Enhanced Stats (continued)

[+Shandon]

I don't think it's a question of fairness or cheating. After all, not all geocachers can get all geocaches, and setters currently don't always rate their caches properly. Both of these are unfair.

 

But, this isn't really a competition, so the current cache rating system and even the proposed additional stats are just guidelines and reference points.

 

Finally, people cheat now. See the post which discusses cachers who log finds multiple times for the same cache and who log finds on their own caches. (I tested both successfully.)

 

In the end, the main thing that matters is whether an idea enhances the site or the enjoyment of the sport. The primary objective, after all, is to get out and have fun.

 

What do you think?

-Don

[+Renegade Knight]

The beauty of stats is that they do enhance the enjoyment of the sport. I enjoyed sparring when I could for the number one spot in the state.

 

Those who dislike stats are not harmed in any way by those of us who do enjoy them. Some who dislike stats do like some of the other things you can do with them such as see who was caching over the weekend in an area etc.

 

I think they enhance geocaching with virtually no drawback.

[+The Leprechauns]

If the primary objective is "having fun", as you say, then we need a fun-meter, not a stats meter. Consider these examples:

 

A newbie hides a cache up in some rocks, in plain sight, but misrates it as a 5/5. I walk right to it, sigh, and sign the logbook. Fun factor: 2. Stats score: 10.

 

A 4/2.5 puzzle cache whips my butt and requires three attempts to complete the puzzle clues correctly. On my last attempt, I finally locate the cache as the sun is setting, and I sprint back to my car over a 300 foot ridge because I have no flashlight. Fun factor: 8. Stats score: 6.5.

 

A 1/1 cache along a paved path in a community park allows my daughter and me to discover a park we never knew about. She catches her first salamander and we take a picture of it. We spend an hour playing on the playground instead of finding another cache. Other geocachers consider this cache a "yawner." Fun factor: 6. Stats score: 2.

 

I cheat a 2/4 cache hidden on the far side of a swamp, by visiting in the winter so I can walk across the frozen swamp instead of finding the one dry route that earned the cache its 4 terrain stars. Cachers who do this one in the summertime rave about how it's the hardest cache they've ever done. Fun factor: 3. Stats score: 6.

 

I gather up three buddies who all like night caching, and we tackle a 2/3 cache that is insanely impossible to do in the dark because of not being able to scout out a path through the rugged terrain. We feel like a Viet Nam night reconnaissance patrol and it takes us 2.5 hours to complete the cache. Fun factor: 9. Stats score: 5.

 

On a miserable rainy day, I find a cache that has seen better days. It is soggy and I see it lying out in the open. I get soaked while trying to repair the container with duct tape, then I re-hide it as described in the hint. When originally placed, it deserved its 3/2 rating, but it didn't on that day. The next finder is a family hunting for their first cache on a sunny day one week later, and they have a blast. Fun factor: 1. Stats score: 5.

 

There is a limited statistical correlation between difficulty and terrain on the one hand, and fun on the other hand, especially among different cachers in different weather conditions who have different definitions of the caches they enjoy.

 

EDIT: Spelling correction and one wording change.

Edited March 17, 2004 by The Leprechauns

[+dino_hunters]

I think i'm with renagade Knight. And, about what Jeremy said its not being fair, is untrue. If someone is going after a high difficulty or terrain cache, that takes time. In that same amount of time somone else can bag a whole bunch of 1/1 caches

[+The Leprechauns]

I think i'm with renagade Knight. And, about what Jeremy said its not being fair, is untrue. If someone is going after a high difficulty or terrain cache, that takes time. In that same amount of time somone else can bag a whole bunch of 1/1 caches

Please, go back and read my long-winded post. I have had a total blast doing 1/1 caches -- at night, I can turn them into 3/3 caches with little effort, and I don't care that I don't earn extra "points." I can spend more time finding a 1/1 at night than it takes me to find a 3/3 in the daytime. I have yawned while doing 4/4 caches that were mis-rated. I have had a terrible time doing perfectly good caches, but in a driving rainstorm.

 

If you are that obsessed about numbers, calculate your score any way you want and enjoy yourself. Personally, I'd be happier if the programming resources for this listing site were dedicated to making the site run faster and smoother, to adding new variations like a revised site for locationless and virtual caches, and to implementing an opt-in "buddy group" type of stats tracking where I can see what my local friends are up to in their caching adventures.

[+flask]

i'm with lep and i have yet to see it more gracefully worded.

 

rk, you can still battle for first place among those who wish to compete at that site. you know.

 

if we had to have stats, i'd have to resort to not logging my finds. or only logging some of my finds.

[+yumitori]

I think i'm with renagade Knight. And, about what Jeremy said its not being fair, is untrue. If someone is going after a high difficulty or terrain cache, that takes time. In that same amount of time somone else can bag a whole bunch of 1/1 caches

So don't drive up to it. Start walking from home...

