Nice....um...report, Bob... <<grin>>
~~trisha ~~ "Ligntning"
"Experienced" Geo-cacher (ha ha)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Renner" <
brenner@axsysautomation.com>
To: <
az-geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:17 AM
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
>
(text/plain)