Jump to content

Listing The Top 100 Geocachers


Zinnware

Recommended Posts

I am requesting a new feature in Geocaching.com to list the top 100 geocachers based on number of geocaches found and hidden.

 

The list could look like something on this link.

 

http://zinnware.com/HighAdv/Geocaching/Top...Geocachers.html

 

The list could be static and updated once per day (at night) so that the query would not have to be generated each time a users clicks on the link. This would reduce load on your system.

 

What do you think?

 

Zinnware

Link to comment

Mmmmm....nope. Sorry, but that's just my opinion. For the most part, this is not a competitive game, and to me the numbers don't matter (hence my measly 22 finds). I think you'll get a lot of answers like this one. Don't get me wrong, there are those who think it's all about the numbers, but not nearly as many. And though some will say they don't care about the numbers, you'll also see them compare their numbers every chance they get.

 

I say we keep it non-competitive. And that answer wouldn't change if I had 22 or 2200 finds. :blink:

Link to comment

I wouldn't mind seeing such a thing but I doubt it will happen. I like to see how many caches certain people have logged and I have bookmarked several cachers finds.

 

But for some this makes the numbers too important. People here have pointed fingers at "cheaters" and belittled certain cachers because they get easy ones. Then there are the threads about ratings, a 4 star cache should be higher value pointwise than a 1 star cache.

 

It gets stupid. People are stupid. So I doubt rankings will occur on this site.

Link to comment
Mmmmm....nope.  Sorry, but that's just my opinion.  For the most part, this is not a competitive game, and to me the numbers don't matter (hence my measly 22 finds).  I think you'll get a lot of answers like this one.  Don't get me wrong, there are those who think it's all about the numbers, but not nearly as many.  And though some will say they don't care about the numbers, you'll also see them compare their numbers every chance they get.

 

I say we keep it non-competitive.  And that answer wouldn't change if I had 22 or 2200 finds. :blink:

Of course it is not "All about the numbers". I am not claiming it is. You would be hard to find anyone who thinks that it is all about the numbers. I am not asking Geocachers to only use this page of "Top Finds" or limit the features of Geocaching.com. Geocaching is not all about the Photo Gallery feature either or seeing the User Status total for a user, but it too enhances the experience for some Geocachers or people interested in different aspects of Geocaching. People are motivated by different things. Is is bad to be motivated about having the most caches or trying to make the top 100 list?

 

I am not ever going to be in the top 100 list, but that is not my reason for asking to provide such as list.

Edited by Zinnware
Link to comment
Is is bad to be motivated about having the most caches or trying to make the top 100 list?

Personally, I'd say "yes" to that one. I'd rather people were motivated to make this cache, the one they're placing or the one they're hunting for to be the best experience it can be instead of thinking of it as just another notch on their belt.

 

Too many people already use their found count as a way of beating others down and others found count as a reason to accuse them of cheating. I'm bot looking forward to more of the same.

Link to comment

Nope, don't want it!

 

First of all, the numbers are bogus - totally meaningless unless you do extreme data mining - factoring in the cacher, cache-density, ease, hider's experience, any of a great number of factors.

 

Here in my area 5 traditional caches is a very full day, but I can drive to Nashville and get 20 micros a day, or fly to California and get 40 a day - or my job could require me to drive all over the state, in which case I could rack up virts and locationless at a great rate - tell me please how those numbers would have any meaning whatsoever? They don't.

 

Scoring or rating cachers is in any form a lousy idea.

 

Anyone who needs to do some dic....ah, macho-measuring can get stats from a cacher's profile, decide whether they feel inferior/superior to that individual.

 

See you on the trails,

Ed

Link to comment

We used to have a rather nice stats site. It got to be too much work for the guy running it and he shut it down. Groundspeak decided they didn't want anyone else mining their data, and stats weren't really crucial to the game. They didn't want it to be competitive.

 

Along came Keenpeople.com where you could list your stats if you wanted to. Well, Keenpeople also came up with a signature line banner that would show your current stats. The problem with the opt-in system of stats is that you would never really know if you were the top cacher in your area or not. You would only know that you were the top cacher of people that had also opted-in. A movement was made to increase the number of people opting-in and the number of people with stats in their sig line grew.

 

So many people were listing their stats, that Groundspeak claimed that sig. line images slowed down the server. Images were then banned from sig lines in the forums.

 

The truth is, Groundspeak does not want Geocaching to be competitive. Banning stats (images from sig lines) was their attempt at keeping stats away from the game. Sig line images had absolutely no impact on the bandwidth of this site, since they were on a different server. The site was running slow due to bad customer service on the part of the old forum host.

 

Many people like stats, it lets them keep track of cachers in their area. Without stats, it is almost impossible to know who is still caching in your area without adding every cache to your watchlist.

 

My own personal experience with stats is this: A new cacher in my area was caching quite a bit. I had to keep making excuses to go caching just to stay ahead of him. Once the stats site went away, I had no idea if he was still caching as much. I stopped going caching on my days off. Now I only go if I see a new cache in my area or if I'm planning a vacation. We no longer have that "push" keeping us going.

Link to comment

Nope, dont want it either. The numbers really are worthless take for example me. There are 40 caches 40 miles from me 10 of those caches are mine. So I have to drive at least an hour for a cache compared to say someone in LA or Atlanta were there over 400 in 40 miles.

The list would be also become lopsided because instead of doing real caches to get number there would be an upsurge of people finding locationless caches ;) so most people would have the bogus Locationless Cache :P finds not and not real caches finds.

And what is it with the recent onslaught of new rules and such scoreboards? What happend to the good old days of simple caching? Seems like many cachers just want to take a good thing and see if they all go and screw it up!

Link to comment

I would actually like to see the cache totals on our stats page broken down into states/countries. I have been traveling quite a bit and would just like to see it. I would also like to see a leaderboard of sorts. Who really cares if it is about the numbers or not. I have seen people go out and hide some stupid cache right when they start caching instead of waiting to find a few first. I look at my 1st cache and think "man that was pretty weak" ;) anyone can hide a cache, not everyone can find the really tough ones.

 

MHO

Link to comment
The truth is, Groundspeak does not want Geocaching to be competitive.

Qualified: Groundspeak believes that scoring by find or hide counts is unfair, since the playing field is not level and people play by their own defined rules.

 

Banning stats (images from sig lines) was their attempt at keeping stats away from the game. Sig line images had absolutely no impact on the bandwidth of this site, since they were on a different server. The site was running slow due to bad customer service on the part of the old forum host.

 

Incorrect. Images were detracting from the reader's bandwidth, and were detracting from the discussions themselves. Discussion involves, mostly text, and the use of images in sig lines were counterproductive. The CPU utilization to the web site was not part of the equation.

 

Many people like stats, it lets them keep track of cachers in their area. Without stats, it is almost impossible to know who is still caching in your area without adding every cache to your watchlist.

 

Good point. But a leaderboard is only one way to accomplish the task of seeing who is doing what in a particular area.

Link to comment

I'm with 9 key on this one. I find stats interesting and so I wouldn't mind having them. Like 9 key, I also like sports stats. I don't feel that the existence of additional stats will tend to make people more competetive. People are going to be competitive or not by nature without the existence of some additional stats.

Link to comment
And what is it with the recent onslaught of new rules and such scoreboards? What happend to the good old days of simple caching? Seems like many cachers just want to take a good thing and see if they all go and screw it up!

The first leaderboard appeared in 2001. This isn't a new concept.

 

Many people like stats, it lets them keep track of cachers in their area. Without stats, it is almost impossible to know who is still caching in your area without adding every cache to your watchlist.

Good point. But a leaderboard is only one way to accomplish the task of seeing who is doing what in a particular area

True, I could put every cache in my state on my watchlist, but I would need a separate email account for that.

Do you have a better way?

Link to comment

i do not opt in to the stats system. if my local cachers want to know my stats, they can simply go to my profile. it isn't all that hard.

 

i have a feeling that i have a respectable total, but since i'm not comparing myself to others, i'll just keep it to a feeling.

 

i think a real leaderboard would HAVE to take into account cache density and cache difficulty, and it would also have to have some way to more strictly monitor what are real finds and what are bogus finds.

 

it's lovely the way it is. my esteem for other cachers is not based on their numbers. it is based on respect for their cleverness and kindness. it is based on faithfulness and generosity, quality of logs, care and thoughtfulness. a cacher who enriches my playing experience earns my highest respect whether they have found 1 or 1000. can we get THAT on a leaderboard?

Link to comment

Jeremy, can you tell us about this: www.geocaching.com stats?

 

I found that in another thread. There are several other logos you can have on the tag. I'm assuming these have something to do with the new system.

 

I would hope that this new 'buddy' list didn't send an email EVERY time they did something - or if you could turn that off and have something you could view ONLINE.

 

Are there still plans to give access to people who'd like to have stats pages for regions? I recall mention of that somewhere.

 

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

 

On a side note - we have a link to the keenpeople site and the majority (pretty much all) of the active members of the MSGA website use the stats. It's something we all enjoy. It's not all about competition and it provides lots of useful information to each of us who use it. Some people do compete - but I could care less - if they find my cache to pad their stats - GREAT - they found my cache.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

Stats don't hurt the people who don't like them and a lot of good natured competition happens because of them. They also let other cool things happen in tracking activity like seeing what all your buddy logged over the weekend, or who was active in an area at a glance. These are all variations on a theme and even people who hated the entire idea of stats liked the other features that the information you had to track for stats let you do.

 

Losing Dan’s site was a loss to the geocaching community. If it was up to me I’d bring them back and split things up a bit more. Not just the top 100. But list by state, city, country etc. Then you can do raw numbers and do something where someone who specialized in hard caches (caches less often found) can be the top of that game too. There are a lot of ways to skin the stats cat so everyone can have shot at being the best at something if they cared to try.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Do you have a better way?

Yes. It's a bit like a buddy list on IM. Most of the code is done. Once it is complete you can watch users and get emails when they do things. In addition you can list all your friends and latest activity.

Sounds cool! I wouldn't be in it so much for the numbers racket, but I do enjoy seeing what others have been up to. Can't wait for the new stuff I've been hearing about!

Link to comment

I'm all for more stats.

 

The difference in opinion on this matter seems to stem from the fact that there are 2 perspectives on stats:

 

1. Creates competition perspective - gc.com is in this camp and doesn't want it to be competitive

2. It's just data - I'm here. Gimme more data.

Edited by CacheMonkeez
Link to comment

Based on the feedback, My request changes slightly.

I am requesting a list of the most geocaches found and hidden.

I believe it is inappropriate to call it a Leader Board.

It is inappropriate to call it the Top Geocachers.

Call it what it is....

 

Most Caches Found and Hidden by a geocacher.

Link to comment
Nope, dont want it either. The numbers really are worthless take for example me. There are 40 caches 40 miles from me 10 of those caches are mine. So I have to drive at least an hour for a cache compared to say someone in LA or Atlanta were there over 400 in 40 miles.

The list would be also become lopsided because instead of doing real caches to get number there would be an upsurge of people finding locationless caches ;) so most people would have the bogus Locationless Cache :blink: finds not and not real caches finds.

And what is it with the recent onslaught of new rules and such scoreboards? What happend to the good old days of simple caching? Seems like many cachers just want to take a good thing and see if they all go and screw it up!

There are some geocachers that travel to many states to obtain caches. They of course would not have the most caches if they did not make the effort to travel.

 

Do you think BruceS or JoeGPS found over 2500 caches by caching within 40 miles of their home? Did you ever notice how many caches BruceS has found at night?

 

To find over 1000 Geocaches, you have to have a GPS and are willing to travel. It's a matter of making opportunities to find that many caches. Some have the desire, opportunity, time and dedication. Others do not have the ability or time needed to get in the car and travel 1000 miles to another state and Geocache.

 

The list is not about who is the best. It is about who has the most finds and hides.

 

The fact is that the top 10 people listed invest a lot of time. Period. Does that make them the best? No, but they still attain the most finds. Finding the most caches is about opportunity. Some people have it, some people don't.

 

You might say that the best geocachers do the following: find caches, hide caches, promote geocaching, organize geocaching events and societies, assist in administering geocaching (Approving new Geocaches), contribute to the forums with their expertise, etc. My request is not about listing the best geocachers in the world.

I just want to list who has the most aches found and hidden. I am not trying to make it into more than that.

 

Which country has the most Geocaches? Is it the US? Should we not list which country has the most Geocaches? Would it be unfair since the US has the most geocachers or the biggest team or geocachers?

 

Don't lose focus. I just want a list of the geocachers with the most finds and hides.

Link to comment

I wouldn't mind a stats page.

 

However, it's going to be the same people over and over much like the top 10 TBs were the same one's over and over. Once you get to a point, it doesn't really matter. Besides, are people who like the more challenging caches less of a cacher than the "mad dashers?"

 

I'd be much more interested in a regional page. A place where you can watch those who count--your fellow, local cachers.

 

Even with that said, I'd much rather have a page that lists who has found your caches in a grid. I've seen it on a personal page that I can't find right now and I really liked it! It could list caches across the top and cachers down the side. It gives you a very interesting view of how well your caches are doing.

 

Another thing I'd like to see is a "demographic" display of caches found. It's a grid of difficulty across the top and terrain down the side. The grid is filled in with colors that corrospond to the precentage of a person's found caches in that position. Obviously, the higher precentages will be torwards the 1/1 corner, but it would give a more accurate reflaction of the cacher's activities.

 

Stats are good. I just doubt the raw find count is any indication of activity.

 

CR

Link to comment

I say no... numbers are worthless. I didn't get very many caches while in Alaska, and did that make me a "non-top" cacher? What if you considered that many of these required several hours of hiking? Meanwhile, people in Seattle are hitting 50 urban caches a day, sometimes in large groups with everyone calling it a "find" that was there? Numbers mean nothing. Let's not try and be competitive about them.

Link to comment
I wouldn't mind a stats page.

(Taken out of context)

Besides, are people who like the more challenging caches less of a cacher than the "mad dashers?"

 

CR

You do not honestly believe that that people listed on my page with the most finds do not find challenging geocaches in their area. I know for a fact about two geocachers listing in the top 10. They find everything in their area.

http://zinnware.com/HighAdv/Geocaching/mos...ches_found.html

Link to comment

I'm with 9 key and carleenp on this one. I find stats interesting and so I would like to have more of them. Like 9 key and carleenp , I also like some sports stats. I don't feel that the existence of additional stats will tend to make people more competetive. People are going to be competitive or not by nature without the existence of some additional stats.

 

On the other hand, it may lead to off-site "Fantasy Cacher" leagues. They would draft cachers, create a team, and hope their cachers preform well that season. That is all cool, and only a new dimension for someone to get involved in our sport, but I would fear the sports betting would soon follow. The guys in vegas might start putting out the odds sheet for all kinds of stuff.

 

So... I'm in favor of ALL stats being avalible unless they are leading to an underground bookie betting system.

Clements Cacher

Link to comment

I might have missed it in the thread (My wife was rushing me to go to town)

What happened to the state rankings? On that other site, I can't remember what the name of it was, but it was a pretty cool site I thought.

Are there any sites like that still up and running or does anyone have any plans of putting a site like that together?

Just wondering,

Rusty

Link to comment

I'd like to have stats back again, but I'd like to see the types of caches people tend to go for, and where they are willing to travel to, not so much for totals and numbers. I like to see who ventures outside their local terrain into different environments. I'd also like to see the most active and inactive caches.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...