Groundspeak Forums: Most Geocaches Found list - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Most Geocaches Found list

#1 User is offline   HereWeGo86 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 27-May 10

Posted 09 June 2010 - 10:21 AM

Is there an existing list of who the top geocachers are?? I think it would be interesting to keep a tally somewhere of who's found the most geocaches. Certainly don't want to start a competition, but I think it would be neat to see who's collected the most caches, or who has found caches on different continents.

Just a thought. Hope everybody's well!! :angry:

#2 User is offline   GOF and Bacall 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6679
  • Joined: 24-September 06

Posted 09 June 2010 - 10:24 AM

If it's not a competition then what is the point of keeping track of who has how many finds? Just go out and have fun and don't worry about how you stack up against the masses.

#3 User is offline   Gitchee-Gummee 

  • Minor Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8047
  • Joined: 12-June 09

Posted 09 June 2010 - 10:26 AM

Are you speaking of including all cachers, or just cachers that actually go out and find a cache?

I know what you'd like to see, but don't believe it could be done with any reliability to exclude "armchair cachers", "throw-down cachers" or cachers who "found the area" but not the cache.

I am sure that somebody somewhere keeps some type of tally. Hang around, it just may appear here. :angry:

#4 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7894
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 09 June 2010 - 10:28 AM

View PostHereWeGo86, on Jun 9 2010, 11:21 AM, said:

Is there an existing list of who the top geocachers are?? I think it would be interesting to keep a tally somewhere of who's found the most geocaches. Certainly don't want to start a competition, but I think it would be neat to see who's collected the most caches, or who has found caches on different continents.

Just a thought. Hope everybody's well!! ;)


You only need to find 42,109 more to beat Alamogul. But, of course, this increased during the time I was typing this. :angry:

#5 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 17447
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 09 June 2010 - 10:30 AM

We have no knowledge of such a website

#6 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38099
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 09 June 2010 - 11:27 AM

Me neither

http://www.zinnware.com/HighAdv/Geocaching...aches_found.php

#7 User is offline   Andronicus 

  • Micro Hater
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3054
  • Joined: 11-March 09

Posted 09 June 2010 - 11:32 AM

View Postknowschad, on Jun 9 2010, 10:30 AM, said:


Oh Oh, I am going to have to try realy hard to resist the urge to become competitive. (not that I am near the top of any list...)

#8 User is offline   J the Goat 

  • Pasture Dweller
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04-June 09

Posted 09 June 2010 - 01:09 PM

View Postknowschad, on Jun 9 2010, 11:30 AM, said:



I have mixed feelings about my name being on a list on a website that I have no connection to.

#9 User is offline   simpjkee 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1988
  • Joined: 23-April 07

Posted 09 June 2010 - 01:17 PM

View PostJ The Goat, on Jun 9 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

View Postknowschad, on Jun 9 2010, 11:30 AM, said:



I have mixed feelings about my name being on a list on a website that I have no connection to.


You can e-mail the guy and have your named removed if you want.

It's down at the bottom in the FAQ.

#10 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7894
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 09 June 2010 - 01:48 PM

View Postsimpjkee, on Jun 9 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

View PostJ The Goat, on Jun 9 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

View Postknowschad, on Jun 9 2010, 11:30 AM, said:



I have mixed feelings about my name being on a list on a website that I have no connection to.


You can e-mail the guy and have your named removed if you want.

It's down at the bottom in the FAQ.


hehe, yeah, your name is removed but there's a big blank spot is where your name should be. Apparently your find count is not dropped from the list.

#11 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7195
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:11 PM

View Postjholly, on Jun 9 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

hehe, yeah, your name is removed but there's a big blank spot is where your name should be. Apparently your find count is not dropped from the list.

I think that's fair enough. Anyone who is truly against the whole numbers thing can follow GOF's example and not log "Found It" on the site (though I would suggest logging a note so that the CO and other cachers still get feedback).

#12 User is offline   AuntieWeasel 

  • Everyone Loves a Weasel
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2768
  • Joined: 15-February 04

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:16 PM

Heh. I used to be fairly high in the state rankings with a low find count, on account of I lived in Rhode Island.

If you really want to climb the rankings, move to Rhody. Or Belgium, maybe.

