stats availability

3.2k · September 7, 2003

There have been comments from all quarters about how "they" are part of the majority of the geocaching community. Lets find out what the real numbers look like.

1.3k · September 7, 2003

It would be nice to see how people really feel, but this unscientific poll won't do that. It'll only start another really long thread and there are already 2 that are 3 pages long.

A minority of geocachers read the forums, and an even smaller minority posts to the forums. You'll only get the views of a small portion of geocachers.

It is interesting to see, however, that so far posters support them. Of course the total votes is too small to mean anything. There is already another poll where over 60% support the idea of a leaderboard - which is not necessarily the same thing as 'stats'.

southdeltan

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

9.5k · September 7, 2003

What I'm finding interesting, is the more times this subject comes up, the shorter the thread becomes. I think people are getting tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. The opinions have been stated, the lines have been drawn. You can say the same thing only so many times. Did we really need this poll? Probably not.

The horse is dead. Let's toss some dirt on it.

Cheers!

TL

1.3k · September 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TotemLake:
What I'm finding interesting, is the more times this subject comes up, the shorter the thread becomes. I think people are getting tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. The opinions have been stated, the lines have been drawn. You can say the same thing only so many times. Did we really need this poll? Probably not.

The horse is dead. Let's toss some dirt on it.

Cheers!

TL

I agree. I still support the idea and hope that Jeremy follows through on his statement to provide some option for those that desire it.

I think most of the arguements have been made. There are probably several more arguements and counter-arguements for and against them.

It is getting to be redundant - I can't say I haven't helped that to happen either

southdeltan

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

September 7, 2003

Yes this is getting old. Still waiting for this squeaky wheel to be fixed.

GF

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

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

1.7k · September 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by edscott:
I don't like stats and feel no one should have access to them

Oh, THAT's an unbiased representation of the position of those of us who think stats cause more trouble than they're worth.

1.2k · September 8, 2003

Well, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is telling that with 25 votes, 60 percent want them and another 24 percent would upgrade their membership, so a total of 84 percent are in favor.

84% of even a small sampling is a significant percentage.

If 24% of cachers who are not currently members were to upgrade their membership to get a stats page, I believe it would benefit gc.com financially, would it not?

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

2.3k · September 8, 2003

Zzzzzzzz.....

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

September 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

quote:
Originally posted by edscott:
I don't like stats and feel no one should have access to them

Oh, THAT's an unbiased representation of the position of those of us who think stats cause more trouble than they're worth.

Ya, but judging by some of the more abrasive posts in the other threads, it's true.

3.2k · September 8, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

quote:
Originally posted by edscott:
I don't like stats and feel no one should have access to them

Oh, THAT's an unbiased representation of the position of those of us who think stats cause more trouble than they're worth.

Well then I guess you pushed buton number 2..

September 8, 2003

Similar discuss & poll in Geocaching.com Discussion forum "Geocaching.com should create a leader board "

Argue a lot................

Life short, Hunt more.

September 8, 2003

I think TPTB would rather this issue just died and went away.

September 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:
I think TPTB would rather this issue just died and went away.

Judging by the lack of official response, I think that's exactly what they are waiting for.

--RuffRidr

1.3k · September 9, 2003

Actually - there was a semi official statement (IE, a post from Jeremy - it wasn't listed as an announcement so I hesitate to call it official) that stated they were aware of the situation and exploring ways to implement it.

This isn't a knock on them - but if you've been around you know it takes them a while to plan and implement stuff (example: new maps). I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, either.

Just today there was a post from an approver, TNGeocacher (which probably can't be viewed as official, but he is an approver) stating that the Admin were following the situation and were looking at all of the variables involved.

I believe they'll add something but it's not the #1 priority. I also beleive it's probably in the very early planning stages.

