Expirience Or Numbers

May 7, 2005

Is caching more for which, expirience or numbers. I love the expirience. My daughter told me after our first find. "Dad this is quality time" (8 year old). I'm in it for the expirience. How bout you?

11.3k · May 7, 2005

The experience.

I prefer caches that are at the end of a short or long walk in my rural area.

I did find 14 caches in one day this past week, but I was with another cacher and a friend so we had lots of fun, and it was a great experience!

May 7, 2005

I am definitely in it for the experience. But I challenge myself with the numbers too

May 8, 2005

I started out geocaching by clearing an area of all caches regardless. I now go for the experience and I choose which caches will give me the best experiences, scenery, history, etc. I will pass up caches that are just put out for the sake of numbers with no redeeming qualities that interest me.

2.1k · May 8, 2005

I've been thinking about posting a topic on something close to this one. I believe that the OP is talking about quality vs. crappy caches which is a legitimate discussion but they used the word "numbers" which I believe commonly (and incorrectly) equated with a low-quality experience.

I have never considered that there is any difference between "experience" and "numbers". It is all experience. Even a lame micro offers some small bit of "the hunt".

Many people post replies that suggest that anytime people have a high find count they are "only in it for the numbers" (direct quote) or that high numbers in a day somehow "cheapens" the experience. I don't understand where these comments come from.

I have met 14 cachers with over 2000 finds and generally notice that they have been to far more "experience" caches than I and most other cachers have and they are all enjoying their geocaching. One of them with just made an 11 hour hike to a mountain side cache in the middle of the desert and then posted a long log and added lots of photos. This is not atypical for that cacher.

So here are my questions:

Does anyone have any evidence that high find counts equals a lesser experience?

Does anyone have any evidence that low find counts equals a greater experience?

Does anyone know or have they met some high-finder that doesn't appear to be having a good experience?

Edited May 8, 2005 by Team Sagefox

May 8, 2005

To stay on topic, it is the experience.

Caches in my area were all of the hike in the woods type. When much of the available areas became saturated, then the micros in a city park began to appear. Sometimes it is fun to become obese with finds, but it can never replace a hike through a nice area revealing something worth seeing. But, if your thing is having more finds than someone else, have fun. That's what its about in the end.

11.3k · May 8, 2005

I've been thinking about posting a topic on something close to this one. I believe that the OP is talking about quality vs. crappy caches which is a legitimate discussion but they used the word "numbers" which I believe commonly (and incorrectly) equated with a low-quality experience.

I have never considered that there is any difference between "experience" and "numbers". It is all experience. Even a lame micro offers some small bit of "the hunt".

Many people post replies that suggest that anytime people have a high find count they are "only in it for the numbers" (direct quote) or that high numbers in a day somehow "cheapens" the experience. I don't understand where these comments come from.

I have met 14 cachers with over 2000 finds and generally notice that they have been to far more "experience" caches than I and most other cachers have and they are all enjoying their geocaching. One of them with over 5000 finds just made an 11 hour hike to a mountain side cache in the middle of the desert and then posted a long log and added lots of photos. This is not atypical for that cacher.

So here are my questions:

Does anyone have any evidence that high find counts equals a lesser experience?

Does anyone have any evidence that low find counts equals a greater experience?

Does anyone know or have they met some high-finder that doesn't appear to be having a good experience?

No.

Personally, I don't have a very good experience doing urban micros. However, one I placed recently after hurting my knee has had lots of visitors . . . who knew?

It isn't one I would go to, but I had to replace the log already because the other one filled up . . .

Edit to add appropriate quote

Edited May 8, 2005 by idiosyncratic

2.2k · May 8, 2005

experience, especially with my daughter when she stays. good excuse to go to new places and go for interesting walks. urban micros only when i'm at a loose end in the neighbourhood. never just because they exist like decent rural/ forest caches.

May 8, 2005

For me it started out as an experience, then it turned into numbers. After a while, that got old - running into unimaginative caches or the "same old thing" took most of the fun out of it. I've gotten back into it for the experience. I'm avoiding many urban caches and look for caches that take be to some place interesting. Some place with a view or worth looking at aside from a cache.

2.2k · May 8, 2005

Im in it for the FUN.

May 8, 2005

The experience and the fun.

Logging finds is a way to say thank you to the cache owner.

May 8, 2005

It's definitely about the experience. That's not to say I don't like counting my finds, but each of those is an experience I had and I try to reflect that in my logs.

May 8, 2005

Is caching more for which, expirience or numbers. I love the expirience. My daughter told me after our first find. "Dad this is quality time" (8 year old). I'm in it for the expirience. How bout you?

Maybe it's a bit like age.

At 16 I was happy to be that age. Same at 25 when different life experiences were occurring. Same at 35, and so on.

The numbers are just to remind me how -many- experiences I've had, but counting or not, I still had 'em.

So, I guess I feel pretty good (and experienced) at 65 finds. And at 165 I'll feel that much better, and be that much more experienced then at 65, but ultimately, happiness is a question of personal attitude.

Same with caching.

--Marc

May 8, 2005 @ 12:52 AM

N40° 46.565' W073° 58.756'

5.3k · May 8, 2005

Does anyone have any evidence that high find counts equals a lesser experience?

No. Great example of high find count, high experience is Marky.

Does anyone have any evidence that low find counts equals a greater experience?

No.

Does anyone know or have they met some high-finder that doesn't appear to be having a good experience?

Yes. We have a few of these in our area. It is kind of sad.

Edited May 8, 2005 by fizzymagic

May 8, 2005

Is caching more for which, expirience or numbers. I love the expirience. My daughter told me after our first find. "Dad this is quality time" (8 year old). I'm in it for the expirience. How bout you?

Yes.

May 8, 2005

I would much rather have lower personal numbers if they all count as great experiences that I am glad to remember. I'll never be someone who has 2,000+ finds in a game/hobby/sport which has only been around five years. Maybe I'll hit that number after I've been doing it for ten years. But to get to such high numbers in so short a period of time just wouldn't be any fun for me. When I go out geocaching I like to have a nice walk that leads someplace interesting and gives my opportunities for taking pictures. It's hard to do a lot of those in one day, and hard to do many days like that in a week or a month.

I would far rather live in an area with fewer caches of high quality as opposed to a glut of boring and poorly thought out ones. I live in Seattle and I hear a lot of people say that this area is great for geocaching, but getting to the kinds of caches I like still takes time and planning, and there are still way too many [boring] micro caches. One of my greatest gripes is the saturation of micros in areas that would be better served by a more creative placement. I'm tired of people just sticking magnetic boxes and bison capsules in every crevice and cranny.

Does anyone have any evidence that high find counts equals a lesser experience?

In other threads I have seen discussions of people with really high numbers who would count as a find any cache that they got within shooting distance of, whether they saw it, touched it, or singed it or not. Of course that isn't everyone with high numbers, but I would contend that those are people who aren't having a good experience as I would define it.

6.7k · May 8, 2005

I really don't see a numbers / experience relationship.

I have logged almost 1200, but off and on during that time I would sometimes go months without logging. I sign the cache log, but may or may not log it online.

This year logging started to seem like a PITA, so now I log very few - I doubt I have logged 50 of the last 300 I have found.

In my mind, however, I clearly recall most all of them, and my friends throughout the South know they can call me as a phone-a-friend whether I have logged the cache or not and it's likely that I have found it!

I still log the very interesting ones, and the ones that need maintenance, but that's about it.

The experinces, though, have been priceless!

May 8, 2005

Thanks everyone for the replies. Great answers

Edited May 8, 2005 by lefty2448

3.8k · May 8, 2005

Expirience Or Numbers, poll question

You can't have polls on this forum.

Expirience.

1.8k · May 8, 2005

Numbers can be an experience too.

May 8, 2005

Expirience Or Numbers, poll question

You can't have polls on this forum.

Expirience.

Did see the poll option. Next time I'll use it. Thanks for the heads up.

7.2k · May 8, 2005

Does anyone have any evidence that high find counts equals a lesser experience?

Does anyone have any evidence that low find counts equals a greater experience?

Yep, if you look at it the way I do.

While you can't directly compare numbers from folks in one area to those in another because of the caches available to hunt, you can compare how they hunt. We used to be rabid hunters (versus rabbit hunters) and would simply go from cache to cache. We were only focused on the cache and when we found the cache, we'd be focused on the next one. We didn't stop to smell the roses, so to speak.

You can equate this to going to a fine restaurant and eating your food like you were competing in a hotdog eating contest. Me, I'd rather savor my food.

You can have wonderful experiences and a relatively high count. The problem comes when someone becomes too focused on simply getting that next cache. To echo what Fizzy said, that's just sad.

To answer the OP's question; it's the experience. My find count doesn't matter, nor does it drive me or motivate me. What drives me is, to bastardize a saying from Mr. Gates, "where are you going to take me today?"

Edited May 8, 2005 by CoyoteRed

1.2k · May 8, 2005

Numbers are fun as a way of keeping score but the experience is what counts. Lame micros are ok if you have nothing else to find at that time but, nothing is better that a regular cache with goodies to trade that is hidden is a beautiful area.

6.5k · May 8, 2005

Each time I find a new cache I have a positive experience. Some are more positive and memorable than others. The more finds I have the higher my find count gets. That's just a coincidence, since I believe in looging everything online. I'm out there to have FUN, and it can be spelled and counted many different ways.

May 8, 2005

Well, it seem as experience is the overall motivator. I tried to do a bunch in a day, but forgot to get pics, the stress level was greater and I didn't enjoy the first couple of caches concentrating on the next. After that I decided to make the most of the eperience and when i found one to appreciate what the hider wanted me to see when I got there. Not that all caches are a great view but I want to experience what they where thinking when they put it there. Hopefully I can make the experience as good for someone else when they start. Salud to you all and thanks for the info. This info is great to me when it comes time to hide my first.

thanks again.

Lefty

38.2k · May 9, 2005

Every time this question comes up the vast majority say they aren't in it for the numbers. If that's the case, I wonder why most excellent, long multi caches are largely ignored, while a multiple cache series of similar lengths are far more popular.

I can think of a few awesome multis that require 5-7 mile hikes. THey go a very long time between finds, yet a few "series" of caches in the same area that involve a bunch of individual caches over that same 5-7 miles get hit failry regularly.

Its not a matter of having the time because both take about the same amount of time.

THere is nothing wrong with being a numbers hound, but I think a lot of people are afraid to admit that they are,

May 9, 2005

Experience? Numbers? I'm just trying to get replacment Tupperware lids!

May 9, 2005

Both: the experience and numbers... but mostly the experience.

just made an 11 hour hike to a mountain side cache in the middle of the desert and then posted a long log and added lots of photos.

Wherever I go, I try to stop and take a minute to bring back a picture for someone's cache page. It was way cool to go for this one, a 1950's CIA transport plane.

I was quite happy to drive 9 hours for the FTF opp, and do it with good caching company. GCNHJQ

That said, this weekend's 15 finds makes me itch a little bit for a bigger chunk of caches.

Edited May 9, 2005 by bthomas

8.4k · May 9, 2005

Both: the experience and numbers... but mostly the experience.

just made an 11 hour hike to a mountain side cache in the middle of the desert and then posted a long log and added lots of photos.

Wherever I go, I try to stop and take a minute to bring back a picture for someone's cache page. It was way cool to go for this one, a 1950's CIA transport plane.

I was quite happy to drive 9 hours for the FTF opp, and do it with good caching company. GCNHJQ

That said, this weekend's 15 finds makes me itch a little bit for a bigger chunk of caches.

Why did I KNOW who you found with before I even clicked the link. (You two met on my offroad adventure series didn't ya?)

I may hafta do that one on my vacation this year. :unsure: Thanks for sharing.

Back on topic:

Uhhh, both for me too, but I actually get the greatest satisfaction from providing a quality experience. It's finders like bthomas and Ranboze that keep me in business as a hider. :blink: Their logs on my caches have made my day on several occasions. It's folks like them that make me want to share more of my "secret" places.

