Jump to content

# new stat for stat page

## Recommended Posts

how about if we implement a new statistic in addition to total number of finds, we take the total number of finds and divide it by the number of geocaches within a 50mile radius and 100 mile radius of the zip code where the cacher is registered. this would give us more information about the stats. total finds is good but it doesn't say anything about the total find compared to the density of caches within a give area.

if i live in an area with high density caches then it is relatively easy to get a very high number of finds in a short time, if i live in an area with low density of caches, i have to spend more time driving to get the same number of caches.

i think we need a new statistic in addition to total finds, that shows the density relative to the number of finds.

if the total number of finds in less than one, that means the cacher has not found an the equivalent of the total number of caches within say 50 mile radius of his home zip code. if the number is greater than one, that means the cacher has found an eqivalent of all the caches within his local area of zip code within 50 mile radius.

the reason i want an additional statistic is that in some areas, caches are so dense that it is very easy to find 50 caches in one day because you are walking from cache to cache that are only .1 miles apart. in an area that has very few caches, it's more difficult to get a large number of finds. this new statistic would give more meaning to the total number of finds by making it more clear just how dense the local area is.

if the total number of finds is large but the new stat is less than one, then that means that the cacher has not found the equivalent of the number of caches in his area, in other words, the area is so dense that it's easy to get a large number of finds. if the number is large but the new stat is also large, it means the cacher is going out of his area many times to get caches.

what does everyone think about this? the local area could be defined as 50 mile or 100mile radius or both. the data is already there, the new stat just has to take the data already present and make the division, that's all, it would be very easy to add this to the user stat page, since no new data is required.

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

##### Link to comment

It is an idea to consider. I like numbers myself, but I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble though.

##### Link to comment

This sounds like a great idea to me and probably most central South Dakota cachers having 30 caches within 100 miles. Taking an over night or weekend trip to the Black Hills can improve the situation, but that's 180 miles one way.

##### Link to comment

Just hang in there, when I first started there were probably less then 75 caches in San Diego county. Now I believe there are over a 1000

All who look are not lost

##### Link to comment

This might an interesting stat to see. However it will mostly indicate which geocachers live near cities or not. I live near an area with a decent cache density however my last 1000 finds averaged about 300 miles from my home. If there aren't enough caches where you are go to where they are. An important part of geocaching for me is to see new places.

[This message was edited by BruceS on August 27, 2003 at 09:04 PM.]

##### Link to comment

why does geocaching.com keep track of the total number of finds? the total number of finds has no meaning for me. what does total number of finds mean for anyone else? why keep track?

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

##### Link to comment

For me, it's first and foremost a way to remember all the places I have been. I look and see how many finds I have and think "Hey... I have been to a lot of places that I never would have seen" and it gives me a big sense of accomplishment. Another reason for stats is so I can keep track of other cachers in my community. I like to see who is going cache crazy, who is taking a break, who just likes to take it slow all the time, etc...

-Zach

-Team Zen-

##### Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georapper:

why does geocaching.com keep track of the total number of finds? the total number of finds has no meaning for me. what does total number of finds mean for anyone else? why keep track?

Beacuse this is the only number they should give, just basics. What good is adding in criteria for cache density? There are many other factors.

How about we also factor in:

Whether the person is employed/unemployed

Whether the person gets to travel for work, with extra time for caching

Whether the person caches alone/with others

Difficulty/Terrain of caches done

Whether the person has a Physical or mental disability or is in above average shape

What the terrain is of the state of the cacher

Financial ability (so cacher can afford to drive further to get caches)

Whether the person has other addictions which keep him from caching

Whether the person logs his own hides, or logs multiple finds on one cache

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I think it's fun to look at the numbers, but they are subjective and mean nothing in reality. Geocaching by design is not a competitive sport, as well it should not be. It's ridiculous to want it to be. There would have to be so many rules, and if you think there are too many whiners in the forums now, can you imagine if these rules were in place?

The current totals are for your own use. You know how much effort you put in to find them. I may find the exact same caches and it may be way easier or way harder for me. So don't compare yourself to me, or the cacher down the street in the wheelchair, or the cacher/marathon winner in the next town. Just go out, find your caches, enjoy your time and stop making a competition out of this.

Warning: Objects in GPS may be closer than they appear!

##### Link to comment

Not to mention, adjusting stats around density would only promote hiding of caches further from one's own neighborhood, creating other vacation cache type problems. It may even cause plundering of caches near one's home.

Competition can be fun, but it often gets dirty.

Warning: Objects in GPS may be closer than they appear!

##### Link to comment

I'm with Brdad. Nothing I could possibly add to it.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

##### Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georapper:

how about if we implement a new statistic in addition to total number of finds, we take the total number of finds and divide it by the number of geocaches within a 50mile radius and 100 mile radius of the zip code where the cacher is registered. this would give us more information about the stats. total finds is good but it doesn't say anything about the total find compared to the density of caches within a give area.

Way too much work! I use to think something like this would be nice but there are just too many variable. Density changes over time so the calculations would have to be done at the time of the find and I doubt there is enough historical data to make this work.

I Prefer the simple design that shows a leaderboard by state and all cachers overall. It allows you to see who the real addicts are.

Team Sand Dollar

##### Link to comment

I agree with BrianSnat...brdad put it well and can't think of anything to add to it...

Brian

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

##### Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georapper:

how about if we implement a new statistic in addition to total number of finds, we take the total number of finds and divide it by the number of geocaches within a 50mile radius and 100 mile radius of the zip code where the cacher is registered.

This would not work well for an area like where I live. Several of us have pretty well cached out our area, but there are plenty of caches 30-40 miles away. But this is not the typical 30-40 miles away. These are in another state across a river. One can cross the river 45-minutes south of here for about \$65 round-trip or 40-miles north of here which would take at least one and one-half hours to reach.

The statistic you propose would judge our caching at a different level than someone who could cache a 50-mile radius without such a hitch.

What help would this statistic provide for cachers here?

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

##### Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

\$65 round-trip

Ouch! Gotta love those tolls! That's one thing we've had to get used to when moving up north. Going across the GW Bridge in NY, cost me \$30 one way for a ryder truck, trailer and car. The Jersey Turnpike was a different story.

But fro is right. Even though I'm on the fence on the issue, as it doesn't bother me one or another, it will not help out caching so to speak.

Brian

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

##### Link to comment

It is a cool idea but I don't think it would mean much to most people! I do know that there are people out there that like stats on everything and I think that is great, I would just ignore it myself! I have a close friend who is a baseball nut and he can quote stats on his favorite players , some which I don't even know why he would want to know but he likes it and keeps up with it! It is his hobby! To each it is different! Me, I like to know my total finds, my total hides and I miss the state leaderboard, it was fun and I like to see who is a nut for geocaching as much as me!

Darkmoon

All you have to do to fly is throw yourself at the ground and miss!

##### Link to comment

the consensus is no new stats. ok, i can live with that. but why keep track of the total finds in the first place? it sounds like everyone has gotten use to total finds, which is a way of judging in itself, so by keeping track of total finds we are judging each other, it's one number, it's easy to understand, no thought process involved, just easy in easy out, but if no new stats is what the majority wants, then that's the way it will be. i really don't care, i wanted to see what the current opinions are, which could change in a year or so, it all depends on the weather. whatever........

in my area, i'm finding that cachers want easy caches to find. i put out a compass course or a multicache that might require a little bit of math or i put out a cache that requires more effort, it doesn't get as much attention as those caches that are easy, 1/1. some of my caches might require some hiking but it only get a few attempts, if any at all. cachers now days want something quick and easy. if caches are not quick and easy, they won't do it. this opposition to new stats confirms my belief that cachers are getting more lazy, but if that is the majority, then that's how we all like it.

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

[This message was edited by georapper on August 28, 2003 at 07:21 AM.]

##### Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by brdad:

Not to mention

... whether or not the cacher was using an amplified antenna?

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
×
• Create New...