Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
zoobum

Point System, Anyone?

Recommended Posts

Don't forget to add the ability of my caches to not be included in anyone's find count. If I don't want to play the smilie game, I don't want my caches playing either.

You can easily keep from adding to other people's find counts. That ability already exists.

 

Just don't hide any!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Don't forget to add the ability of my caches to not be included in anyone's find count. If I don't want to play the smilie game, I don't want my caches playing either.

You can easily keep from adding to other people's find counts. That ability already exists.

 

Just don't hide any!!!

Or, if you must hide them, just don't list them on any site where people don't play the way you like.

Share this post


Link to post
So you weren’t posting tongue-in cheek? You were serious about intentionally causing people’s find counts to be false and inaccurate?

 

Or are you saying that you are no longer bothered by bogus loggers who intentionally cause their own find counts to be false and inaccurate?

Dude, where the heck have you been? I've long said my own find count is false and inaccurate! I've posted numerous times that I've found caches that I've not bothered to log for various reasons but mostly because they're weren't worth it.

 

...and you're saying I've been saying that everyone's find count must be accurate? That's weird. Where have I said that? Can you point to a post?

 

I don't give a darn about someone's count being accurate. See my posts on the subject of false logs and you'll note the post I made from which you lifted that quote says nothing about find count--now, does it. My distaste for bogus logs has nothing to do with a find count being accurate. Can you point to a post that says otherwise?

 

Why do you feel attacked? I didn’t attack you, Coyote. I only addressed your statement. I simply see an inconsistency in some of the things you’ve said.
You're seeing inconsistencies in comparing apples to oranges while trying to maintain they are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Don't forget to add the ability of my caches to not be included in anyone's find count. If I don't want to play the smilie game, I don't want my caches playing either.
You can easily keep from adding to other people's find counts. That ability already exists.

 

Just don't hide any!!!

Or, if you must hide them, just don't list them on any site where people don't play the way you like.

"If you don't like it then take your ball and go home." Yep, the adult way to settle things.

Share this post


Link to post
...and you're saying I've been saying that everyone's find count must be accurate? That's weird. Where have I said that? Can you point to a post?

 

I don't give a darn about someone's count being accurate.

Duly noted.

 

Good to know you’re not among those who see evil in every bogus log.

 

As I said, the apparent contradiction was surprising. I knew there had to be a better explanation. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Yep, the adult way to settle things.

Adult? As in "mature?" You're right -- maybe we should follow your mature example:

 

If I don't want to play the smilie game, I don't want my caches playing either.

Share this post


Link to post
nope, scoring system still a bad idea.

Agreed.

 

"Scoring system" implies "competition." I am interested in neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Good to know you’re not among those who see evil in every bogus log.

Never have been. I've never seen a problem in someone logging a cache on a different cache page, particularly one of their own, archived caches. There are many instances where this might be the answer to some goof deletes logs to re-use the cache page for another cache, some owner gets a hair up his behind about something and starts deleting legitimate logs, or someone creates an ALR and you don't feel like actually doing the ALR after finding the cache. There are other instances, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Good to know you’re not among those who see evil in every bogus log.

Never have been. I've never seen a problem in someone logging a cache on a different cache page, particularly one of their own, archived caches. There are many instances where this might be the answer to some goof deletes logs to re-use the cache page for another cache, some owner gets a hair up his behind about something and starts deleting legitimate logs, or someone creates an ALR and you don't feel like actually doing the ALR after finding the cache. There are other instances, I'm sure.

Awesome. I'm with you 100%. :laughing:

 

What I find very entertaining is that there seems to be no shortage of folks who disagree with you and me, who seem to abhor our tolerant point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
nope, scoring system still a bad idea.

Agreed.

 

"Scoring system" implies "competition." I am interested in neither.

Maybe we should give everyone that wants this idea a million points right now and let them be the points winners! We could even crown the winners with tupperware tierras! :laughing: Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I have to disagree on a point system. Yes I think it COULD be better than what goes on now which cachers compair sear number of finds, which really isn't a good way to tell.

