Hedgehog in the Fog

I had one of these too: an old archived cache that I found after it was archived. I logged it as a find since I though it was a memorable adventure but for the purists out there: does this "count"? Also, I think I have to go back and clean-up what is now a little pile of garbage. I did not do this at the time of finding the cache since I did not know it was archived. Anything wrong with cleaning it up? No one else will ever be looking for it again, I assume...

I just found a location list this yesterday: old and new versions of the cache 15 feet apart. Makes me wonder why CO did not remove the old cache?

Congratulations! I am approaching 100 finds too and start thinking about which cache to pick for this event and other ideas to add to the fun pool! What does anyone else do? Special TBs, coins, speacial SWAG item to drop off, etc??

That is why I wondered what would be a good way to come up with a weighted count. I really appreciate all the constructive (and even less than constructive :-) replies above. Let me re-iterate: I take the number with a grain of salt and I advice everyone the same. They are clearly not for comparing different people. It is just there must be a better measure of your own count of geocaching experience however approximate it may be. People talk about the total count all the time. I don't think anything we do would improve the accuracy drastically but some form of weighting may help (or not... I realize the challenge here). Forgetting about the formulas, power laws, etc, if we were to establish a VERY approximate comparison of 1-5 terrain and difficulty rating in units of time or effort, how do you think it would look? For instance: 1 star = 1 (minutes, calories expended, whatever) 2 star = 5 3 star = 20 4 star = 50 5 star = 100 I don't propose the above numbers, it's just an example to pose the question. Statistics is a funny thing. Even though the ratings of caches may vary drastically from one owner to another or from one area to another, I would expect a nice normal distribution of effort for each difficulty level across many caches just like it happens anytime multiple independent variables are involved. And a normal distribution has to be centered around some mean value - that is what I am after. Unfortunately, rather than a pole, there is no way to gather these stats, is there? I don't confuse the fun aspects of our hobby with statistics and I don't try to get out there every weekend to increase my finds count (but I do get out there every weekend to have fun). I do find this discussion entertaining and hopefully some others will too. Please feel free to criticize and propose alternatives. This is not a discussion of proposed rule changes, just something that a few of us may be interested in to calculate for themselves and their friends. Cheers and happy caching!

Math would be done by software - I would not advocate calculating the points by hand :-) I agree that the power law is not straight forward but I was interested in something that reflects on the non-linearly increasing challenge of finding 5 star vs 1 start cache (not 2 min vs 10 min but more like 2 min vs 10 hrs). All the users would need to understand is that 3 stars corresponds to an average "1 find", 1 or 2 stars give you a 1/4 or a 1/2 of "a find", 4 stars and 5 stars five you 2 and 4 "finds" respectively. I agree with most comments above: such statistics have to be taken with a grain of salt since not all 3 star caches are the same in difficulty. More importantly how to you measure fun?? I don't want to (even though temped) to delve into the proposal of cache rating by the seekers rather than the owner - seems to come up here at regular intervals :-) I understand that user stats are mostly for the user (I don't look at geocaching as a competetive sport) and the friends and that is also why I think it is still possible to discuss the stats as one's own measure of progress without worrying too much about the rating errors.

I have tried to research this before posting but did not find anything sufficiently similar in the recent history of the forum. I am not a numbers person (in the sense of being after the high count) but I do like the numbers to be meaningful if they are used. Obviously the effort that goes into 5/5 cache is incomparable to 1/1. The person with 100 finds of above average difficulty rating is likely spend more time and effort than 200 finds of easier nature. Have the weighted count being considered as an official site feature or a stats generator feature? I would propose something like this (while retaining two numbers, for the hide difficulty and terrain difficulty): exponential weighted raiting = (2^star)/8 which would give us 1 star => 0.25 2 star => 0.50 3 star => 1.00 4 star => 2.00 5 star => 4.00 The sum of the weighted ratings would provide the weighted finds count better approximating total amount of effort and experience. Comments? If nothing else it would be great to have such or similar weighted counted implemented in some stats generator. If there is enough interest I might play with some coding myself even though this is not my main strength.

Anyone else would like to share their card image?

Sorry for taking so long to reply... Here you are: front and back. The back is always the same, the front is almost always different. Some of the photos that I have used on my cards so far can be seen here: Learning to See | Geo Cards (most of the site is still under construction, so please excuse the almost complete lack of content) The cards are printed on heavy photo stock and finished with 10 mil lamination on both sides. Comments and Critique are welcome.