#13 User is offline   TheAlabamaRambler 

  • Happy camper
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6686
  • Joined: 16-August 03

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:31 PM

Priorities change.

It used to be important to me to stay in the top 5 in Alabama, which mostly kept me among the top 25 in the world.

Even after I had stopped logging finds online for over a year I remained in the top ten in Alabama!

I dropped below the Alabama top 20 (and world top 100) a while back and thought about logging some caches just to get my ranking back up, but nah, it is no longer important to me.

My being in the top whatever was never important to anyone but me anyway! :D

Edit to add: This thread spurred me to go look... I'm still 34th in Alabama, but only 3687th in the world. ;) If there are, as Groundspeak estimates, 4 million cachers then 3687th place isn't too bad! :angry:

This post has been edited by TheAlabamaRambler: 09 June 2010 - 02:41 PM


#14 User is offline   ngrrfan 

  • One of the Monday Musketeers
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:48 PM

I'm #1................ in my house! :angry:

#15 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7195
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:50 PM

View Postngrrfan, on Jun 9 2010, 03:48 PM, said:

I'm #1................ in my house! :angry:

Meh. I'm pretty sure I'm #1 in number of finds on my street. Granted, it is a short street, but still...

#16 User is offline   TheAlabamaRambler 

  • Happy camper
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6686
  • Joined: 16-August 03

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:56 PM

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 9 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

View Postngrrfan, on Jun 9 2010, 03:48 PM, said:

I'm #1................ in my house! ;)

Meh. I'm pretty sure I'm #1 in number of finds on my street. Granted, it is a short street, but still...

Married 37 years and she still won't let me be #1 in my house. :D

I am pretty sure I rule my immediate neighborhood. I know I have more than the old lady next door.

I bought a new Chevrolet HHR this week and my wife immediately named it "His Highness's Ride". I'm not sure what she's trying to say. :angry:

#17 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38099
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 09 June 2010 - 03:15 PM

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 9 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

View Postjholly, on Jun 9 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

hehe, yeah, your name is removed but there's a big blank spot is where your name should be. Apparently your find count is not dropped from the list.

I think that's fair enough. Anyone who is truly against the whole numbers thing can follow GOF's example and not log "Found It" on the site (though I would suggest logging a note so that the CO and other cachers still get feedback).



Logging found its doesn't mean you are into the numbers thing. Found it logs are simply the tool the website gives us to provide feedback to the cache owner, as well as let us keep track of the caches we've found. I also think it's a simple courtesy. The owner spent the money, time and effort to hide the cache so the least I can do is let him know I found it. The easiest way to do that is use the tool provided by this website for that purpose. It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers to me.

A secondary reason is to keep found caches out of my pocket queries (sure I can use ignore, but why deal with the extra steps?).


Logging notes instead of found its to prove your "purity" is just plain silly.

#18 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7195
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 09 June 2010 - 03:25 PM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 9 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Logging notes instead of found its to prove your "purity" is just plain silly.

Isn't a moderator supposed to squelch flames, not start them? :angry:

#19 User is offline   GOF and Bacall 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6679
  • Joined: 24-September 06

Posted 09 June 2010 - 04:21 PM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 9 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 9 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

View Postjholly, on Jun 9 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

hehe, yeah, your name is removed but there's a big blank spot is where your name should be. Apparently your find count is not dropped from the list.

I think that's fair enough. Anyone who is truly against the whole numbers thing can follow GOF's example and not log "Found It" on the site (though I would suggest logging a note so that the CO and other cachers still get feedback).



Logging found its doesn't mean you are into the numbers thing. Found it logs are simply the tool the website gives us to provide feedback to the cache owner, as well as let us keep track of the caches we've found. I also think it's a simple courtesy. The owner spent the money, time and effort to hide the cache so the least I can do is let him know I found it. The easiest way to do that is use the tool provided by this website for that purpose. It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers to me.

A secondary reason is to keep found caches out of my pocket queries (sure I can use ignore, but why deal with the extra steps?).

I think hiding caches for other COs to find is plenty of return for their effort. If you don't like the way I play too flipp'n bad.
Logging notes instead of found its to prove your "purity" is just plain silly.


