LonelyCache

I like the idea of having caches be worth 1 point per day (instead of the old 100 points per year). I also like sticking with the idea of dividing points by "found it" logs AFTER the day of publishing (mainly to disregard the Placement Team logs that are currently "typically" placed prior to the publishing date . (I completely understand that the people that currently log this way might find that their "logging convictions" change after a point system is set up that might not allow them points for a "prior to publishing date". I assume they will start to log their PT "found it" logs ON the cache publish date or later)

A Point/Day seems easy to figure if you don't have anything in front of you (especially for geocachers who know projection angles). A caches points could be viewed as a circle. If the cache has been out for a year, the circle is complete (365 days is approx 360 degrees). If it's been out for half a year-180 points, 3 months-90 points...etc. A cache that's been out a week is 7 points, a month is 30ish...

Another idea for accumulating points is "days found" rather than by the "number of logs". I prefer "number of logs". Seems to keep things like we are used to seeing.

jcanyoneer wrote:
A Point/Day seems easy to figure if you don't have anything in front of you (especially for geocachers who know projection angles). A caches points could be viewed as a circle. If the cache has been out for a year, the circle is complete (365 days is approx 360 degrees). If it's been out for half a year-180 points, 3 months-90 points...etc. A cache that's been out a week is 7 points, a month is 30ish...

I agree that at first look that 1 point a day is enticing, but after several years this gets to be a cumbersome # and VERY large and then dividing by the # finds...ewww...IDK, it kind of feels like a standard vs Metric argument. I like nice round #s and 100 points per year feels better to me.

true-I guess I just think this way since I used to skateboard and a lot of tricks were based on your rotation-720s were unheard of . 1080s-get outta here.

jcanyoneer wrote:true-I guess I just think this way since I used to skateboard and a lot of tricks were based on your rotation-720s were unheard of . 1080s-get outta here.

I used to dive and I'm not gonna promote the 1 point system

Back two and a half with one and a half twists...

I just can't see: Back 900 with 540 twists...

How hard would it be to do some sort of comparitive test? If sample data is available, lets see how individual caches look vs an accumalation

We can discuss concepts all day, but looking at the results in real life would be great.

Some things I am interested personally interested in seeing...

If a cacher has 2000 terrain 1.5 caches, would their score compare to someone with 100 terrain 4 caches? We can assume the T=1.5 caches would only be worth a point or two, but is that realistic? That can also change drastically from one region to another. Pull some *random* caches out and see how it stacks up. e.g, pull 1% of the caches out of the DB and see what crops up.

Also, how would it stack up by cache/days vs cache visits?

It's time to stop guessing and evaluate this on real data.

I favor the same point system as DGP. I understand it, it's what everyone is used to, and will cause the least amount of confusion.

I also favor the DGP point system of 100 points per year. As Opjim pointed out, it is a system we are already use to.

I too favor the DGP scoring system. To me the terrain and difficulty classes are way too subjective to be of any use for scoring.

jcanyoneer wrote:Placement Team logs that are currently "typically" placed prior to the publishing date

Maybe that varies with location, but around "here" (Wasatch front area of Utah) we didn't log them before the publish date, or on it, but on the date of the FTF so that it didn't take credit away from the real FTF.

I also favor the DGP point system.

Opjim wrote:I favor the same point system as DGP. I understand it, it's what everyone is used to, and will cause the least amount of confusion.

I think we should try to stick close to a system we are all use to, as that would preserve what our standings were with the DGP

I'm still for comparative data to keep a good perspective.

Whether 1 point a day or .36 points a day, everyone will keep their place in line. What would change position is if we were to count Fred's visit, but not the 2 dogs he always bring with him.

Or if we were to give bonus points for TB grab/drops, but that's a different can of worms.

I also like keeping the points at 100 per year. The computer figures out what the point total is for a cache and it doesn't care how many points a year a cache earns. How many cachers try to figure out for themselves the points a cache has on a given day? They look up the cache and see how many points it has and that is it. So changing the points to 1 per day doesn't really do much but make the overall point totals higher. Keep it the same. We are already used to and know what a 100 point cache is (1 find per year). With the one point a day system a cache that is found twice a year would be a 182 1/2 point cache (instead of the current 50 point cache). I think the current system is about as simple as you can get.

i vote to keep the 100 point system

I agree with keeping the current system of 100 pts/yr. It is simple, and people are used to it.

Chock up another vote for the 100/year point system. Gracias!

Same here. If the DGP were still up and running there wouldn't be any talk of changing the point system, so why the need to change what we're all familiar with?

AZTech wrote:Same here. If the DGP were still up and running there wouldn't be any talk of changing the point system, so why the need to change what we're all familiar with?

Unfortunately, the DGP is not being updated and that's why all this is here. Personally, I like the idea of a cache being worth 120 points a year (10 points per month). For me that makes the in my head math the simplest. But really, 100 points a year is fairly simple too. The vast consensus seems to be to stick with 100 points a year so I imagine, that's what we'll do.

I'm in the 10 points per month clan. No pun intended. Easier for my math challenged brain.

If it's 10 points per month, how long is a month? Does the period 01 Feb to 01 Mar count for the same number of points as the period 01 Aug to 01 Sep? What about on leap years? Sorry, let me put on my übergeek spectacles... There.

Unless we go for something overly complicated and/or stay with DGP's method, when the database does its calculation, it's going to subtract the publication date from the current date to find the number of days the cache has been active, then multiply it by a factor to get the total points available. I suppose for DGP that factor would be (100/365) or 0.27397260... points per day = 100 points in a year (Julian year, technically, but you don't want to get me started). I think 120 points/year (0.32876712... pts/day) is a reasonable factor to use, which would give an average of 10 points per month. For codifying this, let's stay to points per day or an another interval that has a fixed (or mostly fixed) number of days. A month, unfortunately, is the most ambiguous measurement in our calendar.

Okay, übergeek off. Normal geek mode.

Just another idea to be different yet the same: 2 points per week. That gives you on average 104.285 points per year (104.571 in a leap year).... Yeah, not a great improvement, but there is no common factor to 365, ~28-31, and 7, so there is no magic number that will be convenient to anyone. If there were, our calendar would probably be a lot simpler!