# Post to Find Quotent (PFQ)

Followers 0

## Recommended Posts

Here is a formula to identify those who spend too much time on this message board and not enough time placing or finding caches. As I see it, anybody with a PFQ higher than 1.5 is spending way too much time here and not enough outside.

The forumula is:

posts / (finds + hides)

Lets see, using this I have

484 / (50 + 27) = 6.2

Uh oh, I had better get out there and find me some caches!

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

Let's see...

Posts / (finds + hides) = PFQ

444/(357+25)= 1.16

I thought I was going to be in trouble on this one, but I squeaked by.

58/(101+3)=.56 rounded.

Whew, I need to take a break! No wonder the dog has starved to death, my electric has been shut off, and btw, where is my wife?

KYtrex

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

A "Buckeye" is just a "Hillbilly" that ran out of money on the way to Michigan

58/(101+3)=.56 rounded.

Whew, I need to take a break! No wonder the dog has starved to death, my electric has been shut off, and btw, where is my wife?

KYtrex

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

A "Buckeye" is just a "Hillbilly" that ran out of money on the way to Michigan

1250 Posts old forums (roughly)

0980 Posts new forums

====

2330 Posts

106 Finds

034 Hides

===

140

2330 ÷ 140 = 15.93

But how should this judge us? Am i being detrimental to the sport because I can only get out on weekends?

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

1250 Posts old forums (roughly)

0980 Posts new forums

====

2330 Posts

106 Finds

034 Hides

===

140

2330 ÷ 140 = 15.93

But how should this judge us? Am i being detrimental to the sport because I can only get out on weekends?

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

4/(22+6) = .15

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

But how should this judge us? Am i being detrimental to the sport because I can only get out on weekends?

Your excellent mix of Calvin and German more than makes up for it

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

But how should this judge us? Am i being detrimental to the sport because I can only get out on weekends?

Your excellent mix of Calvin and German more than makes up for it

Markwell,

Your posts in the forums are always helpful. Whenever someone has a question or problem you post the answer/solution or indicate where the info can be found. You are the perfect example of how forums such as these get information to those who need it. I, for one, thank you.

Your numbers indicate that the PFQ is indeed flawed. Perhaps a 1.5 PFQ indicates that someone is spending TOO much time caching.

For some of us, caching is a fun weekend event. My wife and I will pick an interesting cache if the weather looks good, print some maps, and head out for a picnic/geocache hunt. We're not in it for the numbers.

I will admit, however, that I do spend WAY too much time in the forums!

25 / 224 + 8 = .11 (Rounded)

Not a bad average, but I think I need to place some more caches!

224 Found / 8 Placed = 28 Found/Hid ratio. Something around 10 seems more inline.

"I thought you said this was a quick find!" - My wife

Aw, man, my PFQ is infinite!

quote:
Originally posted by FullOn:

Not a bad average, but I think I need to place some more caches!

224 Found / 8 Placed = 28 Found/Hid ratio. Something around 10 seems more inline.

Be careful of this logic. I recently had a very long discussion off-line regarding this issue. (I know, it is shocking to some to imagine that I am ever off-line.) You will always have the capacity to find one more cache. There is only so many caches that you can properly maintain, however.

Certainly an uber-cacher like a BruceS can not be expected to place and maintain 100 quality caches.

How do you use a signature line if you're talking off line?

---I will stand out, I am a raven in the snow.

quote:
Originally posted by Nurse Dave & LKay:

How do you use a signature line if you're talking off line?

http://216.40.241.68/contrib/edoom/cool_shades.gif ---I will stand out, I am a raven in the snow.

Oh. Good. Another competition to ignore.

Maybe we can ask Jeremy to put the Q in our profiles so everyone can comment on it.

I'd give mine here, but I don't know, off hand, how many posts I've made.

Oh. Good. Another competition to ignore.

Maybe we can ask Jeremy to put the Q in our profiles so everyone can comment on it.

I'd give mine here, but I don't know, off hand, how many posts I've made.

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Oh. Good. Another competition to ignore.

Maybe we can ask Jeremy to put the Q in our profiles so everyone can comment on it.

I'd give mine here, but I don't know, off hand, how many posts I've made.

oh. wait. now i know the ratio, because the # is on the bottom of my last post. it's 139/192. too bad i can't remember how to divide.

does this mean i get to make a bunch of posts before i have to go geocaching again?

tune in tomorrow for an update

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Oh. Good. Another competition to ignore.

Maybe we can ask Jeremy to put the Q in our profiles so everyone can comment on it.

I'd give mine here, but I don't know, off hand, how many posts I've made.

oh. wait. now i know the ratio, because the # is on the bottom of my last post. it's 139/192. too bad i can't remember how to divide.

does this mean i get to make a bunch of posts before i have to go geocaching again?

tune in tomorrow for an update

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Oh. Good. Another competition to ignore.

Maybe we can ask Jeremy to put the Q in our profiles so everyone can comment on it.

I'd give mine here, but I don't know, off hand, how many posts I've made.

I agree that it isn't about the numbers. I don't think anyone is taking all of these formulas seriously. It's all in fun.

Of course, I have heard people passionately argue the 10/1 find to hide ratio. That's why I added my comment on how this breaks down as finds increase.

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Oh. Good. Another competition to ignore.

Maybe we can ask Jeremy to put the Q in our profiles so everyone can comment on it.

I'd give mine here, but I don't know, off hand, how many posts I've made.

I agree that it isn't about the numbers. I don't think anyone is taking all of these formulas seriously. It's all in fun.

Of course, I have heard people passionately argue the 10/1 find to hide ratio. That's why I added my comment on how this breaks down as finds increase.

Guys/Gals,

My original post here was tongue in cheek. I was sort of poking fun at myself and I guess, others like me. Heeeelllllooooo Mcfly!

quote:
Originaly posted by BrianSnat

It was a joke

Guys/Gals,

My original post here was tongue in cheek. I was sort of poking fun at myself and I guess, others like me. Heeeelllllooooo Mcfly!

I for one though it was very funny Brian, well done!!!

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

quote:
Originaly posted by BrianSnat

It was a joke

Guys/Gals,

My original post here was tongue in cheek. I was sort of poking fun at myself and I guess, others like me. Heeeelllllooooo Mcfly!

I for one though it was very funny Brian, well done!!!

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

How about 1.5 for each hide? Also, shouldn't we get a 1/4 point or something no-finds? After all, we are out doing the geocaching thing!

Of course I only argue these points because I have a poor ratio...

129/(18+5)=5.6

Under my system, the ratio would only improve slightly (to 5.0) so I guess it's a moot point anyway... At least mine's not infinite!

Oh well, I'll be finishing up the last of my hides (for awhile anyway) and will be once again on the cache hunt trail. I'll have to work on this ratio thing!

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

How about 1.5 for each hide? Also, shouldn't we get a 1/4 point or something no-finds? After all, we are out doing the geocaching thing!

Of course I only argue these points because I have a poor ratio...

129/(18+5)=5.6

Under my system, the ratio would only improve slightly (to 5.0) so I guess it's a moot point anyway... At least mine's not infinite!

Oh well, I'll be finishing up the last of my hides (for awhile anyway) and will be once again on the cache hunt trail. I'll have to work on this ratio thing!

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

Lets see 223/7 (hey I don't live where there is a million caches within a few hundred miles of me) that's 31.85. But I usually don't post on cache items, just posts about GPSr and their software. But I guess there are 17 available within those hundred miles that I could eventually do.

Wyatt W.

The probability of someone watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.

Let's see

33 / (57 + 3) = 0.55 Not bad I guess. Wish I had time to do more geocaching.

LowlyWorm Says Gig 'em Aggies

I know, I know -- it's all a joke, but still I was thinking this same thing just the other day.

Here's me:

22 / (37 + 0) = 0.59

Whew! I made it into the club!

But I think there should be limits -- BrianSnat, sbell, and Markwell (and a bunch of others) all make *good* contributions to the forums. So maybe if you've had more than 100 finds, or more than 10 hides, then you deserve a higher quotient. That gets you all off the hook. (sbell already was, of course...)

Or we can start an individual post rating! Every single post gets a 1-5 star rating, culminating in a score for each geocacher, weighted by finds, hides, bugs placed, bugs found (bugs found but not moved! ) etc. etc.

Okay, I'm kidding. I just gotta get out more.

I know, I know -- it's all a joke, but still I was thinking this same thing just the other day.

Here's me:

22 / (37 + 0) = 0.59

Whew! I made it into the club!

But I think there should be limits -- BrianSnat, sbell, and Markwell (and a bunch of others) all make *good* contributions to the forums. So maybe if you've had more than 100 finds, or more than 10 hides, then you deserve a higher quotient. That gets you all off the hook. (sbell already was, of course...)

Or we can start an individual post rating! Every single post gets a 1-5 star rating, culminating in a score for each geocacher, weighted by finds, hides, bugs placed, bugs found (bugs found but not moved! ) etc. etc.

Okay, I'm kidding. I just gotta get out more.

This does not look good for me then!

166/(11+0) = 15.090909090909090909090909090909 etc...

Not only am I spending too much time here, but does this mean I repeat myself a lot in these forums?

Maybe if I were in snat's shoes, I could do better. Umm, forget that, I'll stick to my own shoes even with the crappy "score".

Me and that dog are gonna take a walk in the woods, and only one of us is coming back...

I recall a post a long time back where somebody stated that they didn't have any time for anyone whose posts were more than 5 times their finds. That has stuck in my mind, and I have found myself making sure I keep below that ratio.

I don't however think that any such ratio is important or fair (I don't doubt that some would rather have me keep well below a 5:1 ratio!) Constructive posts that add to Geocaching is what is really important. (O.K. - I agree - this post probably doesn't meet that test)

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!)

13.21! I guess I need to quit reroofing the house and get out in the woods!

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son!

13.21! I guess I need to quit reroofing the house and get out in the woods!

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son!

We're 38/2...gosh that's awful.

But we're still newbies. It'll get better, right?

"Men are what their mothers made them." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

My post/find ratio was just a silly exercise. Of course there is a hint of truth to it, as there is to almost any joke.

Generally speaking, a Geocacher with a lot of finds/placements has valuable experience that can useful to anybody who visits these forums. The higher your counts, the more experience you have; hence the more weight your comments may have.

Still, I've seen many insightful and interesting posts from new Geocachers.

And uh oh, since my original post I've found 2

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on August 24, 2002 at 03:45 AM.]

hmmm... my PFQ is: 0.28571428571428571428571428571429

guess I need to post some more

## 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.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.