 

A cache is often what you make of it. There's a cache in western Montana that will take a two or three day hike to get into, find, and then back out from. But it was placed by a guy who flew into the backcountry airstrip and took a half hour to climb a nearby hill.

 

How do you rate a cache that the richer geocacher can get to with a lot of money but little time investment, while the poorer folks spend less money but more time?

[+RuffRidr]

if we had to have stats, i'd have to resort to not logging my finds. or only logging some of my finds.

??? Or you could resort to not looking at the stats page. Or hopefully there would be a way that you could opt to have 'Anonymous cacher' displayed instead of your name.

 

--RuffRidr

[+dino_hunters]

Yikes, don't get so picky everyone. It wouldn't be hard for GC.com to set up a stats page, & a lot of people would like it, even if it is inaccurate. If you don't like it or are not interested, don't use it. No need to ruin some people's fun, if others aren't bothered

 

jjb

[+flask]

it's not that i don't want to look at a stats page; i wouldn't enjoy it anyway. i don't want my stats listed on it.

 

i do not want my stats to be used in competitive caching and would be willing to falsify NF's in order to acheive that. it's simple. you sign the logbook, you email the owner with what would have been your log, and you either post DNF or you don't post.

 

if you do this SOME of the time, what you get is wildly inaccurate stats. i'm a big entropy fan. i like it.

[ju66l3r]

Stats are what they are.

 

What about the baseball player that has a bigger frame than another? He will hit more homeruns than the smaller guy and his HR stats will be much higher. What chance does the smaller guy have to compete for the HR stat? He can't fly into the airstrip like the bigger ball player!?

 

Statistics are a single snapshot at a specific angle of a situation. Of course, most people would like a snapshot that captures the fairest angle of the situation and once that's established, it's up to you whether you give that angle any weight in your own mind. For some people, even if they aren't "winning" that statistical category, they may still have fun with it (just staying above half of the rest of the group, etc).

 

This is one of those things where if you don't like it, you don't have to concern yourself with it. Some one else might, so let them have their fun with it. Given that there aren't many caches out there that are completely incorrectly rated, any problem caches (1/1's rated as 5/5's) will quickly work themselves into the marginality of the statistics and become complete non-factors.

 

A combination of rating and total numbers would be good and a speed (caches per time) that could be reduced from total registered time to monthly or weekly would also be good. If it truly needs an option to not include yourself (who cares if they're listed?? It's not like the info isn't available anyways), then it should be opt-out, because part of the interesting part of statistical analysis is the large amount of data it helps sort through.

 

But that's just for the finders. I think hiding caches should *also* be a stats category (one I'd miserably fail, but not one I'm too interested in competing in). Same categories can be applied.

 

If this were to be added, then I think it'll be really interesting and would probably nudge me to participate more to keep my numbers up against some of the cachers in my area with similar statistics. Right now I participate minimally enough that I apply almost no technology to my caching...so no need for PQ's or other premium features.

[CoyoteRed]

No one number can define your activity, or even a few numbers. It's like arguing who is the better hitter Babe Ruth or Mark McGwyer (sp?). These two can never compete directly against each other. Nor can their numbers really be compared to each other because each where competing against different opponents.

 

While it would be unfair to compare The Babe to Mark, you can still appreciate their accomplishments. Is showing their stats unfair to other players? Nope.

 

It's the same with geocaching. You can't compare just raw numbers because one player just a short distance from you plays on a completely different field.

 

But that shouldn't preclude them from comparing their "numbers." "Comparing" is not the same as "competing" though in many ways it's very similar.

 

Does high numbers of hides make a person a better cacher? Not if he doesn't maintain them. Does a high number of finds make a person a better cacher? Not if he doesn't take care to put the cache back properly. See numbers aren't the whole picture.

 

However, there is nothing wrong with knowing how many caches someone puts out, or how many they've found. There's nothing wrong with masaging the data to see the average D/T of a cacher as it tells a little about their caching habits. There's nothing wrong with average distance from home per cache, total distance from home cached, average number of caches found per day of caching, average number of cache per day since started, FTF to Find ratio, find to hide ration, or a whole host of other numbers that can be given.

 

What about life of cache before finding on all caches placed since you started? What about the average of the D/T of caches found to the average D/T of caches in that area?

 

Quite frankly, we don't know what kind of numbers we can generate because we don't have access to them. Heck, I can't even easily access my own numbers to give me an accurate representation as some 13% of my finds have been archived.

 

No matter how you fight it, trying to keep stats out of a RASH that is defined by numbers is a waste of time.

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>even if it is inaccurate. <<SNIP>>

This caught my eye. Inaccurate stats? Sorry but unless they’re accurate they’re worse than useless.

 

As I remember there used to be a stats site. It was run by an outside entity and was offered up to anyone that wanted it when it lost it’s hosting. What surprises me is that none of the people clamoring for stats didn’t step up to the plate (to continue in a baseball vein) and take over the site. That was a fully functional package.

[+dino_hunters]

it's not that i don't want to look at a stats page; i wouldn't enjoy it anyway. i don't want my stats listed on it.

Mind if I ask why you wouldn't want to be listed on it?

 

jjb

 

"There are lies, dadgum lies, and Statistics." - Mark Twain

[CoyoteRed]

it's simple. you sign the logbook, you email the owner with what would have been your log, and you either post DNF or you don't post.

 

if you do this SOME of the time, what you get is wildly inaccurate stats. i'm a big entropy fan. i like it.

First, I won't let a false log stand on my cache page.

 

Second, there is an inherent inaccuracy in the system anyway. My logbooks indicate a significant number of people who don't log online. It will be understood that the stats would be for those that have entered their information online. In other words, the numbers will not reflect all of the activity of geocaching, only that activity that cachers have choosen to log online. Nothing more.

[+RuffRidr]

it's not that i don't want to look at a stats page; i wouldn't enjoy it anyway. i don't want my stats listed on it.

 

i do not want my stats to be used in competitive caching and would be willing to falsify NF's in order to acheive that. it's simple. you sign the logbook, you email the owner with what would have been your log, and you either post DNF or you don't post.

 

if you do this SOME of the time, what you get is wildly inaccurate stats. i'm a big entropy fan. i like it.

Like I said before, if there is a way you the stats can still be displayed but not the name, such as the 'Anonymous Cacher' scenario, then everyone SHOULD be happy. We'd have no way of telling that the person with X number of finds is you, and we'd still know there was someone out there with X number finds more than us. Would this work for you?

 

I mean this would be getting ridiculous if people started falsifying DNF logs so that there stats were intentionally inaccurate. Just don't post at all. That way we won't see your stats and the black helicopters won't get ya.

 

--RuffRidr

[CoyoteRed]

What surprises me is that none of the people clamoring for stats didn’t step up to the plate (to continue in a baseball vein) and take over the site. That was a fully functional package.

It's my understanding that the site fell too far behind to effectively catch up. I didn't care for the site because it was missing way too many of my finds.

 

If a stats site were to want to operate without the nod of TPTB they would have to start all over. It can be done, but some 3 million logs would have to be harvested. This would take over a month at one page call per second if you use the "seek/log" harvesting method.

 

I don't see anyone in their right mind attempting that.

Edited March 17, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Frolickin]

If a stats site were to want to operate without the nod of TPTB they would have to start all over.  It can be done, but some 3 million logs would have to be harvested.

 

I don't see anyone in their right mind attempting that.

Agreed. But one could certainly do it for a given area. For instance, South Jersey is nearing its 13,000 find. That can be determined without too much work.

 

I know there are stats sites for other areas. Perhaps those who want this feature should build their own stats databases.

 

For me, I do not want GC.com focusing on stats when there are other things that are more important on its plate.

[CoyoteRed]

Free abbreviated PQs of one's own stats could be fed into a stats site. It would be accurate for those participating and would pretty much end the debate.

 

This free PQ would be practically useless for hunting caches because it is only the ones you've already found.

 

I see a win-win on this idea.

[+Frolickin]

Free abbreviated PQs of one's own stats could be fed into a stats site.

Unless something has changed, I believe that would violate the TOU for PQs.

[+southdeltan]

<<SNIP>>even if it is inaccurate. <<SNIP>>

This caught my eye. Inaccurate stats? Sorry but unless they’re accurate they’re worse than useless.

 

As I remember there used to be a stats site. It was run by an outside entity and was offered up to anyone that wanted it when it lost it’s hosting. What surprises me is that none of the people clamoring for stats didn’t step up to the plate (to continue in a baseball vein) and take over the site. That was a fully functional package.

You are incorrect in your statement that nobody offered to take over "Dan's stats page". Plenty of people offered and many were more than capable of handling the task. I'm not sure why he didn't hand it off - I'm sure it had something to do with not wanting to let go of his "baby" - but the work was too much for the guy to handle.

 

I'd be EXTREMELY happy to have a site like that - forget the 'enhanced' crap - why do we need enhanced stats when we don't have any at all?

 

It's not about competition. It's about information.

 

 

 

We don't have stats and if you'll check the forums there are still PLENTY of people logging fake finds - as always it's up to the community to point it out and more importantly the cache owner to handle the deletions of logs if necessary.

 

The desire for it is here. Not everybody wants it for competition. Some do - so what? It's not hurting me or you (If they want to slam you over your finds or post counts - they can ALREADY do that) If you don't like it - don't look at it - I personally have never logged a locationless but you don't hear me whining that it's ruining the game for me.

 

Hopefully when some of the "important" things get taken care of, gc.com will provide something for those that desire it (If you'll search the logs - Jeremy confirmed that he would do "something" for those of us who are interested in stats).

 

southdeltan

[CoyoteRed]

Free abbreviated PQs of one's own stats could be fed into a stats site.

