- This topic has 24 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just how many times does that phrase crop up? No matter what is said, many believe that to be the main motivation for geocaching.
I have compiled a list of the UK Rankings for all our members who have found more than 1,000 caches. It makes very interesting reading – and I have also added the number of caches placed by those members and the number still active that are therefore available for others to find.
Tell me one thing: Why is a cache in a hedge in a litter-bestrewn lay-bye the equal of a cache up the top of the hill which requires some(times alot of) effort to walk to but which, depending on the weather conditions, may reward one with unforgettable views?
My answer to the above is that one of the latter is worth 10 of the former and now that statistics are published for most cachers, I have my own personal equation to adjust their cache found total. I’d better not go into that here as, as a first time poster, it might upset too many!
Hi Jaughan – thank you for your first post, which I would certainly agree with. Please do explain your personal equation – I’m sure that you won’t upset too many!
Answering Miss, these are just ranked by total number of caches found.
Ok,
hard hat on…..
trench dug…….
Take the average terrain and difficulty score of a cacher.
Subtract 1 from each (all caches bar “First in Scotland” have a rating of at least 1 for each).
Square each resultant figure and then multiply these squares together. Multiply that figure by the number of caches found. It has a most remarkable (and pleasing) effect on some of these 20000 finds totals!
It was about numbers when I first started, but once I hit 1000 it did not matter so much, in fact when I did not go for numbers my finds went up.
Like last night we went for one (we did get three) But that one cache gave up more fun than when we went to get 50.
I do think we all do caching for different reasons.And why do people need credit for hiding caches. We all hide and find caches for fun. I think in most logs we all give each other credit for hiding a cache by saying T4TC. (But a lot of people do not like Gorse bushes LOL)
Not quite able to understand Jaughan’s equation but surely the most important thing is the enjoyment you get from finding the cache. Whether it’s the achievement of solving a puzzle cache, especially one of Muddypuddles, finding a well disguised container such as The Forgetful Elephants, having our brains tested by a Hobo and Miss puzzle
or just having a good long walk to somewhere new, it’s not about the numbers, it’s about the experience of each cache.Statistics can be read in many ways. The average human has one breast and one testicle. Cachers are many and various, some cache in teams or pairs, some cache alone. Some of us even cache and hide under two or more names! GH.
I’ve long thought about a system similar to Jaughan’s, and I think that the one problem it may solve is cache quality. My system simply involved multiplying the difficulty rating for a cache by its terrain rating to give a score. Your total score is just the sum of all these cache scores. Most cachers are keen to boost their numbers from time to time, and so a loop of 50 caches might seem a good way to do this. If these were cache and dashes you might get a total score of 100 or so. But using a scoring system, you could get 100 points with far fewer higher rating caches. Higher rating caches would then as likely as not get more visitors, which in turn might stimulate cache setters to create more intersting hides to attract these visitors. Of course, it might just lead to inflationary ratings!
Nice to see some active discussion!
Miss says “So no credit for hiding caches” and StationMaster replies “And why do people need credit for hiding caches”
I’m not sure that placers “need” credit, but any ranking system ought to reflect the efforts of placers. Somebody might dispute my simple arithmetic, but if on average every cache is found 100 times during its lifetime, then to maintain equilibrium I calculate that everybody needs to place 1 cache for every 100 they find. So if you have found 2,000 caches then to be fair you ought to have placed 20.
In a ranking system, every cache placed would be worth 100 finds – that might change the UK rankings a little and encourage a few more caches to be placed!
But you are all putting forward your own formulae which immediately rates other people’s caching ability or aims from your perspective. Yes, I enjoy numbers, as I imagine many cachers do, but I’m not particularly interested in ranking myself against others. I have (at last) found a hobby which seems to satisfy and challenge me in several ways. GH.
Miss – Karma is the measure that takes your hides into account.
I’ve just found this site which is very quick and easy to use (don’t be scared by the gc login, you don’t need to enter username and password).
http://project-gc.com/TopLists/TopKarma
My karma is 2.75 – 808 finds, 44 hides resulting in 2223 logs and 112 favourite points by visitors.
Hobo and Miss’s is 2.4, Dartmoor Dave’s 2.58, Muddypuddles 2.87, Station Master is 1.47 and The Forgetful Elephants only 1! (Which I don’t understand at all, they’re probably my favourite hiders, so maybe this isn’t a great guide either?)
Lots of other top lists on there. Most caches in a day – 1097 (A fake) and several over 500. Really all about the numbers…
muddypuddles – the above site has a system called Points (caches times D/T) which seems close to what you’re describing.
I have heard of people who find caches but don’t log them. They are the only ones who can truly say that it’s not about the numbers!
Well, I suppose it has to be about numbers. As I said I enjoy a challenge. I’ve recently been collecting caches in order to qualify for four challenges with time limits on them that have involved bagging about 130 caches in all. So that has bumped my numbers up in a relatively short time. GH.
P.S. Dave. Regarding the off topic subject, I’ve tried as hard as I can, but I just can’t get the words ‘master’ and ‘station’ as an anagram of GoldenHaystack!!!Of course it’s about the numbers.
If it wasn’t we would just go for a walk without the frustration of not finding a cache or the dubious pleasure of sticking one’s hands into wet muddy holes under rocks etc. Broken glass, adders and beer cans could all be avoided if we weren’t chasing numbers
To produce meaningful comparisons or rankings there would have to be a simple system for grading caches, such as equating a cache’s value to the sum of its difficulty and terrain ratings, so that a true comparison can be made. Caches hidden would have to be included, being graded similarly. This would reflect the time put into the hobby for the benefit of others. Of course only live caches would count, the value of archived caches being deducted. The result of any artificial upgrading of one’s own caches would be negated by the enhancement of everybody else’s scores.
The joy of a system like this is that it could be done using the existing information held by groundspeak.
Must stop so that I can get back to logging some caches I haven’t found yet!
As a matter of interest “Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway – 24B” has had 374 finds, “Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway – 00” has had 361 finds and “Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway – 14” 296 finds. On the other hand “Kneeset Triangle – Bonus” has had only 6 finds. Of course it’s all about the numbers!
No, it’s about a really good walk into the depths of remotest Dartmoor to find a superb series of caches! And I was FTF 🙂
Thanks Miss for reminding me of the great day I had out on the moor finding these caches and thanks to you both for placing them. I have no idea why others don’t want to share this amazing area of ours, we are privileged to live here and have Dartmoor as our personal playground 🙂 🙂 🙂It seems SM is not the only CO who finds his own caches just before archiving them!
See http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=16cb2313-36be-490d-9479-aef9a48241e9
Oh – I do know SM has stopped doing it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
