skydiver
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by skydiver
-
-
I'm not sure I understand yet. I've been thru Missoula and CDA, etc and done maybe 10 caches. Yet I don't see my name in lights.
I will be back up in CDA area early next week. Can someone help me at least get my name on the list? If only for 10 minutes of fame?Cachers who breeze through the area, hit a few caches, and then disappear again, or those that have moved outside the area, or those that just quit geocaching, are automatically removed from the list after a time, to free up the clutter. Without this there would be 1897 geocachers listed today, 95% of which are tourists who came and went.
Geocachers in 101st place and below are removed after one month of inactivity. Those in positions 1-100 are removed on a different timeline, depending on their position.
On the plus side, all the data for your current finds in the play area are still in the database, and as soon as you post a find in the area again, you standing will be fully reinstated as if you'd never left.... for a while at least, until you leave again. ;-).
-
Not sure if anyone can help us understand this one--but, here it goes. With this point system we are just wondering why it takes sooooo long for some of the points to post. We found a cache on monday the 26th and the cache hasnt posted as of yet and today is the 30th. Just kind of curious. So any input would be great. Thanks!!
As Rye said, I encourage reports of problems so I can look into them and get them fixed if necessary.
I'm assuming you're talking about Rathdrum Mountain. Rathdrum is one of several caches that fall on the very edge of the point system boundary, and due to some technical details that are difficult to explain, aren't included in the daily GPX updates. So, these fringe caches take longer to get updated (up to a month). Usually if somebody notifies me of a new log for one of these caches, I can queue that cache to get updated sooner (which I've done now for Rathdrum). You should see it get added to your SGPS found list sometime this weekend.
-
What? It's not just ME?!?!?! dadgum. I thought I was special.
-
Don't forget the Google API, as another example of a site that's doing it.
I'd happily apply/pay for a developers license (above and beyond my charter membership) to be able to have more direct access to the live gc.com data such as this. If there's concern over people bogging down the site with bad queries, then they could (should?) require applicants to prove some minimum level of competence before being granted such a license. The developer's license agreement should also include a clause indicating what developers would NOT be allowed to do with the data (i.e. simply mirror geocaching.com under their own brand), etc.
License cost could be tiered, depending on the quantity of data a developer pulls. A hobbyist running one small query a day for their local community would pay far less than someone such as myself, who would be creating much larger/robust applications and therefore accessing a great deal more data every day.
To recoup the cost of the license, developers could take donations, or charge outright, for whatever apps they develop. I think this could be a gold mine for GC.com and open the floodgates of innovation and creative new ways to play the game. I believe that most, if not all, of the features and improvements users are asking for from GC.com, would quickly be provided by outside developers, once they could get the data to do so, and followed closely by amazing new tools that nobody has dared even dream of yet.
-
Last summer, it seemed as if I would have a point total of 1800 one week, then 2200 the next. In fact, it looked to me like the calculations were being continually tweaked,
Ahhh. I think I know the time period you're refering to, and yes there was tweaking going on, but not in the calculations. There a couple months or so last summer it seemed Jeremy (or his lackeys) were tweaking the format of the search and cache pages on a nearly daily basis, which would sometimes break the SGPS and cause it to think hundreds of caches in the playfield got archived (when in fact they didn't). Each time this completely disrupted the calculations while I spent a couple days counter-tweaking the SGPS to recoginze the new format and get all the caches back online.
The method of computing points hasn't changed since I introduced the 101-255 points scale for extreem caches in October, 2002.
-
Hmmm. just noticed this thread. Sure thought some of the posters who know me would have notified me of it, so that I could respond, rather than leaving everyong to speculate. But, I guess not.
Re: arhived caches gaining points:
Moun10bike's 'theory' that archived caches gain points due to
the caches being old ones that had been around when there were fewer cachers, so their hit rate over time was lower than current caches and continually sinking.
is exactly correct. Raw scores of archived caches is locked and do not increase with time, but the relationship those scores have with newer active caches will constantly change.
Re: The Bum's Rush still being worth 3 points.
The SGPS assumes that a no-find log indicates the cache is missing, and thus locks the raw score. When a find is later posted that confirms the cache was in fact there all along, the system makes the appropriate adjustments to the raw score. So, as soon as somebody finds The Bum's Rush... it's points will adjust.
Re: Data collection and spreading the system to other areas.
I do gather most of the data necessary for this through PQ's. 8 in fact (4 of mine, and 2 each donated by a couple other local cachers). However, limitations in the information included in the PQ's requires that I still pull some data directly from GC.com. Great pains have been taken to make this 'mining' to be as unintrusive as possible, but it's still necessary for the SGPS to exist. If it were possible to gather all necessary data from PQ's, the SGPS would have gone worldwide with donated PQ's from regional geocachers a long, long time ago.
Re: Point Snobs and Cache Sluts
I would hope that people could recognize tounge-in-cheek humor when they see it... especially considering I'm on both lists. For those who can't, oh well. I won't appologize to, or make special considerations for, people with no sense of humor or too easily offended. I'll simply plead The First and maybe offer them some cheese.
Re: Opting out of being listed.
