Jump to content

Numbers Mean Nothing or This Is Not a Competition


mikemtn
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

yes i did, and sorry but i didnt find it funny...

 

quote:
Originally posted by mikemtn:

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

i would agree that score doesnt really matter, but on a side note, havent you looked up local caches to see how many they have found? icon_biggrin.gif

 

http://www.scubaboard.com/images/smilies/whack.gif


 

Did you look at the thread I linked to. This is supposed to be funny.

 

_______________________________

Mike

 

Never forget, It's just a game.


 

whack.gif

Link to comment

yes i did, and sorry but i didnt find it funny...

 

quote:
Originally posted by mikemtn:

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

i would agree that score doesnt really matter, but on a side note, havent you looked up local caches to see how many they have found? icon_biggrin.gif

 

http://www.scubaboard.com/images/smilies/whack.gif


 

Did you look at the thread I linked to. This is supposed to be funny.

 

_______________________________

Mike

 

Never forget, It's just a game.


 

whack.gif

Link to comment

I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with competition. Yes it is a game but you can't tell me that if somebody isn't 3 caches ahead of you that you don't want to pass them. Keep in mind not everyone is the same. I read the thread and they are having fun with it so that is great. I will never catch the #1 person in WI but that is fine with me....

Link to comment

Rather amusing, since when I saw the title of this thread, I considered posting a link to the PaterQuest thread.

 

No.. numbers don't really matter.

 

But you know what matters? I spent six days on the road seeking out every cache I could get my hands on during daylight hours.

 

I spent time in the downtowns of big cities (well, one city), I nearly got my truck stuck on a forest road, miles from nowhere, I had to go through a military checkpoint, I got questioned by the cops once, I met RPecot, Cachercarry, and Pater47 himself.

 

dadgum right I'll be proud when I get a chance to log 'em all and my name sits atop the list of Mississippi caches, but nothing will ever beat the experience I had standing out in the middle of the woods in pouring rain looking for a cache placed by Pater47 with the owner standing right next to me, laughing. Soaked head to toe, Pater relished every second that I couldn't find his cache.

 

It's not the numbers that matter, but it's the numbers that drove me.

 

Mike... you gonna challenge the Mississippi lead?

 

On second thought, lets continue this discussion on the PaterQuest thread.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team Golden:

I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with competition. Yes it is a game but you can't tell me that if somebody isn't 3 caches ahead of you that you don't want to pass them. Keep in mind not everyone is the same. I read the thread and they are having fun with it so that is great. I will never catch the #1 person in WI but that is fine with me....


 

Of course I can tell you that. I don't care who's got how many caches. And no, to answer someone else's question, I don't look up other people's cache counts.

Link to comment

We recently had a bit of a race going on to be the first to finish a difficult multi-cache here in Indiana. With our team being the winners of course! icon_razz.gif Best part was getting to meet some of the *competition* at an event cache.

 

Nothing wrong with number watching or racing to be the first finder, IMO. That's the great thing about this RASH. Everyone can find a way to play that suits them. As long as it's not hurting others, like plundering, everyone can be happy.

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

Link to comment

We recently had a bit of a race going on to be the first to finish a difficult multi-cache here in Indiana. With our team being the winners of course! icon_razz.gif Best part was getting to meet some of the *competition* at an event cache.

 

Nothing wrong with number watching or racing to be the first finder, IMO. That's the great thing about this RASH. Everyone can find a way to play that suits them. As long as it's not hurting others, like plundering, everyone can be happy.

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mikemtn:

Guess that theory don't count http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000977683&m=5200947925.

 

_______________________________

Mike

 

Never forget, It's just a game.


 

Does it bother you that some people like to compete. It's not like there is any real prize for finding a lot of caches but competition amoungst friends is a blast. It get's you to push the limits of sanity and you end up doing silly stuff like trying to find caches at 3am in the morning or in the rain, or driving hundreds of miles in a weekend and going places you would have normally avoided.

 

Competition is a great thing.

 

Hell, you get two buddies in a grocery store and the next thing you know they're racing shopping carts down the freezer isles.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

5867_200.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Of course I can tell you that. I don't care who's got how many caches. And no, to answer someone else's question, I don't look up other people's cache counts.


 

Marty, I gotta like you because you're a geocacher. We have that in common. But if you don't like competition, let those of us that do, enjoy it. I'm starting to think your face is frozen in that expression. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Of course I can tell you that. I don't care who's got how many caches. And no, to answer someone else's question, I don't look up other people's cache counts.


 

Marty, I gotta like you because you're a geocacher. We have that in common. But if you don't like competition, let those of us that do, enjoy it. I'm starting to think your face is frozen in that expression. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

 

Does it bother you that some people like to compete. It's not like there is any real prize for finding a lot of caches but competition amoungst friends is a blast. It get's you to push the limits of sanity and you end up doing silly stuff like trying to find caches at 3am in the morning or in the rain, or driving hundreds of miles in a weekend and going places you would have normally avoided.

 

Competition is a great thing.

 

Hell, you get two buddies in a grocery store and the next thing you know they're racing shopping carts down the freezer isles.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

http://img.Groundspeak.com/track/5867_200.gif


 

A friendly competition among friends is a fine thing, and they should go for it.

 

Someone who wants to force the hobby to be more competitive for everyone should move on to minute-wars or geodash.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Of course I can tell you that. I don't care who's got how many caches. And no, to answer someone else's question, I don't look up other people's cache counts.


 

Marty, I gotta like you because you're a geocacher. We have that in common. But if you don't like competition, let those of us that do, enjoy it. I'm starting to think your face is frozen in that expression. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin


 

Steve, if you want to have an informal competition among your friends, that's fine.

 

But don't try to change the whole hobby just to make it more competitive.

 

Virtual caches are fine, some of them are harder than grab-and-dash 1/1 caches. Locationless caches are fine to. Follow your own advice: if you don't like 'em, don't do 'em, but don't push to take 'em away from those who do.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Of course I can tell you that. I don't care who's got how many caches. And no, to answer someone else's question, I don't look up other people's cache counts.


 

Marty, I gotta like you because you're a geocacher. We have that in common. But if you don't like competition, let those of us that do, enjoy it. I'm starting to think your face is frozen in that expression. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin


 

Steve, if you want to have an informal competition among your friends, that's fine.

 

But don't try to change the whole hobby just to make it more competitive.

 

Virtual caches are fine, some of them are harder than grab-and-dash 1/1 caches. Locationless caches are fine to. Follow your own advice: if you don't like 'em, don't do 'em, but don't push to take 'em away from those who do.

Link to comment

I think a little competion is okay, but the numbers mean nothing if people don't find a cache but log a FIND anyway. I hate it when people do that because the "Last found" date looks like the cache is there when in fact it may not be. I also don't agree with people "Finding" their own cache, but thats another story.

 

Geo Jeff

(leave more than you take)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeoStars:

We recently had a bit of a race going on to be the first to finish a difficult multi-cache here in Indiana. With our team being the winners of course!


 

Nonsense. Our team were the winners. Oh, wait, you're not talking about Earthling Vector Perelandra are you?

 

Well, it doesn't matter. We were the first ones to the final stage of the other cache you're referring to, too. icon_biggrin.gif

 

warm.gif

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on August 19, 2002 at 11:51 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeoStars:

We recently had a bit of a race going on to be the first to finish a difficult multi-cache here in Indiana. With our team being the winners of course!


 

Nonsense. Our team were the winners. Oh, wait, you're not talking about Earthling Vector Perelandra are you?

 

Well, it doesn't matter. We were the first ones to the final stage of the other cache you're referring to, too. icon_biggrin.gif

 

warm.gif

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on August 19, 2002 at 11:51 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

quote:
Originally posted by Team Golden:

Marty - Who is forcing anything on anyone? icon_confused.gif Well I'm off to the freezer section if anyone wants to meet me there....


 

No one yet. It's a refernce to attempts by people to have locationless or virtual caches 'done away with' in one way or another.


 

Nobody's forcing anyone to compete. And I don't think that those who are trying to get rid of virtuals and locationless are doing it because of competition. Most of them are doing it because they don't consider it geocaching.

 

I like the friendly competition. It was pretty cool being the first person in Texas to reach 300, beating another cacher by about an hour. But nobody's forcing it on anyone. The guy I nosed out for #300 couldn't care less (or so he tells me... icon_wink.gif).

 

Team Golden: See ya in the freezer section.

 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

quote:
Originally posted by Team Golden:

Marty - Who is forcing anything on anyone? icon_confused.gif Well I'm off to the freezer section if anyone wants to meet me there....


 

No one yet. It's a refernce to attempts by people to have locationless or virtual caches 'done away with' in one way or another.


 

Nobody's forcing anyone to compete. And I don't think that those who are trying to get rid of virtuals and locationless are doing it because of competition. Most of them are doing it because they don't consider it geocaching.

 

I like the friendly competition. It was pretty cool being the first person in Texas to reach 300, beating another cacher by about an hour. But nobody's forcing it on anyone. The guy I nosed out for #300 couldn't care less (or so he tells me... icon_wink.gif).

 

Team Golden: See ya in the freezer section.

 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

quote:
Originally posted by Team Golden:

Marty - Who is forcing anything on anyone? icon_confused.gif Well I'm off to the freezer section if anyone wants to meet me there....


 

No one yet. It's a refernce to attempts by people to have locationless or virtual caches 'done away with' in one way or another.


 

Nobody's forcing anyone to compete. And I don't think that those who are trying to get rid of virtuals and locationless are doing it because of competition. Most of them are doing it because they don't consider it geocaching.

 

I like the friendly competition. It was pretty cool being the first person in Texas to reach 300, beating another cacher by about an hour. But nobody's forcing it on anyone. The guy I nosed out for #300 couldn't care less (or so he tells me... icon_wink.gif).

 

Team Golden: See ya in the freezer section.

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/25021_1200.gif


 

Actually, Steve Bukosky started a thread in which he pretty much said he wanted to "do away" with virtual and locationless specificly for competitive reasons. "Do away" means count separately to Steve, I think, not completely delete.

 

I won't rehash the are-to/are-not debate on virtuals here, it's been done enough time.

 

Ditto the somewhat different debate on locationless.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

quote:
Originally posted by Team Golden:

Marty - Who is forcing anything on anyone? icon_confused.gif Well I'm off to the freezer section if anyone wants to meet me there....


 

No one yet. It's a refernce to attempts by people to have locationless or virtual caches 'done away with' in one way or another.


 

Nobody's forcing anyone to compete. And I don't think that those who are trying to get rid of virtuals and locationless are doing it because of competition. Most of them are doing it because they don't consider it geocaching.

 

I like the friendly competition. It was pretty cool being the first person in Texas to reach 300, beating another cacher by about an hour. But nobody's forcing it on anyone. The guy I nosed out for #300 couldn't care less (or so he tells me... icon_wink.gif).

 

Team Golden: See ya in the freezer section.

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/25021_1200.gif


 

Actually, Steve Bukosky started a thread in which he pretty much said he wanted to "do away" with virtual and locationless specificly for competitive reasons. "Do away" means count separately to Steve, I think, not completely delete.

 

I won't rehash the are-to/are-not debate on virtuals here, it's been done enough time.

 

Ditto the somewhat different debate on locationless.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Jeff:

I think a little competion is okay, but the numbers mean nothing if people don't find a cache but log a FIND anyway. I hate it when people do that because the "Last found" date looks like the cache is there when in fact it may not be. I also don't agree with people "Finding" their own cache, but thats another story.

 

Geo Jeff

(leave more than you take)


 

You shouldn't really rely on the logs to determine if the cache is there or not, of course. It may have disappeared since the last person was there. Even a bunch of 'can't find' in a row doesn't mean it's not there. I know of one cache that several people were unable to find but that turned out to be there, and I bet most people have seen logs for such a cache.

 

About the only thing in a log that should be relied on is a note from the hider saying they checked and the cache was/wasn't there on a given date.

Link to comment

This weekend, Team FISUR (family of 5, the youngest being 3) took the lead in having the most finds in Rhode Island, with only 43 finds (70 total). We realized a couple of weeks ago that we were approaching the lead, and we had a lot of fun with it. We don't expect to have the lead for long, but we're having a good time keeping an eye on the "competition". (By the way, that fredic from Massachusetts has been spending WAAAAY too much time in RI lately. icon_mad.gif)

Link to comment

This weekend, Team FISUR (family of 5, the youngest being 3) took the lead in having the most finds in Rhode Island, with only 43 finds (70 total). We realized a couple of weeks ago that we were approaching the lead, and we had a lot of fun with it. We don't expect to have the lead for long, but we're having a good time keeping an eye on the "competition". (By the way, that fredic from Massachusetts has been spending WAAAAY too much time in RI lately. icon_mad.gif)

Link to comment

The stats for each area adds a little bit of friendly competition to the game. What's nice is that it's optional and unofficial...you're free to ignore it and draw your own conclusions on who's best, if that's important to you. You're also free to just play the game at whatever pace you enjoy.

Link to comment

a Game would be for fun...a sport would be to WIN!

I call it a Game/sport. It's fun..and I like to win the "prize" a cache find.

We have been all over the state of TN, 50% of KY, Northern Alabama and a few other states in which we found a real (box type) cache.

We have fun as a family, lets us see sights we would never have seen, before we started caching. Just yesterday I drove across an old rustic hand made by stones dadgum, (I was in awwwh) in Northern middle TN, on my way to cache.

I also like the sport...soon we will be #1 in KY (trip planning), We were (at one time) #1 in TN, Alabama may take a bit, but it is not out of reach.

Now before I leave for S. Korea, We will regain some ground...than pause for a year, than LOOK OUT GA, HERE WE COME!

 

WEBLING- just a side note - My dad (Geo Dee) was so happy when he showed up as #1 in TX, for that short time, he even emailed me. That old man don't like to use email!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Feros Family:

a Game would be for fun...a sport would be to WIN!

I call it a Game/sport. It's fun..and I like to win the "prize" a cache find.

We have been all over the state of TN, 50% of KY, Northern Alabama and a few other states in which we found a real (box type) cache.

We have fun as a family, lets us see sights we would never have seen, before we started caching. Just yesterday I drove across an old rustic hand made by stones dadgum, (I was in awwwh) in Northern middle TN, on my way to cache.

I also like the sport...soon we will be #1 in KY (trip planning), We were (at one time) #1 in TN, Alabama may take a bit, but it is not out of reach.

Now before I leave for S. Korea, We will regain some ground...than pause for a year, than LOOK OUT GA, HERE WE COME!

 

WEBLING- just a side note - My dad (Geo Dee) was so happy when he showed up as #1 in TX, for that short time, he even emailed me. That old man don't like to use email!


 

Hmm... I've always thought of game versus sport the opposite way from you, but either definition will do.

 

I don't like to think of the trade items as prizes because, after all, we're supposed to trade something of equal or greater value for them.

 

I'd rather think of them as trade items.

Link to comment

The number by your name gives a relative indication of how active and involved you are in Geocaching. It no longer carries the clout of a well earned find, as in the early days. So…it’s probably better to think of that number as an activity number. Now with the dilution of the virtual and locationless (so called) -cache- it’s easy to pump up your number. If that’s what you choose to do. With some you may not have to leave your computer to complete. Apparently that is OK with (at least) a few individuals. On top of that is the easy vs harder thing…which I won’t even get into. When viewed as an activity number, there is no one to impress but yourself. Those that tend to stretch their imagination and log a find...when it was only a visit will no longer upset you. Only you know what was involved to obtain your number and it may amaze you. Others will only be amazed by the amount of time you have on your hands to pursue your hobby.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by datum:

The number by your name gives a relative indication of how active and involved you are in Geocaching. It no longer carries the clout of a well earned find, as in the early days. So…it’s probably better to think of that number as an activity number. Now with the dilution of the virtual and locationless (so called) -cache- it’s easy to pump up your number. If that’s what you choose to do. With some you may not have to leave your computer to complete. Apparently that is OK with (at least) a few individuals. On top of that is the easy vs harder thing…which I won’t even get into. When viewed as an activity number, there is no one to impress but yourself. Those that tend to stretch their imagination and log a find...when it was only a visit will no longer upset you. Only you know what was involved to obtain your number and it may amaze you. Others will only be amazed by the amount of time you have on your hands to pursue your hobby.


 

I don't know why it is that people think that virtual or locationless caches are any easier than the vast majority of 1/1 grab-and-go caches.

 

Takes longer, and more thought, to do my virtual than it does to do three of the last four caches I did, including a supposed 3/3...

 

If you don't like 'em, don't do 'em, but they can run the same range of difficulty as any other kind of cache.

Link to comment

quote:
I don't know why it is that people think that virtual or locationless caches are any easier than the vast majority of 1/1 grab-and-go caches.

 


 

quote:
On top of that is the easy vs harder thing…which I won’t even get into.

 

The easy vs harder applies to ALL caches.

Link to comment

Come on, some people remind me of a recent Draino commercial. icon_biggrin.gif Nowhere did I say that I wanted to do away with virtuals and locationless "caches". Look at my hides and finds in my profile and you will find that I have logged every one in my area and created a bunch myself. What I did say elsewhere is that these hunts are not true geocaching as there is no cache involved! I suggested that perhaps they be treated like hunting benchmarks and kept seperate from true caching regarding totals. I'm surprised how many people who say they don't care about competition have been upset by this and similar discussion. There was a discussion about logging benchmark totals with the other totals but for some reason Jeremy keeps those seperate. Ok, thats why I suggested seperating virtuals and locationless hunts. I wouldn't mind lumping them all together but then having two totals. One a runnning total that we have now and then a point total based on something like the number assigned to difficulty. Doesn't hurt anybody other than those that can't see to let some of us have some good natured fun. icon_smile.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

Link to comment

Come on, some people remind me of a recent Draino commercial. icon_biggrin.gif Nowhere did I say that I wanted to do away with virtuals and locationless "caches". Look at my hides and finds in my profile and you will find that I have logged every one in my area and created a bunch myself. What I did say elsewhere is that these hunts are not true geocaching as there is no cache involved! I suggested that perhaps they be treated like hunting benchmarks and kept seperate from true caching regarding totals. I'm surprised how many people who say they don't care about competition have been upset by this and similar discussion. There was a discussion about logging benchmark totals with the other totals but for some reason Jeremy keeps those seperate. Ok, thats why I suggested seperating virtuals and locationless hunts. I wouldn't mind lumping them all together but then having two totals. One a runnning total that we have now and then a point total based on something like the number assigned to difficulty. Doesn't hurt anybody other than those that can't see to let some of us have some good natured fun. icon_smile.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

Link to comment

Number don't matter - to some people. They do to others. What's great is that those of us who do like the friendly competition can have it, while those who couldn't care less can ignore it.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

What I did say elsewhere is that these hunts are not true geocaching as there is no cache involved! I suggested that perhaps they be treated like hunting benchmarks and kept seperate from true caching regarding totals.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin


I personally like the competition. I also agree with Steve that the stats should be seperated, because there IS a difference between Locationless caches and other cache types. I'd be a lot MORE likely to hunt Locationless if the stats were seperated. For that matter, why not divide up the stats for ALL types, then provide a total at the botton of the list, including benchmarks? Those that don't care about stats can still ignore it, and those of us who do will have more ways to compete...

 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

I geocache for the experience of seeing new places, learning local history and getting some exercise.

 

Even so -- the numbers are fun. I keep track of how many States/Countries I've cached in. I compete (in a joking/friendly manner) with my friends who cache. I also have some personal goals (like logging my 100th cache by October to celebrate my first full year of geocaching).

 

But the numbers are just the sprinkles on the icecream cone. I'm really competing with myself. Milestones like the 50th cache, 100th, etc something I celebrate because I'm SO enjoying my new hobby.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by datum:

The number by your name gives a relative indication of how active and involved you are in Geocaching. It no longer carries the clout of a well earned find, as in the early days.


 

I don't know if I can totally agree here, I think that they are all well deserved finds. I don't think the earlier ones were any more well earned, I've hunted both earlier and later ones and I don't think the fact that they were placed earlier make them better.

 

Actually, the ratings on some of the older ones were probably exaggerated due to a lack of experience in hiding caches and no uniform rating system in place. If one of the first caches was rated a 3/3, what was it compared to? Now that the sport has matured a bit, the ratings are probably a bit more accurate.

 

I've found easy ones and hard ones and virtual ones as well. To me, each was well earned, although I must admit that I prefer a traditional cache to any other. I'll search a virtual cache to get it off my list, and sometimes I'll do it to see what all of the interest is about.

 

I will agree with you on the point about the number of finds indicating activity. However, anyone can get high numbers of finds given enough time. I think the true indicator of activity is more accurately measured by taking the number of finds and dividing by the number of days from the first find to the last.

 

The amount of activity is going to be determined by the persons interest level in the sport. My numbers are based on my competition against myself, and while they may not be as high as others, I'm satisfied with the amount of activity this sport is giving me.

 

[This message was edited by cachew nut on August 22, 2002 at 08:52 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Rather amusing, since when I saw the title of this thread, I considered posting a link to the PaterQuest thread.

 

No.. numbers don't really matter.

 

But you know what matters? I spent six days on the road seeking out every cache I could get my hands on during daylight hours.

 

I spent time in the downtowns of big cities (well, one city), I nearly got my truck stuck on a forest road, miles from nowhere, I had to go through a military checkpoint, I got questioned by the cops once, I met RPecot, Cachercarry, and Pater47 himself.

 

dadgum right I'll be proud when I get a chance to log 'em all and my name sits atop the list of Mississippi caches, but nothing will ever beat the experience I had standing out in the middle of the woods in pouring rain looking for a cache placed by Pater47 with the owner standing right next to me, laughing. Soaked head to toe, Pater relished every second that I couldn't find his cache.

 

It's not the numbers that matter, but it's the numbers that drove me.

 

Mike... you gonna challenge the Mississippi lead?

 

On second thought, lets continue this discussion on the PaterQuest thread.

 

Jamie


 

That a good answer. Different things motivate different people.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

What I did say elsewhere is that these hunts are not true geocaching as there is no cache involved! I suggested that perhaps they be treated like hunting benchmarks and kept seperate from true caching regarding totals. I'm surprised how many people who say they don't care about competition have been upset by this and similar discussion. Ok, thats why I suggested seperating virtuals and locationless hunts. I wouldn't mind lumping them all together but then having two totals. One a runnning total that we have now and then a point total based on something like the number assigned to difficulty. Doesn't hurt anybody other than those that can't see to let some of us have some good natured fun. icon_smile.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin


 

The problem here, Steve, is that you're the one who's trying to break up the "good natured fun".

 

If ones uses phrases like "true geocaching"; starts pontificating on whether virtual caches are "true" or not; and makes comments about how everyone is competitive; one should not be suprised that others are willing to disagree openly.

 

'geocaching' is a label, not a definition. And it labels the hobby where we look for things using a GPS. There *is* a _real_ cache at a well done virtual -- it's the information you find there.

 

If you *really* want competitive caching, then take it up with the guy who does the leaderboard -- that's where the counting you want to change is done, not here.

 

And frankly, I don't find anything "good natured" about being lectured to about what is or isn't "true" geocaching. People who are opposing you think that what *they* are doing is good natured fun, and is what the site's all about and that *you* are the one who wants to change the hobby into something else.

 

Maybe if you understood that you wouldn't be surprised.

 

So, again, my suggestion is that if what you want is 'good natured', you stop using phrases like 'true geocaching' and you take up issues of scores and such with the leaderboard folk rather than the geocaching.com folk

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

What I did say elsewhere is that these hunts are not true geocaching as there is no cache involved! I suggested that perhaps they be treated like hunting benchmarks and kept seperate from true caching regarding totals. I'm surprised how many people who say they don't care about competition have been upset by this and similar discussion. Ok, thats why I suggested seperating virtuals and locationless hunts. I wouldn't mind lumping them all together but then having two totals. One a runnning total that we have now and then a point total based on something like the number assigned to difficulty. Doesn't hurt anybody other than those that can't see to let some of us have some good natured fun. icon_smile.gif

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin


 

The problem here, Steve, is that you're the one who's trying to break up the "good natured fun".

 

If ones uses phrases like "true geocaching"; starts pontificating on whether virtual caches are "true" or not; and makes comments about how everyone is competitive; one should not be suprised that others are willing to disagree openly.

 

'geocaching' is a label, not a definition. And it labels the hobby where we look for things using a GPS. There *is* a _real_ cache at a well done virtual -- it's the information you find there.

 

If you *really* want competitive caching, then take it up with the guy who does the leaderboard -- that's where the counting you want to change is done, not here.

 

And frankly, I don't find anything "good natured" about being lectured to about what is or isn't "true" geocaching. People who are opposing you think that what *they* are doing is good natured fun, and is what the site's all about and that *you* are the one who wants to change the hobby into something else.

 

Maybe if you understood that you wouldn't be surprised.

 

So, again, my suggestion is that if what you want is 'good natured', you stop using phrases like 'true geocaching' and you take up issues of scores and such with the leaderboard folk rather than the geocaching.com folk

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...