stats availability

September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to be wrong.

Yes, you are.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
I couldn't, but by your standard I might as well not even start because there is no way I could be first.

Yet again, I've been misinterpreted. You people really need to crack a book once in a while. I've never said new people shouldn't start geocaching if they can't compete. What I've said is that many of them probably won't. There is a difference.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
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.

Well, maybe you don't. I've seen it happen inother hobbies though, so I would be leary.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
To take the baseball metaphor further, I think you're way out in left field.

Could be, who knows. Maybe I'm way off base. But wouldn't it suck if they institute these stat pages and I turn out to be right? In five years time, the top 100 could be meaningless since there may only be 50 left. An extreme scenario, I admit, but not one that is outside the realm of possibility.

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

2.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
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.

Well being number 1 on the IRS or FBI's list is NOT a good thing!!

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

And may no Admin bricks fly your way

5.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
But wouldn't it suck if they institute these stat pages and I turn out to be right?

I'd risk it.

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

Eamus Catuli AC145895

September 24, 2003

But, hey. They've said it's not a competitive sport and yet you all keep whining about a stats page so...

September 24, 2003

.

September 24, 2003

carry on

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

2.1k · September 24, 2003

lol what a bunch of "bularkey" you are talking about Cupajo. First of all there are more cachers than there are MLB players. Secondly, what difference is a year going to make? It's been around for 3 years already. I guess the number 4 means something?

Just because someone has a bunch of finds now, doesn't mean someone else can't pass them. Since you are talking baseball, that is like telling some rookie that they never will be as good as babe truth, micky mantle, hank aaron, mark mcguire, barry bonds and many others.

I say along with the total number of stats, you add a ratio stat. The number of finds per X (X being a certain time period). Or an average.

While I was never one for the stats thing, I never would have a problem if they were there. Don't look if you don't want to see.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
Yet again, I've been misinterpreted. You people really need to crack a book once in a while. I've never said new people _shouldn't_ start geocaching if they can't compete. What I've said is that many of them probably _won't_. There is a difference.

Please lets not get into semantics - Your arguement that most people PROBABLY won't is invalid. That is your opinion. There WAS a stats page and new members still signed up at an exponential rate. The stats page was apparantly VERY popular and if anything led to more geocaching among a seemingly large number of people.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
To take the baseball metaphor further, I think you're way out in left field.

Could be, who knows. Maybe I'm _way off base_. But wouldn't it suck if they institute these stat pages and I turn out to be right? In five years time, the top 100 could be meaningless since there may only be 50 left. An extreme scenario, I admit, but not one that is outside the realm of possibility.

There WAS a stats page and none of these things happened. People did not quit because of competition - they just didn't look at the page.

If anything, as I said, the stats page led to more geocaching.

I'd argue that the lack of a stats page could hurt the numbers. A lot of people could end up geocaching and hiding less caches - that spreads and spreads then you have only a few people left. My arguement is just as extreme and unlikely as yours.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's a VALID arguement against something. I could argue that we shouldn't place geocaches because somebody could put anthrax in caches - it's possible but very unlikely.

It's also important to point out that there are a multitude of useful things that can be developed with a stats page.

It's about information - not competition. I won't go so far as to say it's not about competition to anybody, because this is false. I am fairly sure that most people who want the stats understand the drawbacks and are not mainly concerned with competiton. The information is there, I'm just asking that it be compiled in a usuable format.

Oh yea - the OLD arguement that this will create cliques - guess what, they're already here. People can demean you on your post count - or wonder of wonders - they can click on your profile and add up your totals, or even worse - point out that you only have X number of traditionals and that you logged the Yellow Jeep virtual! Sheesh - people will always find ways to demean people who have different views and the lack of a stats page doesn't diminish this.

southdeltan

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

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
But, hey. They've said it's not a competitive sport and yet you all keep whining about a stats page so...

A. Offering an opinion different from yours is not whining.

B. It's not about competition, it's about information.

C. There are a multitude of uses for a 'stats' page or leaderboard.

D. There was a leaderboard and it was very useful for a lot of people. We are just asking that TPTB fill that void.

southdeltan

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

September 24, 2003

quote:
If anything, as I said, the stats page led to more geocaching.

This is true as far as I can tell. Not only did it motivate cachers to find more caches, it also motivated cachers to place more caches. I know of several cachers who were motivated by stats for both finding and placing caches. I never heard of anybody discouraged by stats.

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CacheMonkeez:

quote:
If anything, as I said, the stats page led to more geocaching.

This is true as far as I can tell. Not only did it motivate cachers to find more caches, it also motivated cachers to _place_ more caches. I know of several cachers who were motivated by stats for both finding and placing caches. I never heard of anybody discouraged by stats.

