Jump to content

Add Ranking Feature To Site


Kunjamuk

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment

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?

Link to comment
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. ;)

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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!

 

;):o:o;)

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 by Bull Moose
Link to comment
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".

Link to comment
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. :rolleyes:

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...

Link to comment
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 by uperdooper
Link to comment

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 by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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.)

Link to comment

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 by Bull Moose
Link to comment
...(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.

Link to comment
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...

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...
×
×
  • Create New...