#20 User is offline   gadgetseeker47 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 21-April 08

Posted 09 June 2010 - 04:23 PM

http://www.cacherstats.com/index.html


Not sure how accurate but :blink:

#21 User is offline   GOF and Bacall 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6679
  • Joined: 24-September 06

Posted 09 June 2010 - 04:39 PM

I guess it isn't possible to counter the great briansnat. :blink:

#22 User is offline   BBWolf+3Pigs 

  • It's all gravy.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3256
  • Joined: 12-June 04

Posted 09 June 2010 - 05:08 PM

View PostAuntieWeasel, on Jun 9 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

Heh. I used to be fairly high in the state rankings with a low find count, on account of I lived in Rhode Island.

If you really want to climb the rankings, move to Rhody. Or Belgium, maybe.


#6 in RI! Woot! :blink:

#23 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 17447
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 09 June 2010 - 05:20 PM

View PostGadget47, on Jun 9 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

http://www.cacherstats.com/index.html
Not sure how accurate but :blink:
SHUSH!!! We don't talk about that site here. Did you not see my post up above?

#24 User is offline   roziecakes 

  • Full of Awesome
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2131
  • Joined: 11-March 06

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:16 AM

View Postknowschad, on Jun 9 2010, 11:30 AM, said:



Hey wow, I'm number 308 in my state... and the crowd goes wild :blink:

#25 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9839
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 10 June 2010 - 08:14 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 9 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 9 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

View Postjholly, on Jun 9 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

hehe, yeah, your name is removed but there's a big blank spot is where your name should be. Apparently your find count is not dropped from the list.

I think that's fair enough. Anyone who is truly against the whole numbers thing can follow GOF's example and not log "Found It" on the site (though I would suggest logging a note so that the CO and other cachers still get feedback).



Logging found its doesn't mean you are into the numbers thing. Found it logs are simply the tool the website gives us to provide feedback to the cache owner, as well as let us keep track of the caches we've found. I also think it's a simple courtesy. The owner spent the money, time and effort to hide the cache so the least I can do is let him know I found it. The easiest way to do that is use the tool provided by this website for that purpose. It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers to me.

A secondary reason is to keep found caches out of my pocket queries (sure I can use ignore, but why deal with the extra steps?).


Logging notes instead of found its to prove your "purity" is just plain silly.


I agree with this, and that's why this nearly 2,000 finder log's 'em online.

Well, actually, I'll disagree with the very last sentence, seeing as I know Gof1 personally, and several other people who engage in this "silly" practice. :blink:

Holy crud, you're right. I'm #98 in New Yawk, but I'd be number 2 in Rhode Island (in more ways than one). Woohooo!!!

This post has been edited by TheWhiteUrkel: 10 June 2010 - 08:35 AM


#26 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7195
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 10 June 2010 - 09:25 AM

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jun 10 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

Holy crud, you're right. I'm #98 in New Yawk, but I'd be number 2 in Rhode Island (in more ways than one). Woohooo!!!

I'll be #1 in Afghanistan, Albania, Bermuda, Bolivia and Bulgaria. And I still have 24 other letters of the alphabet to go.

#27 User is offline   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8689
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 10 June 2010 - 09:39 AM

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 10 2010, 10:25 AM, said:

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jun 10 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

Holy crud, you're right. I'm #98 in New Yawk, but I'd be number 2 in Rhode Island (in more ways than one). Woohooo!!!

I'll be #1 in Afghanistan, Albania, Bermuda, Bolivia and Bulgaria. And I still have 24 other letters of the alphabet to go.


There are only 715 caches in all of those countries combined. There are probably more caches than that to be found within 10 miles of where you currently live.

It's amazing that for the island of Bermuda, which only has 63 caches on the island, that there are couple of people that have over 600 finds.

#28 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7894
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 10 June 2010 - 10:04 AM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

It's amazing that for the island of Bermuda, which only has 63 caches on the island, that there are couple of people that have over 600 finds.


After you find them the first time the next nine times are a lot easier. :blink:

#29 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7195
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 10 June 2010 - 10:07 AM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

There are only 715 caches in all of those countries combined. There are probably more caches than that to be found within 10 miles of where you currently live.

It's amazing that for the island of Bermuda, which only has 63 caches on the island, that there are couple of people that have over 600 finds.

Very true, and yet another reason why numbers alone don't tell much. Numbers are fun. It's only when we start to take them too seriously that we get into trouble. Of course, same goes for many other things. Like geocaching. And ourselves.

#30 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7195
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 10 June 2010 - 10:10 AM

View Postjholly, on Jun 10 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

It's amazing that for the island of Bermuda, which only has 63 caches on the island, that there are couple of people that have over 600 finds.


After you find them the first time the next nine times are a lot easier. :blink:

That's not true. According to the rules, the second time is done without a GPSr, the third with one hand tied behind your back. By the time you make your 10th find on the same cache, you're blindfolded, both hands handcuffed together, right leg shackled to a heavy ball, and 3 other geocachers guiding you there with cattle prods.

#31 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7894
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 10 June 2010 - 10:13 AM

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 10 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

View Postjholly, on Jun 10 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

It's amazing that for the island of Bermuda, which only has 63 caches on the island, that there are couple of people that have over 600 finds.


After you find them the first time the next nine times are a lot easier. :blink:

That's not true. According to the rules, the second time is done without a GPSr, the third with one hand tied behind your back. By the time you make your 10th find on the same cache, you're blindfolded, both hands handcuffed together, right leg shackled to a heavy ball, and 3 other geocachers guiding you there with cattle prods.


Yeah, I forgot about the cattle prods. BZZZT. OUCH!

#32 User is offline   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8689
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 10 June 2010 - 11:23 AM

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 10 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

There are only 715 caches in all of those countries combined. There are probably more caches than that to be found within 10 miles of where you currently live.

It's amazing that for the island of Bermuda, which only has 63 caches on the island, that there are couple of people that have over 600 finds.

Very true, and yet another reason why numbers alone don't tell much. Numbers are fun. It's only when we start to take them too seriously that we get into trouble. Of course, same goes for many other things. Like geocaching. And ourselves.


I have sort of been awaiting for an opening for describing all the different reasons why numbers alone don't tell much and this is as good as any.

It might be interesting to some to know who has the most finds (Alamogul, 41925 and counting) but once you go down the list the numbers don't mean all that much for a variety of reasons.

Someone that has been geocaching since 2001 is likely going to have more finds than someone that has only been caching for a year or two (BobCam seems to be an obvious exception). It's like running a race against someone with a several year headstart.

Those that live in cache rich areas are more likely going to have more finds than someone living in a cache sparse area. Someone living in San Diego where there are over 2000 caches available caches within a 10 miles radius is just going to have a lot more opportunities to add to their find count then someone living in area where there are only a couple of hundred within a 10 mile radius. Couple that with the fact that areas with a high density of caches generally have a lot more people hiding new caches (faster than one can find them all) there are always new caches to be found. In areas with a low density of caches, anyone that has been in the game for more than a couple of years can quickly clear out a radius such that the time required to travel the nearest unfound cache would be greater than the amount of free time one has available. I've read lots of accounts from those that are able to go caching on their lunch break or at the very least be able to out and find a cache every day. Those that live in cache sparse areas effectively can't go geocaching as often as those in dense area simply due to the distance and time involved to get to the nearest unfound cache.

Those that live in areas where "power trails" have become popular have the opportunity to add numbers to their find count at ridunculous proportions to those that live in areas where power trails are non-existent.

There is no consensus as to what constitutes a find. Some have no qualms about armchair logging of virtuals. Some will post multiple finds on event caches based on the number of temporary caches for the event. Some will log finds on caches that they have placed themselves, taken to the extreme of logging over 600 finds on caches placed for a power trail as part of a team of hiders. Some won't log a cache unless they found the cache on their own and physically signed the log themselves. Others will cache as part of a group and once one has found the cache, they'll sign for everyone else. Some will log a find if they got "close" to the location but didn't actually put their hands on the cache.

Some cachers use a team account with multiple members finding caches in different locations but all logging under the same team account. Some predominately cache as a group, providing more eyes to search for a cache and quicker find times then someone that primarily caches alone. I've seen lots of logs from some that cache as a group which indicate that they "got help" from someone in the group that, as it turns out, had found the cache during a previous visit.

