AMEN, Larry!! ~~trisha ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Farquhar" To: Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:06 PM Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] "Finding" caches > Good article Bob. > > BTW - I bet that person "with 100+ finds within a few months can't control > himself and his wife probably thinks he's obsessed" is HAVING A BLAST!!! > Heck with the numbers. I'm very active now (used to be a couch potato), > don't miss staying home, and am learning and seeing more of Arizona than > most people. I have something to look forward to after work (yes Cody, I do > work) and on weekends. Geocaching has also brought my family closer > together. Getting my girls to "go with dad" used to be difficult, now they > get mad at me for going cache hunting without them. > > Larry Farquhar > 1/5 of Team "Wyle E" > www.azjeeper.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: az-geocaching-admin@listserv.snaptek.com > [mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.snaptek.com]On Behalf Of Bob Renner > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:18 AM > To: az-geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com > Subject: [Az-Geocaching] "Finding" caches > > > To find or not to find, that is the question. > > There are a few circumstances where you could log your own > cache as a find or where you could find a cache more than > once. When a cache is moved (yours or anothers) and you > have to re-find it, it's a find. I took some friends to > a cache I had previously found. The container was moved > to a completely different spot about 70 feet away and in > a small hole in the rocks. We had to re-find this cache. > I logged it as a find. At the time I thought it would not > change my find number. I thought the number was the number > of caches with a find log, not the number of find logs > themselves. However, it was still a find. Also, the Beat > the Heat Happy Hour cache was a joint cache by CBX2 and > myself. They set up the location and gave me the > coordinates and I entered the cache page. I logged that > as a find because that was the first time I was there and > had to "find" the resturant. > > My opinion is that the log itself should reflect what > happened. If you found the cache, then log it as a find. > Perhaps Jeremy should change the way the find number is > generated to only count the caches with finds and not the > find logs. However, this would complicate the situation > where there is a moving cache which does have to be > re-found whenever it's moved. > > It all boils down to what you're looking at. If you're > looking at the logs themselves for the insight to what > the hunter was thinking when he visited the cache, then the > type of log should reflect what happened. If you're just > looking at the numbers and not reading all of the logs, > then the numbers need to be modified to only count the > caches and not the logs. If geocaching.com didn't report > the find number, this topic wouldn't even exist. ALL finds > (your own or a re-find) would be logged as finds. > > I tend to put a little more information into what I did > and saw during the hike or drive, and what I thought about > the location. I also try to read all the logs of all the > caches in Arizona. It helps me decide which caches I want > to visit next. > > I don't care that much about my numbers. Sure it was nice > to be number one. But it just showed, to me at least, that > geocaching was something that I enjoyed. It was a way to > show me new places I hadn't been to before. I enjoyed the > challenge of finding something that someone left for me to > find and in a location they thought was interesting. > > The numbers should only reflect the interest a person has > in geocaching and should not be scrutinized for the exact > value of that number. Someone with 1-5 finds is a neocacher > and is just getting started. Someone with 15-20 finds is an > experienced cacher and obviously knows how to hunt. Someone > with 50+ finds is a seasoned cacher who has passed the > novelty stage and definately enjoys the sport. Someone with > 100+ finds within a few months can't control himself and his > wife probably thinks he's obsessed ;) But he's probably having > a great time. > > As far as the stats pages on Snaptek's web page - keep them > there. Some people enjoy seeing them and they will find some > way to calculate them. However, I don't think we need to argue > over what is and what isn't a find. If someone wants to > inflate their numbers, there are numerous ways this can be > done other than the two mentioned here. I'm just trying to > express what I did and pass on the information to the next > person looking for the cache. > > Bob Renner > Seasoned geocacher > > _______________________________________________ > Az-Geocaching mailing list > Az-Geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com > http://listserv.snaptek.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching > > > _______________________________________________ > Az-Geocaching mailing list > Az-Geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com > http://listserv.snaptek.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching >