Statistics - bend it anyway you like!

[+Danie Viljoen]

At last count there were 891 TBs and GCs in all the SA caches.

Some updated TB statistics:

 

There are now (3 June) a total of 902 TBs and GCs in 604 of the 3408 South African caches. This means that on average 1 in 5.6 caches contains at least one TB, and those that do have on average 1.5 TBs.

 

The top three caches are:

GC1GZ0K Little Netherlands TB Hotel: 27 TBs

GCZE7Y Fish Eagle's Coin Collection: 20 TBs (although this one is actually archived)

GC1RN78 K-Deo - TB's Place to Call Home: 19 TBs

 

TB & GC statistics for 12 June 2009:

 

There are now a total of 868 TBs and GCs in 605 of the 3419 South African caches. This means that on average 1 in 5.7 caches contains at least one TB or GC, and those that do have on average 1.4 TBs.

 

The top three (active) caches are:

GC1RN78 K-Deo - TB's Place to Call Home: 21 TBs

GC114RH Cape Town TB Hotel: 16 TBs

GC1GZ0K Little Netherlands TB Hotel: 14 TBs

[+DamhuisClan]

Once I have completed the logging of all the coins and TBs discovered at the TB Race Kick-off event, I ll publish the amount here. It is the most I have ever seen at a single event.

cincol's private collection did contribute a great deal towards that count.

[+Urban Hunters]

We recently had a good day of caching in Vanderbijlpark. This made us wander, what is currently the maximum number of caches that was found in one caching day in South Africa?

 

Some other stats:

 

When I attended my first event in Australia I met the caching teams that equaled the world record for the most cache finds in 24 hours. The first teams that set the record was teams from New Zealand and set the record in Australia. This did not go down very well with the Australian guys, someone else setting a world record in their back yard. The Australians sorted out their teams to beat it, but they could only equal the record.

 

196 (one hundred and ninety six) in 24 hours.

 

It is obviously a different ball game there with the caching density and the ability to safely cache at night.

[+cincol]

You can bend that figure any way you like - I DO NOT buy it - period! That give you 1 cache every 7.3 minutes. Let's get real with these so called "records". You are looking at a TEAM of people who are logging their TEAM name and not individuals. Would I be proud of that? NO WAY.

 

UH - if you put together a team large enough you could beat that record in the Pretoria area in 24 hours. I am sure that within a 50km radius you would find more than 200 caches. I'm really keen to hear the comments from the likes of gerhardoosMPsa, damhuisclan, RedGlobe, Fish Eagle and others on this issue.

 

Rant over!

[+DamhuisClan]

We recently had a good day of caching in Vanderbijlpark. This made us wander, what is currently the maximum number of caches that was found in one caching day in South Africa?

 

Interesting question... The results below are all for South African caches only. It is unlikely that someone would have a done quite a few caches in ZA, and a neighbouring country, so I think these are correct.

 

Most "Logs" in a single day:

GC Name.......Date..........LogCount

Crow T Robot..2007-11-08....60

Discombob.....2006-10-31....59

Fish Eagle....2008-10-01....53

Urban Hunters.2009-06-14....50

Fish Eagle....2008-05-05....49

Fish Eagle....2008-12-02....47

 

Most "Found it" logs in a single day:

GC Name........Date........LogCount

Urban Hunters..2009-06-14....50

Discombob......2006-10-31....47

GlobalRat......2008-07-27....44

warthog........2008-07-27....42

GlobalRat......2008-03-24....40

Nish4..........2008-03-24....40

warthog........2008-03-24....40

Nish4..........2008-07-27....38

CrystalFairy...2007-11-10....36

....

iPajero........2008-06-01....31

 

So it seems there are a few cacher who like "binge" caching .

 

"Found it" logs are usually unique finds.

The most caches visited in a single day, I think would belong to Discombob (59 on the 31 Oct 2006)

I saw 6 or 7 "Write Note" logs. It can be assumed that he re-visited some caches.

 

I thought CF or iPajero would be at the top.

[+DamhuisClan]

I have heard someone talk about doing 200 on a bicycle in Holland in one day. It was said to be well planned, and exact times had to be kept to etc. Never confirmed the story though.

