[Az-Geocaching] Re: Team Rankings

[Rob Brinkerhoff]

Scott,

You have a good point. Not all caches are rated
properly...well, at least the honest teams thought that they
rated them properly. Though what I've noticed so far is that
most caches, at least to me, are rated pretty close to what
I would have rated them at. That is except when you get to
the far right end. But that is beside the point. Let us
assume, just for argument sake, that all caches are rated
properly.

> On a related note, if you click on any of the categories
on the AZ Stats page, it will sort by that category so, if
you want, you can sort by ''Score'' or any other parameter.
The only drawback is, it will reverse the order (high-to-low
or low-to-high) each time so you may have to click a
category twice to see the top rankings in that category.

Yes. Clearly, I was bored tonight. I cut and pasted the
"top" 200 teams (this removes the wild points and is much
faster) into excel and sorted by column.

>By coincidence, the top 5 AZ cachers by caches Found and by
Score happen to be the same teams.

Yes, that is true. But that is because the top teams are so
far out in front of the pack in terms of total finds, which
as per my hypothetical example, could be achieved by finding
locationless caches, only. Also, there is a team that has
contributed considerably to this sport (whoops, I mean
hobby) that was ranked the near 120 or so with the Total
Finds metric, but when ranked with the Score metric that
same team gets bumped up to the 60s or so.

-Rob (Wily Javelina)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Sparks" <scottsparks1@mchsi.com>
To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:43 PM
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Re: Team Rankings


> Rob wrote:
>
> >...
> >Personally, I would like to see the top team ranked in
terms
> >of Score. I think that it gives a more well-rounded view
of
> >a teams ability. Of course that is only my opinion. What
do
> >the rest of you folks think?
>
> >-Rob (Wily Javelina)
>
> I don't put much stock in cache ratings.  I seldom even
look at them except when the description seems unusually
difficult.  The reason is because there is always somebody
who thinks they're ''all that'' and that first cache that
they just hid deserves a five-star difficulty rating when,
in reality, it's maybe a 1.5 or 2. Then there are those who
spend their free time hanging upside down from cliffs and
such and they figure the 12 mile trek to the cache they hid
on top of a sheer rock out-cropping is ''just a measly ol' 1
or 1.5'' when, for the average Joe (or JoAnne), it's a true
5/5.  I rank caches that I hunt for as follows:  If I find
'em in the first few minutes,  they're easy.  If I can't
find them at all, or it takes me several attempts and a
couple sleepless nights, I call them difficult. ;-)
>
> On a related note, if you click on any of the categories
on the AZ Stats page, it will sort by that category so, if
you want, you can sort by ''Score'' or any other parameter.
The only drawback is, it will reverse the order (high-to-low
or low-to-high) each time so you may have to click a
category twice to see the top rankings in that category. By
coincidence, the top 5 AZ cachers by caches Found and by
Score happen to be the same teams.
>
> -- Sprocket
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
>
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocach
ing
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com


Original Question:

Here is a question for the group. Why are teams ranked by
the total number of caches found? Would not a more valid
metric be Score (Totals of Difficulty and Terrain Ratings of
Found and Hid, as defined by azgeocaching.com)? Suppose that
there were 1005 locationless caches located in Arizona. If
one logged all 1005 locationless caches (I am not ragging on
locationless caches, just an example) and only those 1005
locationless caches they, per definition, would be the top
AZ geocaching team. The top spot could feasibly be had
without cracking open a single ammo can or peering into a
still minty fresh altoids tin!  Okay, now replace
locationless with virtuals or 1/1 urbans, a more viable
possibility. Does that really define the top caching team?
Maybe it does. Clearly some folks prefer and/or are limited
to urbans or ammo cans or locationless or puzzles or
whatever. Don't get me wrong. I am very impressed with the
routine 30+ finds in a day. I have yet to find more than 10
or 15 in a day. Though I have on several occasions spent a
full and exhausting day only to find 5 or so caches. Also on
several occasions I have spent days-on-end only to find one
cache.

Personally, I would like to see the top team ranked in terms
of Score. I think that it gives a more well-rounded view of
a teams ability. Of course that is only my opinion. What do
the rest of you folks think?

-Rob (Wily Javelina)