Jump to content

Handicapping Geocaches


Recommended Posts

Has thought ever been given to a system where the relative difficulty of a cache be applied to the overall number of caches found? It seems to me that many cachers are hung up on the number of caches found intead of the quality or relative difficulty of the cache. Isn't it just as much of an accomplishment to find 50 with a rating of 4X4 as it is to find 100 or more 1.5X1.5's?

Link to comment

Who defines accomplishment? Maybe I'd rather get 500, 1 star caches and never venture more than 200' from the car...if I'm having fun, who cares? What reward is there for anyone to get any sort of numbers? quality or otherwise....

 

Personally, I enjoy long hikes, but caching with 2 little ones, those aren't always practical...and yes, we always enjoy a scenic or interesting location...but there are people in this game who just want to rack up smileys. And that's....ok.

Link to comment
Has thought ever been given to a system where the relative difficulty of a cache be applied to the overall number of caches found? It seems to me that many cachers are hung up on the number of caches found intead of the quality or relative difficulty of the cache. Isn't it just as much of an accomplishment to find 50 with a rating of 4X4 as it is to find 100 or more 1.5X1.5's?

Navicache numbers use Terrain and Difficutly as factors in your Score.

Link to comment

I feel that it is just as much of an accomplishment for a handy capped person to do a 2 as for a "jock" to do a 4. What is hard for one might be easy for another. Which person had a harder time getting the find and who should get more "points".

 

Even the number of finds a person has can make a differance in how hard it can be to find caches. Someone with 500 finds most easier than someone with 10.

 

Like Jeremy said ther are too many variables to be fair.

Link to comment

Who cares. A cache is a cache is a cache. I do look to see what kind of caches people do if someone is talking about doing hard or puzzle caches but does it matter in the long run there is no prize but the one of having FUN.

cheers

Link to comment
Who cares. A cache is a cache is a cache. I do look to see what kind of caches people do if someone is talking about doing hard or puzzle caches but does it matter in the long run there is no prize but the one of having FUN.

cheers

I noticed you haven't solved my hard puzzle cache yet. Are you waiting for a hint or something?

 

Would getting a hint make your score go down? How would you prove whether you got a hint or not? Wait, is that another variable? :laughing::o

Link to comment

Do I get more points for finding caches further from my home? Or maybe more points for finding a higher percentage of planted caches within 100 miles of home.

 

Or maybe we just go find caches and have fun at it. I like numbers sometimes but it doesn't mean everthing to me. Too many other factors to consider.

Link to comment

I think the great thing about geocaching is that competitiveness really isn't a factor in playing the game. For some the fun is hiding, others number of finds, others it is just a good excuse for a walk. The more regulation you put into a game the less accessible it is for people.

Link to comment

points schmoints. Geocaching really shouldn't be a competition on numbers, if anyone cares to lord their find count over mine, they've got their own issues to deal with, and I honestly could care less.

 

I resepect the 1,000 find park'n'grab cacher as equally as I respect the 100 find multi/puzzle/d/t cacher. Point isn't to beat out the person with the highest number, the point is to go out, have your own adventure/fun. Let the accountants of the world deal with the numbers (my appologies to any accountants out there). But I'll agree, milestones are still fun and great to congratulate people on (I don't care if it's 50 finds or 5,000).

Link to comment
Has thought ever been given to a system where the relative difficulty of a cache be applied to the overall number of caches found? It seems to me that many cachers are hung up on the number of caches found intead of the quality or relative difficulty of the cache. Isn't it just as much of an accomplishment to find 50 with a rating of 4X4 as it is to find 100 or more 1.5X1.5's?

Even if you could convince people this would be good thing to do, it would take about a million years to get everyone to agree.

Or if Jeremy just made an admin decision and said 'its this way', you'll still have to listent to complaining and suggesting about changes.

its a whole log simplier if you just be happy with ones you've found and know your a good cacher and an overall great person. Otherwise your getting hung up on the numbers (only this time its score not total found).

Link to comment
You have just explained the single most important flaw in any scoring concept around geocaching. There really isn't a mathematical construct that can create a fair and balanced score. There are just too many variables.

I think everybody should be able to define their own formula for scoring. That way, scoring can remain even more meaningless as if a standard scoring were applied. All you have to do is define a bunch of variables:

 

%ftfs = # of FTFs

%finds = # of finds

%dnf = # of did not finds

 

any of above can take optional:

&t[=><]# where terrain is =, >, or < than #

&d[=><]# where difficulty is =, >, or < than #

 

So I'll define my formula as:

 

%ftfs * 1000 + %finds&t=5 * 5000 + %finds&t=4 * 1000 + %finds&t<4 * 300 - %dnf * 1

 

So if one if my "competition" gets a higher score than me, all I have to do is adjust my formula and my numbers are higher and still meaningless.

 

It's all about the fun.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

I'm sticking with the K.I.S.S. principle. The numbers work as a simple system.

 

If you want to, place caches and create your own web page of finders. Make it as simple or complicated as you want. You can list all of the cachers who have found your caches and the ratings of those caches.

 

I have one other question for the thread's original poster: Why does your avatar picture look like there's a lightning bolt coming out of a cow's udder? (maybe that's just me)

Link to comment
points schmoints. Geocaching really shouldn't be a competition on numbers, if anyone cares to lord their find count over mine, they've got their own issues to deal with, and I honestly could care less.

 

I resepect the 1,000 find park'n'grab cacher as equally as I respect the 100 find multi/puzzle/d/t cacher. Point isn't to beat out the person with the highest number, the point is to go out, have your own adventure/fun. Let the accountants of the world deal with the numbers (my appologies to any accountants out there). But I'll agree, milestones are still fun and great to congratulate people on (I don't care if it's 50 finds or 5,000).

Here here!

 

The only reason to use a weighted score is to propogate a "nyah nyah I'm better than you!" pissing contest. .. Just get out and cache.

 

Besides, what's to stop a submitter from making a "1" difficulty cache a "5" just to drive up the ratings? It isn't like the verifiers can go out and check every cache before approving them.

 

The current system works just fine.

Link to comment
Who cares.  A cache is a cache is a cache.  I do look to see what kind of caches people do if someone is talking about doing hard or puzzle caches but does it matter in the long run there is no prize but the one of having FUN.

cheers

I noticed you haven't solved my hard puzzle cache yet. Are you waiting for a hint or something?

 

Would getting a hint make your score go down? How would you prove whether you got a hint or not? Wait, is that another variable? :o:laughing:

Hummmm not sure what to say. But thanks for the personal attack.

cheers

Link to comment
points schmoints. Geocaching really shouldn't be a competition on numbers, if anyone cares to lord their find count over mine, they've got their own issues to deal with, and I honestly could care less.

Here's the dirty little secret. Caching isn't and can't be about the numbers. Just read this thread and dozens of others that discuss "points". Not possible. Cannot be done.

Link to comment

I am 80 years old and have 863 finds. Are they all long hikes or 4 x 4s. NO I've been there and done that. I don't ask for any favors, I just do what I can do Yes, some are virtuals and locationless. To each his own. Dick,W7WT

Link to comment
Has thought ever been given to a system where the relative difficulty of a cache be applied to the overall number of caches found? It seems to me that many cachers are hung up on the number of caches found intead of the quality or relative difficulty of the cache. Isn't it just as much of an accomplishment to find 50 with a rating of 4X4 as it is to find 100 or more 1.5X1.5's?

The other day I did a cache that was rated 1/5.

 

Although the cache was up a very steep hill, it wasn't more than 400 feet away from the car. Other than the rodent nesting next to the cache that ran out towards us as we retrieved the container, the cache was not particularly hazardous. :P

 

On the other hand, I went to another cache that was rated 2.5/2. Well, I searched for more than an hour and NEVER found the cache. It took the FTF searchers (plural) about an hour to finally find that cache.

 

Plus, the climb to that cache location is extremely steep and the route I took was through thick, ankle-grabbing vegetation.

 

The experienced cachers who either have or haven't found it have stated the rating needs to be increased, but that hasn't been done.

 

How would you factor things like that into an equation?

 

As long as cache owners rate their own caches, I don't know how such a system could be implemented accurately.

Link to comment
Who cares.  A cache is a cache is a cache.  I do look to see what kind of caches people do if someone is talking about doing hard or puzzle caches but does it matter in the long run there is no prize but the one of having FUN.

cheers

I noticed you haven't solved my hard puzzle cache yet. Are you waiting for a hint or something?

 

Would getting a hint make your score go down? How would you prove whether you got a hint or not? Wait, is that another variable? :P:P

Hummmm not sure what to say. But thanks for the personal attack.

cheers

:P

Link to comment
I think everybody should be able to define their own formula for scoring. That way, scoring can remain even more meaningless as if a standard scoring were applied. All you have to do is define a bunch of variables:

 

%ftfs = # of FTFs

%finds = # of finds

%dnf = # of did not finds

 

any of above can take optional:

&t[=><]# where terrain is =, >, or < than #

&d[=><]# where difficulty is =, >, or < than #

 

So I'll define my formula as:

 

%ftfs * 1000 + %finds&t=5 * 5000 + %finds&t=4 * 1000 + %finds&t<4 * 300 - %dnf * 1

 

So if one if my "competition" gets a higher score than me, all I have to do is adjust my formula and my numbers are higher and still meaningless.

 

It's all about the fun.

 

:D

Every cache found but NOT in Hawaii should count as a quarter point. According to my estimates, some areas in the 48 have as much as four times the caches in a simular amount of area. That would only be fair. :huh:

 

Also, if someone found all the caches on their island they sould get 10 points for each day that there are no new caches on their island. On the mainland you can just drive to another area/state. You can't drive anywhere from Hawaii, not even on the Interstate Highways.

Link to comment
Has thought ever been given to a system where the relative difficulty of a cache be applied to the overall number of caches found?

Sure, Terracaching has a (fairly extensive) rating system in place. Two things (primarily) set it apart from GC.com. The rating system and the decentralized authority (your 2 sponsors are your cache approvers and 'mods').

 

If the numbers/ratings/competition are what gets your juices flowing then it might be a good fit for you.

 

While geocaching.com is the first and largest, it doesn't do everything eveyone could possibly want it to (how could it) so there are other sites that have popped up offering alternatives. There is a site for handicapped cachers that lists a lot more detail as to what caches a person with various mobility impairments might be able to do etc.

 

Geocaching.com appeals to the masses and among the masses there is going to be too much difference of opinion/preference on how things should be run to satisfy everyone all the time.

 

A more specialized site might be a good addition to GC.com for you.

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...