Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
medoug

Do premium-only caches earn twice the favorite points in your area?

39 posts in this topic

Most of us have probably seen geocaching.com's latest notice to increase premium membership numbers.  It mentions that premium-only caches earn twice the amount of favorite points.  Apparently basic caches earn 4.5 average favorite points while premium caches earn 9 average favorite points.

In the area where I usually cache northeast Iowa, northwest Illinois, and southwest Wisconsin, there are relatively few premium-member-only geocaches and they don't really appear to have generated many more favorite points so I wonder if this claim holds true here.  Perhaps in other areas/countries this may be more true.  Do you think it is true where you geocache?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I actually have a hard time believing that the averages are as high as 4.5 and 9.0 for basic and premium caches, respectively.  Yes, there are some highly-favorited caches, but for every one of those, it seems like there are tens of caches which have 0 or maybe 1 favorite point.  Once again, perhaps this is just my observation in the local area where I usually geocache.

Edited by medoug
added hypen
0

Share this post


Link to post

Also, can someone tell me if there is some statistical/calculating tool available to quickly run the numbers for a group of caches (perhaps for the closest thousand caches to my address) to see how the favorite points are distributed among basic and premium caches?

Edited by medoug
added text "also"
0

Share this post


Link to post

Within 20km of my home, there are 78 caches with ten or more FPs but only 13 of those are PMO. I'm not seeing much correlation at all between PMO and FPs here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, medoug said:

Most of us have probably seen geocaching.com's latest notice to increase premium membership numbers.

I didn't see it.

Can you please point me to where it is?

PS: Given these numbers, I wonder if there is some confusion between PMO and caches owned by PMs.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to imply that PMO caches are better caches then non-PMO caches. In my experience, that hasn't been the case. They are no better or worse.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post

Guess I didn't see that one.  Please provide a link.  Thanks.  :)

When we started finding pmo guardrail hides (altoid tins with a magnet ...) , with even worse containers than that found, and add in pmo lamp post hides to boot,  I realized a long time ago that many hides were made pmo simply because the CO can

We see FPs on everything from ftf, to just being a cacher's friend.  

If that was true, wouldn't most of the old sought-after caches and virtuals be pmo?  We Favorited archived hides when we were given our first batch because they were our favorites.   Most of the caches I go to have few FPs simply because they are higher in D/T or a long walk, and not visited often (we have a couple similar).  I don't believe one minute that making them pmo would change that.  ;)

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

It's just a marketing tool, and those of us that know, know better. It's the location and the number of finders that pull in actual FP's. 

2

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the example L0ne.R.  :)

Seems like just marketing spiel (to me), the same folks who say PMs have "VIP access to thousands of additional geocaches all around the world".

Also seems to say that a "non-pmo" cache is of lesser quality simply because of FPs, and maybe a good log doesn't quite say thank you to the CO as much as tacking on a FP.     Sheesh...

Once those folks roped-in see that there's no difference,  what then ?

Edited by cerberus1
give creddditt due...
1

Share this post


Link to post

In my area caches like the one pictured in LoneR's post are usualy available to all members. If you have to put some work into getting to GZ, there's no need to exclude basic members. Gadget caches hidden in an urban area are most likely PMO and get far more FPs.

That's why favorite points are quite useless for me. If you feel the same way, please like this post and subscribe to... no wait, I messed up something there.

Edited by Rebore
3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

It's just a marketing tool, and those of us that know, know better. It's the location and the number of finders that pull in actual FP's. 

It is also worth noting that basic members can't give favorite points, and although they can theoretically find and log PMO caches that vast majority of logs on PMO caches are by those that *can* add a favorite point.  

1

Share this post


Link to post

The first 40 caches from my house:  the 9 PMO caches have 11 FPs (average 1.22); the 31 AM (all member) caches have 86 FPs (average 2.77).

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

It's just a marketing tool, and those of us that know, know better. It's the location and the number of finders that pull in actual FP's. 

  But i saw it on the internet so it must be true. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post

The highest FP caches we have ever encountered were in Seattle HQ Geo Tour and NONE of those caches are Premium Only.

High favorite points can be an indication of high traffick or older age of cache (i.e. a cache was placed over 15years ago and has tons of finds - older virtual caches are a good example).

If you're using FP to gauge quailty of a cache...the cache's FP ratio is a much better indicator. At geocaching.com, If you scroll over a caches FP, you can click to view the FP ratio which is FP / # of premium logs.  Check it out.

Edited by boisestate
Typo- I always seem to find one.
0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, boisestate said:

If you're using FP to gauge quailty of a cache...the cache's FP ratio is a much better indicator.

On newer caches I'd probably agree.

May be different there, but "older" caches like you mention (except the real old "must do"  ones) here and most places we've been, have fewer FPs than a comparable newer cache that started after late '10, when "Favorite Points" first came out.

It's not the cache or CO's fault for a low "FP ratio", just that most never went back to place a FP for past finds when they got their allotment.    :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Seems like just marketing spiel (to me), the same folks who say PMs have "VIP access to thousands of additional geocaches all around the world".

With 3 million geocaches worldwide, it only takes 2000 PMO caches to make that a true statement.  ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Thanks for the example L0ne.R.  :)

Seems like just marketing spiel (to me), the same folks who say PMs have "VIP access to thousands of additional geocaches all around the world".

Also seems to say that a "non-pmo" cache is of lesser quality simply because of FPs, and maybe a good log doesn't quite say thank you to the CO as much as tacking on a FP.     Sheesh...

Once those folks roped-in see that there's no difference,  what then ?

I understand that it is a marketing ploy.  The problem is that it appears to not be a truthful one.  If the worldwide numbers really show that the PMO caches do NOT result in twice the FPs compared to AMA (all-member-available) caches, then it isn't just deceptive marketing, but rather an outright lie.   I had expected a higher code of ethics from Groundspeak.

I suspect that there is no easy method for determining the true average FPs for both categories of caches worldwide so Groundspeak can make such a claim without worrying that they will be proved wrong.

So, is there any chance of their claim being true, or is this just another example of FAKE NEWS?

Edited by medoug
typo
0

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

On newer caches I'd probably agree.

May be different there, but "older" caches like you mention (except the real old "must do"  ones) here and most places we've been, have fewer FPs than a comparable newer cache that started after late '10, when "Favorite Points" first came out.

It's not the cache or CO's fault for a low "FP ratio", just that most never went back to place a FP for past finds when they got their allotment.    :)

Totally agree.

Funny, up till just now, we didn't know there was a time before FPs.

We have only been caching since 2014, I still consider our crew rookies.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, medoug said:

I understand that it is a marketing ploy.  The problem is that it appears to not be a truthful one.  If the worldwide numbers really show that the PMO caches do NOT result in twice the FPs compared to AMA (all-member-available) caches, then it isn't just deceptive marketing, but rather an outright lie.   I had expected a higher code of ethics from Groundspeak.

I suspect that there is no easy method for determining the true average FPs for both categories of caches worldwide so Groundspeak can make such a claim without worrying that they will be proved wrong.

So, is there any chance of their claim being true, or is this just another example of FAKE NEWS?

The statistics may well be skewed by the very large number of non-PMO P&G caches that never get any FPs at all. Power trails immediately come to mind, but then I guess LPCs in those parts of the world where lamp posts have slide-up covers, guard rail caches, park bench nanos and pill bottles dropped by here-today-gone-tomorrow app users would also fall into that category. So I suppose it's possible that, across all caches, their claim might be true.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So, once again, does anyone on here (particularly those in the "it's about the numbers" crowd or statistical types) have a method or tool for doing a real calculation of this?  Even if it can't perform a worldwide calculation, it'd be very interesting what the results would be in a regional area with a larger size than the couple anecdotal examples already posted above involving only a 10-mile radius or hundred or so closest caches.  Maybe the numbers listed by Groundspeak are true worldwide, but vary greatly from region to region.

Edited by medoug
anecdotal, not antidotal
0

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

<screenshot>

I cannot not find this in my observed channels. Is this from facebook? Do you have a link?

Dubious marketing I would say.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hynz said:

I cannot not find this in my observed channels. Is this from facebook? Do you have a link?

Dubious marketing I would say.....

It was in my email inbox. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It was in my email inbox. 

That's where I find most of the dubious marketing I encounter.  Some days almost everything I find in my e-mail inbox is marketing. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

Is a PMO geocache likely to have more favorite points than a non-PMO geocache?

Yes. There are (worldwide)

  1. less % PMO geocaches without any favorite point than % non-PMO geocaches with 0 Favs (29.5 % PMO vs. 37.9 % non-PMO)
  2. more % PMO geocaches with more than 50 favorite points (3.25 % PMO vs. 1.63 % non-PMO)
  3. higher % for PMO geocaches for any given number from 2 (slightly higher) to 50 (clearly higher) favorite points

In this thread there were already some assumptions made why 1. and 2. are not improbable.

Does a PMO geocache on average have twice the number of favorite points than a non-PMO geocache?

Well, (looking at publicly easy available data) I personally am not sure for twice - if looking today at non-archived (non-event, because events can't have favorite points) geocaches worldwide, to me it seems more maybe like roughly somewhat between 1.5 and 1.8 times for the mentioned sample - but who knows when and how the marketing dept built up their numbers. So I would think that at a certain point of time and choosing the right selection 'twice' can be the result.

If you don't look at the whole world, but for example exclude Germany (and neighbo/u/ring countries) the result might be (slighlty to completely) different.

Sum lines for non-PMO and PMO geocaches. Examples: 80% of all non-PMO geocaches have 0-6 favorite points, 94 % of all PMO geocaches have 0-30 favorite points.

log.jpg.97cc1e6cad3ffb93380c2595f36e8356.jpg

But that doesn't say at all WHY PMO geocaches attract more favorite points. In my opinion that depends on a lot of factors, but setting a geocache PMO per se is no autonomous sign of quality for me. For me it is even the other way around: if something is PMO I tend to look closer to see who is the owner, whether it is one of the 'good ones'.

Some of the geocaches with a lot of favorite points (not necessarily with high ratio of favorite points) are at must top sightseeing locations - they gather favorite points no matter how the geocache itself is - just because thousands visit them and often owners choose to make them PMO at such places, especially if they are traditionals.

Some of the geocaches with a lot of favorite points (and high ratio of favorite points) are gadget caches where the owner tries to protect their work making it PMO (not helping avoiding damage by hurried power geocachers).

1.+2. both have big impact on the resulting average. Looking at the median gives fictive 1.5 favorite points for non-PMO and 2.2 favorite points for PMO geocaches. More than 2/3 of all PMO geocaches have less than 5 favorite points vs. slightly over 3/4 of all non PMO. Or viewing from the other side only 31.5 % of PMO geocaches have at least 5 favorite points vs 23.3 % of non-PMO geocaches.

And as we saw already in August absolute number of favorite points isn't all, favorite point ratio or Wilson gives additional clues for quality (or popularity, rare cache types, rare DT, good view, nice location).

Around here there are only some owners who put everything or exposed caches they own PMO. Some do it simply because they can. Some of them are top hiders and also were awared with a Reward Virtual, some are not.

PM vs. open to all doesn't make to much difference here in my opinion (especially for non-trads) when an estimated 90-98 % of all actual geocache 'visitor traffic' around here is by PMs (and accompanying BMs and known BMs-as-a-matter-of-principle). Only at the very touristical center at traditionals there seems to be a difference because foreigners are often less likely to be PM than locals.
 

Edited by AnnaMoritz
grammar, typo
2

Share this post


Link to post

Looking at the top favorited caches (filtering out virtuals as they, to my knowledge, aren't PMO) in my area out to 50 miles, the top 3 aren't PMO and the next 8 are PMO, and the next is a non-PMO.  This is from the very first page of 20 (the other 8 are virtuals).  Percentage of FPs is as follows for the top FP caches in my area. 

#1 - Big Ball of Paint - 600 finds, 267 FP, 63%

Next two are non-PMO and have a percentage of 60 and 17.

Next 8 are PMO caches with a percentage of 52, 52, 53, 56, 52, 81, 49, 52.  Of these 8, 7 are owned by a single cacher and are gadget caches.  The 81 is a series final.

The next 5 pages ((100 more caches) are split pretty evenly between PMO and non-PMO, coming in at 45 PMO and 50 non-PMO, the other 5 being virtuals.  It IS interesting to note that of the first 60 caches ranked by FPs in a 50 mile radius, 31 are PMO and 18 are non-PMO.  Not quite 2-1, but close.  If you toss in virtuals, you're looking at a 31/29 split.

I've found or own exactly 60 of the top 120 FP caches in the area.  For me, there's real no discernible difference between the PMO and non-PMO caches so I'm not really sure their rates are valid.  Based on % of FPs, PMO caches generally have a higher % rate, but lower # of finders, which obviously skews the data a bit, while non-PMO generally have a lower % rate, but higher # of finders.  2/1 seems a bit unrealistic to me, just based on my local 50 mile radius.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Side note: There are PMO virtuals too. Owners make them PMO because they can. I first noticed this when an Austrian reviewer made his new 2017-2018 Reward Virtual at the main attraction in Innsbruck PMO. There are other cache types without physical stages or containers that are PMO, Earthcaches and Webcams. But until now I haven't heard about events that are PMO.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not against PMO caches because I recently just set mine back from PMO status. The reason? I'm afraid that in my local community that all we were offering is PMO caches and it had a drastic effect on the decline of geocaching locally. I have seen an improvement, a very small one, but my caches are getting more finds now after removing PMO status.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wondering whether there are differences between traditional and non-traditional geocaches regarding PMO and favorite points (because for me perceived there is not too much difference between PMO and non-PMO here, at least for the caches I found, but I prefer non-traditional geocaches anyway) here a worldwide overview of geocaches (not archived, without events), separated into non-traditional geocaches and traditional geocaches.

Sum lines for non-traditional and traditional geocaches. Example: ~ 50 % of non-traditional (both PMO and non-PMO) geocaches have 0-5 favorite points. 75 % of PMO-traditionals have 0-5 favorite points. 

t-nt.thumb.jpg.fffe9e7934ac172066622894ca49fb9b.jpg

Rather what one would have expected, for non-traditional geocaches there doesn't seem to be too much difference (at least around here) between PMO and non-PMO geocaches regarding favorite points, but still a slight advantage for PMO. Non-traditional geocaches in general attract more favorite points than traditionals.

Other (to me interesting) facts: Around one million traditionals don't have any favorite points. The worldwide the percentage of non-traditional-PMO geocaches out of all non-traditional geocaches is higher than the percentage of traditional-PMO geocaches out of all traditional geocaches (19.2 % vs 14.7%). The number of non-traditional-PMO geocaches corresponds to 25.2 % of all PMO geocaches whereas the number of non-traditional non-PMO-geocaches corresponds only to 19.6 % of all non-PMO geocaches.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post

.

Edited by AnnaMoritz
wrong thread
0

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent analyses, AnnaMoritz!  This is the kind of data and detailed discussion that I was hoping to see. 

I'm curious as to the source of this worldwide data.

With data showing this level of detail and completeness, I can't help but wonder why it is that you wouldn't also have access to the raw data to either substantiate or deny the original claim:  That PMO caches earn twice the FPs compared to non-PMO caches.

Thanks again!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Why not ask the marketing dept? Only they know how they came up with the numbers.

For me this ad is an ad. So there are two parts, first 'it's no surprise' and second the 'that PMO have'

For the first part (it's no surprise):

As there is no explanation given WHY PMO on average get more favorite points I would consider this what it is, a marketing idea. Like the initial 'we choose the top 1% hiders for a reward'. Similar to the top 1% uproar some (long time basic members or PM with non-PMO geocaches) that take care of their geocaches and have fine favorite point ratio may feel insulted by the assumption that PMO is better because it is PMO. But that's marketing, they think they will win more while scaring off people who helped build up the game.

Why should a marketing dept say 'PMO geocaches have on average more favorite points because less of them compared to non-PM geocaches end up with no or one favorite point and the percentage of PMO geocaches is higher among non tradiditional geocaches that tend to attract more favorite points' and so on. No, marketing is simple and eye-catching. 

For the second part (PMO have more favs):

For many around here for years for it is indeed a surprise that PMO have more favorite points than non-PMO. The extend varies and also depends on point of time.

I tend to believe it isn't impossible to have a selection of geocaches at a certain point of time where the the claim 'twice' was true.

Perhaps the success of various actions by Groundspeak and how the game is changing might have altered the numbers.

For long the aim was growth, 3 million active geocaches was a goal for example.

Now it is quality, we heard reviewers are now focusing (even) more on this aspect. So we saw many geocaches disappear into archive during the last months. Many of them were in bad shape or gone, I would guess a lot of them had a number of favorite points below average. I don't know, but maybe they were above average non-PMO, some by throw-a-traditional-and-never-come-back.

Some owners cleared up their portfolio after learning that the average favorite point ratio was used for determining who gets a Reward Virtual and archived their unloved geocaches with few favorite points.

If marketing effords were successful a bigger portion of previous Basic Members decided to go Premium Member. If they already have found hundreds of geocaches they got favorte points for their previous finds that were mainly non-PMO (there are exeptions).

Some owners make their geocaches open to all after having them PMO for a while, around here typically geocaches with higher amount of favorite points

In my opinion the sum of all these factors can easily lead to a slight shift in favorite point numbers for still active geocaches.

For the question 'is it worth going premium membership' there is another thread already. At least for my decision being Premium Member it doesn't play any role at all whether PMO-geocaches have more favorite points or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My experience matches medoug in the sense that I'm surprised that the averages are 4.5 and 9 as a random look shows more caches with none or 1 in my neck of the woods.  For the average number of FavPts to have relative "meaning" you would also need to know the average number of finds.  Without that basic info the relative number of fav pts has no context.  When searching for quality caches placed by CO's unknown to me, I filter by fav pts then look for a 20% fav pts or more.  Based on this,   I believe the great majority of caches with 9 or more finds have 100 or more finds so...total number of fav pts by itself is not a useful screener, though it's one pace to start.  The best indicator I've found in many years of trying is the name of the CO and the feedback in the logs... 

As a possible useful additional thought; the "average" number of fav pts is the total number of fav pts divided by the total number of caches and is skewed by a few caches with many fav pts.   0,0.1,1,1,1,1 1,2,2,15 =24 yields an average of 2.4 fav pys per cache, yet 90% of the caches are "below average".   The mean (in this case) is 1 as is the mode, both of which give a better idea of the general level of quality.  For marketing purposes though, fav pts. "are 2.4 times higher" and would be the way to play it...

edexter

0

Share this post


Link to post

I agree in my area Premium Caches earn around twice as many Favourite Points.  

Comparing the 100 nearest Basic Caches with the 100 nearest Premium Caches to my home location.

Total Number of Favourite Points:
•    Basic = 231
•    Premium = 468

Average Number of Favourite Points:
•    Basic = 2.31
•    Premium = 4.68

Number of Caches with No Favourite Points:
•    Basic = 33
•    Premium = 51

Number of Caches with 10+ Favourite Points:
•    Basic = 7
•    Premium = 17

Cache with Most Favourite Points:
•    Basic = 22
•    Premium = 39

Edited by Curly_McWurly
0

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Curly_McWurly said:

I agree in my area Premium Caches earn around twice as many Favourite Points.  

Comparing the 100 nearest Basic Caches with the 100 nearest Premium Caches to my home location.

Average Number of Favourite Points:
•    Basic = 2.31
•    Premium = 4.68

 

Curly_McWurly, where do you live?  It'd be interesting if your differring results are due to being in a different country, a specific region of the country, or a very localized situation.

Although 100 caches each is a manageable number for gathering data and making simple calculation, it seems unlikely to be a big enough sample to get more than a very local measure.  For example, the closest 100 caches in my town occurs in less than a 2.5 mile radius.  Only 2 of those 100 closest caches are PMO.  Extending out even farther to the closest 200 caches only takes me out to a 4.5 radius with still only the same 2 PMO caches. 

Edited by medoug
0

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/21/2017 at 0:53 AM, AnnaMoritz said:

Why not ask the marketing dept? Only they know how they came up with the numbers.

 

AnnaMoritz, where did you get the numbers to create the charts that you provided above?  Were they actually retrieved from geocaching.com?  It seems like it would take some serious computer equipment to interface with their website to retrieve the data for all 3 million geocaches in the world.  ...and if so, then calculating the average number of favorite points earn by each type of cache would be a fairly straight forward calculation once all that data were collected.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Local data (Vienna, Austria) - short version:

nearest 1000 geocaches average PMO 63.2 FP, open to all 44.9 FP, ratio 1.4

10 miles average PMO 48.4 FP, open to all 25.5 FP, ratio 1.9

Groundspeak is showing (for example) the number of favorite points for the first 1000 geocaches from home coordinates (be it PMO or open to all) to all geocachers (Basic Members can't see other details like size, D, T, etc. of PMO geocaches in the new search). So everyone could calculate average and other numbers for 'the first 1000' from this data.

For all 3 million geocaches I would think only Groundspeak knows the exact average number of favorite points.

So on a larger scale, it isn't that obvious how to proceed. You can't build a worldwide average of favorite points with a few search queries or looking at statistical data like 'most favorited' or data meant for other statistics provided by API partners. But you can easily show sum lines. For really big numbers the distribution gives a quite smooth curve, knowing the exact number of favorite points for every geocache in the 10-20, 500-600 or the 3000-4000 favorite point range and so on isn't necessary for this. The sum line shows that a claim 'PMO geocaches have on average 40 favorite points, open to all only 2' would be quite unrealistic. But from a first glance you can't tell whether it is 9 (PMO) and 4.5 (open to all), you only can say the numbers don't seem impossible.

 

Local data and conclusions - long version:

I wondered about local numbers and whether you can gain some ideas from them. Events don't have favorite points, so they are excluded. If I didn't mess up the numbers (hope I didn't), it seems to look like this:

The first 1000 geocaches around the center of my city (5.9 km) were 134 PMO geocaches and 866 geocaches open to all when I looked, less than 40% (open to all) / less than 32% (PMO) were traditional caches. I choose to compare geocaches within the same distance because PMO make up only 13.4% of all geocaches around here. Comparing the same number of PMO and open to all would give different regions that can't be compared (city vs. rural areas) .

Average favorite points PMO: all cache types 63.2, traditional caches 133.9, non-traditional geocaches 30.9

Average favorite points geocaches open to all: all cache types 44.9, traditional caches 49.0, non-traditional geocaches 42.2

Gives 1.4 as favorite point ratio PMO/open (all cache types) for the first 1000 geocaches.

Taking the 5 PMO geocaches with highest number of favorite points and assuming all others have zero favorite points still gives an average of 33.4,  or the other way round 33.4 of 63.2 favorite points for the average (or more than half) come from only 5 caches.

There is also a big difference between PMO and open to all regarding favorite points and cache types. Non-traditionals seem to do better in the city if they are open to all (42.2 vs. 30.9) while for traditional caches PMO gives clearly higher numbers due to a few PMO with lots of favorite points and generally higher numbers. There are many explanations why this isn't unlikely.

At least 3/4 of all caches seem to have a number of favorite points below average, for PMO more than 4/5.

 

Within 10 miles (16.1km) from the city center there were 399 PMO geocaches and 3004 geocaches open to all when I looked, slightly less than 50% are traditionals.

Average favorite points PMO: all cache types 48.4, traditional caches 71.4, non-traditional geocaches 26.7

Average favorite points geocaches open to all: all cache types 25.5, traditional caches 22.7, non-traditional geocaches 28.2

Gives 1.9 as favorite point ratio PMO/open (all cache types) for geocaches within 10 miles (16.1 km).

Between 3/4 and 4/5 of all caches seem to have a number of favorite points below average,

local.jpg.316f21e5a709bbacde1bab829b363a0c.jpg

 

Examples from picture: 80% of PMO geocaches worldwide have up to 9 favorite points. Around 90% of all geocaches in the center of Vienna have up 100 favorite points.


If 75% to 84% of all geocaches would have a number of favorite points below average also worldwide, the 4.5 (if slightly over 75% for open to all) and 9 (if 80% for PMO) as average from the ad and a favorite point ratio of 2 seem quite possible to me. If let's say 80% of all geocaches (both PMO and open to all) have a favorite point number below average then the average could would be 9 (PMO) and <6, maybe 5.8 (open to all) and a ratio of 1.55.

 

I would think the average favorite point number varies a lot between regions even if cache quality would be the same. A lot of local geocachers and tourists and a big city densely populated with thousands of geocaches - lots of favorite points. Areas without local geocachers and not enough geocaches to attract geocache-tourism - few favorite points. Remote areas (without tourism) - few favorite points. Areas where most cache visits are by PM - more favorite points than in areas with few PM etc. 

 

Edited by AnnaMoritz
0

Share this post


Link to post

AnnaMoritz, once again, where did you get the worldwide data to create the charts that you provided above?

Also, I suspect that the data for Vienna, Austria is quite different from the rest of the world, especially since your numbers indicate that less than 40% (open to all) or less than 32% (PMO) of Vienna caches are traditional caches.  In comparison, I would guess that it is more like 70% to 90% of caches are traditional in the USA.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2