I don't see the issue going away, but I think it's unnecessary to start new threads about this - there are already quite a few of them.

southdeltan

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

4.7k · September 9, 2003

i think the poll questions are skewed. i think the issue of HOW stats are available is more complex.

i'd love to see stats available, but i'd hate to see an official leaderboard. it would be fun to play with some of the numbers, and maybe they should be available to members.

if i want to get clever, i can construct a leaderboard myself.

-====)) -))))))))))))

presta schrader

9.5k · September 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
Actually - there was a semi official statement (IE, a post from Jeremy - it wasn't listed as an announcement so I hesitate to call it official) that stated they were aware of the situation and exploring ways to implement it.

This isn't a knock on them - but if you've been around you know it takes them a while to plan and implement stuff (example: new maps). I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, either.

Just today there was a post from an approver, TNGeocacher (which probably can't be viewed as official, but he is an approver) stating that the Admin were following the situation and were looking at all of the variables involved.

I believe they'll add something but it's not the #1 priority. I also beleive it's probably in the very early planning stages.

I don't see the issue going away, but I think it's unnecessary to start new threads about this - there are already quite a few of them.

southdeltan

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

As well, when you design and implement something this complex, you will want to test it first before putting it on a production system.

Cheers!

TL

3.2k · September 9, 2003

southdeltan.....

....I don't see the issue going away, but I think it's unnecessary to start new threads about this - there are already quite a few of them.......

If we don't continue to shove it in their faces you bet it WILL go away.

September 22, 2003

Voted for "complete stats".

September 24, 2003

I decided I needed stats and put them on my own site. Somone pointed out to me that it really didnt matter where the stats were housed because the users entered their own data anyhow.

--

SpongeRob

rwmech@keenpeople.com

www.keenpeople.com

WPWU826

Cache'n Retrievers

2.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Geocaching.com has discontinued the IFRAME tag and caused all the geocache ratings to a single link.

Why has gc.com done this?

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

And may no Admin bricks fly your way

1.1k · September 24, 2003

It's a security issue. Once I shore up the other potential uses of this, I'll send you to an example.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

September 24, 2003

Here's what will happen if stats are introduced to Geocaching at this relatively early stage in the hobby's development.

1. More people will enter false finds. Right now, the only motivation to enter a false find is to **** with the cache owner. Place a leaderboard (or whatever), and the same stupid, bored little children who are pirating caches right now will then start entering false finds all over the country just to get on the leaderboard. Even if it's only for a day or two until the cache owners delete their finds. Which, of course, means more work for the cache owners.

2. Fewer new people will start geocaching. Speaking as a relatively new player, I probably would not have started caching if the first thing I saw when I came to GC.com was a leaderboard proclaiming that "Loser With no Job" has found 2,392 caches. I probably would have thought to myself, "Self, we're never gonna catch that guy. Let's go find another hobby"

3. Ranking will be used as the new hallmark on the message boards when determining wether or not someone's opinion is valid. On another message board I used to frequent, post count was dragged out whenever someone wanted to try and put someone else down. "Come back when your postcount is over 1000", you'd see frequently posted. You already have a little of that going on here. Hop on over to the pirate thread and see how many times people have indicated that someone's opinion on pirates isn't valid if they haven't placed any caches. Imagine how much worse that attitude will be when you can click on someone's profile and see that their ranking is lower than yours.

Sorry, folks. Geocaching is still too new. It's not ready for a ranking system. Maybe a year or so down the road. If you set it up now, in five years I bet there wouldn't even be any Geocaching.

just my $.02

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

September 24, 2003

Yea, but I'm not optimistic. If it's not #1 priority (like it's #5 or something), other priorities will continually insert themselves above #5...it'll never get done.

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
Actually - there was a semi official statement (IE, a post from Jeremy - it wasn't listed as an announcement so I hesitate to call it official) that stated they were aware of the situation and exploring ways to implement it.

This isn't a knock on them - but if you've been around you know it takes them a while to plan and implement stuff (example: new maps). I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, either.

Just today there was a post from an approver, TNGeocacher (which probably can't be viewed as official, but he is an approver) stating that the Admin were following the situation and were looking at all of the variables involved.

I believe they'll add something but it's not the #1 priority. I also beleive it's probably in the very early planning stages.

I don't see the issue going away, but I think it's unnecessary to start new threads about this - there are already quite a few of them.

southdeltan

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

9.4k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
2. Fewer new people will start geocaching. Speaking as a relatively new player, I probably would not have started caching if the first thing I saw when I came to GC.com was a leaderboard proclaiming that "Loser With no Job" has found 2,392 caches. I probably would have thought to myself, "Self, we're never gonna catch _that_ guy. Let's go find another hobby"

That's funny, when I started, I saw BruceS and CCCooper Agency listed at the top of Dan's Stats Site and wanted to find MORE caches. I worked and worked at getting to be in the top 15 in my state. When I finally did, the stats site went down.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
That's funny, when I started, I saw BruceS and CCCooper Agency listed at the top of Dan's Stats Site and wanted to find MORE caches. I worked and worked at getting to be in the top 15 in my state. When I finally did, the stats site went down.

Sure, but that was then. What were the high-rankers at then? As time goes on, the leaderboard would show higher and higher numbers, which will (more often than not) just serve to discourage new players.

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

2.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
It's a security issue. Once I shore up the other potential uses of this, I'll send you to an example.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

I see... Thanks for the info!

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

And may no Admin bricks fly your way

9.4k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
Sure, but that was then. What were the high-rankers at then? As time goes on, the leaderboard would show higher and higher numbers, which will (more often than not) just serve to discourage new players.

They are still on the top, I'm not sure what their numbers were like then (and now, since I can't find out as easily as before). It hasn't had much of an effect on MY caching. MY goal was to be on the first page of cachers in my state. Once I did that, I worked on getting to the top 15. Now that I've done that, I'm working on getting to the first page in Arizona, then Colorado. I've exhausted the family friendly caches in my area, so I can't add numbers as fast at home. I plan on doing more traveling to different states to have a presence in as many states as possible. I'd love to have a stats site so I can keep track of my progress without having to make my own charts and graphs, but the numbers the top cachers had 1.5 years ago when I started DID NOT turn me away from Geocaching.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

September 24, 2003

quote:
but the numbers the top cachers had 1.5 years ago when I started DID NOT turn me away from Geocaching.

Sure, that's my point. That was 1.5 years ago. Geocaching itself was only a year or two old at that point. Someone starting right now might look at a leaderboard and say "wow, you know, that's a tall order, but I might be able to hit that". In a couple years from now, someone looking at that same leaderboard with much larger numbers (not just from old-timers who have been doing it forever, but also from those aforementioned dumbass kids who will log a bunch of false finds) and will say "to hell with it, they're too far ahead."

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

9.4k · September 24, 2003

When I started, there were also fewer caches in my state (and in the world). Now it is easier to get your first 50-100 caches in just about any metro area. Of course the leaders will have high numbers. It's like that in any activity. You have to start at the bottom. Once you've been doing it awhile, then you can look at the leaderboard and set your goals.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

September 24, 2003

quote:
It's a security issue. Once I shore up the other potential uses of this, I'll send you to an example.

I totally respect that. I'm curious though what security bug it creates. I'll be watching for your post.

On another note I changed the stats for cache pages to a .JPG so it no longer needs IFRAME to work. Cache pages though will need to be updated with the new HTML.

--

SpongeRob

rwmech@keenpeople.com

www.keenpeople.com

WPWU826

Cache'n Retrievers

24.7k · September 24, 2003

Even without stats, by data manipulation you get side benifits like knowing what caches your friend hit while on vacation.

9.4k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Even without stats, by data manipulation you get side benifits like knowing what caches your friend hit while on vacation.

That's right! One of the top cachers in my area went on vacation and I was able to use Dan's Stats to watch their trip.

Stats - It's not just about the numbers

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Stats - It's not just about the numbers

Stats - It's not just about the numbers --- Its about the numbers

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

And may no Admin bricks fly your way

September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
As time goes on, the leaderboard would show higher and higher numbers, which will (more often than not) just serve to discourage new players.

That is so wrong it's not even funny.

1.1k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CacheMonkeez:
That is so wrong it's not even funny.

Is that your rebuttal?

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

September 24, 2003

I could care less who the 'leaders' are in terms of number of caches found, number of forum postings, etc. I'm doing this for fun, to get outdoors, to see new places that I would not have visited before starting this sport, and occasionally to exchange ideas with others on the forum pages. However, I do respect other viewpoints about this subject, because my views certainly reflect the fact that I tend more towards sports like hiking, rock climbing, wake boarding, skiing, and camping, where there are no winners, just people having fun.

September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
As time goes on, the leaderboard would show higher and higher numbers, which will (more often than not) just serve to discourage new players.

That's hardly a valid point. If that were the case you wouldnt have kids out there playing baseball simply because they couldnt compete. You wouldnt have children learning to do anything simply because somone did it better.

If stats discourage you then how on earth do you compete in anything?

--

SpongeRob

rwmech@keenpeople.com

www.keenpeople.com

WPWU826

Cache'n Retrievers

6.5k · September 24, 2003

Team GPSaxaphone wrote:

quote:
That's funny, when I started, I saw BruceS and CCCooper Agency listed at the top of Dan's Stats Site and wanted to find MORE caches. I worked and worked at getting to be in the top 15 in my state. When I finally did, the stats site went down.

So you are admitting to breaking the stats site after all. I thought you might be behind that.

I will not vote again on this issue. Stats are nice, but I found the numbers for this area were frequently off on the other site. It was nice to get into the top 5 at one point but now I cache because I want to get out in the woods and get bit up by bugs on the way to a cool spot with a hidden box of trinkets. It isabout the solitude and hike and find for me; the numbers just tag along.

All a leaderboard will do is keep it organized, IMHO it won't change the way most people cache.

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

1.3k · September 24, 2003

I didn't vote because there wasn't a button for the option I'd choose.

Stats are fine. Go ahead and make a stats page, but I request that my stats be excluded from view.

9.4k · September 24, 2003

Yes, I broke Dan's site. Are you happy now?

Someone mentioned baseball. My kids will be afraid of playing baseball because someone already has a high home run record. Someone already has the most stolen bases. Someone already has the lowest ERA. I guess we should all stop playing baseball now since no one could ever hope to beat those records.

In other words, should we stop geocaching just because someone has more finds than us? See how silly your argument is?

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

September 24, 2003

Puh-leeze. You can't compare baseballt to Geocashing. Baseball has been around since 1846. It's had over 150 years to build a tradition. Geocaching is, what, 3 years old? If it was an infant, we would still be describing it's age in months. Placing a ranking system on it now would stunt it's growth.

For the record, I'm not saying to never institute ranking. All I'm saying is wait a year or two. Give the geocaching community a chance to build a tradition and grow in number a little bit.

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

9.4k · September 24, 2003

That reminds me, when Cal Ripken was about to set the record for the most consecutive games played, some people said he shouldn't do it since the old record stood for so long. That's right, never strive to be better. Being mediocre is the way you are supposed to be.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

9.4k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
Placing a ranking system on it now would stunt it's growth.

So, having Dan's Stats around for the last couple of years has hurt geocaching? It's only been the last couple of months that we HAVEN'T had stats. Things have gotten worse since then (although I can't say that stats are 100% responsible)

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
Puh-leeze. You can't compare baseballt to Geocashing. Baseball has been around since 1846. It's had over 150 years to build a tradition. Geocaching is, what, 3 years old? If it was an infant, we would still be describing it's age in months. Placing a ranking system on it now would stunt it's growth.

For the record, I'm not saying to _never _institute ranking. All I'm saying is wait a year or two. Give the geocaching community a chance to build a tradition and grow in number a little bit.

