This has been covered before, but I want to formalize it a bit and clarify some things.
Geocaches will receive points based on age.
A cache's total points will be 100 * (number of days old) / 365.25. Essentially, a cache will receive 100 points for each year it is old.
A cache's score will be its total points divided by the number of finders. If there are no finders, the cache's score will be it's total points.
The number of finders for a geocache may not be the same as shown on Geocaching.com. The number of finds may vary because:
Find logs by the geocache owner will not be counted.
When duplicate finds are logged by a geocacher, only the first log will be counted.
Find logs from specific geocachers may not be counted. For example, this would be for a geocacher that isn't a person, but is someone's pet. This situation should be very rare and will be managed on a case by case basis.
When I say, "not counted," in reality, we will be deleting those logs from the database.
Some oddities may occur because of the way we are counting the number of finds and deleting duplicate logs. Here are a few I can think of:
A duplicate find log may show up in the database and be viewable on the website, but will be deleted before the geocache's points are next updated.
If a cache owner logged a find, and then later, transferred ownership to another, then his/her find log will not be in the database until it is retrieved from Geocaching.com. This will eventually happen but it may be several months.
If a cache has only been found once and then adopted by that finder, then the cache will appear to never have been found and the new cache owner will not receive any points for the cache until it is found by someone else.
All duplicate find logs will be deleted except the earliest find log entered in Geocaching.com. This is done by the log's ID, not by the log date. This means it is possible, though not likely, that the log for the earliest find may be deleted.
All geocachers that have found a cache will have that geocache's score added to their point totals for the appropriate leader boards. Geocache owners will also have their geocaches' scores added to their point totals for the appropriate leader boards. Geocache owners will not receive points for one of his/her geocaches unless that cache has at least one finder.
What about a cacher that has logged a find, but never visited the site. I have 1 cacher in mind that has never deleted his "finds". I even went back and visited 10+caches that we mutually had "found" and I have never seen his name on a logbook. do we just give you the name and he will be deleted from the system?
cdsoccer7 wrote:What about a cacher that has logged a find, but never visited the site. I have 1 cacher in mind that has never deleted his "finds". I even went back and visited 10+caches that we mutually had "found" and I have never seen his name on a logbook. do we just give you the name and he will be deleted from the system?
No, this site will not become an arbitrater for what is or is not a valid find. This is an issue between the cacher and the cache owner and possibly Geocaching.com.
Corfman Clan wrote:A cache's total points will be 100 * (number of days old) / 365.25. Essentially, a cache will receive 100 points for each year it is old.
Putting on my Geek Glasses for a quick moment
Just a quick note that using 365.2425 would be a slightly more accurate number to use on the calculation to help a little on covering leap days. You can read a little more about this by visiting Wikipedia's write up on the Gregorian Calender.
Taking the Geek Glasses off now
This is just my two quick cents on the formula. I'm not going to raise hell about it though.
Corfman Clan wrote:A cache's total points will be 100 * (number of days old) / 365.25. Essentially, a cache will receive 100 points for each year it is old.
Putting on my Geek Glasses for a quick moment
Just a quick note that using 365.2425 would be a slightly more accurate number to use on the calculation to help a little on covering leap days. You can read a little more about this by visiting Wikipedia's write up on the Gregorian Calender.
Taking the Geek Glasses off now
This is just my two quick cents on the formula. I'm not going to raise hell about it though.
I have enough trouble planning a year ahead, much less for my retirement. I can't imagine planning beyond that
mojave_rattler wrote:
Putting on my Geek Glasses for a quick moment
Just a quick note that using 365.2425 would be a slightly more accurate number to use on the calculation to help a little on covering leap days. You can read a little more about this by visiting Wikipedia's write up on the Gregorian Calender.
Taking the Geek Glasses off now
This is just my two quick cents on the formula. I'm not going to raise hell about it though.
Ahem ,
The rule of leap years in the Gregorian Calendar is this:
If a year is divisible by 4, it's a leap year...
...Except when the year is divisible by 100, then it is not a leap year
......Except when the year is divisible by 400, then it is a leap year.
So, between 01 Mar 1900 and 28 Feb 2100, it should (I say with all due hesitation) be quite safe to use 365.25 days per year. If any of us are too worried about the upcoming Y2K1C Leap Day bug in an algorithm to compute "Point Values" in a silly game that will probably be obsolete by the turn of the 22nd Century, maybe there are other issues that person should be dealing with (with professional help, of course).
Corfman Clan wrote:A cache's total points will be 100 * (number of days old) / 365.25. Essentially, a cache will receive 100 points for each year it is old.
Putting on my Geek Glasses for a quick moment
Just a quick note that using 365.2425 would be a slightly more accurate number to use on the calculation to help a little on covering leap days... Taking the Geek Glasses off now
Just want to note that using 365.25 means a cache's score will be acccurate once every four years throughout the rest of our lives, whereas using 365.2425 won't be accurate even once. So which one is more accurate?
Seriously, the main reason we're using 365.25 instead of 365 is because the site is about lonely caches and lonely caches should end up existing for four years or more. If the lifespan of a cache is less than four years, then using 365.25 really doesn't add a whole lot. The only reason to use 365.2425 would be if the expected lifespan of a cache is 400 years or more and that just isn't practical to consider.
One thing that doesn’t appear to be describe anywhere is this…. What makes a cache a “Backcountry” cache? I’ve asked via these forums, via direct messaging the site manager, via talking verbally to several other Geocachers. No one knows and/or will reply if they do know. I think this definition is pertinent to anyone that follows this site.
Green Achers wrote: ↑August 17th, 2024, 11:06 am
One thing that doesn’t appear to be describe anywhere is this…. What makes a cache a “Backcountry” cache? I’ve asked via these forums, via direct messaging the site manager, via talking verbally to several other Geocachers. No one knows and/or will reply if they do know. I think this definition is pertinent to anyone that follows this site.
Well, I am the person running this site, and I didn't see any messages sent directly to me. I have tried answering this previously. As far as LonelyCache is concerned, the Backcountry boards just track the highest point caches for that region found by the cacher in question. In general, higher point caches tend to be located in the backcountry. They may actually be in the front country, it just depends. For example, a difficult puzzle cache, located in an urban area may not get a lot of finds, even though it is easy to get to. As I previously mentioned, for a cache to be considered for backcountry boards, it must be worth at least five points. It doesn't matter if it is actually located in the backcountry or not. Thanks for asking.
For point of reference, this is described in the Knowledge Book, discussing the Backcountry Leader Boards.
Putting on my Geek Glasses for a quick moment 
