User Ranking

[+CGT]

Ok, i think it would be kinda cool if there was some sort of ranking that would be used in conjuction with the number of finds you have. Sort of a benchmark or goal to go after. Something like this

 

0-20 finds= Novice

20-100 finds= Beginner

100-250 finds=intermediat

250-500 finds= Advanced

500+ finds =Geomaster

 

and then maybe an added star or somthing for every 100 finds after that

example= Some one with 900 finds for be a "Four start Geomaster"

 

Just an idea

[WH]

Please don't

[Mushtang]

I like the idea, but then again I like comparing numbers.

 

There are a LOT of people in the forums that will give you a lot of reasons why numbers don't matter and shouldn't be used ever.

 

BTW, one more find and I'll be a geomaster according to your rankings.

[+The Leprechauns]

Jeremy Irish has just a few caches north of 200 finds, accumulated over five years. So, he's an "Intermediate" geocacher, notwithstanding the fact that most of those caches were long, high-terrain hikes. (I know, I've tagged along on a few and darn near killed myself to keep up.)

 

Ignoring my other finds for the sake of argument, I managed to locate 275 caches during a two-day period in 1994. No more than a handful required me to walk farther than 200 feet. There were lots of lamp posts and guard rails involved. But, going by find count alone, that makes me an "Advanced" geocacher.

 

Apples, oranges and cache counts. Two of these things are healthy and nutritious.

[+Moose Mob]

"Yes, but my finds were harder than yours"

(Terrain: level 4 vs level 1.5, multi vs traditional, mystery vs locationless)

"There are more caches available in your area than mine"

(e.g. Albequrque vs. San Fransisco Bay area)

 

Although they would be interesting to see, there is no definative answer to anything that ressembles a "score", or point system, that would be truely fair across all players. IMHO: It would cause more harm than good.

[+Mopar]

Ignoring my other finds for the sake of argument, I managed to locate 275 caches during a two-day period in 1994.

Wow! I'm impressed!

[+The Leprechauns]

Ignoring my other finds for the sake of argument, I managed to locate 275 caches during a two-day period in 1994.

Wow! I'm impressed!

1994, 2004, whatever. It's not about the numbers.

 

Thanks for taking the bait, though!

[+Tidalflame]

If that's the kind of thing you're into, try TerraCaching. I believe they have a system which ranks users AND it takes the difficulty of caches into account (you get more points for a 5/5 than a 1/1).

[+as77]

Add up the difficulty and terrain ratings of the found caches and then the score will be more realistic. One 5/5 will have the same value as five 1/1s.

[+Stump]

Jeremy Irish has just a few caches north of 200 finds, accumulated over five years. So, he's an "Intermediate" geocacher, notwithstanding the fact that most of those caches were long, high-terrain hikes.

 

...

 

Ignoring my other finds for the sake of argument, I managed to locate 275 caches during a two-day period in 1994. No more than a handful required me to walk farther than 200 feet. There were lots of lamp posts and guard rails involved. But, going by find count alone, that makes me an "Advanced" geocacher.

I've never understood why hiking is considered geocaching. Geocaching is finding things not the journey to them. Whether you hike 5 miles or drive 300 miles I don't get why it makes a difference in the quality of your count.

 

With that said, I don't like the idea. I love numbers and statistics but the titles just seem worthless to me. The quality of the geocacher doesn't depend on number of finds or even number of forum posts.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I've never understood why hiking is considered geocaching. Geocaching is finding things not the journey to them. Whether you hike 5 miles or drive 300 miles I don't get why it makes a difference in the quality of your count....

I never thought about it that way before, but you make a good point. The work to get to the cache is the adventure, but the find itself is what sets geocaching apart from hiking, biking, walking etc.

[+fizzymagic]

Ok, i think it would be kinda cool if there was some sort of ranking that would be used in conjuction with the number of finds you have. Sort of a benchmark or goal to go after. Something like this

 

0-20 finds= Novice

20-100 finds= Beginner

100-250 finds=intermediat

250-500 finds= Advanced

500+ finds =Geomaster

So you could go to a WI geocaching event and become an "intermediate" cacher in just one day by logging the event a couple hundred times?

 

Sorry, but anything that encourages that kind of behavior seems counterproductive to me.

[+Jeremy]

I've never understood why hiking is considered geocaching.

It isn't. Hiking is hiking and geocaching is geocaching. I think the general point is that it is hard to quantify the value of a "point" so rankings are generally meaningless since there is no litmus test for what a standard point should be.

 

The whole five 1's equals 1 five is another poor way to quantify the caching experience. Ergo, no valid ranking system. So we both seem to be in agreement.

[+as77]

Perfectionism kills productivity.

[+tozainamboku]

Ok, i think it would be kinda cool if there was some sort of ranking that would be used in conjuction with the number of finds you have. Sort of a benchmark or goal to go after. Something like this

 

0-20 finds= Novice

20-100 finds= Beginner

100-250 finds=intermediat

250-500 finds= Advanced

500+ finds =Geomaster

 

and then maybe an added star or somthing for every 100 finds after that

example= Some one with 900 finds for be a "Four start Geomaster"

 

Just an idea

I think the following rankings would be more accurate:

 

0-20 finds= Either I've just started out geocaching or I tried it a few times and it was OK but not something I would do all the time.

20-100 finds= I'm a geocacher and either I haven't be doing it very long, or I live in an area with very few caches, or I'm very choosy about which caches I search for, or I don't log all my finds on-line.

100-250 finds= I'm probably addicted to geocaching and either I've been doing it for less than a year, or there aren't many caches where I live, or there are some caches that I won't do, or I don't log all my finds.

250-500 finds= I am certainly addicted to geocaching. Either I haven't been doing it as long as some other people, or I don't live in Nashville or Thousand Oaks, or I don't do it as much any more because now I have a job.

500+ finds = I am a geocaching fiend. I may even pad my numbers by claiming finds for temporary caches at events.

 

[WH]

Heres a fool proof ranking system:

 

0-100 : geocacher

 

101-500 : geocacher

 

501-1000 : geocacher

 

1001-2000 : geocacher

 

2001-5000 : geocacher

 

5001-10000 : geocacher

 

10000+ : CCCooperAgency

[Mushtang]

10000+ : CCCooperAgency

Yeah, well that find count may apply to the profile, but how many people are on the team?

[+Stump]

Heres a fool proof ranking system:

 

0-100 : geocacher

 

101-500 : geocacher

 

501-1000 : geocacher

 

1001-2000 : geocacher

 

2001-5000 : geocacher

 

5001-10000 : geocacher

 

10000+ : CCCooperAgency

Shouldn't it be:

 

0: geomuggle

 

1-100: geocacher

...

[WH]

10000+ : CCCooperAgency

Yeah, well that find count may apply to the profile, but how many people are on the team?

As far as I know, CCCA is one person.

[+IV_Warrior]

10000+ : CCCooperAgency

Yeah, well that find count may apply to the profile, but how many people are on the team?

As far as I know, CCCA is one person.

Yes, it's one person. I've met her, and heard her state she sorta regrets using the name, as people often think it's a team.

 

A google search turned up "the source" of the name. These used to be her "sig items", I don't think she's using them anymore.

[+The Leprechauns]

10000+ : CCCooperAgency

Yeah, well that find count may apply to the profile, but how many people are on the team?

If you've read anything about this extraordinary geocaching family, you'd know that it's a mom, dad and two kids. Not too different from a lot of other geocaching families, except for the find count. Mom's been there for all of them.

 

So, before you have too big a celebration of your 500th find, by your logic you'd need to deduct any caches where your wife and brother were along as members of your "team." What's that knock you back to?

[Mushtang]

10000+ : CCCooperAgency

Yeah, well that find count may apply to the profile, but how many people are on the team?

If you've read anything about this extraordinary geocaching family, you'd know that it's a mom, dad and two kids. Not too different from a lot of other geocaching families, except for the find count. Mom's been there for all of them.

 

So, before you have too big a celebration of your 500th find, by your logic you'd need to deduct any caches where your wife and brother were along as members of your "team." What's that knock you back to?

Still at 499. Anyone that has cached with me logged their caches on their own username.

 

Nobody logs caches on my profile when they find caches in a different state, while I'm finding and logging caches on my own. That's all I'm saying.

[+Byron & Anne]

Rating a cacher???

 

let's see..

 

1 to 50 Finds = FAN (Found Another Hobbie)

51 to 200 Finds = CWH (Continuing With Hobbie)

201 to 500 Finds = QAC (Quite Active Cacher)

500 to 1000 Finds VAC (Very Active Cacher)

1000+ Finds = NTGAL (Needs To Get A Life)

[+Criminal]

You forgot to factor experience (time a person has been geocaching) into the pointless ranking.

[+Tzoid]

You forgot to factor experience (time a person has been geocaching) into the pointless ranking.

And the length of the hikes. And the difficulty rating. And the terrain rating. And the accuracyof the GPSr. And the cost of the petrol/gas. And what about me, I use a bicyle most of the time? People using all-terrain vehcles should deduct at least 10% from their count. So should cachers with families. But cachers in northern Canada can add 20% to theirs due to the low cache density there. And finds abroad surely count more, don't they?

 

Edited June 14, 2005 by Tzoid

[+Moose Mob]

And factor in climate, such as temperature over 100, or under 40. Or the windspeed.

 

Sarcasm aside, the best measurement to use is the "fun factor". I want to know if anyone is having more fun that I am.

[+Team Perks]

Hey! Why don't my hides factor into my "experience count"?

 

And what about all my DNF's? Shouldn't those be factored in? I dare say I often learn a lot more when I get skunked than when I succeed!

 

Sheesh. Why does there have to be a label for everything? Let me play the game and have fun with it. You can call me whatever you want to in private.

[+Sonoran Privateers]

Jeremy Irish has just a few caches north of 200 finds, accumulated over five years.  So, he's an "Intermediate" geocacher, notwithstanding the fact that most of those caches were long, high-terrain hikes. 

 

...

 

Ignoring my other finds for the sake of argument, I managed to locate 275 caches during a two-day period in 1994.  No more than a handful required me to walk farther than 200 feet.  There were lots of lamp posts and guard rails involved.  But, going by find count alone, that makes me an "Advanced" geocacher.

I've never understood why hiking is considered geocaching. Geocaching is finding things not the journey to them. Whether you hike 5 miles or drive 300 miles I don't get why it makes a difference in the quality of your count.

 

With that said, I don't like the idea. I love numbers and statistics but the titles just seem worthless to me. The quality of the geocacher doesn't depend on number of finds or even number of forum posts.

The greatest thing about this sport/hobby/activity/pastime, is that it is many things to many people.

 

For some, it's a bean count; a personal quest to rack up as many as possible.

For some, it's a great reason to get their otherwise sedate family out and do something interesting and educational.

For some, it's an add-on to turn all their existing outdoor hobbies into a more exciting adventure.

 

This could go on forever. The point is, some people work very hard to find a few caches, while others are content to drive around town and scoop up as many as they can within arm's reach of their car. Neither one is a 'better' cacher, they just enjoy GCing in different ways.

 

It's impossible to quantify someone's ability to cache by their number of finds.

 

Additionaly, why is that some people have an overwhelming need to be ranked anyway? I don't understand it. Is life just not enough unless you can pretend that you're better than someone?

 

--Chino

[+Byron & Anne]

 

Additionaly, why is that some people have an overwhelming need to be ranked anyway? I don't understand it. Is life just not enough unless you can pretend that you're better than someone?

 

--Chino

Well Said!

[+Wacka]

In my area I'm in about 20-25th place according to a local leaderboard. In many other areas I'd be in the top 5 or the top. We have >90 people with >500 finds. So ranking doesn't mean anything.

[+BlueDeuce]

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm partial to

 

0-20 finds = 0-20 finds

20-100 finds = 20-100 finds

100-250 finds = 100-250 finds

250-500 finds = 250-500 finds

500+ finds = 500+ finds

[+Tharagleb]

I am a Geo Wizard it says so right by my avatar.

[+Sonoran Privateers]

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm partial to

 

0-20 finds = 0-20 finds

20-100 finds = 20-100 finds

100-250 finds = 100-250 finds

250-500 finds = 250-500 finds

500+ finds = 500+ finds

Or how about:

 

1-20 finds = 100 finds

20-100 finds= 600 finds

100-250 finds= 20 finds

250-500 finds= snorkel

500+ finds = 1 find