Skydiver's Geocaching Point System

[+Bull Moose]

I have found out that my recent jaunt to Eastern Washington, Idaho, and Montana has earned me points in something called Skydiver's Geocaching Point System.

 

I think this is a really cool idea. That's all I wanted to say. I won't try to explain it as the FAQs do a much better job. I was totally unaware of this until I looked at some logs of caches I want to find the next time I'm in Montana.

 

Think we could get Skydiver to expand it to Western Washington? It looks fairly simple.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Looks interesting to me. It would be fun to do that in southern oregon except we're all too stupid down here.

 

Right lurkers?

[+Bull Moose]

Yeah, I wish I knew how to do something like that. I can hardly put together a simple webpage.

Of course, cache density is much higher in WA and OR, so it would take a much bigger database.

[+yumitori]

In the past I've given my opinions on Skydiver's game in some of the other forums. In a nutshell, I don't think the points caches end up receiving accurately reflect their challenge as was intended. Jon disagrees with my analysis.

 

Among some of the cachers who actively compete for points I've also noticed a trend to archive their easier-to-reach caches, even particularly fun ones. As the game is currently set up archived caches continue to gain points since there will never be new finders.

 

I've asked Jon to remove my geocaching.com account information from his website since I do not wish to play his game, but he has so far ignored me.

[+Bull Moose]

Hmm... interesting points. I admit, I know next to nothing about it, I just noticed I was on it after finding a few caches in MT and Idaho.

It is too bad that people would archive their caches for this point system.

 

OK, maybe a dumb question, but if you don't want to play why do you not just ignore the site?

[+wadel]

Among some of the cachers who actively compete for points I've also noticed a trend to archive their easier-to-reach caches, even particularly fun ones. As the game is currently set up archived caches continue to gain points since there will never be new finders.

I don't believe archived caches go up in points. My one archived cache (archived back in Oct of 02) is still worth the 1 point it was valued at when it was archived.

[+yumitori]

It is too bad that people would archive their caches for this point system.

 

Just to be fair, I don't know folks have been archiving caches in order to get more points, but it's a behavior I've observed and there doesn't seem to be another strong reason for the archivals.

 

 

OK, maybe a dumb question, but if you don't want to play why do you not just ignore the site?

 

 

Mostly I have been. I hadn't visited for many months prior to someone telling me that I was now listed as 'top slut'.

 

Part of it is a philosophical objection to being included when I don't want to play. I don't expect Skydiver to ask everyone before including their information, but I should be able to opt-out if I wish to. If Jon can mine my data and post it, he can write a couple lines of code that discard it instead.

 

 

I don't believe archived caches go up in points. My one archived cache (archived back in Oct of 02) is still worth the 1 point it was valued at when it was archived.

 

 

Hmmm. It may just be in an area where it is going to be worth only one point in any case (points are determined by comparing a particular cache to other nearby ones), or he may have changed the rules again. In the past we have observed caches increase in point value after they were archived.

[+Bull Moose]

Mostly I have been. I hadn't visited for many months prior to someone telling me that I was now listed as 'top slut'.

OK, I can see someone not wanting go be called "Top Slut."

 

It may comfort you to know you are now only second place slut.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Bull Moose

[Moun10Bike]

I thought that I had seen the point value of my archived caches increase over time. I had attributed it to the caches being old ones that had been around when there were fewer cachers, so their hit rate over time was lower than current caches and continually sinking.

 

I've lost a bit of interest in the SGPS lately due to the fact that the point values seem to change drastically on a weekly basis. There are also some unintuitive assignments to me, such as Niskibum's "The Bum's Rush" (a 5/5 out in the woods with three finds since being placed in June) having a value of only 3 points. Meanwhile, nearby "Fernandoze" was placed in March, has 20 finds, and is worth 21 points.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Moun10Bike

[+Renegade Knight]

It's been discussed spreading the system to other areas. However the GC.com policy on data use makes it difficult to do. It also looks like some of the bugs in the system are not entirely resolved.

 

The idea that the cache less found is worth more points is a good idea, and a good variation to stats in general.

 

I disagree in general that stats should be opt out as it defeats the purpose of stats. However I can think of a lot better names than cache slut. That's a bug of a different kind.

[+Bull Moose]

I kind of wondered how he gets all of that data. Not only for that, but for his alert system.

I assume Jeremy knows about it and is letting it continue, so it must not be too disruptive.

[Moun10Bike]

I know that he collects the data for the SGPS via PQs. He once mentioned in the Idaho forums that he would set something up for the Spokane area if someone donated their PQ to the cause. Also, if a cache initially gets "missed" by the SGPS and multiple people log it, the SGPS only catches the last 5 logs once the cache gets picked up.

[+yumitori]

It may comfort you to know you are now only second place slut.

Heh. Not really. I haven't dropped in to see, but if it's leonata, she's my wife, and just a bit ahead on logging her finds...

[skydiver]

Hmmm. just noticed this thread. Sure thought some of the posters who know me would have notified me of it, so that I could respond, rather than leaving everyong to speculate. But, I guess not.

 

Re: arhived caches gaining points:

Moun10bike's 'theory' that archived caches gain points due to

the caches being old ones that had been around when there were fewer cachers, so their hit rate over time was lower than current caches and continually sinking.

is exactly correct. Raw scores of archived caches is locked and do not increase with time, but the relationship those scores have with newer active caches will constantly change.

 

Re: The Bum's Rush still being worth 3 points.

The SGPS assumes that a no-find log indicates the cache is missing, and thus locks the raw score. When a find is later posted that confirms the cache was in fact there all along, the system makes the appropriate adjustments to the raw score. So, as soon as somebody finds The Bum's Rush... it's points will adjust.

 

Re: Data collection and spreading the system to other areas.

I do gather most of the data necessary for this through PQ's. 8 in fact (4 of mine, and 2 each donated by a couple other local cachers). However, limitations in the information included in the PQ's requires that I still pull some data directly from GC.com. Great pains have been taken to make this 'mining' to be as unintrusive as possible, but it's still necessary for the SGPS to exist. If it were possible to gather all necessary data from PQ's, the SGPS would have gone worldwide with donated PQ's from regional geocachers a long, long time ago.

 

Re: Point Snobs and Cache Sluts

I would hope that people could recognize tounge-in-cheek humor when they see it... especially considering I'm on both lists. For those who can't, oh well. I won't appologize to, or make special considerations for, people with no sense of humor or too easily offended. I'll simply plead The First and maybe offer them some cheese.

 

Re: Opting out of being listed.

Renegade Knight wins the prize for this one. Statistics are meaningless without including all available data. Just look at the Keen People stats as evidence.

 

Re: sudden point fluctuations

Even I've been surprised on occasion by sudden point swings.

Sometimes, they're are due to problems getting updated data from GC.com. These fluctuations are usually more extreem and marked by a sudden swing in the opposite direction when the problem is corrected. This happens every few months, but rarely lasts for more than a few days.

More often though, there is a perfectly explainable mathematical explanation. Anytime players have asked me to explain a swing within a few days of it's start, I've been able to hunt down exactly which cache find was responsible. Although it's entirely mathematically based, the system has developed a life of it's own and has repeatedly defied my own predictions on when points will swing, and in which direction.

 

I fully recognize that not everyone is as interested in statistics as others. However, there are many people who have told me the the SGPS has breathed new life into geocaching for them, and inspired them to hunt (and place) caches they wouldn't have even dreamed of persuing otherwise. This was the goal of the SGPS, and as far as I'm concerned, has succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

[+Bull Moose]

Well, like I said, I think it's a cool idea. I'd be happy to see it come to my neck of the woods, though, like you said, doesn't seem likely.

 

I wouldn't mind being called "cache slut", but I guess some might have used a different trerm. But I didn't go through all the work to develop it.

[+yumitori]

Re: Point Snobs and Cache Sluts

I would hope that people could recognize tounge-in-cheek humor when they see it... especially considering I'm on both lists. For those who can't, oh well. I won't appologize to, or make special considerations for, people with no sense of humor or too easily offended. I'll simply plead The First and maybe offer them some cheese.

 

 

<shrug> Adding 'geo' in front of a highly offensive word does not make it humorous. Just consider some of the classic highly inflammatory racial epithets, for example. I doubt there would be much laughing with such a usage, and not just among the 'easily offended'.

 

Perhaps if someone called your wife a slut, you'd understand.

 

 

Re: Opting out of being listed.

Renegade Knight wins the prize for this one. Statistics are meaningless without including all available data. Just look at the Keen People stats as evidence.

 

 

Then the system is meaningless, and I can 'safely' opt-out. Just consider the ratings of folks such as Moun10bike and MedicOne. A meaningful system would have them kicking all of our butts.

 

Jon, if you wish to create a game that makes you feel good about yourself, have fun. But don't be surprised if some of us don't want to play along.

 

Ron/yumitori

[+Rye_and_Leigh]

<shrug> Adding 'geo' in front of a highly offensive word does not make it humorous. Just consider some of the classic highly inflammatory racial epithets, for example. I doubt there would be much laughing with such a usage, and not just among the 'easily offended'.

 

Perhaps if someone called your wife a slut, you'd understand.

 

Do you really think that a list of geocaching usernames titled "cache sluts" that ranks those with the most finds is offensive? Wow. I was under the impression that the context of the word obviously implied that it meant it was a list of those who are promiscuous geocachers, not sexually promiscuous. I guess some people will find offense wherever they want to... I'm a "cache slut" and proud of it!

 

-Rye

[+blazerfan]

Looks interesting to me. It would be fun to do that in southern oregon except we're all too stupid down here.

 

Right lurkers?

Is that a challenge Lazyboy?

 

This is a pretty complicated scoring system... I am impressed. If I made something like this I'd have to simplify it... no one around here would understand it

 

And by the way I prefer the term "cache tramp"

[Moun10Bike]

Hmmm. just noticed this thread. Sure thought some of the posters who know me would have notified me of it, so that I could respond, rather than leaving everyong to speculate. But, I guess not.

Sorry, Jon! I didn't think to email you about it. I just figured that if you wanted to chime in, you would - even a couple of months later.

 

Re: The Bum's Rush still being worth 3 points.

The SGPS assumes that a no-find log indicates the cache is missing, and thus locks the raw score. When a find is later posted that confirms the cache was in fact there all along, the system makes the appropriate adjustments to the raw score. So, as soon as somebody finds The Bum's Rush... it's points will adjust.

 

Thank you very much for explaining that. That certainly makes sense.

 

Re: sudden point fluctuations

Even I've been surprised on occasion by sudden point swings.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Last summer, it seemed as if I would have a point total of 1800 one week, then 2200 the next. In fact, it looked to me like the calculations were being continually tweaked, as changes from day to day within a given week were not nearly so extreme. Maybe it was due to increased activity on the weekends, but after a while I lost track trying to follow it. Now I'm just content to watch my point total continually erode.

 

For what it's worth, I personally have no problems with the "Cache Sluts" moniker (although I'm not even close to making the list). I might feel differently in other circumstances, though, so I won't presume to tell anyone else that they shouldn't either.

 

Also, let me throw in my thanks for creating the system. Although I don't follow it as closely as I used to, I probably would if I was able to get home more, and I think it is a creative and fun addition to the game.

[skydiver]

Last summer, it seemed as if I would have a point total of 1800 one week, then 2200 the next. In fact, it looked to me like the calculations were being continually tweaked,

Ahhh. I think I know the time period you're refering to, and yes there was tweaking going on, but not in the calculations. There a couple months or so last summer it seemed Jeremy (or his lackeys) were tweaking the format of the search and cache pages on a nearly daily basis, which would sometimes break the SGPS and cause it to think hundreds of caches in the playfield got archived (when in fact they didn't). Each time this completely disrupted the calculations while I spent a couple days counter-tweaking the SGPS to recoginze the new format and get all the caches back online.

 

The method of computing points hasn't changed since I introduced the 101-255 points scale for extreem caches in October, 2002.

[+luckyangel1998]

Not sure if anyone can help us understand this one--but, here it goes. With this point system we are just wondering why it takes sooooo long for some of the points to post. We found a cache on monday the 26th and the cache hasnt posted as of yet and today is the 30th. Just kind of curious. So any input would be great. Thanks!!

Edited April 30, 2004 by luckyangel1998

[+Rye_and_Leigh]

luckyangel1998,

I've seen things take some time to count in the SGPS for a few reasons. If none of these are the case, skydiver would probably be glad to know of a possible problem. If you tell him of such a potential problem I think he'll look into it for you.

 

High traffic caches don't get caught by the SGPS right away because the GPX files sent out by gc.com only have the 5 most recent logs. If there were more logs than that in a day only 5 wil be caught right away.

 

If you wait a week or more to log your find your find might not make it into the SGPS right away.

 

I've noticed that lately the GPX files aren't consistantly including all new logs. However, I've never seen a find not be included after 24 hours, so it may take an extra day due to this.

 

If you have something else going on, I'd love to hear about it and I'm sure skydiver would, too. It's been my experience that he's always very receptive to looking into reports of possible problems.

 

Oh, and by the way, congratulations on your 6-month silver star! That takes some effort to get.

 

>luckyangel1998 wrote: Not sure if anyone can help us understand this >one--but, here it goes. With this point system we are just wondering >why it takes sooooo long for some of the points to post. We found a >cache on monday the 26th and the cache hasnt posted as of yet and >today is the 30th. Just kind of curious. So any input would be great. >Thanks!!

[skydiver]

Not sure if anyone can help us understand this one--but, here it goes. With this point system we are just wondering why it takes sooooo long for some of the points to post. We found a cache on monday the 26th and the cache hasnt posted as of yet and today is the 30th. Just kind of curious. So any input would be great. Thanks!!

As Rye said, I encourage reports of problems so I can look into them and get them fixed if necessary.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about Rathdrum Mountain. Rathdrum is one of several caches that fall on the very edge of the point system boundary, and due to some technical details that are difficult to explain, aren't included in the daily GPX updates. So, these fringe caches take longer to get updated (up to a month). Usually if somebody notifies me of a new log for one of these caches, I can queue that cache to get updated sooner (which I've done now for Rathdrum). You should see it get added to your SGPS found list sometime this weekend.

[Chief Paulina]

I'm not sure I understand yet. I've been thru Missoula and CDA, etc and done maybe 10 caches. Yet I don't see my name in lights. I will be back up in CDA area early next week. Can someone help me at least get my name on the list? If only for 10 minutes of fame?

[skydiver]

I'm not sure I understand yet.  I've been thru Missoula and CDA, etc and done maybe 10 caches.  Yet I don't see my name in lights.    I will be back up in CDA area early next week.  Can someone help me at least get my name on the list?  If only for 10 minutes of fame?

Cachers who breeze through the area, hit a few caches, and then disappear again, or those that have moved outside the area, or those that just quit geocaching, are automatically removed from the list after a time, to free up the clutter. Without this there would be 1897 geocachers listed today, 95% of which are tourists who came and went.

Geocachers in 101st place and below are removed after one month of inactivity. Those in positions 1-100 are removed on a different timeline, depending on their position.

On the plus side, all the data for your current finds in the play area are still in the database, and as soon as you post a find in the area again, you standing will be fully reinstated as if you'd never left.... for a while at least, until you leave again. ;-).

[+shunra]

Hmmm. just noticed this thread. Sure thought some of the posters who know me would have notified me of it, so that I could respond, rather than leaving everyong to speculate. But, I guess not.

 

Re: arhived caches gaining points:

Moun10bike's 'theory' that archived caches gain points due to

the caches being old ones that had been around when there were fewer cachers, so their hit rate over time was lower than current caches and continually sinking.

is exactly correct. Raw scores of archived caches is locked and do not increase with time, but the relationship those scores have with newer active caches will constantly change.

 

Re: The Bum's Rush still being worth 3 points.

The SGPS assumes that a no-find log indicates the cache is missing, and thus locks the raw score. When a find is later posted that confirms the cache was in fact there all along, the system makes the appropriate adjustments to the raw score. So, as soon as somebody finds The Bum's Rush... it's points will adjust.

 

Re: Data collection and spreading the system to other areas.

I do gather most of the data necessary for this through PQ's. 8 in fact (4 of mine, and 2 each donated by a couple other local cachers). However, limitations in the information included in the PQ's requires that I still pull some data directly from GC.com. Great pains have been taken to make this 'mining' to be as unintrusive as possible, but it's still necessary for the SGPS to exist. If it were possible to gather all necessary data from PQ's, the SGPS would have gone worldwide with donated PQ's from regional geocachers a long, long time ago.

 

Re: Point Snobs and Cache Sluts

I would hope that people could recognize tounge-in-cheek humor when they see it... especially considering I'm on both lists. For those who can't, oh well. I won't appologize to, or make special considerations for, people with no sense of humor or too easily offended. I'll simply plead The First and maybe offer them some cheese.

 

Re: Opting out of being listed.

Renegade Knight wins the prize for this one. Statistics are meaningless without including all available data. Just look at the Keen People stats as evidence.

 

Re: sudden point fluctuations

Even I've been surprised on occasion by sudden point swings.

Sometimes, they're are due to problems getting updated data from GC.com. These fluctuations are usually more extreem and marked by a sudden swing in the opposite direction when the problem is corrected. This happens every few months, but rarely lasts for more than a few days.

More often though, there is a perfectly explainable mathematical explanation. Anytime players have asked me to explain a swing within a few days of it's start, I've been able to hunt down exactly which cache find was responsible. Although it's entirely mathematically based, the system has developed a life of it's own and has repeatedly defied my own predictions on when points will swing, and in which direction.

 

I fully recognize that not everyone is as interested in statistics as others. However, there are many people who have told me the the SGPS has breathed new life into geocaching for them, and inspired them to hunt (and place) caches they wouldn't have even dreamed of persuing otherwise. This was the goal of the SGPS, and as far as I'm concerned, has succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

I too read this thread only today. I'm impressed: an excellent way to quantify quality caches, a level playfield for players with varying tastes.

If this gets introduced in Western Washington, I'll start getting interested in statistics.

 

What would it take to include the rest of Washington, or to start a similar but separate system for the are between the Cascades and the ocean?

[+Bull Moose]

I think at the very least, to begin with, he'd need a large amount of donated PQs.

I'd be willing to donate 2 of mine a day. So that's 14 queries, 7000 caches, if it only updates once a week.

[+luckyangel1998]

Thanks skidiver and rye for the input into the point system. We were wondering if it had to deal with it being on the border. Alls we know is this (Rathdrum) Mountain is one fun cache. Worth the views for sure. Thats probably the best thing about geo caching is the areas you are taken too. And with this point system you get to see some of the most beautiful country in the world--Least in this cachers opinion!!

Thanks to everyone. Hope to catch you on the trails!

[+shunra]

I think at the very least, to begin with, he'd need a large amount of donated PQs.

I'd be willing to donate 2 of mine a day. So that's 14 queries, 7000 caches, if it only updates once a week.

I can volunteer all the PQs I draw anyway, plus a few additional customized ones, as necessary.

[+Renegade Knight]

There are caches in the skydiver radius that I've done both a log time ago and recently. Alas I'm not even a contenter for the bottom rung.

[skydiver]

I'd love to be able to expand the SGPS to other areas, or make it world wide, and have looked into many ways to do so, none of which have been acceptable to me. Unfortunately, donated PQ's alone aren't enough to keep the system current. There's a lot more to it than that.

Have faith though. I've far from given up. There are still other possibilities on the drawing board, each being carefully analyzed between cache outings.

[+shunra]

I'd love to be able to expand the SGPS to other areas, or make it world wide, and have looked into many ways to do so, none of which have been acceptable to me. Unfortunately, donated PQ's alone aren't enough to keep the system current. There's a lot more to it than that.

Have faith though. I've far from given up. There are still other possibilities on the drawing board, each being carefully analyzed between cache outings.

What are the bottlenecks?

 

To which extent is personal interference required?

 

Would a system that does not update every day be easier to expand?

 

Would you allow someone to copy your system and run it independently from yours in a different area, with due credit, of course?

[+Bull Moose]

Unfortunately, donated PQ's alone aren't enough to keep the system current. There's a lot more to it than that.

Oh, you don't just go through them all by hand using GSAK?

[+MedicOne]

I, for one, have had a lot of fun with SGPS since I was introduced to it by Twofishheads some time ago. I'm on the Cacheslut list which seems appropriate. I've recently been added to the Psychoticcacher list which my wife thinks is appropriate. I'm hoping Jon comes up with a new category - Stellarcacher for those who have at one time or another had simultaneous gold stars in all four categories. I appreciate the effort Skydiver puts into making this thing work. I've always found him very receptive to my little inputs about the game. I spend hours pouring over maps, topos, etc planning my next "255." Thanks Skydiver and please keep on keeping on!

Edited May 4, 2004 by MedicOne

[+Bull Moose]

All right. Another trip through Montana, another 67 SGPS points.

[+XVampire]

I like the point system and have it bookmarked and look at it daily. One problem I noticed is that since I changed my user name from Techie to XVampire, it still isnt updated on the SGPS site. Kudos to Skydiver and I hope to be a 'geo-slut' one day !

[+Bull Moose]

I like the point system and have it bookmarked and look at it daily.

Yep. Just another reason I wish I lived in Montana...

[+XVampire]

I only have 93 caches within 100 miles, so you may want to rethink living in Montana!

[+Bull Moose]

I only have 93 caches within 100 miles, so you may want to rethink living in Montana!

I think I'd take that hit to live in Great Falls.

Unfortunatly, no jobs for me there (or perhaps that's what makes me want to live there in the first place...)

[+evergreenhiker!]

I only have 93 caches within 100 miles, so you may want to rethink living in Montana!

I think I'd take that hit to live in Great Falls.

Unfortunatly, no jobs for me there (or perhaps that's what makes me want to live there in the first place...)

Well, Cut Bank has no caches except for the one I planted and the virt. So I will be going to Great Falls and Missoula while I'm over there. Helping folks move over and get settled in.