I wouldn't say it was true in all situtions, but I've talked to quite a few geocachers who say they've slacked of in their activity because their motivation was gone. At our recent picnic, developing a stats page for our group was a hot topic (well, semi hot, we mainly just socialized and looked for geocaches). Up until this picnic, geocaching definetly seemed to be DOWN in our state (beyond the lull due to extreme temperature/humidities experienced in July/August)

A lot of people say they're against stats because it's not about competition. They also say the 'game' is about finding geocaches and enjoying the environment. I've never said that it wasn't about competition for SOME people, but most of the people I've talked to want stats because the information is useful.

A lot of people seem appalled that people get competitive. I'd like to offer a different view on competiton. I'd argue that it helps the noncompetitve geocachers. As a cache hider - I LOVE to see new logs (of any type, except SBA, hehe) on my geocache. If people are out geocaching and find my caches because they're competiting with somebody why should I care? I'm getting more logs. Not all competition is about finds either. I know quite a few people that like to have the most hides. That's more geocaches for people to find. Some of these hides are lame - but a lot of people who care about numbers ALSO care about quality. More logs could lead to hiders hiding more geocaches. More geocaches could lead to more people hunting them. More hunters could lead to more hides - and so on.

If people are geocaching - why does their reason matter? Above all - it's about having a good time. Why prevent people who want stats from having access? (Yes, GC.com never provided a leaderboard, but their position to fill the void left by Dan's page is very obvious and a lot of geocachers would love if they'd do it).

southdeltan

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

9.4k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
People...can click on your profile and...point out that you...logged the Yellow Jeep virtual

I logged it once the stats were gone. I might delete it if they come back, unless locationless are counted in a different list

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
People...can click on your profile and...point out that you...logged the Yellow Jeep virtual

I logged it once the stats were gone. I might delete it if they come back, unless locationless are counted in a different list

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ihazeltine/bandbass.gif

People can click on your profile and see that you logged that cache now.

My point was - TPTB removed the TOTALS count from our profile pages. It was my understanding that they did this because they were anti-totals. So, they instead broke down the finds by type - which could possibly lead to even more 'cliqueish' behaviour - anti-virtuals people could point to ppl with lots of finds, you could make fun of people with lots of locationless, you can dismiss people because they haven't hid any geocaches - etc.

People will always be able to find something to belittle others with. That's no reason to take away something that is useful from the masses who won't do negative things.

sd

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

1.3k · September 24, 2003

I really don't see how not implementing a stats page is taking anything away, there never was one to begin with. Sure there was Dan's stats, but GC never supplied one. Someone mentioned a while ago that to truly be an accurate representation of one's activity, the stats would have to take into account the number of accessible caches, their difficulty, the amount of free time the cacher has, the money they have to spend on gas, etc. I can say with confidence that I'd have a lot more under my belt if I lived in one of those cache rich areas where people have over a thousand caches within 100 miles of their zip code. It's impractical for some people to "compete" on a level playing field. Thats why I believe competition isn't really appropriate for caching. An independantly wealthy person who has no job to go to, and all the time in the world can easily rack up my entire find count in a couple of weeks. Sure, life isn't fair, but in competitive sports, auto racing for example, there are rules to follow to ensure that the cars are very similar in performance. This allows the outcome to be decided on the skill of the driver, not the wallets of the cars sponsors. There is no comparison between a cacher living in the middle of nowhere and one living in the middle of a thousand caches. The next point that is usually mentioned is "If you don't like stats, don't look at them."

That's fine and all, but people make judements about others ability/credibility based on their find counts. It has been suggested that those who don't wish to participate post a note rather than a find. That's ridiculous. My stats are important to me, I have some caching goals I'd like to reach. But I feel that it is my business when I reach them. There are several caches that I have posted notes to, and changing finds to notes will screw up my tally. In addition, rather than hiding the count, changing them to notes will list a zero for caches found for those who do look. Hiding them altogether would force people to make judgements based on the words they read, rather than the numbers they see.

I'm not against a stats page, and would even consider opting in after I had reached those personal goals I spoke of, but I strongly believe there should be an option to remain anonymous in the ranking.

4.7k · September 24, 2003

soo... how 'bout them sox?

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

presta schrader

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
I really don't see how not implementing a stats page is taking anything away, there never was one to begin with. Sure there was Dan's stats, but GC never supplied one.

If you'll notice - I said that GC.com never had a stats page - I said they could fill a void left by Dan's page.

quote:
Someone mentioned a while ago that to truly be an accurate representation of one's activity, the stats would have to take into account the number of accessible caches, their difficulty, the amount of free time the cacher has, the money they have to spend on gas, etc. I can say with confidence that I'd have a lot more under my belt if I lived in one of those cache rich areas where people have over a thousand caches within 100 miles of their zip code. It's impractical for some people to "compete" on a level playing field. Thats why I believe competition isn't really appropriate for caching. An independantly wealthy person who has no job to go to, and all the time in the world can easily rack up my entire find count in a couple of weeks.

I live in a fairly cache deficient area. The nearest cache I haven't found is over 50 miles as the crow flies. I have to drive closer to 90 to get to these caches. I am aware, as I am sure most people who are interested, that there is no way to compete with somebody in a large city, or with a person with unlimited times or funds. This does not make it less useful.

Dan's page only had an OVERALL top 25. Other than that, it ranked finds by US State or Country (outside the US). Using the leaderboard for my state was very useful and it was useful to most of the cachers I've spoken to. I can only think of 2 or 3 that really really cared where they ranked.

quote:
Sure, life isn't fair, but in competitive sports, auto racing for example, there are rules to follow to ensure that the cars are very similar in performance. This allows the outcome to be decided on the skill of the driver, not the wallets of the cars sponsors.

In theory, this is true. However, if you will watch NASCAR you will see that this is not true and the rules tend to hurt teams that aren't as funded as well. Also, most of the races this year have come down to 'fuel mileage'. There is little passing on a lot of the tracks because the cars are so equal. (THIS of course has nothing to with geocaching. This is not a professional sport, I am just offering a few counters to the arguement).

quote:
There is no comparison between a cacher living in the middle of nowhere and one living in the middle of a thousand caches.

I have stated time and time again (as have others) that it's not necessarily about ranking or comparing your self. There are all sorts of applications that are possible, but the leaderboard must be in place. Dan's site allowed you to see the activity of a # of friends in the glance of a few pages. It allowed you to easily look at the last logs for a state or city. It allowed easy access to a list that broke down finds/hides by state (and country). These are just a few things. There are many more that could be added.

I know that I'm not gonna catch geocachers who are wealthier (and have more time) than me, or started way before me, or lived in a cache-richer area. It's not about that for me (and a LOT of others). Most of the people realize that. We understand that not all finds are equal (and there is NO way to balance this. People don't rate accurately for one, and for another what's easy to me may be difficult to you - that's not gonna change).

quote:
The next point that is usually mentioned is "If you don't like stats, don't look at them."

That's fine and all, but people make judements about others ability/credibility based on their find counts. It has been suggested that those who don't wish to participate post a note rather than a find. That's ridiculous. My stats are important to me, I have some caching goals I'd like to reach. But I feel that it is my business when I reach them. There are several caches that I have posted notes to, and changing finds to notes will screw up my tally. In addition, rather than hiding the count, changing them to notes will list a zero for caches found for those who do look. Hiding them altogether would force people to make judgements based on the words they read, rather than the numbers they see.

I can easily click on your profile, then look at your last log and see your TOTALS. That's all I need to make a judgement about somebody based on totals. A stats page would not add to this. Heck, all I have to do is click your profile and point out your totals for different types of geocaches. The problem exists without a leaderboard. The last bit of your arguement is a bit of a stretch. You can call it a find or a note or nothing-at-all. If I see a log and read it, FIND is going to register.

Being aware of numbers (wether or not for ranking purposes) is a natural extension of this game - wether Dave Ulmer intended that or TPTB want it. It's there and it's not going away.

quote:
I'm not against a stats page, and would even consider opting in after I had reached those personal goals I spoke of, but I strongly believe there should be an option to remain anonymous in the ranking.

I still am not sure why anonymity is so important. If you log finds, it is not anonymous. A leaderboard wouldn't make it any less anonymous.

These are some of the same arguements that keep coming up AGAINST a leaderboard and the only one that might hold water is anonymity - but that one sinks because people already post their data to the website. Most of us also understand that for lots of reasons you can't accurately compare yourself against others - we know that and we still want the leaderboard (For example, there is no way you could compare what Babe Ruth did to what Aaron did to what Bonds is doing - but MLB still keeps totals. Most people who are smart know the eras were different).

southdeltan

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

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

Cool

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:

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

quote:
Why has gc.com done this?

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

This seems off topic - but I am curious as to what this is about - I don't see where the quote came from (I must be missing something). What does this concern?

southdeltan

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

1.3k · September 24, 2003

I am very aware that totals are easily found by clicking a few links, and the new breakdown gives more options for stats by type. I suppose I assumed that everyone knew this, and didn't feel the need to bring it up. By "opt out" I mean restricting all of the various methods of researching find counts on the site. In other words, if you opt out, totals would not appear above your logs, only the first page of your profile would be visible to anyone but you, and you would be removed from the "search for caches found by userxx". An opt out of just the consolidated stats page would be useless with the other methods intact. I really don't have a problem telling people how many finds I have. I just would like to be asked. As it is now, that isn't an option. Geocaching is an activity that relies on finders honesty. If you can be trusted not to log caches you didn't find, you can be trusted to tell someone a true find count if they ask. I really don't think I'll ever be a threat to any of the top finders, so exclusion from stats shouldn't matter.

Leaderboard or no, it really won't change the game, I agree. Opting out for those who wish to won't change it either.

