Time to change GCs 1 for 1 scoring of caches

[+GeoRaptor]

I've often thought that GC should add more value to caches that require more than just lifting a lamp post cover. There should be a better way to rate caches. For those of us in the Southwest, I've found a better way. There is a site called DGP.com that takes all your caches and scores them based on difficulty. If you go to the site and click on ABOUT, it will explain everything.

[+SlideRule]

I've often thought that GC should add more value to caches that require more than just lifting a lamp post cover. There should be a better way to rate caches. For those of us in the Southwest, I've found a better way. There is a site called DGP.com that takes all your caches and scores them based on difficulty. If you go to the site and click on ABOUT, it will explain everything.

 

DGP.com takes me to a NON-GPS related commercial site.

 

Perhaps the poster should research and re-post this information.

[+elrojo14]

[+uws22]

www.dgpstats.com works a bit better

[+GeoRaptor]

I've often thought that GC should add more value to caches that require more than just lifting a lamp post cover. There should be a better way to rate caches. For those of us in the Southwest, I've found a better way. There is a site called DGPstats.com that takes all your caches and scores them based on difficulty. If you go to the site and click on ABOUT, it will explain everything.

Edited February 26, 2009 by GeoRaptor

[+GeoRaptor]

Sorry I had the url wrong. I've had it bookmarked for quite awhile. www.DGPstats.com is the correct site.

[+ShowStop]

I've often thought that GC should add more value to caches that require more than just lifting a lamp post cover. There should be a better way to rate caches. For those of us in the Southwest, I've found a better way. There is a site called DGP.com that takes all your caches and scores them based on difficulty. If you go to the site and click on ABOUT, it will explain everything.

Sounds like just another way to slice and dice the numbers to give some people a bigger pat on the back.

[+Cardinal Red]

I've often thought that GC should add more value to caches that require more than just lifting a lamp post cover. There should be a better way to rate caches. For those of us in the Southwest, I've found a better way. There is a site called DGP.com that takes all your caches and scores them based on difficulty. If you go to the site and click on ABOUT, it will explain everything.

I want no part of this added value concept. If you need more credit to have fun, just log the cache five times.

[+warmouse4000]

Anyway GC accounts for the difference in caching difficulty with the ratings. I would agree people tend to inflate these ratings, the vast majority of caches should never exceed 2/2, for any number of reasons but it still does its job. If you want to know what the average difficulty/terrain of the caches you find download any of the software that computes it for you and then look at your "score." It is essentially the same thing as challenge points. Challenge points is just a response to the fact that people will give a 5/5 to any old cache just because they put good camo on a cache on top of a steep hill.

[+Moose Mob]

I've often thought that GC should add more value to caches that require more than just lifting a lamp post cover. There should be a better way to rate caches. For those of us in the Southwest, I've found a better way. There is a site called DGP.com that takes all your caches and scores them based on difficulty. If you go to the site and click on ABOUT, it will explain everything.

I guess I have a different perspective on that.

 

One thing Groundspeak gives you the opportunity to get out and go places. If you load lamppost caches into your GPS, then that is where you go. If you want mountain top caches, then that is where you go.

 

Deep Southwest Geocaching Project is cool, but it doesn't really rate on difficulty. It gives more point based an lack of popularity. Yes, lamp posts are more popular because they are easy to get to. If Mt Charleston is harder that Mt Wilson, but Mt Charleston is a more common hiking target, more popular = more finds, less points.

 

Nit picking about DGP does distract from one thing. DGP does draw some folks away from the urban caches and towards the areas outside the city limits. Because of this, you will find the vast majority of my caching efforts in remote 4x4 accessible locations, and few hilltops.

[+Renegade Knight]

I've often thought that GC should add more value to caches that require more than just lifting a lamp post cover. There should be a better way to rate caches. For those of us in the Southwest, I've found a better way. There is a site called DGP.com that takes all your caches and scores them based on difficulty. If you go to the site and click on ABOUT, it will explain everything.

Sounds like just another way to slice and dice the numbers to give some people a bigger pat on the back.

More ways to have fun for the folks who like to think outside the box.

 

Any reason two friends can't battle to be King of Prussia by having the most finds there? Back when we had a way to track things like this a friend and I had a lot of fun sneaking into each others back yard and finding all the acculuated caches so we would ace the other guy in his own town. Fun while it lasted. I recall giving him a lot of crap and vice versa. Not sure sure about the patting.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Deep Southwest Geocaching Project is cool, but it doesn't really rate on difficulty. It gives more point based an lack of popularity....

 

The Skydiver point system did something similar. You could think of it as similar to the road less taken. I came to a road that forked in the woods and I took the one to the cache less found and that has made all the difference...

 

Frost sure made it sound better.