Jump to content

Top 30 Cachers In Sa


Recommended Posts

Top SA Cachers


QFC has become more active as of late, and since I have some skills in web apps, I decided to create a page on my site that Ranks SA Cachers. The data isn't totally live, but retrieved every so often when someone visits the page an click on a specific link.


To cut the long story short, I have decided to just tell anyone interested to take a look. I have been adding Cachers manually, and so far I have a list of just over 30, so if you want to be on the list, and you live in South Africa, just e-mail me your caching name/alias and I will add you. You can get my e-mail address from the site. Or just look up QFC, and send a message via the Geocaching site. OR, just add to this post... and I will check on it later.


Ok, that's all from me... QFC

Link to comment

For the statistically hunger, this is something to chew on. :lol: Great site! However, now starts the race to get into the number one spot. GlobalRat can only run for so long!!! :D but come to think of it, who is that cacher behind me catching up to me? :D

Link to comment

I really tried to find another cacher that would come close to challenging GlobalRat, but I had no luck :D Hehe... GlobalRat, you have nothing to fear for a while :lol:


I see you are quite the busy cacher yourself, perhaps you can make your way up :D - QFC only just makes it onto the list, and it will take a little time to work our way up, but after a few Noddy sprees, of like 12 in one day, we might be on our way... just to organise a nice caching weekend. Pretoria seems the best bet at the moment to do a bunch in one day. :lol:

Link to comment

This is really great, let the games begin. Hopefully this will get cachers to visit other provinces and with the caching community being "so small", I hope that people feel free to contact other cachers in other areas. I am always amazed of where caching takes you. There is no better way to see a town / city / etc, than to get lost a few times and be sent off to find a site that you never knew existed.


Anyone coming to Durban feel free to give me a shout. :D

Link to comment

I went and looked at your stats page, lots of work there!


But only of significance to 'the number hunters'.


I couldn't care less about how many - I play the game purely for the fun, the challenge and the interesting and different places I get to visit. Places that, sometimes, I didn't even know existed!


In fact, I know of three local caching teams that fill in cache log books (with great accounts of their search and success) but don't bother updating on the site.


I know for a fact (they usually SMS or phone me when they find a cache) that several of my caches have been successfully found by these three groups. That sort of thing makes a mockery of the numbers game, doesn't it? I also have been 'guilty' of only filling in the log book, and not entering info on the site.


Just my 0.2c

Link to comment

I agree that some are more interested in stats, and some don't really mind how many they find or hide, but either way is fine, the one way of playing the game doesn't effect the other. I for one, enjoy playing with the stats, and enjoy finding each cache (as in the experience) as well as seeing how I measure up to other cachers. Since Geocaching can be regarded as a sport by some, why not make it more fun for the competitive types, and give them an idea of how they are doing.


I know for a fact (they usually SMS or phone me when they find a cache) that several of my caches have been successfully found by these three groups. That sort of thing makes a mockery of the numbers game, doesn't it? I also have been 'guilty' of only filling in the log book, and not entering info on the site.


I think that when someone logs a visit onto the site it is enjoyed by the owner of the cache, and others watching the cache, to see that someone has found it. I don't think it is a mockery to not log your visit, but I'm not 100 percent sure what you were meaning by it being a mockery to the numbers game. <_<

Link to comment

My 2 cents. I always log my caches on the site too, as I agree with QFC that it's just my way of saying thank you for the cache, and letting the cache owner know that the cache is still active. If any cacher feels that he/she wants to be excluded from the stats, then I'm sure QFC will oblige. As for the rest of us....I'm after GR's crown... <_<

Link to comment

Yeah, good point Brick, I will be happy to remove any cachers who don't wish to be part of the ranking. I will also remove those who have been inactive for more than 2 years. I only want to really list cachers who want to be apart of it. :lol:


I have only been working on this for the last week,

so if anyone has any suggestions, let me know. <_<

Link to comment

Like a squash ladder, I would rather take it on one player at a time or maybe look at it in points, i.e. I am on 135 aiming for 150.


This means 15 points. Must do caching this month to maintain the 20 points, then place at least one cache (3 points) and do six finds (12 points) to get to 15 points.


:lol: Don't want to hind to many caches right now, GlobatRat is just waiting to up his points <_<

Edited by warthog
Link to comment

Oh and another thing... Compared to everyone listed in my rankings, I'm quite new to Geocaching, so let me know if the scoring should change, points as I have it are:


1 Cache Found: 2

1 Cache Hidden: 3

Active Today: 1 - this is just for fun, and won't often count.

Active This Week: 2


Active last 30 Days: 20 - this is the most important.


Active Last 60 Days: 18 - only 2 points lossed if inactive for more than a month.


Active Last 90 Days: 16 ...and so on


I'm giving quite a few points to active caches, since I think it is the most important.

Link to comment

QFC (part 2, other poster is actually part 3 <_< sorry C). I am newer than my other third and I decided that I have to make comment on this point. I have to do this mainly because I am torn between the two.


One goes to Emerentia or any of the other places where caches are hidden, finds the cache and then leaves. This is totally legit in terms of a find, since you found the cache, saw the part and left your mark. But, and here it comes, I have to wonder would it not be better to enjoy the park with a picknick, the wife/girlfriend/fiends?


It is important for cachers to respect the original cacher's wishes and the cache alike so if he wanted you to experience the park (or the climb up the mountain (platberg, hint hint)) then one should do this in their own way. If we do not we will all reach the point of GR (no return) and have to wait for new cache to arrive.


So my view (as a very young Geocacher (in terms of time spent in the game)) is take your time, enjoy the opportunities that geocaching has given you, smell the non airconned air and let QFC catch up with the rest of you. ! : )

Edited by QFC
Link to comment

Hey great system! Must have been a lot of work. Glad to be number 2.


I have a suggestion regarding the scoring - I might be booed and denounced as a stuck up geocaching purist, but I think finding a genuine cache is harger work than finding most locationless caches, and suggest that they be worth half a mark or something like that.


Although now that I think about it, its probably not really worth the extra work that would need.


Anyway, one of these days, i plan to take a trip somewhere and beat that darn global rat!

Edited by Discombob
Link to comment

Great webpage -- nice work. It will be interesting to see what the rankings are like once you have added more cachers.


I would think the weather where you are is about as miserable as it has been here in Cape Town, so you spent the time in front of the computer instead of out caching. I think Discombob is about the only Capetonian who braves the rain, thumb injuries and fainting spells to enjoy the great outdoors. <_<


I don't quite agree with Discombob about the locationless caches being less worthy than "real" caches, though. Some of them, sure, they could be a bit lame, but what about those that require a longish trip to find, and which are not all that common? How many pontoons around where you stay? Or tractors with steel tyres? Beach huts easy for anybody close to the coast, but not all beaches have them. Did you know there was a carillon (the only one in Africa) right here in Cape Town?


Just my 1 cent's (adjusted for inflation and forex fluctuations) worth

Link to comment

Dig the idea of the rankings <_<


I do agree with Azurak that it is about the sport & of finding new places !!!

but as in any sport it is great to compare ones self to others.


I also feel that the locationless have there place.

Sure, Dudley St is just around the corner. But I had to travel to Bulwer to find a Tank !!!

Link to comment

I have now added Tricky Vicky & Mickey, and they have taken number one position, dropping the rest of us down by one :) ... :) - I changed the Top 30 to be Top 40, since this now lists everyone I have, so if you don't see your name in the list, it's because I haven't added you yet, so just let me know in this forum.

Link to comment
I think that when someone logs a visit onto the site it is enjoyed by the owner of the cache, and others watching the cache, to see that someone has found it. I don't think it is a mockery to not log your visit, but I'm not 100 percent sure what you were meaning by it being a mockery to the numbers game. :)

The meaning of my obviously misunderstood statement:


If finds are not logged on the site - those finds cannot be included in the stats. So the numbers representing the finds cannot be valid.


Therefore: this sort of thing makes a mockery of the numbers.


Clear now?


The point I was trying to make is that there a large number of cachers who do not log on the site. Signing the log book is the end of their cache hunt.


In fact, the rules/guidelines/gameplay instructions do not specifically state that the site should be updated with finds. The site is essentially to provide coordinates of caches for people to go and find, there is no requirement to fill out an on-line log. Some people consider this to be a duplication of effort and choose only to sign the physical log.

Link to comment

I think whether you are interested in stats or not is besides the point. Each cacher gets their own level of enjoyment out of the sport.


IMHO I think that if you are a “participative cacher” it is a tad impolite to visit a cache and not post a log on GC.com. Why post a log sometimes and not other times when you have found a cache. Not only does a log let everyone know that the cache is in order (or not) but by placing a log you are thanking the owner for the effort they have gone to in placing a cache.


In turn I have no objection to “non participative cachers”, those are the folks that hunt down caches for the fun of it but NEVER post logs on GC.com.


As for the validity of stats… there has been much debate over these in forums across the world. Folks get quite heated on the topic as there are always the cheaters who log multiple finds on the same cache, and team cachers v individuals etc. etc. As far as GC.com is concerned, you are on your own and they couldn’t care less about stats, it’s not what the sport is about.

I like stats, but certainly don’t rule my life around them. So what are those part time Saffers doing at the top of the log, their score should be halved for being part time traitors :D . Did I say that out loud??


Seriously though, I think QFC have done a fine job (had a small hand in it…. on a consulting level that is). Enjoy the stats if you enjoy them, ignore them if you don’t. Nothing wrong with a bit of competition… as long as you are winning :D . I have my personal little league, so to me it don’t matter who’s at the top of this log, as long as I’m at the top of mine :D . More importantly, we need more caches!!!.... I need to catch those part time Saffers :D HAH HAH HAH

Link to comment

Boy, oh, boy! I dont know when last I added a site to my favourites list so quickly. Hang on, I actually do. It was the first time I discovered Buxleys and his stats pages and links (anybody remember Dan Miller's site?).


Needless to say, I think this is a great site. Do I get any points for this nice opinion?

Link to comment

This site has now also put a bit of a different view on how we plan our weekends (yes, some of us have to work during the week, and don't have Fridays or other weekdays that readily available for caching) :P


And all those decisions; how many points to catch the next cacher, how many points before the next cacher cathces us, how many points to that next goal (ours is 150 points), decisions, decisions, decisions...


Whats next?


Maybe someone will come up with ranking names (i.e. private, sergeant, general?) or maybe colour belts like in karate, for diffirent point bands. And what is Tricky, Vicky and Mickey and GlobalRat, chief of defence force and minister of defence? :P

Edited by warthog
Link to comment



Ok, for when I get back from Namibia, there will be official Colour Belts... just need to find out all the colours, and then each cacher will be coloured accordingly. And the Names idea is also good... hmm... all newbies will start off as dots... hehe... and then become tadpoles (I love that name) and then we will decide on a nice ranking all the way up to GlobalRat, and Tricky & Vicky. - thanks for your ideas warthog.

Link to comment

I see us like a yo-yo on this list! :P I’m back overseas again for five weeks so no geocaching for me.

This thing about being out of the country so often really stuffs up our geocaching! :P (As warthog said, some of us have to work!)I wonder if my boss will understand if I ask him for more time at home to do more geocaching? :P

Link to comment

Well, it's ok, the way it works you will only loose 2 points for each month, so that's only equal to one find, so if you inactive for 2 months, you will only loose 4 points, and the added two for being active in a week I guess... oh well :P


I took a quick glance at karate belt ranking... and they quite a few different colour rankings... so instead I think I will use the colours of the rain bow, just to make it pretty and stuff: White, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo/Violet/Purple, Brown, Black - Just thought I add in the brown... and perhaps I will add in a few others in between, depending on what the overall prettiness is :P

Link to comment

Another suggestion :P

As Africard has pointed out in his last thread--

Please consider finding a couple of caches before placing new ones. The experience gained from finding a few caches before placing is invaluable and also promoted as a guideline from geocaching.com.

it is better to get experience in geocaching, by finding caches first, than placing them!

Maybe you could incorporate another factor into your calculation giving credit to people that have found a lot more caches than placements

A few examples:


Tricky Vicky & Mickey: Found 314 Placed 27 so factor to add to score= 314/27=11.63 (Round off) 12

Globalrat: Found 284 Placed 42 so factor to add to score= 284/42=6.76(Round off) 7

Geocacher_coza: Found 9 Placed 5 so factor to add to score= 9/5=1.8(Round off) 2

cownchicken: Found 216 Placed 9 so factor to add to score= 216/9=24

As you can see the people that have found far more caches than placements gets a good factor. This will encourage people to find more caches --- ultimately improving the quality of our caches!

As you can see people will even be able to get a negative if the placements are more than the founds.

Someone with a zero in one of the factors (founds and placements) will have a zero factor as you cannot divide by zero!

Above is only a suggestion :P

Edited by geocacher_coza
Link to comment

Good suggestion :P, I will think about it and see what others say. The minimum factor you would get would be zero no matter how many hides you make in comparison with finds... this method won't give a negative value, which is actually fine since you don't want to be penalised for hiding caches... problem is that as much as finding caches is a good thing, I think planting them is just as good, finding caches is great for most, but not when there aren't very many to find. So if you had no more caches to find in your area, your score would drop if you kept active by hiding more caches. Just been thinking as I type :P - but I do like the suggestion, I originally gave way more points for a hide than a find, but now they are almost equal, even though hiding a cache takes way more effort (or it is suppose to). :P

Link to comment

Yeah, number 15! Personally, I'm only trying to beat Brick, :lol: but I guess I have a long way to go. I'm only always trying to beat my own score, so this is cool, now I can try and beat this rating too.


I think this rating system is a bit biased towards people who can go caching on a regular basis. But, since that doesn't affect me, I'm not complaining :lol:


QFC, you should do a travelbug specific rating system, that would be interesting. But thanks for this system, it's cool.

Link to comment


So if you had no more caches to find in your area, your score would drop if you kept active by hiding more caches

Did not think about it like this, but on the otherside of the coin the the score will not drop by to many!

Lets take someone like Globalrat.

If he places 3 more caches, He gains 9 points on the placements and only loose one point on the "found/placement" factor.

Even if he places 8 more cachs and find NO more he gains 8x3=24 points and only still looses 1 point! And that is assumimg he has not found any more caches

Link to comment
As you can see the people that have found far more caches than placements gets a good factor. This will encourage people to find more caches --- ultimately improving the quality of our caches!


mmmm... personally I think people should be encouraged to place caches as well. You going to run out of caches and then get penalised for placing a cache??


I think this rating system is a bit biased towards people who can go caching on a regular basis.


Encourages people to be more active.



Time to throw in my shilling…


I like the fact that hides count a bit more than finds. Firstly it takes more effort to establish a hide and a cacher should be rewarded for hiding and maintaining cache. This also falls nicely in line with growing the sport which can only grow by placing more caches.


Taking Geocachers example:


Cacher A: Found 200 Placed 20 = 200/20 = 10

Cacher B: Found 200 Placed 40 = 200/40 = 5


Doesn’t make sense to me as Cacher B has contributed more to the sport than Cacher A. Infact Cacher B is penalised for placing caches :lol:


QFC's model works better in my mind as the following score would result:-


Cacher A: (200*2)+(20*3) = 460

Cacher B: (200*2)+(40*3) = 520


As for the other thread, I'm sure somewhere along the line, someone has probably requested from GC.com to prevent someone from placing a cache before they've found a few. If you want to penalise these folks on a stats system then you have to draw a line somewhere. If we deem that someone has gained enough experience to place a cache after they have found at least 10, then penalise them statistically if the hide caches before they've found 10. Why penalise an experienced cacher for placing caches???? Then again, how many noobs are actually going to care about their score?? B)

Link to comment

Mmmm have to agree with GlobalRat here. Doesn’t make sense to penalize someone for placing caches. :lol:


I’m a “noob” and don’t feature on the stats list yet. I still plan to find a few caches before placing one as I have gained valuable insight into the placing of caches with each cache that I have found.


As the list grows and becomes more comprehensive, a noob is never going to make it into the Top 40 anyway.

Link to comment

Me thinks you peeps are all getting too technical here. Fortunately I have not seen anyone introduce the square root of PI in there somewhere yet, although I think geocacher_coza was getting close.... Relax peeps. QFC has done a sterling job, although I think the Duckworth-Lewis method needs to be considered ..... :lol:

Link to comment

The more good ones you find the more you want to place good ones!

It not a suggestion to penalize caches but to encourage people to go out and find more caches! Again, it is just a number game and it makes geocaching more fun and a way to get better caches!


Cacher A: Found 200 Placed 20 = 200/20 = 10

Cacher B: Found 200 Placed 40 = 200/40 = 5

With QFC system Cacher B would gain 20x3=60 points and only loose 5 point. A plus of 55 point (simple maths)

Cacher A can now go and find 20 more caches and give him a good insight in how other people put together caches.

So the argument goes both ways

It was only a suggestion........... but I have come to know how some think.........negative :lol::lol:B)

OOOPs.... maybe I'm also negative here B) !

Edited by geocacher_coza
Link to comment
and only loose 5 point.

negative B)


I only have one question??


Why lose points for supporting the sport? B)B)


I think the Duckworth-Lewis method needs to be considered

...and we know how much saffers love this system :D:D:D


Nice one Brick :lol:


aaaaaah... tears in my eye's :lol:B)

Link to comment

You see, Globalrat... you only quote parts of sentences to suite yourself and your part of the thread B) Grow up and stop stomping your feet as soon as someone else have a suggestion. (The key word here--suggestion) :lol::lol:

aaaaaah... tears in my eye's 

Like most off your previous threads you had silly remark over--you missing the point completely and it is not even worth trying to explain it to you.

and only loose 5 point.

AND the negative part---- like the Afrikaans saying goes--- "as die skoen jou pas trek hom aan"

I love this forum--now we can have a good old slogging match and use the Duckworth-Lewis method when we finish! MMMMMMM...... wonder who's going to win this one! How many overs left?

Edited by geocacher_coza
Link to comment

Thanks QFC... see I managed to creep in at 40 :lol: Will have to work on that...


TOC: "Tell me how you'll measure me, and I'll tell you how I'll behave" - Eliyahu



Negative measure = negative behaviour


Simple fact of life.


If I'm to be docked for creating a cache... why create one ? B)


QUOTE (geocacher_coza @ Jun 9 2005, 07:01 AM)

The more good ones you find the more you want to place good ones!

Agree, so why be penalized for placing them :lol:


"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." - William W. Watt

Link to comment

I'm afraid I'm with GloblaRat on this one. I completely agree that one should not go out and place caches without ever having found any - that is a bit silly, but once you have done a good few caches, one gets a good idea on placing, and ones placing skills will not necessarily increase just becasue one has found 100 rather than 50.

I placed my first cache after about 15 finds (I think), and its still a winner, even if I say so myself. The next cache i place might be worse than my first one, even if I have found 80 caches since then (my apologies if it is worse ;-)


That said, any suggestion is better then no suggestion, so i'm not complaining

Link to comment

I'll refrain from a full response as I do not wish to spoil the thread.


The world is built from ideas (suggestions). Ideas are what builds a society. These form a nucleus around which constructive criticism can take place in order to support, grow, evolve, or negate an idea.


Forums are there to evolve ideas.


My one question remains! I'll refrain from quoting as it saves space, but it's the one posted by myself: Posted on Jun 9 2005, 08:18 AM. :lol:

Link to comment

Well well... I have enjoyed reading that last few posts, and after putting some thought into it, have decided that based on what geocacher_coza, GlobalRat and others have said, I agree that a cacher needs to have a little experience before hiding a cache. We for one, hid a cache before finding one. But aggree that a hide should still be worth more than a find. SO... basically it comes down to this (in my humble eyes :lol: ) - A cachers hide points shouldn't be worth too much (perhaps 1) untill that cacher has made a certain amount of finds. But after making the finds required, so let's call it 5, the Hides (past and present) will get their normal value.


This is how it would work:

Bob> hides=3 and finds=2, total = 3+4=7 (each hide only counts 1 point)

- a month or so goes past, and Bob decides to be more active and find more caches -

Bob> hides=3 and finds=7, total = 9+14=23 (each hide now counts 3 points)


This will force cachers to try find X amount (I think about 10), before hiding too many. After which Bob can be trusted that he will hide cool and funcky caches. Original hides will still have kept their worth in points, even if they weren't be calculated untill Bob was serious about finding a few. B)


Just shout if anyone thinks this thread is getting too long... not too sure what the recommended daily thread length shoudl be :lol: - hehe

Link to comment

The recommended daily length of this thread is until all the cachers are happy :lol:

Global Rat, what sayeth you?

Personally, i don't really think its worth the effort of assigning different points for a hide based on caches found. After all newbies to the game who have not found any caches would certainly not know (or probably care) about cache ranking stats, and thus that would not influence them to find caches first in any way.

So I say, why not just leave the system as is - I would even be in favour of increasing the points for caches placed, so as to grow the sport :lol:

Edited by Discombob
Link to comment

(part 2 of QFC)


So my question is: Is it really worth all the effort of changing the system when noobs (cachers with < 5 finds) will most likely not be on the list.


So C, leave it as it is for the moment and when we get back we will add a section for each of the different geo-sectors. We will have one for the plant and grow the sport and one for the plany realy funky and cool caches. Then the trick will be to keep yourself at the top of both lists.


Anyway this forum is just reving up the game for the TB race next year. So.... Round 3 - ding ding ding :huh:

Link to comment
.... After all newbies to the game who have not found any caches would certainly not know (or probably care) ......


So I say, why not just leave the system as is - I would even be in favour of increasing the points for caches placed, so as to grow the sport



I agree that the system as is works well. It rewards the right behaviour and is simplistic. Also agree the noobs wouldn't know or care.


We're never going to stop someone placing a cache before before they've done X hides, unless GC.com deem that it becomes a real issue and do some coding.


I think that if noob places a cache before having found a few, he/she will have either placed a good cache, or a dud. I think cachers should be critical enough and there logs should reflect this, the recent example in KZN is proof enough. If the cache is a REAL problem, get it archived. Also, the much awaited cache rating system which I'm working on will leave a mark on the cache if it is a real dud. (should be up and running in the next two weeks, where does the time go??)


I would also be in favour of giving hides a better point rating as there is a much greater effort in creating and maintaining caches as to finding them. I think the ratio of find/hide shouldn't be too disparate though, but hides should definitely be greater. Currently the ratio for find/hide is 2/3. Perhaps 2/4 is too heavy, but maybe 3/5?


Azaruk (Posted on Jun 9 2005, 09:02 PM)

If there aren't any caches to find ................

says it all......

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.

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.

  • Create New...