Recommended Posts

Here's an interesting idea! You can get PQs of all your finds, and those PQs contain the difficulties for all the caches.

For the purposes of this thread, define "challenge" as the greater of difficulty and terrain. Define a "hard" cache as one with terrain or difficulty >= 3

What's the average "challenge" of the caches you have found? How many "hard" caches have you found? If you'd like, I can write a little program that calculates it for you.

I'll start.

• I have about 2270 finds.
• My average challenge is 2.17
• 618 of my finds (27%) are "hard."

P.S. Should we start a new thread for this?

Edited by fizzymagic
Here's an interesting idea! You can get PQs of all your finds, and those PQs contain the difficulties for all the caches.

For the purposes of this thread, define "challenge" as the greater of difficulty and terrain. Define a "hard" cache as one with terrain or difficulty >= 3

What's the average "challenge" of the caches you have found? How many "hard" caches have you found? If you'd like, I can write a little program that calculates it for you.

I'll start.

• I have about 2270 finds.
• My average challenge is 2.17
• 618 of my finds (27%) are "hard."

P.S. Should we start a new thread for this?

New thread? Will this become a "mine is bigger than yours" thread?

Will this become a "mine is bigger than yours" thread?

No, it will be a scientific way to test the assertions made in another thread. The claim is that high-numbers cachers tend to find easier caches. Sagefox says it's the opposite. I say let's see the data.

So I wrote a quick-and-dirty program that will calculate the numbers for Windows users. You can get it here. Just unzip the files and put them in a folder somewhere. Then drag your All Finds PQ (GPX) onto the executable. Sorry it's a little slow.

Edited by fizzymagic

Maybe fizzy or some other math whiz can create the hyper algorithim that will provide appropriate weight to Find count-adjusted by degree of difficulty and falsified finds; Hide count adjusted by quality of hide, Post count adjusted by Helpful posts and Whining/annoying/dogmatic posts? Then we will have the true measure of cacher status and respect!

Or maybe it isn't really worth all the debate as each individual will form their own opinion based on the qualities they feel are important?

Sometimes it isn't all about the numbers. (OMG did I just say that?!?)

edited to say how bout dat! Just as I'm typing this post fizzy has gone and done it!

Will this become a "mine is bigger than yours" thread?

No, it will be a scientific way to test the assertions made in this thread. The claim is that high-numbers cachers tend to find easier caches. You say it's the opposite. I say let's see the data.

So I wrote a quick-and-dirty program that will calculate the numbers for Windows users. You can get it here. Just unzip the files and put them in a folder somewhere. Then drag your All Finds PQ (GPX) onto the executable. Sorry it's a little slow.

I said the opposite? Please fizzy, let's not put words into the mouths of others. The claims were that there are a lot of ficticious finds and other questionable activities amongst the high number cachers.

According to Grand High Poobah's list (Dec 6, 2005), there are 451 cachers with more than 1500 finds. I recognize many of the names. There are likely 449-451 that deserve my respect and acknowledgement of thier acheievement.

So I wrote a quick-and-dirty program that will calculate the numbers for Windows users. You can get it here. Just unzip the files and put them in a folder somewhere. Then drag your All Finds PQ (GPX) onto the executable. Sorry it's a little slow.

OK what am I doing wrong? Get an error "The instruction at 0x0040249d referenced memory at 0x00000110. the memory could not be read"

I'll give that program a try. Maybe fake a few T5 caches to help pad my score?

So I wrote a quick-and-dirty program that will calculate the numbers for Windows users. You can get it here. Just unzip the files and put them in a folder somewhere. Then drag your All Finds PQ (GPX) onto the executable. Sorry it's a little slow.

OK what am I doing wrong? Get an error "The instruction at 0x0040249d referenced memory at 0x00000110. the memory could not be read"

It somehow read your post count and the program blew-up ...

OK what am I doing wrong? Get an error "The instruction at 0x0040249d referenced memory at 0x00000110. the memory could not be read"

Ow. I dunno. I had some troubles with the stoopid Xerces XML library I am using, but I thought I got rid of all of those.

Did it say that before or after it said it parsed the file correctly?

So I wrote a quick-and-dirty program that will calculate the numbers for Windows users. You can get it here. Just unzip the files and put them in a folder somewhere. Then drag your All Finds PQ (GPX) onto the executable. Sorry it's a little slow.

OK what am I doing wrong? Get an error "The instruction at 0x0040249d referenced memory at 0x00000110. the memory could not be read"

This is suspicious.

OK what am I doing wrong?  Get an error "The instruction at 0x0040249d referenced memory at 0x00000110. the memory could not be read"

Ow. I dunno. I had some troubles with the stoopid Xerces XML library I am using, but I thought I got rid of all of those.

Did it say that before or after it said it parsed the file correctly?

Never said anything about parsing the file. Opened a DOS window, said "getting waypoints" then the error popped up. Created an empty txt file.

BTW using Win 2000

Edited by briansnat
Will this become a "mine is bigger than yours" thread?

No, it will be a scientific way to test the assertions made in this thread. The claim is that high-numbers cachers tend to find easier caches. You say it's the opposite. I say let's see the data.

So I wrote a quick-and-dirty program that will calculate the numbers for Windows users. You can get it here. Just unzip the files and put them in a folder somewhere. Then drag your All Finds PQ (GPX) onto the executable. Sorry it's a little slow.

I think this is a different topic.

I think this is a different topic.

Why thank you, Moose! Now we can begin!

Edited by fizzymagic

Sometimes it isn't all about the numbers. (OMG did I just say that?!?)

edited to say how bout dat! Just as I'm typing this post fizzy has gone and done it!

Was that Wimseyguy that said that or someone using his account and trying to discredit him?

Interesting program fizzymagic. To paraphrase what someone said in another thread there are a large amount of geeks in geocaching and geeks love statistics. I plead guilty as charged

1281 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.68

Avg. Terrain = 1.50

Avg. Challenge = 1.80

144 hard caches found (11%)

I know that there will we those who will decry this program as evil but I for one love it and look at it as "I gotta get my hard caches % up" Time to lay off the urban micros and hit a few more of the 13 mile hike 5 stage multis like the one we did 2 weeks ago.

I just realized that the little utility will work fine for regular PQs, too.

So you can compare your average difficulty and terrain to those of all the caches in your vicinity.

It's not as useful to compare those for different areas, though, as different places tend to have different standards.

Cool utility. Here are my finds:

426 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.88

Avg. Terrain = 2.02

Avg. Challenge = 2.19

107 hard caches found (25%)

Edited by briansnat

Here are mine from the program. They differ slightly from the numbers I got above from my database, since cache owners occasionally change the ratings for their caches.

2271 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.98

Avg. Terrain = 1.58

Avg. Challenge = 2.19

624 hard caches found (27%)

Brian clearly does harder hikes than I do! But I guess I do more puzzles.

This is a fun way to look at the numbers.

1310 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.98

Avg. Terrain = 1.87

Avg. Challenge = 2.22

363 hard caches found (28%)

I would'nt say I've got a high number of finds, but I got a few.

522 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.93

Avg. Terrain = 1.71

Avg. Challenge = 2.12

128 hard caches found (25%)

I guess I need to do more hiking and puzzles:

3428 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.82

Avg. Terrain = 1.64

Avg. Challenge = 2.03

688 hard caches found (20%)

My gut instinct is that those with high find counts will tend to have lower difficulty ratings overall. I tend not to skip caches that are near and convenient to me, as I prefer just about any caching to no caching. Those who are more selective would ignore many of the easier "mundane" caches that could drag their averages down.

New version fixes the speed issues from the previous version.

Have fun. I am hoping people enjoy this but don't make it into a <you-know-what> comparing contest.

What a cool program!

It sure didn't take much time to process our find count:

135 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 2.22

Avg. Terrain = 1.66

Avg. Challenge = 2.31

40 hard caches found (30%)

I sure thought we went through more briars than that!

- T of TandS

I'm just in it for the numbers...

1251 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.58

Avg. Terrain = 1.62

Avg. Challenge = 1.83

196 hard caches found (16%)

Here's another meaningless stat: posts versus finds ratio. I'm proof that it reveals level of windbagness.

- T of TandS

Nice job on the speedup.

-WR

2554 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.86

Avg. Terrain = 1.82

Avg. Challenge = 2.11

618 hard caches found (24%)

I'm just in it for the numbers...

1251 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.58

Avg. Terrain = 1.62

Avg. Challenge = 1.83

196 hard caches found (16%)

Withing 50 miles of dowtown Las Vegas

925 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.72

Avg. Terrain = 2.06

Avg. Challenge = 2.22

277 hard caches found (30%)

I'm just in it for the numbers...

1251 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.58

Avg. Terrain    = 1.62

Avg. Challenge  = 1.83

196 hard caches found (16%)

Withing 50 miles of dowtown Las Vegas

925 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.72

Avg. Terrain = 2.06

Avg. Challenge = 2.22

277 hard caches found (30%)

Don't dogs need to multiply the scores by 7?

I'm just in it for the numbers...

1251 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.58

Avg. Terrain    = 1.62

Avg. Challenge  = 1.83

196 hard caches found (16%)

Withing 50 miles of dowtown Las Vegas

925 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.72

Avg. Terrain = 2.06

Avg. Challenge = 2.22

277 hard caches found (30%)

Don't dogs need to multiply the scores by 7?

I'm not sure, but she was quick to point out that my found difficulty is significantly lower than the cache difficulty in this area.

I have a few choice words about this female dog.

I would have guessed the numbers to be slightly higher, but my gut (literally)

proves the numbers right

1180 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.64

Avg. Terrain = 1.52

Avg. Challenge = 1.79

136 hard caches found (12%)

1774 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.65

Avg. Terrain = 1.44

Avg. Challenge = 1.78

229 hard caches found (13%)

Actually the thing about this that intrigues me is that I just ran that PQ on finds, and it's off by 54 finds. I'm way too lazy to figure out which 54 caches didn't come through. But odd that some didn't. DUH - those must be mulitple finds on some of the locationless - I know I have a ton of finds on the now archived Cache on the Barrelhead, and 14 or 15? on Joefrog's Dash for Cache, several on both The Scavenger Hunt and the Florida Scavenger Hunt. Boy, those finds are doing nothing to raise these numbers are they? I'm sure gonna miss those caches come January.

Edited by Isonzo Karst

1463 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.71

Avg. Terrain = 1.60

Avg. Challenge = 1.90

200 hard caches found (14%)

I did notice that it did not allow for multiple finds on a cache. I have only 1 so it would not affect my stats too much but others may have a different situation.

These numbers can be skewed due to your area. In Illinois for instance there is not a whole lot of difficult terrain.... The difficulty can also be affected (but to a lesser extent). Such as being in an urban as opposed to rural enviroment or how the people in your area hide caches.

Nice little ap tho, thanks Fizzy.

Edited for a stutter.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery

Okay, if I'm going to get ANY respect from my fellow geocachers, I must increase the difficulty level ... Thanks Fizzy, this is cool.

281 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.54

Avg. Terrain = 1.52

Avg. Challenge = 1.72

34 hard caches found (12%)

1463 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.71

Avg. Terrain = 1.60

Avg. Challenge = 1.90

200 hard caches found (14%)

I did notice that it did not allow for multiple finds on a cache. I have only 1 so it would not affect my stats too much but others may have a a different situation.

These numbers can be skewed due to your area. In Illinois for instance there is not a whole lot of difficult terrain.... The difficulty can also be affected (but to a lesser extent). Such as being in an urban as opposed to rural enviroment or how the people in your area hide caches.

Nice little ap tho, thanks Fizzy.

Here are the numbers for all caches I have not found (within 60 or so miles of my house).

1099 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.86

Avg. Terrain = 1.74

Avg. Challenge = 2.09

210 hard caches found (19%)

Analysis of file C:\Program Files\GPXSpinner\My Finds Pocket Query.gpx

1362 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.62

Avg. Terrain = 1.52

Avg. Challenge = 1.80

198 hard caches found (15%)

Analysis of file C:\Program Files\GPXSpinner\unfound.gpx

986 caches left to find.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.59

Avg. Terrain = 1.68

Avg. Challenge = 1.87

190 hard caches found (19%)

I'm sorry, but I just could not resist:

Analysis of file NASHVILLE.gpx

500 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.75

Avg. Terrain = 1.58

Avg. Challenge = 1.89

65 hard caches found (13%)

I know. I am a very bad person.

Can we use these numbers to caclulate MCE and UCR's?

/me must be stopid, what is MCE and UCR?

Well, I'm having fun with this, thank you fizzymagic here are the caches I own - I own a lot of 2/2s

69 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 2.09

Avg. Terrain = 2.10

Avg. Challenge = 2.30

10 hard caches found (14%)

Okay, if I'm going to get ANY respect from my fellow geocachers, I must increase the difficulty level ... Thanks Fizzy, this is cool.

Yeah no kidding, where's a sock puppet account when you need it?

Here's ours. I'm so ashamed, how will I ever be able to show my face at an event again.

2486 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.74

Avg. Terrain = 1.54

Avg. Challenge = 1.89

324 hard caches found (13%)

Seriously that's a real neat program.

Here are the caches I hid (include ones I co-hid with other cachers which bring the numbers down a little)

18 Total Caches

Avg. Difficulty 2.39

Avg. Terrain 3.19

Avg. Challenge 3.33

15 Hard Caches (83%)

Edited by tozainamboku

2211 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.88

Avg. Terrain = 1.56

Avg. Challenge = 2.07

477 hard caches found (22%)

I know that some of the oldies caches I've visited are way underrated, but they probably don't influence the overall stats that much.

Thanks, fizzy, for a neat little program. I know a few locals who should try this, since I know at least one who ignores "easy" caches deliberately.

I found this interesting, thanks Fizzy.

"All My Finds"

1584 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.75

Avg. Terrain = 1.70

Avg. Challenge = 1.97

293 hard caches found (18%)

"All My Active Hides"

27 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 2.74

Avg. Terrain = 2.19

Avg. Challenge = 2.87

16 hard caches found (59%)

"500 Closest Caches to Home"

500 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 2.04

Avg. Terrain = 2.04

Avg. Challenge = 2.36

156 hard caches found (31%)

The above would support my informal sense that the caches around my area are generally of good quality, that I try to hide quality caches, and that my long road trips where I concentrated on easy caches tend to pull down my averages quite a bit compared to my caching around home.

Geeez I want to play too. Who is writing the MAC OS X version?

Geeez I want to play too. Who is writing the MAC OS X version?

You're gonna like this: the code is platform-independent. It should compile and run on Mac OS X just fine. I just have to get somebody to actually do it.

Thanks for the cool tool Fizzy!

My Numbers -

1662 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.79

Avg. Terrain = 1.34

Avg. Challenge = 1.88

225 hard caches found (14%)

Not bad for a person who caches with a 4 and a 5 year old on a regular basis.

Friv

Edited by frivlas
Can we use these numbers to caclulate MCE and UCR's?

Those are easy to manipulate if you just observe how the top 50 terracachers play the game.

Just another reason I'll only support TC.com by sponsoring new members and hiding caches. I won't pay anymore.

Back on topic:

I'll hafta score my finds when I get caught up logging.

Edited by Snoogans

993 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.91

Avg. Terrain = 1.64

Avg. Challenge = 2.11

190 hard caches found (19%)

Fun tool! Thanks.

184 caches found.

Avg. Difficulty = 1.74

Avg. Terrain = 1.93

Avg. Challenge = 2.20

50 hard caches found (27%)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
×
• Create New...