Which cache has the most not found logs?

[Guest Kobdalis]

I posted a four stage multicache this weekend with a difficulty level of 4.5 / 2.5. It didn't take long before I had three Not Found logs saying that they haven't even found the first. It made me think about which active cache that has the most Not found logs. Does anyone know?

 

I just want to compare with something else in order to get a feeling for how many Not Found logs one should accept before drastically changing or archiving the cache.

[Guest navdog]

I don't know if there is a way to search for something like that.

But you might want to double check your coordinates for the first leg and make sure that if there is something you placed at the first leg, that it is still there.

[Guest Kobdalis]

They do find the right place! Its an old and very small house. But they don't seem to find the clue I have written on the wall directly in front of the entrance. It should be the first thing they see when they enter the house. I thought that it should be easy to find... apparently it's not. You never know until you test it...

[Guest blscearce]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kobdalis:

[..]It made me think about which active cache that has the most Not found logs. Does anyone know?

---

 

I wrote a program to look at all the active caches and count up the happy and sad faces in the log section.

 

The cache with the most sad faces (16) is 579 (Leaning Tree).

 

The caches with the biggest excess of sad faces over happy faces (6) are: 2401 3859.

 

The caches that have zero happy faces but some sad faces (hunted but never found) are: 86 88 159 267 363 421 668 1142 1384 1396 1407 1463 1573 1584 1842 1951 2006 2043 2373 2378 2419 2422 2527 2689 3073 3088 3285 3535 3544 3557 3614 3615 3646 3732 3859 3950 3997 4037 4052 4211 4339 4340 4635 4783 4796 4819 4912 5005 5006 5068 5231 5250 5307 5414 5536 5558 5565 5803 5804 5843 5848 6116 6156 6183 6332 6386 6406 6429 6600 7409 7457 7485 7502 7670 7755 7771 7790 7808 7848 7849 7876 7901 7908 7909 8076 8093 8166 8231 8232 8254 8292 8451 8464 8465 8466 8591 8592 8598 8698 8699 8709 8725 8778 8998 8999 9010 9011 9030 9072 9073 9090 9101 9118 9153 9154 9155 9156 9157 9158 9159 9181 9182 9183 9187 9188

[Guest Rootbeer]

el after you go through the door."

 

With any new cache, the clues that seemed obvious to the hider may be opaque to the seeker. Another thing to try is to go along with someone else when they search for your cache for the first time. Don't offer any hints or suggestions, but see what they try -- and what they don't try!

 

If they walk right past a clue without noticing it, see whether you can tell why they didn't notice it. Did they look only at ground level, when the clue was higher? Were they too busy looking at their GPSr to see the clue? Were they off by eight meters and looking at a window instead of a door?

 

Then again, maybe those folks who couldn't find your cache weren't any good at this.

 

Good luck with it!

[Guest Rootbeer]

el after you go through the door."

 

With any new cache, the clues that seemed obvious to the hider may be opaque to the seeker. Another thing to try is to go along with someone else when they search for your cache for the first time. Don't offer any hints or suggestions, but see what they try -- and what they don't try!

 

If they walk right past a clue without noticing it, see whether you can tell why they didn't notice it. Did they look only at ground level, when the clue was higher? Were they too busy looking at their GPSr to see the clue? Were they off by eight meters and looking at a window instead of a door?

 

Then again, maybe those folks who couldn't find your cache weren't any good at this.

 

Good luck with it!

[Guest Kobdalis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blscearce:

I wrote a program to look at all the active caches and count up the happy and sad faces in the log section.

---

 

Thanks blscearce . I'm reading the logs right now.

[Guest Kobdalis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rootbeer:

Perhaps they're searching only outside the house because they don't realize that they should go inside.

---

 

It seems as if they are. One guy even climed the roof and went looking under the house! I wrote in the instructions to look for something written at the location. Given that instruction looking in the house seemed, at least to me, as the obvious first thing to do since there is nothing else except trees and some rocks around. Anyway I have added a hint which makes it easier to find. Most of them are now working on the third leg.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rootbeer:

With any new cache, the clues that seemed obvious to the hider may be opaque to the seeker.

---

 

So true I realize now...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rootbeer:

Then again, maybe those folks who couldn't find your cache weren't any good at this

---

 

That's a good way to rationalize that my cache sucks...

 

Thanks for the comments...

 

 

[This message has been edited by Kobdalis (edited 24 October 2001).]

[Guest Kobdalis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rootbeer:

Perhaps they're searching only outside the house because they don't realize that they should go inside.

---

 

It seems as if they are. One guy even climed the roof and went looking under the house! I wrote in the instructions to look for something written at the location. Given that instruction looking in the house seemed, at least to me, as the obvious first thing to do since there is nothing else except trees and some rocks around. Anyway I have added a hint which makes it easier to find. Most of them are now working on the third leg.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rootbeer:

With any new cache, the clues that seemed obvious to the hider may be opaque to the seeker.

---

 

So true I realize now...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rootbeer:

Then again, maybe those folks who couldn't find your cache weren't any good at this

---

 

That's a good way to rationalize that my cache sucks...

 

Thanks for the comments...

 

 

[This message has been edited by Kobdalis (edited 24 October 2001).]

[Guest Artful Dodger]

blsearce,

 

Could you write a program to find out the most popular cache? A few people have expressed that they would like to know which it is?

 

(Cache with most happy faces + cache with most happy faces and sad faces)

 

Could it be 579 again?

 

Thanks

 

[This message has been edited by Artful Dodger (edited 24 October 2001).]

[Guest blscearce]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Artful Dodger:

blsearce,

 

Could you write a program to find out [...] (Cache with most happy faces + cache with most happy faces and sad faces)

---

 

Using yesterday's data, cache #269 (Dinosaur Ridge) wins in both cases: 122 happy faces, 123 faces total.

 

I also made a list of the hard-to-find caches, where the number of sad faces is more than double the number of happy faces (that is, find rate of less than 1/3): 668 686 836 782 996 159 267 421 363 547 86 88 1407 1384 1463 1396 1573 1584 1842 1878 1951 1142 2988 2989 2401 2419 2422 2373 2378 2527 2680 2689 2795 2006 2043 3950 3997 3073 3088 3285 3364 3365 3535 3614 3615 3544 3629 3557 3646 3732 3859 4819 4912 4783 4796 4037 4052 4139 4211 4140 4339 4340 4635 5536 5558 5565 5803 5804 5843 5848 5005 5006 5068 5231 5307 5250 5414 5297 6332 6406 6429 6386 6600 6042 6116 6156 6183 7409 7502 7457 7485 7808 7815 7670 7817 7755 7901 7908 7909 7771 7848 7849 7790 7876 8007 8998 8999 8218 8076 8231 8232 8093 8166 8254 8292 8451 8464 8465 8466 8709 8725 8591 8592 8598 8698 8699 8912 8913 8914 8915 8916 8778 9181 9182 9183 9187 9188 9010 9011 9101 9030 9118 9057 9058 9059 9061 9062 9063 9064 9065 9067 9072 9073 9153 9154 9155 9156 9157 9158 9159 9090

[Guest Artful Dodger]

Thanks blscearce.

 

It was a good bit of egocaching. I posted the result in the General Forum - all credit to you.!

 

Cheers

Artful Dodger

[Guest blscearce]

One last bit of popularity contest: here are the top twenty caches by number of faces (#269, Dinosaur Ridge, is way out in front):

 

Face count 123: 269

Face count 101: 579

Face count 98: 2456

Face count 81: 1296

Face count 80: 3160 3162

Face count 75: 3237

Face count 72: 278

Face count 71: 3113

Face count 70: 328

Face count 68: 3761

Face count 66: 2237 3184 3280

Face count 65: 2816

Face count 62: 615 817 1240

Face count 61: 845

Face count 60: 30 161 2876

Face count 58: 3787

Face count 57: 737 2077 2157 2436

Face count 56: 373

Face count 55: 158

Face count 54: 1317 3127 3926

[Guest Markwell]

GEESH!!! How do you DO that?!? On second thought, better keep it to yourself or people will be sampling the database forever, thus bogging it WAY down.

 

It is pretty cool, though. I live for data mining.

[Guest Iron Chef]

all the active caches and count up the happy and sad faces in the log section.

 

The cache with the most sad faces (16) is 579 (Leaning Tree).

 

The caches with the biggest excess of sad faces over happy faces (6) are: 2401 3859.

 

The caches that have zero happy faces but some sad faces (hunted but never found) are: 86 88 159 267 363 421 668 1142 1384 1396 1407 1463 1573 1584 1842 1951 2006 2043 2373 2378 2419 2422 2527 2689 3073 3088 3285 3535 3544 3557 3614 3615 3646 3732 3859 3950 3997 4037 4052 4211 4339 4340 4635 4783 4796 4819 4912 5005 5006 5068 5231 5250 5307 5414 5536 5558 5565 5803 5804 5843 5848 6116 6156 6183 6332 6386 6406 6429 6600 7409 7457 7485 7502 7670 7755 7771 7790 7808 7848 7849 7876 7901 7908 7909 8076 8093 8166 8231 8232 8254 8292 8451 8464 8465 8466 8591 8592 8598 8698 8699 8709 8725 8778 8998 8999 9010 9011 9030 9072 9073 9090 9101 9118 9153 9154 9155 9156 9157 9158 9159 9181 9182 9183 9187 9188

---

 

I dunno why, but your program skipped http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=505 which has 9 unhappy faces. And I checked cache number 2401 which actually has 9 too. Any chance your program isn't counting some unsmiley faces?

 

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

-Iron Chef

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

agefive.com/geocache/ ~ Fe-26

Lets Drive Fast and Eat Cheese!

[Guest blscearce]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iron Chef:

I dunno why, but your program skipped http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=505 which has 9 unhappy faces.

---

 

When I drew the data the other day, 505 had nine happy faces and nine sad faces.

 

In the post you replied to, I was searching for "most sad faces" (#579 has 16, which beats 9), "biggest excess of sad faces over happy faces" (#2401 and #3859 have six more sad faces than happy, which beats the zero excess of #505), and the last list was "zero happy faces and some sad faces", which #505, with nine happy faces, doesn't qualify for.

 

The second posting (which you didn't quote) listed caches where the number of sad faces was more than double the number of happy faces (which will include the whole "zero happy/some sad" list), and #505 doesn't qualify for that list as well.

 

It's actually hard to come up with a face-based metric for "hard to find cache". If you want just the raw "sad face count":

 

Sad face count 16: 579

Sad face count 13: 2456

Sad face count 11: 500 3237

Sad face count 10: 1330

Sad face count 9: 505 580 837 1555 1878 2191 2401 3227 3865 5255 5256

Sad face count 8: 112 484 568 614 638 675 1145 1366 2548 4194 4593

Sad face count 7: 214 615 836 857 996 1409 1832 1893 1947 2030 2669 3266 4989 5510

 

And there's #505.

 

Brian

[Guest Iron Chef]

sorry, i can't read so well.

[+planetrobert]

I wonder how this is now, i bet a cache has more DNF's than 16

[+CO Admin]

If you feel an old thread has merit, Link to it from a new thread. Please don't reopen threads this old most times the question you ask can not be answered as most of the people are gone.