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

A statistics system would not stunt the growth of geocaching. There was a rather well known 'unofficial' stats page until about a month ago. This page had been up for a long time (a couple of years maybe?). It did not stunt the growth of geocaching - during the time it was open the growth was often described as exponential. Evidence discredits this theory.

There are still false finds. This problem hasn't gone away with the demise of Dan's stats page.

Your arguement that somebody would see the person at the top and quit is a poor one. That is your opinion. I tend to agree that if competition among some ruins it for all - most sports or games would not be played.

Nobody would play golf because the likelyhood of them being as good as Palmer, Nicklaus, or Woods would be too small. The age of the sport/game is irrelevant. If truely is relevent, it weakens your arguement - if the short life span matters it only shows that in 3 years you can have over 3000 finds.

southdeltan

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

6.5k · September 24, 2003

cupajo wrote:

quote:
Puh-leeze. You can't compare baseballt to Geocashing. Baseball has been around since 1846. It's had over 150 years to build a tradition

Hey there's no crying in Geocaching!

That's right, there is a long history and tradition for Baseball. But they started counting the stats on Day 1! Of course there was no Elias Bureau, or internet back then so everyone could debate it all day long.

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

September 24, 2003

quote:
In other words, should we stop geocaching just because someone has more finds than us? See how silly your argument is?

My argument isn't silly, but your gross misinterpretation of it is. I've never said anyone should quit geocaching because someone else has more finds. What I've said is that seeing a leaderboard with astronomical numbers will discourage new people from starting. Your reading comprehension isn't so smurfy, is it?

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:

quote:
In other words, should we stop geocaching just because someone has more finds than us? See how silly your argument is?

My argument isn't silly, but your gross misinterpretation of it is. I've never said anyone should quit geocaching because someone else has more finds. What I've said is that seeing a leaderboard with astronomical numbers will discourage _new people_ from _starting_. Your reading comprehension isn't so smurfy, is it?

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

I won't go so far as to say it's silly. I will say it is merely your opinion and there is no way you can prove that. I could argue that a leaderboard would INSPIRE a lot of people to get out and find as many caches as possible - but there's no way to prove that.

The stats site existed for a long time, a lot of people knew about it and I never heard of one person quitting because they couldn't cache CCCooperAgency.

southdeltan

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

September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wimseyguy:
That's right, there is a long history and tradition for Baseball. But they started counting the stats on Day 1! Of course there was no Elias Bureau, or internet back then so everyone could debate it all day long.

No, actually you're wrong there. The first batting avg wasn't recorded until 1871.

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

September 24, 2003

I didn't vote because there isn't an option for my opinion. I'd like stats, but I'm happy with the site and the status quo. I also know myself, and my inclination to get too wrapped up in "the score."

Compared to "that other" site, GC.com and Groundspeak are, well, there's no comparison. This end of the web is easier to use, far more popular (it's the community that drives the game, after all), and most responsive. I like it here, and I'm stickin', stats or no.

That said, there is one thing on the N site that I do like, and that's the notion of calculating a score based not just on number of finds, but terrain and difficulty. I'd rather walk 10 miles to log a good one, or search for a single creative one, than drive by a dozen micros, or cracked tupperware boxes filled with broken mctoys.

Once again, my vote: I'm happy with what I've got, but I'd probably upgrade my membership if the right kind of stats were available.

It's around here somewhere...

1.6k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
What I've said is that seeing a leaderboard with astronomical numbers will discourage _new people_ from _starting_.

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to be wrong.

Your arguement is about as valid as we shouldn't have a world wide leaderboard because there are places that have more caches than others. For instance, how in the world, if we all started at zero tomorrow, could I compete with cachers in CA, especially around any major city? I couldn't, but by your standard I might as well not even start because there is no way I could be first.

Unless you have some kind of mental problem relating to always having to be number 1, I don't see a leaderboard discouraging anyone from starting.

To take the baseball metaphor further, I think you're way out in left field.

CR

stats availability

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