Unless something has changed, I believe that would violate the TOU for PQs.

Of course, the TOU would have to changed to allow that.

 

But I don't seeing that happening or anything along those lines, really.

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>

You are incorrect in your statement that nobody offered to take over "Dan's stats page". Plenty of people offered and many were more than capable of handling the task. I'm not sure why he didn't hand it off - I'm sure it had something to do with not wanting to let go of his "baby" - but the work was too much for the guy to handle.

 

<<SNIP>>

I don’t believe I ever stated that no one offered.

 

It seems that even though people offered, nobody took the site over. Dan seems to me to be an intelligent individual. If indeed someone capable of running the site had “Stepped up to the plate”, Dan would have handed it over.

 

You seem to be of the opinion that capable people offered. The results speak for themselves.

[+M-Class]

I don't know if it is about offering to take over or not. When Dan's site went down, I stepped up to the plate for our local club. Although I could have contacted Dan, I was more interested in a club based opt-in solution. At the same time Dan's site had a number of problems (slow, couldn't handle multiple logs for the same cache on the same day, had a tendancy to miss data requiring end-user supervision). I thought that I could write a better solution that would fix each of those probems. The end result was our club stats site which went online back in September.

 

So, I never stepped up to the plate to take over Dan's site mainly because I had something else in mind. On the other hand, the site being written was a direct result of Dan's going down, so from that perspective, indirectly I did step up to the plate and continue the project. There are other stats providers out there who I am sure can say the same.

[+res2100]

It certainly seems like enough people are very interested in seeing some sort of finder/hider stats, and I am one of them too...I actually keep a stats list on my web site of non-USA cachers who have over 500 finds (interesting observation is that the top 6 non-USA cachers are from 6 different countries). Simply because they are fun to see and make the game more interesting, and definately has nothing to do with competition. Lets face it, there's stats all around us in the world, whether it be for competitive sports, government or just for fun. Fine that not everyone likes stats, and as others have stated, if they ain't interested in stats, just don't look at them...very simple. No one seemed to object in the forums when Dan had his stats page. With 100,000+ users, I don't think it should be an issue if a handful of people are logging fake finds, which I never understood why someone would, since in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really make a difference whether someone is in 90,000th place or 80,000th place on the list. And certainly no one is going to come out of the woodwork overnight or even in several months and log 5000 finds just to be first, and if they did, I am sure a lot of people will begin noticing and a bunch of red flags will go up.

 

I certainly don't know the layout of the gc.com tables in the database, but how hard can it be to make a simple sorted list (ok maybe there would be a large demand on resources for this), since afterall, aren't the stat totals for each of us already on our gc.com profile (User Stats tab) pages. I don't hear anyone objecting that they are listed there and available for everyone to see.

 

I think the benefits (and "fun factor") definately outweigh any negative issues, so I say why not.

[+flask]

ok, i guess not many people give a response like mine, from what i'm seeing. forgivve me if i don't quote.

 

to whoever said they wouldn't let a false log stand on their page, i say fine. i'll post the note not claiming a find, and you can delete it. if you really think caching is about the people and the story, that becomes your problem. i might have to stoop to posting DNF logs and never signing physical logs. how would you prove i was there? you's have to assume all my logs were false, but i might have actually found and logged some, in which case you might start deleting ALL my logs, and then you'd end up deleting accurate logs, which is statistically as bad.

 

to the people who want to know why i don't want anyone to know my stats, i'm perfectly happy to have you stroll over to my profile and look. i draw the line at competitive rankings. i'm not sure i can adequately explain this, but i feel so strongly about it that i would rather go underground than be included.

 

i am perfectly hapy to have people who like rankings be ranked. you can do this right now at a site with which i'm sure you are familiar. (can we say that here, or is it like the other word?)if you enjoy being ranked, go be ranked.

 

sometimes i like being ranked. this is not a place where i would enjoy it. my all-time favorite competitive record is that i held (and may still hold) the record for most consecutive last-place finishes at a local race series. i'm proud of that record. during that time period, i never sandbagged a race, and my time increased NINE minutes for a 5k over a season. i managed to place last over fourteen consecutive times while doing my best. my streak is over, and now i don't keep stats the way i used to.

 

edit: added an "m". you figure out where.

Edited March 18, 2004 by flask

[+briansnat]

o the people who want to know why i don't want anyone to know my stats, i'm perfectly happy to have you stroll over to my profile and look. i draw the line at competitive rankings. i'm not sure i can adequately explain this, but i feel so strongly about it that i would rather go underground than be included.

 

But you were included in Dan's stat site, as was everyone else who was active up until he took it down. Why the change of heart?

[+flask]

brian,

 

i think dan mined his data from here. i do not recall having supplied a permission. i've had no change of heart. if you want to hand enter all the data into your own stats table, i can't stop that either. [ added in edit: i also didn't know about dan's site until just before it went down. no chance for my opinion to fully form.]

 

i don't want to see any official ranking. if i wanted that, i could register at that site that does those things. i hear people do that. i bet they like it.

 

as long as there's no ranking system that compels me to be listed, i'll keep making (mostly) accurate logs.

 

in the spirit of full disclosure, i have found a few that i have never logged and never will. for me to 'splain the details here would be inappropriate.

 

it's not that i'm non-competitive. i'm not. i'm extremely competitive. and for reasons not entirely understood even by me, i know i would not enjoy geocaching as much if i had to submit to a ranking.

 

i LOVE that every player gets to play in the style he sees fit. i cannot express to you how much i love that. i now spend more time geocaching than i do racing bicycles. i probably even spend more time writing logs.

 

incidentally, i spent a year and a half working to get a championship jersey which i don't feel comfortable wearing most of the time. when i'm racing i prefer to ride in my team's standard uniform, and when i'm not racing i feel it's ostentatious.

 

i'm not just being a smarty-pants. i really, really, don't want to be dragged onto a leaderboard. i LOVE my numbers, but if my only choice is to be on a leaderboard, i'll have to jettison my finds so as to fly under the radar. i'd hate it, but i'd do it.

Edited March 18, 2004 by flask

[+flask]

oh, man, i was just rereading the threaad and i don't think i was very clear about what i meant by "falsifying NF's".

 

i wouldn't log an NF on a cache for which i hadn't hunted. i was thinking simply of not claiming a find where i had found one.

 

i don't expect to have to do this, though. i don't see signs that a big leaderboard is coming. as long as some people keep clamoring for one, though, i'll keep stamping my tiny little feet and insisting i don't want one. i can't speak for anyone else.

[ju66l3r]

re: speaking for anyone else

 

No offense, but I'm not really sure you could even if you wanted to. Your aversion to a statistical leaderboard is really um...unique.

 

I've known people to not care one way or the other, but to actually actively ruin your own online logs in order to avoid putting an accurate count on a leaderboard you don't even have to acknowledge exists?

 

But for you and um..."others like you"(?)...I'm sure an opt-out program would easily satisfy the entire situation.

[+Marky]

i don't expect to have to do this, though. i don't see signs that a big leaderboard is coming. as long as some people keep clamoring for one, though, i'll keep stamping my tiny little feet and insisting i don't want one. i can't speak for anyone else.

I don't understand why you would want to deprive all the people that do want one. I really don't see how a leaderboard (opt-in or otherwise) would have any effect on you if you never looked at it or acknowledged it.

 

I don't really care for virtuals much and kind wish people wouldn't hide them around me, but I know lots of people really like them. I don't go around stamping my feet because they allow virtuals. Or puzzle caches. Or whatever. It's my choice whether I look at them or not.

 

--Marky

[+sbell111]

If the primary objective is "having fun", as you say, then we need a fun-meter, not a stats meter.  Consider these examples:

...

There is a limited statistical correlation between difficulty and terrain on the one hand, and fun on the other hand, especially among different cachers in different weather conditions who have different definitions of the caches they enjoy.

You go after a cache rated as 5/5. Upon arrival at the location, you find that it is actually only about 50 feet off a grocery store's parking lot in a garbage strewn area. A note in the logbook explains that if you don't lie about the difficulty in your log, it will be deleted.

Fun factor: 1ish. Stats score: 25.

Edited March 18, 2004 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

...

But that's just for the finders.  I think hiding caches should *also* be a stats category (one I'd miserably fail, but not one I'm too interested in competing in).  Same categories can be applied.

...

Wow. I really disagree in any stats on hiding caches. There is no way around it, stats lead to competition.

 

In my area, there has been considerable pressure for cachers to place more caches to 'give back to the hobby'. It sounds like a good idea, doesn't it?

 

Anybody ever notice how there is a million easy micros in the Nashville area?

Edited March 18, 2004 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I finally made it through the entire thread, but I lost track. Sorry. Why do we need stats again?

 

I can't see how it would enhance my caching experience at all. When we had stats, I never imagined that it would lead to competition. Then I noticed that I was number 30 IN THE WORLD! Cool! I need to find more! So I went out and found more and more caches. Eventually, I was number 19! Did it make the caching experience better? Not really, I just could no longer take the time to appreciate the new places that I was being introduced to. Wait a minute, I started caching because I liked being introduced to these places. Hmmm...

 

Fast forward to today. The stats site is long gone.

 

Today was an incredibly long and stressful day. I left work in a lousy mood and just wanted to unwind. I took a walk and ended up at this great virt. I hung around for a few minutes before wandering to the next cache.

 

I walked to this travel bug hotel. I had been holding a TB that wanted to go to China. I also had two of my own TBs that I wanted to send to relative in New York. This seemed like a good cache to send them on their way. I also dropped one of my home made geocoins into it.

 

I then reversed course and walked to Manhattan Beach. I had promised some friends that I would meet them there. The lazy bums had taken a shuttle there. On my way, I visited this one. I dropped off another TB that I had brought to the area and one of my geocoins.

 

Feeling quite chipper now, I caught up to my friends. These same friends have been calling me a nerd for the last week; ever since I told them about geocaching. I checked my GPSr while we spoke and found that this cache was only a few hundred feet away. I mentioned it to them and was quickly relieved of my GPS 3+. They merrily followed the arrow to the location. After a short bumble bee dance, the three ladies shouted with joy as they found the small container. They enjoyed reading the logs and going through the small trinkets. We left a tiny TB that I had and traded a bottle opener keychain for a tiny ice scraper keychain. We then had dinner and met up with more friends before returning to the hotel. A good time was had by all.

 

My geocaching experience for today:

Totally turned my mood around.

Had fun with friends.

Was able to further the adventures of several TBs.

Was introduced to great locations that I otherwise would not have seen.

Walked almost eight miles to 4 1/1 caches (8 points by the suggested stats method).

Introduced three people to the game. They all loved it. Maybe they will start to play.

 

Why are stats important?

[+Divine]

When we had stats, I never imagined that it would lead to competition. Then I noticed that I was number 30 IN THE WORLD! Cool! I need to find more! So I went out and found more and more caches. Eventually, I was number 19! Did it make the caching experience better? Not really, I just could no longer take the time to appreciate the new places that I was being introduced to. Wait a minute, I started caching because I liked being introduced to these places. Hmmm...

I noticed once in a Dan's stats site that I was #1 in Finland. Cool! Did it make my caching experience better? Not really, but hey, it was still cool. I didn't notice any change in my behavior at the places I went caching. I still took the time to appreciate the place and the nature or the architecture. Wait a minute, I started caching because I liked being introduced to these places. Great, I enjoyed that when I had Dan's stats, and I still do now that I don't have them. Nothing's changed, except that I have less cool things related to my hobby. The other cool things are still cool.

 

Why are stats important? They add to the hobby. For some more, for some less.

 

Why are stats such a bogeyman to some people that they stop enjoying the hobby once there is a stat page?

[+sbell111]

As I explained, it reduced my enjoyment, because I ended up focusing on an area that I found dissatisfying (competition) instead of one that I found satisfying (intro and enjoyment of great new places).

 

Further, I believe that some will use stats to defend there poor behavior (I must be great, look at my finds. ergo, I must be in charge of all things caching in my area) and minimize valid opinions of others.

 

Therefore, I prefer no stats. If you want stats, use the banners that Jeremy made available.

 

Edit: before anybody gets too froggy (no pun intended), the 'you' in the last paragraph was global and not directed at any specific player.

Edited March 18, 2004 by sbell111

[+Divine]

As I explained, it reduced my enjoyment, because I ended up focusing on an area that I found dissatisfying (competition) instead of one that I found satisfying (intro and enjoyment of great new places).

This is what makes me puzzled. Why should anyone focus on a dissatisfying area just because there are stats available? This is already quite a worn-out argument, but if you don't like the stats, don't look at them. The stats don't make you (also as in 'global you') go to satisfying or dissatisfying areas, you make the decision. It's like blaming the fast food companies for getting fat. They don't ram the food down your throat, you make the decision of eating too much. You also make the decision of change your caching behavior because there happens to be a stats page.

 

For example, I don't search locationless caches at all. The only 2 or 3 I have 'found', I logged with a note. I could pad my stats with tens of easy locationless finds if I felt like it. But I find it dissatisfying, so I dont' do them. I would, however, still like to see my position in a stat page.

 

Further, I believe that some will use stats to defend there poor behavior (I must be great, look at my finds.  ergo, I must be in charge of all things caching in my area) and minimize valid opinions of others.

But we all know that they are still @sses, right? This happens even now, when there is no stats page. Everyone can brag with their find count if they choose to.

[dboggny]

i don't expect to have to do this, though. i don't see signs that a big leaderboard is coming. as long as some people keep clamoring for one, though, i'll keep stamping my tiny little feet and insisting i don't want one. i can't speak for anyone else.

I don't understand why you would want to deprive all the people that do want one. I really don't see how a leaderboard (opt-in or otherwise) would have any effect on you if you never looked at it or acknowledged it.

 

I don't really care for virtuals much and kind wish people wouldn't hide them around me, but I know lots of people really like them. I don't go around stamping my feet because they allow virtuals. Or puzzle caches. Or whatever. It's my choice whether I look at them or not.

 

--Marky

this is along the same arguments i made over a year ago when certain forum jerks were coplaining about lame virtuals. Where the hell were people like you back then. Now its stats and you get all hot and bothered?! heck with you people and these forums. your all wishy washy

[Innovational Cacher]

"your all wishy washy" what did what (when, how and to whom)? Incomplete sentences drive me nuts. Think I'll go have a few beers.

Edited March 18, 2004 by Innovational Cacher

[CoyoteRed]

to whoever said they wouldn't let a false log stand on their page, i say fine. i'll post the note not claiming a find, and you can delete it.

That as me.

 

What I meant was if you posted a DNF and then said you actually found it, I'd ask you to change it. It's the same as not finding and posting a find.

 

I don't have a problem with you posting a note and saying you found it. If you told me why you were doing, then I'd understand and we'd move on. Personally, I'm not placing cache to be competitive. I place caches like those I'd like to hunt myself.

 

Posting a false DNF is the same as posting a false find. But I'd have no problem with you just signing the logbook and if you want to post your experiences with my cache under a note, feel free. I just hope you've enjoyed yourself--that's what counts.

[CoyoteRed]

We don't need stats for us to cache at a hectic pace. Sometimes we have to force ourselves to slow down and enjoy the surroundings.

 

I found that we sometimes tend to focus too narrowly on the cache. "Yep, there it is. On to the next one!" Thus missing some interesting things.

 

I don't think stats is going to change that for us.

 

I do realize for some stats would make the RASH less enjoyable, but I also realize that stats would make the RASH more enjoyable for others.

[Innovational Cacher]

The geocaching statistics have no value. We read about megacachers being led on "guided tours" of areas; they don't seek caches or find them, they are led to a cache and merely sign the logbook. Big deal. I would rather read one descriptive log from one individual who spent six hours on a hike for one find than the dozens of "Found it - TNLNSL - Great Cache - On to the next!" log entries by someone who spent the same six hours being chauffered to 'no fuss, no muss, no effort' guaranteed 'finds.'

 

To some people, only the experience matters. To others, only the number of finds (and/or hides) matters. I have a hunch that if statistics were eliminated, we would soon notice fewer "dump and run" caches being placed, because if they didn't 'count' for anything, most people wouldn't waste their time, energy and resources placing or seeking them.

Edited March 18, 2004 by Innovational Cacher

[ju66l3r]

Sbell:

I finally made it through the entire thread, but I lost track. Sorry. Why do we need stats again?

I can't see how it would enhance my caching experience at all.

 

Because I can see how it would enhance my caching experience and still have no effect on your caching experience. There are racist websites on the internet. You use the internet, but you don't necessarily feel obligated to view racist websites. More to the point, there is a benchmark section to GC.com. You don't seem to feel obligated to view benchmark pages in your area and yet you still use this site. So why can't a stats page be the same way?

 

 

And to IC, you can't eliminate statistics any more than you can eliminate inclimate weather or muggles. Even if you could, it won't stop people from leaving roadside caches.

[+M-Class]

I'm sure you've all heard this before, but statistics are about more than just numbers. Statistics can enable you to keep track of activity in an area. Statistics can enable you to figure out what other local cachers have done caches in (fill in the blank here) city. I've seen stats build a sense of community. I do use stats and for me they haven't taken any value or quality out of my geocaching experience. If there is a nice place, I still will spend time there to take it all in. That hasn't changed in the slightest. Just because cacher X or cacher Y have a character tendancy to become over-competitive when some numbers are thrown up doesn't mean that everyone here has that same tendancy. Furthermore, to say that stats shouldn't exist just because it would be too difficult for those with competitive tendancies to enjoy the game is like saying sugar shouldn't exist because a diabetic might want to eat too much of it. Using a more common example, perhaps McDonalds shouldn't exist because those eating there might overuse them and become overweight. What ever happened to personal responsibility in the world? If somebody doesn't enjoy the experience because they are being over-competitive (and such bothers them), then simply stop being over-competitive and don't worry about sliding down the ranks. It is that simple. Anything that would say it isn't that simple merely implies a problem with self-control, which, no offense meant (I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular), that isn't everyone else's problem too.

 

As for the argument that caches will somehow get better without stats, I tend to disagree. Firstly, who defines what is a quality cache? I personally like a long walk in the woods, but I don't for a moment propose that I speak for everyone by defining quality cache = walk in woods. Even if it were that simple, I can say that even during the time without stats, our area was still seeing numerous 'X light pole in the lot of X mega chain' caches. The fact is, the newest generation to the game likes that type of cache, and I've even seen some cachers that prefer that type of cache. Cachers tend to hide what they like to find, so even if you take stats away forever, the number of 1/1 micros will still be bountiful. I have no problem with that. Different people play for different reasons. Speaking of which, some people do play for the numbers. That is just their game. It is not up to me to force anyone to attain a certain standard of quality from their experience. There is nothing wrong with playing for numbers if that is your thing. If the loss of quality of experience is bothering you, then evaluate to what degree you want to play for numbers, and to what degree you want to play for the experience. Adjust accordingly.

[+flask]

i'm not saying YOU shouldn't have stats. i'm saying that i don't want to be in them. if you want to be ranked among each other, you go right ahead. leave my name off the leaderboard.

 

i don't care what anyone else does with their own stats. i don't have to look. but not looking is not the same if i'm included in the thing i'm not looking at. just leave me out.

 

and if you won't leave me out, i'll just have to withdraw from the stats by tanking my find rate. i know how many caches i've found. actually, i don't know how many caches i've found, but i keep a detailed handwritten log. it's fine with me if somebody else gets to be grand imperial poo-bah of green mountain caching. i'd prefer it.

 

suddenly not logging my finds online at all is starting to look more attractive.

[ju66l3r]

i'm not saying YOU shouldn't have stats. i'm saying that i don't want to be in them. if you want to be ranked among each other, you go right ahead. leave my name off the leaderboard.

I believe the answer you are looking for is to back the opt-out system of statistics. If you actively do not want your statistics listed with everyone else's, then you would have that option in your preferences on the "my cache page". I pointed that out above.

 

I think this would satisfy all of those people who have any sort of aversion to others seeing their statistics. To those that don't want a stastics page at all, I have yet to see a compelling reason why not. The best I've seen is "justification for jerks" to paraphrase...and well, jerks just don't need justification...it's part of their overall jerkiness. I should know. I used to be a jerk. Dry for 7 years and 2 months now. I even have the keychain to prove it.

 

So to sort of sum up the responses I've seen on this issue:

 

There are those that love and want stats. If opt-out statistics were run by GC.com, then people who did not want their statistics on it would be easily able to remove them. Those people who did not want to use this part of the site would not have to, but could leave their statistics up, because they don't care that their numbers are summarized there. Fun will continue to be had by all.

 

What did I miss?

[+flask]

. I used to be a jerk. Dry for 7 years and 2 months now. I even have the keychain to prove it.

oh, man... i just can't leave THIS one lie.

 

i know plenty of people who are still jerks regardless of how long they've been sober.

 

i've been sober so long i don't even remember how long it's been. i used to know the time in days, but i decided to stop keeping track. i have no chip, no keychain, and no idea whether it's been ten, twelve, or fifteen years. i used to define myself by how long it had been, but i've moved past it.

 

i'm the same person sober that i was drunk. if you thought i was a jerk then, you'd still think i'm a jerk.

 

oh, and an opt-out system would be just fine with me. i would even keep it to myself when i point my finger and giggle quietly about the people on the board.

[+Marky]

i don't expect to have to do this, though. i don't see signs that a big leaderboard is coming. as long as some people keep clamoring for one, though, i'll keep stamping my tiny little feet and insisting i don't want one. i can't speak for anyone else.

I don't understand why you would want to deprive all the people that do want one. I really don't see how a leaderboard (opt-in or otherwise) would have any effect on you if you never looked at it or acknowledged it.

 

I don't really care for virtuals much and kind wish people wouldn't hide them around me, but I know lots of people really like them. I don't go around stamping my feet because they allow virtuals. Or puzzle caches. Or whatever. It's my choice whether I look at them or not.

 

--Marky

this is along the same arguments i made over a year ago when certain forum jerks were coplaining about lame virtuals. Where the hell were people like you back then. Now its stats and you get all hot and bothered?! heck with you people and these forums. your all wishy washy

Heh, good one. Sorry I didn't see that thread. I was probably out trying to boost my numbers because we had a stat site back then.

 

Seriously though, I'll stand behind anyone's right to enjoy what they are doing as long as isn't adversly affecting me. I did a bunch of locationless caches early on and really enjoyed them at the time. A lot of people still do. Same goes for benchmarks. A bunch of people enjoy benchmarks as well. Why would I want to deny them their fun? Nobody is forcing me to do anything I don't want to do here. I get to make all my own choices. That's the beauty of this pastime. It's completely self service and fits into nearly any schedule. If there is something that we can add that will increase the enjoyment of a large number of the members without hurting anyone that isn't interested in it, I'm all for it regardless of whether I am interested in it or not.

 

--Marky

[+Marky]

I have a hunch that if statistics were eliminated, we would soon notice fewer "dump and run" caches being placed, because if they didn't 'count' for anything, most people wouldn't waste their time, energy and resources placing or seeking them.

Your hunch would be wrong, proven by the fact that we used to have a fairly exstensive stat site and then it was gone and nothing changed. (Well, except there were a few sobs at the site's funeral.) I haven't seen any change in the behavior of any cacher I know. Some are more obsessed than others, but that has nothing to do with having or not having a stats page.

 

--Marky

[ju66l3r]

.  I used to be a jerk.  Dry for 7 years and 2 months now.  I even have the keychain to prove it.

 

i know plenty of people who are still jerks regardless of how long they've been sober.

Heh, I think you misunderstood my vague attempt at a humorous allusion....I am "dry" 7 years and 2 months....at being a jerk.

 

I still drink...(in fact, I'm still a bit swimmy from St. Patty's Day...)

 

Sorry about the confusion.