Jump to content

Premium Feature Request:


BassoonPilot

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Lone Duck:

User stats can be seen when you view your Profile from the My Cache Page link. Do you have something different in mind?

 

_That Quack Cacher:_

_Lone Duck_

 

_When you don't know where you're going, every road will take you there._


 

Well, for starters how about TOTALS!

 

-Wily Javelina

Link to comment

I'd like to see totals broken down by state. I'm sure different people care about differnent stats, but for me the only ones that I ever paid any attention to were the state totals.

 

Zahrim....

 

"There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night.

Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently."

Link to comment

I'd say, judging from recent responses (or lack thereof) from TPTB, that premium member requests are at the lowest priority right now. In other words, don't hold your breath.

 

<editorial note> I think there is still a lot of work to be done making the site harder to use and less informative. </editorial note>

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lone Duck:

User stats can be seen when you view your Profile from the My Cache Page link. Do you have something different in mind?


 

Yes. A comparative summary (rankings, if you will) like Dan Miller's page was a good start:

 

Overall rankings

State rankings

City/Metro Area rankings

 

Also, it would be nice to see the rankings sortable by cache type(s), perhaps with switches for the types to include/exclude.

 

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

I'd say, judging from recent responses (or lack thereof) from TPTB, that premium member requests are at the lowest priority right now. In other words, don't hold your breath.


 

This is a (premium) feature that a lot of people WANT. For me, the inclusion or exclusion of this type of feature will determine whether or not I will renew my membership for a third year ... I have little interest in pocket queries, and the other "major" premium feature, MOCs, has been a complete bust.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lone Duck:

User stats can be seen when you view your Profile from the My Cache Page link. Do you have something different in mind?

 

_That Quack Cacher:_

_Lone Duck_

 

_When you don't know where you're going, every road will take you there._


Oh yeah! We want stats that show cacher rankings by state, country, city, etc.

 

I also would like to see travel bug rankings added.

 

Number of career first finds would be interesting too.

 

As I mentioned in another post, I'm willing to pay a few more dollars a year to help make the stats page return/improved over Miller's original.

Link to comment

I'd like to see a stats page as well. For me, it's not so much about ranking but activity. Right now, it's kind of a pain to watch cache activity in the area. Watch list notifications clog my inbox and there really isn't a way to sort it or anything.

 

To solve the issue about people not putting in their location, they'd just not be listed in the cacher's list. They'd still be shown in the caches' activity list, though.

 

Just like the new Nearest Cache List with it's ability to hide owned and found caches has really cleared up the list and shown what I've got to go after. A comprehansive stats page would show what's going on in my area.

 

The reason I don't use Dan's site much is because it is so prone to inaccuracy. It had lost about 20 of my finds and it really wasn't that important to wade through the 200+ finds to figure it. Plus, that would only clean up my stats.

 

With the human nature of rivalry, just look at those who keep up the stats of their favorite NFL or NBA team, NASCAR driver, or any host of other things. Stats on geocaching is a natural extension.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

While Dan Miller's page was not a requirement in order to make it through my day, it was a really neat way to just see who's doing what and where. It was a regular part of my Geocaching experience and I do miss the stats. As you can see by my numbers I'm not competing with ANYBODY but myself. It was still great to keep track of those other cachers I've met and come to know around the country as they go through their caching careers.

 

I definitely vote for Geocaching.com to take up the task. I'll keep sending in my yearly monetary contribution.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

Link to comment

What I miss is the Dan's Log list by State. I wish gc.com would put Recent 100 Logs on the State page filtered by state of course. In the good old days I could read the logs for Georgia, just looking at the Recent 100 logs but now they go back so quick. But I think the 100 recent logs for a single state would allow me to see what I want to see. This doesn't seem to conflict with the gc.com ideas since they currently show the last 100 in world.

Link to comment

Would it be possible to create a new type of pocket query that would permit mass downloads (with limits, of course) of user-specified logging data so that individual members or groups could compile their own stats? I'm sure that somebody would end up creating an application like watcher to sort and calculate totals. In this way, geocaching.com would not not have to deal with inevitable complaits about how the rankings are determined. Everyone and anyone could create their own system. I have no doubt that this could be done but I what I don't know is how taxing it will be to the site.

 

Johnny

Link to comment

Very few things in life are free, it’s takes money to produce just about anything even on the web. Even if it is a good job for a computer to do, its has to have someone that’s likes to eat, buy gas and just plain to survive to oversee the extra operations and servers, bandwidth and the other stuff I know nothing about.

 

On the other hand I do know what I like, and usually the best way to get what you want is to pay for it. I don’t ever expect anything for free, and if you think about it you don’t either.

 

I am ready to pay for the services, and will gladly pay up to the coat of a new gps’r for it each year. That’s just 27 cents per day for the best sport in the world………..JOE

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by res2100:

Why does this have to be a premium feature? Why can't it be available to everyone?


 

It costs money to run a website; where does (a significant portion of) that money come from? We've read in other threads how the income generated from member subscriptions is barely enough for the website to scrape by.

 

Adding features that have been frequently requested by existing subscribers that would also serve to attract new subscribers would appear to be the obvious thing to do.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:

You have my vote.

 

I'm not going to renew my membership when it comes up again and may drop out altogether...unless stats come back.


 

I posted this in another thread but I think it bares repeating.

 

Don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out!

 

_________________________________________________________________________

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

Link to comment

In another thread in this forum, Jeremy wrote:

quote:
This was buried in another topic, so no I don't object to stats outright. Just thrusting a competitive nature on everybody who plays.

 

I disagree that stats/rankings are necessarily "competitive in nature." It seems to me that most people who have responded to the several threads on this topic enjoy the comparative nature of the stats/rankings.

Link to comment

I've said it before and I'll repeat. This is a competitive sport for me. I'm motivated to get out and find more because of the stats page. Sorry if that offends. I'd pay extra for a stats page.

 

"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

Link to comment

I would very much like to see at the very least the same info I could see at the leader board.

 

Especially the number of finds from highest to lowest in a given state (i.e. NJ)

 

It would be better if the numbers were broken down by the cache type as is now down on our profiles here on geocaching.

 

I too think a leader board for paying members would be a feature I would pay for just like the pocket queries.

Link to comment

1. Got stats. Right from the GC page.

 

http://members.cox.net/dmbleess/geocache/stats.jpg

 

2. It isn't a competition. If you make it a competition, you will open up an entirely new can of worms. Competing people are even more prone to do dumb things than non-competing people, so why bother? They will lie about finds to inflate numbers, and steal and screw up caches to make them tougher for others to find to keep their position if they are "honest" in other respects. We simply don't need it. Keep the competitive aspect off the GC page. It will cause far more harm than good to organize and encourage competition. If you want a competition, go play a traditionally competitive sport. There's plenty of them already out there.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DBleess:

1. Got stats. Right from the GC page.

 

http://members.cox.net/dmbleess/geocache/stats.jpg

 


 

Now show me how to break that out by state? Then we might have something I actually want to see.

 

quote:

2. It isn't a competition. If you make it a competition, you will open up an entirely new can of worms. Competing people are even more prone to do dumb things than non-competing people, so why bother? They will lie about finds to inflate numbers, and steal and screw up caches to make them tougher for others to find to keep their position if they are "honest" in other respects. We simply don't need it. Keep the competitive aspect off the GC page. It will cause far more harm than good to organize and encourage competition. If you want a competition, go play a traditionally competitive sport. There's plenty of them already out there.


 

Why is it that those that don't like to compete want to limit those that do? All people that want to compete are dirty and we will inflate numbers and screw up caches. I love these blanket statements made about people. In another thread all competitive cachers are referred to as single and unemployed. Why the hostility?

 

-beatnik-

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by DBleess:

1. Got stats. Right from the GC page.

 

http://members.cox.net/dmbleess/geocache/stats.jpg


 

LOL.... Very cute. I can do that too. But, seeing one persons stats are not what most everyone has been talking about here. You are correct in the fact that you can grab "One persons stats" at any time with what is now provided. Without an easy way to "compare" those stats to other people, it is totally useless. The other point here is that many who have spoken up about this is that they, and myself, want to see the stats 'related' at some form of local level. In my case at the state level. I can see several states that might care to see them at a more local level, but for where I live here in Oklahoma, state level is more than enough.

