Points System

October 13, 2003

A geocacher from Missoula, MT created a site that associates points with the caches, based on age of the cache and the number of finders the cache has recieved. Here is a link to the of leader board. The only down fall to this system is that it incorporates all the caches in Montana and all the caches within a 150 mile radius from Missoula, and I live about 145 miles away. The second link is the explanation of how the point system works.

http://www.rusticweb.com/geocaching/cgibin/sgps-disp.cgi?step=allusers

http://www.rusticweb.com/geocaching/cgibin/sgps-detail.cgi?CID=5006

9.2k · October 13, 2003

That been around for a year or so. He apparently likes to play with numbers, which is fine. But they don't really mean anything, since its basic premise is flawed (that log times somehow relate to how difficult a cache is). It's not unlike the flawed scheme used in Watcher to rate a cache as good/okay/poor/bad, where a single cache hunter can give a cache a "bad" rating if they're having problems with a tricky cache.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

October 13, 2003

I like to refer to it as the "Arbitrary" points system, because it is just that. It is based on and geared towards what a click of cachers think makes a cache more interesting- difficulty. Often, this scale hits the mark, and sometimes it doesn't.

Here in Missoula, there are definitely a few schools of thought on what makes a cache interesting, and this system hits on one and half of them.

I admit that I do generally find that the more challenging a cache is, the higher the points are, and we are doing pretty well on this system. I do occasionally look at the points when deciding whether to go after one cache or another, but it is a 5th or 6th consideration (after weather, time, distance, mood...). I also find that quite often, the higher point caches ARE more interesting than the lower point caches. Sometimes, they are just dadgum hard to get to.

-I personally would like to see a scoring system based on scores from geocachers that have actually found it. Average those scores, and call THAT the cache's score. The score(s) could be based on interest, difficulty, overall quality, etc.

-It would be especially nice to be able to sort the scored point list based on a) It's average score, or How a particular geocacher scored it. That way, if you place a good cache, it could have a high score because people actually liked it, instead of because they couldn't get to it. If we found that there was another local geocacher who had the same general perspective as we did, we could look up caches that they have rated highly, and go after those.

The drawback to this plan is that it could only apply to geocachers that participate. Unless we can talk Groundspeak to implementing it...

May you have the hindsight to know where you've been

and the foresight to where you're going

and the insight to know when you're going too far.

October 13, 2003

I'm very familiar with the SGPS scoring system and live for the game. I'm from Spokane about 185 miles from Missoula and I've still managed to score quite well in the system. SGPS encompasses my "backyard" - the Idaho Panhandle, Coeur de Alene, Lewiston/Clarkston, Moscow/Pullman; most of the caches I've placed easily fall within the system.

I recently completed two caches that rank at the very top of the SGPS scoring system at 255 points. Coincidentally these two caches Thunderbolt Mountain and Shafer Meadows rank at the very top of my favorite caches found list. Both entailed long hikes into the backcountry of Montana with overnight stays but the country and wildlife I saw passing through the Great Bear Wilderness area, The Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and the Swan Mountains Alpine trail was like none I've seen before and I grew up in Colorado. In my opinion I would rather do ONE of these caches than a hundred caches where you drive up, hop out of the car, grab the cache, log it and move on to the next one. Because these "easy" caches are hit a lot they carry low scores. As a result of SGPS there are some fantastic caches being placed in the Cabinet Mountains of Montana, The Mallard Larkins Pioneering Area, and the fringes of the aforementioned wilderness areas. Unfortunately winter is upon us and these are going to have to wait until next season.

I disagree with Prime Suspect in his statement that the system is flawed because log times relate to how difficult a cache is. The two caches I mention above had not been found in two years and I know that was based totally on the difficulty - like who's gonna hike 25 miles to log a cache? A hard core SGPS player that's who. In all probability if it weren't for SGPS neither of them probably would have been found as the four of the five finds were "motivated" by SGPS points. Granted there are some impossible to get to caches - generally these are placed by vacationers using aircraft and/or expensive float trips that the average geocacher cannot afford but that's another whole issue.

In closing let me say that I've found 650 some caches. If I were asked to rank top 5% of those caches I wouldn't be able to pick 32 caches that I would call memorable. But my top ten are all in the SGPS and their find was motivated by that system.

24.7k · October 13, 2003

Well Said MedicOne.

It is a means to award points to the path less traveled.

It is a welcome variation on the stats game.

October 14, 2003

While the SGPS isn't perfect, it's as close to it as I've seen anywhere. It's also as close as I've heard anyone suggest. A few of my early-morning thoughts on it:

-Over time, caches with few finders rise to become worth more points. Caches with more points become more attractive to those watching the SGPS. Easier caches with high points tend to get pounded with finders and quickly become worth far fewer points. Harder caches with high points tend to get very few finders. In the end, caches that keep high point values tend to be the most difficult (and around here that usually means theyre in the most remote and beatiful areas).

-There are quite a number of caches that I probably never would have visited were it not for their high point values in the SGPS. Almost all of these high point caches have been close to the top of my "best caches" list. There's no direct correlation between points and quality of a cache, but there's a strong correlation.

-I've spoken with a number of people who've only visited certain caches due to the points they're worth. Others have only been motivated to place a very difficult cache in hopes that it would eventually become worth a lot of points. I fall into both groups and would argue that this external force on the game (the SGPS) has vastly improved the quality and the breadth of difficulty of caches in this area.

-I, for one, am quite appreciative that I live in an area that's covered by such a system as the SGPS. It has dramatically increased my involvement in and enjoyment of the sport of geocaching. Thanks to Skydiver for all his efforts in creating and maintaining it! (Did you know that he also sells inexpensive and cool geocaching-related gear at www.skydivergear.com?)

October 14, 2003

Rye said it best when he said "I for one, am quite appreicative that I live in an area that's covered by such a system as the SGPS. It has dramatically increased my involvement in and enjoyment ofthe sport of geocaching. Thanks to Skydiver for all his efforts increating and maintaining it!"

I for two am appreciative. That having been said I'm off to log the Tri State Multi a cache that contained portions of the final solution in caches placed in Montana, Idaho, and Washington. Of course the final (The TSM) counts for SGPS points or I doubt I would have done it!

October 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:
It's not unlike the flawed scheme used in Watcher to rate a cache as good/okay/poor/bad, where a single cache hunter can give a cache a "bad" rating if they're having problems with a tricky cache.

Um, Watcher doesn't *rate* caches at all. The "status" smileys are simply there to give a ***very*** rudimentary summary of the last (up to) five logs. They are useful for getting a very quick, very simple overview of the last five logs, but they *certainly* are not qualified to be a *rating*.

Edit: Here's a direct quote from the Watcher help about the cache status icons. If you would like to suggest additional or alternate language, please feel free to do so.

quote:
Cache Status: This column displays the cache status using a simple formula. This column can be sorted by clicking on the column title at the top of the screen. Descriptions of the icons are as follows:

No not-found or archive it logs, and at least one found.

Found log since last not-found or archive it log.

No found or archive it logs since last Not-found log.

"Needs Archived" is the latest log type.

Only notes.

No logs.

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

[This message was edited by ClayJar on October 15, 2003 at 04:18 AM.]

October 15, 2003

I would agree with MedicOne, Mossman, RK, and Rye_and_Leigh: The point system has motivated me to go to some absolutely beautiful and amazing areas. While I have no hope of catching a couple of the aforementioned cachers, it is still a great way for me to plan trips to find remote caches that I really enjoy. It's also a bit of a curse though - snow is hitting up high and now I have to sit 7-8 months before these caches are accessible again. What a long winter it will be

October 17, 2003

The basic theory, as I understand it, is that more difficult caches will have few visitors, and thus be worth more points over time. One underlying assumption is that more difficult caches are inherently better.

A flaw I see in this reasoning is that it assumes equal access to all of the caches in an area. That simply doesn't hold. Caches in the vicinity of Spokane and Couer d'Alene have many more folks searching for them, so they will obviously have more finders that an identical one near Hardin, MT. Is the one in Hardin somehow better?

To look at a couple actual examples, the two caches at the top of the list currently have maximum points, but from reading the logs and description, they don't sound like 'Top Ten' material.

Then there's caches like PC III, The pick of the litter and my own Scottish Cache. Scottish is worth 67 points as of today, while PC III is worth only 7. The fact that Scottish has been out for a few months longer shouldn't be enough to make that much difference. Niskibum's cache should rate much higher than mine, in my opinion, and is certainly 'worth' more than 7 points.

But what's happening is that PC III gets a lot of good word of mouth, and is, after all, a Niskibum cache, which people go out of their way to hunt. That, combined with its proximity to areas with lots of geocachers, is hobbling its 'rating'.

Shafer meadows may be a great place to visit, but is the Shafer Meadows cache itself what makes it great? For me, a long walk and a container thrown under a log does not make for a top-of-the-line cache. I can walk. That's not a big challenge. The locale can be magnificent and the cache itself only mediocre.

So, like Scott notes, this particular system rates caches based more on how hard they are to get to than on their personal merits. That's certainly one school of thought, but far from the only one.

I do feel for MedicOne, however. To be so interested in this particular system, only to have it handicap him by counting only a third of his finds... Since the epicenter of the circle is in Missoula, it cuts out more than half of the caches (many of them quite interesting), in the Inland Empire and gives a significant unearned advantage to the Missoula cachers.

It would be interesting to see the epicenter moved to, say, Twin Falls, or better yet, to simply include all of the caches in Idaho and Washington. Now that would shake up the leaderboard...

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

October 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
The basic theory, as I understand it, is that more difficult caches will have few visitors, and thus be worth more points over time. One underlying assumption is that more difficult caches are inherently better.

You understand the basic theory precisely. Any assumptions you make after that are entirely you're own and have nothing to do with the inspiration of, or motivation behind, the SGPS.

quote:
A flaw I see in this reasoning... blah, blah, blah, a bunch of invalid points based on my own incorrect assumptions and failure to read the FAQ.

See my statement above, read the FAQ, and <content self-censored out of respect for the family friendly nature of these forums.>

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

"We never seek things for themselves --

what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

October 17, 2003

Once again I'm going to have to differ in opinions - this time with Yumitori. I'm one of the two cachers that found Shafer Meadows and believe me it was more than just a walk. If "walking" were so easy I suspect a lot more folks would have taken on this cache. The scenery, the solitude, and the interaction with the wildlife up there was absolutely stunning. In fact, the cache became secondary to the experience. It wasn't even hidden under a log BTW; didn't need to be, no muggles up there. In point of fact, isn't that how geocaching got its start? Five gallon buckets placed in the woods and posted on the internet. I wonder if the framers of geocaching ever imagined it would evolve in such a fashion. Perhaps its time we got back to the basics. On the other hand caches placed in urban areas (lesser point value caches) do not have that attraction. All one has to do is take a few trips to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle and you've seen just about every iteration of a camoflaged cache many, many times over. On one trip to Portland I found no less than five sprinkler head caches; who knows how many more were there. These quickly become just as ho hum as Yumitori purports that tupperware under a log at Shafer Meadows to be AND there is no lasting memory of the find. It just becomes another log entry. Find one Shafer Meadows, Thunderbolt Mtn, Pyramid Cache, Trappers Cabin, Larkins Peak, Grandpappy, or Wolverine Cabin and you'll have a memory that lasts a lifetime. My wife still talks about our trip to Wolverine Cabin. She uses a picture I took of it as her desktop background (and she doesn't even know she was geocaching!).

No system is without a few flaws and I'll admit that some of the high point caches are probably just drive-ups in remote areas. Time tends to drag these down however into the ranks of the mundane. The true 255's just seem to endure - at least in my limited experience.

I guess what it boils down to is everyone does what THEY like. I for example shun puzzle caches like the plague. Like a micro hidden in a rockpile most of these are just too daunting for me to waste my limited caching time on for example the one in Seattle that requires you to translate hyroglyphics (SP?). I spent far too much time in high school trying to translate Latin . If you like urban caches (and low points )then by all means be my guest and go for it!

SGPS is just small enough and close enough (but not too close) to make it interesting for me. If it were to encompass all of Idaho, Washington, and Montana I think it would become unmanageable not only for the administrator but for me the finder. I once had a conversation with a gentleman from Montana (he knows who he is) about geocaching heaven. I think the consensus was in geocaching heaven there would be an unlimited number of perfect caches (255's) and I would have all the time in the world to find them all. There are already way to many perfect caches in the SGPS system - I'll never have the time to find them all so I pick and choose among the ones that I think are more perfect than others letting the point system be my guide and then I do the best I can.

So, its off my soapbox and on to trying to solve my inability to receive Pocket Queries - anybody got any ideas on THAT issue?

October 17, 2003

Let me start by saying Kudos to Skydiver for his efforts with the SGPS.

In my opinion the system is great. Flaws or not,it instills a bit of competition and gives credit to some of those caches that are a bit of a challenge. There are some people out there that do not believe we should be turning this into a game or that the way things are scored is not fair. Go for the cache or not, look at your SGPS score or not, YOUhave the choice. Thanks to the SGPS system I have been into areas that I have probably never would have seen. To those of you out in other areas without a similiar system.........look into it,it adds a little something extra for me.

Dustin T. Thurman

October 17, 2003

Erm, perhaps I should have said walking is not a challenge for me, MedicOne. Certainly I can see it being more so for others. But I been taking long walks for decades, and without there being a cache at the end. Some of those hikes may have approached perfection, but they were not perfect geocaching experiences.

One thing I treasure about this sport is that there is no such thing as the 'perfect' cache. What you consider perfect is impossible for others to even attempt. What I most enjoy, another absolutely loathes.

That's a hidden gem in the 'one cache, one find' system currently in use on geocaching.com. It doesn't matter what their Difficulty and Terrain ratings are, they are all equal. And that's true - for whatever sort of cache it is, there's someone out there who thinks it's the ideal type. When you get into making some caches worth more than others, you lose that.

If I think Niskibum's caches should be rated more highly than another's, who am I to say so? And if you don't like the same sort of caches I do, why would you accept that declaration? Skydiver's points work for him, but it's hardly a one-size-fits-all solution. And it's certainly not a means of finding the perfect cache.

But by all means, enjoy it if it works for you.

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

October 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
That's a hidden gem in the 'one cache, one find' system currently in use on geocaching.com. It doesn't matter what their Difficulty and Terrain ratings are, they are all equal.

I fully disagree, and that was the inspiration behind the SGPS when it was just a flicker of a thought I had while on a long hike.

There are SO many geocachers (not all, or even most, but a noticiable chunk) who either use the number of finds one has as a sort of competition (just look at the uproar that occured when Dan Miller shut down his stats page), or consider the number of finds one has as a measure of personal achievement and experience (often noted by pointing how how many finds they have in forum posts or cache logs as a justification for some opinion they're about to express).

The number of finds one has is an absolute meaningless measure of anything. One cacher can quickly accumulate many drive-by bag-n-tag finds in a morning before work, whilst another cacher does a two day overnight hike into the back country for a single find. Did the first cacher

accumulate more experience than the second cacher? Hell No! The number of finds a cacher has is no more a measure of the quality of the cacher than the number of SGPS points a cache is worth is a measure of the quality of the cache.

Consider the SGPS a measure of the cost of a cache, where time and effort are the currency. Low point caches are probably cheap trinkets, not requiring much time or effort. Very high point caches are probably very expensive in terms of time, effort, planning ahead, packing along supplies, actual $ spent in preparing and getting there, etc. So the SGPS points a cacher has accumulated, is a (not the) measure of the time and effort they've probably spent hunting, and hiding, caches, simple as that. And I consider the time and effort one spends geocaching a much better (but not perfect) measure of their experience than how many bag-n-tags they've nabbed.

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

"We never seek things for themselves --

what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

October 18, 2003

Wow, I am always amazed at the tone a lot of posts have on this forum....

I think that what we all need to remember is that this is supposed to be fun, and there is no right or wrong way to enjoy this sport.

Cachers and caches come in all varieties. Some live for the find, some for the numbers, some for the walk/hike/scenery, some for the difficulty, and some for the trading. If a ratings system makes it more fun for those who consider themselves "hardcore" then so be it. If ratings systems aren't your thing, that's OK too - ratings are almost always based on the opinion of a person/group of people, and really only mean something if it means something to YOU.

Personally, this sport has lead me to do a little hiking - hiking that I wouldn't have done otherwise. And, I love the trading aspect - even though I am well aware that a lot of people think trading is silly and prefer to TNLN.

And, I certainly mean no offense, but sometimes the forums reflect a good deal of testosterone poisoning. While a great number of cachers may be buff, healthy, woodsy, men who are able to trek long miles and scale mountains, sometimes I think that we need to remember that there are solitary female cachers (like myself) who do not feel safe venturing too far afield, family cahers with small kids (who love trading), disabled cachers who appreciate park n' grab caches, and those just looking to enjoy the outdoors a little more.

There is room here for everyone.

So raters, rate away! Those who don't like the ratings, just ignore it.

(gee, I wonder how flamed I will get for this...)

Jessica

[This message was edited by cool_librarian on October 18, 2003 at 05:50 PM.]

October 18, 2003

cool_librarian- I agree completely!

As someone who sees some benefit and motivation from the (A)SGPS, but also doesn't plan weekends around it, I think that some people are taking this issue quite seriously. Sure, I like the system, but I don't live by it. If we (all of the OConnellz) tried to cache according to the system, I guarantee I would be flying solo, and probably not just when it came to caching.

The point I was trying to make earlier was just that this system works for some people, the system I suggested might work for other people, and the total number found might be good enough for others. As you point out, this is an individual enough sport that it seems like a waste of time to criticize other cachers unless they are really going to give the collective group a bad name- by breaking the rules.

One system or another just adds to the community. Like you said, if you don't like it, don't use it. If someone thinks they can do something better, then they should go for it. Put their time and effort where their mouth is. That is exactly what Skydiver did, and he did a good job defining exactly what motivates him to go for a cache. I personally don't agree that difficulty alone makes a great cache. I do use the SGPS frequently, but more for other information than points. Occasionally, I will look at the points as motivation, but put it into perspective on what I consider a fun cache. I had the know how to implement my system, I would. Someday soon, I might. For now, I look only at the pages and statistics that I am interested in.

May you have the hindsight to know where you've been

and the foresight to where you're going

and the insight to know when you're going too far.

October 18, 2003

I see a little of something for everyone in the geocaching point system. Yumitori currently stands in fourth place with 312 finds worth an average score of 21 points per cache and a respectable 6750 points. I currently rank third with about 100 fewer finds than Yumitori and an average value of 35 points per find. So I've chosen to play for the megapoint caches and hide caches that I hope(d) would go to megapoints. Another gentleman I know Supreme744 is VERY proud of the fact that his average is the highest on the board at 50 points per cache. I wasn't aware of any point scales or stats pages until I was into the sport for three months or so and someone pointed SGPS and the stats pages out to me. I LOVED the stats page and checked it every day and truly miss it. But I like the SGPS much better BECAUSE it steers me to what I consider to be the perfect caches in my little mind (long mountain hikes with a great big ammo can sitting in plain sight!). I'll gladly leave the puzzles, micros, etc to those who like them and stick to what I like.

As to testosterone Poisoning - I thought that testosterone was kinda like money - if a little is good, more is better I personally didn't see any overzealous flame time comments here in this thread at least. I hope you see Jessica that SGPS does have something for each of us. Too bad you don't live near the 150 mile circle.

My wife wants to establish a HPS (Husbanding Point System to compete with the SGPS. A hug would be worth 5 points, a thoughtful gesture 20, etc. I said "so what do I have to do for a 255?" Nah! I'm not obsessed

Points System

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment