Jump to content

Idea new ranking list


Cache Dummies
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I have an idea to improve the ranking list to bring the competition element in the game:

 

- instead of getting one 'point' for every cache you get a number of points based on the difficulty of the hunt (multicache, more stars gives more points than drive in caches).

- everybody should be able to see their ranking in the world/ europe/ region. Now in the Netherlands there's only a top 25, which is very limited.

 

Robin

Link to comment

Difficulty of cache hide or difficulty of terrain? Not all of us are capable of climbing that 5 star mountain to reach an ammo can.

 

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

 

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

Link to comment

There's nothing against anyone who only wants to compete against himself. I also believe this is the main challenge. But I also think there are plenty of geocachers who would like to know their position on the world/ region ranking list and want to play against other teams. I believe some competition in the game makes it even more fun as it is already.

To support this a ranking based on effort (more difficult caches gives you more points, so if you can't climb that 5 star mountain or don't like multicaches, you have to find more drive-in caches to get the same points)would be better. I believe it can be a next step in this young sport.

Robin

Link to comment

plus, then some people would be over-ranking their caches. Even if it's a 1/1, lets say its a 4/4 so people score more posts. Thn of course you will have others complaining that the cache the just did should be ranked higher for them because of how long it took them/how many bones they broke when they slipped/how unprepared they were/they got lost/they have handicapped kids that people hate/they lost their gps/they saw a rattlesnake/they got bit by a tick/etc.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

At least you agree that when you can grab 20-30 caches a day (which country are you living in that you can grab 20-30 a day?) the number of points per cache should be less than the 1/5 cache taking you days to solve. Do you think it's fair to place yourself in the top25 ranking by grabbing drive- in caches only, I don't think so?

 

The more simple the rules, the more arbitrary it is of course. However to keep it simple I propose simple rules (for example terrain 1 point per star, difficulty 1 point per star). It doesn't make sense to count every rattlesnake in the surrounding(we even don't have snakes in Holland)or give you extra points if you miss your legs (if you play football you also don't get extra points if you miss your legs......).

If you don't like the competition element for whatever reason, well just play for yourself. It's no obligation at all.

Robin

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cache Dummies:

If it isn't a game, why is there then a ranking list? Not really consequent.....

Robin


There's no ranking list on geocaching.com. What other people do with the numbers is a different story. icon_wink.gif Plus, Jeremy didn't say it wasn't a game, he just said that it's not really a competitive sport.

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to comment

It's not a ranking. Ranking implies that one person is "better" than another. I'm in awe of BruceS's 2000+ finds. I'm not going to think that a person with 5-10 finds is better or worse than BruceS (or me for that matter). Since none of us can devote 24/7 to Geocaching, and some have more time to do this stuff than others, it can never equal out to show a ranking.

 

The only aspect I notice myself looking at the found count for is when someone like BruceS indicates that a cache should be archived. That to me states that a person who has found over 2000 caches can't find it, and has given considerable effort. If BruceS can't find it and takes the effort to say it must not be there, I'd stake the last few dollars in my meager wallet that the cache isn't there.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Link to comment

Find counts I suppose will allways be a measure of credibility, that's human nature. As to fairness, think about the locationless caches. Some of them have a finite number of unique scenarios that result in a find, once all of these have been logged, the cache is effectively closed to all other cachers.

 

eyes.GIF

"Searching with my good eye closed"

Link to comment

There was Top25 ranking list on the Dutch site www.geocaching.nl but I can't find it anymore since a couple of hours (coincedence?).

But I found a good site with the overall ranking lists. So indeed there is some need for ranking lists....

 

http://www.insidecorner.com/geocaching/stats/countries.cgi?country=netherlands

 

Guys, thank you all for your replies and enjoy your further hunts!

Link to comment

As Marky said

quote:
There's no ranking list on geocaching.com. What other people do with the numbers is a different story.
As for your statement
quote:
there is some need for ranking lists
My opinion there is some desire for ranking list. That is true and I have no problem with that. On the other hand I have no problem with Jeremy saying that www.geocaching.com will never have a ranking list.

 

Slight change of subject I hardly ever look at the ranking on this site, but I use it a lot to see what the other Georgia cachers are doing via Georgia Log List

Link to comment

Nope...cache ranking is highly subjective. I've seen 1 star boxes that should have been easily 3 stars or vice versa. Even 5 star caches can be easy...only requirement for those is requiring use of special equipment...if that's a boat than once you are on land, it could be a garden variety cache hunt. It's best to just go by find counts. Perhaps number of FTFs could be listed? We could add that to the stats.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cache Dummies:

<<SNIP>>

- instead of getting one 'point' for every cache you get a number of points based on the difficulty of the hunt (multicache, more stars gives more points than drive in caches).

<<SNIP>>

Robin


 

We get points for finding caches?

 

How many points would I need to get the toaster? icon_wink.gif

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment

I'm not interested in ranking, just having fun. Why complicate things by making this a competition. I like to think this hobby is just a way for families and friends to have a little fun. With competition comes more rules, hard feelings and less fun.

 

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

15777_2200.gif

Link to comment

We're doing almost exactly what you're suggesting here in Missoula (and surrounding areas) ... but you gotta live here to use this point system.

 

SGPS

 

skydiver-sig.gif

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

Link to comment

You also could never factor the many times that people utilize a 'phone-a-friend' to learn the location or method of the hide, rather than figuring out for themselves (thanks to all who have given me a bit of help in my time of need).

Link to comment

it's a neat idea, but I think it would lead to a lot of problems, people re-rating their caches, plus as one person said, the difficulty to find is only as high as the skill of the last person who found it. I've had people hide my caches better then I did & vica-versa. Who is to say what the rating should be as if right now.

 

Besides I think the biggest problem would be is a 1/5 given more points then a 5/1? Are we rewarding physical ability or skill at finding it once you're there? There's so many ways for a person to say "that's not fair because" that it would just turn into something negtative & bitter and people would then ignore it anyway, so Jeremy's right. No rankings.

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com/geocache.html

Link to comment

OK, no ranking, but how about statistics? List cachers by number of finds and placements. Let user sort on username, number of finds, number of placements, state, country, etc.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

No scoring. Sorry.

 

This isn't a game with a defined playing space and time limit, so it would be unfair to turn it into a competitive sport.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location


Link to comment

While I see your point, I have to disagree. That's the beauty of the sport. I've equated it to golf many times.

 

You can go to a cache, find it, log it and play by the rules. Just like you can hit a par putt and make it for par. Or you could get near where the cache is and say you found it and log it and cheat. Just like you could roll that putt past the hole just missing it and then record par anyway. No one's going to know but you. And in doing that, you've defeated the purpose.

 

We're all out here to have fun. I am as competitive as anyone you'd ever meet. But this is a chance to get away from that and just get out and have a good time.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...