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
I am very aware that totals are easily found by clicking a few links, and the new breakdown gives more options for stats by type. I suppose I assumed that everyone knew this, and didn't feel the need to bring it up. By "opt out" I mean restricting _all_ of the various methods of researching find counts on the site. In other words, if you opt out, totals would not appear above your logs, only the first page of your profile would be visible to anyone but you, and you would be removed from the "search for caches found by userxx". An opt out of just the consolidated stats page would be useless with the other methods intact. I really don't have a problem telling people how many finds I have. I just would like to be asked. As it is now, that isn't an option. Geocaching is an activity that relies on finders honesty. If you can be trusted not to log caches you didn't find, you can be trusted to tell someone a true find count if they ask. I really don't think I'll ever be a threat to any of the top finders, so exclusion from stats shouldn't matter.

Leaderboard or no, it really won't change the game, I agree. Opting out for those who wish to won't change it either.

I understand your point better now. I agree that in this scenario it wouldn't matter. I see lots of caches with logs in the logbook that aren't posted online. It didn't hurt the experience for me and offers a nice surprise (as opposed to some other surprises going on around here) when I check my caches.

I personally love being able to keep up with other people and would never move to prevent them from keeping up with me if they chose to do so.

southdeltan

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

5.3k · September 24, 2003

The insidecorner site was about more than just the leaderboard, but we've already covered that.

Remember the geek density of this sport. Most of the "cache-heavy" areas have organized clubs with access to programmers and computers that are starting to fill in many of the pieces. Missouri, Arizona, Middle TN, Minnesota, and several other clubs offer regionalized data.

By keeping it regional and "members only" you can acquire permission of those involved and keep it all within the TOS. You can also be small enough to be responsive to what's important to YOUR constituency which is may be different by region.

Visit http://www.mtgc.org and check out "stats" and the maps under "links" (a collaboration with a MN geocacher/programmer/friend) for two examples of ways these needs can be filled. We'll work with other clubs that are interested in providing similar services to their local users.

1.8k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:
Dan's site allowed you to see the activity of a # of friends in the glance of a few pages.

If this is what you're interested in, then make your own!

I personally find stats to be interesting, but nothing that I get overly excited about. I really don't care who the top cachers are, because all but one of them aren't from my area. I like to see how I compare to cachers in my area that I know. The site above is "self-serve", so only the people that are truely interested post their totals. It adds a fun bit of competitiveness to the sport, but only with the people that I am interested in competing against.

- - - - -

Uh oh...

1.1k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
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.

Who cares if someone enters a false find. If they feel the need to go through the effort, let them, it makes them happy, but I can guarantee that no one will enter 3400+ finds just so they can be ahead of CCCooperAgency or BruceS...or even waste their time on 100 finds.

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"

You are missing the whole point here, it's not about the stats, it's about the fun and adventure you have in finding geocaches. The stats are just an added bonus that enhance the game. Those that don't care about the stats, never have to look at them. And it is probably something a new geocacher won't even look at on the first day of joining. If someone had the attitude like your comment "Self, we're never gonna catch _that_ guy. Let's go find another hobby", then odds are that geocaching is not the right sport for them/you. Same goes for anything in life, should people simply just not try just because other's are better than them? With everything in life, we are all new when we start something, but over time we get better and better. Because Wayne Gretzky has 3000+ points which seems totally unattainable, does that mean that no one should ever join hockey or any other sport (face it, all sports are about stats, otherwise why keep score), because they have no chance of catching the leader? No! They do it because they enjoy it and possible enjoy the challenge of moving up in the stats ranks, even when they are at the bottom when they begin.

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
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.

Since you are new to geocaching and have a handful of finds only, how can you even comment on what geocaching is ready for. Come back when oy uhave 100 finds under your belt...LOL...just kidding.

Anyways my point is, you have said a lot but haven't backed any of it up...wait, you sound like a politician.

So I do hope you continue to enjoy this great sport/hobby/activity as much as so many of us here, and keep an open mind to change and new features, including stats. Remember, if you don't like stats, don't look at them.

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

1.6k · September 25, 2003

Looks like someone doesn't want stats until he won't be at the bottom of the list.

CR

September 25, 2003

The stats page will also help catch cachers like res2100 doing fake finds like logging a cache after its archived and forging pictures on location less caches like mine and them back dating the log……………. JOE

Don't wish for something that will get you Busted

September 25, 2003

Keep wacking.

I think it's still dead.

Nevertheless, the reason I (and a lot of people I know) got into Geocaching because it's noncompetitive. I already play in a softball league. I play basketball. I occasionally pony up some dough for quarter-fifty-dollar poker. I like darts, pool, and frisbee golf. I already do plenty of things that are competitive. I got into caching because it's something that I can do where I don't have to worry about stats or leaderboards. The only person I'm competing against is myself. And if there was a leaderboard, I would (even subconciously) be competing against others. If your the sort of person who can look at a leaderboard and not really care where you place on it, more power to you. You're very evolved.

