leader board

July 30, 2009

did you know if you get over 200 caches you go on a learder board against the whole world

July 30, 2009

Yup.

July 30, 2009

its pretty kl i just heard about it to day

7.7k · July 30, 2009

did you know if you get over 200 caches you go on a learder board against the whole world

200 caches and log a find or note in one of the watched caches. Stats updated twice a week.

If someone doesn't know, shouldn't you provide the link?

6.7k · July 30, 2009

It shows me as 27th in Alabama. 1256th in the US and 2367th in the world... Guess I'd better get busy!

Get it at http://www.drunners.de/cachestats/registration_eng.php

Edited July 30, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

4.7k · July 30, 2009

not all of us are on the leaderboard.

we like it that way.

3.5k · July 30, 2009

There's this one too >> http://zinnware.com/HighAdv/Geocaching/most_caches_found.php

1.6k · July 30, 2009

Since no one's posted it, the "ranking" list is here: http://www.cacherstats.com/

But I don't use it because they don't rank you according to how much fun you had on the caches you found. I just know I have more fun caching than TheAlabamaRambler, but he's still ahead of me. :huh:

4.2k · July 30, 2009

There are also specific leader boards for the San Francisco Bay area and other locations. But I am waiting for someone to design a true rating system that takes into account the terrain, difficulty level, and the number of hides (with their corresponding terrain and difficulty) to create one overall statistic. Should a drive up lamp post "count" as much as hiking miles and bushwhacking into an almost inaccessible area?

2k · July 30, 2009

I prefer not to compete for position on these lists. None of my accounts shows an accurate count anyways.

3.4k · July 31, 2009

If there was one which ranked those who cuss the most I'd be in the top ten.

I really need a new pair of hiking shoes!

2k · July 31, 2009

If there was one which ranked those who cuss the most I'd be in the top ten.

I really need a new pair of hiking shoes!

You'd be ranked right behind me on that list unless they let me hide those numbers.

If you go to the store and give the man some money he'll let you take a pair home. Funny how that work ain't it? :huh:

6.7k · July 31, 2009

Since no one's posted it, the "ranking" list is here: http://www.cacherstats.com/

But I don't use it because they don't rank you according to how much fun you had on the caches you found. I just know I have more fun caching than TheAlabamaRambler, but he's still ahead of me.

My stats are worthless... a couple hundred are multi-logged event caches from back when they were allowed, a hundred or so are my family logging on my account, I sometimes go months without logging anything online, so there are hundreds of finds where I just signed the paper log... due to the controversy it stirred I didn't log any of the 315 caches we found on the infamous Dallas Record Run... I have stats in my profile just for fun but I'll tell anyone that judging my experience by my stats is a mistake! A look at my posts historically will show that I have always argued that stats are inaccurate, meaningless and misleading.

As far as having fun accumulating them, anyone would be hard pressed to have more fun with this game than I have! :laughing:

Edited July 31, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

July 31, 2009

Since no one's posted it, the "ranking" list is here: http://www.cacherstats.com/

But I don't use it because they don't rank you according to how much fun you had on the caches you found. I just know I have more fun caching than TheAlabamaRambler, but he's still ahead of me.

That site comes up as a reported attack site when I try to go to it.

6.7k · July 31, 2009

Since no one's posted it, the "ranking" list is here: http://www.cacherstats.com/

But I don't use it because they don't rank you according to how much fun you had on the caches you found. I just know I have more fun caching than TheAlabamaRambler, but he's still ahead of me.

That site comes up as a reported attack site when I try to go to it.

Yup, my AVAST Anti-virus reports it to be a malware named HTML:lframe-inf

There is a discussion about what causes it here - http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=43676.0

Edited July 31, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

7.7k · July 31, 2009

Ooh, someone is blocking the site "for my protection" now. Interesting, was working fine earlier Thursday.

July 31, 2009

PPL..... It's not about the numbers!!!!

I am ranked #5060 something for the world. :huh:

6.7k · July 31, 2009

PPL..... It's not about the numbers!!!!

I am ranked #5060 something for the world.

So often folks say that, "It's not about the numbers", and yet there are graphs and charts cluttering up their profiles and they make statement like "I'm #whatever". If it isn't about the numbers why do you even know where on the list you are?

July 31, 2009

It's very possible for numbers to not be the most important thing, but to still be interesting and intriguing.

Just about every quantifiable aspect of caching can be manipulated and misinterpreted. But to people of a certain bent, numbers are still fascinating. We fully understand what our own numbers mean. We also understand that looking at someone else's numbers doesn't tell us a whole lot - and fortunately that doesn't have anything to do with our fun.

14k · July 31, 2009

It's very possible for numbers to not be the most important thing, but to still be interesting and intriguing.

Just about every quantifiable aspect of caching can be manipulated and misinterpreted. But to people of a certain bent, numbers are still fascinating. We fully understand what our own numbers mean. We also understand that looking at someone else's numbers doesn't tell us a whole lot - and fortunately that doesn't have anything to do with our fun.

Agreed. It's one thing to use a tool like maintain a set of statistics and ones profile page provides a convenient place to display them. It's another thing to constantly tell everyone else how many finds you have or how many finds you've had that day in your logs.

There are just too many variables involved (cache density, how often one can go caching, whether one has other hobbies, how long one has been geocaching, etc) that make any sort of comparison of one geocachers numbers to the numbers of another geocacher. There are lots of stats one can acquire that are more informative rather than a measurement. For example, my cache centroid is N 42° 45.107 W 77° 40.174 and 37.4% of my finds were on a Sunday. Another local cacher includes a list of other geocachers she met "on the trail".

8.6k · July 31, 2009

First, let me say that I'm not trying to be negative, and I realize that human nature (and society) wants each of us to be FIRST, BEST, and/or GREATEST. I guess it's a "chest-thumping" thing. Been there/done that myself. Happily, I have outgrown it. :huh: :laughing: :yikes:

In my opinion, this is hardly the objective behind geocaching. I simply want to have some fun, work hard at finding your well-hidden cache, maybe even make some new friends (Lord knows, I have enough enemies!).

I hope only that you enoy mine placed for you. If my cache provides you with a flicker of a smile, or something akin to that, and you post such.................. I am !!

Maybe there should be a rating system for level 5 finds only (did I say that?).

Go out and have fun. Life is short!

Edited July 31, 2009 by Gitchee-Gummee

4.7k · July 31, 2009

PPL..... It's not about the numbers!!!!

I am ranked #5060 something for the world.

So often folks say that, "It's not about the numbers", and yet there are graphs and charts cluttering up their profiles and they make statement like "I'm #whatever". If it isn't about the numbers why do you even know where on the list you are?

i used to like it when people's profiles actually said something about them.

now most of them are cluttered up with stats that i don't care about.

and for those of you who appear on the leaderboards but do not wish to appear there, a simple email asking to be removed from the list worked for me.

1.6k · July 31, 2009

PPL..... It's not about the numbers!!!!

I am ranked #5060 something for the world.

So often folks say that, "It's not about the numbers", and yet there are graphs and charts cluttering up their profiles and they make statement like "I'm #whatever". If it isn't about the numbers why do you even know where on the list you are?

Yes it is about the numbers!!! Just see my sig line!

Personally, I couldn't care less about how my total find count compares with [insert random cacher name here]'s total find count. But you'll find my profile clogged with statistics and charts and maps. Why? Because I like them and I think they're pretty.

And just to clarify, I really don't think I have more fun than TAR; I just picked his trailname at random as someone who's contributed to this thread. The point of that comment is that a single number (total finds) is fairly useless. I know people who have an absolute BLAST running around in a large group on huge numbers runs. I had an absolute blast hiking solo in SoCal last week (1 DNF, 8 finds, 5 lizards, 0 snakes, countless amazing views). Who had more fun? I don't know and don't care. This experience is NOT indicated by a single number.

38.2k · July 31, 2009

PPL..... It's not about the numbers!!!!

I am ranked #5060 something for the world.

So often folks say that, "It's not about the numbers", and yet there are graphs and charts cluttering up their profiles and they make statement like "I'm #whatever". If it isn't about the numbers why do you even know where on the list you are?

I couldn't care less about my find count and I don't play this game to accumulate numbers. I couldn't tell you my find count without checking my profile first and I've passed on probably hundreds of opportunities

to add to my numbers over the years, but chose not to for one reason or another. That is what I mean when I say its not about the numbers for me. Because it isn't.

Yet I enjoy statistics. I think they are fasscinating and fun. I guess it comes from being a baseball fan, where statistics are a bg part of the sport. That's why you see stats in my profile. It's more for my

enjoyment than anything else.

8.4k · July 31, 2009

not all of us are on the leaderboard.

we like it that way.

According to the leaderboard you are in 1898th place! Yay flask! :huh: :yikes:

I didn't even qualify for that leaderboard. :laughing: I'm on Grand High Pobah's leaderboard in like 11,000th place but in the top 50 of Travel Bug finders last time I checked.

I just don't care enough to opt out. Sometimes it's interesting to see where I fall on the list, but it's of no concern to me at all.

4.7k · July 31, 2009

not all of us are on the leaderboard.

we like it that way.

According to the leaderboard you are in 1898th place! Yay flask!

I didn't even qualify for that leaderboard. I'm on Grand High Pobah's leaderboard in like 11,000th place but in the top 50 of Travel Bug finders last time I checked.

I just don't care enough to opt out. Sometimes it's interesting to see where I fall on the list, but it's of no concern to me at all.

on which site am i listed?

time for me to send a note and get off of it.

i do not wish to be in any place at all. if i wanted to compete, i'd race mountain bikes or something.

19k · July 31, 2009

not all of us are on the leaderboard.

we like it that way.

According to the leaderboard you are in 1898th place! Yay flask!

I didn't even qualify for that leaderboard. I'm on Grand High Pobah's leaderboard in like 11,000th place but in the top 50 of Travel Bug finders last time I checked.

I just don't care enough to opt out. Sometimes it's interesting to see where I fall on the list, but it's of no concern to me at all.

on which site am i listed?

time for me to send a note and get off of it.

i do not wish to be in any place at all. if i wanted to compete, i'd race mountain bikes or something.

WARNING! You probably don't want to read any farther...

Hmmm... I wonder if that's why there is a blank entry at #1900 today You're not listed there, but we can see how many logged finds you have and just go from there. You are in a 3 way tie for #1900 worldwide.

4.7k · July 31, 2009

not all of us are on the leaderboard.

we like it that way.

According to the leaderboard you are in 1898th place! Yay flask!

I didn't even qualify for that leaderboard. I'm on Grand High Pobah's leaderboard in like 11,000th place but in the top 50 of Travel Bug finders last time I checked.

I just don't care enough to opt out. Sometimes it's interesting to see where I fall on the list, but it's of no concern to me at all.

on which site am i listed?

time for me to send a note and get off of it.

i do not wish to be in any place at all. if i wanted to compete, i'd race mountain bikes or something.

WARNING! You probably don't want to read any farther...

Hmmm... I wonder if that's why there is a blank entry at #1900 today You're not listed there, but we can see how many logged finds you have and just go from there. You are in a 3 way tie for #1900 worldwide.

thank goodness my find count is wildly inaccurate...

July 31, 2009

i do not wish to be in any place at all.

OT but this just struck me as very funny. It reminds me of the old joke:

Rene Descartes is sitting at a bar with an empty drink. The bartender says "want another?" Descartes says "I think not" and prompty disappears.

Edited July 31, 2009 by mertat

8.4k · July 31, 2009

not all of us are on the leaderboard.

we like it that way.

According to the leaderboard you are in 1898th place! Yay flask!

I didn't even qualify for that leaderboard. I'm on Grand High Pobah's leaderboard in like 11,000th place but in the top 50 of Travel Bug finders last time I checked.

I just don't care enough to opt out. Sometimes it's interesting to see where I fall on the list, but it's of no concern to me at all.

on which site am i listed?

time for me to send a note and get off of it.

i do not wish to be in any place at all. if i wanted to compete, i'd race mountain bikes or something.

WARNING! You probably don't want to read any farther...

Hmmm... I wonder if that's why there is a blank entry at #1900 today You're not listed there, but we can see how many logged finds you have and just go from there. You are in a 3 way tie for #1900 worldwide.

thank goodness my find count is wildly inaccurate...

Button pushed and mapped. (That's what I say to my wife when I get that kind of reaction.? :anibad: :laughing: )

flasky it's okay. You're NOT actually listed. Your position on the leaderboard is accurate though, according to your profile.

I just did a comparison.

A fun little poke at your statophobia.

My wife already knows not to telegraph her buttons to me. :laughing:

If someone posts on a thread that they demand to KNOW the watchers on their TBs and caches, I will put a watch on every one. :anibad:

If you put me in charge of the shiny, red, jolly, candylike, button that would destroy the universe...... I would push it. :laughing: :anibad: :anitongue:

Those people on LOST would have been screwed if they needed me to punch in the doomsday avoidance code. :laughing:

Edited July 31, 2009 by Snoogans

24.7k · July 31, 2009

...i used to like it when people's profiles actually said something about them.

now most of them are cluttered up with stats that i don't care about....

Got one covered. Sorry about the other.

4.7k · July 31, 2009

...i used to like it when people's profiles actually said something about them.

now most of them are cluttered up with stats that i don't care about....

Got one covered. Sorry about the other.

oh, well, that's fine than, so long as you have the first one covered preferably higher up an the page than the mass-produced charts and maps for which i care so little.

by the way, i am not "statophobic"; i find stats interesting.

however, i find the STORY much more interesting and i think too many people wish to substitute stats for story.

every time i meet a cacher who wants to know my find count, i answer vaguely and excuse myself from the conversation quickly.

my numbers are important to me. if my numbers are important to you, i consider you to be suspect just as much as i would if my income, my weight, or the size of my squishy bits were important to you.

8.4k · July 31, 2009

...i used to like it when people's profiles actually said something about them.

now most of them are cluttered up with stats that i don't care about....

Got one covered. Sorry about the other.

oh, well, that's fine than, so long as you have the first one covered preferably higher up an the page than the mass-produced charts and maps for which i care so little.

by the way, i am not "statophobic"; i find stats interesting.

however, i find the STORY much more interesting and i think too many people wish to substitute stats for story.

every time i meet a cacher who wants to know my find count, i answer vaguely and excuse myself from the conversation quickly.

my numbers are important to me. if my numbers are important to you, i consider you to be suspect just as much as i would if my income, my weight, or the size of my squishy bits were important to you.

So I probably shouldn't send you a weekly PM telling you where you are comparitively on the leaderboard? Got it. :laughing:

:anitongue:

July 31, 2009

These stats also include people who fudge they're finds, so it is not completely accurate. How about a stat on who can remember the most finds.

3.6k · July 31, 2009

Since no one's posted it, the "ranking" list is here: http://www.cacherstats.com/

But I don't use it because they don't rank you according to how much fun you had on the caches you found. I just know I have more fun caching than TheAlabamaRambler, but he's still ahead of me.

That site comes up as a reported attack site when I try to go to it.

I'm getting the same thing.

6.7k · July 31, 2009

not all of us are on the leaderboard.

we like it that way.

According to the leaderboard you are in 1898th place! Yay flask!

I didn't even qualify for that leaderboard. I'm on Grand High Pobah's leaderboard in like 11,000th place but in the top 50 of Travel Bug finders last time I checked.

I just don't care enough to opt out. Sometimes it's interesting to see where I fall on the list, but it's of no concern to me at all.

on which site am i listed?

time for me to send a note and get off of it.

i do not wish to be in any place at all. if i wanted to compete, i'd race mountain bikes or something.

WARNING! You probably don't want to read any farther...

Hmmm... I wonder if that's why there is a blank entry at #1900 today You're not listed there, but we can see how many logged finds you have and just go from there. You are in a 3 way tie for #1900 worldwide.

thank goodness my find count is wildly inaccurate...

Button pushed and mapped. (That's what I say to my wife when I get that kind of reaction.? )

flasky it's okay. You're NOT actually listed. Your position on the leaderboard is accurate though, according to your profile.

I just did a comparison.

A fun little poke at your statophobia.

My wife already knows not to telegraph her buttons to me.

If someone posts on a thread that they demand to KNOW the watchers on their TBs and caches, I will put a watch on every one.

If you put me in charge of the shiny, red, jolly, candylike, button that would destroy the universe...... I would push it.

Those people on LOST would have been screwed if they needed me to punch in the doomsday avoidance code.

This is exactly the kind of crap that makes me want the ability to hide my find count. If Flask doesn't want to be a part of the leader board rankings then leave her out of it.

7.7k · July 31, 2009

Since no one's posted it, the "ranking" list is here: http://www.cacherstats.com/

But I don't use it because they don't rank you according to how much fun you had on the caches you found. I just know I have more fun caching than TheAlabamaRambler, but he's still ahead of me.

That site comes up as a reported attack site when I try to go to it.

I'm getting the same thing.

I got curious and started investigating. The attack is detailed in this PDF. If you don't trust my link, google for "statcounter attack site" (without quotes)

http://www.stationx.net/downloads/statcoun...sion_hijack.pdf

As far as I can tell, it involves in the site being compromised, so that some Javascript is being run that will reveal your statcounter cookie to the hacker.

I used wget to obtain a copy of the page so that I can view it without worries. That's the only script on the page.

4.7k · July 31, 2009

This is exactly the kind of crap that makes me want the ability to hide my find count. If Flask doesn't want to be a part of the leader board rankings then leave her out of it.

aw, he wuz just funnin' me...

8.4k · July 31, 2009

This is exactly the kind of crap that makes me want the ability to hide my find count. If Flask doesn't want to be a part of the leader board rankings then leave her out of it.

aw, he wuz just funnin' me...

Yep. jus funnin'. I'm not into actual harassment.

Don't get yer panties in a bunch GOF person. Oh, and button mapped and accidentally pushed in your case.

July 31, 2009

For what it's worth a few minutes ago I went to the leader site I've used for years where I believe they just changed servers. My ZoneAlarm security suite blocked access and gave this warning:

"This web site at www.cacherstats.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences."

Not sure what the story is yet but if you use this site, you may want to be careful.

July 31, 2009

For what it's worth a few minutes ago I went to the leader site I've used for years where I believe they just changed servers. My ZoneAlarm security suite blocked access and gave this warning:

"This web site at www.cacherstats.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences."

Not sure what the story is yet but if you use this site, you may want to be careful.

You may want to check post #37.

5.7k · July 31, 2009

did you know if you get over 200 caches you go on a learder board against the whole world

This is automatic ONLY if you happen to hit one of the "key" caches that causes your information to be queried and added to the list. The statistical model they've used to determine which caches are used for the sample is pretty cool, and it works the vast majority of the time. However, it is possible to have >200 caches and have missed every one of the caches that would trigger your entry in the list. If that happens, you can always ask to have your stat added directly by contacting the owner of the site -- which I intend to do right now since I don't think he realizes he's getting alarms on it at present...

July 31, 2009

succotash-"You may want to check post #37."

Ooops, missed reading the last few posts.

2.4k · August 1, 2009

Hey, i'm just happy to RATE SOMEWHERE on some site!!!

(ah, you couldn't have had as much fun as me if you haven't done any paddle caches!!!)

August 1, 2009

Does anyone know when/if they are working to fix the problem at cacherstats.com?

5.7k · August 2, 2009

Does anyone know when/if they are working to fix the problem at cacherstats.com?

I left him a voicemail on Friday afternoon. Was a bit surprised he didn't pick up. He may be traveling.

1.3k · August 4, 2009

Any update to this?

1.4k · August 4, 2009

did you know if you get over 200 caches you go on a learder board against the whole world

Really? :anitongue:

7.7k · August 4, 2009

Any update to this?

Working for me now. Strangely, the javascript is still there, and looks identical. So either the problem is in the back end, or it was misdiagnosed.

5.7k · August 4, 2009

Any update to this?

Working for me now. Strangely, the javascript is still there, and looks identical. So either the problem is in the back end, or it was misdiagnosed.

Appears to have been misdiagnosed. Problem was evidently not in the page itself, but a counter page for which the cache stats page contained a link.

leader board

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