Stats Visibility

[+Frolickin]

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.

Actually, Keen People is very much germane to this discussion. If you look at where I introduced that into the discussion, it was to offer RK and RuffRidr a solution to their problem. So, please do not be nasty.

 

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?

The short answer is because what you are paying for doesn't offer the feature you want, whereas the other site very well might.

 

Your response further enunciates that we all play the game differently. And because of that, the validity of these statistics is flawed. Nevertheless, the stats are there for comparison, yet, it is too much work for people to update, people to visit another site, someone to maintain his own spreadsheet, etc. People are shopping for a solution that satisfies everyone. Like much in life, there is not one.

 

I knew it was a mistake to offer my take on this here. Continue to beat this drum . . .

[+Divine]

I knew it was a mistake to offer my take on this here.

No no, discussion's good. We're simply disagreeing on this matter, and probably neither will turn another's head on this (surprisingly though, since I'm right :D). Still, it's good to have some arguments for and against the matter. I'm not intending to be nasty, sorry about that. Keen People - lacking that particular feature - just isn't the answer for a big minority of Gc.com users, although it might be used as an argument against what RK and RuffRidr said. (Then again, there are further arguments against for that too.)

 

The short answer is because what you are paying for doesn't offer the feature you want, whereas the other site very well might.

I already know they don't, so it's my interest to get the site I already am an avid user and member of to offer me one.

 

Your response further enunciates that we all play the game differently.  And because of that, the validity of these statistics is flawed.

I'm aware of that. Heck, I myself don't log finds for locationless caches. Thus, many people who do, would be 'ahead of me' in the stats. Do I care about that? No, I'd still enjoy having numbers to see. Like someone said somewhere else, a leaderboard just tells who has the best combination of cache density, time and resources to go hunting them. So? I'd still like stats. It would be a treat for myself and others who like numbers and statistics, and when the default option would be anonymity, there's hardly any harm to anyone.

 

The often neglegted aspect of stats I've suggested in various discussions is somewhat less competitive set of statistics, like the breakdowns of different cache types in different countries (and states for you US people, of course ), different log types, caches/cachers per capita, caches/cachers per square area etc etc. I'd love those too.

[+geospotter]

...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.

 

...It is too much extra work for people to do everytime they log caches.

Gee, RuffRidr, you can't have it both ways.

 

You feel that someone who chooses to not log their visits online (maybe it is too much work for them) is a parasite, but you feel that it is too much work for you to update your stats.

 

It is OK for you to not make the effort, but you do not give others that option.

[+Frolickin]

I already know they don't, so it's my interest to get the site I already am an avid user and member of to offer me one.

Again, the same interest can be served, with no more expense to you, for Keen People to include more than just the US. I assume that is the case, I do not use that site. Further, because they are already in the stats business, as it were, and include stats from more than just one listing site, it can a better option than starting from scratch at GC.com.

 

I'm aware of that. Heck, I myself don't log finds for locationless caches. Thus, many people who do, would be 'ahead of me' in the stats. Do I care about that? No, I'd still enjoy having numbers to see. Like someone said somewhere else, a leaderboard just tells who has the best combination of cache density, time and resources to go hunting them. So? I'd still like stats.

But, your reason for stats does not jive with RuffRidr's. If a leader board were built to show the above, it would read

• 
   
  
• Lynn
   
  
• BruceS
   
  
• etc.
   
  

but that doesn't help RuffRidr see how he ranks in his state. If we further break out the stats to list who has the best combination of cache density, time and resources to go hunting them by state, then someone will come around and state that it really is unfair because cacher X includes 256 locationless caches and cacher Y doesn't use a GPS, and cacher Z lives in an area with micros under every lamppost.

 

Some would argue that because apples cannot be compared to apples, the mere compilation is problematic. Still, there are ways around that. It does not take a great effort to do what it seems like people want on your own.

 

It would be a treat for myself and others who like numbers and statistics, and when the default option would be anonymity, there's hardly any harm to anyone.

It would not be anonymous. I live in New Jersey. If StayFloopy were not to opt-in, everyone looking at the stats would know the anonymous cacher at the top of the list is him. That does not make Floopy anonymous.

 

like the breakdowns of different cache types in different countries (and states for you US people, of course ), different log types, caches/cachers per capita, caches/cachers per square area etc etc. I'd love those too.

Isn't it Germany that has an active caching community at Navicache? Because you or someone else is not interested in including those caches, we can dicard them?

 

Creating this for a given area, Finland for instance, is easy to do, can be done without violating GC.com's TOU, does not require everyone to participate, and gets you what you want.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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.

If they're not logging online, then they won't be included no matter how a stats site is run.

[+Frolickin]

If they're not logging online, then they won't be included no matter how a stats site is run.

Exactly. And if they are provided here, they do not include the online logs from Navicache or my site.

 

You are the one who said

stats are meaningless without everyone's participation

. Everyone's participation can never be had.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If they're not logging online, then they won't be included no matter how a stats site is run.

Exactly. And if they are provided here, they do not include the online logs from Navicache or my site.

 

You are the one who said

stats are meaningless without everyone's participation

. Everyone's participation can never be had.

So how many backyard football games aren't mentioned in the paper? Yet, everyone agrees that the stats they post there count.

 

You are completely missing the point. I'm referring to those that post online using geocaching.com, not some 3rd rate site that started up just to get in on the action.

 

Everyone that posts their logs on geocaching.com is participating. People that aren't posting on geocaching.com are not participating. I don't care about those that aren't participating. They aren't really playing the same game (see the football analogy above)

 

edit: spelling

Edited April 6, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Divine]

Further, because they [Keen People] are already in the stats business, as it were, and include stats from more than just one listing site, it can a better option than starting from scratch at GC.com.

I believe the best option is that the stats would be created where the numbers are. That information is prone to be the most accurate, unlike the data mined by a third party site. For example, Buxley's world statistics are not accurate compared to the information available in Gc.com.

 

But, your reason for stats does not jive with RuffRidr's.  If a leader board were built to show the above, it would read

• 
   
  
• Lynn
   
  
• BruceS
   
  
• etc.
   
  

but that doesn't help RuffRidr see how he ranks in his state.  If we further break out the stats to list who has the best combination of cache density, time and resources to go hunting them by state, then someone will come around and state that it really is unfair because cacher X includes 256 locationless caches and cacher Y doesn't use a GPS, and cacher Z lives in an area with micros under every lamppost.

I would like a leaderboard broken out to by country/state level too. It's not about fairness. Every people capable of simple thinking realizes that those who have lots of easy caches around their house will be higher on the list than their countryman or -woman, whose closest cache is 100 km away and the next closest is 250 km away. Also, I guess everyone understands that it's more difficult for e.g. me to raise on the list compared to those who have logged almost every locationless cache there is. I don't care if it isn't 'fair' for me, the stats are still interesting. Better yet, it'd be cool if one could tick different cache types in a list, choose a country/state/region etc and create a custom leaderboard for him/herself. Ooo, that'd be nice!

 

It would not be anonymous.  I live in New Jersey.  If StayFloopy were not to opt-in, everyone looking at the stats would know the anonymous cacher at the top of the list is him.  That does not make Floopy anonymous.

You got a point there. Yet, the same everyone you mentioned already knows that StayFloopy is at the top. It's not like anything would be different from now, only the data already on the site would be rearranged to a list. The anonymity protects the average Joe somewhere below the top 20 or something. Like you said, everyone already knows who the top ones are. Having a Gc.com-provided stats won't change that fact in any way.

 

Isn't it Germany that has an active caching community at Navicache?  Because you or someone else is not interested in including those caches, we can dicard them?

All I'm asking is Gc.com to rearrange their data (not Navicache's or anyone else's) to a more comprehensible set of stats. If Navicache offered site statistics of their own, I'd have nothing against it. If someone wanted to put them all together, that probably calls for a third party arrangements, which brings a bunch of problems. There's no need to discard Navicache info, but I'm not asking Gc.com to give that to me.

[ju66l3r]

Getting back to the point of "visibility", which was the intent of this topic, I'd like to point out that I'm just over the 80th most prolific poster on the new board software. I post an average of 1.23 posts per day that I've been a member of GC.com. I am not one of the top 10 posters of the day. All of these statistics are available to everyone. Some people have been known to post in certain topics to intentionally boost their post counts in competition with others on the board.

 

I don't see many posts in this forum complaining to Jeremy to have your names or data taken off of the forum leaderboards. I don't see people clammering for forum posts to be deleted due to "cheating". I don't see people's opinions being diminished because their post count is too low to be considered. In fact, a lot of the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that is being tossed around in the statistics threads isn't present when it comes to the freely available board statistics. Most of this can be contributed to the fact that people are largely uninterested in the board statistics. Since people are not involved in their personal competitions for board statistic superiority, they don't have a reason to discredit or belittle others.

 

If you aren't interested in a certain aspect of this website, then you are not likely to view it and thereby you are less likely to care what is going on with it. I have a good feeling that the same would be true of a leaderboard for the geocaching. I'm sure since it would be new, there'd be a large surge of pro/con posts here, similar to what we see now just discussing viability or visibility, but as it becomes commonplace, it will be largely ignored (out of sight; out of mind) by those that don't care and will be a regular visit for those that do care.

 

*Can* a leaderboard and other organized statistics survive without being visible to everyone? Yes. Should everyone be included in any statistics even if they are "invisible" via some sort of anon-nameswap? Yes.

 

Visibility is actually not the problem (remember, you're visible on the forum leaderboard, but you don't care enough)...but if it placates the pessimistic, then why not anonymize those that ask for it (opt-out).

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>

I don't see many posts in this forum complaining to Jeremy to have your names or data taken off of the forum leaderboards. I don't see people clammering for forum posts to be deleted due to "cheating".<<SNIP>>

Your analogy doesn’t work in this case. The forums are third party software. There is no way for GC.com to remove the posting stats.

[ju66l3r]

Your analogy doesn’t work in this case. The forums are third party software. There is no way for GC.com to remove the posting stats.

That (the inability for GC.com to do something) certainly hasn't ever stopped anyone for asking for said something here in this forum before. It is still perfectly valid.

 

EDIT: I believe the "Members" link is something that can be edited out in the forum software template, actually...invision has a certain number of things hard-wired, but many of the links and things are editable/removable. So, they *would* be able to remove the statistics links.

Edited April 6, 2004 by ju66l3r

[+RuffRidr]

Actually, Keen People is very much germane to this discussion.  If you look at where I introduced that into the discussion, it was to offer RK and RuffRidr a solution to their problem.  So, please do not be nasty.

 

Keenpeople is not a solution to my problem. I want to see stats that are automatically updated? Does Keenpeople do this? Quit using this as an alternative, it is not one. Same with MS Access. Does it automatically update? If so does it do it within the TOU for this site? Doesn't sound like an alternative either. What else you got? Let's hear some more of your "solutions".

 

--RuffRidr

[+RuffRidr]

...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. 

 

...It is too much extra work for people to do everytime they log caches. 

Gee, RuffRidr, you can't have it both ways.

 

You feel that someone who chooses to not log their visits online (maybe it is too much work for them) is a parasite, but you feel that it is too much work for you to update your stats.

 

It is OK for you to not make the effort, but you do not give others that option.

You twisted my words. I said it was to much work for people to do everytime. By this I meant the majority of the people. I was not speaking of myself in the 3rd person. I'd gladly manually update my stats if everyone else did. Let me know when that happens will ya?

 

--RuffRidr

[+Renegade Knight]

Frolickin:

 

Stats to be useful to those who liked them, or for the other things you can do with the same information that people who don't like stats did use they need to be complete within the limitations and flaws of the system. Both sides of the stats argument admit that stats are not perfect.

 

Keenpeople is incomplete. So far as I know I'm the only person who uses it in this town. That makes it worthless because there is no real basis of comparison. Especially in light of Dan's old site that was pretty good overall.

 

You bring up a valid point with the "Why here?" question. It doesn't have to be GC.com. If the visible data that everyone in the world can see and what Google indexes regularly were available a lot more than stats could be done. Visible data is not private account details. It's what we voluntarily put forth for the world to read. Some of the things that could be done are and are not stats are:

 

Log activity: Who's been logging caches in specific areas.

Watch this cacher: Track friends when they cache.

DNF alert.

New Cache alert (skydiver does one that works fairly well)

Archived cache alert.

Archived cache lists.

CITO & Cache event countdowns.

Micro Cache filters.

Cache owner specific filters (got a person who's caches just rub you wrong, or who's caches always make your day?)

Email notice of a signature trade item. (Keyword based)

TB placement notification.

TB removal notification.

Disabled cache lists or alerts.

geocaching games could be better tracked and there are a lot of geocaching games being invented out there that make this more fun.

 

To name a few. Dan's site did some of these but not all. Skydiver does one of these but that's about the limit of what is out there right now. It doesn't have to be GC.com but GC doesn't allow the collection/use of the publially available data and GC doesn't offer these services. Others would step in and fill the vacume but they can't. Data availability is a nother topic though.

[+Frolickin]

Stats to be useful to those who liked them, or for the other things you can do with the same information that people who don't like stats did use they need to be complete within the limitations and flaws of the system.

There are plenty of stats sites that exist that are able to generate the stats desired without having GC.com generate them, and at least one which does so without violating the TOU.

 

Keenpeople is incomplete. So far as I know I'm the only person who uses it in this town. That makes it worthless because there is no real basis of comparison.

So, there is a procedure in place that is opt-in and can handle caches from multiple listing sites, but is worthless because people do not want to do the work. If cachers are not willing to participate (meaning actively logging their own number), then I do not have much more to offer.

 

Especially in light of Dan's old site that was pretty good overall.

My understanding is that Dan's site violated GC.com's TOU.

 

GC doesn't allow the collection/use of the publially available data and GC doesn't offer these services.

It sounds like this is a settled issue then. If the owner of the data does not want to offer this, there are alternatives. You and some others have dismissed doing the work to get what you want. I am out of ideas for you. The data exist. The data can be compiled. The rest is up to you . . .

[+RuffRidr]

It sounds like this is a settled issue then. If the owner of the data does not want to offer this, there are alternatives. You and some others have dismissed doing the work to get what you want. I am out of ideas for you. The data exist. The data can be compiled. The rest is up to you . . .

 

Actually, I believe Jeremy has posted before that he was looking to do some sort of stats, and that he liked the idea of an opt-in situation. I hope that he either follows through with this or offers up a data interface for others.

 

Also, I resent that you are saying that people like me don't want to do the work. I have a very healthy work ethic. However, my skills as a database administrator, web administrator, programmer, and web designer are sorely lacking. Also, since it is against the TOU of the site, it wouldn't be possible even if I did know how. Since you keep saying it is so easy, maybe you can help me get a start on this. First off, how can I pull a list of everybody that has logged every cache in Arkansas (including archived ones) without violating the TOU? I believe you said this could be done easily in access. Can you send me the query that does this? Its not too much work for you is it? Oh, also how do I interface that database with my website (I'd like it to update every minute or so please)? Which reminds me, do you know of a place I can get cheap hosting? I'll be looking forward to your response. I can't wait to get this project going!

 

--RuffRidr

[+Nurse Dave]

Solution:

 

If numbers don't matter to you and you have some reason you don't want people to see them, but still want to let people know the cache is there and everything is fine, just log a note.

 

All this talk about competition, the numbers are just sitting there. If you decide to look at some leader board or compare yourself to others, that's something you're doing yourself. The numbers don't turn it into a competition, people do.

[+bons]

All this talk about competition, the numbers are just sitting there.  If you decide to look at some leader board or compare yourself to others, that's something you're doing yourself.  The numbers don't turn it into a competition, people do.

The problem is when people are through comparing themselves and start comparing others to their own personal number standards. This sport is a lot more fun to me without hearing the the cries of "cheater" or "n00b" just because someone either has more finds or less finds than the accuser.

 

As divine mentioned earlier, "There's nothing wrong with having geocaching experience" and I agree with that. It helps to know what works and what doesn't. On the other hand I value people without experience equally but for the opposite reason. People without experience don't "know" what doesn't work and may find a way to make it work. They may bring different perspectives. And their list of what's possible may easily be outside the boundaries of the experienced player's experience. Because of this, I don't care about your numbers. I'll listen to you regardless. I may disagree with you, but I'll at least listen.

 

I don't mind a leaderboard, but I would like to choose if my numbers are associated with my id, included anonymously, or simply not included at all.

 

I would prefer to not have to track all my finds outside the site. I'll probably have to at some point but until I'm forced to I'd like to log things on this site in the standard manner. And while I realize you can alway add up my numbers yourself, I don't see any reason why the site has to add up my numbers for you if I don't want it to.

[ju66l3r]

There are plenty of stats sites that exist that are able to generate the stats desired without having GC.com generate them, and at least one which does so without violating the TOU.

Name 3.

 

Keenpeople or any other site that requires manual updates will not be valid. It has time and again been pointed out that manual updates (even from those who care) is absurd. The only reason necessary that it will not be valid is that by manual update, I can set my number to anything at all (on purpose or even accidentally). On top of that, if I am not accurate on the timing of my updates (did 2 caches today...2 yesterday...i won't be able to get to a computer again until tomorrow and put in all 4) then any statistics on the time-course will not be valid either and will only be as discrete as the cachers' impetus/ability to update.

 

So, name 3 of these "plenty of stats sites" that exist, are able to generate the stats desired without GC.com's help/permission, and don't violate the TOU.

[+Frolickin]

There are plenty of stats sites that exist that are able to generate the stats desired without having GC.com generate them, and at least one which does so without violating the TOU.

Name 3.

Please read what you quoted from my post again. I stated there were plenty of stats sites that exist that are able to generate the stats desired without having GC.com generate them. Here are three:

So Cal

Arizona

Zinnware

As you very well know, there are more than that too. As for naming a stats site which compiles data without violating GC.com's TOU . . . my site does so. No, you don't get to see it, but I will describe how one could do so without violating the TOU.

 

Become a premium member. Place all the caches you want statistics from on your Watch List. GC.com then e-mails the logs of each cache you want stats on. This does not scrape the data, it does not put an unusual load on the site, etc. It is within the TOU.

 

For discussion's sake, let's assume you want to track all the caching in Arkansas. Place each cache in Arkansas on your Watch List.

 

Then create a one table database. That table could contain two fields: cacher and cache. That is not copyrightable material. When the e-mail comes in, add the two pieces of information to the table.

 

To get the leaderboard, create a simple query. Basically, query your one table for the cacher and the cache. Set the the cacher to MAX and you have a leaderboard for the state of Arkansas.

 

There's a little up front work to get the data in. Once that is done, it's a maintenance issue . . . for a state about the size of Arkansas, I estimate about spend about 15 minutes per week to update.

 

It has time and again been pointed out that manual updates (even from those who care) is absurd.

Which is why my method will not work for you. But, those who have invested a little bit of time and effort into the process now have the stats desired. You? You are still complaining and apparently do not have what you desire.

 

As I said to RK above, I am out of options for you. Nothing I can offer will satisfy your desires or RuffRidr's. I think you two have mis-read my side of the discussion. Nevertheless, best of luck to you in getting what you want.

[+briansnat]

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

 

Keenpeople, or any stats that use "opt in" are absolutely useless. For stats to have any value they woule have to be opt out....or better yet, as Team GPSax suggested, those opting out would be listed as anonymous.

 

As a side issue, I see people here who are militantly anti-stats, but where where they when there was a stats site? I don't recall an outcry against it when it was up.

[+RuffRidr]

No, you don't get to see it, but I will describe how one could do so without violating the TOU.

 

Become a premium member.  Place all the caches you want statistics from on your Watch List.  GC.com then e-mails the logs of each cache you want stats on.  This does not scrape the data, it does not put an unusual load on the site, etc.  It is within the TOU.

 

Right now there are over 600 caches in Arkansas. I'm pretty sure you can't have 600 caches on your watchlist. This would be even more ridiculous if someone were looking for cache stats in California, for instance.

 

For discussion's sake, let's assume you want to track all the caching in Arkansas.  Place each cache in Arkansas on your Watch List.

 

OK, assuming that I could do this, how do I get the information for archived caches? That is part of the user's stats. Also, it seems you would only get information from this point on. How do I backfill the information from previous logs? Pocket queries won't work because it only goes back 5 logs. Your solution would have worked, had I started the tracking at the beginning.

 

Then create a one table database.  That table could contain two fields: cacher and cache.  That is not copyrightable material.  When the e-mail comes in, add the two pieces of information to the table.

 

What about deleted logs. Now the stats are no longer accurate. I'm sure there are many more instances where this table could soon get out of sync. I don't think you thought this method through very well.

 

To get the leaderboard, create a simple query.  Basically, query your one table for the cacher and the cache.  Set the the cacher to MAX and you have a leaderboard for the state of Arkansas.

 

There's a little up front work to get the data in.  Once that is done, it's a maintenance issue . . . for a state about the size of Arkansas, I estimate about spend about 15 minutes per week to update.

 

Well yes, once the data is compiled the rest is fairly easy. Now hopefully you can see where the whole pro-stats arguement is coming from. There is no good way to get ACCURATE data from gc.com and ensure its integrity. There is no better or easier place for this to be than on gc.com itself. We have given examples of solutions that would provide us with what we want and still keep the stats hidden for whoever didn't want to be included. Why do you continually discount this as a viable solution?

 

--RuffRidr

Edited April 7, 2004 by RuffRidr

[+geospotter]

Once a leaderboard is created there will be increased competition. The term "leaderboard" itself indicates competition.

 

Once competition is introduced other things become necessary. More rules would be required. A referee would be required to resolve issues when rules don't (I think Jeremy has better things to do).

 

Even with both a ref and rules TPTB will be swamped with "so-and-so deleted my log and now I've dropped from 31st to 33rd in my state. I want it put back right now!" Cache owners wouldn't be able to delete logs without going through an arbitration process. Claims of "cheater!" will overwhelm these boards. Currently those claims usually end with a "So what? It's not a competition." Once a GC sanctioned leaderboard is introduced it all changes. Suddenly it IS a competition.

 

The list goes on and on.

 

Please consider your request carefully. Sure, GC has the info, and you want it. Giving it to you would be the easy part.

Edited April 7, 2004 by geospotter

[ju66l3r]

Here are three:

So Cal

Arizona

Zinnware

As you very well know, there are more than that too. As for naming a stats site which compiles data without violating GC.com's TOU . . . my site does so. No, you don't get to see it, but I will describe how one could do so without violating the TOU.

 

As I said to RK above, I am out of options for you. Nothing I can offer will satisfy your desires or RuffRidr's. I think you two have mis-read my side of the discussion. Nevertheless, best of luck to you in getting what you want.

So Cal = Keenpeople mirror...invalid statistics.

Zinnware = manual curation of list...invalid statistics (what about the guy who has 99 hides and hides one today...but doesn't get listed for a month until Zinnware figures it out).

AZ = A potential candidate, but there's nothing on the site that says where they get their info from. If they do it as you suggest (PQ -> table), then they can only go as fast and as large as 5 PQs...which is not enough to have a national or even regional table (and may not even cover large states as RR pointed out).

 

As to your final comments...this is why I didn't say "Frolickin, can you develop a stats site that could equal the power GC.com would have in creating one"...because I *know* you don't have a solution for me and what would be worth doing if you wanted statistics that were verifiable. This is why if they are to be done under the current data model of GC.com, they have to be done *at* GC.com. This will mean trying to satisfy the largest number of people possible.

 

The *only* person bringing up anything of valid discussion was geospotter's most recent post. The fact that a face-value sanctioned competition will be generated is a good point. But I think it is simply easy enough to not even worry about a leaderboard here at GC.com. GC.com could put up the statistics in an unsortable order (alphabetic, for example). It would be any competitive person's interest to work this into an actual leaderboard if they wanted. Or GC.com puts it up as a sortable table and disclaimers the bottom with "All complaints will be largely ignored as long as the current ruleset was behaved". In fact, anyone sooo crazy about being 32nd instead of 33rd is *already* keeping track and e-mailing about disappearing logs. Sure, it might bring a few extras out of the woodwork, but then again, it might not.

 

I don't remember the last thing added to the site that absolutely *couldn't* be removed afterwards. If it were to cause tons of unforeseen or outrageous behavior, it could easily go away as fast as it got here...true?

[RetroJ]

I find the numbers to be of some use, but am mindful that all measurements are estimates and that statistics reflect our own value judgements just as much as they reflect the matter being measured. I keep my own count simply as a form of journalism. For the tally, I leave out events and count in letterboxes. So my tally is different than the one reported on geocaching.com. If I had the option to not display my geocaching.com tally, I would probably use it, but don't feel myself to be at any loss without such an option.

[+TEAM 360]

After reading this entire thread, here is what some said about turning off an individuals stats-

 

WH- "would like to see the ability to choose"

Divine- "wouldn't harm anyone"

av8tors32- "doesn't matter"

IAN5281- "would love to make my stats invisible"

CoyoteRed- "I'd like to be able to hide stats, too"

Geo Blank- "make it a Premier feature"

Golfhaus- "Let them have their count hidden or suppressed"

 

Seems to me that having the option to hide ones stats SHOULD be an option. Every single cacher should be keeping track of their own caches anyhow, just in case something happened to this website.

 

Let any type of public stats reflect the finds of those who OPT IN to a stats race, not "forced in".

 

Thanks for the high praise from RK and SAX as well. Getting to know longtime cachers is really the key to judging a cachers finding ability, not just making the call by looking at their stats.

 

Respectfully,

TEAM 360 (the "parasite" who does nothing to contribute to the spirit of the game by organizing fund-raising efforts and flying up to Portland to place a Tribute Plaque at the site of the first cache, attending multi-state Cache Events, repairing/replacing broken caches or those in need of maintenance, transporting Travel Bugs across the country, organizing an out-of-state CITO event, etc, etc....)