Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
QFC

Top 30 Cachers In Sa

Recommended Posts

To add my few cents (before I am off to get some points on the board again) is that the current calculation seems to be very well thought out and should remain as is.

 

I think it must be given a few months in order to settle down and can then be reviewed for the better or the worst.

 

If I had to change anything, it would have been maybe to add a value to the different types of caches hidden or found, i.e. a virtual, which is usually easier to create or find, should not rank as high as a normal cache, which in turn should maybe be ranked lower than a multi-stage cache.

 

This in it self would obviously put a bigger strain on the person keeping the site maintained, which could cause it (and I am not saying it will) to not be maintained as regular as if it had an easier formula to work with.

 

Currently I am very satisfied with the formula, I know exactly what to do to get my rankings up....find more, place more, it is as easy as that!

Edited by warthog

Share this post


Link to post

Quite a hot topic ...

 

I'd also be in favour of increasing slightly the value of placing a cache over the value of finding one. Cachers should be encouraged to grow the sport. Just don't make things too complicated to administer. I really liked the suggestion of the Duckworth - Lewis system :huh: . We don't want to go to that extreme. The current ranking system is great already. Too much tweaking and soon there will be several competing rankings running in parallel, all with different criteria. After that, a ranking system probably becomes meaningless.

 

As pointed out, if someone places a dud owing to inexperience, it will pretty soon become evident. If it's a real problem it will eventually be archived. But more experience doesn't necessarily equate to better placements although one would expect it to.

 

And finally, just to throw a spanner in the works (I have a full-time position as Devil's Advocate :huh: ), how many of the currently active geocachers actually read the forums? So a lot of the debating about finding X number of caches, rankings, etc. doesn't necessarily filter through to all players, whether veterans or noobs. I seem to recall that it took me quite a long time before I actually ventured into the area called Forums, mainly because I'm not a chat-type of person, and thought it would be much of the same thing (clearly, it isn't, but perceptions can run deep).

 

Anyway, have a great caching weekend ...

Share this post


Link to post

Hi there!

Just a question - we have noticed that when we log a cache, we get the 1 point for caching that day, but lose it again the next day when we do not cache. The one is actually subtracted from the previous days total, so we are wondering if this is correct and if so, what is the point of getting the one in the first instance?

You really have done a fantastic job with this site and we check it daily. What is really nice is that we can now see how others are doing too - like Brick getting to his 100 two days ago - and it has certainly raised the level of competition amongst us all!

Regards,

Tricky Vicky & Mickey

Share this post


Link to post
Tricky Vicky & Mickey: "The one is actually subtracted from the previous days total, so we are wondering if this is correct and if so, what is the point of getting the one in the first instance?"

 

There actually isn't much point to it, it is purely there for fun. I was going to take it out at one stage, but thought it is quite fun to jump up in front of someone who you might be tied with, even if it is for that one day. <_<

 

For anyone who is interested... I have added a bit of colour to the site now :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
And finally, just to throw a spanner in the works (I have a full-time position as Devil's Advocate :P ),

 

Hahahahah, and I thought I'm the only advocate, always defending the other view...

Share this post


Link to post

Azaruk's comment on the Challenge 2005 thread prompted something.

 

On the hidden stats, this only takes into account the total hides and does not subtract those that have been archived.

 

i.e. using Azaruk as an example, he has a total of 15 hides, of which two have been archived, therefore hidden should be 13.

 

Similarly, I have 16, of which two have actually been archived, therefore hidden is actually 14.

 

Perhaps a hide should get 5, and an archived one get 0. Thought about giving cred for the archived one as a sign of respect for a fallen cache but there are some placements made that have disappeared without being found...so on that basis I reckon just 0 them and move on..... keep it simple

 

Perhaps this should be taken into account?? Dunno if it will be a complicated matter.

 

At this stage it makes little difference, but one day when we're BIG...... I came across a cacher in the US that has 140 hides, but all have been archived save for 20.

 

I also had a brief thought around unavailable caches, docking them while they're marked as unavailable. Say you get 5 points for a hide, but if it is marked as unavailable you only score 1 or 0. BUT, I think this is just a complication.... which I'd rather not see. Would rather see the caching community applying pressure to those cache owners who haven't maintained their caches. I think we can probably just ignore.... and let the community harass the cache owner to get their house in order. See... the sinners circle thread.

 

I think that the rating system is working well at the moment.

 

:lol: I really like the AWOL category that has been added!!! Good one!! This will give us an idea of those that aren't active anymore, especially if they are cache owners!! I see that some of those in the AWOL category are cache owners.... and some of their caches are currently unavailable :)

 

The rank name is a nice touch too... Marshall GlobalRat... has a nice ring to it B)

 

Keep up the good work.... and thanks again for a great contribution to the SA Caching community :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

QFC

You have gone through a lot of trouble to get the site as GOOD as it is now!

It is a very nice site to refer to see the active cachers etc!

I see I will have to go and do an Officers course when I get home this time! :rolleyes: Can’t stay a cadet my whole life! Will have to get more caches out there! :)

Maybe we can have a even cache and a get together (and a Officers crash course :lol: ) when I get back to South Africa?

Share this post


Link to post

About the Hides being archived and so forth, unfortunately we are very limited in terms of acquiring the stats from the geocaching servers automatically, the ONLY thing we can do automatically at the moment is calculating the Finds and Hides as they appear on the profile image for each cacher that the geocaching site freely provides. We will think about how we could perhaps make it possible for cachers to report caches that have been archived. Will have to chat to FryHard (Part 2).

 

Thanks for the feedback, especially about the Rank Names we have just added. We used the Army/Marine ranks instead of the Navy ranks, before someone realises the difference and asks :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
We will think about how we could perhaps make it possible for cachers to report caches that have been archived. Will have to chat to FryHard.

Don't worry about it. Don't think it is mission critical.

 

One day when we are about to crest 10000 caches in SA... we can probably concern ourselves about it.

 

I'm sure if we pick up some skullduggery by some devious cacher :rolleyes: we can just banish them from the list.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

Share this post


Link to post

I just thought of an interesting slant to the rating system. i am not saying that the current system should be changed, as my new idea would be too labour intensive, but just a fun thought.

 

If for each cache found, one gets 1 point for each star difficulty rating of the cache found. In other words a double 1 star cache would be worth 2 points, and a double 5 star cache would be worth 10 points.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Discombob, nice idea, I guess it would mean that the caches would need to be rated well. Unfortunately we can't even automatically work out if a cache is a multi or traditional cache yet... and anything manual means that it won't always remain up to date. :lol: - Cool idea, let us know if you think of anything else! :P - Charlie (Part 3 of QFC)

Edited by QFC

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×