Some people just have a lot more free time available to go geocaching than others. Someone that has a full time job and full time family obligations just doesn't get the opportunity to find caches than someone that is retired (and doesn't have financial constraints). For those that do have family obligations, some of the families are less supportive about free time to go caching. I've noticed this especially when looking at the find numbers while traveling on vacation for others where the whole family is involved in geocaching versus, in my case, where my family mostly tolerates it.

Some geocachers prefer to find different cache types. If I wanted to find a lot of geocaches there are a few places that I can drive to (granted, they're typically an hour away) where I can rack up some relatively high find counts by grabbing caches off of guard rails, LPCs, and other park-n-grabs. Or I can spend the same amount of time taking some long hikes, visiting areas where caches are few and far between, and end up with a few finds in a day. Those that one can describe as "numbers hounds", where the smiley is more important than the smile, can rack up some large numbers finding easy park and grabs while those that are looking for a good hike are going to achieve find counts while pale in comparison.


Given all the different factors that can influence the total number of finds for any given geocacher it's absurd to compare one geocachers find count to another. The find count numbers really don't mean all that much.

#33 User is offline   Bubbles&Bonkers 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 30-November 08

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:09 PM

Congrats to my former neighbors, TeamSnook, for moving up the ranks to number 2 in the world! Go Snooks!

#34 User is offline   Gamaliel 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 17-April 06

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:23 PM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 9 2010, 11:27 AM, said:




Wow, only 16515 cachers with one or more finds. I thought there would be more.

And judging by my placement on the list, I'm under the Mendoza line. :ph34r:

#35 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7195
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:02 PM

View PostGamaliel, on Jun 10 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 9 2010, 11:27 AM, said:


Wow, only 16515 cachers with one or more finds. I thought there would be more.

I don't think their data is very accurate below 1k. Cacherstats shows almost 90,000 geocachers with 200 or more finds, and their list can (and likely does) miss out certain cachers.

http://www.cacherstats.com/cgi-bin/Geocach...erName=Gamaliel

You're #233 in Florida and #5151 in the U.S. Get caching, you slacker! :ph34r:

This post has been edited by Chrysalides: 10 June 2010 - 03:06 PM


#36 User is offline   roziecakes 

  • Full of Awesome
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2131
  • Joined: 11-March 06

Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:59 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Given all the different factors that can influence the total number of finds for any given geocacher it's absurd to compare one geocachers find count to another. The find count numbers really don't mean all that much.


I do tend to agree with you. Everyone has different abilities for whatever reason, the biggest of which I think is scheduling... when one works a lot, they don't have a lot of time to go caching. When one is retired, they have more time, and all the multitudes of other reasons.

One reason why I'm glad this game isn't *really* about the numbers.

#37 User is offline   HereWeGo86 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 27-May 10

Posted 11 June 2010 - 09:14 AM

View PostGOF & Bacall, on Jun 9 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

If it's not a competition then what is the point of keeping track of who has how many finds? Just go out and have fun and don't worry about how you stack up against the masses.


Wow, apparently I hit a raw nerve. I'm certainly not in competition with anybody, I just thought it would be interesting and judging by the response I'm not the only person curious about it.

Thanks to everybody for their input and guidance. With six caches to my name, I'm eagerly looking forward to joining the 10+ club this weekend.

Good luck everybody, be safe and remember...it's a jungle out there.

#38 User is offline   Bubbles&Bonkers 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 30-November 08

Posted 11 June 2010 - 09:34 AM

View PostHereWeGo86, on Jun 11 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

View PostGOF & Bacall, on Jun 9 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

If it's not a competition then what is the point of keeping track of who has how many finds? Just go out and have fun and don't worry about how you stack up against the masses.


Wow, apparently I hit a raw nerve. I'm certainly not in competition with anybody, I just thought it would be interesting and judging by the response I'm not the only person curious about it.

Thanks to everybody for their input and guidance. With six caches to my name, I'm eagerly looking forward to joining the 10+ club this weekend.

Good luck everybody, be safe and remember...it's a jungle out there.


It's super easy to hit nerves on these forums, so no worries. Wow, 6 caches?! You ARE new!! Have a blast this weekend! It's supposed to mostly rain where we are so not sure we'll be able to hit too many.

#39 User is offline   BBWolf+3Pigs 

  • It's all gravy.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3256
  • Joined: 12-June 04

Posted 12 June 2010 - 04:51 PM

View PostBBWolf+3Pigs, on Jun 9 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

View PostAuntieWeasel, on Jun 9 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

Heh. I used to be fairly high in the state rankings with a low find count, on account of I lived in Rhode Island.

If you really want to climb the rankings, move to Rhody. Or Belgium, maybe.


#6 in RI! Woot! :laughing:


Oops...dropped to #7!

#40 User is offline   BBWolf+3Pigs 

  • It's all gravy.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3256
  • Joined: 12-June 04

Posted 12 June 2010 - 04:55 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Someone that has been geocaching since 2001 is likely going to have more finds than someone that has only been caching for a year or two (BobCam seems to be an obvious exception). It's like running a race against someone with a several year headstart.


Not always. When I started caching in 2004, there were ~300 caches in the state (RI). We are over 1300 now. This meant that when I went caching to an area, there were only 1 or 2 in that area. When a new one popped up, I would wait until there were more in that area before I made the drive.

With so many caches now (and a couple of power trails) people head to one parking lot and can grab 10 or more caches without even trying.

#41 User is offline   RIclimber 

  • I "unkissed the frog" Now Challenge-free since '11
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 02-September 02

Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:02 PM

I'm in the top 10 in my state! but if I was listed in the state I have found the most caches in, I would be #86.
It looks like my total place is #9450

#42 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:08 PM

View PostGOF & Bacall, on Jun 9 2010, 11:24 AM, said:

If it's not a competition then what is the point of keeping track of who has how many finds? Just go out and have fun and don't worry about how you stack up against the masses.


I don't really care about the masses. However there are certain cachers that, maintaining a greater find count than, really DOES matter. For a few others, it is a matter of not permitting them to increase their margin of lead since they started a few years before me.

Without competition, life would be too boring. Kinda like playing tennis with someone who is not worth a carp....borrrrring!! "Oh let's go out and just bat it back and forth some". No, you go and play tennis with your sister.

Ergo it really IS about the numbers. The size of the numbers them selves does not matter much. The relative size of them does.

This post has been edited by Team Cotati: 12 June 2010 - 05:12 PM


#43 User is offline   RIclimber 

  • I "unkissed the frog" Now Challenge-free since '11
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 02-September 02

Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:13 PM

View PostBBWolf+3Pigs, on Jun 12 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Someone that has been geocaching since 2001 is likely going to have more finds than someone that has only been caching for a year or two (BobCam seems to be an obvious exception). It's like running a race against someone with a several year headstart.


Not always. When I started caching in 2004, there were ~300 caches in the state (RI). We are over 1300 now. This meant that when I went caching to an area, there were only 1 or 2 in that area. When a new one popped up, I would wait until there were more in that area before I made the drive.

With so many caches now (and a couple of power trails) people head to one parking lot and can grab 10 or more caches without even trying.

When I started caching, there was 53 in the state. I remember when the first cacher in the area hit 500! now people can do that in a day. Back in the day, people were slowed down waiting for caches to be placed, now the only limit is how many days a week you can go caching.

#44 User is offline   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8689
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 13 June 2010 - 04:34 AM

View PostBBWolf+3Pigs, on Jun 12 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Someone that has been geocaching since 2001 is likely going to have more finds than someone that has only been caching for a year or two (BobCam seems to be an obvious exception). It's like running a race against someone with a several year headstart.


Not always. When I started caching in 2004, there were ~300 caches in the state (RI). We are over 1300 now. This meant that when I went caching to an area, there were only 1 or 2 in that area. When a new one popped up, I would wait until there were more in that area before I made the drive.

With so many caches now (and a couple of power trails) people head to one parking lot and can grab 10 or more caches without even trying.


That only means that someone new to the game can rack up finds faster than when you started. Those same caches are available for you to find and add to all the ones you found when you first started. In any case, length of time caching is just one of the factors. Cache density, and the types of caches being created (a proliferation of P&Gs) is, IMHO, has the greatest impact on total find counts. I'd already mentioned power trails. I live in a relatively sparse area and the only thing resembling a power trail is a group of 30 or so caches about 40 miles from me. It took me 20 months to achieve 600 finds. With one power trail there have been a bunch of people that have found the same number of caches in 24 hours.