 

If I remember from UH logs they did the 50 in 12 hours ... so lets add another 25 to 30 for in the dark. That means it should be possible to do 80 in a day. It could be done in CT, and or PTA... not sure the density of Durban.

 

This is a challenge I would not be upto to do ... but a cache per province in a day ... that sounds more interesting to me.

[+Urban Hunters]

Hi Cincol

 

I can appreciate your skepticism on this one, but it can be done. The teams worked together, but all of them had visited each of the cache sites and all the log sheets were signed by each of the various team members in their own name, i.e. no “general” team name for the day. The time was also recorded at each cache site and on the web page.

 

They tried to break the record in Brisbane, here is the coordinates where I stayed in Brissi:

S27 27.740, E153 01.406. If you searched the nearest caches on geocaching.com you will find 200 caches in a 5,7km radius and 400 caches in a 9,7km radius.

 

Just in theory walking in a straight line form one side to the other the distance will be 9,7x2 = 19,4km. The average walking speed of a person (not my granny with her walking aid) = 1,2m/sec, thus approximately 270min for 19,4km. If you are in hurrying (trying to break a record) it will be faster. Add 2 min search time per cache (which they allowed themselves) = 392 min. A total of 662 min (11 hours).

 

Using a car, like they did, will make it a lot easier and not so tedious.

[+DamhuisClan]

I have had a request to find the 100 fastest finds for each cacher (on South African caches only). This proofed to be some task to do in a SQL query. I do think I have the answer, but due to the processing time required can only do 4 or 5 teams at a time.

 

Who would like to venture a guess which team (or a team), and in how many days they have achieved those 100 finds.

[+cincol]

I would guess either iPajero, Urban Hunters or Crystal Fairy and it would have been done over 3 or 4 caching days.

[+cincol]

Duplicate post. Edited June 23, 2009 by cincol

[+Urban Hunters]

We are not SQL experts, but given the info seen of yesterday we would approach it as follows:

 

You have the number of finds per team per day. Various team’s names were listed more than once due to the fact that they have found 44 a specific day, 24 some time ago, 21 months ago, etc. Group the data per team name, and obtain the sum. This we would do via Excel, again no SQL expert on our side. I have an interest in SQL though, so won’t mind to have a peak at the macro when it runs with more than 5 teams.

[+DamhuisClan]

I would guess either iPajero, Urban Hunters or Crystal Fairy and it would have been done over 3 or 4 caching days.

 

TeamName FromDate ToDate DaysItTook

iPajero 2009-06-02 2009-06-15 5.0

CrystalFairy 2008-06-14 2009-06-14 12.0

Urban Hunters 2009-04-10 2009-06-14 65.0

 

Remember:

1) This includes ONLY South African caches

2) My database is a little dated.

3) I am not 100% convinced I have the right query.

 

I have found one team who has done it in 4 days.

[+Urban Hunters]

Thinking of it, we are REALLY no SQL experts. Even the excel method will be more complicated than that!!!!!

 

If you have a cache spree once every three years the Excel method will not work at first glance, now we need to add dates. Ag nee man! Back to the drawing board, needs some refinement, first sort by team names, then dates?????

[+DamhuisClan]

I have an interest in SQL though, so won't mind to have a peak at the macro when it runs with more than 5 teams.

 

Here is the SQL Query should you be interested in trying it:

 

To make it run with all the teams, remove the "and lBy in ('iPajero', 'Urban Hunters', 'CrystalFairy')"

I started the query and went to watch Prison Break, and once back at the PC it was still running (40 minutes+)

 

--Begin Using SQLite --

Create temp table if not exists

fastest100finds (ID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT, TeamName text, logDate text);

 

Create Index if not exists fastest100findsDates on fastest100finds (logDate ASC);

Create Index if not exists fastest100findsDates on fastest100finds (TeamName ASC);

Create Index if not exists fastest100findsDates on fastest100finds (TeamName ASC, logDate ASC);

 

Delete from fastest100finds;

 

Insert into fastest100finds (TeamName, logDate)

Select

lby, lDate

from logs

where lType="Found it"

and lBy in ('iPajero', 'Urban Hunters', 'CrystalFairy')

Order by lBy, lDate;

 

Select Distinct

FromDateTable.TeamName,

FromDateTable.Logdate,

ToDateTable.LogDate,

Min(julianday(ToDateTable.LogDate) - julianday(FromDateTable.LogDate)) as DaysItTook

from

Fastest100Finds as FromDateTable

Inner join

Fastest100Finds as ToDateTable

on FromDateTable.TeamName = ToDateTable.TeamName

where ToDateTable.ID - FromDateTable.ID = 100

Group by FromDateTable.TeamName

order by DaysItTook ASC;

 

--Drop table fastest100finds;

--End using SQLite.

 

I will attempt it again with SQL2005/8 and see if I can get a result faster.

[+trevorh7000]

Have you posted for advice to other geek groups or sql groups for tweaking of those queries? I know hardly anything but I have seen some real magic performed in less code than you can imagine!

 

Trev

Edited June 23, 2009 by trevorh7000

[+DamhuisClan]

Have you posted for advice to other geek groups or sql groups for tweaking of those queries? I know hardly anything but I have seen some real magic performed in less code than you can imagine!

 

Trev

I have added index onto the rows as required.

The problem is just the shear number of possibilities. For each cacher it has to work out all the dates which falls within a 100 finds. From there it has to take the shortest. period I am trying to look at ways to reword the query to get it to run faster.

[+Carbon Hunter]

I know I got about 30 during an event

and those were all new caches (Keepers of the Cache).

 

But I suppose it would be possible to get a higher number in a big cache density area - especially if you are aided by local driver who knows where to drive to.

[+Discombob]

 

Interesting question... The results below are all for South African caches only. It is unlikely that someone would have a done quite a few caches in ZA, and a neighbouring country, so I think these are correct.

 

Most "Logs" in a single day:

GC Name.......Date..........LogCount

Crow T Robot..2007-11-08....60

Discombob.....2006-10-31....59

Fish Eagle....2008-10-01....53

Urban Hunters.2009-06-14....50

Fish Eagle....2008-05-05....49

Fish Eagle....2008-12-02....47

 

Most "Found it" logs in a single day:

GC Name........Date........LogCount

Urban Hunters..2009-06-14....50

Discombob......2006-10-31....47

GlobalRat......2008-07-27....44

warthog........2008-07-27....42

GlobalRat......2008-03-24....40

Nish4..........2008-03-24....40

warthog........2008-03-24....40

Nish4..........2008-07-27....38

CrystalFairy...2007-11-10....36

....

iPajero........2008-06-01....31

 

So it seems there are a few cacher who like "binge" caching .

 

"Found it" logs are usually unique finds.

The most caches visited in a single day, I think would belong to Discombob (59 on the 31 Oct 2006)

I saw 6 or 7 "Write Note" logs. It can be assumed that he re-visited some caches.

 

I thought CF or iPajero would be at the top.

 

ah-haha those stats are wrong. Back in the day, I did not really know about all this caches per day nonsense, so if I went caching on Holiday, I would come back and log all my finds in one day, not changing the date, so those are stretched over a few days.

i think the most I have found in a day, here in the UK, would be between 30 and 35.

[+The Huskies]

 

Interesting question... The results below are all for South African caches only. It is unlikely that someone would have a done quite a few caches in ZA, and a neighbouring country, so I think these are correct.

 

Most "Logs" in a single day:

GC Name.......Date..........LogCount

Crow T Robot..2007-11-08....60

Discombob.....2006-10-31....59

Fish Eagle....2008-10-01....53

Urban Hunters.2009-06-14....50

Fish Eagle....2008-05-05....49

Fish Eagle....2008-12-02....47

 

Most "Found it" logs in a single day:

GC Name........Date........LogCount

Urban Hunters..2009-06-14....50

Discombob......2006-10-31....47

GlobalRat......2008-07-27....44

warthog........2008-07-27....42

GlobalRat......2008-03-24....40

Nish4..........2008-03-24....40

warthog........2008-03-24....40

Nish4..........2008-07-27....38

CrystalFairy...2007-11-10....36

....

iPajero........2008-06-01....31

 

So it seems there are a few cacher who like "binge" caching .

 

"Found it" logs are usually unique finds.

The most caches visited in a single day, I think would belong to Discombob (59 on the 31 Oct 2006)

I saw 6 or 7 "Write Note" logs. It can be assumed that he re-visited some caches.

 

I thought CF or iPajero would be at the top.

 

ah-haha those stats are wrong. Back in the day, I did not really know about all this caches per day nonsense, so if I went caching on Holiday, I would come back and log all my finds in one day, not changing the date, so those are stretched over a few days.

i think the most I have found in a day, here in the UK, would be between 30 and 35.

 

The most we found in a day was 63 in Florida in 1 day.

[+Danie Viljoen]

At last count there were 891 TBs and GCs in all the SA caches.

Some updated TB statistics:

 

There are now (3 June) a total of 902 TBs and GCs in 604 of the 3408 South African caches. This means that on average 1 in 5.6 caches contains at least one TB, and those that do have on average 1.5 TBs.

 

The top three caches are:

GC1GZ0K Little Netherlands TB Hotel: 27 TBs

GCZE7Y Fish Eagle's Coin Collection: 20 TBs (although this one is actually archived)

GC1RN78 K-Deo - TB's Place to Call Home: 19 TBs

 

TB & GC statistics for 12 June 2009:

 

There are now a total of 868 TBs and GCs in 605 of the 3419 South African caches. This means that on average 1 in 5.7 caches contains at least one TB or GC, and those that do have on average 1.4 TBs.

 

The top three (active) caches are:

GC1RN78 K-Deo - TB's Place to Call Home: 21 TBs

GC114RH Cape Town TB Hotel: 16 TBs

GC1GZ0K Little Netherlands TB Hotel: 14 TBs

 

TB & GC statistics for 1 July 2009:

 

There are now a total of 856 TBs and GCs in 598 of the 3455 South African caches. This means that on average 1 in 5.8 caches contains at least one TB or GC, and those that do have on average 1.4 TBs.

 

The top three (active) caches are:

GC1GZ0K Little Netherlands TB Hotel: 15 TBs

GC1QECR Vaal TB Hotel: 15 TBs

GC1B7N5 Pretoria Hitch Hiker Hotel: 12 TBs

[+Danie Viljoen]

I have for a long time been curious to know what the life expectancy of a cache is. The following analysis was done on all South African caches, excluding event caches.

 

Average probability of survival:

1 year: 89.7%

2 years: 82.1%

3 years: 78.5%

4 years: 77.6%

5 years: 77.1%

6 years: 77.0%

 

This is better than I expected. If a cache survives the first 3 years, its survival chances appear to increase significantly. There is a probability of 21.5% that it will be archived in the first 3 years, but only 1.8% during the next 5 years.

 

The next question is if the cache size plays a significant role. Does a micro survive better than a regular, as one may expect? The numbers give an interesting answer:

 

Probability of survival:

1 year: micro: 87.6% regular: 91.1%

2 years: micro: 79.4% regular: 82.7%

3 years: micro: 76.0% regular: 77.2%

4 years: micro: 75.4% regular: 75.2%

5 years: micro: 75.3% regular: 73.9%

6 years: micro: 75.2% regular: 73.8%

 

Interestingly enough a regular cache turns out to survive better than a micro, at least for the first 3.5 years. One can speculate about the reasons – it may be because micros are typically placed in urban areas where muggling is a greater risk, but long-term maintenance is better.

 

If one’s aim is long-term survival, a small cache is the size to go for. For the first two years its probability of survival lies between that of micros and regulars, but then it flattens out at about 80%.

 

I also looked at large caches, and although they appear to survive even better than small caches, there are too few of them to draw reliable conclusions.

 

If there is interest in more detail and graphs, I can publish this on a web site.

[+DamhuisClan]

I have for a long time been curious to know what the life expectancy of a cache is. The following analysis was done on all South African caches, excluding event caches.

 

If there is interest in more detail and graphs, I can publish this on a web site.

Wow Danie ... now those are interesting stats.

I wouldn't mind seeing a few more like this.

 

It made me wonder also how many newbie caches get archived in the first year.

Example (referring to myself).

I think most of my caches which are archived were caches I had hidden in the 1st 12 to 18 months. I think most people after that get a good feeling as to what a good cache / cache location is.

I think the stats would show a 98%+ survival rate, if one excludes caches planted in the 1st year (to 18 months) the cacher was first active.

[+Carbon Hunter]

Brilliant analysis.

 

Thnak you - would be good to see the graphs if you publish them.

 

Thanks Danie

[+CapeDoc]

I would expect multis to do worse than regulars..?

[+Danie Viljoen]

I would expect multis to do worse than regulars..?

To my surprise, no. For the first 3 years the survival probability of multi-caches and traditional caches are about the same, and then the graph for multi-caches flattens out slightly lower (about 1%) than traditional caches. (The number of very old archived multi-caches are so few that the statistics are not very significant, however.)

[+CapeDoc]

Which SA cacher has the greatest caching "Karma".....

since the beginning?

this year?

 

(we have a cache hider of note down here in the Cape)

[+DamhuisClan]

Which SA cacher has the greatest caching "Karma".....

since the beginning?

this year?

 

(we have a cache hider of note down here in the Cape)

 

Province_______Finds_Hds_Carma

Eastern Cape.... _5715 _517 11.05415861

Free State...... _3234 _179 18.06703911

Gauteng......... 32370 1134 28.54497354

Kwazulu Natal... 11716 _685 17.10364964

Limpopo......... _3941 _278 14.17625899

Mpumalanga...... _9576 _565 16.94867257

Nil............. ___17 ___1 17.00000000

North West...... _3407 _168 20.27976190

Northern Cape... __688 __73 _9.424657534

Western Cape.... 30528 1106 27.60216998

 

Cachers to follow shortly.

 

These province stats are not what I expected.

Edited July 31, 2009 by DamhuisClan

[+DamhuisClan]

Which SA cacher has the greatest caching "Karma".....

since the beginning?

this year?

 

(we have a cache hider of note down here in the Cape)

Hmm this is causing me some headaches.

 

If I just take the Karma on face value then a cacher, which one hide and one find has the highest Karma. And I dont think this right.

 

So what should the *formula* be?

A minimum of 10 finds? or 10 hides?

[+CapeDoc]

How about over 50 finds?

[besem]

How about over 50 finds?

 

I think that's reasonable.

 

Province_______Finds_Hds_Carma

Eastern Cape.... _5715 _517 11.05415861

...

Western Cape.... 30528 1106 27.60216998

 

Just to clarify something... isn't caching karma defined as (number of finds of cacher)/(number of finds logged on caches owned by cacher)? In that case, surely the caching karma of each of the provinces should equal exactly one, since each find corresponds to a find logged on a cache owned by someone?

 

The stats are still interesting, though, as it gives an idea of the level of activity in each province.

[+DamhuisClan]

Just to clarify something... isn't caching karma defined as (number of finds of cacher)/(number of finds logged on caches owned by cacher)?

 

Ahhh.. thanks for helping me onto the right track there.

 

I used Number of caches / number of finds on that cache.

Let me see what I can get right with regards to that formula. If we use that formula then less then 10 (or 50 ) finds wouldn't matter.

 

Lets see what this produces.

[+CapeDoc]

Oops! I had the wrong idea!

I was looking for the Cacher who has the greatest Hide:Find ratio.

 

I thought if you had Hidden 50, found 20, you would have a very high karma. I didn't realise that those caches needed to be found a lot to increase your karma.

 

What about the guy who has hidden all his caches on tops of mountains? Or his caches are newly hidden?

[+DamhuisClan]

I am still looking at this query, but for some reason the SQL syntax is escaping me for the last two days.

 

I see my Carma (as per my Database is almost 1)

399 finds on my caches, and 401 caches found.

 

I just need to find a way to get it working for all cachers in SA.

Again rememberer these are only on caches in SA.

[+Carbon Hunter]

An old query - but what are the TONTELDOOS STATS looking like since the event?

 

Are people still hunting them?

 

I know it's still my aim to find them all - and I see my TD IV is still getting regular finds.

 

It would be good to see an update on the stats we used to get.

[+DamhuisClan]

Caching Carma takes "Found It" and "Attended" logs into account.