Renegade Knight wins the prize for this one. Statistics are meaningless without including all available data. Just look at the Keen People stats as evidence.
Re: sudden point fluctuations
Even I've been surprised on occasion by sudden point swings.
Sometimes, they're are due to problems getting updated data from GC.com. These fluctuations are usually more extreem and marked by a sudden swing in the opposite direction when the problem is corrected. This happens every few months, but rarely lasts for more than a few days.
More often though, there is a perfectly explainable mathematical explanation. Anytime players have asked me to explain a swing within a few days of it's start, I've been able to hunt down exactly which cache find was responsible. Although it's entirely mathematically based, the system has developed a life of it's own and has repeatedly defied my own predictions on when points will swing, and in which direction.
I fully recognize that not everyone is as interested in statistics as others. However, there are many people who have told me the the SGPS has breathed new life into geocaching for them, and inspired them to hunt (and place) caches they wouldn't have even dreamed of persuing otherwise. This was the goal of the SGPS, and as far as I'm concerned, has succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.
-
I'd say check with the owners first, a process that probably should have been started a couple days ago to give people time to respond. Some owners might want to go in and see the cache exactly as the fire left it.
I had a cache get devoured by the Black Mountain Fire here this summer, and I looked forward to going to see it in it's original spot. I'd have been disappointed to find out someone removed it for me first.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
It's no secret how I feel about vacation caches for anyone who reads the forums regularly, but I'll jump here and say it again anyway in support of MecidOne.
I hate 'em!
Really can't put it any simpler than that.
Now to respond to Erik.
First let me say that I totally understand the approvers have a rough and thankless job, and I have great appreciation for what they do. There would be a lot more vacation caches and obscenely lame virtuals if it weren't for the approvers taking the heat and filtering out the riff-raff before the rest of us need to see it?
So, that said, I have this question for the approvers and the public in general. For those true vacation caches that do sneak through the cracks, would it be appropriate for the approvers to alert the cache owner of the issue, and give them reasonable opportunity to make corrections (i.e. find a volunteer sponsor), and if corrections can't be made, post that it be removed by the next finder and archived.
Seems to me that would be more appropriate than saying "Whoops! Well, it's too late now." Just my thoughts on the subject.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
It's no secret how I feel about vacation caches for anyone who reads the forums regularly, but I'll jump here and say it again anyway in support of MecidOne.
I hate 'em!
Really can't put it any simpler than that.
Now to respond to Erik.
First let me say that I totally understand the approvers have a rough and thankless job, and I have great appreciation for what they do. There would be a lot more vacation caches and obscenely lame virtuals if it weren't for the approvers taking the heat and filtering out the riff-raff before the rest of us need to see it?
So, that said, I have this question for the approvers and the public in general. For those true vacation caches that do sneak through the cracks, would it be appropriate for the approvers to alert the cache owner of the issue, and give them reasonable opportunity to make corrections (i.e. find a volunteer sponsor), and if corrections can't be made, post that it be removed by the next finder and archived.
Seems to me that would be more appropriate than saying "Whoops! Well, it's too late now." Just my thoughts on the subject.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
I'm not sure this is exactly what was intended by the term 'Trade Up'... but I'm not compaining.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
Tor is a papillion. Extreemly good with people of all sizes. 2.5 years old. Weighs six lbs. And has accompanied me on every long geocaching hike I've done, including Shafer Meadows (2 days, 29 miles total) and Thunderbolt (1 day, 20+ miles), and always acts as if he was just getting warmed up when we finish and I'm about to pass out dead.
I highly recommended papillions as geocaching partners.
See a couple pics here.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
[This message was edited by skydiver on October 22, 2003 at 07:30 PM.]
-
Oh, yah!
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:That's a hidden gem in the 'one cache, one find' system currently in use on geocaching.com. It doesn't matter what their Difficulty and Terrain ratings are, they are all equal.
I fully disagree, and that was the inspiration behind the SGPS when it was just a flicker of a thought I had while on a long hike.
There are SO many geocachers (not all, or even most, but a noticiable chunk) who either use the number of finds one has as a sort of competition (just look at the uproar that occured when Dan Miller shut down his stats page), or consider the number of finds one has as a measure of personal achievement and experience (often noted by pointing how how many finds they have in forum posts or cache logs as a justification for some opinion they're about to express).
The number of finds one has is an absolute meaningless measure of anything. One cacher can quickly accumulate many drive-by bag-n-tag finds in a morning before work, whilst another cacher does a two day overnight hike into the back country for a single find. Did the first cacher
accumulate more experience than the second cacher? Hell No! The number of finds a cacher has is no more a measure of the quality of the cacher than the number of SGPS points a cache is worth is a measure of the quality of the cache.
Consider the SGPS a measure of the cost of a cache, where time and effort are the currency. Low point caches are probably cheap trinkets, not requiring much time or effort. Very high point caches are probably very expensive in terms of time, effort, planning ahead, packing along supplies, actual $ spent in preparing and getting there, etc. So the SGPS points a cacher has accumulated, is a (not the) measure of the time and effort they've probably spent hunting, and hiding, caches, simple as that. And I consider the time and effort one spends geocaching a much better (but not perfect) measure of their experience than how many bag-n-tags they've nabbed.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
I tried to train Tor to sniff out caches last winter. I'd show him that I put one of his favorite treats in a tupperware container, then stick him in the bedroom while I hid the container somewhere in the living room. Then, when I let him out, he'd try like mad to find it, but never used his nose. It was just a systematic visual search of most of the possible hiding places, usually passing the correct one by repeatedly. He always got the treat as soon as he found the cache, even if it was only by accident, so he had lots of motivation. It was fun watching him try, but in the end didn't prove to be any more helpful than just looking for the cache myself.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:The basic theory, as I understand it, is that more difficult caches will have few visitors, and thus be worth more points over time. One underlying assumption is that more difficult caches are inherently better.
You understand the basic theory precisely. Any assumptions you make after that are entirely you're own and have nothing to do with the inspiration of, or motivation behind, the SGPS.
quote:
A flaw I see in this reasoning... blah, blah, blah, a bunch of invalid points based on my own incorrect assumptions and failure to read the FAQ.
See my statement above, read the FAQ, and <content self-censored out of respect for the family friendly nature of these forums.>
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
Hey, we can all use some good news now and then, huh?
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves --
what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
I've been using 0.6.1 milestone for some time now, with the only issue being posting to these forums occasionally. Nightly builds are for testers, and Anyone using one should expect any number of weird problems and know who to report them to and how.
I had a friend try out Mozilla (regular) and tell me that he hated it, thought it was still way to buggy, and was going back to Opera. When I investigated what version he was trying, it turned out he was using a nightly build of the *alpha* version for the next major release. Well, duh! His justification was he wanted the absolute latest stuff. He's now a total Firebird convert, as am I.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves
-- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
People can get a complete list of geocaching in the news at Google's News Site, and sign up for their own alerts if they want.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:Don't you think that if your ammo can was under a rock in the cool earth and not in a combustible stump it would of fared much better than even the tupperware?
Of course. But since ammo cans or considerably more expensive than even the good tuperware (at least around here), and a lot heavier to lug back in on a 9 mile hike to a remote location (which I've done), tuperware is starting to look more and more desirable to me. The damage the tuperware container incured certainly wasn't enough for the hider to say "dadgum, sure wish I'd used an ammo can."
The point of this thread was to offer up the leasons I learned, so that others can make even more informed decisions with their own caches. Stump or Rock, Ammo Can or Tuperware, SCUBA cache or Mountain Top.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
I've always just assumed that the container of choice in an area with fire potential would be an ammo can. Seemed like the most likely to be able to stand up to the fire and protect the contents. Not indestructable, but ... safer.
The Black Mountain fire just outside of Missoula, MT burned across the locations occupied by three different caches, two of mine (ammo cans), and one of a fellow geocacher's (tuperware).
The owner of the tuperware cache was able to get in and check on his cache yesterday... it was fine (container barely melted, and contents in good shape), but the area it was in had been completely ravaged by the fire, so he moved the cache to a new spot that wasn't so depressing.
So, with lots of confidence, I went to check on my caches today after work. One was completely missing. I'm assuming it was discovered by the fire fighters and removed as trash. Not really surprising, if it was in anything like the shape my other cache was in... I'll let the photos speak for themselves.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
Neat idea. Here's my vote for the charity...
Natural Resources Defense Council
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
quote:
Originally posted by BeachBuddies:Check out these alternatives at http://www.skydivergear.com/; they have an interesting selection.
-BB
Thanks for the plug Beach Buddies. Be sure to check out the CITO design. A portion of the sales of each CITO item sold goes right back to Groundspeak.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
There's another possibility that I didn't see anyone mention.... he/she logged the wrong cache.
I've seen it happen with new cachers entering an online log for the wrong cache. Like the one that logged a find for a backcountry cache here in Montana that takes an overnight camping trip to get to... and also logged a cache in Boston on the same day. I never did figure out how somebody accidently does that, but I've seen it happen a few times.
Like others said, your cache, your call.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
-
I'd say it depends on the shool. Not sure about a cache inside a locker in a building... but I know of at least two multi-caches that require hunters to be on our local University's campus for some or all of the hunt, as well as a standard micro cache, and a webcam cache on the same campus. But our school seems to have a very open policy about non-students comming and going at all hours with no problem. I know of one non-student who, while geocaching on campus, was approched by campus security. They told security, "Oh, I'm just looking around." and was thus left alone to continue looking around.
Some schools might not be so open about it though, and a cache inside a building raises a whole different set of questions/issues than does one outside in a park like area.
---------------------------------------
"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
---------------------------------------
I will be back up in CDA area early next week. Can someone help me at least get my name on the list? If only for 10 minutes of fame?
Skydiver's Geocaching Point System
in Northwest
Posted
I'd love to be able to expand the SGPS to other areas, or make it world wide, and have looked into many ways to do so, none of which have been acceptable to me. Unfortunately, donated PQ's alone aren't enough to keep the system current. There's a lot more to it than that.
Have faith though. I've far from given up. There are still other possibilities on the drawing board, each being carefully analyzed between cache outings.