Now, you can all say that it's not about competition, that it's all about information, but you have to realize how stupid it sounds when you follow that up with "the information is already there, this is just compiling it". If the information is already there, then why do you need it compiled, unless it really is about the competition (which, of course, it is).

For the record, I'm not against a stats page. Before I registered and got started caching, I followed things on the website for a couple months. I went to Dan's site and thought it was an interesting idea. I just don't think it's the responsibility of GC.com to fill theis void when they've already said that the hobby is not supposed to be competitive. This is something for an independant third party to set up again. I would be 100% behind that. Hell, I might even participate. I've done a little web design.

You know what's really funny? You've all spent a lot of energy on these message boards pestering Jeremey and the rest of the Groundspeak crew about a leaderboard. You could probably divert that energy into creating your own stats page (or convincing Dan to start his up again)

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Looks like someone doesn't want stats until he won't be at the bottom of the list.

You know, this is the kind of snobbish elitest attitude that will only get worse if GC institutes their own leaderboard. That's what will keep people away. You can stick a little winking smilie on the end to make it look like a joke, but you still come across as an [*******].

Oh, and

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

[Edited for content.]

[This message was edited by Keystone Approver on September 25, 2003 at 08:52 AM.]

1.1k · September 25, 2003

To JoGPS

Sounds like a personal attack on me, is that really necessary? Are you talking about your Resevoirs cache? Hey, are you that Tennessee Geocacher guy who THREATENED me in an email? I keep a list of all locationless caches which I made when I first started caching. When I found this resevoir on JULY 3rd, which is also the date of the log, and then went to log it a couple months later, AFTER I got my film developed and able to get it scanned, I was disappointed to see that your locationless has been archived. I feel as others do too, that just because a cache is archived that it could still allowed to be logged (otherwise why have the feature). The picture is an original scan of a print with me, my son, and our GPS sitting on the plaque describing the resevoir in Emmindingen, Germany, where we vacationed for 2 weeks. If you are questioning the picture legitamacy, please provide me with your mailing address and I will be more than happy to send you the picture as I have doubles from my vacation.

I do not have a digital camera, nor can I justify the cost of buying one. I use my video camera and then transfer stills to my computer, or I use my actual camera, but it does take time to get the film developed and then find the time to go to a friend's to get it scanned.

Since I feel a need to defend myself because of your personal attack. My 6 year old son and I geocache for us and no one else. We do it because it is fun, and brings us lots of happyness and enjoyment (except when we receive threatening emails) and a closer bond (well we have that already). We keep an Excel spreadsheet with all of our finds and stats and experiences. It is something we really enjoy doing together since losing my wife to cancer a couple years ago at the age of 25. Geocaching has taught us a lot...how many 6 year olds know how to read a compass or know the difference between 300 meters and 1 km. And it has brought us to see many new and wonderful places that we never knew existed before, even though we have lived here all our lives.

So the point is, if we go through the effort of finding a cache, be it traditional or locationless and take a picture and scan it and take the time to log it, and it makes us happy, why shouldn't it count? Every single cache that I have logged I have physically been too and found and I swear that on my dearly departed wife's grave! I notice that you didn't disallow the log find, which you have had weeks to do. If you want to delete the log find, feel free to go ahead, but we still count it as a find in our spreadsheet and it just means I have to log my own cache to keep the numbers in sync.

Anyways, not sure what this all has to do with the original topic of stats, but I have answered your attack...you can take it how you like, but in the end my soon and I will contiue to find geocaches and have lots of fun doing it and bring smiles to our faces Anyways, I really don't want this dragged out, if someone has a problem with a find of mine, or I have entered something incorrectly in a log (it's happened), please email me so I can correct it.

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

[This message was edited by res2100 on September 25, 2003 at 08:27 AM.]

21.9k · September 25, 2003

Just for the record, the statement about fake logs entered by Res2100 is not regarded by this forum moderator as a "personal attack." The admins are well aware of the scope of the matter. Locationless cache owners are encouraged to carefully maintain their caches by examining log submissions.

Don't make me stop this car!

4.7k · September 25, 2003

the tediousness of all these threads has made me decide that if stats come out, i hope there is an opt-out choice. i would prefer not to be on my state's leaderboard.

it is precisely the idea that those with low scores will want to opt out will want to do this that makes me want this. call me perverse, but before dan miller's board went down i was ranked #1 in my state. i rather resent the implication (and you've seen it around without me having to go back and quote) that those of us who do not want to be listed do not want to be listed because of our low rankings.

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

presta schrader

September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by flask:
the tediousness of all these threads has made me decide that if stats come out, i hope there is an opt-out choice. i would prefer not to be on my state's leaderboard.

it is precisely the idea that those with low scores will want to opt out will want to do this that makes me want this. call me perverse, but before dan miller's board went down i was ranked #1 in my state. i rather resent the implication (and you've seen it around without me having to go back and quote) that those of us who do not want to be listed do not want to be listed because of our low rankings.

I see by your stats page that you only have 481 finds. Your opinion on this issue doesn't matter until you have reached 500. Sorry.

/sarcasm

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

Caching without music is like swimming without water.

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

September 25, 2003

I'm not a frequent poster, but it strikes me as funny that there's little no mention of a return to the days of an independent, unofficial stats site along the lines of Dan's. It really seems to me to be the only solution to this lengthening argument.

Geocaching clearly means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Hence we can say that there will probably never be any agreement about whether geocaching.com should supply its own stats.

There seem to be a lot of tech-savvy cachers out there; I wouldn't be surprised if someone steps out of the woodwork and picks up where Dan left off. Those who are interested in stats for whatever reason will visit; those who aren't, won't. Stats problem solved; everyone happy.

So where's our techie with a stats fetish?

September 25, 2003

Res2100

This was not a personal attack just an example of how useful the stats page was to me. I am not that Tennessee Geocacher guy but I did report the log to him as someone else did the same when I logged a archived cache and got a very stern email from another approver. I also logged one that had never been approved yet, never was sure how I was able to do that, but I did understand why I got the email from the approvers they were not logged finds as we know a find to be. Lets be real here it took you two months after the fact to log it. ( you logged it in Sept. ) As I am sure you noticed I did not delete your find nor did they and did not delete anyone else’s, that’s why I archived the cache 25% of the logged caches were not valid finds and did not want to delete anyone. The stats page helped me look at other location less caches to see how widespread the problem was. But I voluntarily deleted my own finds after seeing that’s what others were doing…………………JOE

7.2k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by JoGPS:
...but I did report the log to him as someone else did the same when I logged a archived cache and got a very stern email from another approver.

I wasn't that stern was I?

quote:
But I voluntarily deleted my own finds after seeing that’s what others were doing…………………JOE

That is some of the best reading I have seen. I never looked to see if you deleted it, but it is VERY cool that you went back and did. It makes you feel better doesn't it.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

September 25, 2003

quote:
There seem to be a lot of tech-savvy cachers out there; I wouldn't be surprised if someone steps out of the woodwork and picks up where Dan left off. Those who are interested in stats for whatever reason will visit; those who aren't, won't. Stats problem solved; everyone happy.

My Attempt has been to allow users to enter their own data. There's some double posting involved however I've tried to open it up to more than just geocaching.com users.

--

SpongeRob

rwmech@keenpeople.com

www.keenpeople.com

WPWU826

5.3k · September 25, 2003

It can be done.

September 25, 2003

mtn-man said ,“It makes you feel better doesn't it.”

Wellllllllllllll, I guess soooooooooo

mtn-man said “I wasn't that stern was I? “

It was pre admin. brick days and have not had ones of those flung at me yet to compare with.

Heeeeeeee Heeeeeeee …………………JOE

1.3k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
Nevertheless, the reason I (and a lot of people I know) got into Geocaching _because_ it's noncompetitive. I already play in a softball league. I play basketball. I occasionally pony up some dough for quarter-fifty-dollar poker. I like darts, pool, and frisbee golf. I already do plenty of things that are competitive. I got into caching because it's something that I can do where I don't have to worry about stats or leaderboards. The only person I'm competing against is myself. And if there was a leaderboard, I would (even subconciously) be competing against others. If your the sort of person who can look at a leaderboard and not really care where you place on it, more power to you. You're very _evolved_.

If you can't look out it without thinking of it competitively - don't look at it. Nobody is asking that it be placed on the first page or created in any way that requires users to view it. This site allows players to list their geocaches - you do not have to hide a geocache if you use this site, however. You also do not have to look for benchmarks, use travelbugs, or ride Vespa scooters.

quote:
Now, you can all say that it's not about competition, that it's all about information, but you have to realize how stupid it sounds when you follow that up with "the information is already there, this is just compiling it". If the information is already there, then why do you need it compiled, unless it really _is_ about the competition (which, of course, it is).

It may sound stupid if you don't understand all of the ways Dan's page was useful (and the dozens of ways it could be expanded to be even more useful). It is true that Dan had a leaderboard but his site was much more than that - a lot of the other features did require the leaderboard system to work.

By glancing over a few pages on the list (more populated areas would of course have to view a few more pages) I was able to keep track of dozens of geocachers that I know personally or by reputation (in my state). I could know if they were active, inactive, when the last time they found a cache, etc. To do this now I have to look up each user. It was also possible to click on a user to see what states BESIDES my state they had found/hid caches in.

It was also possible to look up the most recent logs by state, city, or country. GC.com offers Worldwide lookup of stats now, but it is too broad an area to be truly useful.

There were other applications as well, and endless possibilites.

Of course - What if it IS about competition to SOME people? That doesn't hurt you. People have already shown it's possible for them to hold your find counts over your head now. Dan's site went down a month and a half ago and the amount of 'clique-ism' has not decreased. I actually have never seen somebody use rank against somebody, but I have seen them use count totals. It IS currently possible to find count totals.

You say you do it because it's noncompetitive. That's great. I don't do it to compete either but I still found the statistics page very useful. I could never compete with the leaders in my state - they live in more populated areas and have more time/money than I. My point is - to each his own. Why deny the competition to those who DO want to compete? Dan's site allowed that and now that it's gone the stupid behaviour of some has NOT decreased.

quote:
For the record, I'm not against a stats page. Before I registered and got started caching, I followed things on the website for a couple months. I went to Dan's site and thought it was an interesting idea. I just don't think it's the responsibility of GC.com to fill theis void when they've already said that the hobby is not supposed to be competitive. This is something for an independant third party to set up again. I would be 100% behind that. Hell, I might even participate. I've done a little web design.

I can't say if it's their responsibility or not, but they are in the BEST position to do this and do it right. Unless they will allow people to sublet access to their DB (and agree to TOS they set forth) any secondary site will have the same problems Dan's page had with missing logs etc.

It doesn't matter if it says OFFICIAL or not, people will still view the best as THE page. Dan's page wasn't official but it was the page used by the vast majority of people who cared. If a newbie had a problem, they often brought it up here. Being un-official wouldn't stop that. GC.com doing it would eliminate a lot of the things people actually did complain about (missing logs, duplicated accounts, etc)

quote:
You know what's really funny? You've all spent a lot of energy on these message boards pestering Jeremey and the rest of the Groundspeak crew about a leaderboard. You could probably divert that energy into creating your own stats page (or convincing Dan to start his up again)

1. Pestering Jeremy/etc would be sending lots of email to contact@Groundspeak.com. This is a dicussion board. It's here for us to discuss things. Jeremy doesn't have to read this - and they now have moderators to keep things in check so he has spread the responsibility around.

2. What I find funnier is that instead of caching - you're responding. If you don't like to compete - why take part in a discussion that could become heated? If you really don't care about competition, proving your point doesn't really matter does it? It's just a game - I think there is room for a lot of variety in WHY people play it.

I'd like to re-address something. Some people have made a few jokes about your find-count. I don't think it matters at all, but I do think that it shows you that this already exists. Up until 1.5 months ago, Dan's stats site was open. I never saw anybody say 'You're only ranked 434 in your state, your opinion doesn't matter'. I HAVE seen them make references to find counts - it happesn just as much now as then. The leaderboard did not, and a new one would not - create castes.

I know GC.com's admin say it's not competitive - but they are a listing service. They are not the rule makers of geocaching as a whole. They can, if they decide, ignore the leaderboard since it is their site. They cannot stop people from competing. They don't make the rules of the game - they make the rules on what they will allow to be listed here.

Dave Ulmer (the creator of the 'game' we now know as geocaching) may not have intended it to be competitive - but it has evolved into a competitve hobby for SOME. I don't think that's going to go away.

southdeltan

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

3k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by JoGPS:
I am not that Tennessee Geocacher guy but I did report the log to him as someone else did the same when I logged a archived cache and got a very stern email from another approver.

I notice that some of the approvers are taking it upon themselves to archive caches that do exist that apparently have not been removed.

Why do they do this? I can think of several legitimate scenarios where an approver might deem it necessary to archive an existing cache, but isn't the approver who acts in such a manner guilty of creating GeoLitter?

It must be added to the approvers' job description that the approver who decides to archive an existing cache must either personally remove the cache or arrange for the removal of the cache. I have seen no evidence that such a procedure exists.

And any cacher who should happen to visit that cache prior to such action being taken is absolutely entitled to claim a find.

September 25, 2003

quote:
I know GC.com's admin say it's not competitive - but they are a listing service. They are not the rule makers of geocaching as a whole. They can, if they decide, ignore the leaderboard since it is their site. They cannot stop people from competing. They don't make the rules of the game - they make the rules on what they will allow to be listed here.

I agree with that. However GC.COM has made it clear that they don't want to "List" stats. What I tend to complain about is that they don't make it easy for others to do it either.

--

SpongeRob

rwmech@keenpeople.com

www.keenpeople.com

WPWU826

September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

It _must_ be added to the approvers' job description that the approver who decides to archive an existing cache must either personally remove the cache or arrange for the removal of the cache. I have seen no evidence that such a procedure exists.

I'm not following the logic here. Approvers are human, so mistakes are made. Caches are approved that should not have been. Once this is discovered, the cache deserves to be archived, and the container removed.

Why do you place the responsibility for the removal on the approver, who is simply trying to enforce the rules?

An extreme example would be the 'cache' (actually, just a marked tag) which was dropped over the side of a ship off the Alaskan coast. I don't know how that one slipped by, but once it was brought to their attention, it was the duty of the approvers to remove it.

If anyone was responsible for 'geo-litter', it was the person throwing things overboard in the first place. Could you explain why you feel otherwise?

