

one event logged 7 times

one event logged 4 times

one moving cache logged 3 times

one locationless cache logged 3 times

Two caches double logged

 

I can understand the events. I know that some COs that create an event that occurs periodically don't create a new GC code each time, but instead re-use the GC code and if the event is held every month (for example) those that attend post an attended log each time they attend the event.

[+briansnat]

Here is the full list of duplicate logs of his..

 

http://project-gc.co...l&submit=Filter

 

 

one event logged 10 times

one event logged 7 times

one event logged 4 times

one moving cache logged 3 times

one locationless cache logged 3 times

Two caches double logged

 

I can understand the events. I know that some COs that create an event that occurs periodically don't create a new GC code each time, but instead re-use the GC code and if the event is held every month (for example) those that attend post an attended log each time they attend the event.

 

That's a fairly common practice. Around here the regular monthly meet and greet uses the same GC code every month. I think they submit at the beginning of each year though, so regular attendees will sometimes have as many as 12 attends on a single event.

 

I have a thing about my finds and unique logs being equal so I don't do that or log moving caches multiple times, but I think it's perfectly acceptable for those who choose to.

Edited May 29, 2014 by briansnat

[+fizzymagic]

I have a thing about my finds and unique logs being equal so I don't do that or log moving caches multiple times, but I think it's perfectly acceptable for those who choose to.

 

I have the same thing, but I don't feel it necessary to impose my standards on other people.

 

I used to be much more persnickety about my own logging practices. I would never let anybody else sign the log for me; I would never find a puzzle cache that I hadn't solved; I would have to be the one to physically retrieve difficult-to-reach caches, etc.

 

But I have relaxed a lot about it in recent years. I solve so many more puzzles than anyone else nearby that I would never get a chance to cache with anybody else unless they could use my solutions. Likewise, I sometimes leech off of other peoples' solutions to puzzles if I know how to solve it but haven't done the required tedium. I am happy now to let one person sign the log for a group I am in as long as I am present. But I still insist on either retrieving or replacing difficult-to-reach caches. I don't think I have "earned" the high terrain rating unless I have done it myself.

 

The question here is: to what standard do we hold another person? Those who would require everyone to live up to their standards may well deserve the moniker "puritans." I have sometimes fallen into that trap myself (see recent thread re: cacher names in cache titles for an excellent example).

 

In Alamogul's case, I know that any multiple finds involved multiple signatures on logbooks, and I also know he has way over 100K finds anyway (he timed the announcement for GW). So as far as I am concerned, his record is a slam-dunk.

[+ArtieD]

The question here is: to what standard do we hold another person?

 

To no standard, save for the very basic tenets of caching...

 

1. Seek and find cache.

2. Sign log.

3. Rehide cache as well as you found it, if not better.

 

That's pretty much it. Anything past that falls under the cacher playing his own game.

[+SwineFlew]

The question here is: to what standard do we hold another person?

 

To no standard, save for the very basic tenets of caching...

 

1. Seek and find cache.

2. Sign log.

3. Rehide cache as well as you found it, if not better.

 

That's pretty much it. Anything past that falls under the cacher playing his own game.

What about throwdowns?

[+Don_J]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

I have three caches that I have double logged, and I consider all of my logs to be legitimate.

[+Don_J]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

True on all counts about a handful of duplicate logs. Does he have any? I wasn't paying attention. I can remember there were at least a few Locationless that would allow multiple finds. Finding different waterfalls is one that pops into my head. And some newer people think I'm nuts when I tell them this, but there was a cache the next town over from me that was converted from a traditional to a 4 leg multi with the same GC number (in 2004 or 2005). And the traditional was removed, and it's location not even used in the multi. People did stuff like that. Or move their cache 1/4 mile, and invite new finds.

 

One of my duplicates was a trail side Altoids tin that was converted to a four stage night reflector cache. I can't see any reason why I shouldn't log it twice. The other was a LPC in a park parking lot that became a Lock n' Lock down a 3 terrain cliff at the edge of the parking lot. I personally think that a new GC # should have been created, but they weren't. In my opinion, they were new caches, so I logged them.

[+Roman!]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

I have three caches that I have double logged, and I consider all of my logs to be legitimate.

 

Would you consider this double log from just a few months ago legitimate?

 

Edited May 31, 2014 by Roman!

[+Don_J]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

I have three caches that I have double logged, and I consider all of my logs to be legitimate.

 

Would you consider this double log from just a few months ago legitimate?

 

 

No, that's obviously an api error, most likely with one of the apps.

[+Roman!]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

I have three caches that I have double logged, and I consider all of my logs to be legitimate.

 

Would you consider this double log from just a few months ago legitimate?

 

 

No, that's obviously an api error, most likely with one of the apps.

 

If I was the first person approaching 100k finds I would have double, triple, quadruple and then once again checked for this. I would have went through every single duplicate entry and scrutinized it, but that's just me, I am very obsessive about my stats.

[+Ben0w]

If I was the first person approaching 100k finds I would have double, triple, quadruple and then once again checked for this. I would have went through every single duplicate entry and scrutinized it, but that's just me, I am very obsessive about my stats.

Maybe that's the reason why you've no time to accumulate 100k finds.

 

Mine is spending too much time in the forums than outside...

[Mr.Yuck]

If I was the first person approaching 100k finds I would have double, triple, quadruple and then once again checked for this. I would have went through every single duplicate entry and scrutinized it, but that's just me, I am very obsessive about my stats.

Maybe that's the reason why you've no time to accumulate 100k finds.

 

Mine is spending too much time in the forums than outside...

 

Yeah, wait until you get to my post count. I need to swear off this stuff before I hit 10,000. That will actually be embarrassing, not something to celebrate.

