Level Of Finds, Padding The Numbers, Ratios,

2.1k · January 7, 2004

I have read topics where people are complaining about others and with the ever famous quotes of "get out and cache". Sometimes these people don't have as many finds themselves as the ones they are talking about or at least their find lists displays what some others would call "padding the numbers". There's also the ratio thing that comes into play. You can have a person that has been around for 2 years (730 days) with only 100 finds. That would average out to not even .14 caches a day. Where as someone that has been around for a month (30 days) has 15 finds, then their ratio would be .5 finds a day, which is a significant higher ratio(almost 400% more) of caching. Now those numbers can chancge for different reasons, but they are interesting to know. My ratio is about .47 finds a day. That's based on 100 finds in 7 months (210 days). That's with no locationless that some ascertaine with (padding the numbers).

I've also noticed that the same people mentioned above have finds mostly in the 1-1.5 levels in the terrain/difficulty aspects. It made me take a look and here's how my find pattern has gone:

Ratiing-Difficulty-Terrain

[1] 23 - 27

[1.5] - 20 - 26

[2] - 42 - 23

[2.5] - 9 - 15

[3] - 4 - 4

[3.5] - 0 - 4

[4] - 2 - 1

[4.5] - 0 - 0

[5] - 0 - 0

So looking at that, most of the caches I have found are rated at a 3 and under.

So how do you pan out in all this?

January 7, 2004

I don't think or worry about it at all.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Didn't say you had to worry about it...it's just info that I found interesting, if you don't oh well....

2.5k · January 7, 2004

It's too much work for me, but feel free to figure mine out and post them if you want. I think I'm around .7 or something.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

It's too much work for me, but feel free to figure mine out and post them if you want. I think I'm around .7 or something.

Yeah I come up with about .71 for you cachew nut...

2.1k · January 7, 2004

By the way, congrats on number 500!

6.5k · January 7, 2004

I think to make this a valuable analysis tool you would need to create a multiplier factor that would account for the greater number of 1/1 caches than 5/5 caches to find in a given geographical sector. :rolleyes:

edited for sp.

Edited January 7, 2004 by wimseyguy

January 7, 2004

I guess you could just take and multiply the rating by the numbers. Using your example:

Ratiing-Difficulty-Terrain

[1] * 23 + 27 = 50

[1.5] * 20 + 26 = 69

[2] * 42 + 23 = 130

[2.5] * 9 + 15 = 60

[3] * 4 + 4 = 24

[3.5] * 0 + 4 = 14

[4] * 2 + 1 = 12

[4.5] * 0 + 0 =0

[5] * 0 + 0 = 0

Total points = 359

I may have messed up the math somewhere but you get the idea.

The problem is that cache ratings are so subjective. If you are just looking for sh**s and giggles that may be enough. But I think it starts to become a problem where you want to compare your score to somebody elses, even more so if they are from another part of the country. I think terrain ratings really start to show a difference. I think a terrain rating of 3 on the Eastern Shore of Maryland is going to be a lot different than a rating of 3 in the White Mountain area of New Hampshire. Just a guess but I think we have all come across caches that we would rate differently than how they were rated.

1.2k · January 7, 2004

My finds Break down ike so:

Rating Difficulty Terrain

[1] 8 12

[1.5] 1 0

[2] 4 2

[2.5] 1 1

[3] 1 2

[3.5] 1 0

[4] 0 1

[4.5] 0 0

[5] 1 0

2.1k · January 7, 2004

I think to make this a valuable analysis tool you would need to create a multiplier factor that would account for the greater number of 1/1 caches than 5/5 caches to find in a given geographical sector.

edited for sp.

I agree somewhat. But the higher number of finds you have the more apt you are to have higher levels of finds as well.

Of course if you are in the middle of montana, then one could say there aren't very many caches around. If you are in downtown NYC, the terrain levels may be on the lower side, but the difficulty levels probably could be higher.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Yes GrizzlyJohn it is al lsubjective. But perhaps an eye opener to some. There are many newer people with higher ratio finds than some of the people who complain about the new people in the forum. And there are some with higher counts who's finds are rated a lot easier than what others have. It's all for sh**s and giggles, but goes to show that it's difficult to judge others and their caching. As wimsey stated it's difficult to come up with an accurate number, because the playing field is not so level and everyone's abilities are different.

3.1k · January 7, 2004

Time on your hands? :rolleyes:

I have found 1-1's and 5-5's and everything in between.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Time on your hands?

I have found 1-1's and 5-5's and everything in between.

Just a little...

January 7, 2004

looks like one more thing for forum posters to argue about LOL :rolleyes:

2.1k · January 7, 2004

LOL Colonel Mustard..... you never know.....

The numbers shouldn't matter, but only to the person they belong too...

The most important thing is that you are having fun!

January 7, 2004

this is how i pan out(note 10 of these were found w/out a gps.

(1) 23-24

(1.5) 13-12

(2) 11-11

(2.5) 1-3

(3) 2-0

(3.5) and up 0-0

2.1k · January 7, 2004

edd, your find ratio is about .41 a day... not bad!

4k · January 7, 2004

Ok, Woody, I'm a math major, but too lazy. Figure mine up for me, ok? :rolleyes:

7.2k · January 7, 2004

Your cache per day ratio is pretty interesting from a personal standpoint. I compete with myself with personal goals, so I am happy where I am at. (It remains to be seen if I can hit my next personal goal on 2-27-03, my three year anniversary of my first found cache. I hid two before I found my first one.)

GrizzlyJohn is very correct about difficulty ratings though. In traveling around the country, I see lots of discrepancy. A 2/2 cache in Georgia is different than the 2/2 caches I have done in Colorado, for example. I did a 1/1 that was just over a mile hike up a fairly good grade to the top of a small peak. It was great, but it would rate a 2/2 or higher here. People in CO are used to the mountains while we have none here in Atlanta. Even regionally it can differ as cachers interpret the cache rating system based on their personal skill level and athletic ability.

Edited January 7, 2004 by mtn-man

January 7, 2004

I always just hunt whatever is there, if it is a 5-5 i go after it, if it is a 1-1 i go after it, the same goes for virts, and locationless. I have seen lame caches on every level and great caches on every level. The last time i did the math i was averaging 4.7 per day, but I have slowed down some since then, not getting over my addiction, just been working harder and I am having to drive farther to hunt now. Feel free to do the math for me, or I will try to do it after work.

1.1k · January 7, 2004

I'm at .53636363636363636364 per day, not bad I guess. However .1322 caches per post looks pretty grim. Somebody tell me to go cache. Actually going out to plan a cache. What am I doing sitting here when I could be out contributing something other than smarta&& comments?

Sparky, how is your post per cache ratio looking these days? :rolleyes:

2.3k · January 7, 2004

I'm at .53636363636363636364 per day, not bad I guess. However .1322 caches per post looks pretty grim. Somebody tell me to go cache. Actually going out to plan a cache. What am I doing sitting here when I could be out contributing something other than smarta&& comments?

Sparky, how is your post per cache ratio looking these days?

Since we know Sparky can't do math...

14 finds / 1290 posts = .0108 F/P ratio

Myself at: .1105 F/P

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Ok, Woody, I'm a math major, but too lazy. Figure mine up for me, ok?

Sparky...Happy 2 month anniversary! Your find ratio is .23...whil your posting ratio is 21.5 posts a day...your posts to cache find ratio is 92.14 posts for each found cache...

synopsis...go out and cache...lol

January 7, 2004

I did the math, 5.14 caches per day, 31.75 caches per post, my cache per post ratio is getting too low for my tastes so i am gonna get out there and cache.

January 7, 2004

I've been a member for 491 days (as of January 7th) and have 23 finds, so that amounts to 0.0468 finds per day, or probably easier to understand, it's about one find every three weeks. To me caching isn't about the numbers, or competing, it's a hobby. I go in spurts of 2-4 finds a week then may not go out again for several weeks depending on job and family commitments. But, the numbers are fun to look at, I just don't use them as a score or a "meaning" of anything.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

nice numbers there monkeybrad...very impressive totals in less than a year!

9.2k · January 7, 2004

There's also the ratio thing that comes into play. You can have a person that has been around for 2 years (730 days) with only 100 finds. That would average out to not even .14 caches a day. Where as someone that has been around for a month (30 days) has 15 finds, then their ratio would be .5 finds a day, which is a significant higher ratio(almost 400% more) of caching.

All you have to consider is the fact that a new cacher has a much greater pool of caches to choose from (and a much greater number of nearby caches) than someone who's been doing this for a couple of year. That said, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

So how do you pan out in all this?

I don't care enough to bother to do the calculations. I'm caching when I'm caching. Other times, I'm doing something else. I don't have a need to put numbers on it.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Good out-take The Divine Ones....as I posted earlier, all that matters is that you are having fun!

4k · January 7, 2004

Ok, Woody, I'm a math major, but too lazy. Figure mine up for me, ok?

Sparky...Happy 2 month anniversary! Your find ratio is .23...whil your posting ratio is 21.5 posts a day...your posts to cache find ratio is 92.14 posts for each found cache...

synopsis...go out and cache...lol

Well, for my personal goal of 100 posts per cache, I've got to get a few more posts in before I go out this afternoon to try to be FTF on a new cache west of me. Film at 11.

1.3k · January 7, 2004

The last time I did the calculations, my average for both difficulty and terrain was under 2. I think it was about 1.7 for both but I'm not sure.

Some may interpret this as a sign of padding the numbers but it's not that I avoid high-rated caches. I go for whatever's convenient and along the day's route and that's usually a mix of anywhere from 1/1 to 3/3.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

There's also the ratio thing that comes into play. You can have a person that has been around for 2 years (730 days) with only 100 finds. That would average out to not even .14 caches a day. Where as someone that has been around for a month (30 days) has 15 finds, then their ratio would be .5 finds a day, which is a significant higher ratio(almost 400% more) of caching.

All you have to consider is the fact that a new cacher has a much greater pool of caches to choose from (and a much greater number of nearby caches) than someone who's been doing this for a couple of year. That said, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

So how do you pan out in all this?

I don't care enough to bother to do the calculations. I'm caching when I'm caching. Other times, I'm doing something else. I don't have a need to put numbers on it.

Yes and the pool is now even, it's not like an old timer is retired from caching or anything and has a record to beat...it really doesn't matter and shouldn't....this posting is in regard to others telling others to "shut up" or "go out and cache"....

Numbers and the amount of caching should only matter to the person that owns them....but they are eye openers to some....

2.1k · January 7, 2004

The last time I did the calculations, my average for both difficulty and terrain was under 2. I think it was about 1.7 for both but I'm not sure.

Some may interpret this as a sign of padding the numbers but it's not that I avoid high-rated caches. I go for whatever's convenient and along the day's route and that's usually a mix of anywhere from 1/1 to 3/3.

stayfloopy...I've met ya and no one can say that you are not a hardcore and dedicated cacher no matter what the level of the cache...I still remember seeing you come out of the reeds at the beach cache event in ct swinging that cane and disappearing...

6.4k · January 7, 2004

There's also the ratio thing that comes into play. You can have a person that has been around for 2 years (730 days) with only 100 finds. That would average out to not even .14 caches a day. Where as someone that has been around for a month (30 days) has 15 finds, then their ratio would be .5 finds a day, which is a significant higher ratio(almost 400% more) of caching.

All you have to consider is the fact that a new cacher has a much greater pool of caches to choose from (and a much greater number of nearby caches) than someone who's been doing this for a couple of year. That said, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

So how do you pan out in all this?

I don't care enough to bother to do the calculations. I'm caching when I'm caching. Other times, I'm doing something else. I don't have a need to put numbers on it.

Prime makes a good point.

Woodie, if you're that bored, you're more then welcome to do that math on mine. I think it would be even more telling to chart the avg caches per day and the avg difficulty of them, and then compare them with my personal life. I'm guessing you would see fewer, but harder caches in the beginning, when there were less caches and I cached alone. Then you would see a dead spot where all hell broke loose at work for a few months and I was working 70-80hr weeks. Then you would see a drop off in difficulty as I dated someone who liked geocaching, but wasn't really able to do the tough ones. Now, with more free time and an AMESOME cache partner, I'm doing the caches I like the best, whatever that does to my ratios. Now I'm going back out to finish that nasty 3.5/4 multi from hell that we spent 3 hours in the cold, dark, and snow on last night!

PS: As most of the locals will tell ya, I'm usually at least 20 caches behind in logging online. Guess ya can't factor those in very well. :rolleyes:

Edited January 7, 2004 by Mopar

January 7, 2004

There is a "cache velocity" (caches/day) statistic available on the keenpeople.com site. You simply enter in the date you started caching and it automatically calculates your per-day average. I'd love to see a similar average of the difficulty/terrain ratings. See this link for an example.

January 7, 2004

Yup, the cache ratings-- and thus multipliers-- are subjective. I tend to think of time management. Wasn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity that time is money? My corollary is time is caches attempted. Some 2 star hikes take longer than a 3 star drive-up hide. This paradigm dovetails into the cache per day number I hope to achieve.

While I was working a 40-50 hour week, I was about a 1.5 per day cacher. Throwing in a midweek marathon and a Saturday marathon skews the average to 3.5 caches per day. Other than that, I'm just a typical 3 cache per hour cacher.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Mopar, you are about .5 cache a day. Of course there are different circumstances that would change those numbers....

6.4k · January 7, 2004

Mopar, you are about .5 cache a day. Of course there are different circumstances that would change those numbers....

But that's over the entire "career" of caching, I suspect if you looked at just the last 12 months it's closer to 1 a day.

OK, now Geo Ho is dragging me away from the forums to finsh that cache! gotta get my 1 find today to keep my ratio intact. :rolleyes:

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Mopar, you are about .5 cache a day. Of course there are different circumstances that would change those numbers....

But that's over the entire "career" of caching, I suspect if you looked at just the last 12 months it's closer to 1 a day.

OK, now Geo Ho is dragging me away from the forums to finsh that cache! gotta get my 1 find today to keep my ratio intact.

Well heck mopar, if you knock it down to a month or week, it could be a bigger number!

2.3k · January 7, 2004

Mopar, you are about .5 cache a day. Of course there are different circumstances that would change those numbers....

But that's over the entire "career" of caching, I suspect if you looked at just the last 12 months it's closer to 1 a day.

OK, now Geo Ho is dragging me away from the forums to finsh that cache! gotta get my 1 find today to keep my ratio intact.

Doesn't anyone here work?????

24.7k · January 7, 2004

My ratio has dropped like a rock since moving. Less caches, less cachers to compete against.

If only we had a stats site to do those calcuations. It's another good way to skin the cat.

2.1k · January 7, 2004

Mopar, you are about .5 cache a day. Of course there are different circumstances that would change those numbers....

But that's over the entire "career" of caching, I suspect if you looked at just the last 12 months it's closer to 1 a day.

OK, now Geo Ho is dragging me away from the forums to finsh that cache! gotta get my 1 find today to keep my ratio intact.

Doesn't anyone here work?????

like you are working doc....

1.8k · January 7, 2004

I just snuck into the forums here at work to see what's going on. :rolleyes:

Goodness, I cache because my professional and volunteer life is too stessful. I mean, caching is the ultimate instant reward: either you did or didn't find it, you did or didn't enjoy it. You know, or you wouldn't be doing it. Doing the math seems too hard for me. :rolleyes:

January 7, 2004

PS: As most of the locals will tell ya, I'm usually at least 20 caches behind in logging online. Guess ya can't factor those in very well.

Yeah Mopar, and you also need to clean up some of the place keeping logs, Like this one!

Just kidding, get out and cache! Keep that 'ho happy!

4k · January 7, 2004

PS: As most of the locals will tell ya, I'm usually at least 20 caches behind in logging online. Guess ya can't factor those in very well.

I only wish I had enough caches to actually fall behind in logging them! :rolleyes:

9.4k · January 7, 2004

PS: As most of the locals will tell ya, I'm usually at least 20 caches behind in logging online. Guess ya can't factor those in very well.

I only wish I had enough caches to actually fall behind in logging them!

I'm usually about 20 posts behind in replying (darn flood control!)

6.4k · January 7, 2004

Well heck mopar, if you knock it down to a month or week, it could be a bigger number!

That's true, of course. I was just thinking if you just looked at the last 12 months or so it would be a better comparison to newer people's "cache velocity". I mean, the first time I checked out this site and looked for my closest cache (back in 2000), the nearest cache was a 10hr+ drive away. A year later, there were a few hundred within 100 miles. Now, there are literally thousands within a 2hr drive. Just going back say a year to when caching really seems to have taken off would probably balance things out. Or not......

BTW, finished that cache today. Man, I can't believe just how CLOSE we were last night. Amazing how much easier it is to find caches when it's not night time in a snow squall. :rolleyes:

Edited January 7, 2004 by Mopar

4.8k · January 7, 2004

I'm afraid of math. :rolleyes:

2.1k · January 7, 2004

I'm afraid of math.

Don't be afraid carleem...by the way, yours is .13 ...lol

January 7, 2004

I get a bit tired of how people want to compare stats and somehow make comparisons, or rate themselves and others. The stats can be interesting, but they don't define anyone. Their simply numbers.

20.7k · January 7, 2004

I took some months off last year, so I'm sure mine has dropped very low.

Level Of Finds, Padding The Numbers, Ratios,

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment