Jump to content

Logged Visits Counter


janandsteve

Recommended Posts

Eric from geocaching.com has suggested I drop this comment into this forum.....

 

It is my view that the Logged Visits Counter does not reflect a true count on the number of unique visits to a particular cache.

 

Here is a good example. All other cache counters work the same way.

 

For this particular example, I think there should be 4 logged visits and not 7. I'll explain why next to each user comment logged below.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

GCxxxxxxx

Logged Visits ( 7 total. Visit the Gallery (7 images) )

 

FIND March 17 by xxxxx (119 found) A FIND, SO COUNTS AS 1

FIND March 11 by xxxxx (1241 found) A FIND, SO COUNTS AS 1

FIND March 11 by xxxxx (1464 found) A FIND, SO COUNTS AS 1

 

NOTE March 11 by xxxxx (720 found)

JUST A NOTE BY THE OWNER. THIS SHOULD NOT COUNT AS A 'LOGGED VISIT'

 

March 11 by xxxxx (638 found) A FIND, SO COUNTS AS 1

 

March 10 by Deceangi (1 found)

Published

NOT A LOGGED VISIT. THIS IS MERELY A PUBLICATION NOTE. THIS GUY HAS NEVER VISITED THE CACHE. THIS SHOULD NOT COUNT AS A 'LOGGED VISIT'.

 

March 10 by xxxxx (720 found)

Coin & TB Drop.

WE ARE ALL THERE WHEN WE HIDE THE CACHE AT THE BEGINNING ARNT WE? THIS COMMENT ADDS NO VALUE, AS THE TB AND COIN STATUS ARE REFLECTED IN THE INVENTORY BOX. AGAIN THIS SHOULD NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE COUNTER.

 

As you can see from my comments above, the current counter does not reflect 'Logged Visits' as its name suggests.

 

An automatic rule could be used to apply the counter...

 

Counter=Counter+1 'IF and only IF' a log is made that has the attribute 'Found it' AND that user has not logged a find on this cache before. Not sure what database you use for the site, but a very simple rule to apply to the code.

 

The counter can then be renamed to 'Unique finds'. I think this is of more value to prospective cachers, as it gives an truer indication of popularity.

 

Things could then get a little more interesting if you factor in the age of the cache......

 

If a cache is 3 days old with 10 unique visits, its quite popular and possibly easy.

 

If a cache is 80 days old and has only had 4 unique visits, then this could indicate quite a hard cache and one to visit for a challenge.

 

Can you see where I am coming from with my ideas?

 

The first eg could have a score of 0.3 days between visits, and the last eg could have 20 days between visits.

 

The higher the number the more of a challenge the cache would be! You could even change these numbers to % - the higher the % the harder the cache.

 

Does anyone have any comments on the ideas above?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Steve

Link to comment

Does what you suggest truely reflect the "popularity" of the cache, either? There may have been 100 physical visits to the cache for each "found" log on the cache page. Some people do not log their finds, some people do not log their DNFs. A cache that had 100 DNFs might be considered "more popular" than one that had two finds.

Link to comment

I take your point regarding the DNFs - I know some people do not log these as it 'affects their street cred' - silly really, but for some it really is a numbers game......

 

Maybe I used popularity incorrectly......

 

1) I still think the 'logged visits counter' does not reflect true unique visits.

 

2) The counter could be expanded to indicate 'average days between visits' and then users could read this as they wished.

Link to comment

I take your point regarding the DNFs - I know some people do not log these as it 'affects their street cred' - silly really, but for some it really is a numbers game......

 

Maybe I used popularity incorrectly......

 

1) I still think the 'logged visits counter' does not reflect true unique visits.

 

2) The counter could be expanded to indicate 'average days between visits' and then users could read this as they wished.

 

Any benefit?

Link to comment

Using the Firefox browser with Greasemonkey instead of the Internet Explorer browser, you can do that now.

 

http://gmscripts.locusprime.net/Totals_By_Log_Type.html

 

TotalsByLogType.png

(I hope this image displays properly.)

 

Prime Suspect's scripts for Greasemonkey just flat out rock. For now, considering the performance issues that Groundspeak is trying to solve, this request would be a blip on the radar to me. It is a good future feature enhancement/change though. Your feelings regarding this are probably what got PS thinking about making this particular script.

 

By the way, that script also displays logs you have made on that cache page as well at the top of the page. No need to hunt through and try to find a log you might have made on a cache page. It tells you right at the top. An example is show on the page I linked.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

Using the Firefox browser with Greasemonkey instead of the Internet Explorer browser, you can do that now.

 

http://gmscripts.locusprime.net/Totals_By_Log_Type.html

 

TotalsByLogType.png

(I hope this image displays properly.)

 

Prime Suspect's scripts for Greasemonkey just flat out rock. For now, considering the performance issues that Groundspeak is trying to solve, this request would be a blip on the radar to me. It is a good future feature enhancement/change though. Your feelings regarding this are probably what got PS thinking about making this particular script.

 

By the way, that script also displays logs you have made on that cache page as well at the top of the page. No need to hunt through and try to find a log you might have made on a cache page. It tells you right at the top. An example is show on the page I linked.

 

I like these scripts. Thanks MTN-MAN for sending the link to this add on.

Terrific job Prime Suspect on the programing.

Link to comment

Hi

 

Many thanks for your reply.

 

Detailed info 'totals by log type' is exactly what I was looking for - I was unaware of this Java Script add-on, so many thanks for sharing this with us. Looking at the script, it even works out if a smily icon is used in the text and eliminates these to provide an accurate total summary, which is great!

 

I personally do not like FireFox - can you tell me how to integrate the JS addon into Internet Explorer?

 

Cheers

 

Steve

Link to comment

I am currently using that script and it works great.

 

However, one thing I don't like about it is that it loads every single cache page twice, once for the initial load that triggers the script, then once again with the "log=y" flag set to load all log entries (so that it can count the results).

 

I can't imagine that this behavior is good for the servers. I bet it would be a lot more efficient for the server to add the count by type function to the query it already runs to dig up the log entries for a particular cache. Or to just save the counts of log entries as they are added and deleted so that they don't have to be queried each time.

 

-eP

Link to comment

I am currently using that script and it works great.

 

However, one thing I don't like about it is that it loads every single cache page twice, once for the initial load that triggers the script, then once again with the "log=y" flag set to load all log entries (so that it can count the results).

 

I can't imagine that this behavior is good for the servers. I bet it would be a lot more efficient for the server to add the count by type function to the query it already runs to dig up the log entries for a particular cache. Or to just save the counts of log entries as they are added and deleted so that they don't have to be queried each time.

 

-eP

Those are two separate scripts working together. The "show all logs" script should only be enabled when you've really got a need for it at that particular time. Otherwise, leave it disabled. That will stop the automatic double-load.

 

That done, whenever you have the need to see a total of all logs by type, just click the Show All Logs link, and the magic will happen.

 

As for running this in IE, the answer is No. It lacks the ability to run fast xpath queries against the DOM, which is how my script can quickly calculate the totals without having to examine the entire page's html code.

 

That, and IE's general suckitude. :anitongue:

Link to comment

 

I can't imagine that this behavior is good for the servers.

-eP

 

Doesnt the JS script run locally on your PC via Firefox, hence you are only recovering the data from GC.com once and the script does the calcs from the data retrieved?

 

Having said that, I think counters of this type would be great on the GC.com site so all users can see them, irrespective of browser used?

 

Steve

Link to comment

Did you install Greasemonkey first? (Just making sure.) Links are found on the index page of his site.

 

If yes, when you click the link I gave above you will go to Prime's web page. Down near the bottom of the page you will see this...

 

Install script: download.gif

 

Click the picture. A new page will open in a new browser window. At the upper right in a yellowish bar, you will see a button that says "Install". Click that. It will install the script into Firefox/Greasemonkey and instantly become active.

Link to comment

Did you install Greasemonkey first? (Just making sure.) Links are found on the index page of his site.

 

If yes, when you click the link I gave above you will go to Prime's web page. Down near the bottom of the page you will see this...

 

Install script: download.gif

 

Click the picture. A new page will open in a new browser window. At the upper right in a yellowish bar, you will see a button that says "Install". Click that. It will install the script into Firefox/Greasemonkey and instantly become active.

Good thing you made sure because I didnt install Greasemonkey first. I was trying the other way first.

Thanks for the assistance and I will see if that works :anibad:

Link to comment
Doesnt the JS script run locally on your PC via Firefox, hence you are only recovering the data from GC.com once and the script does the calcs from the data retrieved?

The counting is done by the client-side script. But in order to count all of the logs, you first have to load all of the logs. So if you've got the auto-load-all-logs script enabled, then the sequence of visiting a cache page is like this:

 

1. You click on a cache. Server responds with cache page with last 5 logs.

 

2. Script sees this and reloads page with all log entries. Server responds with exact same page all over again, plus the additional log entries.

 

3. Greasemonkey script runs on the client to count the logs and insert the totals by type.

 

As an earlier posted noted that the counting script only runs when all logs are loaded. So disabling the script that auto-loads all logs lightens the server load.

 

Having said that, I think counters of this type would be great on the GC.com site so all users can see them, irrespective of browser used?

Agreed. It might also make it possible to see the counts by type even when you only look at the last five log entries.

 

-eP

Link to comment

I'm not getting this.

 

53b924b5-964d-4de3-860c-197380630b3e.jpg

 

edit: I found it.

 

The top smiley show you "found" the cache in January. The bottom frown face shows that you had logged a

"No Find back" in 2004.

Maybe you looked for it once and it was missing and has been replaced since then. I have visited places twice once with a NF and once with a FIND. Not even realizing that I had searched for it before.

Just a possibility.

Link to comment

I'm not getting this.

 

53b924b5-964d-4de3-860c-197380630b3e.jpg

 

edit: I found it.

 

The top smiley show you "found" the cache in January. The bottom frown face shows that you had logged a

"No Find back" in 2004.

Maybe you looked for it once and it was missing and has been replaced since then. I have visited places twice once with a NF and once with a FIND. Not even realizing that I had searched for it before.

Just a possibility.

 

Thanks, kayak-cowboy. That was it mtn-man. Guess I should have said "I'm not seeing this". I just meant I hadn't figured out where it was on the page.

Link to comment

Hi

 

As the initiator of this thread, firstly I would like to thank everyone for their input, esp the people who have brought to our attention the Firefox GreaseMonkey Icons. These are just what I was looking for... thanks!!

 

This thread was initially started as an email to GC.com ( Eric ), before opening it up on here for general discussion.

 

Eric tells me that the GC.com developers read these comments, so...... as we are all getting excited at the use of the new icons, may I take this oppertunity to say to any developers reading, that this seems like a good idea to intergrate into the GC.com website, so that users can access this type of information. As we can see from the comments in this thread, even those that did not know these icons existed from a third party ( myself included ) are pleased with the info displayed..... so can we please consider this proposal and hopefully have this info integrated into GC.com on the next software upgrade?

 

Thanks to all for your supportive comments.

 

Steve

Link to comment
These are the coolest things. Thanks mtn-man for pointing them out and/or creating them.

I've pointed out that I did not create them. I only said that I have been using them and love them.

 

All thanks for these go to Prime Suspect. He is so the man.

 

Thanks Prime Suspect for giving us some great tools and for doing this in your free time.

Link to comment
These are the coolest things. Thanks mtn-man for pointing them out and/or creating them.

I've pointed out that I did not create them. I only said that I have been using them and love them.

 

All thanks for these go to Prime Suspect. He is so the man.

 

Thanks Prime Suspect for giving us some great tools and for doing this in your free time.

 

Prime Suspect is 'da man! Thanks from all of us that are code-challenged!

Link to comment

Hi

 

As the initiator of this thread, firstly I would like to thank everyone for their input, esp the people who have brought to our attention the Firefox GreaseMonkey Icons. These are just what I was looking for... thanks!!

 

This thread was initially started as an email to GC.com ( Eric ), before opening it up on here for general discussion.

 

Eric tells me that the GC.com developers read these comments, so...... as we are all getting excited at the use of the new icons, may I take this oppertunity to say to any developers reading, that this seems like a good idea to intergrate into the GC.com website, so that users can access this type of information. As we can see from the comments in this thread, even those that did not know these icons existed from a third party ( myself included ) are pleased with the info displayed..... so can we please consider this proposal and hopefully have this info integrated into GC.com on the next software upgrade?

 

Thanks to all for your supportive comments.

 

Steve

 

I consider all the scripts to be interim solutions. I've had several of my scripts become obsolete because comparable functions were added to the site, and no one's happier about that than me.

Link to comment

Is a new version of the script "Show A Cache's Log Totals By Log Type" available?

The geocaching.com website now displays totals by log type, including total number of "Found it" logs. Doesn't this replace the script?

edit: Well, actually it doesn't replace the "my logs on this cache" box feature of the script.

Edited by Corey
Link to comment

I highly suggest checking out my new VIP List Greasemonkey script. It does everything that Prime Suspect's True Totals script used to do, and much, much more!

 

You could duplicate the older functionality by setting yourself as a "VIP" then turning off most of the options, but you'd be losing out on the newer and IMNSHO very useful features :yikes:

Link to comment

Just checking back here since this was something that I really loved. I'll install Lil Devil's new script. Looks like it will do the trick.

 

Many, many thanks to Prime Suspect, Lil Devil, and other folks who give their time and expertise to make scripts such as these. You folks are great!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...