 

The top 5 Karma-cacher are:

OwnerName FoundOfOwner OwnerHasFound.... Karma

upuaut... .........370 5 .............74,00

Jakrsa... .........178 3 .............59,33

26995.... ..........57 1 .............57,00

archiesa. .........108 2 .............54,00

CyberByte ..........51 1 .............51,00

[+DamhuisClan]

Top 5 Karma's of cachers with more 100 finds:

 

OwnerName FoundOfOwner OwnerHasFound Karma

NotBlonde......... 2518 235 10.71

Wolkynou.......... .686 101 .6.79

Jakkals en Eendjie .681 109 .6.25

geko4............. .874 144 .6.07

landy 2001........ .606 116 .5.22

[+DamhuisClan]

Cachers Karma with more than 500 found:

 

OwnerName... FoundOfOwner OwnerHasFound Karma

CrystalFairy 4351 1339 3.25

Trackinfind. 1285 .580 2.22

Discombob... 1583 .782 2.02

Fish Eagle.. 2349 1172 2.00

The Huskies. 1685 .867 1.94

[+DamhuisClan]

Cachers with more than 1000 finds:

 

OwnerName FoundOfOwner OwnerHasFound Karma

CrystalFairy 4351 1339 3.25

Fish Eagle.. 2349 1172 2.00

cache-fan... 2312 1473 1.57

GlobalRat... 1315 1062 1.24

Noddy....... 1363 1095 1.24

Interesting to see how the Karma comes down as the find count goes up.

Again something I would not have expected.

 

So a better reflection would be, to somehow add the year (or months) the cacher has been geocaching in as well.

[+DamhuisClan]

Now that the race pages are ticking along with little intervention from my side. Are there any outstanding stats which I need to look at?

 

I will leave the Tonteldoos to Gerhard though.

 

I'll still look for the best caching Karma for 2008. Then maybe do another one at the end of the year for 2009.

[+CapeDoc]

I am still interested which cacher has the highest number of owned caches, relative to the finds they have made. Because it is easily skewed by low finds rates, again I thought that the cut off be 50 finds by the cacher.

One could also look at it from the point of view of TOTAL caches and ACTIVE caches.

So for myself:

Caches Found: 237

Caches Hidden: 26

 

= CapeDoc's interpretation of Karma = 9.1 (ie I hide 1 cache every 9.1 I find).

However only 18 caches are active (at the moment), so my ACTIVE Karma would be 13.1

 

It gives a feel of the effort the cacher is putting into hiding caches as opposed to going out and finding them.

 

The way above gives a feel if you hide popular caches, that remain for long periods of time.

Edited August 6, 2009 by CapeDoc

[+Carbon Hunter]

I am still interested which cacher has the highest number of owned caches, relative to the finds they have made. Because it is easily skewed by low finds rates, again I thought that the cut off be 50 finds by the cacher.

One could also look at it from the point of view of TOTAL caches and ACTIVE caches.

So for myself:

Caches Found: 237

Caches Hidden: 26

 

= CapeDoc's interpretation of Karma = 9.1 (ie I hide 1 cache every 9.1 I find).

However only 18 caches are active (at the moment), so my ACTIVE Karma would be 13.1

 

It gives a feel of the effort the cacher is putting in hiding cachers as opposed to going out and finding them.

 

The way above gives a feel if you hide popular caches, that remain for long periods of time.

 

Hmmmm - I wonder about including or excluding EVENT caches. As these are now archived - but not for "bad" reasons, but by their nature

[+CapeDoc]

It would be great to include them (?difficult?) as they also require quite a lot of organisational effort.

[+cincol]

OK - let me try to understand this "karma" thing then. I have found 320 caches and hidden 126. Does that mean my "karma" is 2.53?

[+Carbon Hunter]

OK - let me try to understand this "karma" thing then. I have found 320 caches and hidden 126. Does that mean my "karma" is 2.53?

 

That's how i understand it too. With a lower karma being better?

 

But there is also soemthing around - Number of finds/number of finds on your hides? Or did I misunderstand that one?

[+Jors]

OK - let me try to understand this "karma" thing then. I have found 320 caches and hidden 126. Does that mean my "karma" is 2.53?

The number of caches you've hidden does not have an effect on your karma, only the number of found logs on your hides.

 

If you've found 320 caches, and 640 cachers have found your caches, you'd have a karma of 2.0.

If your caches were found 1000 times, 3.1 would be your karma.

 

A higher karma is seen to be better, since it might be argued that others finding your caches is contributing to caching.

 

[+cincol]

Jors - that would mean that I need to visit all my caches, count the number of "found" logs [attended for Events I would presume] and then divide my finds into that number. Correct? Question though - surely the age of the cache should also be taken into account then? A young, non-descript cache in a high traffic area will score differently to an older quality cache in a low traffic location. This would not be a fair way of measuring then as now many other factors can come into the equation. Perhaps we need tthe comments of some statistical geeks to give us a "mean" that we can apply in order to level the playing fields if the number of finds comes into question? Any thoughts on this? Or am I now being too technical?

[besem]

In the definition of caching karma as I know it, the age or quality of a cache is irrelevant. It's a measure of how many of the smileys you get from other caches, you are "giving back" to the community. Whether that smiley is on a crappy micro in a random place or on a T5 cache on top of a mountain, a smiley is still a smiley.

 

So caching karma will be skewed in favour of those with caches in high-traffic areas, but also to those who don't find caches often (in fact, if you quit the game, your caching karma can only go up!).

 

As far as I can tell, there is no way to distinguish between a "non-descript cache in a high traffic area" and a "quality cache in a low traffic location", unless you want to delve into the individual logs. A "non-descript cache in a low traffic location" and a "quality cache in a high traffic area" cannot be distinguished either, for that matter.

 

The Dutch have a nice system called "Geo d'Or". For every 20 caches you find, you can award one Geo d'Or to a cache you've found that you consider high quality. So a better caching karma would then be to use the same formula as before, but consider only finds on caches with at least one Geo d'Or. http://www.geocaching.nl/cacherating/

 

I'll try to come up with some other measures of karma that might be interesting. I like doing that sort of thing. (;

[+Danie Viljoen]

Cache popularity statistics (up to 5 August 2009):

 

The following African caches have been logged the most (all logs):

1. Cheops V (Egypt) - 291 logs

2. Table Top Trove - 287 logs

3. Cape Town TB Hotel - 251 logs

4. Signal Hill - 239 logs

5. Douala (Cameroon) - 233 logs

6. Smuts House, Irene - 227 logs

 

The caches with the most Found logs:

1. Cheops V - 265

2. Table Top Trove - 257

3. Douala - 216

4. Historical Series - Harbour Entrance - 208

5. Signal Hill - 206

6. Smuts House, Irene - 204

 

No less than 3 of these caches are Virtual...

[+Danie Viljoen]

Active caches with the most DNFs:

 

1. GCR2MW - Old Bridge - 27 DNFs

2. GCRYE4 - On Safari in Pretoria - 23 DNFs

3. GCXP27 - Puddle Duck - 22 DNFs

4. GCK3CC - ND Botanical Garden - 21 DNFs

5. GCYJJP - Tranquility - 21 DNFs

[+DamhuisClan]

I am still interested which cacher has the highest number of owned caches, relative to the finds they have made. Because it is easily skewed by low finds rates, again I thought that the cut off be 50 finds by the cacher.

One could also look at it from the point of view of TOTAL caches and ACTIVE caches.

So for myself:

Caches Found: 237

Caches Hidden: 26

 

= CapeDoc's interpretation of Karma = 9.1 (ie I hide 1 cache every 9.1 I find).

However only 18 caches are active (at the moment), so my ACTIVE Karma would be 13.1

 

It gives a feel of the effort the cacher is putting into hiding caches as opposed to going out and finding them.

 

The way above gives a feel if you hide popular caches, that remain for long periods of time.

Ok lets call this "type" of Karma the "Active Cache Hide Karma", and "All time Cache Hide Karma"

The closer the number is to 1 the better.

These are the top 11 for "All time Cache Hide Karma"

OwnerName OwnerHasHidden OwnerHasFound Karma InverseKarma

Wolkynou.......... 40 101 2.525 0.4

radebuddyz........ 23 _61 2.652 0.38

SawaSawa.......... 31 _85 2.741 0.36

Jakkals en Eendjie 38 109 2.868 0.35

landy 2001........ 34 116 3.411 0.29

NotBlonde......... 65 235 3.615 0.28

4x4 bushadventures 22 _84 3.818 0.26

hennieventer...... 35 145 4.142 0.24

Gps Storm......... 65 289 4.446 0.22

The Sunrise Crew.. 38 171 4.500 0.22

Zantus............ 30 138 4.600 0.22

Added: Only taking into account cachers with more then 50 finds.

Edited August 6, 2009 by DamhuisClan