Ruminations

[Team Tuxawuxa]

I've been gradually going through the old DGP forums looking for gems to add here. I came across a question from a cacher who wanted to know why he had 0 points for puzzles but had found 80 puzzle caches. The response from admin was "Only caches worth 10 or more CPs are used to calculate Puzzle and BC Rating."

I had not been aware of this but like the idea. If it was applied to all caches the junk stuff like Wal-Mart lampskirt hides as well as the so-called "power trail" caches weould not clutter the landscape. Just sayin'.

[Corfman Clan]

I actually posed this on the facebook group before this forum was up and running. The overwhelming response was to include all caches.

This is how I started the discussion:

When should a cache be included in someone's point tally? Should we always add up points for every cache or should there be some minimum point value before the points count? For example, should a cache have to be worth at least five points before anybody gets points for it?

Here are several (but not all) of the responses:

I think finding 10- 3 pointers takes as much effort as finding 1- 30pointer in differnt ways. Some cachers can't go after the high pointers. Also I have done backcountry caches that might be only worth 4 points just because its popular but I would like to get credit for it. Maby cut out the 1 point and below you'll still cut a lot of caches if you are tring to save space.

After 30 days they all should count.

I think there are way to many sub 5 pt caches, and thus went back and actually deleted all my finds on caches like that, and many if my sub 10's. But in they true nature of the game and for people interested in those types of caches. All caches should have the point value that is earned based on age. What that value is what should be discussed.

I think they all need to be counted.

Include them all. A cache maybe be tough to get to, but if a lot of people Favorite it, it could get a lot of visitors, lowering the points. I see no reason to deal with including/excluding any caches. is there a programming/database benefit?

There is no database/programming benefit. I just threw this out for discussion. If people want this to have more of a backcountry bent, then not including low point caches in a cacher's tally would be one way of doing that. Once a cache's point valley passed the threshold, it would automatically get included.

We could also have leaderboards for ALL caches in the region and leaderboards for only N+ point caches. Once we have the data, it's all just a matter of writing the queries (not hard) and organizing the data on the website. Just to avoid confusion, we'd obviously not want to have 1000 different leaderboards. Having just 1 is probably too restrictive. The right number is in-between somewhere (probably still under 10 or 20).

Perhaps an all-around leaderboard and a more lonely focused leaderboard? Just food for thought (or maybe a V2 feature).

Anyhoo, it seems most people want all caches included, not just those with some minimum point value.

Every cache should be included. I pulled the ET highway, 400+ finds in 3 months. At this rate 1000 finds in the year would give them each cache worth .1 so the series would only give you 100-200 points. Plus they did put in the work. If you start limiting that caches need to be worth 2 points or 10 points, that is when the site becomes irreverent. Arguments would ensue when a group hikes to a cache ans drops it off the list. Ultimatly you place caches to be found. Not be found only X times a year to make a list.

Yes, include them all...

I agree, include them all!

Include them all, unless there is database/programming benefit for leaving them out.

I agree that they all need to be counted.

I vote for including them all, as well.

[rocketsciguy]

I really like the way DGP included all caches in the Overall CP score, but had separate scores and leader boards that excluded caches < 10 CPs (Backcountry Rating, Puzzle Rating). It's more coding and complication, but cachers each have their own styles and niches that they fit into. It's nice to see yourself move up and down the rankings in the style(s) of caches you care about, but at the same time every cache ought to count somehow. Inclusive not exclusive.