May 9, 2005

Being a "Newbie" it is for the expierence. I have had a ball just seeing what is out there & whats has been hidden. I have seen & been to places that I didn't know existed in my local area.

Most of the hi count cachers have been doing this for some time & have reason for the large counts. Some hi daily counts may be spending the entire day caching as I intend to do at some point. As I said I am having a ball doing this.

Obviously we are all having fun with the "expierence" or we wouldn't be caching.

3.3k · May 9, 2005

Im in it for the FUN.

After 500 plus finds, I'm more picky about which type of cache I like to hunt. I personally prefer caches in the outdoors, where you don't have to "watch for muggles."

I'm not against an occasional hunt for 1/1s , but I prefer caches that have at least a 2 to 4.5 star difficulty terrain rating instead. The reward, and experience is far better on the "hike-in" caches than it is for the quick caches.

Basically, I'm not against racking up more finds, however, I'm more choosy about which caches I elect to hunt.

1.1k · May 9, 2005

Both. The numbers can be an expriance as you race from one to another cache site. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too.

May 9, 2005

Def the experience!!! I like being outdoors and this just lends to that. And really, it doesn't bother me if I get skunked by a DNF.

:unsure:

May 9, 2005

I live in Ontario Canada. It is not about numbers here. There are not enough caches to build the numbers like in the States, but there is the wilderness to make them an adventure. At one of my favourite areas you are wise to wear a bear bell or you are very likely to surprise a bear. That adds an interesting element to the activity. On one evening cache last year, we were about a mile into the bush when we saw a large black bear. There was no incident and we found the cache, but before we were out we saw another bear and heard wolves in the distance. What a great feeling! Obviously we were not wearing making sufficient noise during our hike.

The Geeks

5.3k · May 9, 2005

Both

May 9, 2005

This is a tricky question, because regardless of what people say, I think the numbers will ALWAYS be a part of it, whether it's in their unconscious perceptions of themselves as a cacher or of others. I have 17 finds in a little over a year. I've hunted more than that, and definitely printed out more cache pages, but I haven't been able to find as many as I'd like to. I've had a ball on every hunt though, even if I didn't find it. I've enjoyed the altoids tin stuck to road barrier, and I've enjoyed the 4 mile hike into the hills to get the ammo can. I want to find more. I want to find as many as I possibly can, and yes, I'd like to get my numbers up.

Do I think having higher numbers makes me a better cacher? No, but it gives me a sense of accomplishment. Shoot, I feel great about my 17, and I'm actually stoked to hit 20 soon. I'll be excited to hit 100, or 500, or (God forbid) 1000. I've enjoyed (almost) every minute I've been out caching, or I wouldn't be doing it.

2.7k · May 9, 2005

I generally prefer the experience. Part of the problem is that I don't have a lot of time to go caching. So, I might find 2-8 caches in a day, on the that rare time off for myself.

I'd love to be able to schedule long caches, even if I only did one.

I guess the best way I go by is experiences - due to the short length of some of the hikes, I have to dasy chain them to get my woods time in.

BTW, I have less than 90 finds, and I have been on here for some time now.

:unsure:

July 16, 2005

I love the experience.

But right now I was challenged by another cacher in the area, so it's numbers until we see who hits a certain number first. But believe me, I only pick caches with some kind of scenic/historical/hiking/picnic or something like that. I don't go micro.

22k · July 16, 2005

Experience.

Believe it or not there were times when I was caching and I didn't have 'fun'. I learned something from that experience.

Oh, and I also cache with an eight year old daughter. I was so proud the first time she went caching without me, annoyed and feeling left out, but proud.

July 16, 2005

The experience.

I found about 20 caches on two separate weekend cache journeys in my state. It was fun and all but it pooped me out. For this 1/3 of our team, its finding the exact final location of the cache, what it looks like, how its hidden, and how much effort it took to find it and the kind of container. The type or quality of swag is irrelevant to me personally.

One time about a year or so ago, we went looking for a new cache about 60mi south of our town. We did not know it had been placed for a local cache run/game/event and it was our first time to meet other cachers. We tried to say hello to several, but they blew us off and were actually quite rude. They were in such a hurry to get to the next cache, win, or whatever. Several others though were quite nice, said hello and chatted briefly. I thought this is a hobby/activity/something I do at my leisure, I want to have take my time, have fun and enjoy what I am doing. I told myself, if I become like those folks, it will be time to find a new interest.

Edited July 16, 2005 by brodiebunch

July 16, 2005

I do it for the fun of it. I enjoy the hunt. I enjoy finding new places. I enjoy the time out with my family. I enjoy logging fun notes or things that we experienced on the cache. Sure I like to see the numbers go up, but that is more of a bonus to the experience of the hunt.

July 16, 2005

definately the fun factor, or for the poll, experience.

I save the numbers-game for my golf, or lack thereof My goal in golf is to shoot my age on the front 9, (before I'm 38) then it will be shoot my age in the 70's.

Not sure what numbers I could be shooting for in caching. What's par in caching?

edit: spelling

Edited July 16, 2005 by Siberian Cacher

38.2k · July 16, 2005

380 finds spread over 3 1/2 years should answer your question. There are people who find that many in a week.

5.7k · July 16, 2005

Well since I have only been actively caching for about 6 months now and only have 165 finds, you can clearly see that I am into this wonderful game for the experience and quality time with my better half. Mrs. Team Cotati and I really really do enjoy this swell activity. :blink:

Edited July 16, 2005 by Team Cotati

7.3k · July 17, 2005

I can think of a few awesome multis that require 5-7 mile hikes. They go a very long time between finds, yet a few "series" of caches in the same area that involve a bunch of individual caches over that same 5-7 miles get hit failry regularly.

While this may be true, in my area, I've noticed that cachers who stay involved for a couple of years will get around to doing the long one smiley multis as well as the multi smiley hikes (provided they're physically able). So the extra numbers do call, but if a well laid out multi is out there, it will pull folks too. We recently did a 10 stage 16 mile multi. A great experience. Last Saturday a 46 cache run through Gainesville - another great experience. I enjoy them both.

July 17, 2005

I have never considered that there is any difference between "experience" and "numbers". It is all experience. Even a lame micro offers some small bit of "the hunt".

Many people post replies that suggest that anytime people have a high find count they are "only in it for the numbers" (direct quote) or that high numbers in a day somehow "cheapens" the experience. I don't understand where these comments come from.

Does anyone have any evidence that high find counts equals a lesser experience?

Does anyone have any evidence that low find counts equals a greater experience?

Does anyone know or have they met some high-finder that doesn't appear to be having a good experience?

My sentiments exactly. After about 300 finds I stopped trading, chasing TB's, and picked my caches carefully. However, if I plan out a route that includes some lame micros, I will do them just for the experience. They are sometimes harder to find, and add to knowledge of how people think. As I used to tell my students in school: "There is no trivial knowledge--everything you know leads you to learn something else." There is no trivial caching experience--it's all good!

July 17, 2005

Is caching more for which, experience or numbers.

Yes - I like to experience the numbers and I like to number the experiences!

Momma Marauder

July 17, 2005

But believe me, I only pick caches with some kind of scenic/historical/hiking/picnic or something like that. I don't go micro.

Hey, we've found that the micros are actually the ones to bring us to the historical sites. We've found all sorts of historical homes and churches through the almighty micro. My daughter "Agent K" has used the micro to bring people to interesting places in Daytona, including her "favorite places". It was the micros in Nashville and Atlanta that provided a great self guided historical tour of both cities, so don't go knocking that micro.... unless there's a thousand of them in the middle of a parking lot...... :blink:

2k · July 17, 2005

I do it for the enjoyment, but would like to add one more thought. I was a couch potato before I started doing this hobby. I am still over weight, but not as bad. I wonder how many others do it for the exercise as well.

:blink:

11.3k · July 17, 2005

My main motivation is for the exercise. I need to regain my strength and stamina and Geocaching is doing that for me.

Expirience Or Numbers

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