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" To: 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)