Unofficial statement about STATS

1.3k · August 20, 2003

I've seen several different threads about 'stats' start on this board (and some of the other boards). As most people are aware - this refers to the ranking of totals (as seen on the now defunct Insidecorner.com website by Dan). Since there are so many threads, there has been some confusion, with different people replying to different threads. Not everybody here reads the geoacaching.com forum board regularly (and some of the non-regulars probably don't read it at all).

I thought I'd repost this statement that Jeremy said, which to me indicates that TPTB have taken notice of the pleas by the gc.com users:

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
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.

Originally posted by Jeremy:

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

I hope that clarifies some things. The plan sounds good to me, and it's definetly better than nothing. If people don't care, they don't have to participate.

southdeltan

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

August 21, 2003

Sounds good to me. Evidently, stats and activity tracking is a big part of caching for a lot of folks.

1.3k · August 21, 2003

-bump-

Due to there still being at least a half dozen threads (some of them active) about the stats, I'm bumping this up, since a lot of people may have missed this statement.

southdeltan

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

24.7k · August 21, 2003

The opt in on the stats is odd. If I'm working on being #1 in my state and the real #1 isn't opted in...

August 21, 2003

opt-in is better than nothing.

Next big question: should that profile checkbox be checked by default or not?

opt-in would only work pretty well if enough people are in (who wouldn't want to be and why?). Otherwise it is next to nothing. Of course you won't know until you try it.

I presume that if the feature gets turned on, and it's not the default to be on automatically, that it would be up to us that care to encourage fellow ranksters to update their profile via email.

Use google's cache to pick up the "trail" of others, e.g.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:Qu62zYvL8pAJ:www.insidecorner.com/geocaching/stats/states.cgi%3Fcountry%3DUnited%2520States%26state%3DArizona+inside+corner+geocaching+states+massachusetts&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

1.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
The opt in on the stats is odd. If I'm working on being #1 in my state and the real #1 isn't opted in...

Seems to me if the "real #1" in your state isn't opted in, then he/she isn't part of the "competition", and thus is not relevant to said competition, you think? And of course, if YOU want to judge/count against the "real #1", that's your personal prerogative.

Remember, there's nothing on the line regarding stats/leaders except fun, personal pride, bragging rights, checking in to see who's active and when, etc. If stats similar to what Dan provided are made available, then you make of them whatever you wish...just like you did when Dan was on-line.

I also think it's safe to presume (I could be wrong, so no flames please!) that almost every state's #1 (or even top 5 or 10) will opt-in once he/she learns about the feature.

Just another $.02...

-Dave R. in Biloxi

(FYI, RK, I'm not arguing you...I agree with your point and am just building on it, is all...)

August 21, 2003

How is this going to work?

Let's say that I do not opt in. I am excluded from the stats. No problem there.

Then I want to see where I actually stand. I then opt in. I see where I am. Then I opt out again. I am no longer in.

Is the checkbox going to work that quickly? Can I opt in check and then immediately check out?

Just curious . . .

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pluckers:
opt-in is better than nothing.

Next big question: should that profile checkbox be checked by default or not?

opt-in would only work pretty well if enough people are in (who wouldn't want to be and why?).

...

Statistics like that would turn a fun hobby into yet another competition. Additionally, in order to "compete," I'd need tons more free time and I'd need a divorce. Hmmm. Let me think about that, uh, no.

Am I only saying this because I'm new and have so few caches found? Perhaps. I am a competitive person but I doubt my view would be different if I had a billion found caches. I enjoy the hunt, exercise, scenery, and the thrill. Numbers only indicate how many times I had fun and even then you'd need to count the DNF's.

Why should people opt-in? Is there some ego boosting rush of knowing that you have more points than someone else?

If the feature is built, congratulations to the supporters, but I hope there's a way to let the those of us who are not interested in the feature opt-out. (Leader Board Poll Results)

38.2k · August 21, 2003

I disagree with the opting in thing. A stats page that excludes a significant portion of the community is useless.

A stats page doesn't necessarily turn this into a competetion. To most it's just to satisfiy their curiosity and see where they stand. And for those who are into good natured competetion (remember Jamie Z's Paterquest?), a stats page fills an important need. Dan's page (and hopefully any replacement) also provided a good way to keep up with what was going on in your regional geocaching community, beyond simple find/hide counts.

For those of us who don't give a rats patootie about stats, we don't have to look at the page. But I'm willing to bet that even many of us who are against any sort of stats page may sneek a peak now and then.

Will some people see that they're # 21 and run out and bag a bunch of 1/1's to move up to #19? Probably. But heck, if it entices people get out and to find a few more caches, what's so bad about that?

"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

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on August 21, 2003 at 08:03 AM.]

2.1k · August 21, 2003

I agree with Crimson...

Stats aren't really my thing...My question on the "ego-boosting" thing, is how is it going to affect the postings on the message board? Not from a technical standpoint, but more towards a flaming standpoint?

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

38.2k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Stats aren't really my thing...My question on the "ego-boosting" thing, is how is it going to affect the postings on the message board? Not from a technical standpoint, but more towards a flaming standpoint?

Dan's page had been available nearly since the beginning of this website. Did it ever have a serious negative effect on the boards? How would a simlar page change things? Has the flaming died down in the two weeks that his site has been gone?

"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:
A stats page doesn't necessarily turn this into a competetion. To most it's just to satisfiy their curiosity and see where they stand.

Yes, a good point. I wouldn't mind be ego-fodder for others to compare against. Oh, and while we are at it, I think Major League baseball players should be able to compare their stats against Little Leaguers on a level playing field... Just to satisfy their curiosity. Oh? They don't have a curiosity? Wonder why?

quote:
And for those who are into good natured competetion (remember Jamie Z's Paterquest?), a stats page fills an important need.

Don't disagree with you at all here, but I like how this sentence begins: "... for those who are into..." Sounds like an opt-in to me.

quote:
For those of us who don't give a rats patootie about stats, they don't have to look at the page. But I'm willing to bet that even many of those who are against any sort of stats page may sneek a peak now and then.

Yeah, you probably would get me here. I did look at the other stats page when it was up. But I would liken this to checking out the stats of my favorite Major Leaguer.

1.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
A stats page doesn't necessarily turn this into a competetion. To most it's just to satisfiy their curiosity and see where they stand. And for those who are into good natured competetion (remember Jamie Z's Paterquest?), a stats page fills an important need. Dan's page (and hopefully any replacement) also provided a good way to keep up with what was going on in your regional geocaching community, beyond simple find/hide counts.

As usual Brian, you're right on target (for me, anyway). Interesting that you cited JamieZ's "PaterQuest"...that was a Mississippi endeavor and since then his activity in our state dwindled to the point that when Dan's site went down he was ranked around 12th or 13th. And guess what: The rest of us Miss. cachers get a kick out of looking back at his efforts and how far things have come since then. All in good fun, nothing more, nothing less.

I will re-post my comments here that I posted on the "Stats Withdrawal Syndrome" thread:

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:
At the risk of speaking out of turn on behalf of my fellow state cachers, it's has DEFINITELY affected us here in Mississippi! We definitely had a friendly rivalry going among the top 20 or 25 or so in the state. And it was only about friendly bragging rights, and just seeing what everyone else was up to lately...nothing more or less than that - I don't see what is so wrong with that. It was a GOOD thing, and beyond the friendly needling we've done among each other a number of us have become pretty good friends specifically because of the competition...again, what's bad about that?? And finally, the stats also made it easy for out-of-staters to get a flavor for who the most active cachers in Miss. are/were when they came to our neck of the woods...I had quite a few out-of-staters look me up when they were in the area specifically because I was up near the top of the state totals...pretty cool.

The shutdown of the stats server, combined with Gc.com's resistance to perpetuate stats as before, has definitely affected my enjoyment of Geocaching. No, it won't stop me from getting enjoyment out of the EXPERIENCE of Geocaching itself, but it has changed the dynamics of it for me, and not in a positive way.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

-Dave R. in Biloxi

2.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Dan's page had been available nearly since the beginning of this website. Did it ever have a serious negative effect on the boards? How would a simlar page change things? Has the flaming died down in the two weeks that his site has been gone?

No but there was enough flaming going on at least 2 weeks before....Dans page was not thrown in front of me by this website. If I wanted to go to Dan's site, I would have to seek it out. I've never even heard of it before till someone mentioned it was down. My thoughts are with GC getting involved in it then they are promoting it. Isn't it enough to have your own stats and be able to go and look at other peoples profiles? Like I stated in the thread Jeremy responded...it's not my thing, but others may like it. I don't want to be included in it and I would not opt for it. As CrimsonWrath stated, everyone is not on a clear playing field. People already tell you basically, don't say anything here on the message board until you got some finds under your belt (or at least they used to). I have no problem with the stat thing themself, but don't see the good of it for the site, especially the message board. Now perhaps if there were some prize of sorts, where there was a timeframe and prize for something certain, then it would be interesting. But then again, you run into the problem of the "Clear Playing Field"... Perhaps make it regional....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.3k · August 21, 2003

I haven't a clue what stats have to do with the forums. I am interested in stats because they are useful to me. I do not care about competition (although is is sometimes fun to compete with your friends). I do not see how stats makes this a competition. If that's the case, breaking down totals into categories will lead to more competition and name calling (You found a virtual!!, you find benchmarks - bah, only traditionals count).

It's about finding useful information.

It's not necessarily about competition.

As Criminal stated in another thread, some of those stats are already found on the geocaching.com website. It would be nice if they were organized so they would be more useful.

I'm not sure why some people cry 'it's not about competition, it'd make me feel like it was about numbers'. Dan's site was around for a long time and a lot of people (Woodsters is not alone) didn't even know about it. I can't see how those people were 'harmed' by stats.

southdeltan

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

2.1k · August 21, 2003

didn't say they were harmed...I just think that some people will get a discouraging feeling towards it...There's no mystery that there are many "sensitive" folks here and reading the forums shows some of it. My concern and it shouldn't be my concern is that of Groundspeak promoting it. Of course one can get bits and pieces of information here and there (just as when someone mentions a cache that people can go to their find list and know which one they are talking about)...but my feeling and opinion (I speak for myself) is that a stats board is going to be slung around as a weighty ego booster... If the forums weren't here, then it would not be a problem like that, but they are here...Past experiences on the forums prove that the weight is thrown around... i.e... The ones with the most finds (thousands) also own over 100 caches....ok vacation caches are not allowed and caches from long distances are not allowed(normally), but it is ok for someone to have another person place a cache in the first persons name? If I remember right, I got ridiculed on a "what if" situation when I first joined about "what if" I placed a cache (not submitted) but had a person local to that area submit it and maintain it? The response I got was that I can't maintain it and the concern of it would become geolitter and the local association would have to clean it up, not to mention the don't infringe on locals territory story... There's no difference in what they did and what I was suggesting...of course they were defended whole heartedly because people say they know them, when others questioned their number of finds... My question was because either I had no finds at the time or very few (less than 5)...The same thing is going to happen, look at the stat board and see who is # so and so...It's already done on the forums without the stat board...

Like I said I'm not totally against it...competition is good sometimes if used in fun...but my opinion is that it will turn far worse and used against others... (i'm #25, you are only #14,567 , come talk to me when you get under 100..)

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

5.9k · August 21, 2003

My thoughts on player stats are not in line with most I’m afraid. I don’t want or need them. I know already that Moun10bike has the most finds in WA. I wouldn’t make the top 1000 myself. Signed up in Aug 2001 and may finally break 100 by summer’s end!

There are a number of considerations, like how long a person has played, are they retired or unemployed, cache saturation for a geographic location etc. These variables will skew the numbers and the whiners will be emailing the admins to make corrections. Nothing will get done on other issues (if anything is being done).

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

1.3k · August 21, 2003

Again, I still don't understand what forums have to do with this. Most geocachers do not even read the forums. Besides, Dan's stats page didn't cause discouraging feelings, as far as I know - a lot of people were unaware of that page. Like anything else, if you're not interested - do not look.

If people on the forums want to know your totals - all they have to do is click on your profile and look at your last log (it lists a total finds). Hell, they can even make remarks about the TYPES of caches you've found. The basis for name-calling and number counting is already here for those that want to make it about numbers. I may be out of line, but I really doubt that many of the people interested in stats want to rub finds in people's faces on the forums.

Again, it's about useful information.

I'm also not sure why players would email admin about finds being skewed - either you found it or you didn't. False logs are the responsibility of the cache owner, not geocaching admin. There also would not be the problem of 'missing' logs since the data would use the geocaching.com DB (and not be 'scraped' from the page).

I'm also not sure why somebody would whine because another geocacher has more time, or has been doing it longer. This non-problem exists without the stat list.

southdeltan

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

August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
There are a number of considerations, like how long a person has played, are they retired or unemployed, cache saturation for a geographic location etc. These variables will skew the numbers and the whiners will be emailing the admins to make corrections. Nothing will get done on other issues (if anything is being done).

Yes, yes and yes! Awesome points made there. There's ton's more important things to be done on the site.

(Waits paitently for cache approval... )

1.3k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CrimsonWrath:

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
There are a number of considerations, like how long a person has played, are they retired or unemployed, cache saturation for a geographic location etc. These variables will skew the numbers and the whiners will be emailing the admins to make corrections. Nothing will get done on other issues (if anything is being done).