 

I've been one of Alamogul's biggest supporters in this thread (and some other ones from time to time), but I have to agree with Roman. Although I'm sure he's far too busy finding caches to know about the wonders of Project-GC, when you're no. 1, and the whole world is watching (and most of them cheering), you should take the time to go over that stuff. And it looks like it's about 24 dupes right now. They would take what, about an hour of caching to "replace"?

[Mr.Yuck]

If we accept that there's no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache

That's a pretty big "if"...

Just interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. IAAL.

Okay, IANAL, but I do know something about logic. You start with an "if" clause that isn't necessarily true. That undermines the support for your "then" clause.

 

Alamogul has been geocaching since 2002. He's logged dozens of locationless caches, and I'm sure he's found plenty of traveling caches too. He found many caches back when it wasn't unheard of for cache owners to change a hide completely, update the coordinates and other listing details, and encourage everyone to log another find even though the GC code didn't change (because the CO had recycled the listing).

 

All of this pokes holes in the idea that there is "no legitimate reason to have a duplicate log on any cache", and in any assumption that multiple finds for a single GC code must be fraudulent numbers padding.

 

True on all counts about a handful of duplicate logs. Does he have any? I wasn't paying attention. I can remember there were at least a few Locationless that would allow multiple finds. Finding different waterfalls is one that pops into my head. And some newer people think I'm nuts when I tell them this, but there was a cache the next town over from me that was converted from a traditional to a 4 leg multi with the same GC number (in 2004 or 2005). And the traditional was removed, and it's location not even used in the multi. People did stuff like that. Or move their cache 1/4 mile, and invite new finds.

 

One of my duplicates was a trail side Altoids tin that was converted to a four stage night reflector cache. I can't see any reason why I shouldn't log it twice. The other was a LPC in a park parking lot that became a Lock n' Lock down a 3 terrain cliff at the edge of the parking lot. I personally think that a new GC # should have been created, but they weren't. In my opinion, they were new caches, so I logged them.

 

Looks like my 2 are a multi that was redone with more legs, and a traditional that was adopted, and moved a good 1/4 mile by the adoptive owner. Both with the owners inviting finds in the logs. Apparently, I deleted the traditional of the traditonal turned 4 leg multi quoted by myself above from my finds at some point.

 

Oh, P.S. After 11 years, I finally adopted my first cache last week. And anyone who thinks I'm deleting my find on it can go pound salt. I don't even know that that means, but I always thought it sounded family friendly.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[+Ben0w]

when you're no. 1, and the whole world is watching (and most of them cheering), you should take the time to go over that stuff. And it looks like it's about 24 dupes right now. They would take what, about an hour of caching to "replace"?

From what I've seen in this thread, Alamogul has only one real false/double logging. Other dupes are based on (then) "legal" multiple logging of events and changed caches just happening to have the same GC-code.

 

A deviation of 1 in 100'000 is rather perfect in my caching book, even 24 would be. And it doesn't change my opinion about Alamogul's achievements a bit: I totally respect his commitment to geocaching. For me, numbers mean nothing, good stories about caching experiences mean a lot - but a more or less reliable count number of 100K is an experience in itself. Let's see what I'm still able to do when I'm retired...

 

But I follow you: I'm very concerned about MY statistics - not about my numbers, but about their accuracy. If I ever hit 100K they will be hit EXACTLY. Just 99'652 to go, whohooo!

[+Roman!]

when you're no. 1, and the whole world is watching (and most of them cheering), you should take the time to go over that stuff. And it looks like it's about 24 dupes right now. They would take what, about an hour of caching to "replace"?

From what I've seen in this thread, Alamogul has only one real false/double logging. Other dupes are based on (then) "legal" multiple logging of events and changed caches just happening to have the same GC-code.

 

A deviation of 1 in 100'000 is rather perfect in my caching book, even 24 would be. And it doesn't change my opinion about Alamogul's achievements a bit: I totally respect his commitment to geocaching. For me, numbers mean nothing, good stories about caching experiences mean a lot - but a more or less reliable count number of 100K is an experience in itself. Let's see what I'm still able to do when I'm retired...

 

But I follow you: I'm very concerned about MY statistics - not about my numbers, but about their accuracy. If I ever hit 100K they will be hit EXACTLY. Just 99'652 to go, whohooo!

 

One definitely and another traditional that was logged on separate days so probably, all I'm saying is when you are #1 in the world at something like it or not you are going to be a public figure and whether you care or not people are going to put you on a pedestal or look up to you to some extent and IMHO (Alamogul or you may disagree) you have a responsibility to the Geocaching community because you are a high profile representative of the hobby.

 

I would have and firmly believe he should have checked for these discrepancies and fixed the 1 or 2 he has before hitting 100K.

 

Him accomplishment is amazing and I hope he finds another 150K, this just put a bit of sour in my chocolate (and I'm sure other's) and it could have easily been avoided.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Roman!

[+SwineFlew]

Something isnt adding up...

 

He now got 101,065 finds... So that mean Geowoodstock isnt the true 100K...

 

Geowoodstock is only on his 2nd page of all his finds.

 

 

I careless...

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think the double logging is boosting his find count enough for it even to be discussed. He still has more finds than anyone, even without them. Perhaps he doesn't know exactly what the milestone cache was, or wants anyone to know, or even cares.

 

Oh, P.S. After 11 years, I finally adopted my first cache last week. And anyone who thinks I'm deleting my find on it can go pound salt. I don't even know that that means, but I always thought it sounded family friendly.

 

Lot's wife wouldn't think so.

Edited June 3, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool