I know this has been discussed on gc.com, but I'd like to see what the folks here in Maine think about this. :)

How do you feel about the stats, the number of finds that are kept for all to see on user's profile pages on geocaching.com?

Do you care what your numbers are? Do you care what other folks have for numbers?

I love the numbers. But you have to take them with a grain of salt.

We all approach caches differently, have different capabilities, and differing amounts of time to devote to the game. One of the first cachers I befriended online has only 21 finds, dragging his oxygen tank with him. But he's earned every one of them. he even collapsed within feet of a cache and had to get help.

And then there are those that log finds on caches they didn't find, or log finds on their own caches. And then there's those that don't think virts or locationless should count.

So anyway, it makes it hard to make any real comparison, but it's always fun to joke around with the numbers. BTW, I have 4 more to 400! hehe

I think its interesting seeing what others have achieved but at the same time I can respect a persons privacy and think their should be a way to disable others from viewing ones stats. But just think, who would we look up to if there were no stats. Would we have to rely on FTF's, and we all know who the king of the FTF is here in Maine......don't we YOP. :D The stats give some a little incentive to get out and do a little more perhaps, but in the long run its not how many you get, its the fun getting to them.

I like the numbers and often look at others to see what they have done. I can not believe that people log caches that they have not found. That is unspeakable in my book. I hate to mark the ones I have not found. But I do. I guess I am just to honest.

I like the numbers and often look at others to see what they have done. I can not believe that people log caches that they have not found. That is unspeakable in my book. I hate to mark the ones I have not found. But I do. I guess I am just to honest.

Those are two of my pet peeves - people who log without finding and those that don't DNF when they don't find.

One of the top cachers in the country with 4000+ finds, have many disputable logs, one of which says something to the effect of "The park was closed and so was the gate, and the cache was .15 miles away, so we took this pic and hope you claim it as a find" I also blame that partly on the owner for not deleting the log. I am sure they have many finds, but even just that one log sours your respect for their numbers.

And DNFs report information to the owner that he might not know otherwise. I decided at my first DNF to give myself 24 hours to find a cache before logging a DNF, so if I decided to look again the next day I didn't log DNF, but if I am not going back or I do go back and don't find it, I log a DNF.

I really should not let it bother me, the numbers in reality mean nothing. And I give leeway for those that mistakingly log, it's the ones that log just to up the numbers that really irk me - it does them no good in reality.

Of course, there are always exceptions, and ultimately I like to think it should be between the hider and the finder if a log is valid.

Like some in here, i dislike the fact that a cache owner can say, 'Oh, go ahead and log it as a find'....
For goodness sakes! the cache was geo-muggled! Period.

I was a member of that "group" looking for it Like me, some of the others posted the cache as not found. Its nice to know a few other honest cachers as well. I'm told the cache is back in place. Thats nice. I can find it at my own leisure.

Its very disappointing to observe a post that seems to me should be invalid. Kudos to all geo-cachers with a true heart for the hunt and the game.

Sorry, just needed to vent all that :o

And then there are the people put micro caches everywhere just to build up their numbers. Putting film canisters in light posts at Wendy's or "Hide a Key" containers behind the guard rails at Dunkin' Donuts is not my idea of geocaching. I've seen many fantastic places that I would otherwise never have known existed thanks to geocaching. :confused:

For some reason I thought that was what was on your mind WhereRwe from the conversation we had at the picnic. I too agree with the location of some of these micros that seem to be popping up around but don't think it will become a problem as far as the regular Mainacs putting them out.If you know what I mean. I think it is a numbers game to a certain respect but I myself just take them with a grain of salt and just like getting out to places that have some sigificance to the person who put it there.And I am hoping to make it to maybe 200 before the year is out. Seems like just yesterday that I said I didn't think I would ever get to 100 and have already passed that goal. Boy time goes by fast doesn't it?

I once saw a comedian who was talking about how people drive. He joked about it along the lines that he thinks anyone who is going slower than him on the road is an over-cautious idiot who doidn't know how to drive and anyone who is going faster than him is a reckless crazy person.

I like to check on a person's numbers just to get a feel for how new and how involved they are. I hate to admit it, but I sometimes catch myself thinking a bit like that comedian. Folks with way more finds than me are crazy caching addicts and those with numbers a lot less than mine are newbies or not really into it. I do my best to fight and overcome these internal mental prejudices.

As for my own numbers, yeah it's a nice way for me to keep track of things, but ever since we topped 100, I don't seem to really care much about the number anymore.

And I couldn't care less whether someone else pads their numbers or claim finds that the rest of us won't. I don't see this as a competative activity. They are cheating no one but themselves. If that's the way they play the game they are hurting no one.

Not logging DNFs errks me too. You never know the cache may have been muggled so you should log it. Ive noticed some cachers who log a whole bunch that Ive been to and wondered how can they get to all those in one day, without getting a couple of speeding tickets seeing how there is nearly 8hr of travel, let alone the hunts for the cache, hummmmmm.

That bring up a question for me. While we were caching at the Cache "Small Falls" (I think that was the name). We found one that was arcived and we logged it. Was that a legitament find or should we have not logged it?

My mom and I started off hell bent for leather with the caching and the numbers, etc, but with gas prices so high we don't cache as much as before. We will just keep throwing BBQ events and ..... wait for the gas prices to drop.

It's hard not to look at the numbers (Geochicks is only 72) and compare them to Brdad or YOP (easily at 350+) and not be a little ashamed to call yourself a geocacher. But like Brdad said, he knows a guy (with the O2 tank) that has earn all his caches. My mom and I feel that way.. Since Brdad and YOP don't have a tired 3-year old to carry to and from the cache! :D

That bring up a question for me. While we were caching at the Cache "Small Falls" (I think that was the name). We found one that was arcived and we logged it. Was that a legitament find or should we have not logged it?

Yep! You found the cache! Log it!

Did you remove it afterward? Since it was archived, you probably should have.

paramachenee found one that had been archived a year (while he was looking for a spot to replace it no less!), and was a few hundred feet from where it had originally been placed. Wicked cool!

....with everything said here so far! It's been a tough week for me re: DNFs...but I log 'em!! As far as the #s...I like the stats, but only as a gauge for myself...not as competition with other geocachers. I like to keep track of milestones (50, 100, etc.) and I post them in the "news" section of my user profile on gc.com with links to said caches.

And then there are the people who like to record TB numbers for use at a later time. One of the TB's I picked up at the BBQ was logged into a microcache 60 miles away 2 days later. It could NEVER have been placed in that cache, and since it was in my posession, the log was fraudulent. AHA! I had received a notice that my note in the cache log about this had been deletd, a check of the site also reveals that the note placing the TB in the cache is gone, and a new note just up in the BBQ cache site placing it there.

How does anyone feel about manipulating TB's and caches like this? :confused:

I really hate the numbers game. Down here in Ma. everyone is consumed with them. Including myself. I found that I was allways looking at the leader board and trying to figure out how long it would take me to get up to some others stats. Cachers allways asking how many you got. Dont get me wrong I found the Ma cachers great and allways willing to help out but numbers allways come up. With all the caches found in maine I have never been asked how many you got, but asked this myself of the ones I run into.

What finally happend is that at my 100 th find I thought, why do I really care how many I plant and find. That is not why I got into it. I was so bad in the past that I did not log DNF for 3 caches because I hated the way the smiley face looked in my personal page.(dont cuss me out for that)
I learned that no one can police and no one can get worked up over it and miss why we do it. It is just plain fun.

I now log all dnf and do not look anymore at how many I have. I know that it is not a lot more than I think, at just hitting 100th find but i just go with it. I have had run ins with people putting false finds on my caches and dont argue with them anymore just deleate it. I had someone claim a find when I had the box home over the weekend re painting it.

So I dont get tweeked anymore about people that get cought sneaking the numbers up, It detracts from what my fun is with caching.

That bring up a question for me. While we were caching at the Cache "Small Falls" (I think that was the name). We found one that was arcived and we logged it. Was that a legitament find or should we have not logged it?

I just realized; Smalls Falls is just disabled, not archived. So you shouldn't have removed it as I stated in a previous post.

The odd part is, there are 3 caches at Smalls Falls:

Smalls Falls (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=24475) (GC5F9B) by Tiger_tat & family (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=27990) (2.5/2) was listed on 2002-06-02

Smalls Falls (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=24708) (GC6084) by N1SDR (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=13972) (2.5/2.5) was listed on 2002-06-04

Below Smalls Falls (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=70216) (GCG4VZ) by N1ULY & Cricket's_Song (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=45469) (1.5/1.5) was listed on 2003-05-18

I guess the first two were posted before the .1 mile rule as they are only 144.240 ft apart, or the timing was so close they didn't notice. There's not much need for 3 caches here, but I hope Tiger_Tat replaces or archives it before too long.

