Change History
Moderators will move threads from "Checker requests" into this forum after a while when it has been decided that the challenge checker isn't possible for one or another reason. The threads should not be moved right away. The challenge owner should have a chance to adjust his requirements if that helps.
Changed By: sumbloke
Change Date: August 11, 2016 06:35AM
Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5
Okay, that is what I first thought you meant and would definitely not be allowed. For example, another 2500 1.5/1.5 caches without any other finds would drop the product below 5, so it's discouraging finding the more common D/T rated caches.
The other two interpretations I came up with would both result in a value of 3 * 3 = 9 for someone who has filled the matrix, but would differ in how they are calculated for someone with an incomplete matrix. For example, my own matrix:
[code]
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.0 41 43 16 2 2 3 . . 1 108
1.5 22 291 81 26 5 1 2 . . 428
2.0 23 114 244 50 22 5 1 . 1 460
2.5 8 62 30 19 15 1 . 1 1 137
3.0 6 30 31 7 14 1 3 . . 92
3.5 1 12 9 5 1 1 1 1 . 31
4.0 5 3 4 2 1 1 . . . 16
4.5 . . 2 1 1 . . . . 4
5.0 . 1 . . . . . 1 . 2
106 556 417 112 61 13 7 3 3 1278
[/code]
Interpretation (1) would be that I treat all of the non-zero cells as 1 and calculate the averages that way. At the moment, my averages would come out to 2.67 and 2.64, multiplying to just over 7. Because I have all of the cells with both attributes 3.5 or lower filled, I can't lower either average without increasing the other, so I don't have any disincentive to find any particular cache with this interpretation. Most cachers with more than 100 finds will have filled most of the low D/T boxes, so this [i]may[/i] be interpreted as positive criteria.
Interpretation (2) would be that, since I have at least one of each difficulty and at least one of each terrain covered, I get the average of 3 that I would for filling the matrix.
Another example with smaller numbers so it might be easier to see where the numbers come from:
[code]
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.0 1 1
1.5 4 1 5
2.0 1 1 6 1 2 11
2.5 1 1
3.0 0
3.5 1 1
4.0 0
4.5 0
5.0 0
1 5 7 1 2 3 0 0 0 19
[/code]
Original interpretation: 1.92 * 2.18 = 4.1856
Interpretation 1: 2.0 * 2.4 = 4.8
Interpretation 2: 2.1 * 2.25 = 4.725
Original Message
Author: sumbloke
Date: August 11, 2016 06:33AM
Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5
Okay, that is what I first thought you meant and would definitely not be allowed. For example, another 2500 1.5/1.5 caches without any other finds would drop the product below 5, so it's discouraging finding the more common D/T rated caches.
The other two interpretations I came up with would both result in a value of 3 * 3 = 9 for someone who has filled the matrix, but would differ in how they are calculated for someone with an incomplete matrix. For example, my own matrix:
[code]
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.0 41 43 16 2 2 3 . . 1 108
1.5 22 291 81 26 5 1 2 . . 428
2.0 23 114 244 50 22 5 1 . 1 460
2.5 8 62 30 19 15 1 . 1 1 137
3.0 6 30 31 7 14 1 3 . . 92
3.5 1 12 9 5 1 1 1 1 . 31
4.0 5 3 4 2 1 1 . . . 16
4.5 . . 2 1 1 . . . . 4
5.0 . 1 . . . . . 1 . 2
106 556 417 112 61 13 7 3 3 1278
[/code]
Interpretation (1) would be that I treat all of the non-zero cells as 1 and calculate the averages that way. At the moment, my averages would come out to 2.67 and 2.64, multiplying to just over 7. Because I have all of the cells with both attributes 3.5 or lower filled, I can't lower either average without increasing the other, so I don't have any disincentive to find any particular cache with this interpretation. Most cachers with more than 100 finds will have filled most of the low D/T boxes, so this [i]may[/i] be interpreted as positive criteria.
Interpretation (2) would be that, since I have at least one of each difficulty and at least one of each terrain covered, I get the average of 3 that I would for filling the matrix.
Another example with smaller numbers so it might be easier to see where the numbers come from:
[code]
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.0 1 1
1.5 4 1 5
2.0 1 1 6 1 2 11
2.5 1 1
3.0 0
3.5 1 1
4.0 0
4.5 0
5.0 0
1 5 7 1 2 3 0 0 0 19
[/code]
Original interpretation: 1.92 * 2.18 = 4.1856
Interpretation 1: 2.0 * 2.4 = 4.8
Interpretation 2: 2.1 * 2.25 = 4.725