Geocacher Activity Quotient (GAQ)

[Guest bunkerdave]

I was thinking...there has been some discussion periodically about what stats are most useful, and one I have figured for myself occasionally is the "caches per day." Pretty simple, you just take your total finds, and divide it by the number of days that have passed since you started caching.

 

Example: (me) I found my first cache on April 26, 2001. 260 days have passed since then. I have logged 244 finds. My cache activity ratio is 244/260, or 0.94. This is actuallly the first time I have calculated it and gotten less than 1.

 

There are precious few out there, I would guess, who have a ratio higher than 1. And my condolences to their loved ones. Actually, though, there are probably more than I thought, because newer cachers tend to be pretty rabid, especially now that there are SO MANY more caches to hunt than there were when some of us started out.

 

I would love to know what some of you others get...don't be shy. And of course, folks in a place like UT or CA have a HUGE advantage. There must be some way to factor in the number of caches in the area. Perhaps something like a percentage of caches in your area (state?)found. For me, that would work out to:

 

(244/561)*(244/260)= 0.41

 

244 = # of caches I have found

561 = # of caches in Utah

260 = # of days since my first find

 

Can anyone guess my profession? (Click profile to find out.) Fun time of year.

[Guest Ramness570]

found first Halloween 2000

 

Found 51

 

51/437 = 0.11

 

Hmm kinda low

 

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

Brian & TabascoX

Senior Member Southeast Xterra Club

Geocaching since October 2000.

 

[This message has been edited by Ramness570 (edited 11 January 2002).]

[Guest Steak N Eggs]

Sports writer.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

 

Can anyone guess my profession? (Click profile to find out.) Fun time of year. [/b]

---

 

 

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

"MY gps said it's RIGHT HERE!"

http://www.geogedgets.com

[Guest bunkerdave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steak N Eggs:

Sports writer.

 

 

 

---

 

I can only wish.

[Guest tedoca]

Numerologist?

 

Let's see...

 

(33/127)*(33/159)= .05

 

Even lower!

 

And, 18% of the caches I found were out of State. And what about caches hidden, gotta factor that in somehow too?

 

Sooner or later somebody will come up with something that works.

[Guest bunkerdave]

thematically I had it all worked out. Trouble is, I ran out of time and caches in my area before I caught them.

 

You can spare me the "competition" lecture.

[Guest Markwell]

GAQ=0.13

 

However, I made my first post to the forums on March 9, 2001 (in this thread). My posting ratio is 3.23 posts per day.

 

Almost a year later, I re-read what I wrote, and I still stand by it.

 

quote:

---

I, too, am fairly new to Geocaching, but I'm getting into it purely for the edification of my 5 year old boy. This summer, his family in the Chicago area, and his grandparents in Chattanooga, will be taking little suburban boy out into the wilderness hiking, learning directions, learning to read maps, learning the "2D" representation, etc., all with not only the hopes of a small prize, but with the altruistic idea of leaving something for someone else who will visit it in the future. What a GREAT educational experience (and relatively free since Grandma is buying the GPS) Note for readers in 2002 - Grandma did NOT buy the GPS. And who's to say I won't enjoy it right along with him. I'm outside in the wilderness, with a little technological help, hoping to find a well placed cache that has a significant meaning for the indivdual that placed it.

 

Point? So many things in life have no point to some and a great meaning to others. Me, I watch the Superbowl only for the commercials, have never sat through an entire World Series or NBA championship, and can't see why anyone would smack a little white ball with a club around a golf course. But I do enjoy camping, hiking, rafting, and technology. The glorious thing about our civilization is for those who find and interest, there is usually and avenue to pursue that interest - even though to others, there may be no point.

---

 

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

Markwell

My Geocache Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

[Guest bunkerdave]

Heh, Heh... love your post Markwell. I am betting that it is not your boy "dragging" you out to go caching/dashing, is it?

 

Too funny.

 

2.32 posts per day. Brother.

[Guest TresOkies]

The only flaw I see is why use the total number of caches in your state as a factor? I think that will skew statistics for a lot of people. You live in a state where there are many caches and cachers. What about folks who hit a lot of caches while traveling or who live near state boundaries?

 

Case in point. I started out caching this summer while living in Austin, TX while has a large and active population. I found about 40 in two months. Now in Oklahoma, I am hard pressed to find a cache within 60 miles that I didn't place. Granted, we need something to normalize the #found/#days ratio, perhaps #found to #total caches on that day. Since you are already calculating the quotient based on the #days since starting, it's an ever-evolving statistic.

 

How about

 

(#days since beginning caching)/(#total active caches) * (#found)

 

I'm not sure it's GAQ, though. Perhaps Realized Cache Potential. RCP?

 

Just a thought. Feel free to expound.

 

-E

 

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

N35°32.981 W98°34.631

 

[This message has been edited by TresOkies (edited 11 January 2002).]

[Guest bunkerdave]

TresOkies:

 

I agree with you; there are definitely some flaws. It is not really important what the numbers look like, as long as they are comparable and have a measure of accuracy in representing what we are trying to compare, which is the activity (infection?) level of a cacher. Your formula would, I believe, result in exceptionally small numbers, but those would just be multiplied by a factor to make them useable. I like the idea of using total caches worldwide as a base. Seems to be fair. Although I am not sure it would be any more useful than my original "caches per day" standard.

 

Interesting topic. Anyone guessed my profession yet?

[Guest regoarrarr]

is geographically based.

 

[This message has been edited by regoarrarr (edited 11 January 2002).]

[Guest regoarrarr]

Oh and just for kicks, let's honor those 47 people who have a ratio of over a cache per day:

 

| Pigears | 12 | 2 | 6.00000 |

| Auendave | 8 | 2 | 4.00000 |

| Max PDOP | 10 | 3 | 3.33333 |

| Team Rainbow | 3 | 1 | 3.00000 |

| BruceS | 272 | 132 | 2.06061 |

| Skyvideo8 | 4 | 2 | 2.00000 |

| bluemountain | 2 | 1 | 2.00000 |

| djflybum | 2 | 1 | 2.00000 |

| gt1994 | 2 | 1 | 2.00000 |

| NuBi | 2 | 1 | 2.00000 |

| crackerjim | 2 | 1 | 2.00000 |

| Blindman | 26 | 13 | 2.00000 |

| snoilog | 2 | 1 | 2.00000 |

| srdrake | 90 | 50 | 1.80000 |

| RUN-DTR | 5 | 3 | 1.66667 |

| VentureForth | 5 | 3 | 1.66667 |

| Cache-meifucan | 8 | 5 | 1.60000 |

| CCCooperAgency | 363 | 231 | 1.57143 |

| neo1 | 9 | 6 | 1.50000 |

| kmikolaj | 3 | 2 | 1.50000 |

| Jeffpfd | 3 | 2 | 1.50000 |

| zzdave2 | 3 | 2 | 1.50000 |

| Show Me the Cache | 308 | 217 | 1.41935 |

| wolfmann | 69 | 49 | 1.40816 |

| Chris n Maria | 7 | 5 | 1.40000 |

| RichardL | 7 | 5 | 1.40000 |

| BassoonPilot | 185 | 135 | 1.37037 |

| OffTrailHikers | 4 | 3 | 1.33333 |

| nolefan9399 | 4 | 3 | 1.33333 |

| facktd | 4 | 3 | 1.33333 |

| jogps | 164 | 125 | 1.31200 |

| dscjwoo4 | 13 | 10 | 1.30000 |

| Lou | 9 | 7 | 1.28571 |

| WUNHUNG | 18 | 14 | 1.28571 |

| Rentakid | 46 | 38 | 1.21053 |

| Phileas Fogg's Adventure Socie | 24 | 20 | 1.20000 |

| Bogeyboy | 16 | 14 | 1.14286 |

| Dhobby1 | 233 | 204 | 1.14216 |

| stayfloopy | 303 | 275 | 1.10182 |

| bsteeboy | 49 | 45 | 1.08889 |

| tneigel | 26 | 24 | 1.08333 |

| cutarm | 13 | 12 | 1.08333 |

| Hid Pro Quo | 14 | 13 | 1.07692 |

| Red Oval | 190 | 178 | 1.06742 |

| Greenschist | 180 | 173 | 1.04046 |

| DLiming | 234 | 229 | 1.02183 |

| Team "Wyle E" | 231 | 229 | 1.00873 |

[Guest tnunnery]

Interesting idea Bunkerdave. It looks like you and I began this adventure only three days apart from each other. My first find was 4/23/2001.

 

Mine came out to be .43 overall and .57 weighted by state.

[Guest VentureForth]

Even weighing by the state isn't a real accurate way to judge. Remember those travel bugs? Many of them wander from country to country. Gotta figure that in for our international cachers. You're GAQ should be a direct relationship to the number you've found against the total available and the total days you've been at it.

 

So for me, (4/12705)*(4/12)= .0001

 

(4 finds, 12705 total caches, 12 days since my first find)

 

Add to that your placement quotient (percent of total caches placed which you have placed in the number of days playing) and you get your mean GAQ.

 

I'm staching one today, so I would get to add .000007 for a total of .000107

 

 

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

VentureForth out to the wild, wet forest...

 

[This message has been edited by VentureForth (edited 11 January 2002).]

[Guest bunkerdave]

Perhaps there should be a factor inclided for the number of caches placed. Not perhaps...DEFINITELY. Any ideas on that? Personally, I think placing a cache is worth a whole bunch found, but as to how to factor it mathematically...

 

Since the point is to evaluate geocaching 'activity' levels, you could also factor in the number of posts in the forums. Uh-Oh....I think ClayJar has a trump card.

[Guest regoarrarr]

Well, on my stats pages (just on the cities page right now), I am just simply adding hides to finds. This definitely makes sense for me - here's an example.

 

Let's say there are 50 caches in Cincinnati. If I have hidden 5 of them, then I will only be able to find 45 of them. But Joe Geocacher, having hidden none, can find all 50 of them. So if there is no adjustment for finds, then I'd never be able to catch up to Joe G.

 

But perhaps a hide should be counted as several finds?

[Guest bunkerdave]

Here's one:

 

((Hides*5)+Finds)/days caching

 

Mine would be:

 

((18*5)+244)/261= 1.28

 

Still doesn't factor for the states/areas with fewer caches, but seems to tell something.

 

I like the 5 to 1 "hide to find" value ratio. IMHO, the hides are what really counts.

[Guest Moun10Bike]

"value" of a hide?

 

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

Jon (Moun10Bike)

N 47° 36.649', W 122° 3.616'

www.switchbacks.com/geocaching.html

[Guest bunkerdave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

I wonder what the average number of finds per cache over the course of its lifetime is currently. Maybe that's a good number to use for expressing the "value" of a hide?

 

---

 

This is tricky, since my favorite cache I placed (and I would bet most people agree with this) has been logged only twice. This does not make it worth "less." On the contrary, quite often these harder, less visited caches are the best ones.

 

I realize this is a moot point, but since it's MY thread, I get to chime in at will, right?

 

Always good to hear from you, Moun10bike.

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

[Guest tecmage]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

Here's one:

 

((Hides*5)+Finds)/days caching

 

 

Mine would be:

 

((18*5)+244)/261= 1.28

 

Still doesn't factor for the states/areas with fewer caches, but seems to tell something.

 

I like the 5 to 1 "hide to find" value ratio. IMHO, the hides are what really counts.

---

 

All this number crunching was getting to me!

I just got done with producing some stats for work, and this was TOO irresistible!

 

I agree we need to factor in the number of possible caches in a state (of course- I live in a state with a little less than 1/3 the caching possibilities of Utah). Yeah, maybe that's it- normalize the possible # Geocaches for each cacher? Then we need to worry about Geocachers that have a lot of hides- like Myotis (ARRRRRRGGGGGG- too many numbers, too many!!!).

 

Anyway, Tracy and I made our first find two days after BunkerDave, using his last formula:

 

((3*5)+ 105)/259= .46

 

BTW- some are going to complain about the hide factor. Remember all the discussion about hiders vs seekers, etc (help me out Markwell, please.....)?

 

Richard and Tracy

[Guest fiser]

A ratio of hides to finds might be a good measure of a person's contribution to caching. You wouldn't have to worry about being in a cache-poor state either.

[Guest Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

This is tricky, since my favorite cache I placed (and I would bet most people agree with this) has been logged only twice. This does not make it worth "less." On the contrary, quite often these harder, less visited caches are the best ones.

---

 

No disagreement on that here. I'm in the same boat -- my "best" caches are the remote, hard-to-get-to ones that have only had a handful of finds. In fact, the one I'd probably call my favorite has yet to be found (partially because it was hidden last Labor Day and is now under 5+ feet of snow)!

 

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

Jon (Moun10Bike)

N 47° 36.649', W 122° 3.616'

www.switchbacks.com/geocaching.html

[Guest bunkerdave]

WARNING: Potentially inflammatory opinion coming up.

 

My opinion is that cachers who don't hide caches are parasites. Many have said, and I have even said myself, "to each his own" but having seen some ridiculous find numbers being tallied, with few to no caches placed, I have taken a stronger position. Of course, this is JUST MY OPINION.

 

That said, if someone places a ton of caches, I don't have a problem giving them the 5 points for each one. I would hope that the caches are thoughtfully placed, however. Not like a BUNCH of caches in my neighborhood.

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

[Guest bunkerdave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiser:

A ratio of hides to finds might be a good measure of a person's contribution to caching. You wouldn't have to worry about being in a cache-poor state either.

---

 

This is a figure that has been used frequently. It probably is the simplest, most useful number. I still like just adding the number of finds to the number of hides, times 5. I would be at 334.

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

[Guest Markwell]

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

Markwell

My Geocache Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

 

[This message has been edited by Markwell (edited 11 January 2002).]

[Guest JamieZ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

My opinion is that cachers who don't hide caches are parasites.

---

 

B'Dave,

 

That's a pretty strong statement. I haven't yet hidden any caches (16 found), mostly because I'd like to make something memorable. I simply haven't found a good location or gotten a really good idea to make a difficult cache.

 

I'm not offended at all by your statement. I agree with you more than I disagree with that thought. However, I feel it's a bad idea to encourage (by negative enforcement) everyone to go out and hide caches. I don't want to go out and look for bad caches, and that will happen if people feel pressured to hide something.

 

I'd far prefer that cache-placement be something that only a few dedicated people undertake. More quality, less quantity.

 

If I had to come up with one sentence to describe my opinion: Everyone should make an effort to hide one very good cache that they would like to find themselves.

 

Jamie

[Guest regoarrarr]

The cache with the most logs (both found and not found) is #269 by far with 151. It was retired by its owner though on Dec. 31, 2001, so it may not hold the top spot for long. Still, #2 is nearly 50 logs behind. #2456 and #1296 are tied with 102 logs each.

 

The top 25:

 

| cache | logs|

+-------+-----+

| 269 | 151 |

| 2456 | 102 |

| 1296 | 102 |

| 579 | 100 |

| 7312 | 94 |

| 2237 | 89 |

| 3237 | 87 |

| 3160 | 85 |

| 278 | 83 |

| 328 | 82 |

| 2077 | 76 |

| 11656 | 74 |

| 817 | 74 |

| 161 | 74 |

| 3761 | 73 |

| 3184 | 72 |

| 728 | 71 |

| 158 | 71 |

| 2436 | 70 |

| 30 | 70 |

| 2188 | 70 |

| 845 | 69 |

| 3113 | 69 |

| 3787 | 69 |

| 2816 | 69 |

 

But that wasn't the question. There are, at least according to my recknoning, 113182 found logs and 7176 not found logs over 12198 caches. That's 9.867 logs per cache, so maybe even 5:1 is too low.

[Guest bunkerdave]

JamieZ -

 

Yes, this is a tricky topic. Quality or quantity? Well, I can tell you that I am for quality. But I am also against people hunting and hunting and hunting and NEVER placing even ONE cache, of good quality or otherwise. I just don't get it.

 

Most notable is that as you go through the list of those who have a lot of finds, there are several who have placed ZERO. Still others have placed a couple. I would never go to the lengths of some who have placed dozens, but it seems to me that the more you find, the more you are "out there" and the more likely it is that you will find lots of good places to hide caches.

 

I just think it is selfish, and goes against what the sport/hobby is all about.

 

I found considerably more than 16 before I placed my first cache. But I think that if you read the logs on that cache page you will see that my experience in hunting paid off, and made that the fun and interesting cache that it is. That is still my favorite hiding spot, although I have placed several others that are close. That is one thing that really makes for a great cache - the hiding spot. When I find a cache in a place and I say, "wow, I wonder how they found this place" or "I never would have thought to look there" that is one element of a good cache.

 

Hmmm...topic seems to be evolving. Back to the original...

 

There is nothing wrong, either, with caches in urban areas. They should be in a place that is interesting, or makes for a challenging hunt. I have one just behind my house that I think has been fun for others. It has been visited 70 times, see

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=2436

 

I started this cache without much thought, because I just wanted to get Utah's 100th cache. I wondered if it was a "good" spot, and suggested in the forums that I might remove it, but every time I did so, I would get several e-mails telling me not to. So I got a better container, logbook, and stocked up the "prizes" and it is still there... might very well be the most visited cache in Utah. Not sure. Maybe someone with that information can tell me.

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

 

[This message has been edited by bunkerdave (edited 11 January 2002).]

[Guest Valkrider]

Unlurking and posting first post!

 

I'd agree with having some sort of factor geographically. I'd suggest a mulitplier based on percent of caches found within 100 miles (that being as far as a reasonable person would drive to go hiking, not that anyone here would be called reasonable [ ] So 25 finds in a cache rich environment wouldn't be worth as much as 25 in a cache poor environment. And I'd choose miles over states because I live in a huge state.

 

Another factor to consider would be the number of people you've introduced to the sport. Maybe a multiplier based on the number of people you list when you log a site. (or even better the number of people who list you when they log a site). I'd definately be looking for the number of different people, not just how many times you've gone out with your running buddy.

 

As far as the profession involved, I would guess engineer. Anyone this into numbers must have a high dilbert factor.

 

see Ya

Valkrider

N 33º 4.93 W 97º37.62

[Guest essay]

urban caches so folks could try the sport at lunch or after work without investing an entire day bushwhacking, so we did that, too.

 

Two of my caches are in pretty canyons. Three of them are in city parks. The Christmas cache I placed was a success in my mind because a few people came to the park to play in the snow and the pine trees with their kids in the middle of the Christmas rush. The last one I placed is not in a particularly interesting spot and doesn't give anyone a great hike -- it's a book cache with a short (ok, maybe not so short) history of the Idaho Falls author who wrote "Where the Red Fern Grows" and directs folks to a statue honoring him, but it has given at least one newbie geocacher a chance to bring their kids along for a hunt.

 

I want my caches to give people a chance to getsome fresh air outside with people they love, and if they don't have to jump off a cliff to do so, that's fine with me.

 

So place 'em already, I wanna go hunt!

 

'K, getting off the soapbox now ...

[Guest bunkerdave]

Re: Markwell's System

 

Works for me, but then, it is skewed in my "favor"

 

I get:

 

244 finds

18 hidden

5 hitchhikers

2 events

613 posts

 

Total: 370.15

 

That is not a bad scale, either, although it *still* fails to account for cache density. Seems to be the "achilles heel" of all these systems. And that's fine, since there's no prize for "winning."

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

[Guest kablooey]

I don't know that cache density needs to be an issue. One would think population density should be an issue, but heck, you live in Utah (not exactly a population-dense state) and look at all the caches out there.

 

I'm not sure how you cache-hiders do it. When I plant a cache, it seems to become a maintenance nightmare.

 

93 found

4 hidden (1 currently archived)

123 days

[Guest Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

Re: Markwell's System

 

Works for me, but then, it is skewed in my "favor"

---

 

I've gone Travel Bug crazy, so it definitely works in my favor:

 

175 finds (175 x 1 = 175)

40 hidden (not counting event) (40 x 5 = 200)

73 hitchhikers (73 x 0.5 = 36.5)

1 event (1 x 1.5 = 1.5)

524 posts (524 x 0.05 = 26.2)

 

Total: 439.2

 

474 days since first cache found (574 since first one hidden -- wow, I didn't know I found my first on the 100 day anniversary of my first hide!)

 

474/439.2 = 1.079

 

 

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

Jon (Moun10Bike)

N 47° 36.649', W 122° 3.616'

www.switchbacks.com/geocaching.html

[Guest arffer]

91 caches found

153 in Wisconsin

174 days since first find

 

(91/153) * (91/174) = .31

 

 

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

Team CacheCows of Wisconsin

[Guest bunkerdave]

Re: Markwell's scale

 

Interesting. I notice that Moun10bike has a higher rating than me on this scale, which I have to say, seems appropriate. 40 hides definitely says something. Perhaps there is a database out there that someone can access and run a list of, say, the top 25 based on this scale.

 

Of course, as this accounts for posts, bugs, events, etc., much of this might not be in ANY database, except maybe Jeremy's, and I doubt he has an interest in something such as this. As much as I like the idea of including all the other stuff, I am not sure it is feasible in terms of updating and tracking.

 

Let me see...it occurs to me that someone has a database that includes:

 

caches found

caches hidden

days since first find/hide

caches per state

 

There is probably a bunch of other stuff, too, but this is what I can confirm.

 

regoarrarr:

 

Would it be possible (and would you mind) running a query that shows:

 

(total finds+(total hides*5))/months caching

 

I like the months caching because it factors in longevity without requiring a daily recalculation. I think it tells the same thing. "Months" are calculated by taking total days and dividing it by 30. (262/30=8.73) this is then rounded up or down to the nearest integer. (9)

 

Mine would look like this:

 

(244+90)/9= 37.11

 

Granted, this does not account for travel bugs, forum posts, and all the other stuff, and I would like that included, although I doubt it is possible.

 

I also like the idea of stratifying the lists, although I would perhaps stratify by longevity, rather than by number found. This prevents someone who just started and is going nuts on it from bagging 60 caches in a month from skewing the stats. (like back in June when I found 55.)

 

Anyway, this is just my own curiosity. I wish I had the know-now to do this myself.

 

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

[Guest arffer]

Bunkerdave's system:

(91 + (9 * 5)) / 6 = 22.67

[Guest regoarrarr]

Not really. I guess this is where it really hurts that I'm not a database expert. I'm okay, but I bet that if someone that knew what they were doing organized the data it would be possible. I could write a script to do it but it might take awhile. Sorry :-(

[Guest Chris Juricich]

My own quotient comes out to approximately .33-- but I felt it fair to include such aspects as failed hunts, cache placements and so forth. Taking into account roughly 6 months of cacheing, that's the best I could come up with.

 

It would mean activity every third day or so on average.

[Guest logscaler]

Well,lets see. I have been out for 254 day, just short of bunkerdave. I have 99 finds and 19 placements. Works out to something like 9.9 finds a month and 2 hides a month. Now for the rest of it. Those finds and caches are in three state's. Do I have to account for total caches in all three states in these calculations? Do I get extra points for those out of home state caches?Until a minor crash, I had a map lay out showing distance from my house to all my finds. Total of around 13,450 miles, all on the ground. Do I get points for those? If you are going to include postings, How are you going to deal with Clayjar? Are we going to have a terrain factor also? How about weather conditions? Dio you get extra points for an overnighter verses within your city limits? Do overnight hike in campouts count for more the a motel six special? How about elevation, would you score extra points for getting altitude sickness? Would you get extra points if you hit

offset - multi waypoint caches? Do you lose points for putting out a virtual cache?

(99(19*5))/9 = 21.55

Dang, longwinded again.

bunkerdaveites has set in.

( no slam / insult ment Dave )

Gotta go. logscaler

 

[This message has been edited by logscaler (edited 13 January 2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by logscaler (edited 13 January 2002).]

[Guest rdwatson78]

(82+(5x5))/5=21.4 Used to be higher than that.

 

I hope to get this number up in the next few days. Depends on what I do in Chicago on Tuesday. (Hard As Pi or 10 regular caches, Hard As Pi or 10 regular caches) Quality or quantity, the ne'er ending dilemna. The other factor, a cacher and his golden retriever are getting too far ahead of me. Must catch up. And I want to hit triple digit finds ASAP.

 

rdw

[Guest infosponge]

Here's one:

 

Are you happy getting out of the house and enjoying the hunt? Like seeing all the different places? Have you met some other nice people with similar interests?

 

Then you have a Geocache Enjoyment Quotient of 100%

 

Otherwise...well...maybe you need to look at what's really important in life.

[Guest malak]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I would love to know what some of you others get...don't be shy. And of course, folks in a place like UT or CA have a HUGE advantage. There must be some way to factor in the number of caches in the area. Perhaps something like a percentage of caches in your area (state?)found. For me, that would work out to:

 

(244/561)*(244/260)= 0.41

 

244 = # of caches I have found

561 = # of caches in Utah

260 = # of days since my first find

 

Can anyone guess my profession? (Click profile to find out.) Fun time of year.

---

 

Today: 13 January 2002

Started: June 29, 2001

Days: 199 (

Found: 28 (A) -- of which a few have been retired or recycled; the area caches number would be at least 56 instead.

Area caches (100 mile radius as defined by geocaching.com around one of my virtual caches which I set as much as an arbitrary centre point as a cache): 49 ©

 

Quotient (A/:)*(A/C): 0.0804

 

Of course, my set quotient is at 0.0124, and all 11 are within said 100 mile radius.

 

My out-of-radius finds is ... Enterprise is on, I don't feel like figuring it out.

[Guest bunkerdave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by infosponge:

Here's one:

 

Are you happy getting out of the house and enjoying the hunt? Like seeing all the different places? Have you met some other nice people with similar interests?

 

Then you have a Geocache Enjoyment Quotient of 100%

 

Otherwise...well...maybe you need to look at what's really important in life.

---

 

This is certainly a point that needs making. I have to confess, most of this is a function of the weather here in Utah this time of year, and the fact that I am unable to get out much during daylight hours to hunt. Is it Spring yet?

 

I do hope you are all enjoying the discussion, though, as this is the next best thing to meeting other cachers in person.

 

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

BunkerDave

N 40° 7.081, W 111° 38.851

[Guest infosponge]

Didn't mean to poke fun at anybody...I remember what it was like to live in an area where the weather is inhospitable certain times of the year.

[Guest treemoss2]

WOW!

I am impressed by the activity of the geocachers in pursueing these finds. I am very impressed also with the stats and the people who take the time to figure all of it out and chart it.

And I thought I spent a lot of time on the computer.

[+oregone]

i miss this thread and am interested in the current GAQ. I know it's a little outdated, but the nice weather has kept me indoors and i'm getting a little stir crazy. I'd figure it out myself, but i lack the necessary newfangledness/patience/smarts.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+apersson850]

I checked this entire post now, long after it started. Maybe you haven't realized that a lot of us live in countries, that aren't divided into states. If you are going to use a measure of how many caches that are around your area, why not just use the number of caches near your home position, which you easily can search for on the Geocaching site?

 

Anders

[BassoonPilot]

I had never noticed this thread before, either!

 

Let's see ... 597 finds, 1016 within 100 mile radius of home, been doing it 354 days.

 

That makes my GAQ .991

 

Using the other formula ... (597 + (15*5))/(almost)12 = 56

[+seneca]

I use the "Tortoise GAQ" based on trying to find one quality cache per week. After 32 weeks, mine is now a healthy 1.28!

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

[+MartyFouts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seneca:

I use the "Tortoise GAQ" based on trying to find one quality cache per week. After 32 weeks, mine is now a healthy 1.28!

 

_You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_

---

 

Oooh... I like it. I like it.