 

quote:

2. It isn't a competition. If you make it a competition, you will open up an entirely new can of worms. Competing people are even more prone to do dumb things than non-competing people, so why bother? They will lie about finds to inflate numbers, and steal and screw up caches to make them tougher for others to find to keep their position if they are "honest" in other respects. We simply don't need it. Keep the competitive aspect off the GC page. It will cause far more harm than good to organize and encourage competition. If you want a competition, go play a traditionally competitive sport. There's plenty of them already out there.

 

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


 

Just WHO do you think you are to make such a statement? How DARE you imply that because I like to see the numbers that I would ever cheat? The only reason I can possibly think of is that you yourself are prone to cheat. You don't know me and at this point I bet you don't know most of the people here asking for stats. It is silly thinking like that which starts bigotry of most kinds, be it racial, sexist, etc...

 

Even though it has not been "a competition" on GC.com I have seen a few cases of people "fake'n" posts. When stuff like that happens, MOST times, the posts are caught quickly and dealt with. If not, then as you don't care about the stats, it should not bother you at all.

 

And another point... For an "anti-stats" person, I find it very funny that on one of the pages on your website you have a large photo of an airplane that is BLATANTLY stat related ( The Nebraska 'Huskers' airplane to be exact)...

 

I think everyone is entitled to there opinion, but that is all it is, and it should be stated as such. If your opinion is you don't like stats, fine. Say so, but DO NOT ACCUSE others.

 

Zahrim....

 

"There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night.

Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently."

Link to comment

from beatnik: "show me how to break that out by state" (about stats)

 

Like I said, the pure numbers don't interest me much so this is my best answer:

http://members.cox.net/dmbleess/geocache/graphicfinds.jpg

 

(via Street Atlas 2003)

 

The explanation for all of the icons -if you're interested- is buried in here:

http://members.cox.net/dmbleess/geocache/benchmarks.htm

 

This map layer is just geocaches and gives me locations of each cache I have found (red x's). I can see which finds are in which state, (yellow line divides Nebraska and Iowa) and county. (peach line is county boundaries)

 

 

from beatnik: "Why the hostility?"

 

I re-read my post and I don't think I was very hostile about it. I simply made a personal observation. There was no mean, cruel, or derogatory intent to my post. I just oppose the proposal.

 

I do not share your opinion about the effect the requested change will have overall on a pastime I enjoy. I can't guarantee such a change will be a negative effect, but you can't guarantee that it won't be one. Odds, and the history of human nature are in favor of my prediction. My stand remains "don't risk making it a competition". There *are* many competitive alternative activities out there. My opinion is that the potential problems do not justify the risk.

 

 

===Yeah, I know this next one was flame bait, but I feel the need to compete! I gotta! He can have the last word if this is the best he's got.===

 

from zahrim: "Just WHO do you think you are to make such a statement?"

 

Who am I? I am someone entitled to his opinion. This person even said so:

 

from zahrim: "I think everyone is entitled to there (their) opinion..."

 

...except where it conflicts with your own opinion I guess. See what happens:

 

from zahrim: "It is silly thinking like that which starts bigotry of most kinds, be it racial, sexist, etc..."

 

I don't think opposing competition qualifies me as a bigot, either racial or sexual. You're trying to cast me as something I'm not. Maybe in order to try to discredit my opinion because it is so difficult to make an honest case against it.

 

 

from zahrim: "How DARE you imply that because I like to see the numbers that I would ever cheat?"

 

I didn't. You are right, I don't know you personally, so I cannot, and do not make that claim of you personally. Your name was not specifically mentioned on my post.

 

from zahrim: "...but DO NOT ACCUSE others."

 

You suggested that I personally am a bigot, and now a cheat. Copy any statement of mine that supports either supposition and say ACCUSE again with a straight face. A cheat based on what? Not liking competition? Is there another reason to cheat I'm not aware of? Personal satisfaction? That's just twisted.

 

 

again from zahrim: "How DARE you imply that because I..."

 

My statement was a generalization directed at a relative few that can cause a major headache:

My exact key phrase was: ***...are even more prone to...***

 

To clarify: This means SOME PEOPLE, but more than the usual average in a given situation. NOT necessarily you. You took what I said way too personally, maybe partly in order to make your case, so you attacked me in a most definitely personal way. One could almost make a case that you had a competitive reaction. I'll chalk it up to something else. icon_smile.gif

 

***

 

from zahrim: "Even though it has not been "a competition" on GC.com I have seen a few cases of people "fake'n" posts. When stuff like that happens, MOST times, the posts are caught quickly and dealt with."

 

Does anyone honestly think that a change which promotes or makes competition easier will make this occurence less likely? If it happens more, and it has to be dealt with, doesn't that mean those problems can draw resources away from other improvements to the site? At any rate, I'm not as worried about posts.

 

from zahrim: "If not, then as you don't care about the stats, it should not bother you at all."

 

Except when people screw with caches instead of stats. That bugs me. Your proposal will make that also more likely, not less, not even just the same. More. Maybe just a little? Probably. It could still affect any and all of us. I'd rather find other more constructive things to do with the GC site as a first priority.

 

***

 

from zahrim: "Without an easy way to "compare" those stats to other people, it is totally useless"

 

add: '...for competitive purposes.' and then I say: 'I know. I prefer it that way.'

 

***

 

Had to save this one for last:

 

from zahrim: "And another point... For an "anti-stats" person, I find it very funny that on one of the pages on your website you have a large photo of an airplane that is BLATANTLY stat related (The Nebraska 'Huskers' airplane to be exact)..."

 

[note*]

 

Dude, you really stepped in it now. Look at the NCAA violations for the Huskers, and for a better laugh, the OKLAHOMA SOONERS. Cheating? In a stats based sport? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Say it isn't so? Geeze, are you on my side and being sarcastic or what?

 

Here's a challenge for you: Show me an immensely popular stats based competion where there isn't a documented history of people trying to get an unfair edge by breaking the rules. Good luck.

 

Here, try these for starters:

 

College Football

Baseball -the national pastime

How about the Olympics?

 

If there's a security loophole, SOMEONE WILL take advantage. You can only speak for you, and I can only speak for me. Caches are out in the middle of nowhere, largely unattended. They're at risk. I don't see a reason to heighten it. Caches and travel bugs disappear every day, why make it even more likely?

 

from zahrim: "There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night.

Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently."

 

That's exactly what the few cheaters will do, stalk this pastime silently.

 

 

Now, I think maybe you're paranoid that everything I said in my first post was directed at you personally.

It wasn't. This isn't either, but make of it what you will:

 

If you're going to a battle of wits, you had better come armed.

 

Ok, now have at it, I'm not replying to your flamebait again on this thread. Anyone with a reasonable viewpoint will be debated though.

 

Golly, this competing thing is fun!! Maybe we should incorporate this into the site so we can all have a chance to turn something simple and fun into something miserable and awful like this. What do you think? Have I made my point yet?

 

[note*] http://www.neonramp.com/~dbleess/dean/dean.htm

(Also read the text below the picture while you're at it. I don't think zahrim did.)

 

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

Link to comment

Some may elect to compete, some will not. The main thing is the information should be made available. Not just for member rankings, the data could be used for many other pertinent figures.

 

GF

 

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

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

 

logo_small.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:

 

One might ask why those who wish to compete have to turn a nice non-competitive sport into a competitive one.


 

Let me get this straight. Competition = mean? It is non-competitive yet you call it a "sport"? The leaderboard has been around a long time. How are we turning it into anything it already wasn't?

 

All people are asking is to have the same features back. So those of us that want to see them again can. Be it on or off this website.

 

-beatnik-

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeoFool:

Some may elect to compete, some will not. The main thing is the information should be made available. Not just for member rankings, the data could be used for many other pertinent figures.

 

GF

 

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

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

 

http://www.chicagogeocaching.com/img/logo_small.jpg


 

Very true. Like the last 20 caches your buddy in Hawaii got on vacation. Or What caches were popular this weekend.

 

A lot of people cache for fun and it's no skin off their back for stats to exist.

Link to comment

OK, OK. Forget the leaderboard thing. But please give me a useful "latest finds" list, based on my state??? That way I can see which caches are active and who's active. If I want to figure out who's in the lead I can take it from there, because all the info is already available online under each user's profile (which begs the question "why is anyone against summary stats???"). But the recent logs list was far and away my favorite feature of the defunct stats site: the ability to keep tabs on activity close to home.

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