Thanks for pointing me to the discussion about "favorite points / number of owned caches".
I understand your point of view (which is also Groundspeak's in regards of the challenge guidelines) that such a list would not promote hiding caches but I do not agree! Perhaps such a list would encourage cache owners to not only hide a new cache but even more hide an interesting cache?
And that's exactly my personal(!) goal when I'm on the road and I've got time for just one quick finding. If you, "target.", would have a honorable Wilson score as an owner and I remembered that fact when I'm in touch of one of your caches looking at my app, I probably would give it a try. When I never heard about the owner, the cache has no other interesting attributes, listing etc. I would probably decide to not go for any cache at all and stay with my family.
We have millions of caches without a single fp - so do you really think that owners might get discouraged by _any_ owner quality indicator? :o ;)
For me a highly rated cache is a good target while for another person a spot with many caches is the preferrable target. All ways of playing the game are fine with me. My question is not about the "better" owner. Every owner is a good owner since he supports the game. For me he's doing his job even better when he takes care of his cache for not just hiding it but keep it maintained (even without a favorite point).
As long as we accept fps in general and provide such Wilson and fp lists (beside others) to make it easier for people to find their individual cache targets or preferred spots they want to go for, I don't understand why that should be negative at once for owner lists?
Good measurement? We all would agree that the Wilson list does show way better results than the top list with just total number of fp, don't we? I don't see why a cache owner should get more frustrated by a Wilson owner list than he already might get frustrated by the top list with total number of fps, total number of received logs or images received etc.? We already have a fp list for owners - so why not use the better measurement?
> It can be reformulated that averaging wilson on all caches would discourage publication of new caches by someone to keep a high score.
That's absolutely fine with me if this owner decides to not hide an additional cache just to keep his ranking - though I think's it's more likely that he would take the success from the first cache as a motivation for building another great new cache! 3 millions of geocaches and you're worried about losing a new hiding? ;)
But I don't want to insist on that suggestion...though I don't agree to the reason why you declined it.
P.S.: Just as a follow up for Ganja and his example of 2 cache owners with one cache: Wilson top list is just showing caches with more than 10 fps. One easy thing could help in Ganja's example: Just show owners with at least 2 or more hidden caches...but I would be fine with showing all owners.