Jump to content

Found Caches Attributes???

nfa

By nfa
in Website

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

nfa

+nfa

Posted
Posted

Would anyone else like to have something in your profile or profile "sticker" (the thing with your name, and found/hidden stats) that showed an average value for terrain and difficulty of the caches that you have found.

 

I would be interested in seeing my values in this area, and the values for other caches. I know that "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMBERS", but we already list number of caches found, and this would give some extra depth/meaning to that number...

 

just a thought...

 

nfa-jamie

Link to comment
nfa

+nfa

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Do you want folks deleting their logs to get a higher "score"? I don't.

I don't either, but why would that necessarily happen? Why drive gc.com decisions based on what a couple of cheaters might do?

 

nfa-jamie

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
Isonzo Karst

+Isonzo Karst

Posted
Posted

My apologies to NFA for the highly informative Nope response. :blink: There's more, but someone came to the door.

 

Nope because I've seen this done - on the now defunct CacheFlorida site. (in fact, this may well be part of why it became defunct) Talk about FLAME WARS everybody whining and moaning about how the terrain on XYZ cache was REALLY a 4 when they did it cause the Alafia was out of its banks etc...

It feeds the competitve "woodsy outsdoors" macho thing, with no redeeming value that I can see. Pretty simple to do for yourself if you really care Just add all the difficulty values of all your finds, add up all the terrain values of all your finds and divide by the number of finds. Bingo

:grin:

Link to comment
Mopar

+Mopar

Posted
Posted (edited)

Watcher can calculate this for you, if you're REALLY interested.

Here's mine, minus the last 50 or so finds:

Cache Ratings:

Difficulty:

Minimum: 1

Maximum: 4.5

Average: 1.8

Terrain:

Minimum: 1

Maximum: 5

Average: 1.9

 

I see the same problem with this as with user ratings on caches. Everyone is pretty much gonna hover around the middle. Sure some will be higher then others, but even if you almost always do hard caches, one 1/1 will pull the whole thing right to the middle.

 

PS: Since I'm posting Watcher's stats on my finds, here's a few more:

Caches by type:

Traditional Cache: 535 (69.6%)

Multi-Cache: 61 (7.9%)

Virtual Cache: 130 (16.9%)

Letterbox Hybrid: 5 (.7%)

Event Cache: 15 (2%)

Unknown Cache: 22 (2.9%)

Locationless (Reverse) Cache: 1 (.1%)

 

Caches by container:

not listed: 4 (.5%)

micro: 156 (20.3%)

small: 8 (1%)

regular: 385 (50.1%)

large: 3 (.4%)

other: 43 (5.6%)

virtual: 112 (14.6%)

not chosen: 58 (7.5%)

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
globalgirl

+globalgirl

Posted
Posted
Do you want folks deleting their logs to get a higher "score"? I don't.

Good lord, LOL! Folks will apparently do anything for the silly "numbers".

 

But seriously - there's already a most visible "score" - the total finds. And for those (clearly some smallish minority) who would be foolish enough to fiddle - they'd actually be shooting themselves in the foot - lowering their overall find total - arguably dumping milestones in the process.

 

And besides, what would it matter - the numbers are theirs anyway after all, and if they're silly enough to manipulate them (g-knows they do already) - why should that put the kabash on a nifty stat for the vast majority of us to enjoy?

 

Oops! As usual, the brilliant minds (and lightening fast fingers) of those about me, have already rendered the above rubbish. :grin:

 

But seriously, I still think NFA's comment on "why drive [the entire wagon] based on what a couple of cheaters might do?" [emphasis added] - has merit.

 

That plus... IK's comments all well taken, but alas your "Bingo" concept misses the point. As I pecked earlier, yes we can surely (not-so-bingoishly) do the calculations ourselves, but uh... isn't that what computers are best at?

 

Just my thoughts. Subtract a penny and you have appox. what they're worth... :blink:

Link to comment
globalgirl

+globalgirl

Posted
Posted
...but even if you almost always do hard caches, one 1/1 will pull the whole thing right to the middle.

Huh? Presuming "almost always" [do hard caches] means most the time, then - for a simple example: 10 caches at 4 stars = 40 plus 1 cache at 1 star = 41/11 = 3.7. That's the "middle"?

 

Nonetheless, I can see this notion is going nowhere quickly so... guess I'll just build me a handy spreadsheet... :grin:

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
I don't either, but why would that necessarily happen? Why drive gc.com decisions based on what a couple of cheaters might do?

Why force a change to the way things are done now when it could possibly modify the behaviour of cachers?

 

I've been around long enough to know that it will happen.

 

There's a text area for that image. Put your average on there if you want. I'm not going to do this.

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted

I thought a while back about a grid of your finds. Upper left 1/1 while lower right is 5/5. In each cell would be the number of caches found.

 

I also though about taking that further and giving the precentages a color code or intensity. I figure the highest intensity would be near 1.5/1.5 because of the shear number of 1/1s out there.

 

But it would be interesting to see the spread of your caching activity. Is it centered around 1.5/1.5 with little else? Or is it spread out over a wide range.

Link to comment
Mopar

+Mopar

Posted
Posted
I thought a while back about a grid of your finds. Upper left 1/1 while lower right is 5/5. In each cell would be the number of caches found.

 

I also though about taking that further and giving the precentages a color code or intensity. I figure the highest intensity would be near 1.5/1.5 because of the shear number of 1/1s out there.

 

But it would be interesting to see the spread of your caching activity. Is it centered around 1.5/1.5 with little else? Or is it spread out over a wide range.

I think this would be something fun to have. Since all the info you need could be extracted from a GPX of your finds, perhaps one of the programmer-types could put something together to do this locally?

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

I used to think this would be a cool thing to have. When I first started caching I generally only did 3+ terrain caches. I'd find maybe 1-3 caches in a day and would be quite happy about it. After awhile, I noticed that others were finding 10-20+ in a day and I'd think to myself "try getting 20 of what I just did today!" But then I realized that not everyone can do the tougher hikes and I was being a condescending by thinking that way. I even got slammed for it a couple of times, but deservingly so. Now my philosophy is not to worry about everyone else because the only thing that matters is how I feel after a great day of caching! Lastly, somedays it is fun to go urban caching and hit 10-20 caches. However, that would really impact your terrain GPA! The good news is that nobody is looking and maybe it is better that way! :grin:

Link to comment
Marky

+Marky

Posted
Posted
I would love to compile some of this information on myself, but I have not figured out a good way to get all of my finds in a PQ. Just consider this another request for a "My Found Caches" PQ that is not limited to 500 finds or by distance.

Ditto! Jeremy, I'd love to have a "my finds" PQ that I could run every week or so. It (in my opinion) wouldn't need all the other fancy filter/selection stuff for PQs, just the last couple (send to this e-mail address, format as gpx, zip file).

 

--Marky

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...