cameron Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 This has probably been discussed before, but if we are going to keep score on cache finds, why don't we give more credit depending on how difficult it is?? Quote Link to comment
+cachew nut Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Probably because the ratings don't carry as much weight since a lot of folks do not use the standardized ratings when hiding their caches. There's another thread about this, search for Clayjar rating system. Quote Link to comment
cameron Posted October 28, 2002 Author Share Posted October 28, 2002 That system doesn't make any sense to me. Its way too subjective. I would quantify it. A formula based on distance and elevation gain would be a start. Come on, we all have GPS units, right?!! Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 A lot of caches have multiple approaches. And you forgot to include weather considerations. Marty Fouts ae6ip Quote Link to comment
skydiver Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 For those that live near Missoula, MT, it's already being done. For those that don't, then I guess this is just a friendly taunt. --------------------------------------- "We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) --------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment
+Ish-n-Isha Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 I've got 14 possibles in a 20 mile radius. In seattle they have 216 caches in a 20 mile radius. How about a how far you drive component? Cachin is just a bit sweeter when you've got a Isha! Quote Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 I don't like to compete with other geocachers. I just like to play with myself. The Toe Pages Quote Link to comment
Broncoholics Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Originally posted by Rubbertoe: quote: I just like to play with myself. Does that include feetsies? LOLOLOLOLOL Duane Upinyachit Our feet go where the caches are! Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:That system doesn't make any sense to me. Its way too subjective. I would quantify it. A formula based on distance and elevation gain would be a start. Any rating system would be subjective. Say you use a formula based on distance and elevation gain, but someone hides a cache in a swamp a half mile from the road. It still could be a 4 star difficlty because of deep muck, water and dense vegetation. How do you quantify that? The Clayjar rating system was arrived at after much discussion and input. Its not perfect (I personally use it as a general guide), but its the best we have. If we all were to use the Clayjar system at least everyone would be on the same page. Heck, I found a 1/1 last week that took me almost an hour to find and included scrambling over large boulders, through heavy brush and along a cliff. "Men don't stop playing because they get old, they get old because they stop playing" Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Link to comment
skydiver Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:Any rating system would be subjective. Say you use a formula based on distance and elevation gain, but someone hides a cache in a swamp a half mile from the road. It still could be a 4 star difficlty because of deep muck, water and dense vegetation. How do you quantify that? Simple. Use a formula that compares the number of finders the cache gets over time to that of other caches within a 100 mile radius. The harder a cache is to get to, the fewer finders it gets. I'm not just theorizing here. Click on the link in my previous reply. It works and is in use. --------------------------------------- "We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) --------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:Originally posted by skydiver:Simple. Use a formula that compares the number of finders the cache gets over time to that of other caches within a 100 mile radius. The harder a cache is to get to, the fewer finders it gets. I'm not just theorizing here. Bah. Nonsense. How often a cache gets visited in comparison to others in a 100 mile radius very little to do with how difficult it is. It might be within 100 miles of thousands of other caches, but maybe it is the only one within 30 miles. It could be a 1/1 - but people aren't gonna drive 30 miles out of their way to get a single 1/1 cache. The Toe Pages Quote Link to comment
skydiver Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe:Bah. Nonsense. How often a cache gets visited in comparison to others in a 100 mile radius very little to do with how difficult it is. It might be within 100 miles of thousands of other caches, but maybe it is the only one within 30 miles. It could be a 1/1 - but people aren't gonna drive 30 miles out of their way to get a single 1/1 cache. Factors that determine a cache's difficulty are ... hiking distance, elevation gain, swampy muckness to wade through, puzzles to solve, and ... yes, driving distance. A 1/1 that is 30 miles from anything does get more points that a 1/1 in a downtown park under my system. And I find that to be perfectly fair. Hey, if that 30 mile cache is worth 30 points, and thats what it will take for someone to pull ahead of someone else they're competing against .. then yes, they WILL drive 30 miles out of their way for it. Heck, I'VE driven further than that for an easy cache long before this system came into being. The original post for this thread asked about keeping score for caches based on how difficult they are. I've provided to cachers in this area what I believe is an elegant solution to the problem. Every other system I've seen discussd (but never implemented) involves either a very narrow minded view of what makes a cache difficult, or is completely reliant on how many stars the cache hider felt it was worth (HA!). I'm anxiously waiting to see Rubbertoe's system implemented, whatever it is. --------------------------------------- "We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) --------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment
Eeyore and Shadow Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:Originally posted by cameron:This has probably been discussed before, but if we are going to keep score on cache finds, why don't we give more credit depending on how difficult it is?? Simply, we don't keep score. Cache rating is a way to express dificulty in the journey to the cache and the dificulty to find it. A list of finds isn't as score its more a measure of experience. And on top of that there is no way nor reason to prevent people who have never been within 100 miles of a cache to log it if they like. Scores are for competitions. In my opinion geocaching isn't a competition. It can be a challenge and a great pastime, an excellent venue for getting out in nature and discovering lots of things that are just outside your door. Eeyore My other cachemobile is a broom! Quote Link to comment
cameron Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 We all do it for our own valid reasons...some people think of it as a score. You might think of it as experience, I don't really see a difference. Anyway if we want to measure "experience" Isn't a 10 mile hike more "experience" than a 5 minute drive-by to a park? In my opinion either stop counting entirely or count something that really represents your experience. Quote Link to comment
iryshe Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 The official site does not keep score, so I have no response to this topic. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
cameron Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 ok forget "keeping score". That might be un-PC, not sure. I see numbers next to people's names at the geocache website. I think we are counting something. WHatever it is we are counting, I like seeing the numbers. It gives me feedback. TO clarify, It's not like I want to say "neener neener, I am studly geo-cacher". I doubt anybody cares. I just thought it would be another interesting bit of info, thats all. After all, I think many of us are geeks and nerds (myself included) carrying around this beeping device in the forest. We live for numbers! Cameron Quote Link to comment
skydiver Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:Originally posted by cameron:ok forget "keeping score". That might be un-PC, not sure. I see numbers next to people's names at the geocache website. I think we are counting something. WHatever it is we are counting, I like seeing the numbers. It gives me feedback. TO clarify, It's not like I want to say "neener neener, I am studly geo-cacher". I doubt anybody cares. I just thought it would be another interesting bit of info, thats all. After all, I think many of us are geeks and nerds (myself included) carrying around this beeping device in the forest. We live for numbers! Cameron Nope, keeping score is perfectly PC. There are certianly those geocachers that purely enjoy the hike in the woods, the hunt, the finding, the trading and/or whatever. In addition to that however, there are some of us who very much enjoy the numbers and comparing ourselves to each other. I believe it's commonly called 'friendly competition.' Now, there are those geocachers that don't care about keeping score, and I don't begrudge them that. Let them have their fun. But, I also don't let them stop those of us the do like to keep score from having our fun either. --------------------------------------- "We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) --------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment
+Freelens&Mosie Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Why don't you all start your own web site for people who like to rate things? It would probably only take a year or so to sort out what everyone would agree is hard. Personaly using elevation gain to rate caches in Florida is a non issue, but the number of alligators, rattlesnakes, water moccasins and wild pigs encountered would work. For me: 14 found, 8 snakes, 2 alligators seen and most of those were in city parks. You can't be lost if you don't care where you are. Quote Link to comment
+brdad Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 quote:Originally posted by freelens/mosie:Why don't you all start your own web site for people who like to rate things? I agree 100% with that! With a million ways to determine stats, figure it out for yourself if you like. Might as well add into your formula: Seasons How much the cacher had to drink the night before. How experinced the hunter was. If the hunter had his $(*&%#$ wife with him. etc. etc. etc. I have my own personal stats. I know how many I've found, and how hard I've worked for them as a whole. Adn I'm happy with that. With friends like you, who needs enemas? Quote Link to comment
+Trudy & the beast Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Once you have found a large enough number of caches, the average difficulty will level off anyway. so what's the point? Zeolites unite! Quote Link to comment
cameron Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 sounds like there is an interest in this, unless people are just being sarcastic...Or are people saying go away you guys "think wrong"?? Hmmmm. A simple way to measure difficulty is simply the projected number of minutes it takes to get to the cache from the car. This would take into account almost anything. And if you find a faster way you are rewarded with bonus points! Hooray! Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.