Help
Posted 24 November 2008 - 05:31 PM
I got started on this over in the geocoin forum but thought I would post it here too for those who just do the geocaching stuff and do not mess with geocoins.
My overriding philosophy is to acquire Positive Caching Karma. I have tried to place enough caches so that the number of finds on my caches is at least as great as the number of finds I have made on other people's caches. My Caching Karma is about 3.5. There have been 3.5 times as many finds on my caches by others as I have made on other people's caches.
In the final cache accounting this is the number that means the most to me.
Your caching karma is a measure of the joy you bring into the lives of others.
What is your Caching Karma? It takes some work to calculate it, if you own many caches. Just divide the number of finds people have logged on your caches by the number of finds you have logged on other people's caches. If the result is over 1.0 then you have positive caching karma.
I am curious to see what YOUR Caching Karma is.
Should you deduct for DNFs or count micros less than 1?
Page 1 of 1
Caching Karma It's all about the real numbers
#3
Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:53 PM
42 
This post has been edited by TheAlabamaRambler: 24 November 2008 - 07:54 PM
#4
- US Geocacher of the Year 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 37320
- Joined: 14-September 01
Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:56 PM
The idea that finds on your caches vs. your finds equals any kind of karma is kind of silly.
First, it doesn't take into consideration positive things like working with land managers to promote geocaching, helping fellow cachers with maintenance, maintaining your own caches, volunteering to help at events, trading up, helping novices in the forums, participating in CITO and numerous other positive ways a geocacher can contribute to the sport without hiding a cache.
Second, that system punishes those who hide caches with challenging terrain, difficult puzzles and other entertaining caches that don't get a lot of finds because they aren't quick smileys.
There really is no formula you can use to quantify "caching karma". Your fellow local geocachers know who has it and who doesn't.
First, it doesn't take into consideration positive things like working with land managers to promote geocaching, helping fellow cachers with maintenance, maintaining your own caches, volunteering to help at events, trading up, helping novices in the forums, participating in CITO and numerous other positive ways a geocacher can contribute to the sport without hiding a cache.
Second, that system punishes those who hide caches with challenging terrain, difficult puzzles and other entertaining caches that don't get a lot of finds because they aren't quick smileys.
There really is no formula you can use to quantify "caching karma". Your fellow local geocachers know who has it and who doesn't.
This post has been edited by briansnat: 24 November 2008 - 08:17 PM
#6
Posted 24 November 2008 - 08:09 PM
Huh...
Was just caching with someone today. They mentioned this method of figuring... things...
We were both surprised I hadn't read about it here yet.
Now, here it is.
Some people are generating good karma by NOT hiding caches, by the way. Not everyone is meant to hide...
Was just caching with someone today. They mentioned this method of figuring... things...
We were both surprised I hadn't read about it here yet.
Now, here it is.
Some people are generating good karma by NOT hiding caches, by the way. Not everyone is meant to hide...
#7
Posted 24 November 2008 - 08:21 PM
larry739, on Nov 24 2008, 05:31 PM, said:
I got started on this over in the geocoin forum but thought I would post it here too for those who just do the geocaching stuff and do not mess with geocoins.
My overriding philosophy is to acquire Positive Caching Karma. I have tried to place enough caches so that the number of finds on my caches is at least as great as the number of finds I have made on other people's caches. My Caching Karma is about 3.5. There have been 3.5 times as many finds on my caches by others as I have made on other people's caches.
In the final cache accounting this is the number that means the most to me.
Your caching karma is a measure of the joy you bring into the lives of others.
What is your Caching Karma? It takes some work to calculate it, if you own many caches. Just divide the number of finds people have logged on your caches by the number of finds you have logged on other people's caches. If the result is over 1.0 then you have positive caching karma.
I am curious to see what YOUR Caching Karma is.
Should you deduct for DNFs or count micros less than 1?
My overriding philosophy is to acquire Positive Caching Karma. I have tried to place enough caches so that the number of finds on my caches is at least as great as the number of finds I have made on other people's caches. My Caching Karma is about 3.5. There have been 3.5 times as many finds on my caches by others as I have made on other people's caches.
In the final cache accounting this is the number that means the most to me.
Your caching karma is a measure of the joy you bring into the lives of others.
What is your Caching Karma? It takes some work to calculate it, if you own many caches. Just divide the number of finds people have logged on your caches by the number of finds you have logged on other people's caches. If the result is over 1.0 then you have positive caching karma.
