+vj24 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I wouldn't mind having the website to enable you to lookup and sort users with the most finds by the country and the state they reside in. It would be interesting to see where I rank among users nationally and in my own state. Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Try this link The methodology used to create that list is questionable, to say the least. People who predominantly hunt caches in rural areas will be underrepresented. Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 People who predominantly hunt caches in rural areas will be underrepresented. If someone in a rural area has 4000 finds but someone in an urban area has 3998, they will still be listed higher. Link to comment
+TheAprilFools Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Try this link The methodology used to create that list is questionable, to say the least. People who predominantly hunt caches in rural areas will be underrepresented. Hard to make that judgement between the weight of urban vs rural caches. Now if in addition to total finds, they had a sum or average of the difficulty factors you would get a better picture. Link to comment
+Moose Mob Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 And factor in the number of available local caches. Actually, I wiould like to see a list of cachers sorted in sequence of who is having the most fun. Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 People who predominantly hunt caches in rural areas will be underrepresented. If someone in a rural area has 4000 finds but someone in an urban area has 3998, they will still be listed higher. Not necessarily. Rural cachers are less likely to hit his "target caches", so their count will lag behind (as far as being current and correct) those more likely to hit those caches. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 People who predominantly hunt caches in rural areas will be underrepresented. If someone in a rural area has 4000 finds but someone in an urban area has 3998, they will still be listed higher. Not necessarily. Rural cachers are less likely to hit his "target caches", so their count will lag behind (as far as being current and correct) those more likely to hit those caches. According to my understanding, his target caches are ones that get logged often. It doesn't matter who logs the target cache, the statistics for all previous finders will get updated. However, rural cacher will likely have found fewer target caches. So there is a good chance that the statistics of rural cachers may not get updated as often as someone who lives in an area with several target caches. This is also true for cachers who avoid doing many 1/1 caches. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Additionally, that site only lists those cachers who haven't opted-out. It only includes the finds listed on gc.com, i.e. not finds from other sites or finds not logged. Any leader board would be a good guess at best. Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Any leader board would be a good guess at best. Any "leader" board would be misleading and counterproductive. And, I will add, offensive. To me, anyway. I applaud Jeremy et al. for resisting the pressure to include such nonsense on this site. Link to comment
+geognerd Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I'm wondering if the site linked by Miragee will cease to update once the (### found) is removed from next to a cacher's name in the logs. I'm guessing the Grand High Pobah site pulls that bit of text to get the find count for a cacher. Link to comment
+flask Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Any leader board would be a good guess at best. Any "leader" board would be misleading and counterproductive. And, I will add, offensive. To me, anyway. I applaud Jeremy et al. for resisting the pressure to include such nonsense on this site. hear, hear! (i'm not on that list. i giggle.) Link to comment
+JDandDD Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Any "leader" board would be misleading and counterproductive. And, I will add, offensive. To me, anyway. I applaud Jeremy et al. for resisting the pressure to include such nonsense on this site. Absolutely right!! And add my applause! JDandDD Link to comment
Recommended Posts