Over 1500 Lab Cache finds?

[JujuBabe]

I recently came across a geocacher who has logged over 1500 Lab cache finds. Beeing an unexperienced cacher myself, I found it quite interesting, so I did a little research on Lab caches and found out that about 10 or 20 of them are usually placed placed on Mega and Giga events. So I checked his profile again and I found out that he only visited 3 Megas and 2 Gigas so far. A fast calculation show that he could have only found at most a hundred Lab caches there. So, it makes me wondering, where did the rest of the finds came from? Are there any other ways to claim a find on a Lab cache?


p.s.: I'm just asking this question out of curiosity. I'm not trying to raise a suspicion that he has done something that's outside the Geocaching "standards". Maybe the additional informations can help me find my first Lab cache too...  

[+niraD]

43 minutes ago, Psytoma said:

Are there any other ways to claim a find on a Lab cache?

In addition to attending a mega-/giga-event and completing the lab cache, or getting the logging code from someone who has completed the lab cache, there was a promotion a while back that let members (perhaps only premium members, I forget) create a one-shot lab cache that could be logged once, by only one geocacher. Perhaps that geocacher received hundreds of invitations to log those one-shot lab caches.

[JujuBabe]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

In addition to attending a mega-/giga-event and completing the lab cache, or getting the logging code from someone who has completed the lab cache, there was a promotion a while back that let members (perhaps only premium members, I forget) create a one-shot lab cache that could be logged once, by only one geocacher. Perhaps that geocacher received hundreds of invitations to log those one-shot lab caches.

When was that promotion? He made the last 200 finds in the last 3 months or so...

Edited March 16, 2018 by Psytoma

[+niraD]

33 minutes ago, Psytoma said:

When was that promotion? He made the last 200 finds in the last 3 months or so...

IIRC, it was the February after lab caches were first introduced. It definitely was not in the last 3 months.

[garyo1954]

Yeah, some of these people I'd like to sit down with and ask, "How did you do that?"

For example over at Project-GC I checked on the Top Caches in One Day. (I surmised it might be several hundred accounting for distance, finding, signing, replacing).

I was surprised! 1000 caches in a day will barely land you on page 55 in the US.
You need 2159 to move into the top ten.
3196 will put you in second place.
But if you want to be #1 you'll have to find 5579! (hans415 currently stands at #1 with 5578)

In my uneducated mind, that seems an impossible feat even in a 24 hour period.

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by garyo1954

[+fizzymagic]

19 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Yeah, some of these people I'd like to sit down with and ask, "How did you do that?"

For example over at Project-GC I checked on the Top Caches in One Day. (I surmised it might be several hundred accounting for distance, finding, signing, replacing).

I was surprised! 1000 caches in a day will barely land you on page 55 in the US.
You need 2159 to move into the top ten.
3196 will put you in second place.
But if you want to be #1 you'll have to find 5579! (han415 currently stands at #1 with 5578)

In my uneducated mind, that seems an impossible feat even in a 24 hour period.

It is indeed an impossible feat.  That one cache every 15.5 seconds for 24 hours.  Assuming the caches were placed 0.1 miles apart, that is an average speed of 23.2 mph, ignoring the finding, opening, and signing of the caches.  The number was either from incorrect logging or some kind of team effort.

I am happy when I see this kind of claim made; it illustrates how absurd the concept of competition over geocaching statistics is.

[garyo1954]

56 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

It is indeed an impossible feat.  That one cache every 15.5 seconds for 24 hours.  Assuming the caches were placed 0.1 miles apart, that is an average speed of 23.2 mph, ignoring the finding, opening, and signing of the caches.  The number was either from incorrect logging or some kind of team effort.

I am happy when I see this kind of claim made; it illustrates how absurd the concept of competition over geocaching statistics is.

Its under his statistics on his profile page. 9-9-15.
From reading threads 2005-2007 it seems the "unofficial" record was 260 to 270 back then. From the threads people would spend months finding a area with concentration, and planning the most efficient route, before the attempt. 

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

From reading threads 2005-2007 it seems the "unofficial" record was 260 to 270 back then. From the threads people would spend months finding a area with concentration, and planning the most efficient route, before the attempt. 

Yeah, numbers runs are nothing new. What is new (well, not so new any more, but at one point it was new) is the "prepackaged' numbers runs with fungible film canisters spaced every 528ft/161m. No planning an efficient route. Just start at #0001 and keep going.

[+OwenfromKC]

1500 labcaches is a lot.  I have noticed many labcaches are based on local information sometimes not even historically significant like virtuals.  Most answers can be gotten by checking the Waymarking page that has tons of pictures of any location and item in question. If it is something more mundane, google street view can show info on signs or plaques. On google maps, people can share photos of an area also.  The menu will tell you how many random photos have been crowd sourced and publicly shared.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

9 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

It is indeed an impossible feat.  That one cache every 15.5 seconds for 24 hours.  Assuming the caches were placed 0.1 miles apart, that is an average speed of 23.2 mph, ignoring the finding, opening, and signing of the caches.  The number was either from incorrect logging or some kind of team effort.

I am happy when I see this kind of claim made; it illustrates how absurd the concept of competition over geocaching statistics is.

I agree.  The notion of finding 1500 lab cache just exemplifies what this game has become.  When lab caches first came out we were told that is was a way for geocachers to experiment with new types of caches, perhaps leading to the creation of a new cache time.  It was an opportunity to innovate. Instead,  they've just become yet another commodity and the mistake, IMHO, that GS made was including a count of lab cache finds in our statistics.  Once again quantity trumps quality.

[+thebruce0]

Numbers mean almost squat these days. But, IMO, that doesn't diminish accomplishments. Just partner your number with how you accomplished it. 100 could be much more impressive than 500.  It's all in how the number was achieved. The fact that 5500+ in a day exists to me doesn't diminish my 900, nor does it diminish the 90 found by someone who uses a walker and hiked a trail with a few DNFs.  Maybe someone wants to compete with the 5500+ finder - if they compete with the same parameters, then it would be relevant; otherwise, 5500 has "bested" the 100 finder. They're completely different contexts.

Heck even 100 finds shared by a team of 4 is less impressive than 100 finds by a single person.

Numbers alone mean nothing. Context means everything. IF you want to compare and/or compete.

Edited March 17, 2018 by thebruce0

[+cerberus1]

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Numbers mean almost squat these days. But, IMO, that doesn't diminish accomplishments. Just partner your number with how you accomplished it.

There's another site that had a point system that rewards both the hider and the finder based on "quality" and  difficulty of the cache.   Two caches found on a mountain worth more than ten along a trail kinda thing.

Stayed for curiosity/keep track (kinda like watching cnn) , but  few caches in my area.

[+kunarion]

18 hours ago, Psytoma said:

Are there any other ways to claim a find on a Lab cache?

 

Maybe there was once an Event that had 1500 Lab caches.  The cacher's profile should show exactly where each Lab Cache was "Found".

I found ten Lab Caches in a series.  These were at a Mega Caching Event, and each cache had a time frame in which to find  (within a particular three days I think), and a special cache page.  Go to the coordinates and search, for example, in an antiques shop to find a particular "painting", and a sign that has a code word, in this case also in "alien language" to decode.  Type that word to log the cache, and that counts as the Find.  There was no box to type a log story, no way to upload a picture.  The requirement is to get the code word, and make the log within the time frame.  I don't know which caches may allow a longer time to log them.  When I look at my page (logged-in), I see 10/10 found, and the "award" text, and even the code word.  You'll notice Lab Caches are located on a different place within Geocaching.com than other caches.  There are some stats, such as FTF on each cache, or FTF for the series.

The point of Lab Caches is that they are experimental, so I guess anything goes.  For the Lab Caches I found, their pages were pretty sparse, but more info was provided in other ways, such as the Event's "passport" souvenir program.

When I found Lab Caches, there was a special advantage to early completion of the series, so at least for a while, the secret codes were kept secret.

Edited March 17, 2018 by kunarion

[+hzoi]

Lab caches are rife for abuse.  Anyone who gets the code word can log a find, whether they were actually there to complete it, or whether they wheedled the code word out of someone else and then armchair logged it.

There were ten set out for a mega event in my area in 2016.  Due to the fringe effects of a tropical storm, only 179 cachers logged "attended" on the event...yet somehow each lab cache has between 589 and 607 finds.  Clearly, word got out.

[+thebruce0]

I stopped tracking Lab caches long ago (and removed the finds I had on them) because apart from increasing the smile count they provide no additional information, and they literally are for providing test experiences with the only confirmation being a keyword. I liked keeping my stats more consistent than showing how many test experiences I've successfully completed.  You can see the full amount caches someone has found in the profile stats as the total sum of the D and T grid (lower right) without having to do the math of subtracting lab cache finds.

I just don't see the value in tracking lab caches in the profile as they actively mess up (ymmv) the numbers. *shrug* But that's just me.

[anpefi]

15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I stopped tracking Lab caches long ago (and removed the finds I had on them) because apart from increasing the smile count they provide no additional information, and they literally are for providing test experiences with the only confirmation being a keyword. I liked keeping my stats more consistent than showing how many test experiences I've successfully completed.  You can see the full amount caches someone has found in the profile stats as the total sum of the D and T grid (lower right) without having to do the math of subtracting lab cache finds.

I just don't see the value in tracking lab caches in the profile as they actively mess up (ymmv) the numbers. *shrug* But that's just me.

You are not alone! I also removed my lab caches logs for exactly the same reasons than you.

BTW, it seems that a lot of people doesn't know that they can hide/unhide (it is called deletion, but as it is reversible I wouldn't call it that) their lab cache logs in labs.geocaching.com.

[+thebruce0]

15 minutes ago, anpefi said:

BTW, it seems that a lot of people doesn't know that they can hide/unhide (it is called deletion, but as it is reversible I wouldn't call it that) their lab cache logs in labs.geocaching.com.

That's what I was looking for thx for the reminder. I wanted to mention that they can be hidden but gave up trying to find where that option was, lol.

[+niraD]

54 minutes ago, anpefi said:

You are not alone! I also removed my lab caches logs for exactly the same reasons than you.

Yep. After hearing about the way lab caches screw up one's numbers, I avoided all of them at a recent mega that I attended. It isn't like there was a shortage of things to do, even without them.

[+TerraViators]

I may be incorrect, but I believe there is a back door also.  I designed the labs for the 16th Annual TXGA Challenge & Festival held a couple weeks ago.  I was at the starting point of the adventure and noticed many geocachers there ready for the starting bell.  I asked and a couple told me they knew the locations beforehand by clicking on the leaderboard link.  Also, many geocachers in Europe logged them within seconds of going live . . . seconds.  How is that?

As of yesterday, the adventure has had 1,030 participants, while the mega event has 394 attended logs.

I wonder if GS can do something about the bogus logs or if it's simply not a high priority.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, TerraViators said:

I may be incorrect, but I believe there is a back door also.  I designed the labs for the 16th Annual TXGA Challenge & Festival held a couple weeks ago.  I was at the starting point of the adventure and noticed many geocachers there ready for the starting bell.  I asked and a couple told me they knew the locations beforehand by clicking on the leaderboard link.  Also, many geocachers in Europe logged them within seconds of going live . . . seconds.  How is that?

As of yesterday, the adventure has had 1,030 participants, while the mega event has 394 attended logs.

 

Once found, a Lab Cache page displays the "Find Code" to the finder.  I was surprised to see that.  It's conceivable that there is a simple hack to display that code before finding the cache, some change in the URL, maybe.  Or a way to access the database directly.  The entire list is available in advance to the organizers, of course, and likely many others.

As for finding within seconds of publication, are the codes in view at GZ, when the Finals are set up?  At a Mega in 2016, each cache had a sign with a code at GZ, a sign that was placed maybe hours before (although in theory, people didn't know it was on a wall in an antiques shop nor its significance, and the shop opened at 10am, for example).  All were encoded in an easy substitution cypher, but it took at least a few seconds to translate each one.  The distance between caches meant that they couldn't be "found" instantly, it required at least 30 minutes to do them all, and even the coords were unknown in advance. I don't know when the coords were first available on the page, nor when each cache page became accessible.

It would be instructive if some Lab Caches were placed with pieces of the code word in physically separate stages, or designed so that some are completed in sequence (where finders don't know the sequence from their armchair).  If those are all "found" at once, that's evidence of problems that TPTB could work on.

Add a couple of honeypot cache listings where nobody except backdoor loggers would even be able to open them.  Then keep tabs on how many logs those "caches" get.  Before somebody demands what I'm gonna do about the fakes once identified, I'm not saying I'm doing anything about them.  It's information.  It's all good. Now that we see there's a backdoor, it's cool to close that door, work on making a better playing field.

 

1 hour ago, TerraViators said:

I wonder if GS can do something about the bogus logs or if it's simply not a high priority.

 

Yeah, obviously not a high priority for them. These caches are experimental, temporary, on a separate area, minimal logging available, sometimes only available to a single finder.  The fewer "official stats" one gets for these things, the better.  I'm guessing the original intent was that Lab Caches were never to be displayed in one's public profile.  Just a guess.

 

You see the actual Find Code on your logged Lab Caches.
[I've munged the word which was in plain view, because, well, you know why. ]

Edited March 21, 2018 by kunarion

[+L0ne.R]

On 3/19/2018 at 10:00 AM, anpefi said:

BTW, it seems that a lot of people doesn't know that they can hide/unhide (it is called deletion, but as it is reversible I wouldn't call it that) their lab cache logs in labs.geocaching.com.

I wish that were the case for our Find count.  I would prefer that my found count wasn't public. I feel like it contributes to the numbers culture.  I'd be fine with a ball park figure so that people can judge if I'm experienced enough.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+TerraViators]

38 minutes ago, kunarion said:

As for finding within seconds of publication, are the codes in view at GZ, when the Finals are set up?

The codes I setup were not temporary signs and most of them not easily googled, such as the word on the newspaper box, the animal painted on the box on the porch, the initials etched into the sidewalk, etc. 

I like the idea of having to gather data from multiple sites at GZ.

I believe what we will do in the future is not activating the link until minutes before and possibly not inputting questions/answers until go live.

[+kunarion]

32 minutes ago, TerraViators said:

I believe what we will do in the future is not activating the link until minutes before and possibly not inputting questions/answers until go live.

 

Is there a requirement that the Find Code be one particular code for the life of the cache?  "Lab Caches" are billed as experimental, so I'd hope that each finder could be required to type a unique code (if the CO wants that).  There could simply be a sheet of paper with a list, and each finder crosses-out the code they will type (if the cachers are there anyway, you might as well have an actual paper log to compare, but what do I know ).  Or the Event hands out a special "decoder" gadget to display the one-off code for the moment of the find.  Or have an App.  Then there would be a justification to display the "Find Code" on the cache page once found.

With the premise that these are way cool tests of novel ideas, the armchair logs should all be void.  Unless "armchair log" is the idea of an individual Lab Cache.

Edited March 21, 2018 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

19 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I wish that were the case for our Find count.  I would prefer that my found count wasn't public. I feel like it contributes to the numbers culture.  I'd be fine with a ball park figure so that people can judge if I'm experienced enough.

I don't feel we should be able to hide "stats" at all.  If there's any real issues, "counts" should go bye-bye for everyone.   That ain't happenin'. 

I feel hiding stats has nothing to do with the "numbers culture", but here often more with someone trying to bs you, hiding something. 

Most around a while remember when those lab cache things came out, there were numerous threads on issues with "find count", to find they logged their own caches (and some not even at)  as found in the process. The threads steered to "fake numbers" and "logging your own caches" , which made them and a many others "hide" their stats.   Now when I go on another's profile and see things "hidden", I'm immediately brought back to threads similar. 

[+TerraViators]

25 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Is there a requirement that the Find Code be one particular code for the life of the cache? 

The builder requires a single answer per lab. 

With the logging grace period and GPSr finders having to log at a later time from a PC, the answer must remain the same in the current system.

[+noncentric]

On 3/21/2018 at 8:41 AM, TerraViators said:

I like the idea of having to gather data from multiple sites at GZ.

One thing you might consider if having part of an "answer" at 2+ locations. For example, have the first 3 letters at one location, then the next 3 letters at another location, etc.

 

Maybe have yet another location that gives instructions for how to piece the letters together.  For example:

Location 1 = Sign with "A = and"

Location 2 = Sign with "B = sun"

Location 3 = Sign with "C = fun"

Location 4 = Sign with "C+A+B"

Answer code = funandsun

[+noncentric]

On 3/16/2018 at 2:22 PM, Psytoma said:

I recently came across a geocacher who has logged over 1500 Lab cache finds.

Very high numbers of Lab Cache finds has been brought up before, and there are cacher profiles with more than 2200.

 

On 3/17/2018 at 7:52 AM, kunarion said:

Maybe there was once an Event that had 1500 Lab caches.  The cacher's profile should show exactly where each Lab Cache was "Found".

Are you saying that current profiles "should" be changed to show lab cache find locations?  Because right now, that information is not available.

[+kunarion]

34 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Are you saying that current profiles "should" be changed to show lab cache find locations?  Because right now, that information is not available.

 

I mean that, yes, it shows that.  But maybe only to the finder(?).

I looked at the page (see the link I posted above), and the only difference I saw when a finder views the cache, or other people (other than the finder) view the cache, was that the secret code word wasn't shown to anyone but the finder. 

If you mean that the coordinates are also gone, that the location isn't shown to "other people", I'll check that later using my sock puppet to see exactly what I missed.  Which I don't have, by the way.  No sock puppet.

[+noncentric]

18 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I mean that, yes, it shows that.  But maybe only to the finder(?).

I looked at the page (see the link I posted above), and the only difference I saw when a finder views the cache, or other people (other than the finder) view the cache, was that the secret code word wasn't shown to anyone but the finder.

Yes, if I go to the page for the lab cache (Pine Mountain) you linked to, then I don't see the code words.

What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be able to know that Pine Mountain was one of your Lab Cache finds. If I go to the "Geocaches" tab of your profile and click on "Lab Caches", then it takes me to the Lab Cache landing page - not to your list of lab cache finds. So, even though I know how many Lab Cache finds you have, I don't know which ones you found.

[+geocat_]

On 3/16/2018 at 9:05 PM, garyo1954 said:

Yeah, some of these people I'd like to sit down with and ask, "How did you do that?"

For example over at Project-GC I checked on the Top Caches in One Day. (I surmised it might be several hundred accounting for distance, finding, signing, replacing).

I was surprised! 1000 caches in a day will barely land you on page 55 in the US.
You need 2159 to move into the top ten.
3196 will put you in second place.
But if you want to be #1 you'll have to find 5579! (hans415 currently stands at #1 with 5578)

In my uneducated mind, that seems an impossible feat even in a 24 hour period.

 

Yeah, yet another example of "creative" finds (and my "creative" I mean "padding one's stats to inflate their ego").  However, I will gladly retract my statement if hans415 posts an explanation of how he can find a nearly 4 caches a minute for 24 straight hours.  

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

Yes, if I go to the page for the lab cache (Pine Mountain) you linked to, then I don't see the code words.

What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be able to know that Pine Mountain was one of your Lab Cache finds. If I go to the "Geocaches" tab of your profile and click on "Lab Caches", then it takes me to the Lab Cache landing page - not to your list of lab cache finds. So, even though I know how many Lab Cache finds you have, I don't know which ones you found.

I'm getting the same thing now, and I tried it every which way. I can't think of a way to even know what (or where) the previous Lab Caches were, let alone which ones were found by other cachers, from this site.

If a friend were to find 1500 of them, I guess I'd already know that he went to 150 Mega Events, or however it happened.

Edited March 25, 2018 by kunarion

[+noncentric]

20 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I'm getting the same thing now, and I tried it every which way. I can't think of a way to even know what (or where) the previous Lab Caches were, let alone which ones were found by other cachers, from this site.

If a friend were to find 1500 of them, I guess I'd already know that he went to 150 Mega Events, or however it happened.

Yeah. There was an option to have Lab Cache finds appear on PGC Stats pages, but that was an optional setting that I think has been removed completely now.

Keep in mind that some places have Lab Caches that are unrelated to Mega Events. For example, almost half of my Lab Cache finds are not related to Mega Events. But I think that might be an anomaly, since I live so close to the lilypad. There have been several Lab Caches at the local university and related to state hiking/trails associations, as well as community-oriented ones.

THIS THREAD has been updated from time to time with new labs.

[+kunarion]

26 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Yeah. There was an option to have Lab Cache finds appear on PGC Stats pages, but that was an optional setting that I think has been removed completely now.

Keep in mind that some places have Lab Caches that are unrelated to Mega Events. For example, almost half of my Lab Cache finds are not related to Mega Events. But I think that might be an anomaly, since I live so close to the lilypad. There have been several Lab Caches at the local university and related to state hiking/trails associations, as well as community-oriented ones.

THIS THREAD has been updated from time to time with new labs.

So there there are online links to find, maybe for every Lab Cache ever. I don't know how to tell for sure about that. The ones I found have a persistent link on the original event's page, and from there, all the caches at that event could be logged, within the time window.

But with such sparse and dispersed info, and the difficulty of getting a completion code without actually being there, I'm almost impressed that someone even could armchair log 1500 of them.

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by kunarion