I've done a little cacheing in RI so I've seen how many new caches are available. I drove an hour or so out of my way and passed a lot of those caches just to grab your Brenton Point cache (the oldest in RI).

#45 User is offline   AuntieWeasel 

  • Everyone Loves a Weasel
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2768
  • Joined: 15-February 04

Posted 13 June 2010 - 05:19 AM

I love the numbers and, paradoxically, I'll never be a high-number cacher. I'll do a numbers run with friends, but left to myself, I go out for one or two smilies and a great day hiking or seeing something interesting.

I can still go back through my logs and remember pretty much every cache on the list. So low numbers, but every single smiley is significant.

#46 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9839
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 13 June 2010 - 05:54 AM

View PostBBWolf+3Pigs, on Jun 12 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Someone that has been geocaching since 2001 is likely going to have more finds than someone that has only been caching for a year or two (BobCam seems to be an obvious exception). It's like running a race against someone with a several year headstart.


Not always. When I started caching in 2004, there were ~300 caches in the state (RI). We are over 1300 now. This meant that when I went caching to an area, there were only 1 or 2 in that area. When a new one popped up, I would wait until there were more in that area before I made the drive.

With so many caches now (and a couple of power trails) people head to one parking lot and can grab 10 or more caches without even trying.


You know, Rhode Island is so small (approximately the size of the County I live in), that maybe cacherstats.com has a hard time detecting who lives there? Do you guys know of anyone who is mistakenly listed in Mass. or Conn.? That leaderboard is horrible, even North Dakota blows you away. :laughing:

Quote

I've done a little cacheing in RI so I've seen how many new caches are available. I drove an hour or so out of my way and passed a lot of those caches just to grab your Brenton Point cache (the oldest in RI).


An hour out of your way would be the entire length of the State. :laughing: Done that many times (Woonsocket to Newport). Yes, Brenton Point, a great find. #1 in R.I. and #256 in the world. Found the original 2000 placed container back when Cool Librarian was the owner.

#47 User is offline   user13371 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4283
  • Joined: 05-July 01

Posted 17 July 2010 - 12:53 PM

My name should show up on cacherstats.com at the next refresh, near the bottom. I've just recently passed the 200 mark and that includes a couple of the monitored caches they use for sampling. But it won't seem right to me until I've logged 206 finds. Though I've been a member here for a long time, I only started looking for caches regularly for the past year and a half. I have six finds scattered back over many years -- but when I hit 206 I'll have logged 200 recent finds.

This post has been edited by lee_rimar: 17 July 2010 - 12:54 PM


#48 User is offline   guyfromdenver 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 01-February 08

  Posted 25 July 2010 - 05:02 AM

View Postjholly, on Jun 9 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

View PostHereWeGo86, on Jun 9 2010, 11:21 AM, said:

Is there an existing list of who the top geocachers are?? I think it would be interesting to keep a tally somewhere of who's found the most geocaches. Certainly don't want to start a competition, but I think it would be neat to see who's collected the most caches, or who has found caches on different continents.

Just a thought. Hope everybody's well!! :P


You only need to find 42,109 more to beat Alamogul. But, of course, this increased during the time I was typing this. :lol:



This Alamogul guy seems kind of fishy to me! He claims a daily best of 917 finds. Dusting off the old calculator, this means that if her was on for 24 hours straight he would have had to have found every 94.22 seconds. Assuming that they were not in violation of the anti-swamping rule, meaning that they must be at least 0.1 miles apart (and of course if they were not then they could not have been official caches and therefore rendering his claim invalid), and neglecting any allowance for actually finding the cache, signing the log and returning it to it location, he would have had to really be moving!

I prefer quality caches that are more difficult and require a greater degree of thought and stealth then running around like an ant on crack!

Guyfromdenver

#49 User is offline   guyfromdenver 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 01-February 08

  Posted 25 July 2010 - 05:13 AM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

View PostChrysalides, on Jun 10 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jun 10 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

There are only 715 caches in all of those countries combined. There are probably more caches than that to be found within 10 miles of where you currently live.

It's amazing that for the island of Bermuda, which only has 63 caches on the island, that there are couple of people that have over 600 finds.

Very true, and yet another reason why numbers alone don't tell much. Numbers are fun. It's only when we start to take them too seriously that we get into trouble. Of course, same goes for many other things. Like geocaching. And ourselves.


I have sort of been awaiting for an opening for describing all the different reasons why numbers alone don't tell much and this is as good as any.

It might be interesting to some to know who has the most finds (Alamogul, 41925 and counting) but once you go down the list the numbers don't mean all that much for a variety of reasons.

Someone that has been geocaching since 2001 is likely going to have more finds than someone that has only been caching for a year or two (BobCam seems to be an obvious exception). It's like running a race against someone with a several year headstart.

Those that live in cache rich areas are more likely going to have more finds than someone living in a cache sparse area. Someone living in San Diego where there are over 2000 caches available caches within a 10 miles radius is just going to have a lot more opportunities to add to their find count then someone living in area where there are only a couple of hundred within a 10 mile radius. Couple that with the fact that areas with a high density of caches generally have a lot more people hiding new caches (faster than one can find them all) there are always new caches to be found. In areas with a low density of caches, anyone that has been in the game for more than a couple of years can quickly clear out a radius such that the time required to travel the nearest unfound cache would be greater than the amount of free time one has available. I've read lots of accounts from those that are able to go caching on their lunch break or at the very least be able to out and find a cache every day. Those that live in cache sparse areas effectively can't go geocaching as often as those in dense area simply due to the distance and time involved to get to the nearest unfound cache.

Those that live in areas where "power trails" have become popular have the opportunity to add numbers to their find count at ridunculous proportions to those that live in areas where power trails are non-existent.

There is no consensus as to what constitutes a find. Some have no qualms about armchair logging of virtuals. Some will post multiple finds on event caches based on the number of temporary caches for the event. Some will log finds on caches that they have placed themselves, taken to the extreme of logging over 600 finds on caches placed for a power trail as part of a team of hiders. Some won't log a cache unless they found the cache on their own and physically signed the log themselves. Others will cache as part of a group and once one has found the cache, they'll sign for everyone else. Some will log a find if they got "close" to the location but didn't actually put their hands on the cache.

Some cachers use a team account with multiple members finding caches in different locations but all logging under the same team account. Some predominately cache as a group, providing more eyes to search for a cache and quicker find times then someone that primarily caches alone. I've seen lots of logs from some that cache as a group which indicate that they "got help" from someone in the group that, as it turns out, had found the cache during a previous visit.

Some people just have a lot more free time available to go geocaching than others. Someone that has a full time job and full time family obligations just doesn't get the opportunity to find caches than someone that is retired (and doesn't have financial constraints). For those that do have family obligations, some of the families are less supportive about free time to go caching. I've noticed this especially when looking at the find numbers while traveling on vacation for others where the whole family is involved in geocaching versus, in my case, where my family mostly tolerates it.

Some geocachers prefer to find different cache types. If I wanted to find a lot of geocaches there are a few places that I can drive to (granted, they're typically an hour away) where I can rack up some relatively high find counts by grabbing caches off of guard rails, LPCs, and other park-n-grabs. Or I can spend the same amount of time taking some long hikes, visiting areas where caches are few and far between, and end up with a few finds in a day. Those that one can describe as "numbers hounds", where the smiley is more important than the smile, can rack up some large numbers finding easy park and grabs while those that are looking for a good hike are going to achieve find counts while pale in comparison.


Given all the different factors that can influence the total number of finds for any given geocacher it's absurd to compare one geocachers find count to another. The find count numbers really don't mean all that much.



[Removed]! Find it and log it. If you go out of your way to defy this fundamental basis of Geocaching then you are playing a differnt game all together!

Guyfromdenver

[Edited by moderator to remove potty language. Don't use potty language.]

This post has been edited by Keystone: 25 July 2010 - 09:22 AM


#50 User is offline   TheAlabamaRambler 

  • Happy camper
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6686
  • Joined: 16-August 03

Posted 25 July 2010 - 05:29 AM

View Postguyfromdenver, on Jul 25 2010, 08:13 AM, said:

Guyfromdenver

Posted Image

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic