[Cancelled] Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 10, 2016 06:54AM |
Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 78 |

Hi Guys,

is it possible to check, if the average T-Score multiplied by the average D-Score is GE 5?

I think, that's no problem ;).

Greetings, Stefan

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2016 06:55AM by Maxipimpf. (view changes)

is it possible to check, if the average T-Score multiplied by the average D-Score is GE 5?

I think, that's no problem ;).

Greetings, Stefan

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2016 06:55AM by Maxipimpf. (view changes)

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 10, 2016 09:04AM |
ModeratorRegistered: 6 years ago Posts: 1,806 |

Average D and T ratings are not allowed for challenge conditions under guideline 14. This is because it discourages finding caches with low ratings.

That said, it would definitely be possible to create a checker if it was allowed.

When you do come up with different challenge conditions, please include your GC code for the challenge cache. This is required for a checker to available for that cache.

That said, it would definitely be possible to create a checker if it was allowed.

When you do come up with different challenge conditions, please include your GC code for the challenge cache. This is required for a checker to available for that cache.

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 10, 2016 06:14PM |
Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 78 |

Quote

Average D and T ratings are not allowed for challenge conditions under guideline 14. This is because it discourages finding caches with low ratings.

I do not think this is so. On the contrary, the average of the D and T ratings is in each case 3 ((1 + 5) / 2 = 3), which would results in a product of 3 * 3 = 9...

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 10, 2016 06:34PM |
ModeratorRegistered: 6 years ago Posts: 659 |

I would argue that is against the guideline.

guideline 14. Positive Challenge Criteria Not Acceptable

It is easy to show that the challenge punish you for low DT finds.

For example if you have only one find with DT 2/2 you have a average of the same and the product is 4 so you need a high DT find. A 2/3 find would make your avreagera 2/2.5 and you will meet the requirement,

But you walks by a 1/1 on the way to the 2/3 cache. If you would also log it you avrage would be 1.666/2 with a product of 3.33333 and you will not meet the requirements.

That show that you are punished for the 1/1 log and therefor it is against the guideline

But feel free to submit the challenge to a reviewer and ask if it is ok.

Please post the response here

guideline 14. Positive Challenge Criteria Not Acceptable

Quote

Not finding caches: design that limits or punishes any element of finding caches. Examples: Challenges that require ratios in finds; such as 10% of finds must be Attended logs, challenges that require finding only some particular type for over time, as 100 consecutive Mystery finds.

It is easy to show that the challenge punish you for low DT finds.

For example if you have only one find with DT 2/2 you have a average of the same and the product is 4 so you need a high DT find. A 2/3 find would make your avreagera 2/2.5 and you will meet the requirement,

But you walks by a 1/1 on the way to the 2/3 cache. If you would also log it you avrage would be 1.666/2 with a product of 3.33333 and you will not meet the requirements.

That show that you are punished for the 1/1 log and therefor it is against the guideline

But feel free to submit the challenge to a reviewer and ask if it is ok.

Please post the response here

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 10, 2016 06:41PM |
Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 78 |

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 11, 2016 02:09AM |
ModeratorRegistered: 6 years ago Posts: 1,806 |

When I read your post, I interpreted it as talking about the averages over all finds, which for most people is under 2. That would certainly not be allowed under guideline 14.

I suggest you try to clearly articulate the challenge condition when you put it to a reviewer. Even now that I realise that you're talking about the matrix, I can see two different interpretations: the average D/T of the cells filled in the matrix or the average of difficulties/terrains found

I suggest you try to clearly articulate the challenge condition when you put it to a reviewer. Even now that I realise that you're talking about the matrix, I can see two different interpretations: the average D/T of the cells filled in the matrix or the average of difficulties/terrains found

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 11, 2016 05:51AM |
Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 78 |

Yes, I thought about interpretation (2), see here:

.

What would be interpretation (1)?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 05:52AM by Maxipimpf. (view changes)

.

What would be interpretation (1)?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 05:52AM by Maxipimpf. (view changes)

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 11, 2016 06:33AM |
ModeratorRegistered: 6 years ago Posts: 1,806 |

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:

*may* 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:

Interpretation 1: 2.0 * 2.4 = 4.8

Interpretation 2: 2.1 * 2.25 = 4.725

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 06:35AM by sumbloke. (view changes)

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:

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 1278Interpretation (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

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:

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 19Original interpretation: 1.92 * 2.18 = 4.1856

Interpretation 1: 2.0 * 2.4 = 4.8

Interpretation 2: 2.1 * 2.25 = 4.725

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2016 06:35AM by sumbloke. (view changes)

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 August 11, 2016 12:47PM |
ModeratorRegistered: 6 years ago Posts: 659 |

I suspect that Interpretation 1 and Interpretation 2 is not allowed

Guideline 14 could be

If there is a case where finding any cache can reduce your progress of meeting the requirements the challenge is not allowed.

My example above would still be an example of being punished for finding a cache.

You reformulation of average of find D values is almost trivial compared to the original request.

I have meet you version but need to find 486 5/5 caches to get an avg(D)*avg(T) product of 5

To illustrate why the challenge punish for low DT finds I would only need 348 find if I hade not taken a powertrail of 520 1.5/1.5 cacheces in a day

You ned a 5 find for every 3.75 1.5 find to get you average to sqrt(5)

The Interpretation 1 and Interpretation 2 could be changed rewritten to that the sum of you found D values should be a value since that is in practice almost the same and is allowed.

A simpler challenge formulation that i have logged a challenge with is that you have to find all D values and all T values

But they trivial compared to the original requies.

The closes version that I can think of right now is that the D sum of caches with D>3.5(or something else) should be greater then some value and the same for T.

That require finds with high D and/or T but dont punish for low values.

Another version is that you shall have a avg(D)*avg(T) product of 5 for 1000(example) find. Any of your find can be used but require high D and T find. With an extra condition of that you have to have 1000 finds.

Then you are not punished for finding extra low DT caches.

But i am not sure that it is trivial to code a checker that test that.

Guideline 14 could be

If there is a case where finding any cache can reduce your progress of meeting the requirements the challenge is not allowed.

My example above would still be an example of being punished for finding a cache.

You reformulation of average of find D values is almost trivial compared to the original request.

I have meet you version but need to find 486 5/5 caches to get an avg(D)*avg(T) product of 5

To illustrate why the challenge punish for low DT finds I would only need 348 find if I hade not taken a powertrail of 520 1.5/1.5 cacheces in a day

You ned a 5 find for every 3.75 1.5 find to get you average to sqrt(5)

The Interpretation 1 and Interpretation 2 could be changed rewritten to that the sum of you found D values should be a value since that is in practice almost the same and is allowed.

A simpler challenge formulation that i have logged a challenge with is that you have to find all D values and all T values

But they trivial compared to the original requies.

The closes version that I can think of right now is that the D sum of caches with D>3.5(or something else) should be greater then some value and the same for T.

That require finds with high D and/or T but dont punish for low values.

Another version is that you shall have a avg(D)*avg(T) product of 5 for 1000(example) find. Any of your find can be used but require high D and T find. With an extra condition of that you have to have 1000 finds.

Then you are not punished for finding extra low DT caches.

But i am not sure that it is trivial to code a checker that test that.

Re: Matrix-Checker D*T >= 5 October 19, 2016 02:03PM |
ModeratorRegistered: 6 years ago Posts: 17,866 |

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.