Backcountry Scoring Calculation

[TwoTurtles]

My assumption is that the backcountry score is being calculated by averaging the top 20 highest point cache. If that is the case, it appears my backcountry score for unknown caches and the all around rating is not calculating correctly. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that there are five caches tied for second place on the list. The monkeys may be causing havoc.

[Corfman Clan]

My assumption is that the backcountry score is being calculated by averaging the top 20 highest point cache. If that is the case, it appears my backcountry score for unknown caches and the all around rating is not calculating correctly. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that there are five caches tied for second place on the list. The monkeys may be causing havoc.

Hmm, it does appear you're being short changed a bit with your backcountry score (66 instead of 69). We'll have to take a look and see what's going on. Thanks for pointing it out. Just what I need, another monkey on my back...

[jcanyoneer]

Gotta love them Monkeys!

[Corfman Clan]

Wow, this was a pita to track down. It seems those monkeys got into a bit of mischief and caused the SQL Server TOP and ROW_NUMBER functions to work a bit differently than I expected. The worst part was that whenever I'd take a close look, those monkeys would hide and everything worked as expected. Anyway, with a little change, we're now able to keep those monkeys up in the trees where they belong. This will be fixed in the next site update.

[TwoTurtles]

Awesome! Thanks for jumping on this so quick.

[Corfman Clan]

The fix has now been pushed out to the site. The backcountry boards should be correct tomorrow morning when the stats are next updated. See the release notes for more details.

[CopperWings]

The highest possible scores on Backcountry leaderboards for regions and counties aren't being calculated correctly. For instance, in the Apache region of Arizona, the perfect score for Unknown Caches is being calculated by the program as 46.5, whereas adding up and averaging the ten highest scoring caches yields 73.3. I suspect the algorithm is actually adding up the top twenty, not the top ten.
Since the scores for the individual cachers are the average of their top ten caches, there are several instances where cachers appear to have scores higher than possible, which is what clued me in to the error.

[Corfman Clan]

The highest possible scores on Backcountry leaderboards for regions and counties aren't being calculated correctly. For instance, in the Apache region of Arizona, the perfect score for Unknown Caches is being calculated by the program as 46.5, whereas adding up and averaging the ten highest scoring caches yields 73.3. I suspect the algorithm is actually adding up the top twenty, not the top ten.
Since the scores for the individual cachers are the average of their top ten caches, there are several instances where cachers appear to have scores higher than possible, which is what clued me in to the error.

Thanks for pointing this out. Your suspicion is correct and this will be fixed in the next site update.

[Corfman Clan]

The highest possible scores on Backcountry leaderboards for regions and counties aren't being calculated correctly. For instance, in the Apache region of Arizona, the perfect score for Unknown Caches is being calculated by the program as 46.5, whereas adding up and averaging the ten highest scoring caches yields 73.3. I suspect the algorithm is actually adding up the top twenty, not the top ten.
Since the scores for the individual cachers are the average of their top ten caches, there are several instances where cachers appear to have scores higher than possible, which is what clued me in to the error.

Thanks for pointing this out. Your suspicion is correct and this will be fixed in the next site update.

This is now fixed. See the release notes for more details.