+captnemo Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 OK this is not a which is better, regulars or micros, it is has anyone else done it this way. Last month I finally passed the 1000 find mark with 324 regulars, 250 small, 247 micros, 76 virtual, 74 unchosen, 25 other and 13 large. Yes, I know it took 12 years and my overall find rate was only 0.2175 but when I started I worked and there were very few caches in my area. Most cachers that I'm aware of, get to this level with mostly micros. So how about it how did you get to your first 1000? Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) OK this is not a which is better, regulars or micros, it is has anyone else done it this way. Last month I finally passed the 1000 find mark with 324 regulars, 250 small, 247 micros, 76 virtual, 74 unchosen, 25 other and 13 large. Yes, I know it took 12 years and my overall find rate was only 0.2175 but when I started I worked and there were very few caches in my area. Most cachers that I'm aware of, get to this level with mostly micros. So how about it how did you get to your first 1000? EDIT: Will fix later with my first 1,000, which was attained in like 2006. I'm guessing it's going to be over 50% regular. Nope, not going to go there which is better. However, in my experience, you are absolutely correct. MOST people in the Thousands have micros as their number one size found, and often with percentages in the 40's and even over 50%. Not me, here's my badge of honor: Edited January 17, 2015 by Mr.Yuck Quote Link to comment
+Great Scott! Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) First 1000 Sep 1, 2001 -Aug 28, 2004 Reg 487 Mic 314 Virt 73 NC 47 Other 47 Small 30 Large 2 Edited January 17, 2015 by Great Scott! Quote Link to comment
+Mr. 0 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) My first 1000 unique finds were from 8/17/2002-11/5/2005 and breaks down like this. Regular - 427 - 42.70% Micro - 305 - 30.50% Small - 98 - 9.80% Virtual - 91 - 9.10% Not Chosen - 40 - 4.00% Other - 35 - 3.50% Large - 4 - 0.40% - 1000 - 100.00% Today my finds are... Regular - 606 - 35.86% Micro - 580 - 34.32% Small - 262 - 15.50% Virtual - 100 - 5.92% Not Chosen - 67 - 3.96% Other - 66 - 3.91% Large - 9 - 0.53% - 1690 - 100.00% Edited January 17, 2015 by Mr. 0 Quote Link to comment
+macatac1961 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 1st 1000- 662 Regular 156 Micro 64 Small 47 Virt 36 Other 30 Not Chosen 5 Large Quote Link to comment
+JL_HSTRE Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 In what year did the number of active Micros exceed the number of active Regular size caches? Quote Link to comment
+The Bobbins Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I wish I could make that claim...micros are nearly 50 percent of my finds. I have been caching for almost 3 years and it is what is available around here. Quote Link to comment
+LewisClan77 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) My 1st 1000 were 429 Micro 266 Small 171 Regular 60 Not Chosen 36 Virtual 28 Other 10 Large and today they are Edited January 18, 2015 by LewisClan77 Quote Link to comment
+succotash Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I'm not sure about our first thousand, but at 3350 caches to date we're happy to report: -Regular at the top of the list with 37% -Micro 26% -Small 23% We really appreciate cachers who place regular-sized caches. Quote Link to comment
+Ma & Pa Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 We happen to have more Small than Micros. I suspect it is because we have found over 4500 caches on Prince Edward Island where there is a tendency to classify as small, caches that I would call micro. 8804 (39.02%) SMALL 7934 (35.16%) MICRO 3976 (17.62%) REG Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 We happen to have more Small than Micros. I suspect it is because we have found over 4500 caches on Prince Edward Island where there is a tendency to classify as small, caches that I would call micro. 8804 (39.02%) SMALL 7934 (35.16%) MICRO 3976 (17.62%) REG +1 Agreed. We see this a lot around here too. Figure stats aren't correct if pill bottles are called small and gladware sandwich size is regular. A few events ago I asked about that after finding a Zippo lighter folding case called a small (it's not much bigger than the lighter...) and some feel if those other coin-like things fit, it's a small. My other 2/3rds used to really be into the stat thing, but with little accurate today, not so much. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 We happen to have more Small than Micros. I suspect it is because we have found over 4500 caches on Prince Edward Island where there is a tendency to classify as small, caches that I would call micro. 8804 (39.02%) SMALL 7934 (35.16%) MICRO 3976 (17.62%) REG For crying out loud, I just looked at the cache map of Prince Edward Island. Those people are nuts. OK, I've dabbled in GSAK in the past, but currently do not have a copy. Is that how you people are looking at your first 1,000? Because I can't find a way to do it with project-gc, or the old-time program CacheStats. Does anyone else even remember that one? Otherwise, my size stats for my current 2,790 finds, or whatever it is, will have to stand. Just call me Mr.Regular. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 +1 Agreed. We see this a lot around here too. Figure stats aren't correct if pill bottles are called small and gladware sandwich size is regular. A few events ago I asked about that after finding a Zippo lighter folding case called a small (it's not much bigger than the lighter...) and some feel if those other coin-like things fit, it's a small. My other 2/3rds used to really be into the stat thing, but with little accurate today, not so much. OK then, I want the DOZENS of standard 1.3 litre lock-n-locks that I have seen listed as small which are actually regulars to be reclassified, and added to my regular stats. Seriously though, I'm no world traveler (have never found a cache outside the Eastern Time Zone), but I really haven't seen too many micros listed as smalls. Maybe a dozen times? And usually those big Hillman Brand magnetic keyholders listed as small. Quote Link to comment
+Ma & Pa Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) We happen to have more Small than Micros. I suspect it is because we have found over 4500 caches on Prince Edward Island where there is a tendency to classify as small, caches that I would call micro. 8804 (39.02%) SMALL 7934 (35.16%) MICRO 3976 (17.62%) REG For crying out loud, I just looked at the cache map of Prince Edward Island. Those people are nuts. OK off topic Yep they are nuts. And now they are busy archiving a bunch to make room for more. It is a great place for a caching vacation. Bring you bike because there are over 2000 caches on the confederation trail. and on your way, stop off in Moncton NB https://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx#?ll=46.050145,-64.639748&z=10 . Edited January 18, 2015 by Ma & Pa Quote Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Out of my first 1000, which includes every cache type (traditionals, events, virtuals, etc,,,): 449 regulars 309 micros. 90 smalls. 54 not chosens 46 were unknown 41 virtuals 11 larges (4 of these were actually events) Out of my first 1000 physical (caches that actually had containers): 472 regulars 348 micros 105 smalls 36 others 32 not chosens 7 larges Either way, my regular count was just short of the halfway mark. It would take some effort to keep that ratio up these days. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Out of my first 1000, which includes every cache type (traditionals, events, virtuals, etc,,,): 449 regulars 309 micros. 90 smalls. 54 not chosens 46 were unknown 41 virtuals 11 larges (4 of these were actually events) Out of my first 1000 physical (caches that actually had containers): 472 regulars 348 micros 105 smalls 36 others 32 not chosens 7 larges Either way, my regular count was just short of the halfway mark. It would take some effort to keep that ratio up these days. Nor have you, I see. Texas is loaded with micros. I thought everything was bigger in Texas. So no one has told me yet. Did you use GSAK to figure that out? Quote Link to comment
+Markwell Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 In what year did the number of active Micros exceed the number of active Regular size caches? I can't speak for the entire geocaching.com database, but I do have a comprehensive (and often-maintained) listing of the GONIL area of Chicago. I'm not sure how representative it is, but I can take a snapshot of the current size listing of each cache, and then see when it was placed, and when it was archived, and see what each "December 31" looked like - at least to see trends: First thing to realize is that "small" didn't exist in the original listing of caches sizes (there were no "small" caches in 2001). Owners of caches that are dated before that size was introduced retroactively changed the size of the cache. The snapshot above looks at the CURRENT size of each cache in the GONIL area as it is listed now, or as it was when it was last archived, and compares the date placed with the archived dates to determine if the cache was "live" at the end of each year. Many caches that were placed in the same year as they were archived won't show up on this list since it's a snapshot at the end of the year. Here's how many fall into that category in GONIL each year: 2001 016 2002 041 2003 111 2004 079 2005 121 2006 127 2007 107 2008 202 2009 172 2010 067 2011 233 2012 475 2013 158 2014 140 That being said, by the end of 2006, the Chicago area had micros surpassing regular caches. As of Dec 31 2014, over half of the caches in the Chicago area were micros. Between micro and small, that represents 77% of the active caches in the Chicago area as of Dec 31 2014. I also go through with each new cache and identify in my own offline database whether it's a "parking lot" cache. They account for about 29% of the caches in the Chicago area. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I'm at a tad over a thousand and here are the numbers: Regular 496 (45.55%) Small 218 (20.02%) Micro 217 (19.93%) Quote Link to comment
+jellis Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Micro 15482 Small 6346 Regular 3274 Not chosen 1866 Other 985 Virtual 201 Large 109 Quote Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Did you use GSAK to figure that out? Yep. All finds query, took out everything over 1000, then filtered for each size. Quote Link to comment
+Roman! Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) My first 1,000 caches my micro percentage was under 20%, I think about 17% as most my caches were hiking caches since I live on the side of a mountain. Now my micro % is 53% thanks to a lot of power trails and finding more caches in the US than I have in Canada. @Markwell, how did you get that stat table? Edited January 19, 2015 by Roman! Quote Link to comment
+Malemotives Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 1000? Can't see that far ahead. I just passed 30, but it's only been a couple of weeks. Trying to log at least a couple every day. SOmetimes they come in bunches. Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I can't figure out how to select just my first 1000 finds in GSAK. Overall my distribution is below. I recall a time when I had slightly more smalls than micros. Regulars were never near the top. I started in 2008. Micro 2302 43.7 % Small 1838 34.9 % Regular 520 9.87 % Other 311 5.9 % Not chosen 234 4.44 % Virtual 43 0.82 % Large 21 0.4 % Quote Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I can't figure out how to select just my first 1000 finds in GSAK. Note that there may be an easier way but i used this method. After getting "my finds" into GSAK, sort the found date column so that it shows the first cache you ever found at top. Now click on the vertical scroll bar, hold, and start pulling it down. You should see a teensy display next to it that counts as you do this. Stop and let off the click when you reach just before 1000. For example, if it says 992, let off the mouse. 992 is 8 short of 1000 so at this point, simply count down 8 caches and note the date of that 8th cache. Now go to "search" up top, click on "filter", the "dates" tab, then click "date found by me". Change it to say "on or before" then click the little calendar thingy next to that. Find your date, then click "go" at the bottom of the window. Hopefully you will have 1000 caches displaying at this point but it could be off if you had found more than one cache on that last date. You may have to tweak a bit after this by manually deleting caches from the latest date at the bottom of the list. This is alot easier than how i've made it sound. Quote Link to comment
+crazypig88 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Well for my first 100, I had mostly micros and small. I just go for what I can find around here. Quote Link to comment
+Roman! Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Just checked and it was 16.3% for my first 1,000 finds. Edited January 19, 2015 by Roman! Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks Mudfrog - I now have my stats for my first 1000. I started March 2009, and #1000 came in Oct 2010. So by then micros were already prevalent. The majority of my caching is done on trails rather than parking lots.. but even on trails micros are getting more and more common here. As I thought... With my first 1000, "small" came in first for me. Regulars was 14.5% compared to 9.9% for all my finds. Small 410 41 % Micro 369 36.9 % Regular 145 14.5 % Other 38 3.8 % Not chosen 22 2.2 % Virtual 9 0.9 % Large 7 0.7 % Quote Link to comment
Andronicus Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 While I am not quite at 1000, my last screenshot (before my PM expired): Since I refuse to do micros now, this delta will only get larger and larger. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.