Jump to content

Stats Visibility


WH

Recommended Posts

I would like to see the ability to choose whether or not my caching stats are visible to the world. I think it would be a nice addition to the site to allow people to choose whether they want to make their stats private, or public. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
I would like to see the ability to choose whether or not my caching stats are visible to the world. I think it would be a nice addition to the site to allow people to choose whether they want to make their stats private, or public. Any thoughts?

 

Calling in Sick to Work so I Can Go Caching - PRICELESS

 

I was wondering why someone would want to do this, but then I figured it out. You don't want your boss to know how much you are caching... :(

 

--Marky

Link to comment
I would like to see the ability to choose whether or not my caching stats are visible to the world. I think it would be a nice addition to the site to allow people to choose whether they want to make their stats private, or public. Any thoughts?

I have long been an advocate of this feature, and think that it SHOULD be an option offered here. Let the individual decide if they want their stats displayed, instead of forcing them into a competition with others. The day I get this option is the day I go back and enter logs on every single one of my finds (hundreds of them!) that I have been keeping track of myself. Owners like to see log entries and read about the search, and I will start logging just as soon as I don't get my numbers tracked anymore. Until then, I won't play the numbers game that is mandatory here.

Link to comment

I don't understand why this is such a big deal to some people. I suppose it doesn't matter if this was an option. I use the stats pages to determine how expierenced someone is. It provides some context to people's form postings and cache logs. If people can turn off access to their stats then I would love to see at least exp levels. (<50, <100 <200 etc)

Link to comment

I kind of lean the other way on this. I would like to open it up even more so others can easily see my DNFs in the same list as my finds. It would be cool if it was available in the form check boxes on the profile page.

 

X Make my blog available to the public

X My stats are available to the public

X My DNFs are available to the public

X My skivvies are available to the public

 

I still like the idea of turning all my logs into a blog that is available to anyone whether they are members or not. Heck, we already have the blog on the my cache page... a couple of code tweaks and we are rockin.

Link to comment

would that also hide the logs for the cache itself or just when you go to the profile? sometimes the logs help warn of poison ivy or steep inclines. But on the other hand it also lists what each person left or didn't leave, and that can be revealing when you find someone taking several TB's and leaving nothing.

Link to comment
I question wanting to hide the stats. The only real reason that I can come up with someone wanting to do that is from feeling inferior compared to others. It's not a competition, but it's still human nature to compare.

Really, though, AZGEOCACHING and everyone else pulls their numbers from this board and lists us in order of who found the most. So much emphasis is placed on stats these days. I just don't want my finds to be about the numbers.

Link to comment

Stats don't really exist as such without a leader board. Yes someone can look at your profile and see you have so many finds.

 

That's useful information. When you lot a DNF and have 1 find I'm not going to sweat it so much. If you have 52 finds though I'll think it's time to check the cache.

 

Now maybe you want to take the numbers away. Instead of having hidden three caches to where it says "3" you will now be the owner of several named caches which if you add them up would total three.

 

It wasn't so much turning off seletive availability that made geocaching possible as it was the internet. That in turn means logs, cache placments, fake names, and being 'counted'. The only way to avoid it is to refuse to play online at all. Some people do that and I suppose thats their choice. But if they are gonig to place a cache and give back that way, that much will be counted somewhere somehow.

 

You can't fully participate in this game and be a ghost. At least Team360 has a forum post count. B)

Link to comment
I question wanting to hide the stats. The only real reason that I can come up with someone wanting to do that is from feeling inferior compared to others. It's not a competition, but it's still human nature to compare.

 

Conversely:

 

I question wanting to see the stats. The only real reason that I can come up with someone wanting to do that is to feel superior compared to others. It's not a competition, but it's still human nature to compare.

Link to comment

I for one would love to be able to make my stats invisible. I actually got an email from a fellow cacher telling me to log a second visit to a cache as a "note" instead of "found it". Until I looked further, I did not realize that one could get another "point" by logging twice. My point is that I would not be hassled by another cacher if they were not checking my stats. I would prefer to opt-out of that facet of the game.