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

7.2k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by JoGPS:
I am not that Tennessee Geocacher guy but I did report the log to him as someone else did the same when I logged a archived cache and got a very stern email from another approver.

I notice that some of the approvers are taking it upon themselves to archive caches that _do_ exist that apparently have not been removed.

Why do they do this? I can think of several legitimate scenarios where an approver might deem it necessary to archive an existing cache, but isn't the approver who acts in such a manner guilty of creating GeoLitter?

It _must_ be added to the approvers' job description that the approver who decides to archive an existing cache must either personally remove the cache or arrange for the removal of the cache. I have seen no evidence that such a procedure exists.

And any cacher who should happen to visit that cache prior to such action being taken is absolutely entitled to claim a find.

Hmmm...

That was a virtual cache BassoonPilot. Removal of a container is not an issue or part of this topic. I for one do try to get these caches out, and if you look in the West and Southwest forums you will see a prime example of just that (I'm not going to bother linking it; look it up yourself). I don't publish all of them in the forums, though. I usually email local cachers directly.

I don't understand what your post has to do with the discussion of stats. JoGPS's comment was regarding running up your stats by logging archived caches (virtual and locationless ones). If you have these concerns it would be best to bring them up in another topic.

And now, back to the topic.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

September 25, 2003

Wow! This is awesome. I wish we had that in Florida!

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:
http://stats.mtgc.org

3k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
That was a virtual cache BassoonPilot.

I was not describing the archiving of a virtual cache. I was describing the archiving of at least two physical caches; one apparently abandoned by its owner, one a recent placement that probably did not violate any rules or guidelines; it was just a lousy cache.

quote:
I for one do try to get these caches out

That's commendable, but in my opinion it should be a requirement, not an option.

quote:
I'm not going to bother linking it; look it up yourself.

Thanks for the courtesy; I have followed your example and not provided links.

quote:
I don't understand what your post has to do with the discussion of stats. JoGPS's comment was regarding running up your stats by logging archived caches (virtual and locationless ones). If you have these concerns it would be best to bring them up in another topic.

His post also dealt with finds claimed after archival and his receipt of an e-mail from an approver admonishing him.

I agree my post was off topic according to the thread title, but it was on topic according to the selection I quoted.

My apologies for not initiating a new thread, but I think there are too many redundant, and therefore unnecessary, threads already.

2.5k · September 25, 2003

Doen't anybody else find it funny that the majority of people who are complaining in the forums about having stats available are relatively new here, and have never seen Dan's stats page or the information that was available there?

1.6k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Looks like someone doesn't want stats until he won't be at the bottom of the list.

You know, this is the kind of snobbish elitest attitude that will only get worse if GC institutes their own leaderboard. _That's_ what will keep people away. You can stick a little winking smilie on the end to make it look like a joke, but you still come across as an [*******].

Funny, but I wasn't joking. Looks like you're trying to get yourself banned, but that's okay. However, I do hope you stick around and enjoy the game.

Let me quote some more for your words:

quote:
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.

I'm curious, then, why wait a year or two? Wouldn't there be yet another newbie with so little experience arguing the same thing? "Isn't only 4 or 5 years too short of a time to have tradition?" Most likely. If you read back over the archives, both here and usenet, you'll find people make the same arguements over and over on many different things. Many times they are proved wrong, yet that doesn't prevent yet another newbie to bring it up again like it was a fresh idea. (Yeah, before you go and reference, I've been guilty of it, too.)

Flask, I hope you weren't referring to my comment. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if you, or anyone else, want to be in a leaderboard or not. What I was saying had nothing to do with that.

CR

1.6k · September 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cupajo:
I've never said new people _shouldn't_ start geocaching if they can't compete. What I've said is that many of them probably _won't_.

Everybody here who started geocaching to have status on a leaderboard, raise your hand.

CR

3.2k · October 8, 2003

So about a month later and a whopping 12% are in favor of not publshing any personal statistical data. I guess that shows how important what we wnat is to the folks in charge.

3.2k · October 12, 2003

Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
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"[/quote

Interesting angle. I have been involved in Orienteering for 20 some years and our experience has been just the opposite. The introduction of National, Regional, and Club rankings has increased interest. Maybe the top spot is beyond your grasp, but there is always someone just ahead that you can pass. The chase up through tha pack is every bit as fun and challanging as maintaining the top spot. We have a small minority of Orienteers that choose not to compete. Their times are not posted. How many would request the site not keep track of their find logs for anyone, even themselves to view? Only those geocachers can really say they are totally noncompetitive.

9.4k · October 13, 2003

Good point, Edscott. I realize I'll never catch CCCooper or BruceS, but I still like to know how well they are doing. I had fun passing people in my state as I cached into the top 15. Veteran cachers noticed how active we were and started asking our advice on cache placements. Now that there are no stats, they don't know what we're up to. We don't know who else is active in our area. The only way to check is to add every cache to your watch list and read a LOT of emails.

My stats: Found 188 / Hidden 11

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

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