+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Having a lazy day and just checking out icache, and obviously interested to see where I rank in the Finders Rankings.. I read the warning at the top of the page "The following table displays the top UK finders defined by a specific criteria, watch this space for more information as I intend to expand this area. The ranks are calculated on how active a particular cacher is rather than placing emphasis on finds alone. To be clear this is not just a list of the highest UK finders. So I wasn't too surprised to be ranked 719th in the UK.. until I looked at some of the cachers around and about my ranking.. and now I'm completely confused as to how these rankings are calculated - can someone fill us in on the criteria used..? As an example of my confusion, can I use this as an example. Rank Name Caches found Caches Hidden TBs moved Events attended 719 Birdman of Liskatraz 1815 113 437 28 715 Tom Tom Army 0 0 0 0 How can a cacher who's not logged in since 2001 has not found or hidden a single cache, rank 4 places above me? Obviously I'm doing this all wrong... Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Having a lazy day and just checking out icache, and obviously interested to see where I rank in the Finders Rankings.. I read the warning at the top of the page "The following table displays the top UK finders defined by a specific criteria, watch this space for more information as I intend to expand this area. The ranks are calculated on how active a particular cacher is rather than placing emphasis on finds alone. To be clear this is not just a list of the highest UK finders. So I wasn't too surprised to be ranked 719th in the UK.. until I looked at some of the cachers around and about my ranking.. and now I'm completely confused as to how these rankings are calculated - can someone fill us in on the criteria used..? As an example of my confusion, can I use this as an example. Rank Name Caches found Caches Hidden TBs moved Events attended 719 Birdman of Liskatraz 1815 113 437 28 715 Tom Tom Army 0 0 0 0 How can a cacher who's not logged in since 2001 has not found or hidden a single cache, rank 4 places above me? Obviously I'm doing this all wrong... I share your confusion Steve. Been (loosely) following mine since they started ranking us, and trying to work out how they're doing it - and am still none the wiser Quote Link to comment
+*mouse* Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) Same here - can't make head nor tail of it..... Personally I approve of the idea of a ranking system that takes more into account that the numbers, but no idea how this one has been set. Doesn't seem to follow any system that I can fathom! (maybe one for the puzzle lovers amongst us ) Edited February 27, 2010 by *mouse* Quote Link to comment
+HazelS Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Hmmm nor me.... I don't exist in the top 1000 but have more finds, events attended, caches placed etc than lots in there... Love to know what the criteria is, not saying it's wrong, but wondering HOW it's calculated! Quote Link to comment
+Lydford Locators Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Likewise - Usually I cache in the week with TurnerTribe and at weekends alone when she can't get out caching. My total finds is roughly double hers .... so how is she over 100 places above me? Confused! Quote Link to comment
+Gushoneybun Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 I think I have sussed it, I worked it out when spotting someone near the top who only has around a third of the finds we have, they seem to have DNFed a huge number, I spot their DNF's on caches all over. Read the second sentance again Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 I think I have sussed it, I worked it out when spotting someone near the top who only has around a third of the finds we have, they seem to have DNFed a huge number, I spot their DNF's on caches all over. Read the second sentance again No... you've not sussed it at all.... You're all looking at the list UPSIDE DOWN Quote Link to comment
+smstext Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 from what i can gather its NOT how many you have done, its how active you are i.e. cache maintenance, dnf's as well as found. From what i can gather you can have 12000 finds, but if you have only found 5 this week and newbie comes along and finds 6 with a grand total of 6 then newbie will be above you. Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 from what i can gather its NOT how many you have done, its how active you are i.e. cache maintenance, dnf's as well as found. From what i can gather you can have 12000 finds, but if you have only found 5 this week and newbie comes along and finds 6 with a grand total of 6 then newbie will be above you. Except in my example.. somebody who's found no caches at all ever and placed no caches at all ever since 2003. Ranks above me.. with 150 ish finds last week.. Quote Link to comment
hothayley2000 Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Ok I have registered an account with icache but dont appear to have any stats? I'm guessing thats because I'm not in the top 1000? Am I a really rubbish geocacher ?? Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted February 28, 2010 Author Share Posted February 28, 2010 Ok I have registered an account with icache but dont appear to have any stats? I'm guessing thats because I'm not in the top 1000? Am I a really rubbish geocacher ?? I wouldn't worry Hayley, there's a cacher in the top 1000 who hasn't found a single cache?! If you want to check where you rank based solely on Number of Caches found then look Here Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) Ok I have registered an account with icache but dont appear to have any stats? I'm guessing thats because I'm not in the top 1000? Am I a really rubbish geocacher ?? I wouldn't worry Hayley, there's a cacher in the top 1000 who hasn't found a single cache?! If you want to check where you rank based solely on Number of Caches found then look Here But you need 200+ finds to get onto Cacherstats, or find a couple of the caches that are used to register your caching over time... Edited February 28, 2010 by Bear and Ragged Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I'm guessing it's to do with caches found over time, then - so to test my theory, if I create a sock account and go out and do one of the local micro series, say 20 caches in my first day, will I appear higher up the list than my real account does now? Quote Link to comment
+Shiggaddi Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Well, I've just seen that I rank at 820, and with only 216 caches found, none hidden (yet), 10 travel bugs owned, a few events attended, I seem to rank 1 below someone who has found almost 1000 caches, and hidden just over 100, and hosted an event. Quote Link to comment
+The Two Bears Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Ok I have registered an account with icache but dont appear to have any stats? I'm guessing thats because I'm not in the top 1000? Am I a really rubbish geocacher ?? I wouldn't worry Hayley, there's a cacher in the top 1000 who hasn't found a single cache?! If you want to check where you rank based solely on Number of Caches found then look Here Can't even find us on here....nice to see a lot of south west names in the top 100 though !! Quote Link to comment
+Munkeh Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Ok I have registered an account with icache but dont appear to have any stats? I'm guessing thats because I'm not in the top 1000? Am I a really rubbish geocacher ?? I wouldn't worry Hayley, there's a cacher in the top 1000 who hasn't found a single cache?! If you want to check where you rank based solely on Number of Caches found then look Here Can't even find us on here....nice to see a lot of south west names in the top 100 though !! I wouldn't worry but you seem to be getting your own back on Birdman-of-liskatraz for pointing that out Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 Now I notice my rankings jumped slightly from 719 to 64... Wonder if its got something to do with the 130 caches I found last week? Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Why not come down to Sunny North Wales at Easter, and ask the man himself in person . There is a event being finalised, to allow N Wales/N West cachers to do exactly that [13/14/15 April in the evening, date subject to the Landlord agreeing] We have some nice local campsites, oh and there is there are 2 large Holiday companies one with All In/Self Catering accommodation the other with Static caravans [Just look up Prestatyn, Or we've been upgraded with a Motel in Rhuddlan oh and be prepared to be surrounded by Team Marizipan caches you can literally step out of all 3 and fall over a Marzi cache (if you can find it ) Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 Why not come down to Sunny North Wales at Easter, and ask the man himself in person . There is a event being finalised, to allow N Wales/N West cachers to do exactly that [13/14/15 April in the evening, date subject to the Landlord agreeing] We have some nice local campsites, oh and there is there are 2 large Holiday companies one with All In/Self Catering accommodation the other with Static caravans [Just look up Prestatyn, Or we've been upgraded with a Motel in Rhuddlan oh and be prepared to be surrounded by Team Marizipan caches you can literally step out of all 3 and fall over a Marzi cache (if you can find it ) Because, I believe, I'll be upgrading a 500 machine computer network... And accepting it's all a bit of fun, it does seem rather silly to have a "Ranking System" thats rated by some undecleared criteria, that few apart from the coder understand. Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 I have 351 finds, and am currently ranked 134th! The cacher right behind me at 135th has nearly 3000 finds. Though this past month was by far my most active in terms of the numbers (80 found; also numerous DNFs); so maybe it gives high weight to what you have done lately. Mark Quote Link to comment
+smstext Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 i moved up to 15th but didnt do as many last week as i did the week before, just wondering if its a couple weeks behind? Quote Link to comment
+uk89camaro Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I have 351 finds, and am currently ranked 134th! The cacher right behind me at 135th has nearly 3000 finds. Though this past month was by far my most active in terms of the numbers (80 found; also numerous DNFs); so maybe it gives high weight to what you have done lately. <<<---------- ding ding!! Mark Quantity (in a short period, not total finds!!!) & quality methinks. That's makes all the sense in the world to me. Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 I have 351 finds, and am currently ranked 134th! The cacher right behind me at 135th has nearly 3000 finds. Though this past month was by far my most active in terms of the numbers (80 found; also numerous DNFs); so maybe it gives high weight to what you have done lately. <<<---------- ding ding!! Mark Quantity (in a short period, not total finds!!!) & quality methinks. That's makes all the sense in the world to me. Would make perfect sense if it was called say "Cacher of the Week"... and how is quality defined? Does it allow for amount of caches local to a cacher? Because as sure as heck, I'll never be anywhere near the top if I cache in my local area... Does it allow for caches hidden? Quote Link to comment
+smstext Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 i do think it includes dnf's logged and maintenance logs too. so in theory if you did 150 finds 30 dnf's and maintenance logs to your 20 caches then it will look like (on the icache system) as you being more active than someone who did 150 finds and didnt log their dnf's etc. Quote Link to comment
+nevryan Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 i do think it includes dnf's logged and maintenance logs too. so in theory if you did 150 finds 30 dnf's and maintenance logs to your 20 caches then it will look like (on the icache system) as you being more active than someone who did 150 finds and didnt log their dnf's etc. If DNF's are a big part of your ranking then there will no doubt be a few cachers who will DNF whole series just to climb the ranks. Anyone for a DNF trip to Scotland based around GCWMQ2 where there are loads we could try to find but fail. I for one will stick to caching for the fun of it and the interesting places it takes me even if I only find a few caches each trip. Quote Link to comment
+Mad H@ter Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Come on then, is it not about time that someone put there head above the parapet so as to stop all the speculation. Why the big mystery , just put us all out of our misery Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Come on then, is it not about time that someone put there head above the parapet so as to stop all the speculation. Why the big mystery , just put us all out of our misery Don't look at me , I just provide support, something I've done from the inception. You need to ask the man himself Deci Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Come on then, is it not about time that someone put there head above the parapet so as to stop all the speculation. Why the big mystery , just put us all out of our misery What, and spoil my entertainment With so many having different opinions on what makes a good rating system this is probably one of the few areas of iCache that I have decided to be selfish and create a system that I'd like to see. The system attempts to award those who have put in the extra effort to find caches, looking at raw numbers I always think its a little unfair that someone can grab a smilie just by sticking their arm out of a car window to grab a micro from some random hedge row and yet this (in numbers terms) is classed on a par with someone who has taken most of the day to hike over tough terrain to get their tupperware fix. For the number hunters power trails and drive-bys will give your rating a short term boost, however those who prefer the walk, like to take in the scenery, maybe take on the odd multi or puzzle or go for more remote caches will find their ratings will hold up for much more longer. In common with many other areas of iCache this is still a work in progress and I will probably give a more concise explanation once its complete. When did you ever get the time to go out and measure all those distances?? Coz if you're relying on terrain ratings, things could be a little screwy..... (and given my dislike for p&g micros, something's wrong with my rating......) Quote Link to comment
+Morton Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I'm amused by how much we all seem to care about this! Looking through the top few hundred and considering the people who are from my area (Edinburgh), it seems to match up pretty well with my subjective view of who's "active" - the people whose names I see a lot on logs these days, who I bump into now and then, that kind of thing. These aren't necessarily the people with the most finds, so on some level I'm obviously thinking along the same lines as the website. Backing that up, there was someone I was surprised not to see listed... but then when I went and looked at their profile, I realised they hadn't actually been doing much lately. I'm guessing it's a fairly subjective algorithm which is still being tweaked. The problem with revealing exactly how it works is that, first, the forum would instantly ignite with picky debate about whether it was "fair", and, second, people would immediately start trying to game the system, either to move up the leaderboard or to prove a point. Still, I'm curious too. It surely wouldn't hurt to drop some hints, like "it gives more weight to caches which aren't found so often" or something like that... Quote Link to comment
+smstext Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 i do think it includes dnf's logged and maintenance logs too. so in theory if you did 150 finds 30 dnf's and maintenance logs to your 20 caches then it will look like (on the icache system) as you being more active than someone who did 150 finds and didnt log their dnf's etc. If DNF's are a big part of your ranking then there will no doubt be a few cachers who will DNF whole series just to climb the ranks. Anyone for a DNF trip to Scotland based around GCWMQ2 where there are loads we could try to find but fail. I for one will stick to caching for the fun of it and the interesting places it takes me even if I only find a few caches each trip. This is why I am saying what ive said, taken from the top of the ranking page on icache: "The following table displays the top 10 UK finders defined by a specific criteria, watch this space for more information as I intend to expand this area. The ranks are calculated on how active a particular cacher is rather than placing emphasis on finds alone." Which I read it as "a list of the most active cachers for that week and not the most caches found list" therefore if you have been busy on maintenance finds, had crap week with dnf's (but logged them) and found 50 caches, I reckon you will rank high. The reason I asked about how many weeks behind the list was for is because last week I did about 37 caches (found+maintenance+dnfs) but am at number 15, the week before that i got to number 21 and did about 170 caches (found+dnf+maintenance) This is why I firmly beleive its about how "active" you are and not "how many caches you have done up to now". Quote Link to comment
+Mad H@ter Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 (and given my dislike for p&g micros, something's wrong with my rating......) Probably because the majority of caches that you have found are micros. Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 (and given my dislike for p&g micros, something's wrong with my rating......) Probably because the majority of caches that you have found are micros. Now that's just silly - got them below 40% and still falling..... Quote Link to comment
+uk89camaro Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (and given my dislike for p&g micros, something's wrong with my rating......) Probably because the majority of caches that you have found are micros. Now that's just silly - got them below 40% and still falling..... I really do wish the system did discount points for drive-by micro's..........but that's another thread. Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 A huge new series has arrived near me and I can't be bothered with racking up a load of drive-by micros, so want to ignore them but it doesn't seem to be an option. Am I missing something or is that not possible? (and given my dislike for p&g micros, something's wrong with my rating......) Probably because the majority of caches that you have found are micros. Now that's just silly - got them below 40% and still falling..... I really do wish the system did discount points for drive-by micro's..........but that's another thread. If that included knocking points off for every micro found in a "circuit" or "ring" (as we can't seem to agree on what makes a power trail) you'd get my vote. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.