Stats Page Feature Question

[+regoarrarr]

Okay - I was working on my stats page and was thinking about something. I wasn't sure which way to do this so I thought I'd see what people thought about this.

 

I don't want to turn this into one of those flame-war threads on whether stats are good or not. If you just cache for the enjoyment or whatever, that's fine and I respect your opinion. Nevertheless, there are those who enjoy the counting and/or like seeing their name climb the leaderboard. So, for those people...

 

I was thinking about archived caches. Currently, my site counts all caches, archived and non-archived for leaderboard purposes. But I was thinking that that might not be so fair. For example, in Cincinnati, there are 11 caches that I have found that someone starting out now couldn't find (because they're archived). So even if Joe Newbie found every cache out there, he could never catch me. Similarly, DLiming has 4 caches in Cincinnati that he's found that were archived before I got to visit them. So I can't catch him (unless he goes inactive).

 

Vote and comment - should I:

[+VegasCacheHounds]

My vote is for leaving it as it is. In my opinion, you should get credit for any and all that you have found, regardless of if they are still there or not. Just because the cache no longer exists doesn't erase the history of the finds.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Shannon

 

VegasCacheHounds

[+Jamie Z]

Yeah... an archived cache is still a find.

 

In fact, a local cacher and I had discussed the possibility of Pater47 overtaking me in the Mississippi lead.

 

What we'd do is... he'd hide a cache, I'd find it, then he'd archive it. Then he'd rehide it somewhere else, I'd find it, and he'd archive it.

 

If you change it to exclude archived caches, my idea won't work.

 

Jamie

[+parkrrrr]

Okay, I voted to keep things as they are, too. But what I'd really like to see is a way to see rankings by finds only, rather than combined with hides. If you give us enough ranking options, maybe nobody will be a clear "winner" and all us "numbers don't mean anything" folks will be happy too.

 

[+parkrrrr]

Okay, I voted to keep things as they are, too. But what I'd really like to see is a way to see rankings by finds only, rather than combined with hides. If you give us enough ranking options, maybe nobody will be a clear "winner" and all us "numbers don't mean anything" folks will be happy too.

 

[+regoarrarr]

Well, the reason I combined them with hides is for one reason. Let me give you an example:

 

In some City, there are 100 caches. Joe Cacher has found 90, and hidden the other 10. Jane Cacher hasn't hid any, but has found 92. Joe can't find any more, without logging finds on his own caches.

 

I wasn't trying to get in to some of the more complicated "Cache ratings" systems, just trying to represent opportunity.

[BassoonPilot]

If one found the cache and logged it to the website, it counts. It's nonsense to say a situation is "unfair" just because someone joined in at a later date.

 

I like the way Gustaf has separate lists for finds and hides. That seems more "fair" than the combination method ... especially now that we have some people placing virtual (or locationless) caches on practically every street corner.

 

Maybe both finds and hides should be weighted by difficulty, but that would be "fudged" too.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on September 30, 2002 at 11:56 AM.]

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

...people placing virtual (or locationless) caches on practically every street corner.

---

This is a good point... I *do* think folks ought to get "credit" for hides, but maybe the find/hide counts should be separate.

 

Jamie

[+The Marauders]

Thank you for running the stats page! I think it is awesome the way it is now. I think being given credit for hiding a cache may encourage people who count on the stats page to hide more. Without getting into a quantity/quality issue here, I think credit should be given where credit is due. It is much easier to find most caches than to make them.

 

As for archived caches, this shouldn't be a problem for most people as there are always more caches being placed. Not changing this would have effects on state leaderboards in some states with only a few caches (i.e., you found em all, then some got archived), but this should only be a minimal discomfort for two or three people in the top of one ladder in one state with few caches. I wonder if that makes a lick of sense...

 

The Marauders (nowhere near the top of any leader board

[FISUR]

The only reason Team FISUR (i.e., my family) is still clinging to #1 in Rhode Island is because of the archived caches. Without those, fredric from Massachusetts () would have overtaken us weeks ago. So it is of extreme importance that no changes are ever made to your stats page. Ever. In perpetuity. Or until fredic moves out of area, whichever comes first.

[FISUR]

The only reason Team FISUR (i.e., my family) is still clinging to #1 in Rhode Island is because of the archived caches. Without those, fredric from Massachusetts (:eek:) would have overtaken us weeks ago. So it is of extreme importance that no changes are ever made to your stats page. Ever. In perpetuity. Or until fredic moves out of area, whichever comes first.

[+jonboy]

I really like all the work you have done, and I must admit that it really motivated me to see my rating rise. The one negative is that I went for a lot of junk caches because they were close together and made good multiple cache raids. Also because Connecticut is not in my area, I have not done as many caches there as I might have. One cacher has done more caches than me, but because many were in CT instead of NY, the ranking does not reflect this. I know you have to draw the lines somewhere, but it does seem tough on people that live in the border regions.

 

I know we will get the purists who pooh pooh all this selfish competition. Peakbaggers get the same criticism. It's mostly sour grapes from armchair critics. Hey! This whole sport is wierd, so this stats page fits right in for us obsessive compulsives.

[boreal jeff & sons]

My high school no longer exists. No one can never go to that high school and receive the exact education as I did. But I still get credit for going to high school. If you followed the logic that Archived caches don't count, then archived high school don't count and I didn't graduate??

 

Every hour spent geocaching is added to the end of your life

[+oregone]

I voted for the third one so newbies could feel more of a sense of accomplishment when they look at your stats page.

 

But now that i think about it, that seems like it would be more work for you. Leave it as it is and you might have about six less emails per week from confused cachers. I think the stats page is perfect, except it still counts all those locationless ones i have since deleted from my find count on geocaching.com.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+fizzymagic]

What I want to know is why the Stats Pages don't include Members Only caches.

[+BVCY Swim]

We vote for leaving the stats the way they are, archived & active combined. We found, hiked, and worked very hard to find many of these archived caches! We should still get credit for them on regoarrarr's site just as we still do on Geocaching.com. There will be plenty of new ones that pop up in the days to come giving everyone a chance to increase their "find" stats.

 

Just wish that "Five River MetroParks" wouldn't have "stolen" all of the caches in the Dayton area ! There were many great caches placed in those parks, and now they have been archived. They were great parks, too.

 

Also, Dan ... Thanks for maintaining the stats site!! You've done a great job

 

Cheers ... BVCY Swim

 

[This message was edited by BVCY Swim on October 01, 2002 at 09:38 AM.]

[+BVCY Swim]

We vote for leaving the stats the way they are, archived & active combined. We found, hiked, and worked very hard to find many of these archived caches! We should still get credit for them on regoarrarr's site just as we still do on Geocaching.com. There will be plenty of new ones that pop up in the days to come giving everyone a chance to increase their "find" stats.

 

Just wish that "Five River MetroParks" wouldn't have "stolen" all of the caches in the Dayton area ! There were many great caches placed in those parks, and now they have been archived. They were great parks, too.

 

Also, Dan ... Thanks for maintaining the stats site!! You've done a great job

 

Cheers ... BVCY Swim

 

[This message was edited by BVCY Swim on October 01, 2002 at 09:38 AM.]

[+eroyd]

First of all THANKS for all the work done on the stats page.

 

I think that only finds should be included in the rating system. It would be interesting to rate caches by difficulty. Perhaps the first 3 successful searchers could rate the cache. I can see how this could become overly complicated.

 

I don't think virtual hides should count. Though some of them are great, it's too easy to create them just to boost numbers. Every telephone pole could be a virtual cache. Virtuals, once reported require practically no responsibilty or effort for the owner.

[+pater47]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Yeah... an archived cache is still a find.

 

In fact, a local cacher and I had discussed the possibility of Pater47 overtaking me in the Mississippi lead.

 

What we'd do is... he'd hide a cache, I'd find it, then he'd archive it. Then he'd rehide it somewhere else, I'd find it, and he'd archive it.

 

If you change it to exclude archived caches, my idea won't work.

 

Jamie

---

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to find the caches already there?

 

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

[+pater47]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Yeah... an archived cache is still a find.

 

In fact, a local cacher and I had discussed the possibility of Pater47 overtaking me in the Mississippi lead.

 

What we'd do is... he'd hide a cache, I'd find it, then he'd archive it. Then he'd rehide it somewhere else, I'd find it, and he'd archive it.

 

If you change it to exclude archived caches, my idea won't work.

 

Jamie

---

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to find the caches already there?

 

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pater47:

Wouldn't it be easier just to find the caches already there?

---

True, but you have just as much opportunity to find them as I do. If I find a series of subsequently archived caches, you can never catch me!

 

Jamie

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pater47:

Wouldn't it be easier just to find the caches already there?

---

True, but you have just as much opportunity to find them as I do. If I find a series of subsequently archived caches, you can never catch me!

 

Jamie

[+Gary and Mary Adventurers]

If you were to delete archived caches from the list, you would negate the good effort put into finding these caches. Many caches are archived, because they have been plundered, or stolen. Although as the system now stands, someone who thinks numbers are everything could keep his stats better by stealing caches he has found. But if you change the rules, the opposite could happen, someone trying to beat a particular cacher could go steal the caches that he had found.

Thanks for all the work you do in maintaining these stats, and please leave them the way they are. Numbers are not that important, but it is a nice addition to the caching experience

 

Thanks for the Adventure

 

Gary and Mary

[+worldtraveler]

I voted to not change it. My REAL preference is to not count any locationless finds and hides.

 

BTW, you're doing a great job. Thanks for asking for our opinions.

 

Worldtraveler

[+georgeandmary]

A find is a find. If it's archived so what. If you start doing that then you're going to have to consider how long a person has been caching.

 

If someone has been caching for months or years longer than someone else they're going to have more oportunity to find caches. So what.

 

It also get's harder to find caches once you've found all the caches near you.

 

george

 

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.