 

But if you did one based on the terrain and diff ratings all of a sudden we would have a 100,000 5/5's being listed that are nothing more than P&G's. And sadly near my area they are all ready bumping up these ratings to make there "stats" look better. I can no longer PQ out by ratings anymore and looking for more challenging caches. :rolleyes: I've actually been told when I questions a 3 terrain that was just crossing a small ditch on the side of the road, that yes it's worth that. :lol:

 

I did a 4/5 the other day and was in and out in less than a hour and was kind of disappointed. I wanted the challenge, but I guess to each there own.

Share this post


Link to post

Want a point system? Thats what CacheStats is for. Then you can start up your own elitist site based on those scores. And then like another site that will remain nameless, you will have users start telling people that they can't have an opinion because they don't have enough points regardless of their real life experience.

That being said, I wouldn't mind a DNF counter that not only increments but decrements once I do find. I could learn to be happy with just incrementing.

Share this post


Link to post

I would prefer to see something chance-based, something haphazard, something totally unrelated to effort or seniority or experience – like a lottery, or something along the lines of the five golden tickets randomly hidden in the Wonka bars.

 

Maybe Jeremy could program the website to choose an online log at random once every six months or so, and then mail that person a cookie. Then we'd finally have an official winner to congratulate, and everyone else could stop worrying about scores and comparisons and cheating and how other people cache.

 

I don't think his lawyer's would be too keen fighting a lawsuit from the diabetic cacher who ate the cookie and whose health faultered as a result, do you?

 

What if Oprah wins and she falls off her diet?

 

What if the cookie was one the cacher didn't like, or wasn't big enough to share, even though it arrived hot, from the oven, and his 3 kids brought it to him and he wouldn't break it into four sections?

 

A cookie? What about a free month of Premium Membership on geocaching.com? Wouldn't that be more fitting? I think a cookie would tend to become stale in the mail. Just my thinking!

_______________________________________

 

To address the original poster: How would you assign points? How would you determine that the ratings used on the cache found were "appropriate?" That difficult to do now, considering the *guidelines* or lack thereof, and people disregarding the unofficial method widely in use?

 

There are cachers out there who hide a cache along a rocky road, suggest that you take a Jeep or similar vehicle to arrive at the cache, and who rate the terrain as a 5.0 because of "special equipment" when you could just as easily walked the road for ten minutes, found the cache, and walked back out. He rates his cache as a 5.0. I rate it as a 1.5. You want to assign points based on the terrain rating? IF we had consistency in the system, we wouldn't need an additional points incentive, would we?

 

Have you ever repainted a surface that wasn't prepared for painting the first time it was done, only to find, after you repaint it, that it peels, bubbles, and cracks after a few months? I think this is similar to applying a new points system overtop of an old rating system and expecting rational results. GREAT IDEA, but you need a clean surface in which to apply your new paint. Until then, you'll have to live with peeling paint.

Share this post


Link to post

It's funny how there is now a scoring system on how "Favorite" a cache is. So, I was on to something!!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, zoobum said:

It's funny how there is now a scoring system on how "Favorite" a cache is. So, I was on to something!!!!

 

Not really, you said...

 

On 7/19/2008 at 2:36 PM, zoobum said:

I like the amount of finds that you have under your stats and in your account details, but I was thinking of a point system also.

For instance lets say there is a cache that is difficulty 5 and terrain 5, you should get some high amount of points for that cache due to its difficulty/Terrain along with the find...just an incentive!

Another idea is there is a cache that no one has found in like a year, you go there and find it, high points again for such a long time with out a find on that cache.

And just one more for thought, there is a cache that has three dnf's and no maintenance on the cache you go out and find the cache...yes more points for you cus of the many dnf's.

 

Your idea was based on "points" to be rated by scale (D/T,  "lonely",  and the never able to be accurate "found after many DNFs").

There's actually another location game that does just that.  :)

 - But favorite points are on caches, not "points" for COs, and are simply a way to track and share the geocaches that the finder enjoyed the most.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/12/2020 at 12:05 PM, cerberus1 said:

... are simply a way to track and share the geocaches that the finder enjoyed the most 

 

IMHO most of the purpose was lost, because these days many Favorites are just a way to flag FTFs. :(

Edited by RuideAlmeida
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

 

IMHO most of the purpose was lost, because these days many Favorites are jus a way to flag FTFs. :(

Maybe because they enjoy being FTF, so they add a fav point to a cache they like the most (i.e.. found first)?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, The Jester said:

...so they add a fav point to a cache they like the most (i.e.. found first)?

 

That can also be a lousy cache... thus the original purpose of the feature (to flag quality caches for others to visit) is lost.

Share this post


Link to post

Now you're switching reasons - are Fav Points for "quality caches" or "caches enjoyed the most"?  I've enjoyed "lousy caches" due to other reasons - FTF, views, journey, etc. - but can't add a Fav because it's not "quality"?  And who defines "quality"?  I've found a few LPC's that were "quality" (due to setting or views) but others will never admit a LPC can be anything but junk.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

thus the original purpose of the feature (to flag quality caches for others to visit) is lost.

If this was the purpose then they should have given the system another name.

 

However this is what was in the announcement when Favourite Points were introduced

Quote

Geocaching Favorites is a simple way to track and share the caches that you enjoyed the most.

 

So it would seem perfectly acceptable to give an FP to an FTF cache if it was a cache you enjoyed the most, irrespective of the state/quality of the cache itself.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

However this is what was in the announcement when Favourite Points were introduced

 

In the meanwhile... also say this "Award a Favorite point to exceptional caches when you log your “Find".

 

PS: Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Monty Phyton... "let's call it a draw!" :D

Edited by RuideAlmeida

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RuideAlmeida said:

 

That can also be a lousy cache... thus the original purpose of the feature (to flag quality caches for others to visit) is lost.

 

Most of my FPs have been about the journey to GZ and the location rather than the quality of the container. My most recent FP was on a cache in the Watagan Mountains close to the ridge-top road but I converted it into a T4 hike by starting 400 metres lower down in the valley. It took me half a day to complete and most of my log is about the journey, not the stock-standard Sistema box at the end of it:

 

Quote

Found itFound it

02/10/2020

When hiking the Great North Walk in 2017, I decided not to make the kilometre each way detour to find this one as it was a pretty long hike as it was, so it's been nagging me as unfinished business ever since. On seeing it back in action after the fire closures, and with another fire season approaching, I decided it had better be sooner rather than later.

 

Having been somewhat underwhelmed by a bunch of "numbers" caches I did earlier in the week, I started looking around for a good hiking one and decided I'd try making this one into a terrain 4 by walking up the GNW from the Congewai Road West trackhead. With a nice sunny day and temperatures in the low 20s forecast, I headed off after my morning coffee and began my hike at about 10:30. I was going to see if I could park where the walking track leaves Eglinford Lane but the area is festooned with No Parking signs so I retreated to Congewai Road and added an extra half a kilometre each way to my hike.

 

On my previous hike through here, I'd been going the other way so it had been mostly down, but this time the road goes ever up and up was the song in my head. First a gentle climb, then a mountain-goat climb, then switch-backs and finally rock steps. At one point the track levelled out with valley views opening up and I thought I was nearing the top, but the GNW did a ninety degree left turn to go up an even steeper incline.

 

Finally I caught a glimpse of the comms tower and it wasn't too far away, so my spirits lifted as I made the final ascent and stopped for some well-earned water. Then it was off north along Cabans Road for another kilometre or so until I reached GZ where fortunately it didn't take long for me to find the cache.

 

After soaking up the views through the trees and drinking more water, I headed back the way I'd come, passing a goanna sunning itself on the road. Just before the saddle point a power line descends into the valley, offering a better view of what's down below. Maybe this could be a good spot for another Team737 cache.

 

I finally reached the car just after 3pm, sore, weary and with tenderised soles but so glad I did this one the hard way. The hike was just what I needed! I arrived back home a bit before sunset so was able to duck down to the beach to soak in the surf. Bliss!

 

Many thanks Samuel and Lee for getting this one back up, particularly when it looked like being archived. They say the journey's as important as the destination and that was certainly the case today, so have a favourite point for an adventure I'll long remember as one of the classic journeys and destinations.

 

Everyone else has done that one the "proper" way by driving in along the ridge and walking the fifty metres or so from the road up to GZ, so my FP is in no way a recommendation for others seeking "quality caches". It's simply because that was one of my favourite geocaching adventures.

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

...rather than the quality of the container.

 

My "lousy" refers to a given overall cache experience. Not specifically the container.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RuideAlmeida said:

In the meanwhile... also say this "Award a Favorite point to exceptional caches when you log your “Find".

 

Exceptional, to you, as the finder.  That's not a recommendation by the person awarding the FP to recommend it to anyone else.  An exceptional cache could mean lots of different things to different cachers.  While an accumulation of FPs might indicate a potentially better experience than one that hasn't accumulated any, there's no guarantee that those FPs mean you'll enjoy the cache or find it exceptional like those that awarded favorite points.

 

I'll typically keep higher FP caches when traveling to a new area but many of the ones I've found with higher FP numbers aren't exceptional and I wouldn't recommend them to other cachers.  That being said, there certainly have been some (but less than the previous kind) that are FP worthy and are both exceptional and ones that I would recommend.  For example, when in Sedona, AZ a couple springs ago, I found two caches from the same CO, both with high FP points and really enjoyed one (and gave it a FP) and would recommend it to anyone visiting the area, but didn't enjoy the other one nearly as much.  While it was still a nice cache, it wasn't as enjoyable or as extraordinary and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone that was visiting.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Exceptional, to you, as the finder.  That's not a recommendation by the person awarding the FP to recommend it to anyone else.  An exceptional cache could mean lots of different things to different cachers.  While an accumulation of FPs might indicate a potentially better experience than one that hasn't accumulated any, there's no guarantee that those FPs mean you'll enjoy the cache or find it exceptional like those that awarded favorite points.

 

Yes. The terrain 4.5 cache I did for my 1000th milestone has 10 FPs from its 13 finds since it was hidden in 2014, but it's not one I'd recommend to most cachers. It's a tough full day hike out there and back, best done as a group as it's mostly through rugged trackless country, but if that's your thing it's a great cache. Conversely, the caches with the most FPs in this state are the ones in tourist hot-spots around Sydney Harbour, like the MKH in a guardrail on the walkway above the ferry wharf that has 158 FPs.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

An exceptional cache could mean lots of different things to different cachers.

 

Sure.

Of course exceptional in a broad meaning can apply to almost anything we like, but in a common sense means unusually good, outstanding, not normal.

But let's also think that we can search for caches by Favorites and on the search page we can set the listing by Favorites amount.

Should we consider it as a way to see how many FTFs a cache have, by instance? Well, in a group caching may have a bunch... :)

I think not... and probably so HQ.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, zoobum said:

It's funny how there is now a scoring system on how "Favorite" a cache is. So, I was on to something!!!!

 

FWIW some guy created a competing system around 2005, if I had to guess.   I liked it because it allowed virtuals which geocaching stopped approving.  That was all I wanted out of it.  But there was this scoring system much like you spoke of.  To me it turned me off of the whole thing.

 

BTW, I'm pretty sure it was called Waymarking but I don't know if the current Waymarking is related or not.  [edit: it is the same thing because one of my old ones is still on there.]

Edited by SamLowrey
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RuideAlmeida said:

 

IMHO most of the purpose was lost, because these days many Favorites are jus a way to flag FTFs. :(


With only one FTF (ok, at most a few FTFs) per cache, even if every one of those FTFs resulted in a FP, is that really going to skew things badly?

 

And as for ‘these days’, my reasons for FP’ing a cache haven’t changed since FPs were introduced.  For me, it’s always been about the overall experience, and the bonus of an FTF (or even a close second) has often added to that experience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

And as for ‘these days’, my reasons for FP’ing a cache haven’t changed since FPs were introduced.  For me, it’s always been about the overall experience, and the bonus of an FTF (or even a close second) has often added to that experience.

 

Yeah, looking through the 124 caches I've given FPs to, only 8 were FTFs and none of those were favourited because I got FTF, they were just great experiences and would have got FPs regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

With only one FTF (ok, at most a few FTFs) per cache, even if every one of those FTFs resulted in a FP, is that really going to skew things badly?

That depends on how many premium members share that FTF (and give an FP to their FTFs).

 

Oops, wrong thread...

Share this post


Link to post

I do see the similarity with FP trying to gauge the worthiness of the cache. Though honestly I think it is a false correlation and more causation. For instance GC12 it a bucket in the woods, when I found it was a bucket with 5 gallons of water in it. The hike was unremarkable so I did not favorite it. But as pointed out the tourists seem to give it a favorites point because they are remembering the journey and I get that and many of us do exactly that. 

 

My last favorite given was Friday, I played hooky from work as my kids had off school. We hiked 2 miles in and 2 miles out, the final .25 miles was rough going through a ravine to get to an abandoned car at the bottom a steep hill 4/4 rating. It was a great experience with my kids and an awesome destination I've wanted to do for years now. It does have a 48% favorited rating :) 

 

So my point is favorites are mostly for the people giving them, sometimes it is for the cache and sometimes it is both. You will never know which. Now one of my caches I do have a 53% favorited rating with 12 favorites which does make me smile.If I go to Hawaii and find one cache I'll probably give it a favorite point so I remember the experience even if a LPC

 

 

Below is my stats on most favorited finds and my opinions only:

GCCode  Cache nameTypeLocationFP

GCK25B    Geocaching HeadquartersGroundspeak HQUnited States Washington4942 (41%).  - HQ Fun experience, a tourist draw for sure, glad I did it 

GCGV0P.   Original Stash Tribute PlaqueTraditional CacheUnited States Oregon4003 (47%)      - Tourist draw, glad I did it

GC2AD97  HQGT: Chairy TreeTraditional CacheUnited States Washington3094 (48%)                   - Tourist draw one of the better HQGT, glad I did it cool hide

GC1169     Mission 9: Tunnel of LightProject APE CacheUnited States Washington2078 (49%).   - Awesome tourist draw, never seen so many cachers, 2 mile hike through a old tunnel glad I did it

GC20Y24.  HQGT: Troll DroppingsTraditional CacheUnited States Washington1732 (23%).          - HQGT, nice cool crazy sculpture , tourists

GC3Z3PE.  HQGT: Geo Post OfficeLetterbox HybridUnited States Washington1655 (29%)          - HQGT, my least favorite cache trash all over it kids did not want to touch the cache

GC92.         Un-Original StashTraditional CacheUnited States Oregon1618 (23%)                               - Another tourist draw just up the hill from the plaque gets a lot of traffic and an oldie

GC4B84C. HQGT: Within ReachUnknown CacheUnited States Washington1403 (23%).               - HQGT I honestly don't remember this one

GC12.        GC12 5/12/2000Traditional CacheUnited States Oregon1372 (52%)                     - Bucket in the woods, GC17 is soooooo much better if a clear day with views of MT Hood. GC16 might have been burned this summer area still closed 

GCW6EM. DR. Who.Traditional CacheUnited States Oregon1297 (74%)                                                - Cool gadget cache has become a tourist draw on its own with folks visiting the original stash.

 

 

Now back to OP - All the numbers you see on the web pages is and should be exclusively for the cacher not as a competition between cachers in my opinion. Besides your request is already there:

 

Average Difficulty: 2.03

Average Terrain: 1.83

 

Since these numbers barely move for me now I pretty much ignore them. I choose caches based upon what I want to do that day not how they affect my stats.

 

The alternative is one of the "stars" challenges which do exist. Find 100 stars in a day GC2XJPW, Find 5,000 stars total. You get the point. Not sure if they qualify now or not.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Below is my stats on most favorited finds and my opinions only:

 

Back in April when we were in pretty much total lockdown here, one of the local Facebook groups got us to post pictures of the most favourite of our favourited caches. The one I nominated was GC5K9KJ on Lord Howe Island. I did this 5-stage multi in 2016 as my 500th find and loved every minute of its loop walk around the island's northern ridgeline. A bit surprising to see it only has 6 FPs from 23 finds, which just goes to show that favourites are very much a personal thing and really not much of a recommendation for others.

 

GC5K9KJ.jpg.7ae26c694f473d8beaf138946a6fdb2b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is an activity. Not a game.  Never was intended to be anything else.

Feel free to score yourself and others however you want and allow others to be left out of a scoring system if they want.

The more people have tried to keep track of "scores" the more the quality of this activity has eroded.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...