Jump to content

What Is Your "fta" ?


DirtRunner
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Oh No! Another Stat topic!!! ;)

 

How about this? Since there is a pronounced correlation between the number of finds a cacher may have and the general closeness of the caches to them, it might be interesting to derive a ratio between the two to see how thorough the cacher in question actually is.

 

Basically, if you have 6,122 caches within 100 miles of you and 244 finds, that would give you a Find-to-Availability Ratio of (244 / 6122) or 3.98 %

 

Therefore, the higher the percentage the more thorough a cacher you are. I know that from my home co-ordinates there are 1119 caches within 100 miles of me, with my 103 finds would yield a (103/1119) = 9.2% FTA. Not bad I suppose.

 

The theory behind this stat is just because you have “X” amount of finds, this total number does not necessarily mean that you are a super cacher if there is a high concentration of caches where you live. Likewise, if you have a low number of finds, your score might still be respectable if there is a low concentration of caches in your area. I.E. you do not have a low score because you don’t get out very often, you have a restricted score because of limited availability.

 

I know with me, now that I have cleared out any cache that I might have once just dashed out after supper and snagged, I have to plan my outings more carefully. And when I go, just don’t go for one, I go for 3 or 4 of them. And since this takes a certain amount of time to grab this series of caches, I do not get the chance to get out there as often as I would like because of the time involved in planning them in the first place. Thus, my caching has really slowed down as of late. (Granted, the weather has something to do with it also)

 

Anyway, what is your FTA? It would be interesting to see what some of the higher find cachers total out to, as well as some of the cachers with a lower number of finds.

 

Thanks for the time

DirtRunner.

Link to comment

please clearify two points.

Do you include caches you yourself own or helped place?

Should any locationless caches be removed from your number of found?

 

edit:

ok

(My finds less LCs) / (available within 100 miles less my local hides)

123(all)-21(~reverse)/441(active)-33(active)

102/408=25%

Edited by welch
Link to comment

Also, how would archived caches get handled in your formula? If there are 860 caches available and a geocacher has been caching for two years, he might have 50 to 100 finds within 100 miles on caches that have since been archived. Include the archived finds and it looks like a higher percentage of the 860 have been logged. Exclude the archived finds and it looks like the geocacher has been less busy than is actually the case.

Link to comment

I guess it would be any cache that required you to leave the house and travel to a location as indicated by the coordinates specified. Thus, if my terminology is correct, Virtuals would be included in this count but Reverse caches would not.

 

As for Keystone's Remarks...uhhhhhh I Dunno!

 

How about just take your current total finds (minus reverse caches) and divide by the total currently available. Lets keep it simple for now (and yes, ultimately flawed) until Geocaching becomes a professional sport or recognized by the IOC.

 

Jeez! You guys make me work hard for it!

DirtRunner.

 

Edited to address Keystone's Question.

Edited by DirtRunner
Link to comment

OK, why not...

 

1710 available (leaving out my own)

346 found

 

fta=20.23%

 

Now my data is skewed because I live along Lake Michigan. A 100 mile circle around my location is going to be not quite half water, so I only have half the potential caches in my area as someone, say in Kansas would have. This makes it a lot easier for me to raise my fta number.

Edited by The Cheeseheads
Link to comment

What if finds finds are higher than caches within 100 miles? I get 109.57%

 

It might make it easier to figure using only the available caches within the 100 miles. Using total available and available unfound, then we've found 43.8% of the available caches within a 100 mile radius.

 

CR

Edited by Sissy-n-CR
Link to comment

Umm OK I'm in too. I'm not sure why this fascination with stats is occuring after all It's not about the numbers right? :D;):D:D

And Statistics was the only college course I got tutorial help in, and it's a big part of my daily working life so....

Available within 100 miles less mine=524/total found less locationless=319 for a ratio of 60.9%!

So what does this all mean? ROADTRIP! :D

To make it truly accurate shouldn't I deduct the caches I found when travelling out of the area? Nah, that's too much work! :D

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

Ok, if I did this right, there appear to be 2489 caches within 100 miles of me. I have 358 finds as of right now. That would be about 14%

 

However, not all of my finds are within 100 miles of my house! Quite the contrary, a good number of them are several hundred miles away. How would one work that into the formula?

 

Another thing, a good number of the caches within 100 miles of me are up on the peaks of mountains, some of which require technical mountain climbing gear. Should those be removed from the list?

Edited by Right Wing Wacko
Link to comment
Um... 268 caches within 100 miles, 425 found for a stat of 159% We travel a bit. ;)

-Jennifer

edit- forgot to multiply by 100, if we take our 26 caches our stat is 176%. zip code 59801, Missoula, MT.

Now that's an impressive number!!!

 

As for me 179 found 1423 available that I did not participate in hiding, for a ratio of 12.6%.

Link to comment

1218 in a 100 mile radius, discounting loc's my fta is 123%. Using the found versus available in the 100 miles I have found 65% of what is available in 100 miles. For the last couple of months we have been hunting farther away than that and have not hunted much locally. It looks like we need to stay home some and look after our backyard, everytime you think you have got an area nearly cleaned up, folks start hiding again.

Link to comment
...

To make it truly accurate shouldn't I deduct the caches I found when travelling out of the area? Nah, that's too much work! ;)

I agree that its too much work.

 

Also, it may be a better stat with this info left in. Someone who has a very large ratio either hits every cache in the area or caches alot while traveling. Of course, this still doesn't take archived caches into account, but no stat is perfect.

Link to comment

It's a nice try, but I think there's no way to make this stat meaningful. It's really skewed towards those with small numbers of caches in their areas and who find a lot of caches outside their home radius.

 

If there are only 20 caches in my area and I've found them all for 100%, can you really compare that number to someone who has found 1000 of the 2000 caches in their area for only 50%?

 

The one stat that I have seen that I like is the finds/day stat. It's

 

number of caches you have found

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

total days since your first find

 

Even still, this number doesn't really show how thorough a cacher you are compared to somebody else, just the fact that you get out more often.

Link to comment

There are exactly 800 active caches within 100 miles of my home coordinates. Of these, I own 20, so the denominator is 780.

 

I have 257 finds on these currently available caches, plus another 29 finds on archived caches that would have fallen within the 100 mile radius had they remained active. Total finds (excluding locationless and event caches): 286. Calculating my fta ratio using these numbers produces a measly 37% result.

 

I have a *lot* of finds outside of my home area... 561 finds, excluding locationless but including event caches both near and far. Calculating my fta ratio using total non-locationless finds produces a respectable 72% result.

Link to comment
It's a nice try, but I think there's no way to make this stat meaningful.

Well, there is no way that any one stat can be made meaningful.

 

Even your favorite of caches per day is meaningless if you get down to it. What about the people who cache like fiend only a couple of days a month because of their schedule versus the retired folks that cache at a much more leisurely rate? The retired couple can gather many more hides than the hardcore, though infrequent, cacher.

 

That's what is meant by "it's not about the numbers." No one stat can tell it all.

 

What about caches-per-day-of-caching? That would be the average number of caches one hits on a day of caching. But that doesn't take into account the difficulty of the caches sought.

 

Caches per day, consecutive days caching, consecutive finds, consecutive DNFs, LTF, all are stats that tell only part of the story.

 

I think numbers are fun. But the numbers don't tell how good of a cacher you are. It can't. It only gives a feel of a cacher's activities.

 

CR

Link to comment

I have 230 finds.

 

There are currently 1,565 active or temporarily disabled caches within 100 miles of my home. I own 15 of them. I have not found or placed 1,414. That means that I've found 136 of the active caches within 100 miles.

 

68 caches that I've found are archived - regardless of the area (30%)

26 of the caches I've found are more than 100 miles from my home - regardless of archive status (11.3%)

 

I guess with the basic description, I'm got 230/1565 or 14.7%

 

A better description is that I have found 137 of the 1,565 active caches placed by other cachers within 100 miles of my home - a ratio of 8.69%

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment
:) Counting only those caches I've found within 100 miles (99) vs the available within 100 (433), gives me a fta ratio of 22.86%. If I were to use my total finds (202) to the caches available within 100 miles (433), I'd get to report 46.65%. The 22.86% is problably closer to the true intent of this exercise though.
Link to comment

Surpised to see that I don't look out of place here with my 142 f / (1401a-25p) i.e. over 10%. There are of course a few out-of-state finds and a few archived finds too, including one toughie which was found more than a year after it was archived.

Suprised also because there aren't even a dozen caches on my to-do list ... *NOT* over a thousand. Of course I don't log caches online unless I have a story to tell or a picture to show... what fun it would be for the owner to get another boring TNLNSL e-mail notification? But there aren't nearly enough underground finds to chip away at the discrepancy. Indeed if I don't expect a cache to be worth a story, I probably won't plan on doing it in the first place?

Link to comment
Basically, if you have 6,122 caches within 100 miles of you and 244 finds, that would give you a Find-to-Availability Ratio of (244 / 6122) or 3.98 %

 

Therefore, the higher the percentage the more thorough a cacher you are. I know that from my home co-ordinates there are 1119 caches within 100 miles of me, with my 103 finds would yield a (103/1119) = 9.2% FTA. Not bad I suppose.

I just went cross-eyed... :)

 

Too much thinking for a Monday afternoon.

Link to comment

Boy, am I glad that some of you don't see where this kind of stat would prove to be very meaningful. With 2128 (minus my 4) caches within a hundred miles of me I'm running at about 4.28 percent. That's certainly not competitive. If you'll excuse me, I've gotta get the heck out of this forum and grab my GPSr.

See ya... :)

Link to comment
Boy, am I glad that some of you don't see where this kind of stat would prove to be very meaningful. With 2128 (minus my 4) caches within a hundred miles of me I'm running at about 4.28 percent. That's certainly not competitive. If you'll excuse me, I've gotta get the heck out of this forum and grab my GPSr.

See ya... :)

Hmmmm. That doesn't work right. I have more finds than caches within 100 miles. I'm at 105%.

Link to comment
Boy, am I glad that some of you don't see where this kind of stat would prove to be very meaningful.  With 2128 (minus my 4) caches within a hundred miles of me I'm running at about 4.28 percent.  That's certainly not competitive.  If you'll excuse me, I've gotta get the heck out of this forum and grab my GPSr.

  See ya... :)

Hmmmm. That doesn't work right. I have more finds than caches within 100 miles. I'm at 105%.

Great gadzooks, beatnick; your stats make you look like a world traveler (or a truck driver) so it's no wonder you've come up with a number like that. What would happen if you eliminated all the finds outside the 100 mile radius before setting up the equation? :)

Link to comment

Out in the boonies we have to get out more. I have 32 within 100 miles and have found 73. 228.125%. If I limit finds to only those within 100, I have 78%. By the way, my 30 mile benchmark percentage is 171/446 for 38.34% which is also not accurate because I get lots of those outside the circle.

Link to comment

Well just counting the finds in my 100 mile radious...

 

308 avalible, 113 found = about 37% FTA

 

Its easy just look at how many caches are listed on "My Cache Page" at the "Search for nearest caches from your home coordinates" link and then "filter out your finds" link, devide and there you go!

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...