LonelyCache

Although I enjoy solo caching, I've found that some of my most memorable caching experiences have been when I've teamed up with fellow cachers for an adventure. The DGP calculation method would then divide up the points to all cachers in the group. This often results in a significant reduction in points for lonely caches, much to the dismay of previous finders. Those finders looking to advance quickly on the stats boards are better off to go solo. I've often found myself trying to decide if I should invite a few friends along or go by myself and get all the points.

Owners of high challenge point caches also feel the pain when they watch their points drop significanly as large groups of cachers hit a lonely cache. This is especially irrating when it is a tough puzzle that likely only one or two people in the group have actually solved.

An interesting thought I had would be to modify the challenge point calculation to use "number of days with find logs" as opposed to using "total number of logs". This method would actually encourage cachers to work together to get the hard caches because the points would not be dilluted when the group makes the find on the same day. In fact, if several cachers have a high pointer on their hit list, it would be more advantageous point wise if they all get together and hit the cache on the same day.

To understand the effects of this change I downloaded the logs for all the caches in Yavapai county in Arizona. This county
has a good mix of high and low challenge point caches. On the lower challenge point caches there doesn't seem to be a big
difference. However, there are some significant differences in some of the higher challenge point caches. Below is a list of
the top 10 caches that would be most effected by the calculation change.

GC28QP7 - From Mountain Top to Mountain Top. DGP Calc: 56cp, New Calc: 168cp
GC28Q9W - Wet Monkey. DGP Calc: 52cp, New Calc: 158cp
GC2PNB8 - Another Chance. DGP Calc: 22cp, New Calc: 89cp
GC2NF9T - No Acampar. DGP Calc: 32cp, New Calc: 95cp
GC2Q3C0 - Diabolical Night Cache II. DGP Calc: 14cp, New Calc: 70cp
GC2CEKN - Canyoneering-Wet Beaver Creek. DGP Calc: 49cp, New Calc: 99cp
GC2NVMF - Muleshoe Ranch View Cache. DGP Calc: 47cp, New Calc: 94cp
GC2P9XY - What's This. DGP Calc: 45cp, New Calc: 90cp
GC2PGGP - Swiming Hole Cache. DGP Calc: 45cp, New Calc: 90cp
GC2WZEJ - Three Lock Box. DGP Calc: 22cp, New Calc: 65cp

I will continue to enjoy whatever method is used, but thought this might be worth some consideration.

I don't like it when a group of cachers knock down points when they find a backcouny cache but its part of the game. Usually the cachers in the group would go find the cache eventually. I myself don't like the “days found system”keep track of how many found the cache.

There was a good discussion about this in the Lonely Cache Project facebook group. I'll include it here.

Another thought... cache find days instead of instead cachers found. If 3 people find a cache on a given day, it gets one cache foind day instead of 3 finders. This encourages group caching (much safer) and eliminates the angst caused when someone brings the 3 geo-pups and logs 4 finds so the geo-pups get credit.

Corfman Clan wrote:I don't completely follow what you're saying. When you say "it gets one...," what does "it" refer to, the cache? How does this relate to cacher stats?

Corfman Clan wrote:So do you mean, the cache's point value is based on age divided by the number of days a find is logged instead of by the number of finders?

So for example, a cache is founds four times in a year. By current methods that cache would be worth 25 points. Now if instead the scoring is by days found and the cache was first found by one person, then one other day three people found it, the value would be 50 points.

Corfman Clan wrote:This is an interesting idea, though I'm not sure if it will accomplish much but shift how people gripe. I can see the owners now saying, don't you dare find my cache unless you bring a large group. Or, people thinking, what a jerk, he didn't invite anybody along...

Yes, that is the idea. There have been occasional complaints that someone's dog logged a many caches and deprived them of points. I actually did not log my dogs into/out of caches for this same reason. The chance of hikers going alone solely because they want all the points to themselves is pretty small. The social aspects of the game tend to be stronger. And yes, the more complicated this game gets, the more people get upset when the game doesn't go their way.

I personally like this idea because I dont like going out alone on big hikes. I will team up with 2 or 3 other cachers and we destroy the caches points by doing this.

Either way works for me. When we are out, about half the time we have our grandson along and he has a GC account. So two finders when we find one. And I don't go for the longs hikes or steep climbs anymore because of bad ankles. So I'll never be on the leader boards, but the system still points me toward interesting caches and fun areas. It has been interesting to see how I compare with the real back country cachers. Not as bad as I thought it would be. For me and my grandson, the thing is the fun of it and the new places we get to see.

Although I do enjoy caching alone, I do see the benefit to this idea. I think I like it. After running scenarios through my head for the last few hours, I haven't found an issue yet (other than what Russell Corfman has mentioned, and really? people are gonna gripe like that? probably!). I especially like this idea if a cache were to gain 1 point per day. The only way a cache would ever be less than one point would be if someone logged it prior to publishing (12 day=12 points, found every day for 12 days...cache is worth 1 point, found every day for 12 days and a PT-er logged before publishing, it's now worth less than one. another reason to not include logs prior to publishing) I do like the idea of being in a group find and not having the cache loose value based on the number in the group-you know it'll drop by only 1 more Dividing Day...I'll keep thinking on this, but I have to say, I like this "different" idea!

It is nice to see a positive spin on this issue. Lynn good idea! Conrad my thoughts exactly!

Corfman Clan wrote:I'm going to toss this out, but personally, I think the idea of going alone to keep a cache's point value up is short sighted. Conversely, I think a group find lowering the cache value is also short sighted. My opinion is that everybody who finds the cache is going to get to it eventually anyway. Short term there may be a difference but in the long run, it all evens out.

Yes, I believe you are essentially correct. Doing it this way is primarily for the Geodog logs or the other tag alongs that wouldn't go on their own, but also to encourage (or not discourage) social caching. The cache will get a few more visitors because of Backcountry, otherwise it isn't doing what DGP intended. (I know there are a few caches I went for because of DGP tipping the scale). No matter how you slice it, those that are willing and able will always go the most and furthest, but this will add. Backcountry will draw more folks out further from the asphalt.

One downside I foresee to using this method is that it would inflate point values, perhaps significantly, for caches that are found more frequently relative to the lonely backcountry caches that are the focus here.

I agree that it would inflate some caches points more than they should be, for example in the Yucca area there are maybe 10 Cachers that go out for these hard to get to places, if we team ip and say 5 of us go together to get one in a day its only getting hit 1 time, we all know that we would all end up there at some point. The Dgp would eventually even out over time for true BackCountry caches, yeah they take a hit for awhile if 4 people find but eventually climb back up! Plus if the same group is hitting multiple caches it will drop them all equally. I won't even voice my opinion of geodog logging but I will say my dog has a nice trackable she wears and I dip in every cache she goes to so I can see where I've taken her.

I agree, it would inflate the value of low d/t caches. In keeping with the intent of Backcountry, I would hope these driveup caches would be removed from the list entirely. (look for future post on this matter)

I don't think it will matter if all the drive up caches will be in the list because they won't be worth but a few points anyways due to their find frequency. If two people find a lonely cache in a year (even on the same day), it still wouldn't take a huge hit to the point value. I don't think it matters if people cache together.

1500 ET highway caches at 1 point is 1500 points. Do a bunch of power trails or 500 feet apart geo-art caches and you got 20,000 points.

Those types of caches in dgp land were worth less than a point because they were found so often. I don't know if there is a cure for all the variables out there. I do think all available caches should be included.

This is an interesting idea. I think it would also increase the value of "jeep caches". Meaning that cachers who like to go out and drive their vehicles through the desert/mtns for 3 hrs then hike 15 minutes often seem to travel in caravans (this makes perfect sense from a safety standpoint). It's much easier to pile 8 people in a few jeeps and drive around then to get 8 people to go on a 10 mile hike.

doesn't that prove the point that we cache find per person rather than per day should be used. If its easier to get 8 to ride around in a few jeeps or Tacoma's than it is to get 8 people to go on a 10 mile hike, the hike is a lonelier cache and should be worth more points??and the jeep cache is less lonely and should be worth less points?

I cache with a friend that has no interest in DGP points. However we go after big point caches a lot together. He has a geo-dog too that he logs a find for. Basically every tine we find a cache it gets hit for three finds. I like the idea of not decreasing the point value of the cache just because I invited him and his dog to hunt for the cache with me.

This is the same kind of thinking that supports the FTF points being given to all those finders on the first day of the first logged find. Its smart.

Or A "lonely cache" that is visited by 10 people once a year is a lot more lonely than a cache visited 10 times a year by one person each time. Think about that.

I thought about it, I just think the DGP was fairly accurate using individual Cachers finds to determine points. I see using cache days rather than actual finds will falsely inflate many caches points. I know in the Yucca region the geodog logs were not a big deal due to the fact that I don't think you could get a pup to any of the top 10 high point caches.

In the end I will be happy with whatever is put together by the people developing the new site and will learn to adapt to it no matter what they decide to do. I honestly can't wait to have a Lonely/BC cache site up and running again!! Thank you guys for the work going into this!!

I would be curious on the results base on historic data.

I agree with Corey!

Well said Corey. There is always going to be something controversial. And there is no perfect system. Ill play the game regardless.

I've had this idea too, that the formula for points could be based on the fraction of days found instead of number of finders or find-rate. I think it's a great idea that could be a component of the new system. Actually, I've had a lot of ideas about changing the formula(s) for points that I will have to do a bit of work with and bring to the new site for discussion.

Wow, looks like this has already been discussed in great detail. One of these days I will have to join the cool kids and get a facebook account

Seems to me this is only adding more variables and clouding the scoring system. Geodogs having caching accounts? That's lunacy! DGP was really quite simple and straightforward, with the possible exception of awarding points to unfound caches. 1 find = 1 credit and let the points fall wherever they may. Whichever system is used, those who are more interested in numbers than in the adventure of it all will always find a way to manipulate the numbers to maximize their scores. For example, in DGP if you want to keep the cache points high you don't let your caching kids (or dogs) log the find, or you go alone. Conversely, if you want to lower the hider's points, you all log the find - you might even give the solution to a puzzle to everyone you know. In the days found scoring system, to keep the score high several cachers who find a cache over a period of time, say a 3 or 4 day weekend, could all agree to log the cache on the same date. To lower the hider's points, a group that finds a cache on a Saturday could all log it on subsequent days.

One thing that worries me, about doing this that hasn't been mentioned yet, is the effect that a change like this would have on newer caches over time as compared to those caches that have already been around for awhile. Basically, my worry is that this would have an adverse effect on how older lonely caches are scored compared to those up and coming lonely caches.

I don't know, the more I think about this method of scoring, the less I like it.

you would also find out that it would raise the points on P&Gs.I think you should stik with the old system