Number Punchers

5.3k · December 8, 2004

A couple of days ago I thought of a good term to describe those cachers for whom numbers are paramount:

Number Punchers.

It's a combination of "number cruncher" and "clock puncher."

We have several of them in our area, probably because with our high density of caches, it's easy to amass many finds.

I know that this is a game that everyone plays their own way, but I find number-obsessed cachers slightly annoying. Mainly because often in their haste to get to the next cache they can't be bothered to replace the original cache properly. One weekend, we had an out-of-town number puncher be LTF on 5 or 6 caches!

Or, as is the case in this area, after a 5-minute search they decide the original cache (usually a micro) must be missing, so they place a new film canister where they zeroed out and claim a find for themselves. Then, when a later cacher finds both the original cache and the "replacement," there is a problem making sure the logbooks get reconciled properly.

So I like my new term. It fits.

Edited December 8, 2004 by fizzymagic

1.9k · December 8, 2004

woohoo I like it.

Edited December 8, 2004 by ralann

2.7k · December 8, 2004

You wanna punch the number loving cachers? Ummm, I don't think that's family friendly...

38.2k · December 8, 2004

I've always called them numbers hounds but number punchers works as well. There is one prominent number puncher in this area who gets blamed for not replacing caches the way they were found. I never correlated caches left out with this person's passing through, but people in more than one region have.

Edited December 8, 2004 by briansnat

24.7k · December 8, 2004

Interesting behavior. We don't have that here. Cache maggots yes. Numbers punchers. No.

5.6k · December 8, 2004

Not quite what I expected - reading the title I thought it might be about cachers who manually load the GPSr instead of using computer/PDA...

2.7k · December 8, 2004

Interesting behavior. We don't have that here. Cache maggots yes. Numbers punchers. No.

How about maggot punchers? Got any of those? If it's a paid position, I'll work it!

December 8, 2004

Interesting behavior. We don't have that here. Cache maggots yes. Numbers punchers. No.

What in the blazes is a cache maggot?!?

2.7k · December 8, 2004

A cache maggot is someone who gets a thrill out of finding caches - and purposefully destroying and/or stealing them. Hence the desire to punch them.

Edited December 8, 2004 by New England n00b

December 8, 2004

Ah, all becomes clear. Thanks.

Uh,.... what's the diff between a maggot and a pirate the? :cry:

December 8, 2004

Ah, all becomes clear. Thanks.

Uh,.... what's the diff between a maggot and a pirate the?

Cache pirates steal the stuff to use in their own caches.

Maggots destroy just for the fun of it. :cry:

When I find maggots I always like to stomp on them, that way you don't get any on your hands. :cry:

2.6k · December 8, 2004

I've always called them numbers hounds but number punchers works as well. There is one prominent number puncher in this area who gets blamed for not replacing caches the way they were found. I never correlated caches left out with this person's passing through, but people in more than one region have.

Huh. We had one of those blow through my area, and I wouldn't have noticed the visitation at all were it not for all the caches that turned up missing or were found by the next person in the open. If we're all talking about the same one, a new and special designation seems appropriate. Something along the line of "numbers maggot."

Seriously, if your desire to rack up numbers is such that you're willing to screw up the game for everyone else to accomplish it, you've moved beyond playing the game your own way, into your own special corner of jerkdom.

22k · December 8, 2004

I've always called them numbers hounds

Cache Hounds for those who seem to spend everywaking hour searching.

Cache Whores for those who'll do anything for a find, including cheating.

7.3k · December 8, 2004

Around here there's an expression Number Ho - but it's used somewhat affectionately, not as an indication of cheating or damaging caches. It can also be a verb, "I went number hoing in Ocala" meaning I went after the 2/2 or less stuff near the road, as opposed to heading out into the wilderness part of the national forest and hiking all day after one or two.

Edited December 8, 2004 by Isonzo Karst

December 8, 2004

Around Ottawa, there's lots of multi caches and puzzle caches which sort of deters the careless speed cachers because its hard to speed through a cache that needs serious preparation to do

December 8, 2004

Cache Hounds for those who seem to spend everywaking hour searching.

Hey, I wish I could dedicate that much time to caching!

Shannon

VegasCACHEHOUNDS

24.7k · December 8, 2004

Around here there's an expression Number Ho - but it's used somewhat affectionately, not as an indication of cheating or damaging caches. It can also be a verb, "I went number hoing in Ocala" meaning I went after the 2/2 or less stuff near the road, as opposed to heading out into the wilderness part of the national forest and hiking all day after one or two.

I have days like that. It's also nice to pick up an easy cache afer an especially hard one has kicked your butt. It's like a pick me up and makes you feel better about your finding ability.

1.1k · December 8, 2004

I cache with one of the top cachers, number 35 on the listing, but he replaces a cache as good or better then how we found it trying to get the spirit of the orgional placement. So no not all NUMBER PUNCHERS are bad, He has taught me a lot.

cheers

December 8, 2004

in their haste to get to the next cache they can't be bothered to replace the original cache properly.

What's particularly annoying is that even for a well-hidden cache, putting it back where and how you found it generally isn't going to take more than an extra minute or so. Sure, I can think of some exceptions -- where you have to remove the cache from some very tight or awkward spot, and move to some other location to trade, sign the log, etc. -- but in my experience (limited, I'll grant you), even those aren't going to add more than a couple minutes, tops.

1.8k · December 8, 2004

It doesn't take much longer to replace a cache in its original condition. I've cached with dozens of "high-finders" and every single one of them is every bit as conscientious as anyone else when it comes to avoiding muggles and re-hiding the cache appropriately. To broadly generalize all "number punchers" as inconsiderate is a gross misrepresentation.

3.3k · December 8, 2004

It doesn't take much longer to replace a cache in its original condition. I've cached with dozens of "high-finders" and every single one of them is every bit as conscientious as anyone else when it comes to avoiding muggles and re-hiding the cache appropriately. To broadly generalize all "number punchers" as inconsiderate is a gross misrepresentation.

In addition to what Team Perkyperks said, most experienced cachers are more discreet about their search when the general population might be watching. This comes with practice. I have seen plenty of beginners, that stick out like a sore thumb, while caching. They zig zag and walk back and forth following their GPS to "Zero". Experienced cachers usually look in the most likely hiding spot when their GPS shows them within 20 feet. They draw less attention to themselves.

On top of this, there are plenty of caches, that are designed as nothing more than number caches. If you don't like 1/1 caches in the city, don't hunt them.

I don't condone cachers who are careless about their searching techniques, or who are quick to replace a cache, with a "pre-signed" one, when they assume it's gone.

Bashing all high number cachers is like blaming spoons for Rosie Odonell's large rear end.

22k · December 8, 2004

To broadly generalize all "number punchers" as inconsiderate is a gross misrepresentation.

Yes, you have to use a much more derogatory term to be clear that you are referring to cachers who behave in self-serving and inconsiderate ways.

Like ‘dirty rat b*****ds’

1.8k · December 8, 2004

Yes, you have to use a much more derogatory term to be clear that you are referring to cachers who behave in self-serving and inconsiderate ways.

Like ‘dirty rat b*****ds’

Whoa, whoa. Easy there.

I may be a dirty rat b*****d, but that's for reasons entirely unrelated to geocaching!

9.1k · December 8, 2004

I will echo the recent posts regarding accusations that it's the high numbers finders who are leaving caches out in the open. I've cached with 9 of the top 100, including #1, and I've never seen any direct evidence of this behavior. To the contrary, on many occasions I've seen people stop to fix a problem with a cache, hide a cache with a few more sticks or rocks so that it's not so obvious, etc.

High numbers cachers are easy targets. They blaze through an area, find 50 caches, someone checks on their cache, finds it a bit out of place and blames the powercacher. Who's to say that it wasn't the person just before that who left the cache exposed? I see it all the time when I return to caches, including those that have *not* been part of a powercaching trail. And unless it's my cache, when I'm caching I don't know exactly how the owner intended it to be hidden, so I can only leave it like I found it or slightly better.

If someone has clear proof that their cache was hidden correctly before the powercacher visited, and was exposed afterwards, I'd love to see the photos or other similar evidence.

