Geocaching.com should create a leader board

August 20, 2003

I think Geocaching.com should create an official leader board. Come on to support this opinion if you agree.

Life short, Hunt more.

August 20, 2003

Make a leader board and show all his hunts on a world map.

Life short, Hunt more.

August 20, 2003

Amen to that brother. Make it a members only thing also. Alas I think we are only wishing.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pu**y." - General(ret) Tommy Franks

24.7k · August 20, 2003

Since Dan's site is down and he's got no time anyway, the site is probably available to adopt.

Geocaching.com has stated they have no intention of providing stats. So it's up to some people with the time and $ to adopt Dan's site, make another site (and get cooperation from Geocaching.com) for the datamining needed for stats.

One way or the other though I'd like a stats site back.

1.1k · August 20, 2003

This was buried in another topic, so no I don't object to stats outright. Just thrusting a competitive nature on everybody who plays. If a small/large group create their own rules on scoring and manage it themselves, we can find it in our hearts to provide that feature on the site.

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Do people REALLY read all the stats in the sports section of their regional rag? And yet enough of them must. We seem addicted to stats.

Competitive sports are crazy with stats. Why? Because they're competitive.

Competitive sports have The Rules of The Game. The Rules dictate how a game is played, the rules on scoring, etc. In soccer there are timed quarters. In golf there are strokes.

In geocaching there is a point in space you have to reach. Once you reach that point you mark it as a find. It is all in good faith, there is no referee, and every cache is different.

Scoring, as a result, is pointless. Simply with find counts people have issues with only getting one find for a multicache. Others complain that Jack is logging his own cache to bump up his *score*. The pitch of competitive whine is more than sufficient without thrusting upon everyone ranking on the site.

Not that I'm ignoring the rumblings in the forum, however. We have been considering two concepts which could find its way on the web site, depending on interest:

1. Users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." Only those people become ranked in the system.

2. People can join groups and see rankings of their stats on the web site as a group.

I prefer #2. Both are opt-in and in this situation if everyone understands the complexity of "scoring" and doesn't come b!tch to me if someone cheats, we will consider adding it.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.3k · August 20, 2003

Jeremy, doesn't this site already have 'rules' in place? It seem that every time I log a find it shows this:

Southdeltan (X Finds)

at the top of the log.

It seems to me the site already has some way to total your finds. Why this isn't included on a users profile page is a bit confusing to me.

southdeltan

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

1.1k · August 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
Jeremy, doesn't this site already have 'rules' in place?

I was looking in the web site directories for a rulebook, and didn't find one.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.3k · August 20, 2003

'Rules' may not be the proper term (but I was using terminology you used) but you get the idea.

When I log a find, did-not-find, note, or archive log - it displays my username and total finds.

Surely this number (total finds) isn't randomly assigned.

It appears to be the total of the different cache types I have found (although I don't have enough variety to know which types are excluded, perhaps locationless?) What I do know is it does not include travelbugs or benchmarks.

If it's displayed on the cache logs, why not on user profile pages?

southdeltan

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

August 20, 2003

Jeremy yeah I'm digging it!! I even like your #1. Then a guy never would truly know, allow for the contrarian viewpoint of

quote:
I don't do stats

. I would even pay an extra $5.00 a year to get the statistics. Just my .02

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pu**y." - General(ret) Tommy Franks

August 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
If it's displayed on the cache logs, why not on user profile pages?

I don't get this either. Can I get a SUM function on my USER PROFILE?

GeoManhattan.com

August 20, 2003

Fun is good. Ranking stats are fun. Therefore, ranking stats are good. If there are any questions about this, I might be able to compose some type of colored diagram.

FISUR

Rhode Island Geocaching

August 20, 2003

I don't completely understand #2, but support both ideas.

1.3k · August 20, 2003

Hammack, #2 means that you could join a group, say 'The United States', and then see your totals (and any other stats included) compare against everybody else in the group.

I'd hope you could join multiple groups, but Jeremy hasn't given too many extra details. I'm sure it's still be discussed.

southdeltan

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

August 20, 2003

I support either solution. Anything for data.

August 21, 2003

Creat a leader board. Then we can discuss or research why the top hunter/hider can hunt/hide so many caches................

It's fun. Discussing and researching is fun. Just fun.

38.2k · August 21, 2003

Dan's stats site seems to have been extremely popular. I think its demise and the fact there is no alternative, was the major reason for some of the animosity towards GC-COM in the forums lately.

I think if GC.COM produced a stats page with the same functionality as Dan's, it would make a very nice premium feature...and may even result in more people ponying up their $30 to become premium members.

Also, I don't agree with a system where users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." and only those people become ranked in the system. A system that only ranks some people, is not very useful. Besides, those don't care where they are ranked, simply don't have to look (but I'm willing to bet that many people who say they don't care, will look anyway ).

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Besides, those don't care where they are ranked, simply don't have to look (but I'm willing to bet that many people who say they don't care, will look anyway ).

why can't we have the same attitude about vertual and locationless caches?

SR and dboggny.

1.3k · August 21, 2003

That's a different topic for a different thread

I agree about stats being more useful if everybody is "ranked" or "tracked".

southdeltan

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

August 21, 2003

I agree with Brian's statements below. I only really looked at the statistics for NJ and wanted to know where I stood against everyone. Not just the informed or participating group members. Also it was interesting to see newbies who got hooked and quickly climbed up the chart. Often unknown to themselves that they were now in the top 100 or 50 of the NJ state cachers.

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Dan's stats site seems to have been extremely popular.

...

Also, I don't agree with a system where users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." and only those people become ranked in the system. A system that only ranks some people, is not very useful. Besides, those don't care where they are ranked, simply don't have to look (but I'm willing to bet that many people who say they don't care, will look anyway

August 21, 2003

I agree whole-heartedly. Maybe if gc.com was more entrepreneurial/capitalistic they would recognize there's (more) money to be made here by adding this feature. Just a thought.

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Dan's stats site seems to have been extremely popular. I think its demise and the fact there is no alternative, was the major reason for some of the animosity towards GC-COM in the forums lately.

I think if GC.COM produced a stats page with the same functionality as Dan's, it would make a very nice premium feature...and may even result in more people ponying up their $30 to become premium members.

Also, I don't agree with a system where users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." and only those people become ranked in the system. A system that only ranks some people, is not very useful. Besides, those don't care where they are ranked, simply don't have to look (but I'm willing to bet that many people who say they don't care, will look anyway ).

_"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry_

August 21, 2003

On several other threads, I've been one of the common voices remonstrating for a return to cache totals on the User Profile page. But I definitely see where Jeremy's coming from here. I like seeing totals for a basically social reason - to know readily when folks have "cache anniversaries" coming up. But leader boards seem to miss the point. I could easily "bulk up" my totals, but when I think of the caches I've most enjoyed, they've generally been the ones I spent some time on.

You might think I'm saying this only because my team's numbers aren't very high, but if you check out my recent posts on other threads, you'll see I've been very pro-total. It's worth looking at some of those threads, btw, for some other folks thoughtful comments on all sides of this issue.

-------------

"Thos' Degrees of Longitude and Latitude in Name, yet in Earthly reality are they Channels mark'd for the transport of some unseen Influence, one carefully assembl'd chain…"

– Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon

38.2k · August 21, 2003

quote:
I could easily "bulk up" my totals, but when I think of the caches I've most enjoyed, they've generally been the ones I spent some time on.

There have always been people who pump up their totals through fake finds, or just by knocking off bunches of 1/1 caches and ignoring anything that takes more than 15 minutes to find.

A stats page isn't going to change this one way or another. Some people are seriously competetive and some are competetive in a good natured sort of way (remember Jamie Z's Paterquest?). A stats page would cater to these types and also to those who are simply curious about how they stack up. I very rarely visited Dan's stats pages and I don't look at this sport as a competetion, but I have to admit to a certain feeling of accomplishment when I saw that I came from off the charts to wind up in the top 20 in my state.

Dan's page wasn't all about competetion either. It offered a number of other features that the statistics hounds among us found useful and was a good way to follow what was going on in the geocaching community in your area.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Dan's stats site seems to have been extremely popular. I think its demise and the fact there is no alternative, was the major reason for some of the animosity towards GC-COM in the forums lately.

I think if GC.COM produced a stats page with the same functionality as Dan's, it would make a very nice premium feature...and may even result in more people ponying up their $30 to become premium members.

Also, I don't agree with a system where users check a box that says "Yes. I think points matter." and only those people become ranked in the system. A system that only ranks some people, is not very useful. Besides, those don't care where they are ranked, simply don't have to look (but I'm willing to bet that many people who say they don't care, will look anyway ).

_"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry_

What he said.

--RuffRidr

August 21, 2003

Some random thoughts regarding a leader board...

If it is offered, I agree that it should be a benefit of membership.

Personally, I wouldn't want my stats made available on the board (thus rendering the board virtually useless).

Stats, used as suggested by a leader board, are useless. A leader board suggests a particular level of skill (ranking); find counts do not do this (too easy to fudge).

I like the idea of a group of friends being able to compare their counts if they want to.

I'm worried that the rankings will lead to statements in the forums like "well, since I am ranked Number 1 in the state (and you're only 107), I...".

But, I can live with whatever TPTB decide.

August 21, 2003

Where is Dan?

Can somebody contact to him? Wish to hear why he made his website.

Life short, Hunt more.

August 21, 2003

Yes PLEASE! I understand that there will be people that dont and wont care about the stats but... Just like other types of caches (Verts, Locationless, micros, 1/1) etc if you dont like them then dont do them... If you dont like stats then dont look. It is always nice to know where you fall in the state, country, world, universe...

August 21, 2003

There seems to be a theme that is coming up a lot in this thread, "if you dont like stats then dont look". Let's take that a little further, if you don't like this page the way it is then start your own site about Geocaching and you can design it however you want.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't make suggestions but once The Powers That Be have heard those suggestions (repeatedly) and have stated their opinion on the matter then that should be the end of it. Shouldn't it?

When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking.

6.4k · August 21, 2003

Anyone notice that even with all the people whining for stats, the actual poll is almost split right down the middle?

Seems to me there are just about as many people that are either dead set against or are not interested in them as there are people asking for them. Judging by this poll, if stats WERE added to the site, you still have the same amount of people complaining, just a different set of user names.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

August 21, 2003

I don't think so. The stats folks would stop whining. The anti-stats folks wouldn't whine, they would just ignore the data. Everybody would be happy happy happy.

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Anyone notice that even with all the people whining for stats, the actual poll is almost split right down the middle?

Seems to me there are just about as many people that are either dead set against or are not interested in them as there are people asking for them. Judging by this poll, if stats WERE added to the site, you still have the same amount of people complaining, just a different set of user names.

+ _"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy _

August 21, 2003

I, among others, also miss Dan's site. I enjoyed watching names from my area, including mine, as they moved up and down the list. As for it making the sport competitive...I must admit that I enjoyed moving up the page more than moving down, but it didn't make me run out and pile up a bunch of 1/1 caches to move back up and pass someone.

Do people do that? Probably. Let's face it this thing isn't perfect.

But I think this is one case where having more options should cause less controversy, and having less will cause more. IMHO

"Do What You Can, Where You Are, With What You Have."

2.6k · August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Judging by this poll, if stats WERE added to the site, you still have the same amount of people complaining, just a different set of user names.

I don't remember anyone complaining about the fact that Dan had a stats site.

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

August 22, 2003

I think it would be a good idea to have a stat page. I would love to see how I stack up against the whole world or even just the USA. I've just started in this game, so I know that I would be at the bottom of the list, but it would be kinda interesting to see how other people are doing in the game.

This game is based on honesty. I feel (no proof) that some people right now are "bumping" up their stats by claiming multible finds on the same cache. In any sport/game you are going to have certain people who are going to play outside the rules, that is just a fact of life.

As far as multi caches, right now you only get credit for 1 find on most multi leg caches, so I personally do not see a issue there.

And as far as this only being open to members I don't like that at all. If you are going to compare yourself to others, compare against a large community, not just a select few.

NO officer I'm not speeding, I'm geocaching & I need to be the FTF !!

August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Anyone notice that even with all the people whining for stats, the actual poll is almost split right down the middle?

Which poll is that? The poll I've seen is running 80-20 for stats.

'Course, That's just about the totals, which is the part I miss. I did enjoy Dan's site, though it was very error-prone, at least by the time I start using it - not for any 'leader board' function, but just for getting all that information, including the DNFs.

-------------

"Thos' Degrees of Longitude and Latitude in Name, yet in Earthly reality are they Channels mark'd for the transport of some unseen Influence, one carefully assembl'd chain…"

– Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon

August 22, 2003

Simply true.

People are complaining about not having stats anymore, but nobody complained about having stats when Dan's site was up.

quote:
Originally posted by Divine:

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Judging by this poll, if stats WERE added to the site, you still have the same amount of people complaining, just a different set of user names.

I don't remember anyone complaining about the fact that Dan had a stats site.

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

1.7k · August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:
People are complaining about _not_ having stats anymore, but nobody complained about having stats when Dan's site was up.

That's more than a little disingenuous. No, they didn't complain about having the stats, but they complained about people padding their stats by logging multiple finds on the same cache, about locationless and events being counted in stats, about people finding their own caches, about multis only counting as one find, about 5/5 caches counting the same as 1/1 caches, and dozens of other stupid numbers-related complaints.

pirate.cgi.gif

6.4k · August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Alethiometrists:

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Anyone notice that even with all the people whining for stats, the actual poll is almost split right down the middle?

Which poll is that? http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=8016058331&m=63260177&showpollresults=Y is running 80-20 for stats.

'Course, That's just about the totals, which is the part I miss.

The poll at the top of this thread? The one where the votes for having the stats are only at 53%?

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

6.4k · August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:
People are complaining about _not_ having stats anymore, but nobody complained about having stats when Dan's site was up.

That's more than a little disingenuous. No, they didn't complain about having the stats, but they complained about people padding their stats by logging multiple finds on the same cache, about locationless and events being counted in stats, about people finding their own caches, about multis only counting as one find, about 5/5 caches counting the same as 1/1 caches, and dozens of other stupid numbers-related complaints.

http://parkrrrr.com/pirate.cgi.gif

Very true, Fuzzy. Also, there was a HUGE difference between Dan's site and having the stats here. When Dan's site was active, it was not a part of geocaching.com, it was not linked, listed, mentioned, officially sanctioned or controlled by geocaching.com. The only way anyone knew about the stats was by word of mouth. Even then, you had to be interested enough in the stats to seek out his site, and put forth the effort to keep your stats accurate. Having gc.com hosting the stats means it would be thrust upon every user, including the other %47 of geocachers who are either against having stats, or are just not interested in them.

If GC.com hosted the stats, they would be responsible for them, their accuracy, and all the complaints about cheating/padding the stats that Fuzzy mentioned above. With Dan's site, GC.com had no control over the stats, and since the official line is the only person you are competing against is yourself, it wasn't their problem if people cheated on the stats. Make the stats part of this website, and you will have to see so many rules implemented to keep things fair it will make your compass spin.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

1.6k · August 22, 2003

Isn't there a difference between "activity" and "scoring?" The statistics on a users stats page are basically only a measure of activity--caches the person has logged.

"Scoring" is another matter altogether. That's when difficulty, frequency, distance, and the whole host of variables come into play. I think a lot of people don't see the difference, but there is a difference between the number of logged caches and how hard you've been caching.

Personally, I'm not looking for scoring. I'm looking for activity.

CR

[This message was edited by Sissy-n-CR on August 22, 2003 at 03:09 PM.]

2.5k · August 22, 2003

I think it's pretty clear that polls in the forums aren't worth a dadgum, as most geocachers don't visit the forums anyway.

It's also pretty funny that most of those who are most vocal against stats state that they don't want to compete, when it probably means that they can't compete. I'm secure enough in my level of activity to know that I may never reach the top of the leaderboard, and it doesn't bother me to know that. I wonder why it bothers others?

If they are ashamed of their activity level, then why even bother posting online logs, since their total is displayed right there in their log?

3k · August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Also, there was a HUGE difference between Dan's site and having the stats here. When Dan's site was active, it was not a part of geocaching.com, it was not linked, listed, mentioned, officially sanctioned or controlled by geocaching.com. The only way anyone knew about the stats was by word of mouth.

That's more than a little disingenuous, Mopar. Knowledge of Dan's board was not spread "word of mouth" but, for the most part, through these very forums. TPTB allowed literally thousands of posts about Dan's leaderboard to appear in these forums. That's tacit approval of both Dan's site and the collection and comparison of statistics in general.

quote:
Having gc.com hosting the stats means it would be thrust upon every user, including the other %47 of geocachers who are either against having stats, or are just not interested in them.

Just like these forums are "thrust upon every user?" The quoted statement doesn't hold water.

quote:
If GC.com hosted the stats, they would be responsible for them

In the same way that they are "responsible" for illegally placed caches and other inaccurate, misleading, or outright fraudulent information that appears on the cache pages they provide as their core service? Again, the quoted statement doesn't hold water. As with everything else, TPTB would simply attach a disclaimer to any leaderboard absolving themselves of any responsibility.

quote:
since the official line is the only person you are competing against is yourself, it wasn't their problem if people cheated on the stats.

You/they are correct. Nobody is competing against anyone but themselves. The information contained in a leaderboard is merely comparative in nature; not competitive.

August 22, 2003

Actual conversation today on the hike in:

NineYearOld: Dad, what cache has been logged the most in Minnesota?

Dad: I don't know.

NineYearOld: geocaching.com should make a list.

2.5k · August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by rickrich:

NineYearOld: geocaching.com should make a list.

Smart kid

August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

No, they didn't complain about having the stats, but they complained about people padding their stats by logging multiple finds on the same cache, about locationless and events being counted in stats, about people finding their own caches, about multis only counting as one find, about 5/5 caches counting the same as 1/1 caches, and dozens of other stupid numbers-related complaints.

You're absolutely right! If stats were to become an integral part of this site the complaints would never end.

August 22, 2003

Make an official leader board.

Set it to be sorted by all selcetion we can think

1.user : hunt/hide amount, kind/level, area/........, total/charter member account, ...............

2.cache: logged accounts amount, traditonal/virtual/reverse amount,.....

GC. Information should be opened to the world as geographic information. You know, GC is based on the open of GPS. Some country goverments still lock most geographic information (eg. paper map) . They think the open will cause some damage on defense. What damage? Do GC. get damage on open the stats?

Life short, Hunt more.

August 22, 2003

It's a shame that all the data this site has is not being put into good use. Instead, it's laying dormant.

GF

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

August 22, 2003

Not a good idea. It's as simple as this. If an overzealous Olympic athlete will risk their own life to cheat, then some overzealous cache competitor will eventually screw around with caches.

I've already gotten into a flamefest over this in BassoonPilot's thread "Premium Feature Request:" with someone overzealous who took my opinion personally, please don't start it again here. It'll waste even more bandwidth. Read it, think about it, and then just say I'm overreacting. Any increases in problems = bad to me. Keep it local, amongst friends you trust, and off the GC page.

SA / PP-ASEL-I / Yahoo "SphinxXXVII" / ICQ 1916574

August 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DBleess:
Not a good idea. It's as simple as this. If an overzealous Olympic athlete will risk their own life to cheat, then some overzealous cache competitor will eventually screw around with caches.

I've already gotten into a flamefest over this in BassoonPilot's thread "Premium Feature Request:" with someone overzealous who took my opinion personally, please don't start it again here. It'll waste even more bandwidth. Read it, think about it, and then just say I'm overreacting. Any increases in problems = bad to me. Keep it local, amongst friends you trust, and off the GC page.

SA / PP-ASEL-I / Yahoo "SphinxXXVII" / ICQ 1916574

I don’t buy into this. An Olympic athlete may take that risk because there is a big reward for winning, like a gold metal and fame that may propel a career. What reward is there being on the top of the leader board? Bragging rights at the most. Will some people cheat? Maybe, whom will they be cheating?

To tell you the truth, I’m kind of sick of all this stat grumbling of late. It’s getting old. Stats can be more than just geocachers rankings. This is just at the heated forefront.

By the way, you have three beautiful girls. I have two myself.

GF

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

August 23, 2003

I too would like to see a leaderboard, both on world and local levels. It does not necessarily reflect who is the "best" geocacher. There is no way to determine that, and that is not what this website is about. When I went to an event recently, I recognized the people there because of looking at the SC leaderboard. A leaderboard simply reflects the level of activity of that cacher, and shows who participates most in geocaching.

When I started geocaching, I thought it sounded like a cool idea, as I enjoy hiking and being out in the woods as well as using maps. Just before I started, I noticed a thread in the SE forums that gave a link to Dan's page. When I saw Dan's page, geocaching now got my attention on another one of my interests: stats. I love statistics, since there is so much you can do with them. I started off competing with my uncle, but once I passed him, I turned my attention to the South Carolina leaderboard. When the site went down, I was ranked 21st, and was just shy of the top 20

I get my enjoyment from geocaching from statistics, and comparing mine to others. I was never upset that there were 20 ahead of me in SC. I just liked the comparison, and the motivation to do more caching. As for the variety of caches (1/1s, 5/5s, virtuals, regular, multis), it is a matter of preference. Being in a low density area I go for all of them. My favorite caches are those that have difficult terrain, and I don't believe in putting the caches out in the open. I also find some multis fun. If you like long caches and your totals are low, fine. That's not a problem, and no one is saying that you are not at the level of those who do plenty of easy 1/1s. As I said previously, the rankings rank the activity of the cacher, not the quality of the cacher. Maybe we could create a sortable stats page that puts cachers in the order of cache types found (most multis found, most 3/3s or above found) so we could reward cachers who choose more difficult caches.

As for cheating, we could take away the option of logging a find for your own cache. That would be easy to do. And cache owners can delete fake logs. Therefore, I really don't see cheating as an issue.

Let's have stats for people like me (as well as many others on this board) so we can enjoy geocaching our way. If you like stats, fine. If you enjoy the activity of it and difficult caches, fine. I seriously doubt anyone would do trashtalking or much whining, and I would discourage that. As people have said before, no one complained about Dan's site. Let's make a fun hobby even more fun by adding a stat page.

August 23, 2003

Actual conversation at dinner tonight:

Wifey: How many people have logged cache finds in all 50 states?

Me: I don't know

NineYrOldSon: geocaching.com should make a list

-Rick

August 24, 2003

GPGeocaching would be interested in developing a leader board, however the method by which Dan had to acquire the data is unacceptable. He had to "screen scrape" to get the data and in this age of web services, gc.com could provide the data easily to anyone that they approve of. Its very sad that Dan's stats are gone. We had volunteers from our group offering to help, but we understand that its hard to organize that, too.

If gc.com would provide a web service of the data to us, we would be happy to provide a leaderboard for everyone. But I would hope that gc.com would do it themselves. It seems to us to be within their realm of responsibility to players.

SpinWebby

www.gpgeocaching.com

Geocaching.com should create a 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