GeoLobo, I think you made and leave some very nices cards (looking at the images) but I still don't understand what makes they conceptually different from other cards (laminated or not, this is not really the main point)? I am not saying they aren't different, just trying to understand you better... I like your design but I am sure there are many people who can produced and print good designs at home (I don't think I am one of them), quality printers are well within reach, so what is the key feature of the professionally printed trading cards that makes them different? By the way, I am sorry for not posting the images of my cards yet. I am away from my home computer and will do it as soon as I can, I did not forget.

Do you mean "laminated cards" or any cards? If it is any cards, I understand, we are all different. It there is something about laminated cards I am really curious what it is :-)

Wouldn't that be great? I often ask myself why is leaving some form of a signature item in the visited cache is not more of a norm than a fairly rare chance (at least in my, rather humble so far, experience). Of course it is best if these are custom made by the owner or at least for the owner. I wonder if there is any way this concept can be actively promoted to become a bigger part of the game?? After my first 25 caches and using some dollar store swag, I switched to a laminated trading card (one of my landscape photos, name and home town location on a heavy stock) by itself or with some form of a handmade item if I have them at the moment. I typically don't take anything except other sig items and leave something from the dollar store for kids to find if there is room in the cache.

I think it depends :-) It is possible to produce very high quality trading cards at home. I use Epson's pro-line color printer, very heavy stock matte photo paper and 10 mil lamination. The result is the look and feel of a plastic card. I make mine bigger than business card - typically 2.5" x 3.75" because I want a resonable size for the photo content. As someone pointed out that unless I am willing to spend time laminating each card individually, the edges are still not water resistant so a mini ziplock is a good idea. It holds up surprisingly well against moisture even without the bag but it has its's limits, of course. I considered ordering from a professional printing shop (in the end, it would be about the same cost per card, I think) but then I would have to stick with a single design for a long run (100? 200?). As it stands now, each card has a unique photo (OK, almost, I do have a few favorite images :-) ) and the same text on the back. Recently, it became possible to order plastic business cards (same gauge as a credit card) even though they are a little pricey. Does anyone have experience with those?

I consider a laminated signature card to be different from SWAG trade items. Take it or leave it, or drop your own sig item in. And I won't trade my own sig card for any item except another card. A container full if business cards wouldn't be very interesting, except to people who collect cards. Regardless, I try to ensure the container doesn't have fewer goodies than it had when I arrived. Real nice one-of-a-kind signature coins (such as wooden nickels or ceramics) are often very cool and desirable, so I'd never "trade" a laminated business card for that. I'd leave some extra stuff for a handmade coin. That's just me... I completely agree. I would not consider my cards to be a fair trade in place of a handmade coin or another swag item, mainly because I feel less people would be interested in them. This is why I also carry a few handmade items (ceramic and wooden coins mainly) to trade for these. IMHO these are for traid unless labelled otherwise. The cards... I simply leave them to say "I visited this cache". What is less clear to me is how many people leaving the cards in fact hope that the cards will stay in the cache permanently like "I was here" sign? I personally don't feel that way about mine and would only be happy if someone decided that my card is worth collecting. However everybody is different and I hope to get a feel for other opinions out there.

Nice cards! I will post an image of mine when I am at home.

I had one sitting in a bowl of water for a week and it did not delaminate. Water does seep into the edges since I cut these out from a full sheet after laminating, however it after drying it was still in one piece looking almost new. For handmade signature items or little things like this I would put them in mini ziplocks sold in craft stores in large packages (works out to 5c or so per piece) with a card noting your name and whatever else you want. That's my plan for the handmade swag. I had a few made before and plan to do more when I have time but the laminated photo cards is the defailt signature item for me now.

When a personal card / calling card is found in a cache, do you consider it an item that can be a) traded for? simply picked up by another person? c) meant to be a permanent part of the cache together with the log book? (let's assume the owner also signed the log)? I have recently started to leave my personal geo-cards (one of my landscape photos on one side, name and some text on the other side, heavy laminated - feels almost like a credit card) and I wonder what will happen to them? When I come across cards left by other I would like to collect them in place of usual swag but I am not sure if this is appropriate. What do you think? On the same note, if someone does pick up my card, I am curious where is it going to settle on the map, so on the card I ask to take a moment and log the find on my personal site. If you came across a card like this, would you do it? Thank you!