Add Ranking Feature To Site

[+Kunjamuk]

While I was hunting a very difficult cache, I was thinking about a Cacher Ranking system. Instead of soley listing how many caches you found you, it would be neat to rank you amongst all cachers in the world. So

for instance, let's say you find a cache with a difficulty of 5 and terrain of 5, that would be worth ten points,

or maybe you find a difficulty of 3 and terrain of 1, that would be worth 4 points. You could also add

a points for caches, multicaches, benchmarks etc. For instance, a multi-cache might be worth 2 points

times the difficulty and terrain so 2+3+1=6. As a result, then you could keep the total points for each

cachers and provide ranking relative to all cachers. This might provide everyone with more incentive to

place and find harder caches and try to be the best in the country. Does, seem like it would be too hard

to implement, just a little compute power behind the scenes.

[+Stunod]

Pandora's box has just been opened...again.

[+woof n lulu]

and again.........

[+Mopar]

self-moderated

[+rusty_tlc]

I'm game....

 

But how would you know that all caches were rated equally?

I mean your idea of a 3 and my idea of a 3 could be totally different, right?

[+Criminal]

This is a game about hiding things and finding things, not seeing who is better than someone else. There are far too many variables anyway. Look at my find count, 149 as of today. 149 finds since August of 2001. Now look at the caches I’ve found. Virtuals, zero. Locationless, zero. Event caches, zero.

 

So obviously I have a different interpretation of what a “geocache” is. I have begun to ignore many of the mass-micros lately too. How would any system rank me?

 

Would a cacher with 100 virtuals, 100 locationless, 100 webcam, 100 1/1 micros, and 12 real geocaches be ranked higher than me?

[+woof n lulu]

Geocaching Pure & Simple + Rules and Regulations up the wazoo = caching becoming tedious.

 

edited for sucky grammer

Edited April 28, 2004 by woof n lulu

[+Bull Moose]

100 webcam,

The two webcam caches I've done were two of the biggest pains-in-the-butt I've done while caching.

Mostly because I'm stading in the middle of Pike Place Market yelling "NO! Control C!" into a cell phone while in everyone's way.

If anyone has 100 webcam finds, hat's off as far as I'm concerened.

[+rusty_tlc]

So the points made thus far:

 

rusty - a accurate ranking method is difficult if not impossiable

criminal - its not about the numbers

woof & lulu - no more rules!

 

ba77847, you may have guessed this topic has been discused on more than one occasion in the past. Just about everything to be said on the topic has already been covered here, again.

[WH]

I HATE stats. The only reason I log online, is out of courtesy to the cache hider. It also helps me keep track of which caches ive visited.

 

If it were possible, Id make my stats private so that noone could see them but me.

[+wimseyguy]

The two webcam caches I've done were two of the biggest pains-in-the-butt I've done while caching.

Why did you even bother with the second one then? Were you hoping that the first was the exception the the rule rather than the norm?

[+Criminal]

100 webcam,

The two webcam caches I've done were two of the biggest pains-in-the-butt I've done while caching.

Mostly because I'm stading in the middle of Pike Place Market yelling "NO! Control C!" into a cell phone while in everyone's way.

If anyone has 100 webcam finds, hat's off as far as I'm concerened.

LOL!

 

[+woof n lulu]

I would add....see the Dear Mr. Irish thread...its alot along the lines of this one.....

[+MarcB]

Quite simply it will cause arguments.

Argument = Bad

Therefore no ranking.

The End

 

MarcB

[+carleenp]

Quite simply it will cause arguments.

Argument = Bad

Therefore no ranking.

The End

 

MarcB

This is pretty much my philosophy as well. I would probably use my favorite word "angst" instead of argument.

[+rusty_tlc]

So the points made thus far:

 

rusty - a accurate ranking method is difficult if not impossiable

criminal - its not about the numbers

woof & lulu - no more rules!

 

ba77847, you may have guessed this topic has been discused on more than one occasion in the past. Just about everything to be said on the topic has already been covered here, again.

And so we add strife/dis-harmony to the list.

[+zoltig]

In the ranking system, don't you have to divide by PIE??

mmmmmmmmmm pie. I mean PI.

[Pto]

I would add....see the Dear Mr. Irish thread...its alot along the lines of this one.

 

Dont bother if you are looking for an answer tho, as no response has been posted.

[+Bull Moose]

The two webcam caches I've done were two of the biggest pains-in-the-butt I've done while caching.

Why did you even bother with the second one then? Were you hoping that the first was the exception the the rule rather than the norm?

My wife was with me for the second one and my much more computer savvy brother was on the phone on the other side. And it was a cool place (Cape Hattaras Lighthouse.)

Plus I was on vacation and was cache-hungry in a not-so-cache rich environment.

Edited April 28, 2004 by Bull Moose

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

hate it

[bug and snake]

The exact quote doesn't matter but there are three ways to mislead people:-

Lies, damned lies and statistics..... Of these, the third is the worst!

[+woof n lulu]

I would add....see the Dear Mr. Irish thread...its alot along the lines of this one.

 

Dont bother if you are looking for an answer tho, as no response has been posted.

...if you want replies you have a better chance in Geocaching.com forum.

Edited April 28, 2004 by woof n lulu

[+LETaylor]

This is a game about hiding things and finding things, not seeing who is better than someone else. There are far too many variables anyway. Look at my find count, 149 as of today. 149 finds since August of 2001. Now look at the caches I’ve found. Virtuals, zero. Locationless, zero. Event caches, zero.

 

So obviously I have a different interpretation of what a “geocache” is. I have begun to ignore many of the mass-micros lately too. How would any system rank me?

 

Would a cacher with 100 virtuals, 100 locationless, 100 webcam, 100 1/1 micros, and 12 real geocaches be ranked higher than me?

As a kid, I don't remember rankings being a part of our Hide & Seek games and we all had a good time.

 

I look to the cache rating as an indicator, i.e. a clue on on the cache. When I see that anther member has found XXX caches, it's only an idicator that he does it more than me.

 

I'm against a totem ranking because it adds nothing to the "game".

[+SixDogTeam]

I think it's a brilliant idea, but I don't agree with some of the weighting--lets hash it out at a big convention and fight/vote!!

[+rusty_tlc]

I think it's a brilliant idea, but I don't agree with some of the weighting--lets hash it out at a big convention and fight/vote!!

I get the Halibut, it will be melee style right?

[+Kunjamuk]

Well, it sounds like most are against the ranking. But jeeeze, I think you all are taking the ranking a little

to serious. Have some fun with it, don't over analyze it. Yikes, I'll just keep caching. Hey I found one

worth three points yesterday. ;-)

[+The Cheeseheads]

100 webcam,

The two webcam caches I've done were two of the biggest pains-in-the-butt I've done while caching.

Mostly because I'm stading in the middle of Pike Place Market yelling "NO! Control C!" into a cell phone while in everyone's way.

If anyone has 100 webcam finds, hat's off as far as I'm concerened.

Wowwwww... Flashback to my one and only webcam cache...

 

The person who was supposed to take the picture was not there, so I had to talk my dad through the process.

 

I was ready to beat myself senseless with my GPSr by the time we were finished...

[uperdooper]

I think it's a brilliant idea, but I don't agree with some of the weighting--lets hash it out at a big convention and  fight/vote!!

I get the Halibut, it will be melee style right?

we could make it a cage match, or royal rumble.

 

on topic: don't like it.

Edited April 30, 2004 by uperdooper

[+Renegade Knight]

Rankings are a great idea. The beautiful thing is everyone who hates them can ignore them. Those who like them can look at them and you can do them so many ways that everyone an have an area where they are a contender.

 

Having said that. This site does't like them nor does the TOS allow another site to do stats. Dan's used to have a leaderboard and a lot of cachers enjoyed it. But the upkeep was a lot given how they had to obtain the data. Also his bandwidth proved too much for his provider and he had to leave (as I reall the story).

 

One last comment. Even those of us who like stats find that we like caching more. Thus GC.com which has the lions share of the caches is the site of choice while Navicache which seems to allow stats (Scout runs a Navicache stats page) but has much fewer caches also has much fewer geocachers. Stats alone doesn't make or break a site.

 

Edit: I like stats but really don't find all the "so and so makes 27 and a half" threads appealing. At least with stats you can ignore all of it.

Edited April 30, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

self-moderated

I'll fill in. "Go start your own dadgum site"

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Rankings are a great idea. The beautiful thing is everyone who hates them can ignore them.

I say rankings are a horrible idea. But.... I agree with part of what you say. You claim that people can ignore the ratings? I say ignore the lame caches that the rest of us enjoy instead of rankings.

 

You people are doing your best to screw up a fun hobby in my opinion.

[bug and snake]

I don't give a poo-poo about stats either way.

 

See? I just chose to ignore them and no one was hurt or put out at all!

 

(and if they were REALLY here, I would still choose to ignore them but I wouldn't try to stop others enjoying them being here - which they are not, but if they were that's how I would deal with it, but since they are not, I don't have to, not that it would bother me at all if there were comparative stats available, which there isn't so it is a non-discussion really, the fact that there are no stats available in the sense of who has more of this than the other guy has of that. And stuff.)

[+Bull Moose]

Speaking of a can of worms:

No one has brought this up but I think a worldwide system like Skydiver's Geocaching Point System that he runs for Montana and parts of Idaho and Washington, would be cool.

 

In short, the caches are weighted based on how frequently they are found. That way, in theory, there is no artificial point inflation.

It was discussed here.

 

I guess I agree with both RK and Lazyboy. Do your own thing. If you want numbers, go for numbers, if you want to go find "lame caches" go find lame caches. I don't see the harm in a rankings system that you'd have to seek out on the site. I'd enjoy it.

 

EDIT: Washington, not Utah.

Edited April 30, 2004 by Bull Moose

[+Renegade Knight]

...(and if they were REALLY here, I would still choose to ignore them but I wouldn't try to stop others enjoying them being here - which they are not, but if they were that's how I would deal with it, but since they are not, I don't have to, not that it would bother me at all if there were comparative stats available, which there isn't so it is a non-discussion really, the fact that there are no stats available in the sense of who has more of this than the other guy has of that. And stuff.)

My point exactly. Only funnier.

[+Cache Viking]

It is all perception. My kids love every cache, some of which others would hate. Thus I do not believe a rating system can be created to please all.

 

Sorry for the lack of creativity but the comment simply worked in both threads.

[+yumitori]

It is all perception. My kids love every cache, some of which others would hate. Thus I do not believe a rating system can be created to please all.

 

Exactly. We'll never reach consensus on what the 'ideal' cache is, so any attempt to rank caches (or cachers) is destined to fail.

 

I'm very happy that core geocaching is blissfully ranking-free. I'm certainly not opposed to folks competiting at things if they wish, but one of the great appeals of this game for me is that it doesn't have such a built-in system. If I wanted to test my testosterone levels against others I'd still be active in armored martial arts...