COOL NEW USER STATS PAGE

[+Sissy-n-CR]

The new stats page is nifty.

 

As for how you group the categories to get a total, it really doesn't matter to me. The way the numbers are now broken out tells the reader more about the cacher than all of the numbers put together.

 

I'm curious though, are these counts of the caches as they are now, or as they were when they were found? Say, you found the LB-hybrid, but since then the owner has converted it to a traditional. Will the cache be under LBH or traditional?

 

CR

 

[+Harrald]

I like the new lay out.

 

I own a calculator. If I really want to know how many caches total someone has found I can add it up myself. Or I can type their name into the Hide and seek a cache page. That'll tell you the total.

 

It's been stated so many times before though. This is not a compitition. If you're having a friendly compitition with someome it shouldn't be hard to keep track of your own numbers.

 

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

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

[The Alethiometrists]

Totals - not everyone cares about them, but enough people do that they should be there.

 

Changing how they're calculated - might be a good idea, but would open some nasty cans of worms.

 

Meanwhile, I find myself turning to the alternative source for cache stats, which I don't like as well as geocaching.com, but which now has certain advantages -

 

http://www.insidecorner.com/geocaching/stats/loglist.cgi?city=&state=&country=&user=The+Alethiometrists&check1=on

[+TEAM 360]

Poor Jeremy...I see him pulling his hair out: "IT'S NEVER GOOD ENOUGH FOR THESE PEOPLE! WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? FINE, THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN dadgum WEBSITE!"

 

LOL. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

You know, even if totals aren't included, I like the changes. Change is good. Change is our friend.

 

Great job, Jeremy!

[+nostrada]

quote:

---

You know, even if totals aren't included, I like the changes. Change is good. Change is our friend.

---

 

Change is inevitable... except from a vending machine.

 

... where is it?

[+bigeddy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TEAM 360:

Poor Jeremy...I see him pulling his hair out: "IT'S NEVER GOOD ENOUGH FOR THESE PEOPLE! WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? FINE, THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN dadgum WEBSITE!"

---

Criticism, constructive suggestions and crazy demands go with software interface design. At least we have a rabid group of users and reasonably responsive developers. The evolution of this site would make an interesting thesis. I'd say that the main challenges are popularity and trying to do too much.

[The Alethiometrists]

Back when I worked for a software company, the term was "Rapid Application Development" (RAD). The trick was to find a sufficiently involved group of users. That's no problem here. GC.com is a rapid application developer's dream.

 

***

 

Speaking of feedback, I'd like to second (or third, or whatever) the opinion that it's too bad we've lost the big avatar image on our User Profile pages. It was nice to be able to see all the detail.

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

I'm curious though, are these counts of the caches as they are now, or as they were when they were found? CR

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

---

 

It goes by what they are now, found out because I was checking mine and was horrified to find that it listed me as finding 2 virtuals (I avoid them like the plague), confused I checked and realized that those caches had been changed to virtuals, would be nice to have it the other way but I'm sure it's near impossible, involves way to much coding, and really isn't worth the effort.

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[enfanta]

Must have totals.

 

I'm too near my century not to have totals...

 

Ode to a Pigeon: Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, You Lookin' at Me? YOU LOOKIN' AT ME?! (b. katt, 7/14/03)

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I like the new user stats page!

 

From recent thread and two polls (1 2), we benchmarkers would like all of our counts shown as well.

 

I suggest the benchmarks be in their own area between the sets of green lines like the existing categories of "List of items found" and "List of items owned", making a third category; "Benchmarks". Within this "Benchmarks" category, according to the thread and polls, we'd like the separate counts of Found, Not-Found, Destroyed, and Note, and a total.

 

For these benchmark categories, the same benchmark icon could be used with just different colors.

 

I think with this separate area between green lines, the benchmark count could be taken out of the current "List of items found", and leave that category and any total of it be for caching only.

[+mikemtn]

What would this be that I found on a User Stats USA Geocoins 2003? When I click on the icon for it it takes me to the Travel Bug page. This is the only one I've seen. pater47

 

Edit. I figured it out with a little searching. I guess if I knew about these being trackable I'd forgotten. (like a lot of other stuff)

 

[This message was edited by mikemtn on July 18, 2003 at 03:42 PM.]

[+ScurvyDog]

Like it's been said many times.

The websie is getting better looking every day. This is something to be proud of..

 

Thank you the site is nice to look at and easy to move around.

 

"Would it be possible to have a spot on the page to show the amount of visits to your cache hides". (How many cachers have visited a cache you have made?)

ScurvyDog Lakewood,CA

[+fizzymagic]

I have a serious problem with the new cache breakdowns: they are incorrect.

 

If a cache was a physical cache when you found it, but is later turned into a virtual cache later, then it shows up in your total as a virtual cache.

 

What's the point of doing a breakdown if it can't even be right?

[+photosaurus]

Dang, thats a cool avatar infosponge. I like it...unacacher. Thats hilarious!

[ArtMan]

I don't see why 'profile' and 'user stats' need to be on separate pages. This seems to be an instance of tab-itis to me. Why not combine them? I suspect most people who go to a profile are interested in the user's stats, so why make them go through the time and inconvenience of making them click through to another page for that information (and then not have all the pertinent info on the same page)?

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fizzymagic:

I have a serious problem with the new cache breakdowns: they are incorrect.

 

If a cache was a physical cache when you found it, but is later turned into a virtual cache later, then it shows up in your total as a virtual cache.

 

What's the point of doing a breakdown if it can't even be right?

---

As jeremy mentioned somewhere the other day (I'm too lazy to markwell it right now), people shouldn't BE changing physical caches to virtuals just because it's missing. Part of the job of owning cache is maintaining it, and if you are too lazy to go replace a damaged or missing cache, it should be archived, not "converted to a virtual". That cheapens the find for those who originally found the cache as a physical (argue away, I enjoy a good virt too, but searching for a well hidden cache is NOT the same "Hike to where my cache used to be. Enjoy the view and log a find"), and prevents other locals from hiding physical cache in an area the clearly supports one.

You need to complain to the cache hider, really.

 

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

[+fizzymagic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

As jeremy mentioned somewhere the other day (I'm too lazy to markwell it right now), people shouldn't BE changing physical caches to virtuals just because it's missing.

---

 

If people shouldn't be doing it, then maybe the site shouldn't allow it. Make some features of a cache (the type, the name, the location) unchangeable once the cache has been approved. People want to change one of those things, they have to archive the old one and make a new one.

 

quote:

---

You need to complain to the cache hider, really.

---

 

No offense, Mopar, but I am not about to go through 800+ caches looking for the 5 that the owners changed to virtual!

[The Alethiometrists]

Originally posted by Mopar:

people shouldn't BE changing physical caches to virtuals just because it's missing. Part of the job of owning cache is maintaining it, and if you are too lazy to go replace a damaged or missing cache, it should be archived, not "converted to a virtual".

 

Well, regardless, it happens - but, even if it didn't, other changes occur. I've found a multi-stage that was turned into a single stage, and a single that was turned into a multi. In both cases, this was part of the original plan (they were both set up in conjunction with an event), so they were approved by the admin, and I don't see why they shouldn't have been, but it does mean the cache stats doesn't correctly catalogue them. I own a cache I list as a "?", because it can be done either single or multi, depending on how you do the clues, but it was originally listed as a single. So it goes. The breakouts have to be taken with a grain of salt, at least. On the whole, the total is the single most interesting piece of information, so it's too bad it's gone. I figured that was a temporary set-back, but now I'm starting to wonder.

[Jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fizzymagic:

 

No offense, Mopar, but I am not _about_ to go through 800+ caches looking for the 5 that the owners changed to virtual!

---

 

So it ain't that important to you.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+fizzymagic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy:

So it ain't that important to you.

---

 

Actually, no, it isn't. I keep my own stats, so in my case it makes no difference.

 

And sorry if I sounded too sarcastic in my first post.

 

My concern is for how others will view the stats. Like it or not, the data shown on this site is going to be taken as gospel by most cachers. I have always appreciated that the total number of finds shown in my profile on the site has always been correct. A couple of months ago, I noticed that the site showed I had 2 more finds than my own stats did. Doing investigation, I found that for a couple of caches my finds had been entered twice, so I was able to delete them and fix it.

 

Other sites that attempt to do geocaching statistics are usually inaccurate. People take them way too seriously already. I think statistics are important, not as competition, but as indicators of personal achievement. Whether or not it matters to you or me, it matters a lot to many people, and it will continue to matter. That's human nature. It seems to me that there should be at least one statistic somewhere that everyone knows is correct. And, in my opinion, geocaching.com is the place they should look for that statistic.

[+kusanagi]

It would seem that do to the break down of caches on the stats page, it is easier to see where a problem is. At least for the individual concerned. It seems to me though that if a traditional cache is changed into a virtual, and some one had a problem with it. The stats page would be doing them a favor, as they would become aware of it do to the numbers being different then their own. And it would be easier to find as it would allow you to search through fewer logs for the problem.

[+Cacheola Crew]

Please consider adding the totals back by putting them on the User Profile tab. That way you'd see them with one click and if you'd like to see a further breakdown, you could click the User Stats tab.

 

The totals are still calculating somehow because they come up when you log a cache, so perhaps there is a relatively easy way to add them to the User Profile page.

 

Janine

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geocaching-HamptonRoadsVA/join

 

"You have brains in your head; You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself any direction you choose.

You're on your own. And you know what you know.

And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...."

Dr. Seuss

[+Centex Trekker]

There's only one thing I miss about the old cache page that came up when you clicked on a user's profile. I liked the old list that looks like a "Seek" page result because it lets me see which caches have been found by that person. Sometimes I go caching with other people and that was an easy way to see if they had already done a particular cache.

 

[+CoronaKid]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoROCKS!:

 

Second, and even more important, is that as one gains more caching experience the stats actually become incorrect. The statistics are calculated based on the CURRENT status of the caches, not the status of the caches when you actually FOUND them. Cache owners frequently change cache types, especially in instances where the cache was plundered. This leads to useless stats.

 

For instance, in my case I have collected my stats on my own system since the day I started caching. Jeremy's stats page says that I have visited and found 470 caches as of today; my data agrees. I have found 14 locationless caches according to both systems. However, while I visited 25 multi-caches, the new stats page says that I have found only 21 -- four were converted to regular or virtual caches AFTER I found them. So the stats breakdown isn't completely correct and is not a true reflection of your experience.

---

 

Interesting observations but how were stats calculated before the switch? Wasn't it done the same way? I, for one, am not really that concerned if a few of the caches I found are converted to different cache types. For example, out of the 470 caches you found only 4 are labeled incorrectly. I don't think this small amount has any real bearing or reflection on your overall experience.

 

If it's an easy fix, I'd tell Jeremy to go ahead and fix it but if it's complicated I'd say to leave it how it is. Sure, it may be a little annoying but in my opinion it's nothing to get all worked up about.

 

--CoronaKid

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centex Trekker:

There's only one thing I miss about the old cache page that came up when you clicked on a user's profile. I liked the old list that looks like a "Seek" page result because it lets me see which caches have been found by that person. Sometimes I go caching with other people and that was an easy way to see if they had already done a particular cache.

---

If you know the type of cache in question, you can click on the cache type icon. This will pull a list of all caches of that type that the individual has found.