Introducing the Geocaching Diversity Scoring System!

[Radman Forever]

I know, I know, just another crazy person trying to screw up geocaching with some kind of website that gives the number freaks another number to drool over. Actually, I am trying this out because I want to see the current trend of geocaching spun into a better direction!

 

Boy, am I ranting and getting ahead of myself. Let me show you the website:

 

http://geocachingmaster.homestead.com/index.html

 

In this website is an Excel spreadsheet where you punch in your stats (every stat known to man, I hope) in a column and the points are added up to give you a score. Believe it or not, my intention is not to just give you a score, but to show you how many different ways of geocaching there are out there!

 

There is no competition or game, just a way to reflect on what you have accomplished, what you could still do in geocaching, and to set personal goals for yourself. When I did it myself, seeing a lot of 0's made me realize that going out there and finding the same caches over and over again isn't really fulfilling. I am trying to set goals for myself to spread out and diversify my geocaching experience.

 

The numbers game has been a thorn in many geocaching purists' sides. I decided that we will never defeat it, so why not work it to our advantage? By "giving points" for hard work, finding hard caches, and other rewarding tasks, you can see how much you have enjoyed or missed on all that geocaching brings to the tables. My hope is this just shows whoever uses this scoring system that there is a lot out there that geocaching has to offer and that maybe they will hide some hard caches, throw fun events, or go caching they never thought they would ever go to. It's a long shot, but why not?

 

The whole thing is explained on the website and I am willing to answer questions if you get stumped. I pray this gets taken seriously and it can be made into something worthwhile!

 

I have been posting here for over six years and I know how tough it can be to sell something like this to a group that has been against numbers of almost every kind for a long time. But it won't go away

 

I know that this isn't the best answer to fight the numbers game, and I know many people here don't like being told what to do, but I hope you guys try it out and give it a chance. I discussed this with people in the Michigan Geocaching Organization for a few weeks and I worked hard at setting up a new website and seeing if this stupid thing will work out or not.

 

It was really fun making it and I hope you guys have a few minutes of fun trying it out! Please show your score here and let everybody know if this stupid "scoring system" showed you something new or unexpected!

[+Cuddlefish]

That is really neat - it certainly looks like you put a lot of effort into coming up with this system. I may just try it out - although warning - with only 55 finds, my score is unlikely to be very impressive.

 

I need to hold a few events - that ought to do it!

[+The Leprechauns]

I found that the weights assigned to the various categories necessarily reflected the creator's own personal biases and definition of what is "fun" for him. And that is fine.... for him. Since, for example, I attach relatively low weight to FTF's, event caches, owning trackables, puzzle caches and Wherigo, my index would be different. Conversely, I would include a multiplier for caches that are far from home (my average find is 400 miles away), I would add a line for counties cached (since that is what makes me travel in depth), and I would include a multiplier for caches with a terrain rating of 3 or higher. I would make virtual caches count .5 in the weightings, flipping these with waymarks, which I find more fun to create and seek. I would add a line for the number of challenge caches completed, because I like those. And so on and so forth.

 

The next person would disagree with one or more of my changes, and that's fine too. Maybe they love attending events once each month. Maybe they like benchmarking even more than geocaching, yet benchmarks are discounted to a value of .5 while a guardrail micro scores a full 1.0.

 

Therefore, the index is not useful to me, especially for comparing myself to others. I love statistics and measuring my fun in lots of different ways, but it is MY fun.

[+whistler & co.]

It would be cool if you could add value for each cache found with a kid under the age of 8 in tow (double points if he's too heavy to carry, but too young to hike far!).

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

Mark Twain

[Mr.Yuck]

I found that the weights assigned to the various categories necessarily reflected the creator's own personal biases and definition of what is "fun" for him. And that is fine.... for him. Since, for example, I attach relatively low weight to FTF's, event caches, owning trackables, puzzle caches and Wherigo, my index would be different. Conversely, I would include a multiplier for caches that are far from home (my average find is 400 miles away), I would add a line for counties cached (since that is what makes me travel in depth), and I would include a multiplier for caches with a terrain rating of 3 or higher. I would make virtual caches count .5 in the weightings, flipping these with waymarks, which I find more fun to create and seek. I would add a line for the number of challenge caches completed, because I like those. And so on and so forth.

 

The next person would disagree with one or more of my changes, and that's fine too. Maybe they love attending events once each month. Maybe they like benchmarking even more than geocaching, yet benchmarks are discounted to a value of .5 while a guardrail micro scores a full 1.0.

 

Therefore, the index is not useful to me, especially for comparing myself to others. I love statistics and measuring my fun in lots of different ways, but it is MY fun.

 

Well, I hope you weren't expecting universal praise and adulation, Radman.

 

I'll agree with Lep somewhat, everyone has their own recipe for fun. There are some things on there that are pretty heavily rated that I couldn't give a rats arse about personally. Wherigo (found and hidden) and FTF's come to mind.