Yes, yes and yes! Awesome points made there. There's ton's more important things to be done on the site.

(Waits paitently for cache approval... )

I'd argue that these don't matter - 'stats' (as they're being called - are not necessarily about who's in what place. They are useful in lots of ways.

If somebody wants to make it about numbers and attack somebody on these forums (where most geocachers don't frequent) - all they have to do is click on your profile, then find your last log. Or they can attack you on cache types.

southdeltan

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

August 21, 2003

ah yes....PaterQuest. As the object of Paterquest, I remember it well. It was JamieZ's successful endeavor to dethrone me as Mississippi's top cacher in one weeks time. At the time, JamieZ had virtually no Mississippi caches and I had a commanding dominance of Mississippi caches with a whopping 50 or so. At the very end of Paterquest, we met up with each other and did one last cache - in a torrential downpour.

Anyhows, it was fun. No, Jamie didn't win a prize (ok, I did bow before him...). It was a goal to try for and the success of it was secondary.

That's how it should be with the stats. We're tending to get worked up over whether we should have stats, who should do the stats, etc. The numbers are an insignificant part of geocaching. This is supposed to be a fun activity. Dammit, let's have fun!

I think Jeremy's (I think it was Jeremy anyway) suggestion that stats be an opt-in part of the system is great. Nobody's gonna get a new car or cash award for being at the top. It's just a way for groups to have bragging/ragging rights over their comrades. The only fear I have is that there are some out there that will take stats too seriously and throw conniption fits in the forums any time their numbers aren't exactly accurate.

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

1.4k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by pater47: The only fear I have is that there are some out there that will take stats too seriously and throw conniption fits in the forums any time their numbers aren't exactly accurate.

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

Thats why God invented hammers.

When in doubt...hit it with a big hammer.

2.1k · August 21, 2003

southdeltan...you are right it is info...as far as not many people read the threads, i'm not sure of.. last time I looked there were over 9000 members mentioned somewhere...not sure if that is how many had posted or how many total there were for the entire site...but because they don't post, doesn't meant they don't read...and part of those that don't post don't do it for political reasons on here..I've heard it not from one, but many...

your right, people can click on peoples profiles and get the numbers...the info is there then...you are also correct about the types...so are the types going to matter in the stats? Or should it be of one kind? One person may not feel virtuals should be counted...someone else may think that locationless shouldn't be counted...then there are those who have finds of caches that are archived that newer players can't claim...take into consideration of criminals above posting of how long someone has been caching, their work schedules, and other things will alter that effect. The stats would then be useless...What if a person could say I cached x number of hours this week with so many finds...would it be ok then to say that they average a certain amount of caches a period? no...and the reason why is one because people would cheat that system..and secondly because people do live in different areas, where as caching is limited to some...The way I see it, the stats don't really mean much...

Now on the other foot...if it were opted in and not plastered on the front page or in viewable range except for those who opted it, then I see no reason why not to have some stats...like jeremy stated in the groups thing...

The new guy skyemaloney stated it best and I can't quote his exact words, but those little numbers (he was referring to post counts, i'm referring to total finds) don't mean squat...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.3k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
southdeltan...you are right it is info...as far as not many people read the threads, i'm not sure of.. last time I looked there were over 9000 members mentioned somewhere...not sure if that is how many had posted or how many total there were for the entire site...but because they don't post, doesn't meant they don't read...and part of those that don't post don't do it for political reasons on here..I've heard it not from one, but many...

your right, people can click on peoples profiles and get the numbers...the info is there then...you are also correct about the types...so are the types going to matter in the stats? Or should it be of one kind? One person may not feel virtuals should be counted...someone else may think that locationless shouldn't be counted...then there are those who have finds of caches that are archived that newer players can't claim...take into consideration of criminals above posting of how long someone has been caching, their work schedules, and other things will alter that effect. The stats would then be useless...What if a person could say I cached x number of hours this week with so many finds...would it be ok then to say that they average a certain amount of caches a period? no...and the reason why is one because people would cheat that system..and secondly because people do live in different areas, where as caching is limited to some...The way I see it, the stats don't really mean much...

Now on the other foot...if it were opted in and not plastered on the front page or in viewable range except for those who opted it, then I see no reason why not to have some stats...like jeremy stated in the groups thing...

The new guy skyemaloney stated it best and I can't quote his exact words, but those little numbers (he was referring to post counts, i'm referring to total finds) don't mean squat...

Brian

_As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump_

Why do people keep asking what do you count? geocaching.com already has a formula that lists total finds on every cache log (wether it's a find, not found, note, or archive). Use THAT formula. I'm sure you can take somebody with a large and diverse total to figure out what is included and what is not. I will do this later and post it.

They list this total ALREADY when you log. I have no idea why it's not on the profile page.

But back to the topic - that's what should be counted. If they're so adamant that totals don't count - this number should be removed, as well as subtotals for each type of cache.

At the bottom of the Groundspeak forums, it says this: Registered Members: 46400. If I recall, your forum account is automatically made when you register at www.geocaching.com. I may be wrong about that. Even if I am - that number does not reflect how many people actively post or read. In my experience, only a small handful of the cachers in MS have any idea what goes on in these forums - I have no reason to expect that that number is different elsewhere (especially when I notice non-regulars log on and post thread after thread about 'where did the stats page go').

With the exception of people on this board, I have never seen any cacher talk down to somebody because of their find count.

The totals mean something to me, and based on evidence they means something to a lot of other people.

Again, it's not necessarily about rankings.

southdeltan

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

2.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
Why do people keep asking what do you count? geocaching.com already has a formula that lists total finds on every cache log (wether it's a find, not found, note, or archive). Use THAT formula. I'm sure you can take somebody with a large and diverse total to figure out what is included and what is not. I will do this later and post it.

They list this total ALREADY when you log. I have no idea why it's not on the profile page.

It was on the profile page before a couple months ago right? They had the total amount? Now they don't post it except the total is posted beside you find log on cache pages...but it totals them all.

quote:
But back to the topic - that's what should be counted. If they're so adamant that totals don't count - this number should be removed, as well as subtotals for each type of cache.

I disagree that they should be removed...They are fine on the profile pages the way they are...if they wanted to put hte total at the bottom, I wouldn't see a problam with that either...

quote:

At the bottom of the Groundspeak forums, it says this: Registered Members: 46400. If I recall, your forum account is automatically made when you register at http://www.geocaching.com. I may be wrong about that. Even if I am - that number does not reflect how many people actively post or read. In my experience, only a small handful of the cachers in MS have any idea what goes on in these forums - I have no reason to expect that that number is different elsewhere (especially when I notice non-regulars log on and post thread after thread about 'where did the stats page go').

on the "About Us" page it says..... "As of today, there are 64851 active caches in 184 countries.

In the last 7 days, there have been 37733 new logs written by 9153 account holders."

quote:
With the exception of people on this board, I have never seen any cacher talk down to somebody because of their find count.

That's what I'm referring too..I'm not speaking of off the board and in person type of thing...The weight gets thrown around...

quote:
The totals mean something to me, and based on evidence they means something to a lot of other people.

Again, it's not necessarily about rankings.

I will agree with that...I just wouldn't want to add ammunition to the weapon...I think with them on anothers website, that it was good...GC stayed out of it and those who wanted it, knew where to look or could ask where to look....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
2. People can join groups and see rankings of their stats on the web site as a group.

This makes a lot of sense. It's not a competition since it's not an even playing field. Since people have different time commitments, and started before/after others, it's not competitive.

Total stats are useless as the long-time cachers who are active are obviously at the top. Teams and single guys with lotsa' time on their hands would be at the top.

Being able to break it down such that teams compete against teams, unemployed are ranked with unemployed, etc. makes more sense to me...

But then, I keep track for myself (like my birding lifelist--nobody else cares).

I was AMAZED when people at an event were in awe of a local mega-cacher, but them I'm amazed that anyone cares about celebs...

But anyway, having 'groups' to be ranked in is logical to me as it adds some meaning.

Enjoy,

Randy

August 21, 2003

Wouldn't it be easier (to implement), more meaningful, and more accurate if we just listed cachers (and their totals) by (user-selectable) state and country?

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
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.

1.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:
Wouldn't it be easier (to implement), more meaningful, and more accurate if we just listed cachers (and their totals) by (user-selectable) state and country?

10 PRINT "NO"

20 GOTO 10

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

August 21, 2003

Ok...you lost me there Jeremy.

I really don't see what the big deal is over stats. If you don't want to see them, then don't look.

As far as causing problems in the forums, I don't buy that.

GF

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

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

1.4k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

10 PRINT "NO"

20 GOTO 10

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Ahhh reminds me of high school computer class.

When in doubt...hit it with a big hammer.

2.1k · August 21, 2003

yeah...he forgot to throw a GOSUB in there...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

August 21, 2003

10 PRINT "NO"

20 GOTO 10

OK...I'm a slow learner. (me slapping forehead...duh!)

GF

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

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

1.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GeoFool:
As far as causing problems in the forums, I don't buy that.

Fished one of my other quotes out:

quote:

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.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

quote:
Originally posted by GeoFool:
As far as causing problems in the forums, I don't buy that.

Fished one of my other quotes out:

quote:
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.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

If your cheating to up your numbers, your just cheating yourself.

Like what's been said, their is no trophy or award to be on top. It's just a tool to see where everyone is at. Why cry about what someone did wrong, why should you even care? It's not a big deal. Can't we all be mature about it? Maybe not, from what I've seen in the forums lately.

GF

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

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

2.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GeoFool:
Can't we all be mature about it? Maybe not, from what I've seen in the forums lately.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

38.2k · August 21, 2003

quote:
In golf there are strokes.

And with golf you get friends together for some fun and frustration (kind of like geocaching). In golf, there is a good natured competetion between friends. I equate stats in geocaching with a golf handicap. It's fun to know where you stand, but you aren't gonna win anything.

I mentioned the PaterQuest before and several people chimed in to say how much it added to the sport in their area. It created an atmosphere of friendly competetion.

Of course people are going to cheat. How many golfers take "mulligans", or "gimme" putts?

Geocachers have been cheating from day one regardless of a stats page.

Lets stop pretending that there isn't already some friendly competetion here. If GC.COM really wanted to remove the competetive element from this sport, they would eliminate all find counts.

If this website is so set against competetion, then why is there a find count next to your logs and why are others able to look at your profile and see how many finds and hides you have? Perhaps people should be able to opt out of this.

The only thing that the stats pages fans are looking for is for additional ways to slice and dice the the data that this website already provides.

"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

1.1k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

And with golf you get friends together for some fun and frustration (kind of like geocaching). In golf, there is a good natured competetion between friends. I equate stats in geocaching with a golf handicap. It's fun to know where you stand, but you aren't gonna win anything.

Last time I checked, my handicap wasn't posted to golf.com and ranked with everyone in Seattle, regardless of whether I wanted my score there.

What you're referring to is option #2 listed at the top of this post. Great, be competitive with your friends, but opt-in and compete within the group.

quote:

When you think about it, why should there be a count next to your log and why should someone be able to look at your profile to see how many finds and hides you have? Perhaps people should be able to opt out of this.

You're right. In fact I did have it removed for a short period of time, but people were so used to it by then that we decided to bring it back. If I could remove that from the page I would.

quote:
The only thing that the stats pages fans are looking for is for additional ways to slice and dice up the the data that this website already provides.

I disagree.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

38.2k · August 21, 2003

Jeremy, I was editing my post while you responded to my old one. But the gist didn't change.

Geez, you type fast!

August 21, 2003

quote:
This makes a lot of sense. It's not a competition since it's not an even playing field. Since people have different time commitments, and started before/after others, it's not competitive.

Total stats are useless as the long-time cachers who are active are obviously at the top. Teams and single guys with lotsa' time on their hands would be at the top.

Being able to break it down such that teams compete against teams, unemployed are ranked with unemployed, etc. makes more sense to me...

But then, I keep track for myself (like my birding lifelist--nobody else cares).

I was AMAZED when people at an event were in awe of a local mega-cacher, but them I'm amazed that anyone cares about celebs...

But anyway, having 'groups' to be ranked in is logical to me as it adds some meaning.

Enjoy,

Randy

An honest question. Why does everyone assume that those with high find counts are single and unemployed, and have too much free time?

That's just as offensive to those of us with high find counts as saying someone is a loser because they have a low find count.

-beatnik-

August 21, 2003

Since this is now the 'official' thread ... I figure I'll stick my $0.02. I'm a premium member and honestly I think I have 'value received' just from having pocket queries ... I don't feel I'm owed anything, yet at the same time I've exhibited a willingness to pay for something I find of value ... take that accordingly

I'm not a big stats person, I think I'd visited Dan's site a half dozen times for entertainment/amusement, at the same time I liked being able to see who's who and what's what amongst the local geocachers (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana for me). So for stats to have any meaning at all they need to be *absolute* ... everyone is in, and my rank is #X in the State .... silly opt in, small group stuff is just a dumb idea that should be on a regional site ... of which there are many and the data can be collected off profile pages if need be. If you're going to do stats, do full stats, end of my opinion on that. Further some of the other things mentioned might be cool too ... like 'Cacher Velocity' some index of number of finds weighted by the time in which they were done ...

I'm afraid that the bigger picture isn't really about stats though, at least not in the person to count sense ... it's about the *other* stuff that was on Dan's site or could be otherwise available if the data were more open or enhancement activity of the site was more forthcoming. Recent logs by region; missing caches by region (or archives by region) and probably a hundred other things I haven't thought of or seen yet; some of which undoubtedly wouldn't be consistent with the views of TPTB ...

So if you're considering doing anything ... I'd really prefer 'all or nothing' with respect to stats ... small groups is a non-starter for me. But the issue of data mining really needs to be considered and addressed as I think that's the real reason the natives (or the vocal ones anyway) are restless.

38.2k · August 21, 2003

quote:
I'm not a big stats person, I think I'd visited Dan's site a half dozen times for entertainment/amusement, at the same time I liked being able to see who's who and what's what amongst the local geocachers (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana for me). So for stats to have any meaning at all they need to be *absolute* ... everyone is in, and my rank is #X in the State .... silly opt in, small group stuff is just a dumb idea that should be on a regional site ... of which there are many and the data can be collected off profile pages if need be. If you're going to do stats, do full stats, end of my opinion on that. Further some of the other things mentioned might be cool too ... like 'Cacher Velocity' some index of number of finds weighted by the time in which they were done ...

I'm afraid that the bigger picture isn't really about stats though, at least not in the person to count sense ... it's about the *other* stuff that was on Dan's site or could be otherwise available if the data were more open or enhancement activity of the site was more forthcoming. Recent logs by region; missing caches by region (or archives by region) and probably a hundred other things I haven't thought of or seen yet; some of which undoubtedly wouldn't be consistent with the views of TPTB ...

So if you're considering doing anything ... I'd really prefer 'all or nothing' with respect to stats ... small groups is a non-starter for me. But the issue of data mining really needs to be considered and addressed as I think that's the real reason the natives (or the vocal ones anyway) are restless.

You said it better than I ever could. Thanks!

"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

Back when the search pages changed, there was alot of uproar at first because users were used to a feature rich environment and they were not convinced that the new incarnation was as feature rich as the old. The uproar was useful, and with a few tweeks and a filtering option the new search screens have proven to be as useful or more useful. It seems to me that something similar is going to happen when the site starts offering statistics, since many of us have come to love the features available on Dan's site, and when something different is delivered it will cause hunger pangs in many of us.

On the other hand, let's consider these groups that we can join so that we can compare rankings. Would there be a limit to group size? Does the creator of the group control the members who are in it, or can anyone join? What's to stop someone from a creating a group called "National Ranking" which 600 users could join? What's to stop the formation of other groups called "Wisconsin Ranking" or "Retired Auto Mechanics Ranking?" If the group mechanism has flexibility such as this, then many folks who are hungry for the stats once available should be satisfied. I know that we're just in the talking/planning stages, but what is the current thinking regarding these groups?

Thanks.

[This message was edited by TinSparrow on August 21, 2003 at 06:42 PM.]

1.4k · August 21, 2003

Obviously there is a mix of opinion on this matter based on reading the threads. I also know because C2 is more stat oriented then me. I don't think that is wrong in any way. What I don't like is that her desire to cache has dropped of a bit because she wanted to see our ranking as a way of seeing our progress. Again I see nothing wrong with this other then her lack of caching desire of late.

This is what I find totaly stupid. People bit**ing that someone can't have something because they themselves don't want it. When the stat page was up I neve saw a thread about people wanting to be removed because they were "non-competitive" people. I am sure there was something out there to Markwell but I never saw it. I also have never seen so many people start threads as to the outcome of the stat server while we didn't know it was down for good. I also havn't seen to many topics as the ones after asking if there would be a stats page done by GC.com. So obviously it seems like something people want so why the debate either tell us we get it or tell us we don't then STFU.

I know we have created a non democratic socity that took the needs of the many and twisted it in the desires of the bit**ing. What with lawsuits and crap we have trained the masses that whoever whines the loudest gets what they want for themselves reguardless of the desires of the masses.

As far as stats go I couldn't care less either way but to have a thread with this much turmoil and whining persist while something fun like TPBM or TPAM gets whacked makes me think TPTB would rather whine and argue then have fun so here is my FIRST EVER serous flame on a message board.

Grow the hell up. This has got to be the most BS thread I have ever read. Either make a stats page or don't. Make up your mind like an adult and quit perpetuating the strife like you enjoy it.

Ok, I am done now and will go back to making jokes on other threads.

When in doubt...hit it with a big hammer.

1.2k · August 21, 2003

Well, I know my opinion may not be of any importance, but what the heck, I'll share anyway.

I, too, feel an all or nothing solution is the only way to go. Dan's page was usefull in that it was interesting to be able to see just who was doing what and where. I enjoyed seeing who the top cacher in Finland was even though I was in no way competing with whoever it was. If only three people in Finland *opt-in* the stats would be absolutely useless. If only fifty cachers in the state of Texas *opt-in* the stats are useless. They have no meaning whatsoever.

Will people cheat or push the limits to get their cache numbers up? Perhaps, and if they do, it's just a continuation of what they are already doing so it really has no bearing on the issue. If it was a competition that would matter, but since it's not, then that has no bearing.

Will people complain about their *numbers being off* etc, etc.? Yup, probably will. Dan had an automatic way for a cacher to have the page update and it would then pick up the caches it was missing. Truthfully I don't think that will be an issue if Jeremy elects to make a stats page, he seems pretty capable of making a page that works right.

Will some people not care for their numbers being displayed? Probably, but guess what? The numbers were already displayed on Dan's site and there were few if any objections. I know a lot of people didn't even know about Dan's page, but that just goes to show the stats were NOT being used to *beat people up in the forums* as has been mentioned. The only time I've seen people get abused in the forums with regard to their numbers was when they were perceived to be posting about things they could not possibly have experienced yet as they didn't have any, or very few, finds. That was a leap of logic at times, but understandable.

Without everyone being listed in the stats, a stats page would be unappealing and of little interest. As stated on another thread, it makes little difference to me in the long run as I will continue to enjoy what we have already, and hopefully will have in the future (something about maps I think I remember). I do miss Dan's page and I hope Geocaching.com will take up the slack, but only if they are pretty much going to do it the same way.

Now we return you to your regularly scheduled program....

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

August 21, 2003

It was Divine (from Finland). But of course now we don't know who it is.

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
Well, I know my opinion may not be of any importance, but what the heck, I'll share anyway.

I, too, feel an all or nothing solution is the only way to go. Dan's page was usefull in that it was interesting to be able to see just who was doing what and where. I enjoyed seeing who the top cacher in Finland was even though I was in no way competing with whoever it was.

1.2k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:
It was Divine (from Finland). But of course now we don't know who it is.

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
Well, I know my opinion may not be of any importance, but what the heck, I'll share anyway.

I, too, feel an all or nothing solution is the only way to go. Dan's page was usefull in that it was interesting to be able to see just who was doing what and where. I enjoyed seeing who the top cacher in Finland was even though I was in no way competing with whoever it was.

Hehehe, actually, that's why I use the Finland reference, cause I like Divine.... the cacher, not the former heavyweight transvestite.....

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

August 21, 2003

Whew! You had me worried there for a minute. I thought I was in the heavyweight tv forum.

quote:
Hehehe, actually, that's why I use the Finland reference, cause I like Divine.... the cacher, not the former heavyweight transvestite.....

http://www.texasgeocaching.com

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

1.4k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:
Whew! You had me worried there for a minute. I thought I was in the heavyweight tv forum.

quote:
Hehehe, actually, that's why I use the Finland reference, cause I like Divine.... the cacher, not the former heavyweight transvestite.....

http://www.texasgeocaching.com

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

Heavyweight transvestite? OMG I am not sleeping tonight with those images in my head LOL

When in doubt...hit it with a big hammer.

1.3k · August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

quote:
The only thing that the stats pages fans are looking for is for additional ways to slice and dice up the the data that this website already provides.

I disagree.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Let me state this plainly: The ONLY thing I want is additional ways to slice and dice data that is already available.

I've been basically saying that all along. I don't give a rat's a$$ who is ahead or behind of me. The data that was on Dan's stats page was useful in lots of ways other than that.

If totals don't mean anything - you should remove that number, as well as remove the categories of cache types on profile pages. That provides competition among people in different types of caches.

Regardless of the fact you disagree, I am not lying about why I want stats listed.

southdeltan

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

August 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
The pitch of competitive whine is more than sufficient without thrusting upon everyone ranking on the site.

I don't read very much of what gets posted in the forums, but my impression is that the total "competitive whine" never reached the level of whining (mine included) we have about the loss of stats.

I have no problem with an autocracy, just don't pretend its a democracy.

-WR

A GeoCache is a LetterBox where coordinates are one of the clues.

Unofficial statement about STATS

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