Calling all mathematicians......

[Guest tedoca]

Ok here goes,

 

Yet another idea for rating cachers... points, score, whatever you want to call it.

 

We've all heard of a baseball player's ERA... what about a cacher's ECA? (earned cache average)

 

I have 33 finds out of 34 attempts so (33/34=.9705822) or a .971 average.

 

I also have 3 hidden caches.

 

Mathematically, is there a way to also tally in the number of caches hidden, in a manner that would fairly reflect ones OVERALL participation in the sport in relation to everyone else, regardless of whether you're a newbie with 5 finds or an old hand with 200? Or, maybe you think length of time you've participated should have a bearing also?

 

I realize that there has to be a breaking point too... for all intents and purposes, one person can eventually find as many caches as there are out there to seek, but the number of caches one can hide/maintain is certainly finite, so that would need to be figured in as well.

 

Please, I don't want to start yet another discussion on the pro's and con's of even bothering to rate or count a cacher's total finds and hides... we've all been there before... but if you know a way that this variable might be incorporated into a meaningful number I'd really like to hear what you have to say.

 

And, just to throw another wrench into the works, what about incorporating some of the other things that I think contribute to the make-up of a genuine, all-around, team playing Geocacher, such as, number of posts to these forums (where would all of us neocacher's be without folks like Markwell, Clayjar, Brokenwing, and so many others), cache-in-trash-out (i.e. how many pounds of garbage collected), etc...

 

I know, now I'm being silly, but, any ideas?

 

Thanks,

Tedoca

[Guest rdwatson78]

t of people do not report their non finds. There are a few I have not posted. Sometimes I make a stupid mistake. Should that count? What if I don't find it the first time, but find it on a subsequent trip? How is that counted?

 

2. Sure you could express it mathematically, if you could determine exactly what fair is. And I wish you luck doing that, because you will probably never get many people to agree. How many caches should a person hide for a certain number of caches found? Surely, the quality of a cache should count. But how much should it count? And who decides how good a cache is? Does the opinion of veterans count as much as newbies?

 

3. How do you count length of time? The number of weeks since a user registered? The number of weeks in which one or more caches were found?

 

4. Number of posts? What about quality of posts? I could make 1000 "me too" or "I agree" posts very easily. Surely I would not deserve as high a rating on this factor as Markwell or ClayJar (both closing in quickly on 1000 posts). Who gets to rate the quality, etc.?

 

5. Trash out? I collected 500 pounds of trash from one cache yesterday. Believe me??? Maybe I could send in a picture. So now somebody spends their days analyzing trash pictures. Ooh, I don't have a camera, you'll just have to trust me.

 

You don't need a mathematician, you need philosophers. If you can relate these factors in specific ratios and get people to agree, I'd be happy to do the math for you. But I don't think it will ever happen.

rdw

[Guest Choberiba]

Someone once came up with a "geek code"

 

Below is an example.

 

Write up your own geek code, make it interesting and applicable to geocaching, and maybe-just-maybe it will catch on.

 

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Version: 3.1

GCS/CC d--(d+) s: a-- C++(+++) UC++++ P+ L+ W++ N++ o+ K- w++(+++) M-- PS PE++ PGP- t+ 5-- X R tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G e h-- r-- y-

------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

 

Decoded Geek Code (using http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/)

 

GEEK TYPE CODE [GCS/CC]

 

Geek of Computer Science, Geek of Communications.

 

GEEK DRESS CODE [d--(d+)]

 

My tendencies on this issue range from: "My t-shirts go a step further and have a trendy political message on them.", to: ""

 

GEEK SHAPE CODE [s:]

 

I'm an average geek.

 

GEEK AGE CODE [a--]

 

My age is 20-24.

 

GEEK COMPUTERS CODE [C++(+++)]

 

My tendencies on this issue range from: "Computers are a large part of

my existence. When I get up in the morning, the first thing I do is

log myself in. I play games or mud on weekends, but still manage to

stay off of academic probation.", to: "You mean there is life outside

of Internet? You're ****tin' me! I haven't dragged myself to class in

weeks."

 

- snip endless supply of boring information -

[Guest rdwatson78]

Hmmm. Geek code. I've seen it before, but alot of the questions didn't apply so I guess I'm not a real geek.

 

But.... I made up a GeoCode standard. Whaddya think?

 

Logs(Found,NotFound,Other)

Ex. L##(F##,NF##,O##)

The number of logs you have in the system and the number of each type. All found on "My Cache Page."

 

Finds(Attempted,Archived,TravelBugs)

Ex. F##(At##,Ar##,TB##)

The number of finds you have, the number of caches you have attempted, the number you tried for at one time but were archived before you could try again, and the number of travel bugs you have picked up and dropped off. (Don't count what you have in your possesion.)

 

Hidden(Active,Finds,TravelBugs)

Ex. H##(A##,F##,TB##)

The number of caches you have hidden, the number of those that are currently active, the number of times your caches have been found, and the number of Travel Bugs you have released i.e.you are the owner of.

 

StartDate

Ex. SD12071941

The date you found your first cache.

 

Posts

Ex. P###

The number of forum posts you have.

 

Update

Ex. U01022002

The date you last updated your GeoCode.

 

My GeoCode: L91(F76,NF4,O11)+F76(At77,Ar1,TB3)+H5(A5,F24,TB0)SD09102001+P52+U01022002

 

I hope that covers it all.

 

rdw

[Guest JamieZ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tedoca:

We've all heard of a baseball player's ERA... what about a cacher's ECA? (earned cache average)

---

 

Tedoca, I think think this would be more akin to the Quarterback Rating in football. An ERA can be calculated easily and quickly. That silly formula for the QB rating is crazy. Of course, Bill James has some baseball statistic that takes into consideration a bunch of other statistics. I think that one is worse yet than the QB rating.

 

Anyway, I think the idea has some potential. I do not however, think much can be gained by discussion. This is a subject too many people get bent out of shape over. In my opinion, this is the type of thing that an individual could make up on their own, much like the websites that have posted statistics related to finds. (I'm sorry, but I've forgotten the screen names of the people who put in so much time to create those sites.) If a person were interested in seeing it, they could log on. If not, they don't. No hurt feelings that way, and you make the rules.

 

I'll add my thoughts regarding non-finds. So far, I've logged all my non-finds and finds alike. I'm not embarrassed to log a non-find at all. I think it makes for interesting reading. In fact, I wish other people did more of the same. I have gotten the impression that a lot of people only post their successful searches, but much of my enjoyment of reading the logs comes from reading the crafted words of a stumped cacher who searched for a never-found prize. Therefore, I don't consider a find percentage to be a valid statistic. As I stand, I have 10 finds out of 15 attempts, which I don't think accurately describes my success rate. I've logged a couple non-finds when I didn't even come close to the cache. One non-find was when I was on a road trip and drove many miles past an intended cache without turning on the GPS. Only later did I realize I forgot, but I logged it as a non-find in the log because I had intended to find the cache but I didn't.

 

As far as taking the whole ball of wax and including participatory things such as caches hidden and weighting for difficulty of found caches. I like that the theory.

 

Jamie

 

(Yes, I'm a statistics junkie.)

[Guest JamieZ]

I forgot, here's my GeoCode:

 

L17(F10,NF5,O2)+F10(At14,Ar0,TB0)+H0(A0,F0,TB0)+SD05212001+P55+U01022001

 

Jamie

[Guest Gossamyrrh]

I usually log non-finds if I give up on a cache...if I can't find it on the first try, I don't log it and (intend to) go back on a later date.

[Guest Hamster]

Well Tedoca,

We certainly could create a numeric rating based on some kind of mathematical formula, however as with all statistics... without the proper control, and context any such number would be meaningless.

 

Do we really want to make Geocaching into a competitive sport? If so, to what end? Also... how would you ensure the accuracy of the ratings? Remember the whole sport is based on an "honor system." If motivated by a score... people might start logging caches they have not been to.

[Guest TresOkies]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JamieZ:

Bill James has some baseball statistic that takes into consideration a bunch of other statistics. I think that one is worse yet than the QB rating.

---

 

OPS (On-base percentage Plus Slugging percentage) is one. It's a pretty useful statistic for judging hitting ability and the ability to produce runs. Players who have OPS above .850 are good day-to-day players. About a dozen each year have OPS' over 1.000 and they are usually the ones with the most RBIs and/or runs scored. Barry Bond's OPS last year (1.374) was the highest ever, even calculated against some of the years that Babe Ruth had.

 

Oops, off topic. I could talk baseball for hours...

 

As for caching, I really don't care if I see stats or not--I don't view caching as a competitive activity. Others do, and that's cool. As I mentioned in another thread, I do want to see #found for credibility when reading log entries (i.e. someone with 50+ cache finds has a lot more credibility than someone with 5).

 

A geek code for geocachers would be cute but not really useful. Seriously. If you see someone else's geek code, do you bother to decode it, or do you just think "yup, he's a geek".

 

-E

 

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

N35°32.981 W98°34.631

[Guest tedoca]

Hi everybody,

 

Just for the record, I was not suggesting, even for an instant, that this mythical number be incorporated in any way into the Geocaching website or that anybody else had to agree with or be forced to use it. I was just looking for a little something for my own personal use.

 

A simple formula that would incorporate the three main aspects of the sport into some kind of tangible measurement of my activity... like number of caches found divided by number of caches attempted and somehow working in the number of caches hidden as well. The offer was made to 'do the math for me' and I'd still appreciate knowing what the appropriate equation would be.

 

As stated in my initial query, the part about posts in the forums and amount of trash collected was, of course, being silly. Guess I should've inserted one of those little winking faces? I think some folks just took my post far more seriously than it was ever intended to be. My bad.

 

I don't know how the sub-thread of whether or not one logs their 'not found it's' got tossed in here (that too has been discussed before), but for those who may be wondering, yes, I always log my 'not found it's' whether I intend to go back and try again or not.

 

Thanks for all the input (though I still don't get the geek code).

[Guest tedoca]

Hi everybody,

 

Just for the record, I was not suggesting, even for an instant, that this mythical number be incorporated in any way into the Geocaching website or that anybody else had to agree with or be forced to use it. I was just looking for a little something for my own personal use.

 

A simple formula that would incorporate the three main aspects of the sport into some kind of tangible measurement of my activity... like number of caches found divided by number of caches attempted and somehow working in the number of caches hidden as well. The offer was made to 'do the math for me' and I'd still appreciate knowing what the appropriate equation would be.

 

As stated in my initial query, the part about posts in the forums and amount of trash collected was, of course, being silly. Guess I should've inserted one of those little winking faces? I think some folks just took my post far more seriously than it was ever intended to be. My bad.

 

I don't know how the sub-thread of whether or not one logs their 'not found it's' got tossed in here (that too has been discussed before), but for those who may be wondering, yes, I always log my 'not found it's' whether I intend to go back and try again or not.

 

Thanks for all the input (though I still don't get the geek code).