The numbers game in geocaching is like real estate...location, location, location. There is an event coming up this weekend in Tennessee called the Second Annual Geo-Woodstock where they request you do a query of 300 for one zip code!! They say you will get 100 caches in a 12 hour period and may actually do more!! How far do you have to drive in Maine to get 100 caches? I had a log on one of my caches of an 8 yr. old boy from Ohio who had logged 500 caches!! Think back to how excited you were to find the first cache or your FTF. Keep that in mind...that's what it's all about. My numbers are important to me...but only because they have so many memories....they are milestones in just another adventure.

There is an event coming up this weekend in Tennessee called the Second Annual Geo-Woodstock where they request you do a query of 300 for one zip code!!

Here are the stats for a PQ I Did of the closest 500 caches to my brother's house in Fremont, CA, at the end of 2003:


Total Caches: 500

Caches by type:
Traditional Cache: 353 (70.6%)
Multi-Cache: 49 (9.8%)
Virtual Cache: 16 (3.2%)
Event Cache: 1 (.2%)
Webcam Cache: 2 (.4%)
Unknown Cache: 75 (15%)
Locationless (Reverse) Cache: 4 (.8%)

Caches by container:
Not Listed: 17 (3.4%)
Micro: 242 (48.4%)
Regular: 203 (40.6%)
Large: 1 (.2%)
Other: 16 (3.2%)
Virtual: 21 (4.2%)

Cache Ratings:
Difficulty:
Minimum: 1
Maximum: 5
Average: 2.1
Terrain:
Minimum: 1
Maximum: 5
Average: 1.5

Distance:
Minimum: .32 mi
Maximum: 16.5 mi
Average: 11.6 mi

Cache Age:
Oldest Cache: 2000-12-10
Youngest Cache: 2004-01-24
Average hidden date: 2003-03-25

Makes me like Maine caches (And cache hiders) all the more!

Holy crap!!! 500 within 12 miles,no wonder they have high numbers. I feel the same way Dad. I'm happy to live here in the state of Maine.

WhereRU, In my 40 plus years of associating with people from Maine, I have found them to be reserved, quiet but a great group of folks. Most are tolerant enough to accept others as they are, if not accepting them as one of "them." I find that the attitude that you display shows none of these endearing characteristics. If you got out into the mainstream of caching, you will find it a lot different than your narrow idea of the only way it should be done. :eek:

WhereRU, In my 40 plus years of associating with people from Maine, I have found them to be reserved, quiet but a great group of folks. Most are tolerant enough to accept others as they are, if not accepting them as one of "them." I find that the attitude that you display shows none of these endearing characteristics. If you got out into the mainstream of caching, you will find it a lot different than your narrow idea of the only way it should be done. :eek:

I see no need for an attack against WhereRU here. It has nothing to do with his acceptance of people outside of Maine. He merely stated a micro in a lightpole was not his idea of caching. It's his opinion. He feels this state has many more worthy places to offer for a cache with a nice hide and location.

It's because of many hide-hungry cachers who went overboard submitting virtual caches on every plaque, statue, and sign in town that forced geocaching.com to incorporate such harsh restrictions on virtual caches now. I hate rules, but it would not surprise me if they will be forced to enact the same strict sandards on micros (and eventually even full size) caches in the future if this trend continues on.

Obviously Mainers have accepted the caches WhereRU speaks of - they were logged after all. But we don't have to like it just because it's being done in other states. We are free to have an opinion of what we feel is a quality cache just as well as you are.

I usually log DNF's, but sometimes I don't bother because I'd look awfully stupid.
Like at BRDAD's Old 470 cache in Waterville. I looked 5 times, and only found it the 5th time because I had a LOT of helpful hints from BRDAD. :rolleyes:

I usually log DNF's, but sometimes I don't bother because I'd look awfully stupid.
Like at BRDAD's Old 470 cache in Waterville. I looked 5 times, and only found it the 5th time because I had a LOT of helpful hints from BRDAD. :rolleyes:

Well, no need to feel stupid; there's a lot of people who logged DNFs there (as well as others who emailed and didn't log). I guess I picked a good spot, eh?

I does not bother me as much to see someone not log a DNF if the cache has been found lately, but DNF logs are some of the best reads so I like to post them anyway. And at least, you notified me, so I was aware the cache could be missing.

And thanks for your comments, BRDAD. And I don't think my feelings about geocaching are that rare. I refer you to an editorial on Today's Cacher (thanks for the link, Haffy6!) which appears to echo my sentiments:

http://www.todayscacher.com/archives/jun04/editorial.html