wishes

[cdsoccer7]

My 2012 Christmas wish list is short...
A reliable and fair point system to rate BC caches and cachers.
A leaderboard or 2 to rank such caches and cachers.
more time and money to get into the BC and find some lonely caches.

I hope you can help with at least 2 of the 3...

[mojave_rattler]

Here's my wish list of my favorite parts of the DGP site.

Owner Find Accolades
Hides Summery
ChallengePoint Summary
DGP-Wide Stats Summary

[MooseMob]

First one on top of my head.

Ultra-Challenge points. Score as if only the top 5%(ish) point caches were included in the score.

[Team Opjim]

Owner find points.
Regional, state and area stats
BC vs non-BC stats
Personally, I would like to get rid of FTF points, but I know this is not shared by many. I do favor shared points between the cachers who find it on the same day.

[jcanyoneer]

I only have a few

Separate boards for cache types (trads, multis, puzzles, wherigos, etc.).
FTF/FDF boards (with point accumulation as discussed here ( http://www.lonelycacheproject.com/forum ... p?f=12&t=9 )
Owner accolades
Recent CP activity (1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, all of these?)
Personal page similar to DGP
Transfer all of Corfman Clan's points to JCanyoneer
Logs prior to Publish time-date disregarded
Recent Notable Finds (per area/region)
CPs based on logs after the publish time-date (not days logged after the publish date)
Owner points for hide after first find (after publish time-date)
A way to be able to list the caches, found/hidden by another cacher, that I could find to lower their overall score (eg. I want to lower Corfman Clan's score-what caches should I target in descending order)

[Cariocaefilhos]

I am excited to just have updated stats!!!!

Probably not possible for Launch or early phase development: But would hope that there would be some way to differentiate Haystacks from true Backcountry/Lonely Cache. I personally believe the former(Haystacks) in some cases were deliberately placed to manipulate the CP and BC rankings. Example: http://coord.info/GC29F6W vs http://coord.info/GC22GWB. The first while requiring a hike and possibly a 4wd the focus is the difficulty of making the actual find. i.e. Micro in a boulder field. The 2nd requires extensive route finding and an extensive Backcountry Hike/climb but one can be confident once at gz you will make the find.

Some of this would be taken care of by splitting Hider and Finder points. DGP attempted to manage this with the Cache Type manager and user votes. This was reasonably successful. But maybe an idea that is more system generated would be to determine some ratio of DNFs:Finds For a bc cache I would think some relatively low ratio would qualify it for Haystack status. The reason being that as CP's increase the more interest to Lonely Cache Finders so Cachers would be experienced thus a true determination based on actual search results would determine if a cache was a Haystack. Suggested ratio is 3-5 DNF's to Finds.

The other feature from DGP that I used extensively was the "Nearest Caches query" This really helped me with trip planning.

Thanks for all the work.
Cariocaefilhos

[Corfman Clan]

Probably not possible for Launch or early phase development: But would hope that there would be some way to differentiate Haystacks from true Backcountry/Lonely Cache...

I'll state now that this will most likely never happen. My current view is that the site will only work with data available from geocaching.com. If data are not available on geocaching.com, then those data won't be used.

[AllWright]

... Some of this would be taken care of by splitting Hider and Finder points...

I agree. My experience with DGP has made me feel strongly that there should be separate hider and finder point totals, NOT added together for an overall total. Or maybe, as others have suggested, no points to the hider until after the FTF.

OR EVEN BETTER, NO HIDER POINTS AT ALL (heresy!) I understand that awarding hider points may encourage more backcountry cache placements. However, it also encourages abuse in the form of 'needle in a haystack' caches and unsolvable puzzles, as mentioned by so many. EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, there was no lack of backcountry caches or challenging puzzles before DGP! There will still be plenty without awarding points for hides. So many of us just LIKE to get out in the backcountry and we'll naturally hide caches to bring others there. AND they'll actually be findable, as no one wants to go to the trouble of hiding a cache that no one else finds (unless they just want points!)

I realize this will be a hot-button topic, especially for those with lots of hides, but I really think it would be a MAJOR improvement to the backcountry game. Comments?

Other than that one issue, I quite liked the layout and system of DGP. Maybe some more point categories for different cache types, terrains, and/or difficulties would be fun.

[Cariocaefilhos]

Probably not possible for Launch or early phase development: But would hope that there would be some way to differentiate Haystacks from true Backcountry/Lonely Cache...

I'll state now that this will most likely never happen. My current view is that the site will only work with data available from geocaching.com. If data are not available on geocaching.com, then those data won't be used.

That is the beauty of the DNF's to Finds Ratio. It is data straight from gc.com no subjectivity except in determining what the appropriate ratio would be for exclusion from stats. It would also discourage Finders from rehiding more difficultly than they originally found. The temptation is gone because if too many dnf's occur the finder could lose Points as well.

Chevelon Canyon Lake Dam is probably a good example of where the DNF ratio could come into play. http://coord.info/GC1ZXYK Lots of searchers initially only DNF's then a finds started popping up. Had anyone of the finders been devious and wanted to squeeze Points out of the cache they could have buried it in a crack under a foot of rocks making it even more difficult that it was originally. A DNF:Finds Ratios would discourage such unsporting activities.

[Radinis]

My biggest wish is to get the GSAK update running again . That would make it easier to recognize caches that would be fun to visit. Regarding boards it would be nice to have a finder a hider and an overall board that way everyone can check the board they are interested in.

Down the road it would be great if there would be checkmarks so you can personalize the board output - select only traditional or only puzzle or multi and puzzle or whatever combination. The same for size and difficulty. As a result everyone can check the board customized to what they are interested in.

[AllWright]

After reading more in the forums here, I guess I'll have to moderate my position in my previous post. Hiders of good backcountry caches do deserve credit for their efforts. So I guess I'm back to asking for just separate hider and finder point totals, not eliminating hider points.

That still begs the question of how to reduce the number of 'needle in a haystack' or unsolvable puzzle caches by hiders just trying to rack up points. I've found that, since the advent of DGP, owners of hard-to-find caches have been much less likely to give hints, which is frustrating when you've really made an effort. The suggestion to not award any hider points until after the FTF is an excellent one to help prevent that. Careocefilhos' idea of eliminating caches with high DNF-to-Find ratios from the stats is also not bad as a way to prevent unethical finders from intentionally 'losing' caches for subsequent searchers. However, I've seen a number of difficult caches with easily a 3 to 1 ratio, so it would have to be set pretty high. Plus, some true backcountry caches go as long as 2 or 3 years even between attempts. Using the DNF-to-Finds ratio would leave those on the list for a very long time before disqualifying them. But it's still the best suggestion I've seen so far. When a few Finds bring the ratio back into qualifying range, the stats could once again show up.

One more thought: DGP didn't count stats for archived caches. That didn't seem quite fair, as at least 1/3 of the caches I've found in the last 6 years have now been archived. It seems to me that the points for an archived cache could be frozen when it is archived. Of course, there is some potential for abuse there, too, but I have found some great hard-to-find caches that are no longer around. I'd sure like to retain credit for having found them. Any idea why DGPAdmin didn't include them?

[RockyMtnRidgeRunner]

Regarding caches that are haystack caches,unsolvable puzzles, moved caches( = muggled?), etc., the DGP has the right approach. On the DGP FAQ page it says:

"What does the DGP do about caches that are unfindable due to lack of maintenance, or that have incorrect logs at geocaching.com?

Nothing. If you are aware of an unfindable cache, a mistaken or dishonest find log, or other such problems on a geocaching.com cache page, resolution should be respectfully attempted through the cache owner and/or the local reviewer."

The DGP has been around a long time, and faced all the issues discussed in this forum. It wasn't perfect, but we all liked it enough to become addicted to it. I think we should have more respect for DGPAdmin and the decisions he made based on his many years of experience. I just want my DGP back - the fewer changes the better, please!

[RockyMtnRidgeRunner]

Regarding separating hider and finder points:

If for any reason you give one cacher a different number of points than another for the same cache, you break the game. For example, in the Sandia region, there are four cachers tied for first place on the backcountry leader board because they all have perfect hands. That is, they have all found all top ten caches. I'm one of those people, and one of my caches is in the top ten. If you give owners no points for caches they own (or separate their points from the finders), I would drop to third place, and Tom, who owns five of the top ten caches would drop even farther down. If I wanted to regain a perfect hand and my first place position, I would have to archive my cache. Tom would have to archive all five of his caches. I don't think you want to encourage that kind of behavior, and I don't think it's fair to handicap owners so they can't compete. Note that not giving an owner points until the first find would not cause this problem. It only arises when a cache is worth different points to different people.

[RockyMtnRidgeRunner]

Regarding counting points for archived caches:

Again, just like the problem with not giving owners points for their hides, counting archived caches puts some cachers at a disadvantage. If an archived cache has enough points to be in the top ten for a region (or state, or overall), then people who never found that cache when it was active will never be able to get a perfect BC score.

The more I think about some of the changes to DGP suggested in this forum, the more I realize how smart DGPAdmin was in doing things the way he did to keep the game fair and give everyone the same opportunity to compete.

[AllWright]

Not being much of a hider yet myself, I don't have the perspective of some of you more prolific folks. (I do have materials in my trunk now for a bunch of caches; come nicer weather, I'll be placing them all, most in the backcountry!) Anyway, I think RockyMtnRidgeRunner makes some very good points. Eliminating and archiving 'unfindable' caches CAN be handled through geocaching.com (at least to some extent), just as DGPAdmin suggested. Let them be the 'enforcement' arm of the game. And I can see now where hider points make sense for overall ratings and leaderboards, as well as the rationale for excluding archived caches, too. Thanks for the clear examples.

I guess my wish list is back now to just adding a few more cache category scoreboards, and just getting the game going again. If there's any way I can help...?

[Team Opjim]

One more thought: DGP didn't count stats for archived caches. That didn't seem quite fair, as at least 1/3 of the caches I've found in the last 6 years have now been archived. It seems to me that the points for an archived cache could be frozen when it is archived. Of course, there is some potential for abuse there, too, but I have found some great hard-to-find caches that are no longer around. I'd sure like to retain credit for having found them. Any idea why DGPAdmin didn't include them?

I agree with having a frozen point total for archived caches (but the cache should have been found at least once).

[Corfman Clan]

One more thought: DGP didn't count stats for archived caches. That didn't seem quite fair, as at least 1/3 of the caches I've found in the last 6 years have now been archived. It seems to me that the points for an archived cache could be frozen when it is archived. Of course, there is some potential for abuse there, too, but I have found some great hard-to-find caches that are no longer around. I'd sure like to retain credit for having found them. Any idea why DGPAdmin didn't include them?

I agree with having a frozen point total for archived caches (but the cache should have been found at least once).

Even if it was decided that including archived caches was a good thing to do, there is no practical way to find archived caches. By find, I mean to identify archived caches' on geocaching.com and then retrieve their data.

[shushyaz&foxy]

I don't like the idea. Of having points for archived caches. If there is no way for future cachers to get those points.

[kingbee]

if it is gone it is gone and so are the points

[Team Tuxawuxa]

I was unable to find the link just now but had previously seen the writeup explaining the reasons for deleting points when a cache is archived. The main reasoning behind deleting the points was to encourage owner and finder cache maintenance. If the points remain after the cache is archived, there is no incentive for anyone to keep the cache going. On the other hand, if points are about to be lost because a reviewer has placed a cache on his archive "watchllist", someone often steps up and performs the required maintenance. This has also led to a large number of caches being adopted, especially when a geocacher moves out of state. Mainly because of this I have, on several occasions, travelled over 200 miles (1 way) to maintain caches rather than lose the points. I've also adopted over 20 caches in which I have a stake, rather than seeing them go, mostly where I had the FTF.