 

I dont want to be a complete ghost either. I dont think logs should be invisible.(why post at all then?) It would just be nice to have some more options available. I think it would be nice to be able to see someones entire set of logs (if the cacher liked it to be available) including DNF's. I like 4agers idea

I kind of lean the other way on this. I would like to open it up even more so others can easily see my DNFs in the same list as my finds. It would be cool if it was available in the form check boxes on the profile page.

 

X Make my blog available to the public

X My stats are available to the public

X My DNFs are available to the public

X My skivvies are available to the public

 

I still like the idea of turning all my logs into a blog that is available to anyone whether they are members or not. Heck, we already have the blog on the my cache page... a couple of code tweaks and we are rockin.

 

I dont think most people would opt-out, tho, and the concerns mentioned earlier in this thread would not be realized. (ie logging credible DNFs) I would like my blog available, and DNF's, but just remove my stats. If someone was really concerned, they could add them up if they wanted, but I dont really think they will.

Link to comment
Knowing a persons stats is an important thing when it comes to rushing out to check on their DNF. All too often the newer cachers are the ones who know the cache is missing.

I beg to differ. We've had a 1/1.5 cache have a DNF by an experienced cacher and one Found It log by someone well into the 4 digits though she fully admitted she thought it was gone.

 

Experienced cachers can overlook a cache sometimes too.

 

Personally, I don't care how experienced you are. You log a DNF, I'm going to check on the cache depending on what the log says.

 

I'd like to be able to hide stats, too.

Link to comment

Make it a premier feature and get more income coming to GC.com from those that want to add features to the site but may not be supporting the site :)

 

Personnaly I am not sure why I would ever want to turn off my stats.

 

And as long as I have more than my friends it is a compitition :)

 

http://www.blankdev.com/geocaching/GroupStats.asp

 

Seriously though, it is nice to lookup a person and see what caches they have hidden and which ones they have found.

 

I think that a vote may be needed since I would much rather GC.com focus on features that the masses for sure would use.

Link to comment
Well, a DNF:Found ratio should suffice then. Simple math, and no hard numbers.

That could possibly discourge people logging a DNF. I happen to think logging a DNF is more important than a find... although I enjoy the finds more. I also agree that it is important that the cache owner knows the stats.

 

The easy solution...

You can give the folks the option, but when the cache owner is notified of a find or DNF simply put the user stats in the Email.

Link to comment
That could possibly discourge people logging a DNF. I happen to think logging a DNF is more important than a find... although I enjoy the finds more. I also agree that it is important that the cache owner knows the stats.

 

Actually, I only meant that as a public thing - the cacher would still have the stats they see now. Or perhaps the ration would be emailed to the DNF cache site. I dunno. I have a good answer, just not a great answer.

Link to comment
Why can't a person's Joined Date suffice as a judgement call on the validity of a DNF? I've established that experience is not an absolute judge of validity of a DNF. How long they've been caching is as accurate. Wouldn't you think?

Because if they joined in 01 that doesn't make their one cache any more legit than the one cache found by a cacher who joined last week. If anything I'd go the other way.

 

The fact is stats will exist in one form or another because they have to for how we play the game.

 

A DNF ratio is worthless without knowing what went into it. Someone with 2 DNF's and 1 Find and 200/100 is usefull because even though the 200 DNF's is odd if you hid a light pole base cache they should have seen it in that 100 by now.

 

So long as you participate online you are going to be counted someway somehow and it really doesn't do anyone any harm for the good these logs and cache listings do us all.

Link to comment

I'm curious as to why people are placing so much importance on the stats-are-an-indicator-of-how-credible-the-DNF-is issue. If Team 360 logs a DNF, and the cache owner says, "Well, I can't weigh the importance of this DNF log because Team 360 chooses not to let me see his stats," then how is that Team 360's problem?

 

It's a privacy issue. Some folks prefer to have others know a little less about them. My driver's license # is my social security number. Some folks in my state are really against that, and got a procedure in place to elect to have a different number. It's not that big a deal to me, so I didn't bother with it, but I certainly don't expect those folks to be required to endure having their DL# be their SS# simply because folks like me didn't give a hoot. It's the same thing here. If there are folks around who don't want to have their finds counted, and don't want others to have the ability to "size them up" based on those counts, then let them have their count hidden or suppressed or whatever.

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

The fact is stats will exist in one form or another because they have to for how we play the game.

<<SNIP>>

I've posted this before in another of the Stat debates. If you want some kind of stats then just do this.

 

The idea of creating your own stats site is a great idea. Have your friends join it and have a friendly duel of Finds, FTF’s and DNF’s. Maybe over time your example will change the game for the better. Good luck

 

By insisting that GC.com give you stats you are changing the way we play. Instead of forcing your idea of geocaching on everyone, change it for you and your friends. Forget opt out make it opt in. The default should be the way it's been. It shouldn't be the a blanket change affecting all members until the majority of members have shown an interest in playing in the new way.

Link to comment
I'm curious as to why people are placing so much importance on the stats-are-an-indicator-of-how-credible-the-DNF-is issue. If Team 360 logs a DNF, and the cache owner says, "Well, I can't weigh the importance of this DNF log because Team 360 chooses not to let me see his stats," then how is that Team 360's problem?

If Team360 posted a DNF on one of my caches, I would go out right away and check on it. Even though he doesn't track his finds online, I know him personally. He has some great hides out there and has shared his ideas with me and others. If he can't find a cache, there's got to be a good reason.

 

Now, take your average newbie. If he posts DNF, I'll probably think it's because of experience. He's not sure what he's looking for. If I'm in the area, I'll check on the cache, but I probably won't make a special trip.

Take your average veteran cacher. If he posts a DNF, I'll get out to the site much sooner since he should know what he's looking for. I'll stop by when I have a chance.

Link to comment

To me this issue boils down to "trust"

 

Stats are just another tool for build trust in a relationship or a transation. As mentioned above, if I know someone personally than that trust level is going to be higher than normal.

 

Given the nature of internet communications, the more trust building tools the better. But/However, I understand some peoples privacy concerns.

Link to comment
...By insisting that GC.com give you stats you are changing the way we play. Instead of forcing your idea of geocaching on everyone, change it for you and your friends. Forget opt out make it opt in. The default should be the way it's been. It shouldn't be the a blanket change affecting all members until the majority of members have shown an interest in playing in the new way.

The old way actually had stats and a leaderboard. The leaderboard is gone but the ability to make stats based on information we provide remains both in the TOS and the ability of programmers to replace the stats site if they had permission from Groundspeak.

 

To remove the finds total on the cache page, or even the summary on your profile is a change in how the game is played.

 

I really don't get what you are getting at here.

Link to comment

CoyoteRed: You bring out an interpretation issue. The stats are a tool. How people utilize them and/or interpret them is another issue.

 

Looking at someone's date of joining, logged # etc can be telling if you have the proper interpretation filters. ;-)

Link to comment
To remove the finds total on the cache page, or even the summary on your profile is a change in how the game is played.

Sometimes change is a good thing. The lust for status in numbers builds distrust in others as evidenced by the many threads about the various forms of "game play" that some view as cheating.

 

While I think it is fun to look at one's own stats to view your activity, I find the attitude of some repugnant. The idea that it's okay to lie on logs or have little regard for the integrity of the cache goes against the grain in my opinion and smacks of anti-social behavior. This "I've got mine" attitude disgusts me and I feel the lust for numbers contributes to this.

 

What am I talking about? I'm talking about wanting to get the cache so bad there is no regard to being observed, no regard in putting the cache back properly hidden, logging missing caches as virts, or logging virts they've not visited. It's my opinion that one's first responsibility after personal safety is the integrity of the cache. One should be mindful of the fact it's there for other cachers, not just them. It should last beyond their visit. Too many people seem to think the cache is there only for them and show no regard for those to come after.

Link to comment

You can't say stats are a privacy issue.

I can search you out and find your stats whether or not you have the graphic that says so.

Not only that, but, umm... Stats are an issue of the game... Saying person X has 36 finds and 3 hidden is no different than saying cache FJD has 245 log notes.

Link to comment

Stats don't tell me much, I'm afraid.

 

If I see someone has found 1000+ caches I figure one of three things may have contributed to this number.

 

1 - Did they really find all those caches?

 

2 - They have a whole lot more caches near them to go and find. We live in a cache challenged area!

 

3 - They have a whole lot more time to get out and cache. Working full time really cuts into the time we have for caching.

 

Just some more musings of an old fart!

 

John

Link to comment
User has 52 DNFs and 1 find..  Hmmm, maybe not

User has 425 Finds.. perhaps I should go check it.

Cool. You've found an excuse for ignoring people's logs and warnings.

 

In another thread Divine was trying to say that this wasn't high school. Apparently it is. Once again, someone is using someone else's stats as an excuse to completely disregard their opinion.

 

If higher stats means that people are considered to be more experienced and more trustworthy, then those people seeking such things will inflate their stats in order to be trusted (doesn't that just sound silly). I seem to recall a recent incident where someone was trying to inflate their stats because they felt like higher stats were needed in order to start a local organization.

 

I don't care about a leaderboard for people who want to participate but this "you don't have enough finds to be worth listening to" attitude is really disrepectful.

Link to comment
You can't say stats are a privacy issue.

I can search you out and find your stats whether or not you have the graphic that says so.

I think I did. :D

 

And I continue to say it, too. This site is set up in a fashion right now that provides a lot of information about the caching habits of the people who use it to any old person who asks for it. You don't have to pay any money; I haven't checked, but I don't even think you have to be signed in to see many of them.

 

For most of us, that's fine. For some of us, it presents a problem. If someone does not wish to have that kind of information shared, I think they should have the option of having it withheld. The only other option is to do what Team 360 is doing now - don't log online. And that's not really helpful to others either.

 

Maybe you COULD conceivably track down a person's logs on various caches and reach a rough number of caches found. But that seems like a lot of work, and anyone who has THAT much time on their hands should probably get out and do some caches or something.

 

I disagree that stats are an "issue of the game." Geocaching would survive in much the same form as it does now if the site were to totally cease counting finds and logs and posts and everything else. You say, "Saying person X has 36 finds and 3 hidden is no different than saying cache FJD has 245 log notes." I agree, but counter with, "Why is the fact that cache FJD has 245 log notes important?" It's not the number of the log notes, but the content of the notes, that is ultimately important.

 

Eric

Link to comment
...If higher stats means that people are considered to be more experienced and more trustworthy, then those people seeking such things will inflate their stats in order to be trusted (doesn't that just sound silly). I seem to recall a recent incident where someone was trying to inflate their stats because they felt like higher stats were needed in order to start a local organization.

 

I don't care about a leaderboard for people who want to participate but this "you don't have enough finds to be worth listening to" attitude is really disrepectful.

I don't buy it. A persons finds are one thing to take into account. Experience counts. It's why people lie on their resumes to get ahead. Still it's something to be taken into account with everthing else. A good log from a newbie can make you dash right out to check out the cache.

 

Trustworthy comes from exposure and time. Team360 who is anti stats is one I'd trust. He's earned it to the extent possible in these forums. That came from his posts and emails. A log is a form of communications. Often I read the local logs and get a sence for the persons take on geocaching and from that I form an opinion. Then a cache event comes and I get to meet people that I thought I knew and find out what they are like in real life. It's stats, and logs. Not real life but somtimes it's what we have to work with. It's all in the balance.

Link to comment
User has 52 DNFs and 1 find..  Hmmm, maybe not

User has 425 Finds.. perhaps I should go check it.

In another thread Divine was trying to say that this wasn't high school. Apparently it is. Once again, someone is using someone else's stats as an excuse to completely disregard their opinion.

With my high school remark I was referring to user bashing based on their stats. Meaning immature emanations like How could you know that, you have puny 24 finds, go do some caching before arguing here. If a clearly newbie cacher can't find my cleverly hidden mystery cache on their first attempt, I too tend to think that they just didn't discover the clue. If, on the other hand very experienced cacher can't find it especially after few attempts, I might ponder visiting the site myself just to check it. I hardly consider it 'beating the low-stat person with a baseball bat'.

 

Yet, this hardly has much to do with a leaderboard. All their numbers can be seen on the logs they made, or on their profile pages.

 

If higher stats means that people are considered to be more experienced and more trustworthy, then those people seeking such things will inflate their stats in order to be trusted (doesn't that just sound silly).

Experienced, yes. Trustworthy? As in I would lend my car and 1000 € for them at the first meeting? I don't think so. And yes, people inflating their stats in order to gain trustworthiness sounds really silly. I don't know anyone, who's done that. OTOH, I guess most of us 'inflate our stats' (i.e. find caches) to gain experience. I love my geocaching experiences and the things, people and places it has shown me.

 

Yet again, this doesn't need to have anything to do with a leaderboard. People can inflate their stats without it too.

 

I seem to recall a recent incident where someone was trying to inflate their stats because they felt like higher stats were needed in order to start a local organization.

Silly. Did they use some kind of a leaderboard, or did they just look other people's and their own profiles?

 

Some people will act silly, whether there was a leaderboard or not. I can't see having one (with the option to stay there anonymously) making things worse in any way. There wasn't any significant change in stats-bashing or cheating situations once Dan's site disappeared.

 

I don't care about a leaderboard for people who want to participate but this "you don't have enough finds to be worth listening to" attitude is really disrepectful.

I agree. It's also distasteful. That is the high school thing I was talking about. Yet, it does not have to be a reason to overlook experience. There's nothing wrong with having geocaching experience, is there?

Link to comment
By insisting that GC.com give you stats you are changing the way we play. Instead of forcing your idea of geocaching on everyone, change it for you and your friends. Forget opt out make it opt in. The default should be the way it's been. It shouldn't be the a blanket change affecting all members until the majority of members have shown an interest in  playing in the new way.

I want to see where I rank among all the Geocachers in my state. I don't care if I know who they are or not. A leaderboard that showed the user's who have not opted in as 'Anonymous' would suit me fine. No website that I could set up would ever be able to give me this function. We are not insisting GC changes the way you play. Our solution would list you anonymously so that no one would bother you. You wouldn't have to look at the leaderboard, so therefore wouldn't have to feel the need to up your stats.

 

I'm beginning to wonder why some of you are so anti-stat. Most of the arguements against it are irrational to say the least. You are arguing not only to not have your stats shown, but to make darn sure none of us that want them get ours shown either. Seems pretty selfish to me.

 

--RuffRidr

Edited by RuffRidr
Link to comment

You stated that you would like an opt in leader board. I agree %100. If there is to be a leaderboard then Opt in is the way to go.

 

Until then here is a simple solution

Convince other players in your state to join one of the already in place stats sites.

Link to comment
I question wanting to hide the stats. The only real reason that I can come up with someone wanting to do that is from feeling inferior compared to others.
I do not feel inferior to others caching.

 

Stats don't really exist as such without a leader board.
The number of FTFs tells one what? That some people are SAHMs? That some folks are retired? Others unemployed?

 

The leaderboard tells you what? That some folks travel a lot and are able to have a flexible schedule?

 

Doesn't Keen People have a leader board? Those who want it have opted in. Those who want this feature keep their stats up-to-date over there. I believe someone even created an application to make that routine even easier. Other than not having it posted on GC.com, what is lacking from that leader board?

 

I use the stats pages to determine how expierenced someone is . . .

The stats are indeed useful for legit things

User logs DNF for one of my caches. Should I run out and check it?

Once you have experience, you know who is visiting your caches. If there are names you do not recognize logging your caches, they are most likely new . . . at least new to the area. That alone should provide you enough information to determine whether or not you should check up on your cache. Put that in context of the recent finds, logs by known local cachers and you have all the information you need. A leaderboard is not needed for that example.

 

Stats are just another tool for build trust in a relationship or a transation. As mentioned above, if I know someone personally than that trust level is going to be higher than normal.
The number next to my handle builds trust with you about the comments I may make about geocaching? Yet, that number does not include the finds I have for caches listed on other web sites, temporary caches, private labels, etc., which as time moves on is becoming a sizable number. So, GC.com not having the ability to compile those numbers already diminishes the trust you have for me. The number of times I successfully found a cache does not make my opinion more valid.

 

The old way actually had stats and a leaderboard.
The old way violated GC.com's TOU.

 

I disagree that stats are an "issue of the game." Geocaching would survive in much the same form as it does now if the site were to totally cease counting finds and logs and posts and everything else.
The more this and other topics are discussed, the more I am inclined to think that the game would be better played without online logs and compiling numbers (as well as these fora). A site that listed only caches and their descriptions would lose the disputes in the fora and the trouble with logs. Sure, we might not know whether a cache is there or not with the absentee cache owners, but that seems a small price to pay to spare the incessant drolling on about being able to compare ourselves to one another.

 

I want to see where I rank among all the Geocachers in my state. . . . No website that I could set up would ever be able to give me this function.
You want my membership dollars to finance what you are unwilling to do yourself? Blah!

 

If you want this, make it happen. It isn't that difficult. Create a database or a spreadsheet. Enter the cacher, the cache found, and the date that cacher found the cache. Now, go through each cache in your state, and enter the information into your database/spreadsheet. After that, create a query to count the number of logs by cacher in the table. The technology to do what you want is rather basic these days. And you do not need a website at all to accomplish what you want.

 

I'm beginning to wonder why some of you are so anti-stat. Most of the arguements against it are irrational to say the least. You are arguing not only to not have your stats shown, but to make darn sure none of us that want them get ours shown either.
Irrational? That is a fallacy.

 

Let's play this out a bit . . .

Let's say Team 360 lives in your state. You get what you want and can look at the stats and see you are ranked 21st (or whatever, it does not matter). But you know Team 360 has more finds than you. So, now you know you are 22nd. Above you are five cachers who are listed as anonymous, but you know them to be Cacher X, King Cache, I Want 2 Cache, Cacherella, and CacheMom. You know these cachers by name because their logs have been public for four years and everyone around knows these folks. They have just opted not to share their stats.

 

A year from now, as you expand your caching circle (you have now moved up to 11th in your state and only three anonymous cachers remain ahead of you), you begin recognizing a name of a cacher (or two or three or four or whatever) that seem to be in every cache you find. Not only that, but those names are nowhere on GC.com. Furthermore, as time moves on, you notice that those same cachers are logging caches in your home area. At an event you mention that you have been seeing logs of Green Tartan, TwoTasselLoafers, MattedCat, Red Lips, and Full AmmoBox in every log you find these days. The others attending also mention it. Someone even states that MattedCat and Red Lips are always the FTF on caches.

 

How do you rank in your state?

 

And if it is more than five unknown cachers, can you imagine, six people finding a cache and not logging it online for you to see how you rank in your state. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in the woods finding a cache and not logging online. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

 

Keen People has a leader board. It is opt-in. It allows you to compare yourself to everyone else in your state who wishes to participate. Why does GC.com need to be involved in this? Why not Navicache? Why not my private caches? Why not Criminal's? Keen People allows one to input all caches found. It allows those of us who wish not to partake to not be included. Why doesn't this satisfy your desire?

Link to comment

Frolikin:

 

The numbers on the leaderboard add some fun to the game for some and others who didn't care never paid attention. Does there need to be much else?

 

It does give you an idea of experience to be taken into account with everything else when a log is a DNF or points out a cache problem. For that all you need is the number on the cache page at the time they did their log and that's all we have.

Link to comment
The numbers on the leaderboard add some fun to the game for some and others who didn't care never paid attention. Does there need to be much else?

Okay . . . then why isn't Keen People all you need? You can have your fun there. Does it need to be based here? If so, why?

Link to comment

At 75 finds in about 2 years, I'm not nearly as active as most. And with 75 finds, most look at me as a noob. I still consider myself a noob because there are many things I have yet to learn.

 

I'm getting the feeling that a noob DNF doesn't mean much to most of you. Luckily, around here, it does. My last 3 DNF's were missing caches. I didn't find, not because I didn't know what I was doing, not because I didn't look hard enough or long enough, not because I still need to hone my skills ..... but because the caches were missing.

 

The hiders checked and either replaced or archived the caches. Had they blown off my DNF because I'm a noob, other cachers would have searched for a cache that wasn't there.

 

So I guess maybe you're saying ... "Well, if a noob finds my cache possibly missing, I'm not gonna worry about it. I'll let an experienced cacher waste a hunt before I feel the need to spend my time checking on my cache."

Link to comment
The numbers on the leaderboard add some fun to the game for some and others who didn't care never paid attention.  Does there need to be much else?

Okay . . . then why isn't Keen People all you need? You can have your fun there. Does it need to be based here? If so, why?

Because stats are meaningless without everyone's participation.

 

I would much rather have the list look like:

Anonymous 371

Team GPSaxophone 259

Anonymous 250

 

Than have it look like:

Team GPSaxophone 259

Link to comment
Because stats are meaningless without everyone's participation.

But you do not have everyone's participation. No matter how this thing is built, you do not get Green Tartan, TwoTasselLoafers, MattedCat, Red Lips, and Full AmmoBox's statistics. If it only works with everyone's participation, then it cannot work. If it can work without everyone's participation, Keen People is already there.

Link to comment
I want to see where I rank among all the Geocachers in my state. . . . No website that I could set up would ever be able to give me this function.
You want my membership dollars to finance what you are unwilling to do yourself?  Blah!

 

Well no, I'd like my membership dollars to finance that. You know you're not the only one that pays to use this site. There are many other pro-stat members who probably feel the same way as I do.

 

If you want this, make it happen.  It isn't that difficult.  Create a database or a spreadsheet.  Enter the cacher, the cache found, and the date that cacher found the cache.  Now, go through each cache in your state, and enter the information into your database/spreadsheet.  After that, create a query to count the number of logs by cacher in the table.  The technology to do what you want is rather basic these days.  And you do not need a website at all to accomplish what you want.

 

Oh come on. If it was that easy for me to do, I would have done it by now. It's a little bit more complicated than a spreadsheet I'm afraid.

 

Let's play this out a bit . . .

Let's say Team 360 lives in your state.  You get what you want and can look at the stats and see you are ranked 21st (or whatever, it does not matter).  But you know Team 360 has more finds than you.  So, now you know you are 22nd.  Above you are five cachers who are listed as anonymous, but you know them to be Cacher X, King Cache, I Want 2 Cache, Cacherella, and CacheMom.  You know these cachers by name because their logs have been public for four years and everyone around knows these folks.  They have just opted not to share their stats.

 

I have no desire to see the stats of people that don't even have the common courtesy to post a log online. In my opinion, they are parasites of the website who do not contribute in the spirit of the game.

 

Keen People has a leader board.  It is opt-in.  It allows you to compare yourself to everyone else in your state who wishes to participate.  Why does GC.com need to be involved in this?  Why not Navicache?  Why not my private caches?  Why not Criminal's?  Keen People allows one to input all caches found.  It allows those of us who wish not to partake to not be included.  Why doesn't this satisfy your desire?

 

No, Keenpeople does does fulfill my desire. The one big drawback of that site is that you have to manually change your stats on their page. It is too much extra work for people to do everytime they log caches. That's probably why you don't see more widespread use of it.

 

Why does GC.com need to be involved? Frankly they don't. Another website could, and has done this. However, hosting it on GC.com alleviates many of the problems that were happening with the othersite. GC.com would alleviate the bandwidth problem, as the leaderboard would be local to the gc.com site. It would pull its info directly from the database. It would be fully integrated into the site, which would be much nicer than a seperate page that a lot of people didn't even know existed. It would be fair to all, especially if it had an opt-in system.

 

Is that rational enough for ya?

 

--RuffRidr

Link to comment
Keen People has a leader board.  It is opt-in.  It allows you to compare yourself to everyone else in your state who wishes to participate.  Why does GC.com need to be involved in this?  Why not Navicache?  Why not my private caches?  Why not Criminal's?  Keen People allows one to input all caches found.  It allows those of us who wish not to partake to not be included.  Why doesn't this satisfy your desire?

Because I don't live in any 'state'. I can't compare myself with anyone in my 'state'. What is this 'state' you are talking about?

Edited by Divine
Link to comment
Oh come on.  If it was that easy for me to do, I would have done it by now.  It's a little bit more complicated than a spreadsheet I'm afraid.
You are incorrect. Do you use MS Office? Provide me your e-mail address and I'll send you an Access database set up to do so. It really is easy.

 

I have no desire to see the stats of people that don't even have the common courtesy to post a log online. In my opinion, they are parasites of the website who do not contribute in the spirit of the game.
That is a strong opinion and you are welcome to it. Mind you, it is also against your stated reason for wanting stats: I want to see where I rank among all the Geocachers in my state. So, in reality, you wish to compile stats in the manner in which you see fit. That may not be in the manner I see fit. Which does not necessarily jive with Team 360. We each play the game differently. If you want to filter the stats to fit your needs, do it yourself. Again, it is not that difficult. You want GC.com to change its policy to meet your needs. You want those who oppose stats to acquiesce to your wants. You want to exclude finds from other sites. You want to exclude (and call names) anyone who doesn't play the game the way you do.

 

Perhaps now it becomes a little more clear why folks have an aversion to having their stats used as a comparison tool. You play the game one way. I play it differently. Team 360 plays it another way. To play the way you want to play, means we all have to do it your way. Again, you will not know how you really rank in your state.

 

No, Keenpeople does does fulfill my desire. The one big drawback of that site is that you have to manually change your stats on their page. It is too much extra work for people to do everytime they log caches. That's probably why you don't see more widespread use of it.
Again, because people are not playing it your way, you are imposing changes that affect us all. Perhaps because one has to manually update it and it's too much work, it really isn't as in demand as it is made out to be. If you want something that badly, you will find a way to have it. I have offered you two solutions to which you have expressed an unwillingness to do for the amount of work it will take you.

 

Another website could, and has done this.
It depends how it's done as to whether it is within GC.com's TOU. Scraping data violates the TOU of this site.

 

It would be fair to all, especially if it had an opt-in system.
Fair to everyone who agrees with you . . . not to everyone.
Link to comment
Because stats are meaningless without everyone's participation.

But you do not have everyone's participation. No matter how this thing is built, you do not get Green Tartan, TwoTasselLoafers, MattedCat, Red Lips, and Full AmmoBox's statistics. If it only works with everyone's participation, then it cannot work. If it can work without everyone's participation, Keen People is already there.

As I already implied in my previous post, Keenpeople stats are useless for more than a quarter of the geocaching world. Keenpeople's not 'already there'.

 

Sure, there is a number of people who don't log online. There is also another number of people who don't log even on the physical logbook despite visiting caches. By wanting Gc.com stats, people generally mean them to be of the logs made online in Gc.com. That's what is interesting to me: everyone's participation on the site. Not those who don't participate. Not all the names on the list. Not some data on provinces of some foreign country on some other site.

Link to comment
Because I don't live in any 'state'. I can't compare myself with anyone in my 'state'. What is this 'state' you are talking about?

I have no idea if there are stats for Finland at Keen People or elsewhere. I think it would be an easy add-on for Keen People to provide you such a feature. Of course, building it yourself is an option.

Link to comment
I have no idea if there are stats for Finland at Keen People or elsewhere.

I noticed you don't. Still, you were busy to tell people to use features that even aren't there. No, there are no stats for any other country that the US at Keenpeople.com. Keen People is an invalid argument in this discussion.

 

I think it would be an easy add-on for Keen People to provide you such a feature.

I don't use Keen People. I use Gc.com. Why should I register to some third party sites - which often mine data from Gc.com anyway - and beg them for some non-existent feature while the site I'm already using and paying for could easily provide me one?

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