Cacher Of The Month 2006

[+adambro]

Cacher of the Month

The Cacher of the Month 2006 competition website (http:/www.aebrookes.co.uk/cotm) is now accepting registrations online for new users. So if you haven't taken part before, you should be able to sign up now. I will be checking that users have inputted their GC.com username correctly before enabling their accounts but this shouldn't take very long and I will let you know when its done. Then you will be able to log in and submit your results.

 

I would also like to remind everyone that the last date of entries is the 15th. Results will be available on the 16th.

 

As always, if you have any problems, let me know and I will get it sorted.

 

Adam

[+adambro]

Just another reminder that the deadline for results is the 15th.

 

There are some users that have registered but haven't validated their email address, this might be because you haven't received the registration email. Please let me know if you've registered but not had an email.

[+adambro]

Deadline is fast approaching, had a good number of new users this month but some of the old timers are missing, entries via email to me are still welcome if people don't want to use the web form.

 

Also, if you have registered but not validated your email address, I will be in touch shortly. I understand this might be because your email provider has blocked the registration email.

[+adambro]

Today is the last day for entries, results will be published sometime tomorrow.

[+adambro]

bump

[+adambro]

Not long now.

[+Mr'D]

Not long now then!

[+adambro]

Nope

[+adambro]

The results for January 2006 are now online!

 

http://www.aebrookes.co.uk/cotm/index.php

[+The Bolas Heathens]

Good work Adam

 

Some people have moved on average 1 or even 2 TB's per cache visited in the month. I only every see a TB in about every 3 or 4 caches so do not have a hope of ever catching that up (unless I go from TB hotel to TB hotel all the time and move the entire contents).

 

I'm certainly not doubting the stats but am very curious (and competitive, which means we need to work this one out to have a hope of replicating it)

Edited February 16, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

[+Moote]

Very interesting stats.

 

I'm still trying to figure out some of the stats. Some people have moved on average 1 or even 2 TB's per cache visited in the month. I only every see a TB in about every 3 or 4 caches so do not have a hope of ever catching that up (unless I go from TB hotel to TB hotel all the time and move the entire contents).

 

I'm certainly not doubting the stats but am very curious (and competitive, which means we need to work this one out to have a hope of replicating it)

I think the problem is that too much emphasis is placed on TB's, i.e. TB's get far too many points, it would make greater sence to just give TB's logged 1 point (coins logged at events etc) and TB's moved 2 points. Also there should be a handicapping on caches, how can a 1/1 compete with points of a 5/5? all seems to be about quantity and not quality!

 

Think that is another reason I will not be doing this version of Cacher of the month

[+Stuey]

Very interesting stats.

 

I'm still trying to figure out some of the stats. Some people have moved on average 1 or even 2 TB's per cache visited in the month. I only every see a TB in about every 3 or 4 caches so do not have a hope of ever catching that up (unless I go from TB hotel to TB hotel all the time and move the entire contents).

 

I'm certainly not doubting the stats but am very curious (and competitive, which means we need to work this one out to have a hope of replicating it)

 

Wow, 76th for me this month, haha. Having said that, I found as many caches as Pengy&Tigger did last month when they came third but they also moved 77 TB's and released 33TB's last month. Nothing against P&T of course, I'm just interested like the Bolas Heathens and giving an example. I have no idea how anyone can move 153 TB's in a month. I've seen less than 200 in 3 years.

[+The Hokesters]

Any ideas why our stats aren't there Adam? I definitely submitted online on 2nd or 3rd Feb (I think).

 

Simon from The Hokesters...

[+The Bolas Heathens]

Personally I don't log TB's or coins unless I actually move them - I do have a long list of coins from the Manchester event but I'm not logging them as it does not feel right to me unless I've actually done something with them.

 

Obviously it's up to individuals how they play the game and that's fine, but it could skew the Cacher of the Month results somewhat. Just a comment, not a criticism .

Edited February 16, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

[Nediam]

Well done Adam, thanks for all your time and effort

 

The site looks very good.

 

Need to buck up my ideas a bit and get some more caches under my belt :)

 

(Would it be possible to put a "link" on the column headings to be able to sort them alpha-numerically?)

[+Bud Lightbeer]

My understanding of the COTM rules re TBs is that they must be moved from one cache to another and not just picked up or grabbed briefly at a caching event to count. I will put my hand up to not realising this when submitting my stats a couple of months ago. In that instance, my TB stats will have been overinflated by about 5 . Not a great deal, but for those really competative cachers out there, who I may have beaten during the month concerned, I apologise.

 

And before anyone goes off on one and thinks I'm pointing fingers as well.... I'm not! As far as I'm concerned, I may be the only one who didn't realise this is the way COTM is played.

[+Bud Lightbeer]

PS Well done Adam on a great new site

[+adambro]

Right a few things to comment on. Firstly, to Moote, 'this version' of Cacher of the Month is no different to Deego's, I have used the scoring he set out. It was not be intention to change the competition, just help to see it continue.

 

Now on the TB front, there does seem to be some very high numbers. This might be due to a miss understanding of the rules; for TBs to be logged they must be moved not logged in and out at events etc.

 

I would been keen to hear people's views on the scoring and suggestions on how it may be improved.

 

If people notice any mistakes please let me know and I will amend as appropriate.

 

I have started work on sorting the table columns by different fields but getting the system working was last months priority, this month I will develop such features.

 

The Hokesters: I'm looking into it.

[+The Bolas Heathens]

Fantastic work Adam - well done

 

I don't want any comments I have made above to detract from the excellent job you have done with the site!

[+Moote]

Right a few things to comment on. Firstly, to Moote, 'this version' of Cacher of the Month is no different to Deego's, I have used the scoring he set out. It was not be intention to change the competition, just help to see it continue.

I never did the old CoTM for the same reason's, TB are just an annex of caching it's the caches that count in my opinion.

 

Now on the TB front, there does seem to be some very high numbers. This might be due to a miss understanding of the rules; for TBs to be logged they must be moved not logged in and out at events etc.

 

I have heard of TB's being moved from one cache to another at events to up totals! These never actually go into the cache, a cache is just used as a repository

[+rutson]

Hmmmm.....

 

I happen to have this TB, Geo Dog Pog on my watchlist as it was the first TB I found on my first day of caching.

 

It's now been logged out and into an event last weekend 3/4 times, I'm sturggling to work out what this is achieving. What's most worrying, the owner now (four days later) has no idea where the bug is.

[+adambro]

Ok thanks for clarifying that, well I would welcome suggestions of improvements to the scoring but obviously I would want agreement from participants before I start changing anything.

 

I would urge participants to ensure they are familiar with the rules, like Geocaching, there are no prizes for winning so if people deliberately attempt to interfere with the outcome then it doesn't matter too much but I don't believe this to be going on. If anyone has any doubts about the results then I would ask them to contact me and I will look into it.

Edited February 16, 2006 by adambro

[+Bekandian]

..... like Geocaching, there are now prizes for winning ...

 

Excellent! How come we've not had any geocaching prizes yet?

 

(sometimes typos are great)

Edited February 16, 2006 by Bekandian

[+adambro]

Opps.

[+Alibags]

I thought that TBs picked up and dropped off at events WERE okay, as long as that was the mission of the TB, eg dogs, cars, personal geocoins, but it was no okay if the TB had a mission to move and you just logged it and didn't do so. That was, you could not get points for logging every Tb at an event but you could get points for logging all the coins in a collection, who's mission was to be viewed and logged. I don't mind either way, but I suspect there is some disparity going on by what various cachers are actually doing.

[+rutson]

OK, I'm going to bite.

 

I agree with Alibags that this is how it stands at the moment, and that this was fine when at the average event there were maybe 5 or six personal bugs coins etc.

 

Now with so many personal coin collections, someone could have attended one event, logged all the personal coins, found no caches and come about 5th in the table (if they picked the right event). I don't think that is in the spirit of COTM.

[+adambro]

Right, Alibags has got it right and rutson has identified the loophole.

 

I propose a rule change such that TBs/coins count ONLY if they are moved, any trackables that are not picked up and moved to another cache are not to count. So any logs at events, or items logged in and out to get icons or whatever would not contribute to a users ranking in the COTM tables. This would be regardless of the mission of the item that might say its goal is to be logged by loads of cachers.

 

Any comments?

[+Bekandian]

Excellent, like the new TB rule change

When will it come into effect?

[+adambro]

Depends if people agree with it or not. Power to the people and all that.

[Nediam]

Sounds good to me

[+Bud Lightbeer]

Seems fair to me.

[+Happy Humphrey]

It is worth clarifying this rule, but I thought that it was always in effect;

 

An example...

 

"My stats for the month are:-

 

20 Finds

1 Hides

6 TB Moved

0 TB Released

10 Trigpoints"

 

...note that it's TB MOVED, not found. I've never included any trackable dropoff where it's left at the same cache that I picked it up from. Perhaps this has helped keep me languishing at 76th!

 

HH

Edited February 16, 2006 by Happy Humphrey

[+Moote]

Right, Alibags has got it right and rutson has identified the loophole.

 

I propose a rule change such that TBs/coins count ONLY if they are moved, any trackables that are not picked up and moved to another cache are not to count. So any logs at events, or items logged in and out to get icons or whatever would not contribute to a users ranking in the COTM tables. This would be regardless of the mission of the item that might say its goal is to be logged by loads of cachers.

 

Any comments?

What about the TB at an event which rotates between 2 or 3 caches near the event, even though it has not been near the cache. If a TB was only awarded 1 point then it would stop the outweighing of peoples scores and get back to finding boxes.

 

As for caches how can doing 10 caches of 1/1 match someone doing 10 of 5/5?

[+The Hokesters]

I propose a rule change such that TBs/coins count ONLY if they are moved...

 

Ermm - isn't that why Deego called it TB's Moved? I thought in order to log a TB count in COTM you actually had to move it from one cache to another none of this meet fondling business.

 

Of course if I had known I could log TB's I had fondled at a meet to my COTM scores I would have hit the top spot LOADS of times *ahem*

[+Happy Humphrey]

Moote,

As for caches how can doing 10 caches of 1/1 match someone doing 10 of 5/5?

The answer is that it doesn't, of course. I've made this point in the past (when you were still a muggle ). But the problem is that we don't have any tools to analyse the entries in any sophisticated fashion and (not surprisingly) there are no volunteers to trawl through them and award a fair number of points. It's supposed to be a fun league anyway, not necessarily a serious competition!

 

HH

[+HazelS]

Here's my 2 penneth worth...

 

TB's picked up from an event AND THEN PHYSICALLY DRPOOED INTO A CACHE are ok...

 

The main thing I really dislike about this table right now is that someone can have a huge coin collection (and there are lots of cachers towards the top of the table with big numbers in the TB column who DO have lots of coins int heir collection) and they can "relaese them" but only into their own personal coin folder, so that others may log them at events. Now... to me, a column that say TB's moved should be that TB's that MOVED!! Not "coins dropped into my own folder but I'll claim them!!"

 

Just my own bug bear - and I'm not raving about it, as I'll never be top of the shop...just my own Rant ;-)

[markandlynn]

Is it TB's released into a cache or TB's activated?.

[Nediam]

Is it TB's released into a cache or TB's activated?.

 

From Deego's example page it is "TB released"

[+Moote]

Moote,

As for caches how can doing 10 caches of 1/1 match someone doing 10 of 5/5?

The answer is that it doesn't, of course. I've made this point in the past (when you were still a muggle ). But the problem is that we don't have any tools to analyse the entries in any sophisticated fashion and (not surprisingly) there are no volunteers to trawl through them and award a fair number of points. It's supposed to be a fun league anyway, not necessarily a serious competition!

 

HH

So are the results as they stand now checked and looked at to rule out foul play? I thought it was all done on a trust basis, looks like it would be a long job to check the results.

[+Happy Humphrey]

AFAIK it's still on a trust basis. It's self-policing essentially, as anyone that comes top by misrepresenting their stats significantly will soon be found out and pilloried! And if someone cheated a bit and gained a couple of places in this friendly competition - all I can say is...why?

 

HH

[+Moote]

AFAIK it's still on a trust basis. It's self-policing essentially, as anyone that comes top by misrepresenting their stats significantly will soon be found out and pilloried! And if someone cheated a bit and gained a couple of places in this friendly competition - all I can say is...why?

 

HH

So a cache scoring system could work in the same way, in fact I'm sure a simple spreadsheet with import routine could auto score the caches which a user has done that month, (Well at least for Premium Members) by using the PQ of caches found and some filtering

[markandlynn]

We could all just go over to terracaching if reliable stats are what we are after.

COTM has always been just for fun to see where you could come. Deego did some random checks but nothing more.

[+Happy Humphrey]

at least for Premium Members

That looks like a major hitch. But if you're volunteering, I'm sure an automated entry system would be welcomed, as a front-end to Adam's excellent site! Ideally, I'd just like to tick a box to say that I've entered for the month (or for every month) then see my stats appear in the table on the first day of the next month.

 

HH

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

As for caches how can doing 10 caches of 1/1 match someone doing 10 of 5/5?

 

Maybe because to some cachers a 1/1 is the equivalent of a 5/5 to someone else. Please remember people of all ability's go caching. Not just the extremely fit and healthy. By saying that caches with higher difficulty ratings should be awarded more points, is discriminatory against those with disability's!

 

Dave

[NickPick]

I'm not sure about the idea of different points for different levels of difficulty / terrain:

 

With 8 levels of difficulty, and eight levels of terrain (both 1-5 in .5 increments), there will be 64 possible combinations of scoring. (Should it be 1 point for a 1/1 up to 64 for a 5/5?, or should it be the difficulty multiplied by the terrain?

 

If the cacher has to do this themselves, I know that I'd find it a pain having to check the ratings for each cache I've done that month, and add up a score. I find it difficult enough at the moment trying to remember what caches I've done, and there's only usually 2 or 3 for me. I'd pity those mega-cachers who do 100 or more a month.

 

I always thought that COTM was just a bit of fun, and whether the winner did 100 1/1s and the runner up did 99 5/5s was just the way it is. It's a simple scoring mechanism, but it's easy to understand. Perhaps a scoring system similar to olympic figure skating would be better?

[Nediam]

Perhaps a scoring system similar to olympic figure skating would be better?

 

What, one based on favouritism, politics, and backhanders!

 

Back On Topic.....

 

I see COTM as being just a piece of fun, and I'm personally, only interested in seeing how many caches others have done that month. I'm not really bothered about TB's and Trigpoints that much. With regards to the difficulty rating scoring......I've quite often struggled to find a 1*/1* whereas I've found some 5*/5* a doddle!

 

Let's just keep it fun and nice and simple

Edited February 16, 2006 by Nediam

[+adambro]

Perhaps a scoring system similar to olympic figure skating would be better?

 

What, one based on favouritism, politics, and backhanders!

Alll one has to do is to Adam's Beer Fund.

Edited February 16, 2006 by adambro

[+adambro]

PS. I will reply to the other posts properly once I'm home.

[+Stuey]

I propose a rule change such that TBs/coins count ONLY if they are moved, any trackables that are not picked up and moved to another cache are not to count. So any logs at events, or items logged in and out to get icons or whatever would not contribute to a users ranking in the COTM tables. This would be regardless of the mission of the item that might say its goal is to be logged by loads of cachers.

 

Any comments?

 

Agreed.

[Nediam]

Perhaps a scoring system similar to olympic figure skating would be better?

 

What, one based on favouritism, politics, and backhanders!

Alll one has to do is to Adam's Beer Fund.

 

I'd love to make a donation Adam, but your links broken

 

I just keep getting "You have entered unsupported characters for this field. Currently only Western European and Chinese characters are supported. Please try again with different characters."

 

Sorry mate