I am curious to see what YOUR Caching Karma is.
Should you deduct for DNFs or count micros less than 1?
Not so much work if you use the FindStatsGen macro with GSAK, it's listed in the stats. Mine is on my profile...
#9
Posted 24 November 2008 - 09:08 PM
You better not hide a cache on the top of a beautiful mountain unless you want to give up finding caches for awhile... 
This post has been edited by TrailGators: 24 November 2008 - 09:08 PM
#10
Posted 25 November 2008 - 06:13 AM
If you want to define your personal 'caching karma' in this manner, go right ahead.
However, there are many, many other ways of giving to the caching community not reflected in these numbers. Calculation by your method would give the greatest level of karma to someone who spews out quickly hidden caches with little or no thought.
I don't see that as raising the level of karma.
Help others maintain their caches, CITO the area when you visit, write pleasant logs for cache owners to read. I think there's more karma in those actions than dropping half a dozen caches in the nearest Wally World parking lot just to increase one's hide numbers.
However, there are many, many other ways of giving to the caching community not reflected in these numbers. Calculation by your method would give the greatest level of karma to someone who spews out quickly hidden caches with little or no thought.
I don't see that as raising the level of karma.
Help others maintain their caches, CITO the area when you visit, write pleasant logs for cache owners to read. I think there's more karma in those actions than dropping half a dozen caches in the nearest Wally World parking lot just to increase one's hide numbers.
#11
Posted 25 November 2008 - 07:38 AM
Anyone can get high cache karma.
My aim is to achieve good logs from happy cachers. Quality, not quantity.
My aim is to achieve good logs from happy cachers. Quality, not quantity.
#12
Posted 25 November 2008 - 08:37 PM
Briansnat hit the nail on the head. Measuring your finds against the number of people who have found your caches does nothing (except provide the basis for yet another meaningless number)
Of my twenty or so hides there are two which I consider to be my very best. One of them has been out for a year and has been found 46 times. The other has been out for 3 years and has been found 74 times. The logs on those 2 caches speak for themselves, and I've really enjoyed reading of the adventures people have had finding them. Each has taken people out of their comfort zone and encouraged them to push boundaries and face limits many of them didn't even realize they had.
I could slap a magnetic key holder on a guardrail along a busy road and get 100 finds in a month. According to this "caching karma" math, that one guardrail cache would give me a much better karma than both my 2 best hides combined - yet no one would even remember that cache a week after finding it.
As my tag line says - numbers are pointless but memories are priceless. "Caching Karma" is just another pointless number. I'd much rather people take home memories of an exceptional and unique experience when they hunt my caches. Putting smiles on peoples faces - now that's karma.
Of my twenty or so hides there are two which I consider to be my very best. One of them has been out for a year and has been found 46 times. The other has been out for 3 years and has been found 74 times. The logs on those 2 caches speak for themselves, and I've really enjoyed reading of the adventures people have had finding them. Each has taken people out of their comfort zone and encouraged them to push boundaries and face limits many of them didn't even realize they had.
I could slap a magnetic key holder on a guardrail along a busy road and get 100 finds in a month. According to this "caching karma" math, that one guardrail cache would give me a much better karma than both my 2 best hides combined - yet no one would even remember that cache a week after finding it.
As my tag line says - numbers are pointless but memories are priceless. "Caching Karma" is just another pointless number. I'd much rather people take home memories of an exceptional and unique experience when they hunt my caches. Putting smiles on peoples faces - now that's karma.
#13
Posted 25 November 2008 - 08:44 PM
DocDiTTo, on Nov 25 2008, 08:37 PM, said:
Briansnat hit the nail on the head. Measuring your finds against the number of people who have found your caches does nothing (except provide the basis for yet another meaningless number)
Of my twenty or so hides there are two which I consider to be my very best. One of them has been out for a year and has been found 46 times. The other has been out for 3 years and has been found 74 times. The logs on those 2 caches speak for themselves, and I've really enjoyed reading of the adventures people have had finding them. Each has taken people out of their comfort zone and encouraged them to push boundaries and face limits many of them didn't even realize they had.
I could slap a magnetic key holder on a guardrail along a busy road and get 100 finds in a month. According to this "caching karma" math, that one guardrail cache would give me a much better karma than both my 2 best hides combined - yet no one would even remember that cache a week after finding it.
As my tag line says - numbers are pointless but memories are priceless. "Caching Karma" is just another pointless number. I'd much rather people take home memories of an exceptional and unique experience when they hunt my caches. Putting smiles on peoples faces - now that's karma.
Of my twenty or so hides there are two which I consider to be my very best. One of them has been out for a year and has been found 46 times. The other has been out for 3 years and has been found 74 times. The logs on those 2 caches speak for themselves, and I've really enjoyed reading of the adventures people have had finding them. Each has taken people out of their comfort zone and encouraged them to push boundaries and face limits many of them didn't even realize they had.
I could slap a magnetic key holder on a guardrail along a busy road and get 100 finds in a month. According to this "caching karma" math, that one guardrail cache would give me a much better karma than both my 2 best hides combined - yet no one would even remember that cache a week after finding it.
As my tag line says - numbers are pointless but memories are priceless. "Caching Karma" is just another pointless number. I'd much rather people take home memories of an exceptional and unique experience when they hunt my caches. Putting smiles on peoples faces - now that's karma.
Good post Doc. I agree that we should forget about meaningless numbers and focus on memories. Memories are the only thing you will take with you someday...
#14
Posted 26 November 2008 - 07:14 AM
According to my profile, my "rating" is .74. However, that is actually high because 11 of my 33 caches have been adopted so they aren't really finds on "my" caches.
However, as others have said, I think it is a completely bogus number and in no way shows the true contribution to the game.
My second most recent cache has only been found once since I hid it back in September. It is a 3.5 star terrain, involving a hike of roughly 4km and a fording of a river. It takes you to a set of 400 year-old Native rock paintings. It is a very cool place, but it will get found a lot less than my cache hidden near a roadside turnout on the TransCanada highway.
I think the first cache is a much better contribution to the game, but it will "hurt" my karma. That's why I don't put any stock into numbers like karma and find/hide ratios. I gave up on the numbers game.
However, as others have said, I think it is a completely bogus number and in no way shows the true contribution to the game.
My second most recent cache has only been found once since I hid it back in September. It is a 3.5 star terrain, involving a hike of roughly 4km and a fording of a river. It takes you to a set of 400 year-old Native rock paintings. It is a very cool place, but it will get found a lot less than my cache hidden near a roadside turnout on the TransCanada highway.
I think the first cache is a much better contribution to the game, but it will "hurt" my karma. That's why I don't put any stock into numbers like karma and find/hide ratios. I gave up on the numbers game.
#15
Posted 26 November 2008 - 06:14 PM
Karma is an interesting concept, I guess. Last update, I was at .51. But, as most have said, it rewards cache and dashes, and penalizes caches requiring longer hikes. We've hidden some of each, as well as evil mystery caches. Almost all of them take you to a very interesting spot. 15 finds in two years? It's only a mile each way! Yeah, it gets frustrating. But, nontheless, we are very proud of those caches. I will even admit to putting out some to get more finds. We do have some very interesting cache and dashes too!
But calling it karma? That's an abuse of the word karma. Call it 'numbers ho magnet'.
But calling it karma? That's an abuse of the word karma. Call it 'numbers ho magnet'.
#16
Posted 26 November 2008 - 07:54 PM
Harry Dolphin, on Nov 26 2008, 06:14 PM, said:
But calling it karma? That's an abuse of the word karma. Call it 'numbers ho magnet'.
The caching karma for the community as a whole must equal 1. Otherwise the are either too few caches or too many. If we all strive for a karma of 1 then everybody is contributing caches at a rate that balances out the caches they find. As it stands now, people like the OP are hiding too many caches and so caches are not being found at the optimal rate. Those of us with a caching karma of .13 are helping to keep the geocaching universe in balance
.
#17
Posted 27 November 2008 - 02:18 AM
Quote
It's all about the real numbers
This thread is funny to me.
I'm secure in my caching karma without placing arbitrary criteria on my participation.
I know that my participation in this activity (as in life) is more positive than negative and that's enough for me to sleep well at night. I don't need to whip it out and measure it against others to see if I have the biggest one.
This post has been edited by Snoogans: 27 November 2008 - 02:56 AM
#18
Posted 27 November 2008 - 09:04 AM
So if only have found 5, but I placed 20 cache and dash micros in crappy locations but the number cachers come I have positive Karma - 
Doesn't sound positive to me.
Doesn't sound positive to me.
#19
Posted 27 November 2008 - 10:20 AM
Volunteer cache reviewers should receive karma points for each cache reviewed and published.
Forum moderators should receive karma points for each helpful answer provided and for each spammer stopped dead in their tracks.
There are lots of ways to accumulate good karma. Those are two which are important to me.
Forum moderators should receive karma points for each helpful answer provided and for each spammer stopped dead in their tracks.
There are lots of ways to accumulate good karma. Those are two which are important to me.
#21
Posted 27 November 2008 - 01:36 PM
The idea of a better (or more accurate) way to quantify true Caching Karma was discussed in this thread...
#22
Posted 27 November 2008 - 03:12 PM
kwikstix, on Nov 27 2008, 01:36 PM, said:
The idea of a better (or more accurate) way to quantify true Caching Karma was discussed in this thread...
Hmm. I didn't pay much attention to this thread. I didn't realize the whole concept of "caching karma" came from a GSAK macro. I think it's a horrible idea for a stat, and I'm a total stats geek. Personally, I'd rather douse myself in gasoline and light myself on fire than figure out my caching karma. That's probably just me though.
This post has been edited by TheWhiteUrkel: 27 November 2008 - 05:06 PM
#23
Posted 27 November 2008 - 04:52 PM
The Leprechauns, on Nov 27 2008, 10:20 AM, said:
Volunteer cache reviewers should receive karma points for each cache reviewed and published.
Forum moderators should receive karma points for each helpful answer provided and for each spammer stopped dead in their tracks.
There are lots of ways to accumulate good karma. Those are two which are important to me.
Forum moderators should receive karma points for each helpful answer provided and for each spammer stopped dead in their tracks.
There are lots of ways to accumulate good karma. Those are two which are important to me.
They should lose karma points for there actions too.
#24
Posted 27 November 2008 - 04:54 PM
Back on track with the thread. I came up with a 2.62 Karma. People who really know mean knows it is alot higher than that. 
#25
Posted 03 October 2009 - 07:45 PM
Well mine keeps going up and is at: 6.18 (4108/665) as of today
#27
Posted 03 October 2009 - 08:14 PM
We're talking about real numbers vs. imaginary numbers?!? I know something about that!:
To understand fractals, you need to understand complex numbers. Complex numbers are a way to put two coordinates (x,y) into one number with two parts. One is a real number, which is any regular number like 3, 8.5, or 12/45. The other is an imaginary number, which is defined as the square root of a negative number, and is characterized by i (defined as i^2=-1, therefore i=sqrt -1) times a coefficient.When you take a number and square it, it always becomes positive. So how do you take the square root of a negative number? You can't, that's why it's called imaginary. So, complex numbers are made up of a real number plus an imaginary number.
They make for some awesome picture graphics that allow for infinate zooming without decreasing detail: http://www.mandelbrotset.net/
Quote
To understand fractals, you need to understand complex numbers. Complex numbers are a way to put two coordinates (x,y) into one number with two parts. One is a real number, which is any regular number like 3, 8.5, or 12/45. The other is an imaginary number, which is defined as the square root of a negative number, and is characterized by i (defined as i^2=-1, therefore i=sqrt -1) times a coefficient.When you take a number and square it, it always becomes positive. So how do you take the square root of a negative number? You can't, that's why it's called imaginary. So, complex numbers are made up of a real number plus an imaginary number.
They make for some awesome picture graphics that allow for infinate zooming without decreasing detail: http://www.mandelbrotset.net/
#28
Posted 03 October 2009 - 08:46 PM
larry739, on Nov 24 2008, 06:31 PM, said:
I got started on this over in the geocoin forum but thought I would post it here too for those who just do the geocaching stuff and do not mess with geocoins.
My overriding philosophy is to acquire Positive Caching Karma. I have tried to place enough caches so that the number of finds on my caches is at least as great as the number of finds I have made on other people's caches. My Caching Karma is about 3.5. There have been 3.5 times as many finds on my caches by others as I have made on other people's caches.
In the final cache accounting this is the number that means the most to me.
Your caching karma is a measure of the joy you bring into the lives of others.
What is your Caching Karma? It takes some work to calculate it, if you own many caches. Just divide the number of finds people have logged on your caches by the number of finds you have logged on other people's caches. If the result is over 1.0 then you have positive caching karma.
I am curious to see what YOUR Caching Karma is.
Should you deduct for DNFs or count micros less than 1?
My overriding philosophy is to acquire Positive Caching Karma. I have tried to place enough caches so that the number of finds on my caches is at least as great as the number of finds I have made on other people's caches. My Caching Karma is about 3.5. There have been 3.5 times as many finds on my caches by others as I have made on other people's caches.
In the final cache accounting this is the number that means the most to me.
Your caching karma is a measure of the joy you bring into the lives of others.
What is your Caching Karma? It takes some work to calculate it, if you own many caches. Just divide the number of finds people have logged on your caches by the number of finds you have logged on other people's caches. If the result is over 1.0 then you have positive caching karma.
I am curious to see what YOUR Caching Karma is.
Should you deduct for DNFs or count micros less than 1?
This is fairly arbitrary. Should a skirt-lifter with 100s of finds be valued more then a cache at the end of a 4 mile hike with a few dozen finds? What about a challenging puzzle vs a "+1, -1" style? Value is not something we can define for others and without assigning value the concept is only useless... yet, perhaps still mildly amusing.
#29
Posted 03 October 2009 - 08:49 PM
The Karma of Caching I seek.
(There are metrics to judging a geek.)
Must my caching input
Match up with my output
Lest my destiny go all oblique?
I climbed to the top of the peak
And there, with the Guru, did speak:
"What is the true sound
Of a cache that’s unfound?"
He punched me right in the beak.
The secret to Karma I seek.
Is it Numbers? Contentment? Technique?
Don’t bother to ask
It’s a meaningless task
‘Cuz for each of us, it is unique.
(There are metrics to judging a geek.)
Must my caching input
Match up with my output
Lest my destiny go all oblique?
I climbed to the top of the peak
And there, with the Guru, did speak:
"What is the true sound
Of a cache that’s unfound?"
He punched me right in the beak.
The secret to Karma I seek.
Is it Numbers? Contentment? Technique?
Don’t bother to ask
It’s a meaningless task
‘Cuz for each of us, it is unique.
#30
Posted 03 October 2009 - 10:20 PM
Happily keeping the universe in check with 0.66363636363636363636363636363636
Yin and Yang baby, Yin and Yang.
Of course I'm referring to balancing out the karma over achievers trying to throw the universe into chaos with their...
Mightily Irritating Crap Repetitive Opportunity Scenarios
Yin and Yang baby, Yin and Yang.
Of course I'm referring to balancing out the karma over achievers trying to throw the universe into chaos with their...
Mightily Irritating Crap Repetitive Opportunity Scenarios
This post has been edited by Vater_Araignee: 04 October 2009 - 05:59 AM
#33
Posted 04 October 2009 - 11:27 AM
My caching karma is achieved by enhancing the lives of my fellow cachers, one memory at a time, not by calculating arbitrary, meaningless numbers. How you achieve your caching karma is entirely up to you. 
#34
Posted 04 October 2009 - 12:43 PM
Clan Riffster, on Oct 4 2009, 11:27 AM, said:
My caching karma is achieved by enhancing the lives of my fellow cachers, one memory at a time, not by calculating arbitrary, meaningless numbers. How you achieve your caching karma is entirely up to you.
This old thread bumped? I believe what it is, is one of the GSAK profile statistic macros calculates this "caching Karma". I don't know which one, I don't use them. I'd have to agree with most of the posters that it's a rather worthless statistic, and I have no idea where someone would even come up with the idea for it.
#35
Posted 04 October 2009 - 12:59 PM
TheWhiteUrkel, on Oct 4 2009, 12:43 PM, said:
Clan Riffster, on Oct 4 2009, 11:27 AM, said:
My caching karma is achieved by enhancing the lives of my fellow cachers, one memory at a time, not by calculating arbitrary, meaningless numbers. How you achieve your caching karma is entirely up to you.
This old thread bumped? I believe what it is, is one of the GSAK profile statistic macros calculates this "caching Karma". I don't know which one, I don't use them. I'd have to agree with most of the posters that it's a rather worthless statistic, and I have no idea where someone would even come up with the idea for it.
Just seems like somebody tried to come up with a cute name for find to found ratio.
Just another metric to track.
FindStatGen3 for GSAK skews the ratio because it does not include finds on your archived caches.
Well, I haven't been able to figure out how to make it count finds on archived anyway.
#36
Posted 04 October 2009 - 03:02 PM
Being one of Larry's multiple cache customers, I know all about his karma spree. Ours is 1.45, not too bad. Just one questions Larry, how do you come up with some of your names?
#37
Posted 04 October 2009 - 03:52 PM
Vater_Araignee, on Oct 4 2009, 01:59 PM, said:
FindStatGen3 for GSAK skews the ratio because it does not include finds on your archived caches.
Well, I haven't been able to figure out how to make it count finds on archived anyway.
Well, I haven't been able to figure out how to make it count finds on archived anyway.Are your archived cache in your default database? If it is, and it's still not showing upt, set the attribute to not archived.
Anyway, mathematically there is no way for that number to be negative. I was going to post something about imaginary numbers but knowschad beat me to it
#38
Posted 04 October 2009 - 06:43 PM
briansnat, on Nov 24 2008, 08:56 PM, said:
The idea that finds on your caches vs. your finds equals any kind of karma is kind of silly.
First, it doesn't take into consideration positive things like working with land managers to promote geocaching, helping fellow cachers with maintenance, maintaining your own caches, volunteering to help at events, trading up, helping novices in the forums, participating in CITO and numerous other positive ways a geocacher can contribute to the sport without hiding a cache.
Second, that system punishes those who hide caches with challenging terrain, difficult puzzles and other entertaining caches that don't get a lot of finds because they aren't quick smileys.
There really is no formula you can use to quantify "caching karma". Your fellow local geocachers know who has it and who doesn't.
First, it doesn't take into consideration positive things like working with land managers to promote geocaching, helping fellow cachers with maintenance, maintaining your own caches, volunteering to help at events, trading up, helping novices in the forums, participating in CITO and numerous other positive ways a geocacher can contribute to the sport without hiding a cache.
Second, that system punishes those who hide caches with challenging terrain, difficult puzzles and other entertaining caches that don't get a lot of finds because they aren't quick smileys.
There really is no formula you can use to quantify "caching karma". Your fellow local geocachers know who has it and who doesn't.
DocDiTTo, on Nov 25 2008, 09:37 PM, said:
Briansnat hit the nail on the head. Measuring your finds against the number of people who have found your caches does nothing (except provide the basis for yet another meaningless number)
Of my twenty or so hides there are two which I consider to be my very best. One of them has been out for a year and has been found 46 times. The other has been out for 3 years and has been found 74 times. The logs on those 2 caches speak for themselves, and I've really enjoyed reading of the adventures people have had finding them. Each has taken people out of their comfort zone and encouraged them to push boundaries and face limits many of them didn't even realize they had.
I could slap a magnetic key holder on a guardrail along a busy road and get 100 finds in a month. According to this "caching karma" math, that one guardrail cache would give me a much better karma than both my 2 best hides combined - yet no one would even remember that cache a week after finding it.
As my tag line says - numbers are pointless but memories are priceless. "Caching Karma" is just another pointless number. I'd much rather people take home memories of an exceptional and unique experience when they hunt my caches. Putting smiles on peoples faces - now that's karma.
Of my twenty or so hides there are two which I consider to be my very best. One of them has been out for a year and has been found 46 times. The other has been out for 3 years and has been found 74 times. The logs on those 2 caches speak for themselves, and I've really enjoyed reading of the adventures people have had finding them. Each has taken people out of their comfort zone and encouraged them to push boundaries and face limits many of them didn't even realize they had.
I could slap a magnetic key holder on a guardrail along a busy road and get 100 finds in a month. According to this "caching karma" math, that one guardrail cache would give me a much better karma than both my 2 best hides combined - yet no one would even remember that cache a week after finding it.
As my tag line says - numbers are pointless but memories are priceless. "Caching Karma" is just another pointless number. I'd much rather people take home memories of an exceptional and unique experience when they hunt my caches. Putting smiles on peoples faces - now that's karma.
X10
The only "karma" which I don't buy that (garbage anyway) is that my caches generate positive, well written logs from cachers who enjoyed finding my caches. If I gave a Rat's patootie about "karma" relating to finds on my caches versus my total finds, I would fill every shopping center with easy access, super lame "power trail, lamppost caches."
#39
Posted 05 October 2009 - 06:44 PM
Actually, if you really wanted to use the OP's formula for calculating karma (which most of us seem not to)
Then you'll really have to include every week your cache goes without maintenance when someone requests maintenance on it as negative points.
Also, negative points for every time you've gotten DNF's on your cache for one month straight without checking on it.
Major negative points for every six months it's disabled without you doing anything about it.
Of course then, we all know you get postive karma points for trading fairly, moving bugs along quickly, and practicing CITO.
Then you'll get points for contributing to the community in other ways, such as creating CITO events (mega points) and being volunteer moderators and reviewers.
And I do agree caches with more value to the community get more points, while roadside micros have to bring you negative points. Any micros next to garbage areas are double negatives, while ammo cans at beautiful places people didn't know about bring you quadruple points.
Man this is just getting too complicated for me to relate all the numbers to you.
I guess I'll just have to know in my heart what my real rating is.
Then you'll really have to include every week your cache goes without maintenance when someone requests maintenance on it as negative points.
Also, negative points for every time you've gotten DNF's on your cache for one month straight without checking on it.
Major negative points for every six months it's disabled without you doing anything about it.
Of course then, we all know you get postive karma points for trading fairly, moving bugs along quickly, and practicing CITO.
Then you'll get points for contributing to the community in other ways, such as creating CITO events (mega points) and being volunteer moderators and reviewers.
And I do agree caches with more value to the community get more points, while roadside micros have to bring you negative points. Any micros next to garbage areas are double negatives, while ammo cans at beautiful places people didn't know about bring you quadruple points.
Man this is just getting too complicated for me to relate all the numbers to you.
I guess I'll just have to know in my heart what my real rating is.
#41
Posted 06 October 2009 - 07:01 AM
Chrysalides, on Oct 4 2009, 03:52 PM, said:
Vater_Araignee, on Oct 4 2009, 01:59 PM, said:
FindStatGen3 for GSAK skews the ratio because it does not include finds on your archived caches.
Well, I haven't been able to figure out how to make it count finds on archived anyway.
Well, I haven't been able to figure out how to make it count finds on archived anyway.Are your archived cache in your default database? If it is, and it's still not showing upt, set the attribute to not archived.
Anyway, mathematically there is no way for that number to be negative. I was going to post something about imaginary numbers but knowschad beat me to it
Nope, they aren't but I don't use my default database for my generation. I use a MyFinds and MyHides because it will let you check against 2 databases.
"set the attribute to not archived." is there a smiley for smacking ones self in the forehead?
#42
Posted 06 October 2009 - 08:44 AM
So, let me get all of this straight.
The theory here is that, for example, this cache with 198 finds "brings me more karma" than this cache with 18 finds?
I'm not convinced that's the kind of karma I really care about.
Fine. I've computed my "karma." It is 1.71. Uh... once again I find myself wondering "so what?"
As others have already pointed out, from my very limited geocaching experience, the kind of "karma" as suggested here is the kind that net many micros in less-than-interesting places (just because a location can have a cache doesn't mean that it should have a cache), caches that have a lot of DNFs before the cache is verified by the owner, caches that are "replaced" before they are ever found, and finally caches that finally do get verified as "missing" are never replaced, just archived.
Based upon my observations (again, albeit rather limited experience compared to some), I'm not sure this "karma" number has anything to do with true karma. Might as well just call it ratio of "number of finds on my caches to the number of finds which I've made."
The theory here is that, for example, this cache with 198 finds "brings me more karma" than this cache with 18 finds?
I'm not convinced that's the kind of karma I really care about.
Fine. I've computed my "karma." It is 1.71. Uh... once again I find myself wondering "so what?"
As others have already pointed out, from my very limited geocaching experience, the kind of "karma" as suggested here is the kind that net many micros in less-than-interesting places (just because a location can have a cache doesn't mean that it should have a cache), caches that have a lot of DNFs before the cache is verified by the owner, caches that are "replaced" before they are ever found, and finally caches that finally do get verified as "missing" are never replaced, just archived.
Based upon my observations (again, albeit rather limited experience compared to some), I'm not sure this "karma" number has anything to do with true karma. Might as well just call it ratio of "number of finds on my caches to the number of finds which I've made."
#43
- Let's keep it fun!
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 3949
- Joined: 06-March 04
Posted 06 October 2009 - 12:04 PM
3.65 (known to be low)
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1