LonelyCache

How about a Leader Board around Difficulty & Terrain Ratings

Group leaders by amount of cache finds to keep like cachers grouped together. For example....

First group, need at least 100 finds before you can be on leader board. This should be enough to get a good stat for a cacher.

Difficulty Rating (100 - 500 Finds)
1. ImACacher - 3.68
2. GreenKoolaid - 3.25
3. SockMonkey - 2.51
4. KeepOnCaching - 1.89

Once you get 501 finds you move to a new group.
Difficulty Rating (501 - 1,000 Finds)
Difficulty Rating (1,001 - 2,000 Finds)
Difficulty Rating (2,001 - 5,000 Finds)
Difficulty Rating (5,001 - 10,000 Finds)
Difficulty Rating (over 10,000)

Terrain rating would work exactly the same as the difficulty rating. You could only be in one group for difficulty & terrain at a time.

I think this stat would recognize a different group of cachers. And allow them to recognize with like cachers.

There are some interesting ideas here. Currently we are saving the D/T rating for a cache so they are available to use in leaderboards and such. LonelyCache only tracks statistics for active caches within its territory (AZ, CO, NV, NM, UT) so that may have some impact on this. I'd be curious to hear others thoughts too.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Come on, Nessmuk. Just admit it -- the reason you're interested in those boards is so that you and Cheda would dominate Ratwaffles on an average basis.

My first thought was that we already have plenty of leaderboards, but then later I thought why not? Well, first let's examine some "whys not"...

DGP's philosophy was to ignore D/T because they were subjective and completely at the CO's whim (e.g., I know of two Unknown-type "Lying" caches that are 5/5 and 5/4.5, but aren't really). CP was to be an objective measure that took into account all other considerations that D/T ignores (remoteness, travel and find time, expense, skills, equipment, etc.). But just because DGP does or does not do something, that doesn't mean we have to too.

Another philosophical consideration is Groundspeak's policy towards "Challenge Caches". What does that have to do anything, you say? Here's a bit from the Guidelines:

4.15 Challenge Caches wrote:What makes an acceptable challenge cache?
A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular cache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the cache will not be published.

Groundspeak's philosophy is that cachers should not discourage other cachers from finding caches -- any kind of cache. The more smileys the better. Ranking people based on an average D/T would be contrary to that philosophy since it would discourage people from finding 1/1.5 LPCs, and Signal help us if we discourage people from placing or finding LPCs! But as, before, LonelyCache is not Groundspeak.

Along the same line of thinking, I thought an "Average CP" (Total Found CPs / Number of LonelyCache Finds) score and leaderboard would be interesting. I don't remember if I posted that idea here or not, but it would be a cool way to rank people. But it kinda would be contrary to Groundspeak's philosophy too.

At least with the raw CP score, every cache counts for something, just some caches count for a lot more than others.

Ignoring the D/T part of your suggestion, and just looking at the breakdown by number of finds, we kind of already have metrics and leaderboards that cover that. The backcountry scores just look at the top 20 or 10 finds within a region, so it doesn't care how many total finds you have, just your best ones. DGP called the top CP caches in a region the "perfect hand", and so you're coming to the poker table with your best cards from your deck of finds. That's why a cacher like Bonolo (a former president of UTAG) with just 442 LonelyCache-qualifying finds (733 total) ranks #18 on the Utah Backcountry Leaderboard above many more well-known names in caching, several with 10k+ finds and thousands more total CPs.

But those aren't strictly reasons to preclude having such rankings and boards on the site, and if our noble and generous proprietor is willing to code it up... why not?

@rocketsciguy I see you have caught me in my evil plan to dethrone Ratwaffles any way I can.

I think D/T stats would just add to the experience of this site and I am very curious to see how I stack up against other cachers in my find group.

I like the idea of Average CP as well, would be interesting to see how all these stats would shake out.

Anyway to do a little test of these leader board ideas?

@rocketSciGuy
Glad I'm not the only one who can see through ModernNessmuk's feeble attempts to grab himself some glory. I do like the idea of find-based categories, but I think you showed some good reasons why it would probably be too controversial to implement. I also think the current year stats are a good way to show the newer cachers most adept at tracking down the tough hides - and Nessmuk, I am waaaay ahead of you this year on that leaderboard too

RW, Ch, MN, happy to see your gang's all here. I sure wish I could go pick up lonely puzzle caches with you guys during lunch, but A) I've already found all 20 or so caches within 10 miles of my work (GC4905) and none of them are puzzles, and B) I work about 50 miles away from you guys, so that doesn't work out so well. But if you guys ever need a fourth for a round of hiking and/or backcountry puzzle caches (ahem, ULTRA!, hum, hem), I might be interested if you drop me a line.

Back on topic, I thought of a way to put a LonelyCache twist on the D/T grid and average. Geocaching.com already provides you with a D/T grid and averages based on your find count, and it's easy to size yourself up to somebody else if they have their stats enabled. There's no leaderboard of course. But what if the numbers in your D/T grid were the sum of CPs instead of the count of Finds? Then your average D/T would be a weighted average. I'm not sure which number would be the best divisor for computing the average -- probably the sum of CPs so the weighted average stays within the 1 to 5 range people are used to. I'd have to think about what other options might be that would still have meaning.

Anyhoo, just an idea.

interesting thread..
I went to my cache stats page here on LCP..
My Finds :
3493 LPC finds .. points 22553 = 6.45 ( PPC) Avg for my combined finds..

My Hides:
20 active I get credit for: I have two still unfound that are not in the mix.
20 hides ... 463 points... avg 23.15 (PPC) or points per cache..

So does this mean I am a better hider than a finder

desert dawg wrote: ... My Finds : 3493 LPC finds ...

Freudian slip there? I know there are a lot of LPCs within 30 miles of where you live, but I wouldn't have guessed that many! (The Lonely Cache Project's acronym has always been the weak point about it's name...)

I just checked my averages too. Avg 6.15 CPs per find, 11.79 CPs per hide (two still unfound, which if they were found today would bump my hide average up to 17 CPs even). My wife has got us beat though - slightly less at 5.21 CPs/find but a whopping 193 CPs/hide. Hey she's the #1 multi-cache hider in Pershing County, NV, (is that saying much? probably not since there are only two), but that includes a precarious 97 Achilles Points on that hide. (If I owned that listing, my hide average would be 23.87).

I think any good LonelyCacher needs to have a higher hide average than find average, don't ya think?

A good LCP member does require a higher hide point average than find point average. I agree..
RSG...
I am getting off subject here a little but I am on of 3 watching your mrs. multi in NV.. I read the incident news article and wondered.. I used to roam that area several times a year in pursuit of FUR back in the day. I have camped nearby at Buffalo Summit and soaked in that old hot spring and man made tub many times. I even used the spring to heat a can or two of beef stew in the day. Its a great tribute cache.. I hope to get it sometime..

D/ T averages don't mean much to me.. I average around 1.75 on both in my geocaching profile.. I have lifted my share of LPC skirts and hit some low point power trails of late.. sometimes too much conjecture on ratings. I know of some caches put out so a certain cacher could complete his D/T matrix box. Also age and ability and conditioning play into this . What might be a 2 star D/ T for a 20 year old might be a 5 for an ol geezer like me.. just my thoughts

Dawg, if you read the news articles and the cache page, and the dates and locations match, you made the right connections. It was kind of a big deal, and you'd understand that I'd prefer to talk details privately if you're interested. If you ever plan a trip out there, make sure to get the final coords from me in case the first stage hasn't survived (it's listed as a multi for privacy reasons too). We haven't been back since placing the cache, but my in-laws have gone a few times with a niece or a nephew, and my father-in-law reports the cache is in great shape, but he hasn't checked the first stage that I know of. And it might be possible to drive all the way there now, without the hike. The whole region really is in the middle of nowhere -- it's even on the wrong side of the mountains from US-50 "The Lonliest Highway in America", and some 100+ miles from your old "nearby" camp spot (it's only about 45 mi from Battle Mountain and I-80 though). But with the geothermal activity out there, I might try to list an EarthCache too someday.

And for being an old geezer, you sure run circles around young whipper-snappers like me!