LonelyCache

I had another idea (quit groaning). I think it's understood that there will be an overall leaderborad of total Lonely Cache Points, then broken down by states and other geographic regions (eventually). [By the way, what are we calling these points? Still like DPG's Challenge Points (CPs)? Lonely Cache Points (LCPs)? Corfman Clan Points (CCPs?) I'll call them CPs for now.]

Anyhoo, here's an idea for a different leader board: Average CP per cache find (and/or hide). Another way to look at it is the total CP score divided by the number of smileys within the boundaries of the LCP or geographic subdivisions. The leaders on this board will be those who dedicate their caching experience to the loneliest cachest while completely ignoring the micro spew and power trail phenomena. I suggest a minimum number of cache finds to qualify for inclusion on such boards, so, e.g., a guy who had one find in his entire caching career back in 2003 doesn't top the leaderboards with an average of 80 CPs per find. I don't think lack of recent caching activity ought to be a disqualifier. We could do the same thing with hides -- make a leaderboard of who has the highest average CP per hide. Minimum threshold ought to be much lower than that for finds.

Whaddya think?

I like it. It's another one that I'll never be on top of, but definately interesting.

rocketsciguy wrote:By the way, what are we calling these points? Still like DPG's Challenge Points (CPs)? Lonely Cache Points (LCPs)? Corfman Clan Points (CCPs?) I'll call them CPs for now

Good question. In the DB we're calling them Points (cache's total worth) and FinderPoints (if NumFinders = 0 then Points else Points / NumFinders). What we'll present has not been decided.

rocketsciguy wrote:Anyhoo, here's an idea for a different leader board: Average CP per cache find (and/or hide)...

This is very similar to the DGP backcountry score only the average isn't limited to a cacher's top 20 (10 within a region) caches. I know that there were/are some ardent backcountry leaderboard followers and I'm sure there will be with the version of this we come up with here.

We already have quite a few leaderboards planned and diluting the system with too many is a concern of mine.

My direct concern with this proposed board is that it is regressive. I can see people manipulating their finds to come out on top here. That is, I can see someone cart blanche deleting all his/her finds that are under some score in order to raise his/her average. I believe we should avoid having a leaderboard that encourages that sort of behavior.

Corfman Clan wrote:

rocketsciguy wrote:By the way, what are we calling these points? Still like DPG's Challenge Points (CPs)? Lonely Cache Points (LCPs)? Corfman Clan Points (CCPs?) I'll call them CPs for now

Good question. In the DB we're calling them Points (cache's total worth) and FinderPoints (if NumFinders = 0 then Points else Points / NumFinders). What we'll present has not been decided.

Then for now, I'm going to start using the special symbol "₧" just because I can (Compose-P-t on my Linux system ). Sorry if your browser doesn't display it correctly!

Corfman Clan wrote:We already have quite a few leaderboards planned and diluting the system with too many is a concern of mine....
My direct concern with this proposed board is that it is regressive. I can see people manipulating their finds to come out on top here. That is, I can see someone cart blanche deleting all his/her finds that are under some score in order to raise his/her average. I believe we should avoid having a leaderboard that encourages that sort of behavior.

Both good points and well taken. With that in mind, maybe we could still have the average computed for individuals for the whole LCP area (not by regions), but without an associated leaderboard. That way there's no jockeying for position on the board, but more of an FYI like GC.com's average D/T stats. It might be informative to know that your average LCP find is 2.34 ₧, your average Difficulty is 1.71 stars, and your average Terrain is 1.63 stars.

Again, it's just an idea I thought I'd throw out.

Don't forget the Portland and Yakima regions

Keep up the good work!

cosninocanines wrote:Don't forget the Portland and Yakima regions

Keep up the good work!

Yep, can't forget those nor Willamette and Dosewallips.