 

Not to say it isn't an interesting system that you put a lot of thought and work into, and I like the whole "weighted" concept. I'll put my stuff in and see what happens.

 

There's one very minor thing I'd take issue with: Letterboxing.org containers (hidden and found). As a very casual letterboxer (under 10 found), it's my experience that Atlasquest.com has greatly surpassed Letterboxing.org in popularity. My handful of finds are all logged there. Not that one actually logs on Letterboxing.org. But maybe a more rabid Letterboxer/Geocacher could weigh in there.

[Radman Forever]

I found that the weights assigned to the various categories necessarily reflected the creator's own personal biases and definition of what is "fun" for him. And that is fine.... for him. Since, for example, I attach relatively low weight to FTF's, event caches, owning trackables, puzzle caches and Wherigo, my index would be different. Conversely, I would include a multiplier for caches that are far from home (my average find is 400 miles away), I would add a line for counties cached (since that is what makes me travel in depth), and I would include a multiplier for caches with a terrain rating of 3 or higher. I would make virtual caches count .5 in the weightings, flipping these with waymarks, which I find more fun to create and seek. I would add a line for the number of challenge caches completed, because I like those. And so on and so forth.

 

The next person would disagree with one or more of my changes, and that's fine too. Maybe they love attending events once each month. Maybe they like benchmarking even more than geocaching, yet benchmarks are discounted to a value of .5 while a guardrail micro scores a full 1.0.

 

Therefore, the index is not useful to me, especially for comparing myself to others. I love statistics and measuring my fun in lots of different ways, but it is MY fun.

 

Yikes, talk about cold.

 

Of course it's biased and far from perfect. It can never be anything than that. I will be the first to admit this stupid thing is flawed and not scientific at all. I tried my best and used other people's suggestion until I no longer got any more arguments about the points used over at MiGO. If I just did the points to my advantage, I would've had a way higher score.

 

Points are going to be disagreed upon, people are going to be upset (though this is far from going to set the geocaching world on fire and it is meant for fun), and I never thought this thing would ever be universally accepted, even if it somehow got popular!

 

The point wasn't even who got the high score, the point is to see how many things geocaching has to offer you. A few Michigan geocachers who e-mailed me told me they didn't even hear about Wherigo caches or "There are geocaching-related seminars?" I gave the thing points because people will never look at something unless there is a catch, and I think it is a fair and fun exchange.

 

I know people like playing the game their way, that's the whole fun thing about geocaching! No one can tell YOU or ME how to play this game, I can post this thing out here and you have every God-given right to ignore it. I hope others don't and will give it a try, but if you hate the very reasoning behind it, then I say nay!

 

I hope you won't hate me or my actions too badly Lep. They are good intentions and worth a shot!

 

Radman

[Radman Forever]

Well, I hope you weren't expecting universal praise and adulation, Radman.

 

I'll agree with Lep somewhat, everyone has their own recipe for fun. There are some things on there that are pretty heavily rated that I couldn't give a rats arse about personally. Wherigo (found and hidden) and FTF's come to mind.

 

Not to say it isn't an interesting system that you put a lot of thought and work into, and I like the whole "weighted" concept. I'll put my stuff in and see what happens.

 

There's one very minor thing I'd take issue with: Letterboxing.org containers (hidden and found). As a very casual letterboxer (under 10 found), it's my experience that Atlasquest.com has greatly surpassed Letterboxing.org in popularity. My handful of finds are all logged there. Not that one actually logs on Letterboxing.org. But maybe a more rabid Letterboxer/Geocacher could weigh in there.

 

I know, everybody puts higher emphasis on certain types and ways of geocaching over others, personally, I like locations more than containers.

 

I did actually try to make an effort to base the ratings based on "average" toughness, rarity, challenge, and what it might contribute to the game of geocaching. Of coure it is not perfect, because the people who created it are far from perfect. It's alright, I'll take imperfection any day of the week!

 

How about instead of the name LETTERBOXING.ORG CONTAINERS, I'll write Non-Geocaching.com Letterboxs Found/Hidden? Not as sexy, but it would still work?

[+bflentje]

As a fellow geocacher that likes to build geocaching related websites, I understand your passion and the committment to the work you've done. But I have to admit, as soon as I hear the word diversity, I just want to puke. The word's original meaning means nothing and has more or less become a different term altogether. It has nothing to do with leveling the playing field or the balance of people and has everything to do with number manipulation to help people feel good where it may or may not be merited.

 

Until you lock down your weighting system, this will never be an accurate representation of anything. My caching diversity was about 100,000 when I was done. Looks like I'm in the lead (for now).

[+The Leprechauns]

I never said I "hated" anything or anyone. That's a strong word, and something I don't like to use in connection with Geocaching. I do see where I used the word "love" in my post. I do love geocaching, and setting goals for myself, so I mentioned that.

 

I said that the ranking system is "fine" for the person who developed the methodology. I have my own list of goals (see my profile page) and they are "fine" for me.

