Re: [Az-Geocaching] New Stats!

Brian,
Thanks for your response, the first of a few that I have yet to read, so
pardon if I am redundant with something else someone says.
What about folks who live in more rural areas, ie. who have a limited number
of caches closer to them, vs. the folks in Phoenix who have more caches to
find closer to where they live? Comparing someone from, say, Kingman or even
Prescott, who has to travel a longer distance to get to a greater
concentration of caches....well, is there a fair comparison? I, for one,
can't easily get to all the caches in Phoenix like some of the others can. I
don't really care, just posing the question....
As to the cache larva, the only comment was on the JEROME webpage. Box was
signed by several including Jeremy, but no website.
thanks,
~~trisha



----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Cluff" <brian@snaptek.com>
To: <az-geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] New Stats!


> > You may not get alot of "general support" from geo-cachers in other
states,
> > I base this upon the responses I got from a question I posed on the
message
> > boards....called "Jeremy: Hiders logging own caches?" or something like
> > that. As is quite the norm with the message boards, the thread quickly
got
> > off my original question and turned into a forum for the vast majority
> > voicing their opposition to keeping stats and being competitive at all
(not
> > very realistic to human nature!) Anyway, who cares what those people
think
> > if we like what we are doing, right? Just thought you might find it
> > interesting.
>
> I would tend to agree for the most part. In reality I absolutly hate
> sports, and most of it is due the competitiveness of the whole thing. I
> think that why i/we are trying to come up with a whole lot of different
> stats so that there really isn't any way to "win", but we could eventually
> have some sort of awards ceremony with dozens of first place awards given
> out.
> I acually for the idea for stats up at the perseid campout were I heard a
> lot of mention to the physical number of caches people were doing. It
> suddenly occured to me that we were behind, yet we were definatly one of
> the first cachers in town. After thinking about it for a while I realized
> that we tended to go out and do the more difficult caches that usually
> take a lot longer and then maybe on the way back we would stop by one of
> the very easy in town caches if there was still time, but more often there
> wasn't. Thats when I decided that I wanted to see a difficulty+terrain
> "score" to see exactly were people stood as far as that limited view of
> the game went. My assumption was correct at the time, it took us from 5th
> place based one number of caches visited to 3rd place based on score.
> Unfortunatly thats no longer true. I guess you eventually have to start
> visiting the more difficult caches due to the limited nature of easy ones.
> Hopefully soon we will get some time based stats out so that people can
> compare themselves to the "big boys" and see how they are doing. I think
> they will find that wyle e will still be kicking their ass, but at least
> they will know for sure hehehehe :)
>
> > By the way, no one has offered an answer to my cache larva
question....is
> > this because my question is being ignored, folks don't have time to
answer,
> > or.....nobody knows????
>
> I think that I was a little confused as to exactly what a "cache larva"
> is. Was there no web page that was hidden along with it.?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> Az-Geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com
> http://listserv.snaptek.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>