Even when setting the then-current world record for most caches found in a day, I took care to replace each cache as I found it, and to avoid muggle problems. None of the 240 caches we visited that day turned up missing. In fact, I would argue that a powercacher is less likely to attract undue attention: because they are in and out of the area so quickly, and are experienced at finding caches in one of the "obvious spots" while remaining somewhat stealthy, powercachers look less suspicious than a newbie who stumbles around for a half hour chasing their swirling compass arrow, and who is self-conscious about being seen.

But apply any nickname you want... number puncher, cache ho, whatever. I prefer powercacher. There's some truth to the addictive behavior of chasing numbers and from time to time I go out and do that. Just don't pin me with additional traits of which I am not guilty.

December 8, 2004

I prefer to be called either kilocacher or powercacher, but have been called quite a few names. and agree with what the little green guy said …………… JOE

38.2k · December 8, 2004

I've cached with 9 of the top 100, including #1, and I've never seen any direct evidence of this behavior. To the contrary, on many occasions I've seen people stop to fix a problem with a cache, hide a cache with a few more sticks or rocks so that it's not so obvious, etc.

Do you think they're gonna do it when others are looking?

Seriously, over the past few years we would seem to get a spate of caches left out, or poorly re-hidden and/or lids not sealed properly. Then it subsides. I never connected it with the appearance of certain power cachers sweeping through the area. Next time I'll have to pay more attention. I've heard accusations from a number of different areas and the same people always seem to be involved.

Edited December 8, 2004 by briansnat

December 8, 2004

We do all types of caches and sometimes go on our version of numbers runs. We try to take care and replace all of our finds the way they were. A couple of times we've messed up caches and have each time reported them to the owner. Our numbers cachers in the area ALWAYS replace the caches better than they were when they were found. In fact I asked one of our finest if he needed help rolling a boulder over one we found at an event. (hehheh). Hopefully sometimes in the near future the horsegeeks may get the recognition of being number hungry cachers. We love it.

December 8, 2004

I cache with one of the top cachers, number 35 on the listing,

What listing? Just curious, since "it's not about the numbers" (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

1.8k · December 8, 2004

What listing? Just curious, since "it's not about the numbers" (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Perhaps they're referring to this listing?

38.2k · December 8, 2004

Wow I'm way up there at 2522! BrianSnat, Number Puncher. I like the sound!

Edited December 8, 2004 by briansnat

4.2k · December 8, 2004

Woo Hoo! 3304 baby - show some respect.

3.9k · December 8, 2004

Ever notice when you are driving down the highway that anybody driving faster then you is insane, and anybody driving slower is stupid?

OK, so it's an old saying, but it kind of applys here.

So, just because a person has high numbers doesn't mean they are irresponsible or greedy. There are low count folks who also show signs of this same irresponsibile behavior (not replaceing caches properly).

$.02

#789

Edited December 8, 2004 by Moose Mob

December 8, 2004

I have referred to these folks as "cache baggers", "numbers cruchers", "dullards" and a few other things less nice depending on my mood. I really don't believe that they are any more or less likely to rehide caches carelessly than other persons and I haven't seen any evidence of this. I am generally more amused than annoyed by their antics because the stuff they do ususally doesn't affect me or anybody else much unless one is concerned about who is going to win the race to one million finds. I somewhat resent that they put a higher valule on high concentrations of the easy park and grabs that I consider lame and skip past the more challenging and interesting hides that I tend to prefer but this really doesn't have any real adverse effect on me or the game. What I don't like is when they hide (or encourage others to hide) too many of these junk caches just so they can have their stat. I really do believe that it is a tiny minority of cachers that play mainly for numbers and I think it's a shame whenever and wherever they hijack the game and pollute the listings with a lot of lame caches that many people (dare I say majority) will not care to hunt. In those places where the "numbers punchers" dominate, the only game in town is all about numbers because that is what the game has evolved into there. You get a big long list of crap whenever you search on those zip codes. If this trend continues, the vast majority of the caches listed on this site will be "numbers punchers" caches and the only people left playing will be the "numbers punchers".

December 8, 2004

Coolio! We're # 1960!

We have a lot of our local Bay Area cachers in the top 125 ranking. A great bunch.

Edited December 8, 2004 by GeoBrowns

1.8k · December 8, 2004

So...at what point does one become a number-puncher? I enjoy numbers, I'll freely admit...but they aren't my motivation. I also enjoy the nice hikes, the camaraderie of caching with friends, and all other facets of geocaching. My primary reasons for finding lots of caches at a time are 1) due to a recurring bad knee and a bum ankle, I can't do a lot of hiking, which leaves me to the more easily accessible hides, and 2) I really, really enjoy caching...so I want to spend as much time as possible doing it.

Getting back to part of the original complaint, I spent my lunch break (yes, I'm lame) going through my past finds. Accounting for natural and other factors on caches for which I've been last to fnid, I figure that I may have been the "cause" of maybe 5 of those disappearing. That's 0.3% of my total find count. I would expect that's not any higher than most everyone else has experienced.

4.7k · December 9, 2004

What listing? Just curious, since "it's not about the numbers" (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Perhaps they're referring to this listing?

darn. now i'm going to have to even MORE egregiously under-report my finds. maybe i'll start skipping the log for every fifth cache.

5.3k · December 9, 2004

So...at what point does one become a number-puncher?

Good question.

In my opinion, it is when you start leaving stickers with your names on them in the logs instead of signing them by hand because it takes too long.

22k · December 9, 2004

So...at what point does one become a number-puncher?

Good question.

In my opinion, it is when you start leaving stickers with your names on them in the logs instead of signing them by hand because it takes too long.

I hear what you are saying.

However, my handwriting is so bad that I probably should be using stickers. (And no, I'm not being funny)

Personally, I think it's the disregard for the cache site and hide in pursuit of signing the log. Fortunately this occurrence is relatively low.

38.2k · December 9, 2004

So...at what point does one become a number-puncher?

Good question.

In my opinion, it is when you start leaving stickers with your names on them in the logs instead of signing them by hand because it takes too long.

I think its when people start passing up excellent high terrain or difficulty caches because they take to long, to do a bunch of lame Walmart micros and when theyu go to events and spend the entire day bagging the area caches instead of socializing.

Edited December 9, 2004 by briansnat

22k · December 9, 2004

So...at what point does one become a number-puncher?

Good question.

In my opinion, it is when you start leaving stickers with your names on them in the logs instead of signing them by hand because it takes too long.

I hear what you are saying.

However, my handwriting is so bad that I probably should be using stickers. (And no, I'm not being funny)

Edited December 9, 2004 by BlueDeuce

24.7k · December 9, 2004

What listing? Just curious, since "it's not about the numbers" (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Perhaps they're referring to this listing?

I'm Number 666. Hmmm...

1.6k · December 9, 2004

What listing? Just curious, since "it's not about the numbers" (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Perhaps they're referring to this listing?

We are number 759 ... at it for 3 years .. does this make us numbers punchers ?

We tend to revisit many caches that we have already been to , just to help out in checking on DNF's and such of other local cachers. We also tend to "fix" , problems if we can and if we can't we will send the owner an e-mail . We like to leave caches the way we found them or even perhaps in better condition then when we found them . Most of the "number punchers" you refer to are seasoned cachers that will in fact leave things the same way or in improved condition .

Star

December 9, 2004

I don't let high find count bother me.

People cache for different reasons, personally i enjoy the woods, so i like the long hikes. I do enough critical thinking at work and school, so i don't focus on cache puzzles, but I do participate in them too.

WHat i do find odd about cachers that find a ton of caches all in one day is how they can enjoy their surroundings if they are running off and not paying attention to their environment.

What bothers me the most is people with a ton of finds and a ton of hides that don't maintain their own hides, and keep hiding more caches that they can't maintain. ALso, sometimes people will bushwack when they were specifically told not to, due to environmental reasons specified by the cache owner, and perhaps of the forest manager where the cache is placed. It always bothers me when i see unecessary bushwacking in an area designated not be bushwacked through, just to race to a cache.

3.3k · December 9, 2004

If this trend continues, the vast majority of the caches listed on this site will be "numbers punchers" caches and the only people left playing will be the "numbers punchers".

Not true,

They prefer to hide in easy places. Areas that require a strenuous hike will be avoided. Also keep in mind that not all cachers are Iron Man competitors, and hiking 5 miles up a steep mountain range is not everyone's preference.

I often cache with my 3 year old and my pregnant wife. We can't (as a family) do the 3 star plus terrain caches right now. This leaves us to find easier placed caches (not necessarily inner city caches). We like

"flatter area" caches right now.

I think its when people start passing up excellent high terrain or difficulty caches because they take to long, to do a bunch of lame Walmart micros and when theyu go to events and spend the entire day bagging the area caches instead of socializing.

How about caching from 9:00 Am to 4:00 pm, then spend 3 1/2 hours socializing at a cache event (that starts at 4:00 pm)? Does that fit your stereotype?

However, my handwriting is so bad that I probably should be using stickers. (And no, I'm not being funny)

That is the reason I went to stickers. My scribbling on cache logs stinks. If I trade an item, I do write what I took and what I left.

December 9, 2004

I cache with one of the top cachers, number 35 on the listing,

What listing? Just curious, since "it's not about the numbers" (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Cool I had never seen this list b4. I knew who #1 was and also #4. Me I am a measely 1883.

1.8k · December 9, 2004

In my opinion, it is when you start leaving stickers with your names on them in the logs instead of signing them by hand because it takes too long.

Most of the local cachers have their own trademark stickers too--and only a small handful have more than 300 finds. I wouldn't call them number-punchers.

I also leave pre-printed stickers. My handwriting is just that bad. If it's a neat cache, I'll still write stuff. Does that count?

2.3k · December 9, 2004

So...at what point does one become a number-puncher?

Good question.

In my opinion, it is when you start leaving stickers with your names on them in the logs instead of signing them by hand because it takes too long.

Cool. I guess I'm good then, as I use an ink stamp.

I also have very bad writing/printing skills. Plus my user name is pretty long so it's easier to fit a small stamp on micro logs too.

As 'The List' is not quite up to date, I should be tied for #666 with RK.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Corp Of Discovery

December 9, 2004

This thread is a perfect example of how easy it is to stereotype. BTW, we used to powercachers, but life changes you (if you're lucky). Like KitFox, I cache with the wife and 15 month old daughter, so while I sometimes want to hit 20 in a day, we might hit one.

So what defines the powercacher/number ho/etc?

Numbers? High numbers does not mean you sweep and area leaving caches exposed.

Stickers? Sometimes even I consider using them.

High daily numbers? Depending on where you live, hitting 10-20 in a day is not a lot of work.

Lots of 1/1s? Again, who are you caching with, and what do you prefer.

I think we need to be careful about throwing labels around so easily.

3.9k · December 9, 2004

I haqve to go with what Brainsnat said. When a person doesn't do the t-4/5 caches because they take too long.

Personaly, I do them all. Perhaps on a particular day, I will go for 20/30 walmart micros. Another day, I will go for one cache at the end of a great trail.

I use stickers because it is more like a signature item.

What part of this is wrong?

Edited December 9, 2004 by Moose Mob

5.3k · December 9, 2004

Folks, please don't misunderstand what I said.

Having a large number of finds does not make you a "number puncher."

Caring mainly about your numbers and not so much about the experience of geocaching is what distinguishes a number puncher from everyone else. And, you will note, I said only that number punchers annoy me mildly. I have cached with several; I don't often go out caching with them because our caching styles are quite different, but I think they are fine people!

For a great example of a high-number cacher who is definitely not a number-puncher, consider Marky and Joani. Even though they are currently #11 on The List, they clearly savor the experience of caching. Marky and Joani don't rush from cache to cache; they enjoy each one. He and Joani always take time to sign the logs and write a thoughtful note online about every one of their finds. I go out caching with them every chance I get. They are great examples of how wonderful cachers are.

"Number puncher" is an attitude, not a find count!

Number Punchers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment