Jump to content

Some Pointless Numbers

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

How popular are your cache hides?


Total the sum of all the watchers of all your active caches, then divide by the number of your active caches.


Count all the active caches you have hidden as well as all the active caches where you actually helped hide the container. Count all your caches as well as all of your sock puppet caches. So, any cache that you hid or helped hide.


I’m getting 12.0625 for my active caches.


For the heck of it I averaged my archived ones as well and came up with 1.5416

Link to comment

Going through my active and archived caches, but excluding events I've hosted I've got 17 caches with a total of 100 watchers, bringing us to an average of 5.9 per cache.


The highest is 35 watchers and the lowest are a few with none.


Interesting idea....for pointless numbers.



Link to comment

Average of 1.2 watchers per cache of our 20 active caches. The most watched is a TB trading cache with 4 watchers and many of our caches have no watchers. Only one of our caches is on someone's public bookmark list. As bad as that is, the archived caches fared even worse (though obviously expected that way as they were generally archived in favor of placing better caches) with only 5 watchers across 11 archived caches.


Not really going to win any popularity contests. :D

Link to comment

Interesting. I had to check my own. What I'm looking at is....


Active caches 13

Watchers 39


Average 3 watchers/active cache



Inactive caches 12

Watchers 10


Average .833 watchers/inactive cache



Total caches 25

Watchers 49


Average 1.96 watchers/total caches

Link to comment

63 watchers on 27 active caches=2.33333...


7 watchers on 5 inactive caches=1.4


The odd part is that what I consider best cache only has 1 watcher. Heck, one of my archived caches has 4 watchers. Out of all my caches only 2 have no watchers. 2 caches have 6 watchers each.


Well, that killed a few minutes, now what?

Link to comment

12 watchers on 4 caches = 3 per cache.


I've noticed that as you become more known in your geocaching community, you will tend to have more watchers on your caches. I do have to say that my 4 caches are high quality, well thought out caches though.


(Any way of artificially bumping those numbers up?) J/K :D

Link to comment

Pretty cool idea.


7 caches active with 51 total watchers = 7.28 average per cache

1 cache with 20 watchers.


I found a way to pad my numbers though. I have an event with 28 watchers. Add that in and it boosts my numbers to 9.875 watchers per cache! :D I should have done this when there was 46 watching it!

Link to comment

I really don't understand why anyone would actually want to watch my caches, but they are there!

103 watchers on 19 active caches = 5.42. High of 13 on my webcam, low of 2 on three caches. And! 6 watchers on the archived cache that was muggled twice, and archived when West New York closed the park for an extended period of time for reconstruction.

Link to comment

508 watchers on 27 active caches, for an average count of 18.8 watchers per cache.

Highest is PUC #13, with 110 watchers, followed by PUC #9, with 87 watchers, and PUC #10, with 31 watchers. And then we have a couple of caches, such as Lake Shore One and Point 28 Zero, both in a not-very-traveled rural state park, each with one watcher only!


It should be noted that the majority of our caches, with the exception of two PUCs and one Sues Puzzle Cache, located in a remote part of south Baltimore, are located rather far from major population centers, and indeed, some are very much in the wilderness.


We have only a few archived caches, and from a quick glance -- as I do not want to bother to do the calculations -- if I included them , the score would drop a bit.


Please excuse me while I go create 600 sock puppet accounts and use them to watchlist each of our caches, thus raising our watchlist count per cache to about 618 watchlisters average! :o:D



Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

I'm getting ready to leave work, so I don't have time to do the full calculation. But as the co-chair of Geowoodstock 5 I'm quite comfortable considering it my cache for the sake of analysis, even though it's 'owned' by the ncgeocacher.org account. I suspect that the 195 user(s) watching this cache would skew my results just a bit. :laughing:


This is a Large cache. :D

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

508 watchers on 27 active caches, for an average count of 18.8 watchers per cache.

You rock! (and in Maryland no less...) :laughing:

Thanks for the kind words! Interestingly, PUC #13, our cache with 110 watchlisters, has only been in existence for a bit over four months, and both that cache and our next-highest watchlisted cache (PUC #9), with 87 watchlisters, are located in very rural areas, far from any large population centers. Even PUC #10, which is located in a little-used county park in what is technically far southern Baltimore, is located many miles from the actual city of Baltimore in a rather desolate spot. Same for PUC #8, with 23 watchlisters, located in an even more desolate county park in the extreme southeastern corner of Baltimore.

Link to comment

674 watchers on 64 active caches for an average of 10.53125 watchers per cache.


High = 168 (on the APE cache)

Low = 0 on a couple


The bulk of mine are in remote areas away from major population centers (primarily North Idaho and Northeastern Washington).

Did you count Boulder River? I counted Boulder Falls in mine.


Yep! I counted all active caches that I own outright or was involved in placing.

Link to comment

That's funny, I usually watch the caches that I hate or can't find. I re-visit the pages for caches I like so often anyway that I don't bother watching them.


The only cache I have that made a "favorites" bookmark has never been watched. I'm not sure what relevance watch lists have, since the reasoning could be anything. One guy might have a lot of people watching to see if anyone else complains about it, while another cache might have a lot of watchers because it's really ingenious.

Link to comment

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 link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Followers 0
  • Create New...