 

The rest of my post was an objective explanation of some ways in which my "diversity" index would differ from the one presented.

Edited October 28, 2008 by The Leprechauns

[Mr.Yuck]

Well, I hope you weren't expecting universal praise and adulation, Radman.

 

I'll agree with Lep somewhat, everyone has their own recipe for fun. There are some things on there that are pretty heavily rated that I couldn't give a rats arse about personally. Wherigo (found and hidden) and FTF's come to mind.

 

Not to say it isn't an interesting system that you put a lot of thought and work into, and I like the whole "weighted" concept. I'll put my stuff in and see what happens.

 

There's one very minor thing I'd take issue with: Letterboxing.org containers (hidden and found). As a very casual letterboxer (under 10 found), it's my experience that Atlasquest.com has greatly surpassed Letterboxing.org in popularity. My handful of finds are all logged there. Not that one actually logs on Letterboxing.org. But maybe a more rabid Letterboxer/Geocacher could weigh in there.

 

I know, everybody puts higher emphasis on certain types and ways of geocaching over others, personally, I like locations more than containers.

 

I did actually try to make an effort to base the ratings based on "average" toughness, rarity, challenge, and what it might contribute to the game of geocaching. Of coure it is not perfect, because the people who created it are far from perfect. It's alright, I'll take imperfection any day of the week!

 

How about instead of the name LETTERBOXING.ORG CONTAINERS, I'll write Non-Geocaching.com Letterboxs Found/Hidden? Not as sexy, but it would still work?

 

I think that would work.

 

I did mine. I have no idea where to get my # of logged DNF's. If INATN.com has this stat, I don't know where to find it. I currently do not even have a copy of GSAK.

 

Once you get a whole bunch of people who upoad their number, I'd think a "last updated" date would be a good thing to have.

[Radman Forever]

As a fellow geocacher that likes to build geocaching related websites, I understand your passion and the committment to the work you've done. But I have to admit, as soon as I hear the word diversity, I just want to puke. The word's original meaning means nothing and has more or less become a different term altogether. It has nothing to do with leveling the playing field or the balance of people and has everything to do with number manipulation to help people feel good where it may or may not be merited.

 

Until you lock down your weighting system, this will never be an accurate representation of anything. My caching diversity was about 100,000 when I was done. Looks like I'm in the lead (for now).

 

It's not suppose to represent anything, at least I hope not. The diversity part of the scoring system is just to show you what's out there in geocaching. The score can be high for a person who does the same thing over and over again, I don't thinkI can change it. The point in the name is showing the person the diversity of geocaching, which I mention several times.

 

I did admit my intentions for this, and it isn't just to give people another number. You automatically assumed the worst without taking a second to see or read why, and I don't understand why.

 

The system is, more or less, locked down. Changing a category name to better represent the score does not make it flawed.

 

Your sarcastic tone brings nothing to the table. I understand why you wouldn't like this. Many people here probably won't, because I know how they feel about stuff like this. Again, I have posted here for years and know how things can get ugly. I am hoping that people who might actually give this thing a chance without ripping its "credibility" (which it has none) to bits.

 

I hope it is given a chance.

[Dinoprophet]

I did mine. I have no idea where to get my # of logged DNF's. If INATN.com has this stat, I don't know where to find it. I currently do not even have a copy of GSAK.

Go to your account, show all logs for caches, then show Didn't Find It. Don't manually count the results like I did; the number is right below "My Geocaching Logs (Filtered by Log Type)"

[+nittany dave]

I have to agree with The Leprechauns. I don't place the same values on many of the items in the list. I don't need to diversify my caching style into areas/types that don't really interest me. If we all change the multipliers to suit our own tastes then there is no meaningful comparison to others possible - not that I want such a comparison. If I'm having fun, I know it.

 

Other than giving a final number that doesn't mean much to me personally, I don't see how it shows me the "holes" in my diversity any better than looking at the Geocaches tab on my profile page does or running one of the GSAK macros that give me more statistics than I know what to do with.

 

It is an interesting concept, but trying to compare experiences of people who have different interests and geocache for different reasons is a difficult task. Good luck though.

[Radman Forever]

To each their own! The people who are content with their geocaching lifestyle would find little interest in this, maybe just a little amusement at the most. I am hoping to reach people who get bored to death by finding the same caches over and over again and this might be a way to show them that there is more out there than the run-of-the-mill micro.

 

The final number wouldn't show you your diversity, the number of 0's in the column you enter your information in would be the eye-opener for some. At least, that's what I am hoping for.

 

Thank you for the nice response Nittany Dave! Penn State will get to the championship when Texas loses to Texas Tech!

[+The Leprechauns]

If you truly just want to show what's out there in the way of "diversity" in GPS gaming, why not just make a list of 100 non-standard things to do in order to have fun? Some, I will try and like. Others, I'll try a few times and move along to something I like better. But I'll try anything once!

 

Find a cache without a GPS.

Find 100 caches in a single day.

Complete your state's DeLorme Challenge.

Find the cache closest to your state or country's highest point.

Find a benchmark that hasn't been recovered for more than 50 years.

Spend a day caching without turn-by-turn directions.

Find a cache that requires using a compass.

Take a kid geocaching for the first time.

Donate your old GPS to a school program.

See how many states, counties or other political subdivisions you can cache in one day or one week.

Cache hard for one month, but without seeking a single microcache.

Spend one month finding nothing BUT puzzle caches.

Find all 81 caches needed to complete your "Fizzy Grid."

Send or leave a valuable geocoin as an anonymous gift for someone who deserves it.

Find the 10 oldest surviving caches in your state, province or country - no matter how far away they are.

Find the cache within 100 miles of you that has gone the longest without being found.

 

All of these are potentially fun. Some are harder for some people than for others. Each ought to be weighted with a count of "1." None are on the spreadsheet.

[Radman Forever]

If you truly just want to show what's out there in the way of "diversity" in GPS gaming, why not just make a list of 100 non-standard things to do in order to have fun? Some, I will try and like. Others, I'll try a few times and move along to something I like better. But I'll try anything once!

 

Find a cache without a GPS.

Find 100 caches in a single day.

Complete your state's DeLorme Challenge.

Find the cache closest to your state or country's highest point.

Find a benchmark that hasn't been recovered for more than 50 years.

Spend a day caching without turn-by-turn directions.

Find a cache that requires using a compass.

Take a kid geocaching for the first time.

Donate your old GPS to a school program.

See how many states, counties or other political subdivisions you can cache in one day or one week.

Cache hard for one month, but without seeking a single microcache.

Spend one month finding nothing BUT puzzle caches.

Find all 81 caches needed to complete your "Fizzy Grid."

Send or leave a valuable geocoin as an anonymous gift for someone who deserves it.

Find the 10 oldest surviving caches in your state, province or country - no matter how far away they are.

Find the cache within 100 miles of you that has gone the longest without being found.

 

All of these are potentially fun. Some are harder for some people than for others. Each ought to be weighted with a count of "1." None are on the spreadsheet.

 

You can't get them all!

[CoyoteRed]

Whatever happened to enjoying the mere act of being outside and enjoying seeking a cache for sheer joy of it? No smilies, no counts, no goals, no metrics.

 

I do like some of Lep's ideas, especially the ones that focus on the cache and not a metric.

[Radman Forever]

Whatever happened to enjoying the mere act of being outside and enjoying seeking a cache for sheer joy of it? No smilies, no counts, no goals, no metrics.

 

I do like some of Lep's ideas, especially the ones that focus on the cache and not a metric.

 

Man, I do miss those days, but they are sadly long gone. People are driven by numbers and this is just an attempt to use numbers to get people to hide better caches, throw fantastic events, or go find a fun hard cache.

 

People want instant gratification, so you have to use that in order to see positive changes, whatever they are.

 

I'm naive, but I know this won't rock the world. And it probably isn't a great way to get them to do it. I'm just hoping that people will fill the spreadsheet out, see a few things they haven't tried yet, and go out and do it. If that happens, then I am happy.

 

Sorry if I seem to be responding to every comment, I'm bored at work and I just really want this to work. I will defend it as well as I can and hope that some people will come to like it.

 

I am so noble...

[+bflentje]

Your sarcastic tone brings nothing to the table. I understand why you wouldn't like this. Many people here probably won't, because I know how they feel about stuff like this. Again, I have posted here for years and know how things can get ugly. I am hoping that people who might actually give this thing a chance without ripping its "credibility" (which it has none) to bits.

 

I hope it is given a chance.

 

I wasn't being sarcastic, you took it the wrong way. My point was two-fold.

 

1 - Diversity is a word that makes my skin crawl. Not because of a dislike for any one group or culture. But diversity is a fact of life and it constantly gets crammed down our throat to make people feel good/bad at the expense of others. Obviously not relevant to your site, it was just a side comment.

 

2 - The real point was, it seemed to me, however incorrectly, that the weights are something anyone can modify. You use the spreadsheet and then upload your score. Maybe integrate the entire thing within the site and dispense with the spreadsheet idea.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Interesting.....I got a 6901.

[Radman Forever]

Your sarcastic tone brings nothing to the table. I understand why you wouldn't like this. Many people here probably won't, because I know how they feel about stuff like this. Again, I have posted here for years and know how things can get ugly. I am hoping that people who might actually give this thing a chance without ripping its "credibility" (which it has none) to bits.

 

I hope it is given a chance.

 

I wasn't being sarcastic, you took it the wrong way. My point was two-fold.

 

1 - Diversity is a word that makes my skin crawl. Not because of a dislike for any one group or culture. But diversity is a fact of life and it constantly gets crammed down our throat to make people feel good/bad at the expense of others. Obviously not relevant to your site, it was just a side comment.

