It's Not About the Numbers!

1.8k · October 30, 2006

Yes, it's Yet Another Geocaching Stat Compiler, but with cross-platform goodness!

There's a few good stat programs out there, but the problem is, the available binaries are Windows-only, so I wanted to create something web-based, that anyone could use, Mac, Windows, or Linux. I give you:

It's Not About The Numbers!

To use it, you must be a Premium Member, because you need to generate the "My Finds" query. Go to the PQ generation page and click on this button:

to have your query sent to you. You can generate this query once per week. Please don't try to use any other GPX file, including GSAK exports, LOC files, or other PQs.

Take the zip file you receive and upload it directly into the site above. You don't need to decompress it. It will go through your finds and calculate various stats for you, generate some pretty graphs, and figure out what countries, US states, Canadian provinces, and even which US counties you've cached in!

The hard work of writing the code to parse GPX files is done. Figuring out the different stats is pretty easy, so if you have an idea for a stat that's not listed (but can be calculated from the information provided in the GPX file), please let me know! Hint: FtF information is not available in the GPX file, so I can't display that.

I know interest in geocaching stats ranges from "zero" to "mildly curious" to "obsessive". If you're in this first group, this site is probably not for you, although you may still be interested in the county map. If you're in the other two groups, please give it a try!

Edited October 30, 2006 by The Cheeseheads

38.2k · October 30, 2006

Before I go through the trouble, how is this different from Cachestats or Fizzymagic's apps?

1.8k · October 30, 2006

Before I go through the trouble, how is this different from Cachestats or Fizzymagic's apps?

The biggest difference is that it's web-based, so you don't have to install separate software to use it.

The second biggest difference is since it exists where it is and not just on your own computer, I can do things like mash everyone's stats together to show how yours compares to the average of everyone else's.

The third is mine has some pretty charts and graphs available.

Stat-wise, there's probably not a whole lot of difference. Most of the basic stats are duplicated over all three. Fizzy's has that sweet centroid calculation that I'm not going to attempt to duplicate. Cachestats does the thing with "Favorites" and attempts to figure out your FtF stats.

My biggest unique thing is the county calculations and the county map.

October 30, 2006

I changed the filename when I downloaded it last, so it won't work for me. I think I broke it.

1.8k · October 30, 2006

I changed the filename when I downloaded it last, so it won't work for me. I think I broke it.

It's not broken. Just try it again, but use the zip file sent to you as-is.

3k · October 30, 2006

I thought the GC.com TOU prohibits us from uploading GPX files to other sites or from emailing them elsewhere, but maybe my interpretation of the TOU is incorrect.

1.8k · October 30, 2006

I thought the GC.com TOU prohibits us from uploading GPX files to other sites or from emailing them elsewhere, but maybe my interpretation of the TOU is incorrect.

I'll assume you're talking about this:

Licensee shall not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, lend, assign, time-share, or transfer, in whole or in part, or provide unlicensed third parties access to the Data, Related Materials, any updates, or Licensee's rights under this Agreement.

Nobody has access to the GPX file. The site will look at the file, pick out the data it needs to generate the stats, then the GPX file is gone. The only data available to view is the compiled stats. I've taken care to be sure that proprietary information, such as the cache description, log text, etc. is ignored. There's no way to regenerate my own GPX files from the uploaded data. I'm also not making any attempts to display cache locations, a la Buxley's maps.

I did look at this beforehand, and determined that I'm not violating the TOS. The site does the same thing as Findstats or Cachestats, it just exists as a Web-based app instead of a Windows-based app, which I admit, does make things a little fuzzy.

October 30, 2006

I thought the GC.com TOU prohibits us from uploading GPX files to other sites or from emailing them elsewhere, but maybe my interpretation of the TOU is incorrect.

I looked through some of the existing ones and I think it looks promising (I like the graphs) but I will wait for CTD's question regarding the TOU to be answered before I submit my own file.

9.1k · October 30, 2006

I thought the GC.com TOU prohibits us from uploading GPX files to other sites or from emailing them elsewhere, but maybe my interpretation of the TOU is incorrect.

I looked through some of the existing ones and I think it looks promising (I like the graphs) but I will wait for CTD's question regarding the TOU to be answered before I submit my own file.

Ditto that. A GPX pocket query file using the Groundspeak namespace features is being transferred to a third party, and the data derived therefrom is being shared on a website for viewing by others.

By analogy, when I recently set up a DeLorme Challenge cache, I asked about the propriety of having finders send their "All Finds" pocket query file to the cache owner for the purpose of verifying their eligible finds. I was told that this was not permitted. How is this file transfer and analysis any different?

3.9k · October 30, 2006

I really like the counties map. That is a lot more descriptive of "where" a person has been caching.

The only place I saw to find the date of my uploaded file was in the "List cachers" area. It would be great to have that more visible.

I also feel that listing names on the "list cachers' should be optional. Perhaps a check box. Then either the name would be excluded from the list or replaced with "anonymous"

Home town/ home coordinates. I would like to be able to compare my stats to others in my area. This is due to the terain differences I have seen. In our area, a 2.5 would be rated as a 4 in a less rugged part of the world.

1.8k · October 30, 2006

Ditto that. A GPX pocket query file using the Groundspeak namespace features is being transferred to a third party, and the data derived therefrom is being shared on a website for viewing by others.

As far as displaying the derived data, is this any different from displaying data derived via any other software?

5.3k · October 30, 2006

I think it's cool to see a new application for doing stats from All Finds Pocket Queries. I'm especially intrigued by the counties thing, as that is something I have been thinking about adding to Findstats, along with an automated way to get lists of caches found in Delorme pages.

One minor correction, though, to the OP: my program, FindStats, is not Windows only. It runs under Linux and MacOS as well, though you have to compile it yourself for those platforms. I haven't put all the pieces together on the main FindStats page, though, as I didn't know there was much interest. But I would be glad to do so.

1.8k · October 30, 2006

I really like the counties map. That is a lot more descriptive of "where" a person has been caching.

The only place I saw to find the date of my uploaded file was in the "List cachers" area. It would be great to have that more visible.

Once that list gets really big, I'll probably implement a way to pare it down a bit, such as by clicking on a letter of the alphabet.

I also feel that listing names on the "list cachers' should be optional. Perhaps a check box. Then either the name would be excluded from the list or replaced with "anonymous"

If someone is feverently against someone seeing their stats, I do have a way to hide your name to a degree.

Home town/ home coordinates. I would like to be able to compare my stats to others in my area. This is due to the terain differences I have seen. In our area, a 2.5 would be rated as a 4 in a less rugged part of the world.

Notice that there's no login/password signup. I made the decision early on to not do that. As a result, there's no user-configurable options available, such as home coordinates.

9.1k · October 30, 2006

The other two stats analysis programs that I know about are installed on the client computer, and the GPX file is dropped onto the program for it to do its work. There is no file sharing involved with any third parties. If a person uploads a CacheStats display onto their profile page or personal webpage, they still haven't transferred Groundspeak data to a third party. It's their profile page, their webpage.

Did I understand your question correctly, Cheesy?

1.8k · October 30, 2006

One minor correction, though, to the OP: my program, FindStats, is not Windows only. It runs under Linux and MacOS as well, though you have to compile it yourself for those platforms. I haven't put all the pieces together on the main FindStats page, though, as I didn't know there was much interest. But I would be glad to do so.

So noted.

1.8k · October 30, 2006

The other two stats analysis programs that I know about are installed on the client computer, and the GPX file is dropped onto the program for it to do its work. There is no file sharing involved with any third parties. If a person uploads a CacheStats display onto their profile page or personal webpage, they still haven't transferred Groundspeak data to a third party. It's their profile page, their webpage.

Did I understand your question correctly, Cheesy?

So, if I take the HTML output from those apps and put it on my profile page, I'm okay, but if I post them to my MySpace page, then I'm not?

3k · October 30, 2006

I'll assume you're talking about this:

Licensee shall not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, lend, assign, time-share, or transfer, in whole or in part, or provide unlicensed third parties access to the Data, Related Materials, any updates, or Licensee's rights under this Agreement.

Yes, that's the one I was talking about.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I interpret that statement, I'm not allowed to transfer one of my GPX files to your site.

I did look at this beforehand, and determined that I'm not violating the TOS.

I don't know if your site is violating the TOU or not. I'm just saying that I think I would be violating my part the Groundspeak agreement if I were to upload one of my GPX files to your site.

I sincerely hope that this works out - I think this application would be useful. But I won't be comfortable uploading any of my GPX files until I see something from Groundspeak that says it's ok for me to do so.

October 30, 2006

I guess I'll wait til TPTB chime in before I do mine.

One thing though:

1) If I click on a person's name that's already added theirs, I don't like having to click again to view them (with the "stats for so-and-so are loaded. Take a Look" message).

I like that it will show you which caches have multiple finds on it. For instance, I can view 2_Up_Geologists stats and see they've logged 95 finds on 7 event caches. I only use them as an example because that was the first name I clicked on.

Which brings me to why you might want an option to not have your stats displayed for the general public.

Edited October 30, 2006 by ThePropers

38.2k · October 30, 2006

I thought the GC.com TOU prohibits us from uploading GPX files to other sites or from emailing them elsewhere, but maybe my interpretation of the TOU is incorrect.

I looked through some of the existing ones and I think it looks promising (I like the graphs) but I will wait for CTD's question regarding the TOU to be answered before I submit my own file.

Ditto that. A GPX pocket query file using the Groundspeak namespace features is being transferred to a third party, and the data derived therefrom is being shared on a website for viewing by others.

By analogy, when I recently set up a DeLorme Challenge cache, I asked about the propriety of having finders send their "All Finds" pocket query file to the cache owner for the purpose of verifying their eligible finds. I was told that this was not permitted. How is this file transfer and analysis any different?

I think its different because in one case you are actually sending a file to someone. That person will have the physical file. In this case (according to the OP and I have no reason to doubt him) the file is used to extract data, then deleted. He, nor anybody else has access to the file (again going on his word).

Whether that is still a TOU violation, that's for TPTB to decide.

24.7k · October 30, 2006

...I think its different because in one case you are actually sending a file to someone. That person will have the physical file. In this case (according to the OP and I have no reason to doubt him) the file is used to extract data, then deleted. He, nor anybody else has access to the file (again going on his word).

Whether that is still a TOU violation, that's for TPTB to decide.

Agreed. I think the issue comes down to the data derived from the file. While they don't ever touch the original file they do have subsequent data. Nothing more than we can already own as cachers but derived from the Groundspeak file as opposed to some generic GPX generated by GSAK.

1.8k · October 30, 2006

Rather than debate it here, I've made an inquiry with Groundspeak to get a ruling straight from the source.

3.5k · October 30, 2006

I tink its a really cool site and I'd hate to see it shut down by lawyers.

7.2k · October 30, 2006

I think it a fascinating program. It's interesting seeing the comparisons between the average and that person's activity. It's also interesting noting the logs versus unique caches.

It's great that some folks are willing share their data, but two things prevent me from doing the same; the All Finds query wouldn't be remotely accurate for us and, quite frankly, it's no one else's business how we compare to others.

Neat program, though.

October 30, 2006

Rather than debate it here, I've made an inquiry with Groundspeak to get a ruling straight from the source.

Hope the ruling is in your favor....seems like you put quite a bit of work into it.

Yeah, and I think the "don't display this to the public" option would be wise. Or at least put something in the FAQ or on the front page saying that by submitting the information, it's going to be displayed on the site.

It is interesting to view other people's stats though....if a bit eye opening when comparing logs/uniques. But that's a separate debate

Edited October 30, 2006 by ThePropers

1.8k · October 30, 2006

I guess I'll wait til TPTB chime in before I do mine.

One thing though:

1) If I click on a person's name that's already added theirs, I don't like having to click again to view them (with the "stats for so-and-so are loaded. Take a Look" message).

Makes sense to me.

I like that it will show you which caches have multiple finds on it. For instance, I can view 2_Up_Geologists stats and see they've logged 95 finds on 7 event caches. I only use them as an example because that was the first name I clicked on.

That's definitely an interesting curiosity, hmm?

Which brings me to why you might want an option to not have your stats displayed for the general public.

It will also show who really doesn't care. Me, for example.

9.1k · October 30, 2006

I thought the GC.com TOU prohibits us from uploading GPX files to other sites or from emailing them elsewhere, but maybe my interpretation of the TOU is incorrect.

I looked through some of the existing ones and I think it looks promising (I like the graphs) but I will wait for CTD's question regarding the TOU to be answered before I submit my own file.

Ditto that. A GPX pocket query file using the Groundspeak namespace features is being transferred to a third party, and the data derived therefrom is being shared on a website for viewing by others.

By analogy, when I recently set up a DeLorme Challenge cache, I asked about the propriety of having finders send their "All Finds" pocket query file to the cache owner for the purpose of verifying their eligible finds. I was told that this was not permitted. How is this file transfer and analysis any different?

I think its different because in one case you are actually sending a file to someone. That person will have the physical file. In this case (according to the OP and I have no reason to doubt him) the file is used to extract data, then deleted. He, nor anybody else has access to the file (again going on his word).

Whether that is still a TOU violation, that's for TPTB to decide.

Well, with my DeLorme example, I would have taken the All Finds file, opened it in Mapsource on an underlying template showing the boundaries of all the DeLorme Grids, then when I was finished verifying, I would delete the file since I would have no further use for it. Also, I would not have taken the results and used them for display on a web page. Assume I am a man of my word and would, in fact, delete those files.

The only difference from a TOU perspective that I can discern is that, with The Cheeseheads' site, the file is deleted automatically from the server. We trust the developer's word on this as we have no reason to doubt him.

Is his word better than mine? Because I was told "no" when I asked about my DeLorme cache.

I will be interested to hear the answer and I hope that The Cheeseheads will post here again once he hears back from Groundspeak.

October 30, 2006

I also like the date breakdown. For instance, I know the best time to break into The Cheesehead's house is a Saturday in December

Just kidding. I like the graphs a lot.

Edited October 30, 2006 by ThePropers

24.7k · October 30, 2006

Rather than debate it here, I've made an inquiry with Groundspeak to get a ruling straight from the source.

Good call.

I like stats and all the variations and cool things you can do with them. Kudos for your work.

8.9k · October 30, 2006

I like that it will show you which caches have multiple finds on it.
That's definitely an interesting curiosity, hmm?

I find it interesting as well. There are some people that have amazing stats out there. Found one cacher that had a single event logged 80 times.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Markwell

3.3k · October 30, 2006

I like that it will show you which caches have multiple finds on it.
That's definitely an interesting curiosity, hmm?

I find it interesting as well. There are some people that have amazing stats out there. Found one cacher that had a single event logged 80 times.

If you view the "top three" based on total number of finds, you'll find they all have multiple attended logs.

October 31, 2006

If you view the "top three" based on total number of finds, you'll find they all have multiple attended logs.

There's some people that have almost as many "fake" finds (for lack of a better term) than I have real finds...I do like being able to lower people's find counts by 700+

Anyways, back on-topic, any word on this and the TOU? I'd like to run my stats through if possible.

Also, as for a suggestion, how about a third column to calculate a logs/uniques ratio? For instance, I am looking at someone who has logged 687 finds on 33 events, so their ratio would be 20.8:1. I also found someone with 218 logs for 10 events, which would be a 21.8:1 ratio. Someone with 10 logs for 10 events would have a 1:1 ratio.

I think that would be an interesting stat to see.

Edited October 31, 2006 by ThePropers

October 31, 2006

Looks like Halloween eve is a good time to prepare for the witch hunt.

1.8k · October 31, 2006

While that is an interesting stat, if it looks like it's going to be abused to call people out, it'll probably disappear.

October 31, 2006

By analogy, when I recently set up a DeLorme Challenge cache, I asked about the propriety of having finders send their "All Finds" pocket query file to the cache owner for the purpose of verifying their eligible finds. I was told that this was not permitted. How is this file transfer and analysis any different?

That's ridiculous. I hope this doesn't get shut down too because of some legal crap. Edited October 31, 2006 by alexrudd

October 31, 2006

If you view the "top three" based on total number of finds, you'll find they all have multiple attended logs.

There's some people that have almost as many "fake" finds (for lack of a better term) than I have real finds...I do like being able to lower people's find counts by 700+

Anyways, back on-topic, any word on this and the TOU? I'd like to run my stats through if possible.

Also, as for a suggestion, how about a third column to calculate a logs/uniques ratio? For instance, I am looking at someone who has logged 687 finds on 33 events, so their ratio would be 20.8:1. I also found someone with 218 logs for 10 events, which would be a 21.8:1 ratio. Someone with 10 logs for 10 events would have a 1:1 ratio.

I think that would be an interesting stat to see.

Call that column the "Horatio" quotient

October 31, 2006

I like the program. I actually like it better than the other ones because it is web-based. As far as my stats being public, I agree with CR that the data will be severely skewed since it only reflects the last time I updated my "my finds" query which may have been months ago... but, it really doesn't bother me since I don't really care what people think or know my stats are. My stats are for me!

Regarding the TOS, it never occured to me that this may be a violation until I read this whole thread-- truthfully, I can't really tell so I'm interested in the official response. I hope it goes in favor of the Cheeseheads, though. It's a nice program :laughing:

EDIT: nevermind, I'm dumb...

Edited October 31, 2006 by Cache Heads

October 31, 2006

While that is an interesting stat, if it looks like it's going to be abused to call people out, it'll probably disappear.

As far as my opinion, I would like to have it for my stats use>

Edited October 31, 2006 by Team_Talisman

1.4k · October 31, 2006

Whether this neat tool makes the TOU cut or not, thank you, The CheeseHeads for the time and effort.

I'm not much of a web-interface guy, so if TPTB says no, I'll still be interested in a non-web version to supplement fizzymagic's FindStats I already use and enjoy.

October 31, 2006

Very nice site. You break the numbers down in ways I haven't seen before. I especially like the Finds by Day of Week.

2.9k · October 31, 2006

Like it surprised how high our average D and T is compared to others based on our GUK stats.

1.8k · October 31, 2006

If you view the "top three" based on total number of finds, you'll find they all have multiple attended logs.

There's some people that have almost as many "fake" finds (for lack of a better term) than I have real finds...I do like being able to lower people's find counts by 700+

Anyways, back on-topic, any word on this and the TOU? I'd like to run my stats through if possible.

Also, as for a suggestion, how about a third column to calculate a logs/uniques ratio? For instance, I am looking at someone who has logged 687 finds on 33 events, so their ratio would be 20.8:1. I also found someone with 218 logs for 10 events, which would be a 21.8:1 ratio. Someone with 10 logs for 10 events would have a 1:1 ratio.

I think that would be an interesting stat to see.

Call that column the "Horatio" quotient

:laughing:

I put in the "unique finds" stat because I was interested in my own. I have no plans on enabling "witch hunts" and making that stat or other "negatively connotative" stats summarized for everyone on a single page. If you feel the need to go cacher by cacher to scrutinize their stats, that's your business, although the end result is likely to be fewer people entering in their finds in fear that they're not as "squeaky clean" as some observers would like.

This post is brought to you by the quotation mark, under license from The Leprechauns.

Edited October 31, 2006 by The Cheeseheads

October 31, 2006

Like it surprised how high our average D and T is compared to others based on our GUK stats.

Huh??

9.1k · October 31, 2006

Background of "Horatio" comment.

Somehow we've managed to take a thread that's discussing a potentially very useful resource, and discussing a legitimate question about the website's Terms of Use, and transformed it into a thread questioning the sexual preferences of people who choose to log event caches more than once. So, fine work there. :laughing: Hold whatever opinion you want about that practice, but why not cover that issue in a separate thread, and in a way that questions the practice, not the people who follow it?

October 31, 2006

I put in the "unique finds" stat because I was interested in my own. I have no plans on enabling "witch hunts" and making that stat or other "negatively connotative" stats summarized for everyone on a single page. If you feel the need to go cacher by cacher to scrutinize their stats, that's your business, although the end result is likely to be fewer people entering in their finds in fear that they're not as "squeaky clean" as some observers would like.

This post is brought to you by the quotation mark, under license from The Leprechauns.

A review of the license terms reveals that your use of the quotation mark may violate the TOU as detailed in said license. :laughing:

3.9k · October 31, 2006

1) During the upload, provide a checkbox that that says "Change my name to Anonymous" or a field for "Display Name". You can still search and store by caching name, but without displaying the caching name.

2) How does a person remove thier data f they don't want to play anymore?

3) I would like to compare my stats to others in my caching area. Could the progran assume that the country/state/county I have the most finds in would be my home caching turf? I realize there will be exceptions for people who cache more away from home, but it would still be useful to see.

October 31, 2006

Background of "Horatio" comment.

Somehow we've managed to take a thread that's discussing a potentially very useful resource, and discussing a legitimate question about the website's Terms of Use, and transformed it into a thread questioning the sexual preferences of people who choose to log event caches more than once. So, fine work there. Hold whatever opinion you want about that practice, but why not cover that issue in a separate thread, and in a way that questions the practice, not the people who follow it?

You got it wrong Lep. The disussion was about finds vs. unique finds and the ratio between them.

I referred to this as the "Horatio", as in "number ho"-ratio, like multiple logging of events to jack ones

numbers up NOT a slap at sexual preferences or pointing out that WJTB. Thanks for bringing that piece

of history up though, it makes the notion even funnier. This thread needed some drama. Is that a llama I see...

Edited October 31, 2006 by D@nim@l

1.8k · October 31, 2006

Background of "Horatio" comment.

Somehow we've managed to take a thread that's discussing a potentially very useful resource, and discussing a legitimate question about the website's Terms of Use, and transformed it into a thread questioning the sexual preferences of people who choose to log event caches more than once. So, fine work there. Hold whatever opinion you want about that practice, but why not cover that issue in a separate thread, and in a way that questions the practice, not the people who follow it?

I assumed that "Horatio" was referring to this...

1.8k · October 31, 2006

1) During the upload, provide a checkbox that that says "Change my name to Anonymous" or a field for "Display Name". You can still search and store by caching name, but without displaying the caching name.

That may be doable.

2) How does a person remove thier data f they don't want to play anymore?

I actually have a mechanism in place to completely hide a cache from the "Select a Cacher" screen. Their stats would still be included in the averages for everyone, you just wouldn't be able to click their name to see their individual stats.

I'm probably also going to implement something to expire "stale" stats.

3) I would like to compare my stats to others in my caching area. Could the progran assume that the country/state/county I have the most finds in would be my home caching turf? I realize there will be exceptions for people who cache more away from home, but it would still be useful to see.

Something I've thought about. For example, a screen with a list of states. You could click on "Nevada" and see a list of everyone who has either a majority of their finds in Nevada, or who has ever found a cache in Nevada. Is that sort of what you mean?

Either way, I'm probably not going to spend much time developing the site until I hear back from Groundspeak on whether everything is legal or not.

3.1k · October 31, 2006

That is the nice! I enjoyed looking at all the stats. I really like the charts.

Thanks for all the hard work you put into this Cheeseheads! :laughing:

7.3k · October 31, 2006

Background of "Horatio" comment.

Somehow we've managed to take a thread that's discussing a potentially very useful resource, and discussing a legitimate question about the website's Terms of Use, and transformed it into a thread questioning the sexual preferences of people who choose to log event caches more than once. So, fine work there. Hold whatever opinion you want about that practice, but why not cover that issue in a separate thread, and in a way that questions the practice, not the people who follow it?

You got it wrong Lep. The disussion was about finds vs. unique finds and the ratio between them.

I referred to this as the "Horatio", as in "number ho"-ratio, like multiple logging of events to jack ones

numbers up.

And here I thought it was some scholarly reference to classical literature. :laughing:

It's Not About the Numbers!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment