Jump to content

A New Score (just for fun!)


Wronskian

Recommended Posts

Now that GCUK stats are back up and running (thanks guys - good luck with keeping it all going), I was wondering about a new 'score'.

 

We know some people like to play the numbers game and there's been lots of arguments about whether this is good or bad - let's not go there now.

 

What I was wondering is this - instead of just the raw 'number of caches you've found/hidden', what about a score based on the difficulties of each cache you've found? You just add up the difficulty rating of each cache - a one-star difficulty scores 1, a five-star scores 5.

 

I'm guessing that's maybe something Teasel can do with the current stats, and it would be interesting to see how it turns out! Although would it be any more 'relevant' than 'number of caches found'?

 

--

Seek and ye shall find (tupperware, ammo boxes, bears, free ISP CDs...)

Link to comment

This sounds like it would be an interesting stat.

 

It would also make the incentive to get higher scoring caches more often.

This is really something to look into, not just for stats but maybe for Geocaching.com aswell--- as an added feature.

 

Pid

 

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

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them!

 

www.buckscaching.co.uk

Link to comment

I'm looking at adding some new figures to the cacher stats pages (OK, OK, I've just got this schoolboy urge to add 'virgins defiled' to the page icon_biggrin.gif ). The average difficulty is already there; calculating a total as well shouldn't be too difficult.

 

I'd also like to provide clickthrough to a league table for each of the fields on the cacher stats page.

 

After the sitting and waiting of the past couple of months, I'm starting to get all enthusiastic again icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

I definitely like the idea of this.

 

The only bug I can see with it is if someone changes the rating of a cache after you have donme it. Would the score be recalculated each time it is used to compile a table or would it be the rating that stood on the day you logged the cache as a find?

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

Would the score be recalculated each time it is used to compile a table or would it be the rating that stood on the day you logged the cache as a find?


I wondered about this. There's no right answer - it would depend on whether the owner tweaked the rating based on feedback, or due to genuine changes in difficulty (seasonal variations/floods/escaped tigers/whatever). But there's not much point in debating it, since the scores will be pretty meaningless in any case (we all know how unreliable ratings can be).

 

Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be done (for fun), just that it's not worth worrying too much about the details.

 

SimonG.org

Link to comment

Well, as far as the G:UK stats go, we don't have any historic information, so we'd have to simply sum up the current values for those caches.

 

There are other undesirable consequences of the lack of history. For example, if you found a moving cache (eg one of the Photographers caches), it will only count against your UK totals when that cache happens to be in the UK, and your score will go down when it goes into another country! icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

quote:
(not Watermead 3 in January though!!)

 

I think we need to have a concerted effort to do WW3.... between a group of us, we should be able to crack it.

 

One thought is to get a load of Hornet's ammo cans & make a raft.....

 

Paul

 

Team Blitz

 

White gravel? What white gravel? I can't see any.... heck, who cares!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Wronskian:

What I was wondering is this - instead of just the raw 'number of caches you've found/hidden', what about a score based on the difficulties of each cache you've found? You just add up the difficulty rating of each cache - a one-star difficulty scores 1, a five-star scores 5.


OK, total difficulty, total terrain and total stars (difficulty+terrain) have been added to people's G:UK profiles.

 

League tables for all scores can now be reached from any cacher stats page. The league table for total stars found can be found here. Congratulations to Tim & June and The Hornet for reaching four figures! icon_biggrin.gif

 

[This message was edited by Teasel on February 02, 2003 at 05:33 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

......... Congratulations to Tim & June and The Hornet for reaching four figures! icon_biggrin.gif

 


 

Phew - wake up this morning to find I've got over 1000 'points'. Must have been a hell of a night and I don't remember a thing. It would explain the muddy pyjamas though. icon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gif

 

How about double points for nighttime caching? - Now I wonder who would head the list then icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

_________________________________________________________

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

Link to comment

There's a surprising number of very moral cachers out there (only one cache found, which was a virgin) icon_wink.gif

 

Lainey seems to have a strong preference (13 out of 14)... but as for dodgydaved (only 1 out of 118) icon_eek.gif

 

ps these figures are overestimates as everyone who found the cache on the day of its 'first time', gets it notched up. (Event caches are significant here!)

 

[This message was edited by Teasel on February 03, 2003 at 05:08 AM.]

Link to comment

Thanks for crunching through the code... those news totals do seem to make a reasonably decent 'score'. Interesting/fun to see the differences between people who've got a very similar number of caches but quite a different 'total stars' score.

 

I guess most people just go to the caches nearest them, but if you're looking out for the harder five-star locations, there's a bit more of an incentive! icon_wink.gif

 

--

Seek and ye shall find (tupperware, ammo boxes, bears, free ISP CDs...)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

There's a surprising number of very moral cachers out there (only one cache found, which was a virgin) icon_wink.gif

 

Lainey seems to have a strong preference (13 out of 14)... but as for dodgydaved (only 1 out of 118) icon_eek.gif


 

Now then, I'll have you know I'm a happily married man, at least that's what Mrs dodgydaved tells me icon_razz.gificon_smile.gificon_razz.gif

 

dodgydaved

 

I'm NOT lost, I know exactly where I am, I'm here!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Nia:

Is teasel allowed to say "recursive websucker "

 

and if he is, he should explain what it means to us plebs icon_smile.gif

 

Tech-no notice


 

Only if he stars out the middle letters of websucker, between the w and the "ker".

 

That way young eyes won't have to see such a disgusting word. They can then fill in the blanks for themselves... icon_biggrin.gif

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

I don't think I'm allowed to list archived caches on web pages, as that's how the trouble between GC.com and Buxley's maps originally started. I'll ask Elias for some guidelines before putting anything online.

 

I've emailed you a raw list of archival dates. Please don't distribute the list, but if you come to any statistical conclusions, please let us know!

 

The UK stats page is due for a bit of attention sometime (graphs needed!), and I'll probably add 'caches archived this month' while I'm at it (no details of individual caches, though).

 

[This message was edited by Teasel on February 05, 2003 at 10:02 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SimonG:

Now the stats are going again, can we tell how many people joined after Inside Out?


Well, the UK stats page shows 167 new cachers in Jan, compared to 50 in Dec. Not conclusive, but certainly encouraging.

 

What would be interesting is a graph of one-hit-wonders, to see if publicity attracts people who stay in the sport.

 

ps Nia - when have I ever said "Recursive Websucker"? I wouldn't know what one was!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

I don't think I'm allowed to list archived caches on web pages, as that's how the trouble between GC.com and Buxley's maps originally started. I'll ask Elias for some guidelines before putting anything online.

 

I've emailed you a raw list of archival dates. Please don't distribute the list, but if you come to any statistical conclusions, please let us know!

 

The UK stats page is due for a bit of attention sometime (graphs needed!), and I'll probably add 'caches archived this month' while I'm at it (no details of individual caches, though).

 

[This message was edited by Teasel on February 05, 2003 at 10:02 AM.]


Teasel, can you run cgis written in C on your web site? I have a piece of open source software that can generate graphs in pdf format on the fly from text files.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:

Teasel, can you run cgis written in C on your web site? I have a piece of open source software that can generate graphs in pdf format on the fly from text files.


Never tried! The server runs some flavour of linux, so I guess I could easily compile something here and upload it. Not sure whether Lunarpages, who host the site, would approve though.

 

I'm using jpgraph to produce the graphs on the site. Looks really powerful and I've only begun to discover its features so far...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

ps Nia - when have I ever said "Recursive Websucker"? I wouldn't know what one was!


 

When i do a query on your stats pages it says:

 

"This is suitable for feeding into a recursive websucker for people who like to print out full details of all their caches."

 

at the bottom, I just wondered what it meant

 

Tech-no notice

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Nia:

"This is suitable for feeding into a recursive websucker for people who like to print out full details of all their caches."


I take it back, I did write it! Now then, what did I mean...?

 

Well, I use Adobe Acrobat, which is a wonderful tool for printing web pages (automatically scales streetmap maps to fit the paper, lets you delete junk pages before printing etc). Just point it at the "less links" page, tell it to go two levels deep, and you get a lovely pdf file, ready to print. Great for those of us who like to print reams of cache details, and I undetstand that it's useful for people with those new-fangled PDA thingies too!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

quote:
Originally posted by The Hornet:

How about double points for nighttime caching? - Now I wonder who would head the list then icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif


Or maybe give points for finding caches before anyone else? http://www.trbf.com/teasel/view_topcachers.php?type=virgins All hail the Northumbrian! icon_biggrin.gif


Presumably The Northumbrian will be adding a signature line "Virgins converted"

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...