 

2 - The real point was, it seemed to me, however incorrectly, that the weights are something anyone can modify. You use the spreadsheet and then upload your score. Maybe integrate the entire thing within the site and dispense with the spreadsheet idea.

 

Thank you for clarifying and sorry for taking your words out of context!

 

That's why there's no ranking system, no winners, I will not hand prizes out, nor will I give big congrats to someone who has a really high score. I list them on the site, but only in the order from which they are submitted and will be updated at the person's request.

 

I acknowledged that people can manipulate the numbers to their advantage, but I will try to make this score so irrevelant to competition that they will only be cheating themselves out of finding out their true number. The only competition of any kind that I want is for a geocacher to compete with themselves.

 

Can they hide a few different types of caches?

 

Want to help out at a CiTO event?

 

Winsconsin is a really nice state, want to go geocaching there when we get some extra money?

 

Doing these things only help yourself, which is what this score is meant for and nothing else.

 

Find a cache without a GPS.

Find 100 caches in a single day.

Complete your state's DeLorme Challenge.

Find the cache closest to your state or country's highest point.

Find a benchmark that hasn't been recovered for more than 50 years.

Spend a day caching without turn-by-turn directions.

Find a cache that requires using a compass.

Take a kid geocaching for the first time.

Donate your old GPS to a school program.

See how many states, counties or other political subdivisions you can cache in one day or one week.

Cache hard for one month, but without seeking a single microcache.

Spend one month finding nothing BUT puzzle caches.

Find all 81 caches needed to complete your "Fizzy Grid."

Send or leave a valuable geocoin as an anonymous gift for someone who deserves it.

Find the 10 oldest surviving caches in your state, province or country - no matter how far away they are.

Find the cache within 100 miles of you that has gone the longest without being found.

 

The Leps did give me an idea if this website does catch on, and not just become another fad. Why not list some challenges that people can set for themselves? The website can be used as a platform if enough people go to it.

 

Maybe accept user submissions and list how some of these challenges were met?

 

Could be a good way of seeing if geocaching can be more than just the numbers!

[+J-Way]

I got a 1476 with 497 finds after 1.75 years.

 

To agree with the others here, the "multipliers" are personally subjective and if I were doing them I would assign different values to different "activities". But as a starting point, your multipliers are as good as anyone else's. And since it's your web site and you wrote the spreadsheet, you get to set the numbers.

 

I will, however, throw in a couple of opinions:

- You specifically singled out one non-Groundspeak website, "letterboxing.org" (waymarks are still part of Groundspeak). If you're going to include one competing site you need to include them all. The other main letterboxing site, "atlasquest.com", has already been mentioned. Two other main sites should also be included: navicache.com and terracaching.com. Personally, I'm not involved with Navicaching, but I'd rate Terracache physical finds as at least 6 points on your scale and Locationless finds as about 2 points. Since other people will probably chime in with other sites that should be added, ultimately, you'll probably be better off to ONLY include geocaching.com stats (or maybe waymarks).

 

- You appear to make the assumption that people who use your spreadsheet are based in the USA. Europe has a VERY active caching community.

[Radman Forever]

I got a 1476 with 497 finds after 1.75 years.

 

To agree with the others here, the "multipliers" are personally subjective and if I were doing them I would assign different values to different "activities". But as a starting point, your multipliers are as good as anyone else's. And since it's your web site and you wrote the spreadsheet, you get to set the numbers.

 

I will, however, throw in a couple of opinions:

- You specifically singled out one non-Groundspeak website, "letterboxing.org" (waymarks are still part of Groundspeak). If you're going to include one competing site you need to include them all. The other main letterboxing site, "atlasquest.com", has already been mentioned. Two other main sites should also be included: navicache.com and terracaching.com. Personally, I'm not involved with Navicaching, but I'd rate Terracache physical finds as at least 6 points on your scale and Locationless finds as about 2 points. Since other people will probably chime in with other sites that should be added, ultimately, you'll probably be better off to ONLY include geocaching.com stats (or maybe waymarks).

 

- You appear to make the assumption that people who use your spreadsheet are based in the USA. Europe has a VERY active caching community.

 

Everybody would do something different on the scoring part, we'll never get a clear agreement on that. This is not to say my scoring system is the law of the land. I did get a number of people's opinions before doing this, but it will never be to everyone's satisfaction.

 

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Navicache and Terracaches would pretty much be included in the categories like geocaching.com. Navicaches that are regular caches would = traditional, multi-part would equal multi-cache, and Terracaching, which I admit I have no idea how they categorize their caches, would be the same. I will mention that when I update the site a little later. This is at the person's discretion and decision. The only thing I would say is don't count the same cache twice, even if it is located on Navicache and Geocaching.com.

 

Europe, Asia, and everyone else can do this! If I was from the Germany the states like Hamburg and Lower Saxony would count as equal to American states, and foreign countries would be any country not including the country you live in. That's why you can't compare the score to anyone but yourself, because location, availability of geocaches, and other things make this impossible to be equal worldwide.

[+9Key]

I got a 7030 (its slow at work today). Too bad I haven't found or hidden a Wherigo or I'd have a bunch more points.

 

It would be cool if you could build this as a web application and let cachers add their own categories and rating calculations. Of course you'd never compare apples to apples that way.

[+J-Way]

Europe, Asia, and everyone else can do this! If I was from the Germany the states like Hamburg and Lower Saxony would count as equal to American states, and foreign countries would be any country not including the country you live in. That's why you can't compare the score to anyone but yourself, because location, availability of geocaches, and other things make this impossible to be equal worldwide.

Well said, and it appears as if I mis-interpreted your original intent.

 

Terracaches do have "categories" (classic=traditional, virtual, offset=multi, etc.), but there isn't any real way to sort on types. You could add points based on number of traditional finds, number of locationless finds, traditional TPS score, locationless TPS score, and UCR. But ultimately I think the best solution would be to keep it Groundspeak-only unless you familiarize yourself with ALL the other caching sites.

[Mr.Yuck]

I did mine. I have no idea where to get my # of logged DNF's. If INATN.com has this stat, I don't know where to find it. I currently do not even have a copy of GSAK.

Go to your account, show all logs for caches, then show Didn't Find It. Don't manually count the results like I did; the number is right below "My Geocaching Logs (Filtered by Log Type)"

 

I figured I might be able to do that. But I was really hoping INATN.com could do it, and I'm sure the GSAK macros can. This is because after doing it that way, I came up with 265!! That's even if I counted correctly, which is unlikely. So up my score by 265, please.

[+SquamLoon]

First of all, Radman Forever, kudos for putting yourself out there, and I think you're onto something.

 

Personally, to me the 867 I got doesn't do anything for me: you're right that the very act of filling in (or not filling in) the blanks was the meaningful part of the exercise.

 

Since that's the case, then—since what you're trying to create is a tool for discriminating the degree of diversity of an individual cacher—would it be possible, along with computing a single total number that some might value (although I do have to agree that the weights are a tough issue), to have the thing create a graphical display—a pie chart, perhaps, or a dashboard with several different gauges?

 

My dashboard would show a cacher who likes small hikes, enjoys a healthy dose of puzzles and multis, won't shun an LPC but doesn't binge on them, has done a small amount of casual travel caching, is an FTF hound in his ten-mile radius, and has a fairly well balanced (if not prolific) set of hides. So then, whether I had 55 finds or 5555, you could still look at my dashboard and gauge the various shades of my caching diversity.

 

Just a thought. Fun stuff to think about.

Edited October 28, 2008 by SquamLoon

[+Juicepig]

very nice system! i agree with everything except the benchmarks (which are an american only thing), other than that - good job!

 

I think a system like this would be best used regionally - and each region can apply their own multipliers. I think i might swipe the idea for our local ORG, maybe make it CGI-HTML form based rather then Excel.

 

score table seems to be frozen, unless you are updating these manually

 

Thanks!!

[+sbell111]

... When I did it myself, seeing a lot of 0's made me realize that going out there and finding the same caches over and over again isn't really fulfilling. ...

I'll pass. I don't really require some complex formula to tell me whether or not I'm having fun.

[+DavidMac]

Woo hoo... 9152!

 

I don't have any idea how many FTFs I have, so I left them out (I don't track them). I like some of the suggestions above, but here's what I'd specifically want to add:

 

- higher multipliers for caches more than 500, 1000, 5000 miles from home.

- number of block complete on the Fizzy grid

- number of challenges

- number of (US) counties

- additional points for finding the oldest cache in a state/country

[+Renegade Knight]

I found that the weights assigned to the various categories necessarily reflected the creator's own personal biases and definition of what is "fun" for him. And that is fine.... for him. Since, for example, I attach relatively low weight to FTF's, event caches, owning trackables, puzzle caches and Wherigo, my index would be different. Conversely, I would include a multiplier for caches that are far from home (my average find is 400 miles away), I would add a line for counties cached (since that is what makes me travel in depth), and I would include a multiplier for caches with a terrain rating of 3 or higher. I would make virtual caches count .5 in the weightings, flipping these with waymarks, which I find more fun to create and seek. I would add a line for the number of challenge caches completed, because I like those. And so on and so forth.

 

The next person would disagree with one or more of my changes, and that's fine too. Maybe they love attending events once each month. Maybe they like benchmarking even more than geocaching, yet benchmarks are discounted to a value of .5 while a guardrail micro scores a full 1.0.

 

Therefore, the index is not useful to me, especially for comparing myself to others. I love statistics and measuring my fun in lots of different ways, but it is MY fun.

 

Well, I hope you weren't expecting universal praise and adulation, Radman.

 

I'll agree with Lep somewhat, everyone has their own recipe for fun. There are some things on there that are pretty heavily rated that I couldn't give a rats arse about personally. Wherigo (found and hidden) and FTF's come to mind. ...

 

That's the beauty of real stats. More ways to split out the fun. For example, while I could care less that Lep was at one time a record holder for most finds in 24 hours, I am actually quite happy that such a thing exists because more than a few people have had a heck of a lot of fun working to break that record. If that version of a stat can generate fun, the more the better. After all at one time it did put a smile on Lep's face and that is something that I do care about.

 

I'd love to see this where you can uploda a GPX file of your finds and it just calculates it for you. For example I really have no idea how many FTF's I have though I do like that stat.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[Radman Forever]

... When I did it myself, seeing a lot of 0's made me realize that going out there and finding the same caches over and over again isn't really fulfilling. ...

I'll pass. I don't really require some complex formula to tell me whether or not I'm having fun.

 

Ok, then pass... This isn't something you have to do and you can choose to ignore it. It's fun for some and math homework for others who try it out and don't much care for it. I do appreciate those who do try it out, whether they like it or not!

 

I have enjoyed some of the e-mails I have received and will add the names to the list when I get home, my computer isn't working right at work and this seems to be the only place I can get into right now.

[+nittany dave]

Seems like the 'total' points is kind of meaningless since it does not have anything to do with diversity of experience which I think is your primary intent.

 

How about something that might help to visually (always easier for me) depict how diverse - or lets say varied - your experience has been.

 

I might like to see a bar chart that showed my finds by type as a percentage of my total finds. So I might have 80% traditional, 4% virtual, x% mutli and so on. Now, overlay that on the percentage of total caches in the US (as you said, other continents/countries can do this too). So I might see that while I find 80% traditional caches, they only represent 70% of the total caches in the US. Or, only 1% of my finds are Puzzle caches but they are 6% of the total active caches in the US

 

I'll still find the caches that I like and puzzles probably won't increase, but doing it this way instead of having a "score" would enable comparison between cachers with 100 or 10000 finds. Because find count really doesn't measure how varied your experience has been.

 

Just a thought. The stats of all caches would be hard or impossible to get.

[+tozainamboku]

I can't figure out why we need another totally made up statistic to measure our geocaching against. Granted this one attempts to reward participating in a more diverse geocaching experience by assigning more points to the rarer types of caches and rewarding other activities which might be somewhat related to geocaching. Kealia has done something similar in coming up with the fizzy challenge to reward finding different cache types and terrain/difficulty combinations. And that goes back to fizzymagic's FindStats program that tracked these statistics and to the other stats programs that now do it as well. fizzymagic's program also computed a challenge score (I call it the fizzy number) that was the maximum between the terrain and the difficultly and calculates both your average challenge score and the percentage of hard finds (those with a challenge score of 3 or greater). There are lots of ways to manipulate the numbers to emphasize what ever aspect of geocaching you want. Back in July, ChileHead started a thread suggesting that each person could define how to calculate his/her own score.

[+Kohavis]

I submitted mine just for sh**s and giggles, but I'm not sure what your system would tell someone. The more finds, the higher the score, and the more the finds number dwarfs the other "quality" factors. An example:

 

You have a multiplier of 50 assigned to the years caching, average terrain and difficulty. That is a huge part of the total number if someone has fewer than 100 finds. Your finds multiplier is 1 for traditionals and 3 for multis. However, if someone has 1000 or 2000 finds, that factor gets lost in the noise. The overall combination metric you're attempting gets diluted and corrupted with the higher finds numbers.

 

 

You also give a higher factor for a multicache found than a traditional one hidden. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

You need an algorithm in your Excel formulas or macros that assigns weighting factors to each row or combination of rows, like dividing finds by DNFs gives a success ratio independent of the numbers for each.

 

Bravo for tackling the project But I think it still needs some tweaking. If I were you, I would start back at square one and decide what you're trying to measure. Then assign your factors so that they're not sensitive to sheer numbers, but rather to ratios of selected factors.

 

Just my opinion, FWIW

[Radman Forever]

I submitted mine just for sh**s and giggles, but I'm not sure what your system would tell someone. The more finds, the higher the score, and the more the finds number dwarfs the other "quality" factors.

 

Not exactly, the more finds you have, yes, the higher your score is going to be, but you'll be suprised how high the quality factors can be. The number of your score depends on what type of caches you find. If you get a 1000 traditionals, they would equal about 333 multi-cache finds. That's a big difference. I also didn't want one factor drowning out all others and I feel that I did my best keeping everything balanced as much as possible.

 

You have a multiplier of 50 assigned to the years caching, average terrain and difficulty. That is a huge part of the total number if someone has fewer than 100 finds. Your finds multiplier is 1 for traditionals and 3 for multis. However, if someone has 1000 or 2000 finds, that factor gets lost in the noise. The overall combination metric you're attempting gets diluted and corrupted with the higher finds numbers.

 

It doesn't get lost, it just gets added in with your finds as an overall score. Multi-caches can dwarf twice as many traditional finds. The overall numbers gets diluted as the number gets higher, because that's just what happends. Your numbers DO get less important as you find more caches anyways. It would get very complicated to try to compensate and I don't think it is that important to try.

 

You also give a higher factor for a multicache found than a traditional one hidden. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

It's far from perfect, which I have said a few times, but hear me out. Multi-caches are usually time-consuming activities, except for quick two-stagers. The "average" traditional cache nowadays is a lamp-post micro. In my twisted logic, finding an average multi-cache earned a single point over a quickly average traditional, though that is obviously far from the case sometimes.

 

You need an algorithm in your Excel formulas or macros that assigns weighting factors to each row or combination of rows, like dividing finds by DNFs gives a success ratio independent of the numbers for each.

 

And punish people for not finding caches? I actually reward it! DNF's give you experience, which is rewarded in the system. A failure to find a cache shouldn't be negative, especially when they are logged.

 

Bravo for tackling the project But I think it still needs some tweaking. If I were you, I would start back at square one and decide what you're trying to measure. Then assign your factors so that they're not sensitive to sheer numbers, but rather to ratios of selected factors.

 

Just my opinion, FWIW

 

Thank you, it was constructive and this is the type of stuff I like debating! I've given a lot of thought about the numbers and tweaking it now would set it back, probably permanently. I think it is more worth it to keep it as it is and see how it goes.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I can't figure out why we need another totally made up statistic to measure our geocaching against. Granted this one attempts to reward participating in a more diverse geocaching experience by assigning more points to the rarer types of caches and rewarding other activities which might be somewhat related to geocaching. Kealia has done something similar in coming up with the fizzy challenge to reward finding different cache types and terrain/difficulty combinations. And that goes back to fizzymagic's FindStats program that tracked these statistics and to the other stats programs that now do it as well. fizzymagic's program also computed a challenge score (I call it the fizzy number) that was the maximum between the terrain and the difficultly and calculates both your average challenge score and the percentage of hard finds (those with a challenge score of 3 or greater). There are lots of ways to manipulate the numbers to emphasize what ever aspect of geocaching you want. Back in July, ChileHead started a thread suggesting that each person could define how to calculate his/her own score.

 

I don't see anywhere where the OP said we "needed" his system, nor do I see him as pushing it upon anyone! What I do see is someone wanting to share something he worked on!!

 

My thoughts, if you're interested, post suggestions and maybe we'll see this come of something and maybe not!

[Skippermark]

I got a little over 9700, but I noticed a couple things like having a geocache class (or something like that) and another similar one had no value associated with them, plus I didn't know my terrain/difficulty rating and left those at 0.

[Radman Forever]

I got a little over 9700, but I noticed a couple things like having a geocache class (or something like that) and another similar one had no value associated with them, plus I didn't know my terrain/difficulty rating and left those at 0.

 

That was corrected earlier today and if you want to resubmit your score, go ahead and I will change it! I'm adding all of the people who submitted it today!

[+bflentje]

I didn't look closely at the spreadsheet so this must be coming from right field... Are your weigts being used in the traditional way? Much like a weighted average works? I'll have to look at it again.

[+Kohavis]

Thank you, it was constructive and this is the type of stuff I like debating! I've given a lot of thought about the numbers and tweaking it now would set it back, probably permanently. I think it is more worth it to keep it as it is and see how it goes.

You're welcome. And I'm glad you accepted my criticism in the spirit it was given - as a small tidbit of feedback you can use as you see fit. Not a slam at all. In fact, I'm impressed that you tackled such a project, and I'm sure that the system will give some interesting numbers with time.

 

I love numbers and statistics myself. I'm not a "numbers" cacher - I don't care how many finds I have. It's not why I do it. But your system intrigued me because it factors in several different aspects of the game.

 

Good luck to you!

[+J-Way]

I got a little over 9700, but I noticed a couple things like having a geocache class (or something like that) and another similar one had no value associated with them, plus I didn't know my terrain/difficulty rating and left those at 0.

Download your "My Finds" pocket query in zip format, then upload the file to itsnotaboutthenumbers.com. It'll calculate your average difficulty and terrain rating for all caches and for all physical caches (excludes virtuals, earthcaches, and events).

[+Harry Dolphin]

A few thoughts:

I work within the geocaching system. I have no interest in navicache or terrorcache. So, I would be penalized for liking geocaching. Hmmm... I have found 3 or 7 letterboxes, but I was not looking for them. (They were easier to find than the caches nearby.) Don't care for whymarking either. It may be associated with geocaching, but is not a part of. (Okay. I do have one whymark find, and one listing. But that's a different story.) Benchmarking, on the other fin, is listed on geocaching. I have over 800 benchmark finds. Some of those have been extremely difficult. You try spending a half day, climbing a mountain, and digging two feet underground for the disk, and tell me it's only worth a half point! Yes. I have found benchmarks that have not been reported in over 70 years. Atop the Palisades with a two hundred foot drop a few feet away. Half point. Hmm...

 

But I will claim a 4216 on your system.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Harry Dolphin