Rankings

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I was wrong about the stats. I was using total log counts.

 

If you found more than 54 caches, you are in the top 10 percentile of all geocachers on the geocaching.com web site.

 

If you found more than 60 caches, you are in the top 9 percentile of all geocachers.

 

8th Percentile: > 68

 

7th > 78

 

6th > 92

 

5th > 109

 

4th > 133

 

3rd > 168

 

2nd > 230

 

1st > 369

Ok, with the change I'm in the 2% group!

[+cachew nut]

Ok, with the change I'm in the 2% group!

Slacker.

[+The Navigatorz]

I was wrong about the stats. I was using total log counts.

 

If you found more than 54 caches, you are in the top 10 percentile of all geocachers on the geocaching.com web site.

 

If you found more than 60 caches, you are in the top 9 percentile of all geocachers.

 

8th Percentile: > 68

 

7th > 78

 

6th > 92

 

5th > 109

 

4th > 133

 

3rd > 168

 

2nd > 230

 

1st > 369

 

Hey Jeremy, can you do that for individual states? That would be a stat I'd be interested in. Perhaps gc.com could provide that kind of stat. That way no one is competing against other geocachers. Perhaps you could click on your state, and you would get a listing of top percentile of geocachers in your state if you have found more than x number of caches. Show me Washington state for example.

[+ventura_kids]

Hey! If you went to #11 you would see me!

 

Ventura Kids

2395

 

WooHoo.... oh well.

Since you excluded me and included all those teams.... I Quit!

........ again...

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

I was wrong about the stats. I was using total log counts.

 

If you found more than 54 caches, you are in the top 10 percentile of all geocachers on the geocaching.com web site.

 

If you found more than 60 caches, you are in the top 9 percentile of all geocachers.

 

8th Percentile: > 68

7th > 78

6th > 92

5th > 109

4th > 133

3rd > 168

2nd > 230

1st > 369

Cool, I'm in the top 5th

[+E = Mc2]

Way Cool! I'm in the top 2th!

 

Even cooler, I know 3 of the top 25, according to that earlier posted website. I, for one, like the idea of stat's that everyone can read. Of course, I may be the odd one out. Perhaps an 'Opt-in' arrangement as per a previous post would be best, though, since there are those who wouldn't necessarily want their user name affixed to #17,895. lol

 

We've held event caches for Show Me The Cache when he hit 1,000 and 2,000 respectively. Not that he needs veneration, he's just such a nice guy that we all wanted to be there to show our respect for his achievements and to congratulate him. We'll probably have another when he hits 3,000 just to let the Geo-widows commiserate with Marcia and to tell stories and enjoy the fellowship of our lunatic bunch.

[robertlipe]

I wish people wouldn't abuse that stats image by creating a page like that. It makes me want to shut down that feature.

That page has to be killing the server with every page load...

I know it sure killed my browser both times I opened it....I wouldn't blame Jeremy a bit for killing that stat service just for that very reason there.

Sorry, but if loading a couple dozen 200x50 pixel gifs is "killing the server" , there are deeper architectural issues than that. The 6,800-ish bytes per gif should -totally disregarding compression present in even fifteen year old modems - be totally dwarfed by the horrors of, say, decoding the increasingly pervasive GUIDs and Javascript on the pages...

 

The gifs are essentially static and highly cacheable; they are highly redundant but contain an overlay of find counts and hide counts. When do these numbers ever change? When the person either gets a new cache approved or when they log finds. (The few exceptions, such as when a finder has his log deleted by a placer, are surely statistically insignifiicant.) If you can accept even as much as a 30 minute delay, even the most die-hard ubercachers (why, look, I happen to have had dinner with 5 of the top 30 this very night...) are unlikely to trigger the need to update these images more than a couple of times a week. So after the person has not logged a cache in the last 30 minutes, their GIF gets regenerated. Regenning this GIF is noise compared to the actual logging process. As long as the server obeys RFC2616 and related specs, it shouldn't have to recompute for most cachers more than a few times a week and even if the reader bangs 'reload' in rapid succession, it should not have to even have to resend it over the wire for most browser fetches.

 

If you're doing something totally insane like a dynamic select on the database per gif fetch to retrieve finds/hides for that user, of course it will be expensive. But between breaking normality and keeping the count in the per-user record and simply recomputing this on delta log list for that user, that surely isn't what's going on.

 

Jeremy, I'd much rather see you define 'abuse' of the states images and work with responsible cachers/programmers than to "shut down that feature".

[+Marky]

Hey Jeremy, could you do a break down on DNF's like that? I'd like to know where 229 falls.

 

--Marky

[+Divine]

Well maybe if GC. Com added a stats page similar to Dan's old page, that wouldn't be an issue. Could be a subscriber only  feature. Hmmm, maybe that could provide added incentive for more people to join....and if some people are uncomfortable with their name being displayed, they can opt out and it could say "anonymous" next to their count.

Actually, that's pretty much what I was thinking, but instead of "opt out" have the default be "anonymous" and just have a find count, no links to a page or anything, just broken down by state. Then have the OPTION to "Opt in" for those of us who aren't afraid of someone knowing how many caches we've found.

Yeah, what they said. I'd also like to have different country-based stats, a bit like Seti @ home has. Caches per capita, caches per square area, caches found per capita etc.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

If you found more than 54 caches, you are in the top 10 percentile of all geocachers on the geocaching.com web site.

 

If you found more than 60 caches, you are in the top 9 percentile of all geocachers.

 

8th Percentile: > 68

 

7th > 78

 

6th > 92

 

5th > 109

 

4th > 133

 

3rd > 168

 

2nd > 230

 

1st > 369

Wow. Looking at those stats from the opposite direction, it shows that most geocachers don't actually find many caches. The stats also tend to suggest that a large number of people try the game and quickly drop it.

[+Mopar]

[even the most die-hard ubercachers (why, look, I happen to have had dinner with 5 of the top 30 this very night...)

6 degrees of ubercacher?

 

I had dinner with 4 members of the 1000 club the other night, and personally know another 6 or so. Of course, by the time I actually get to join, they'll all be in the 5000 club.........

[+briansnat]

Who the heck is TeamAlamo and when did they pass Bruces

[+Mopar]

Who the heck is TeamAlamo and when did they pass Bruces

When Bruce stopped caching and/or logging online 6 months ago.

[+RuffRidr]

I wish people wouldn't abuse that stats image by creating a page like that. It makes me want to shut down that feature.

I bet you could get them to stop loading the images by giving a more direct hook into the stats.

 

By the way, thanks for posting some of the stat breakdowns to this thread. That was pretty cool to see.

 

--RuffRidr

Edited May 7, 2004 by RuffRidr

[+TheWilkens]

Wouldn't the addition of real-time or near real-time stats encourage abuse?

 

I know that where ever there is an emphasis on competition there are a number of people that what to win or look good without actually doing any work. It's already at work on the site with people putting in false finds. Currently it doesn't really seem to be that much of an issue, but when there is a chance to "get you name up in lights" it could become something of a bigger problem.

 

Does anyone else see this as an issue or am I just a pessimist?

[+Team Perks]

Wouldn't the addition of real-time or near real-time stats encourage abuse?

 

I know that where ever there is an emphasis on competition there are a number of people that what to win or look good without actually doing any work. It's already at work on the site with people putting in false finds. Currently it doesn't really seem to be that much of an issue, but when there is a chance to "get you name up in lights" it could become something of a bigger problem.

 

Does anyone else see this as an issue or am I just a pessimist?

All the "big-name" kilo clubbers that I know out in Southern California are among the most reputable cachers I've met. Personally, I think the issue of false finds is overinflated...though, I am sure, not nonexistant.

 

Conversely, I would think that the more finds you have logged, the more likely you are to become a suspect...and consequently, the more unscupulously honest you need to be.

 

I've been caching for less than a year, but have never heard of any instances of false finds for extra numbers, at least not out here.

[+Renegade Knight]

Wouldn't the addition of real-time or near real-time stats encourage abuse?

 

I know that where ever there is an emphasis on competition there are a number of people that what to win or look good without actually doing any work. It's already at work on the site with people putting in false finds. Currently it doesn't really seem to be that much of an issue, but when there is a chance to "get you name up in lights" it could become something of a bigger problem.

 

Does anyone else see this as an issue or am I just a pessimist?

It wasnt' much of an issue when there was a leaderboard. Faking 5000 finds takes time and what do you really win? There is no prize for being #1. As good as it gets is the accolades and razzing your local cachers will give you at a beer and pizza event and you won't get that faking your finds.

[+briansnat]

Wouldn't the addition of real-time or near real-time stats encourage abuse?

We had a real time stats page for several years. There was wasn't rampant abuse then. There were rare cases of people faking finds and padding stats then and there still are now that the stats page is gone.

[Jeremy]

The stats also tend to suggest that a large number of people try the game and quickly drop it.

Not really. It gradually climbs until you hit the last 10%. At 50% there are around 50 finds, for example. The majority of geocachers aren't as hardcore, either about finding caches or logging them online.

 

I know at least 5 people locally who don't log online at all.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

The stats also tend to suggest that a large number of people try the game and quickly drop it.

Not really. It gradually climbs until you hit the last 10%. At 50% there are around 50 finds, for example. The majority of geocachers aren't as hardcore, either about finding caches or logging them online.

 

I know at least 5 people locally who don't log online at all.

Only 369 finds are currently needed to reach that first percentile, which could hardly be considered a "hardcore" number ... especially considering the length of time geocaching.com has now been in operation. (Actually, it would be interesting and illuminating to learn how many finds were needed to be in the "top ten" percentiles one year and two years ago.)

 

Hmmm ... I just realized I have no idea how geocaching.com determines what determines an individual's status. I've viewed hundreds of profile pages where people logged into the website and posted logs for caches over a period of weeks, months or even years and then their "visible" activity ceased ... they ceased posting logs to cache pages and/or stopped logging in to the website. A large number of accounts designated as "Active Cachers" have apparently not logged into the website in well over a year ... or more.

 

At what point do TPTB consider these people to be no longer active? I would think 6 months of having not logged into the site would earmark an account as inactive.

Edited May 7, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[Billy KAOS]

Hmmm ... I just realized I have no idea ...

WAIT! Say it ain't so!!!

 

Something that you DON'T know???????????????????

[+briansnat]

At what point do TPTB consider these people to be no longer active? I would think 6 months of having not logged into the site would earmark an account as inactive.

 

I may be mistaken, but I think they become inactive if they get e-mail bounces. If the e-mail is good, they stay active....or so I heard.

[Jeremy]

I may be mistaken, but I think they become inactive if they get e-mail bounces. If the e-mail is good, they stay active....or so I heard.

That's right. And if we don't send them email, we never know if it bounces.

[Pto]

Well my 46 finds puts an extra .0 on me.

 

I saw Seti mentioned-

 

At least I have some good #'s there:

 

Your rank out of 4985015 total users is: 76325th place.

The number of users who have this rank: 28

You have completed more work units than 98.468% of our users.

[MOCKBA]

The stats also tend to suggest that a large number of people try the game and quickly drop it.

Alternatively they may have joined not too long ago; or exhausted the lists of local caches of interest.

I'd love to see some of the super-cachers time-course of stats. I know for a fact that our local #1, UtahJean, has very few local caches she hasn't found yet. In winters, when few new caches are placed, she must be facing real "cache starvation"...

Sometimes a time-course would be a nice illustration of a personal style too. Our local #3, UtBob2, for example, has cache binges interspersed with long dry spells.

[+ShadowAce]

Throwing out all accounts with 0 finds...

 

If you found more than 60 caches, you are in the top 10 percentile of all geocachers on the geocaching.com web site.

 

If you found more than 263 caches, you are in the top 2 percentile of all geocachers.

 

If you found more than 419 caches, you are in the top 1 percentile of all geocachers.

Not that we play the 'stats' game against anyone but close friends, this is something I can show the wifey to say 'look we are somebody!'

 

Thanks Jeremy for another bit of info to make my head explode.

[+hedberg]

Here is some more stats, from a Swedish user called "jasy" that he presented on the Swedish non-GC forum earlier this week.

 

It is based on the number of caches in different countries, number of people living in that country, and the size of the country.

(Based in info from Buxley and official Swedish information about other countries.)

 

Here it is (rating from Buxley list):

 

Rating Country

1 USA 292 caches/million in population, 8742 caches/million square kilometers.

2 Canada 199 caches/million in population, 614 caches/million square kilometers.

3 Germany 70 caches/million in population, 16179 caches/million square kilometers.

4 UK 60 caches/million in population, 14657 caches/million square kilometers.

5 Australia 129 caches/million in population, 331 caches/million square kilometers.

6 Sweden 279 caches/million in population, 5523 caches/million square kilometers.

7 Netherlands 80 caches/million in population, 30535 caches/million square kilometers.

8 New Zealand 195 caches/million in population, 2735 caches/million square kilometers.

9 Finland 108 caches/million in population, 1656 caches/million square kilometers.

10 Norway 113 caches/million in population, 1535 caches/million square kilometers.

 

He has a list of the top 20 countries, the list are written in Swedish, but can still be understood by anyone

Link

"Antal"=Number of caches in the country, "Per milj inv"=Per million in population, "Per milj km2"=Per million square kilometers", "Befolkning"=Population, "Yta"=Size of the country in square kilometers.

 

This means that Sweden and USA has almost the same number of caches per million people in their population. Okay, we have just 8.9 million people here in Sweden, but still...

Edited May 8, 2004 by hedberg

[+Team DEMP]

I think stats are useful to measure yourself against others. And if anyone says otherwise, they must be brought up in the age when little league stopped having winners/losers in a game so kids feelings didn't get hurt!

Edited May 8, 2004 by Team DEMP

[+bons]

No. There's just no one here I care to measure myself against nor is there a reasonable measurement.

 

There are people here with more caches in their hometown than I have in a 50 mile radius. If I have 95% of the find they have, what does that mean? If I have twice as many finds as you and all of mine are 1/1 and all of your are 4+/4+ am I twice the cacher you are?

 

There is one advantage to not having stats. There is less reason for people to cheat or to log finds where they made it to the parking lot the cache. There is less reason for people to pump out micro caches just to get high "placed" numbers.

 

I'd rather have a wonderful DNF than 20 parking lot micros. Given the griping of many people on this forum, I feel I'm not along in this opinion. Stats, in my opinion, encourage McMicros, and that's simply not something I think needs encouraging.

[+Team DEMP]

No. There's just no one here I care to measure myself against nor is there a reasonable measurement.

 

There are people here with more caches in their hometown than I have in a 50 mile radius. If I have 95% of the find they have, what does that mean? If I have twice as many finds as you and all of mine are 1/1 and all of your are 4+/4+ am I twice the cacher you are?

 

There is one advantage to not having stats. There is less reason for people to cheat or to log finds where they made it to the parking lot the cache. There is less reason for people to pump out micro caches just to get high "placed" numbers.

 

I'd rather have a wonderful DNF than 20 parking lot micros. Given the griping of many people on this forum, I feel I'm not along in this opinion. Stats, in my opinion, encourage McMicros, and that's simply not something I think needs encouraging.

I play golf less then others do, but I still keep score and have a handicap. I still can compare my golfing ability to others that golf more then me, have a country club membership while I don't, etc. I compare myself with those at my level and not those of Tiger Woods nor those of a beginning golfer.

 

I also keep score every time I play golf and I don't cheat. There are golfers that cheat and those that don't. When you play one, it's usually pretty obvious. I don't think cheating has to do with anything other then a lack of integrity on the individual and not the fact that everyone keeps score!

 

I like long caches and short caches. I just came back from a vacation where almost every cache available was a virtual and I did them. Some of them, you had to walk a little for, and others you didn't. I don't see how those, that are caching enough as us top 10% folks are, wouldn't have a mix of whatever is available to them.

 

Seems to me you aren't interested in comparing yourself to others, which is fine. Not sure why it should prevent me from doing so.

[+bons]

You keep score in geocaching as well. Your finds and hides are right there for everyone to see.

 

What you're asking for is automated comparison between scores, which is a different thing entirely.

 

When I play golf, they don't make everyone on the course publicly display their scores like geocaching does nor do they rank everyone. The stats in golf are easier to avoid than stats in geocaching.

 

Now if you want to join a site that allows you to enter your scores and compare them to other people who enter their scores, much like how a golf tournament works, those sites exist and work fine. They don't need geocaching.com to make any changes at all.

Edited May 8, 2004 by bons

[+IV_Warrior]

There is one advantage to not having stats. There is less reason for people to cheat or to log finds where they made it to the parking lot the cache. There is less reason for people to pump out micro caches just to get high "placed" numbers.

But yet, they still do both. And it's not just the "low numbers" cachers, I've seen it from at least one of the "BIG numbers" cachers......both fake finds, and hides, apparantly just to have another hide. If it's already happening without a stats page, to me, it's not a valid arguement against a stats page.

[+Team DEMP]

Actually, when you play golf, everyone you're playing with knows your score and in a tournament, you keep track of your score and everyone elses.

 

As for posting scores... they do in a tournament for the ones I've been in, whether it's a professional tournament or a company scramble.

 

If you're not interested, don't look any stat pages that might be generated.

[+IV_Warrior]

Now if you want to join a site that allows you to enter your scores and compare them to other people who enter their scores, much like how a golf tournament works, those sites exist and work fine. They don't need geocaching.com to make any changes at all.

But since those are "opt in" they're basically meaningless for those of us who are interested in such things. I'm on one of the pages, and I think it lists me as like 3rd in my state or something. But I can think of 6 cachers in my state with more finds than me......not exactly an accurate representation......which is why I'd like to see gc.com do the page, and list placeholders for everyone, with just a find count, and then show the usernames for those of us who "opt in". Then, it'd be accurate and meaningful for those of us interested. Even if I didn't know who they were, I'd at least know there were X number of cachers in the state with more finds than me...........

[+bons]

You're assuming people

1) Are all logging their finds.

2) Will continue to log their finds.

 

We already some cachers no longer log finds online as a direct result of numbers being made public. You can make your own guess what will happen when everyones numbers being included in a stat list becomes mandatory, especially when it's easy to compare those numbers against the numbers listed in people's accounts.

 

Personally, I don't want to discourage people from logging online and if refusing to log online is the only way to keep their numbers from the automated listing then I wouldn't be surprised to hear people are doing it.

[+briansnat]

We already some cachers no longer log finds online as a direct result of numbers being made public. You can make your own guess what will happen when everyones numbers being included in a stat list becomes mandatory, especially when it's easy to compare those numbers against the numbers listed in people's accounts.

 

Personally, I don't want to discourage people from logging online and if refusing to log online is the only way to keep their numbers from the automated listing then I wouldn't be surprised to hear people are doing it.

 

But we had a stats site for close to 2 years and it didn't make a difference in people's logging habits. Why would it be different now?

[+Mopar]

Actually, when you play golf, everyone you're playing with knows your score and in a tournament, you keep track of your score and everyone elses.

 

As for posting scores... they do in a tournament for the ones I've been in, whether it's a professional tournament or a company scramble.

 

If you're not interested, don't look any stat pages that might be generated.

Key word is "tournament". This isn't a tournament.

To stick with your golf analogy, special organized events have stats, and you know the stats of the people you golf with. However, the club does not post a bulletin board in the club house with the scores of every single person who has ever played there, out there for all to see. The newbie duffer on the same list as the local pro. Friendly games after a few beers compared with million dollar tournaments. And on top of that.... there is no par listed. Also, there is a mini-golf course next door, owned by the same club. The scores from the mini-golf course are listed in with the main course. When you see the club leaderboard, you don't know if the guy on top was on the hard course, the practice green, or the mini-golf course. As a matter of fact, the medicore player played 10 games of mini-golf a day for a week, just so he would rank higher then the pro.

So, how useful are those golf stats? Would a beginner golfer feel ridiculed by his poor score in relation to the mini-golf pro?

 

To relate to caching: the amount of finds cacher A has do not compare at all to cacher B. Cacher A just spent 6hrs of desert hiking to bag 1 virtual. Cacher B hit 3 Walmarts and 2 starbucks in 45 minutes for a total of 10 finds. Whos the better cacher? Who really cares?

Edited May 8, 2004 by Mopar

[+New England n00b]

OK, gotta do the ditto thing on Mopars Post. Well put.

 

As an afterthought. not addressed is cache density. Not being a golfer I can't relate it, but I'm sure there are areas/nations where caching is not 'huge' and therefore there aren''t many to get.

[+RuffRidr]

Key word is "tournament". This isn't a tournament.

To stick with your golf analogy, special organized events have stats, and you know the stats of the people you golf with. However, the club does not post a bulletin board in the club house with the scores of every single person who has ever played there, out there for all to see. The newbie duffer on the same list as the local pro. Friendly games after a few beers compared with million dollar tournaments. And on top of that.... there is no par listed. Also, there is a mini-golf course next door, owned by the same club. The scores from the mini-golf course are listed in with the main course. When you see the club leaderboard, you don't know if the guy on top was on the hard course, the practice green, or the mini-golf course. As a matter of fact, the medicore player played 10 games of mini-golf a day for a week, just so he would rank higher then the pro.

So, how useful are those golf stats? Would a beginner golfer feel ridiculed by his poor score in relation to the mini-golf pro?

 

To relate to caching: the amount of finds cacher A has do not compare at all to cacher B. Cacher A just spent 6hrs of desert hiking to bag 1 virtual. Cacher B hit 3 Walmarts and 2 starbucks in 45 minutes for a total of 10 finds. Whos the better cacher? Who really cares?

OK, but I want to see the # of cache finds for others in the same state. That should be a pretty level playing field. I don't even care if I see the names or not. I just want to see how I relate to others. I would have put this in a golf analogy, but hey, this ain't golf.

 

--RuffRidr

[+bons]

OK, but I want to see the # of cache finds for others in the same state. That should be a pretty level playing field.

Pull up a map of Colorado and look at the cache density differences. Or Nebraska, or Kansas, or Minnesota, or Wisconson...

 

If you really want local listings, you can do that. NEFGA does a perfectly good job of that without forcing it on everyone else.

[+Alamogul]

Show Me the Cache: 2408

 

Check out:

 

ventura_kids: 2395

Team_Dakiba 2341

 

These SoCal guys will blast into the top ten within the next week or two.

[+Renegade Knight]

You all can point out a thousand ways from sunday why stats are less than perfect and not once will you change the fact that people like them anyway or that they should be as good as you can reasonably make them.

 

I like the stats, and I like what you can do with the information needed to do stats. You don't have to like the stats part to enjoy the rest of whats possible. Like the seeing at a glance the weekend logs for your town. Or automating the score of a cache game that is played localy. There are a lot of possibilites here.

[+PandyBat]

I wish people wouldn't abuse that stats image by creating a page like that. It makes me want to shut down that feature.

That page has to be killing the server with every page load...

I know it sure killed my browser both times I opened it....I wouldn't blame Jeremy a bit for killing that stat service just for that very reason there.

Sorry, but if loading a couple dozen 200x50 pixel gifs is "killing the server" , there are deeper architectural issues than that. The 6,800-ish bytes per gif should -totally disregarding compression present in even fifteen year old modems - be totally dwarfed by the horrors of, say, decoding the increasingly pervasive GUIDs and Javascript on the pages...

 

The gifs are essentially static and highly cacheable; they are highly redundant but contain an overlay of find counts and hide counts. When do these numbers ever change? When the person either gets a new cache approved or when they log finds. (The few exceptions, such as when a finder has his log deleted by a placer, are surely statistically insignifiicant.) If you can accept even as much as a 30 minute delay, even the most die-hard ubercachers (why, look, I happen to have had dinner with 5 of the top 30 this very night...) are unlikely to trigger the need to update these images more than a couple of times a week. So after the person has not logged a cache in the last 30 minutes, their GIF gets regenerated. Regenning this GIF is noise compared to the actual logging process. As long as the server obeys RFC2616 and related specs, it shouldn't have to recompute for most cachers more than a few times a week and even if the reader bangs 'reload' in rapid succession, it should not have to even have to resend it over the wire for most browser fetches.

 

If you're doing something totally insane like a dynamic select on the database per gif fetch to retrieve finds/hides for that user, of course it will be expensive. But between breaking normality and keeping the count in the per-user record and simply recomputing this on delta log list for that user, that surely isn't what's going on.

 

Jeremy, I'd much rather see you define 'abuse' of the states images and work with responsible cachers/programmers than to "shut down that feature".

I have NO clue what you just said in all this but it clearly indicates that I am not a computer programmer by any means.

 

So help me understand here...........

 

These stats gifs are not just limited to a couple dozen on that one page. Those stats gifs are robbed from GC.com all over the internet. I see these stats gifs posted in personal websites, other geocaching websites, etc. That's gotta be some kind of significant burden on the servers or whereever it comes from, doesn't it?

 

Also, wouldn't it be some kind of violation of the copyright law for them to be posted on that page or anywhere else? If you have to ask for permission to use the GC.com logo, shouldn't it apply to these stats gifs as well?

[+Team DEMP]

To stick with your golf analogy, special organized events have stats, and you know the stats of the people you golf with. However, the club does not post a bulletin board in the club house with the scores of every single person who has ever played there, out there for all to see.

Actually, yes they do. In every single club I've been in, and it's a good number, when the new handicap cards are available, the large sheets are pinned/stapled to a bulletin board for members to peel off their sticker. If anyone wanted to see anyone else's handicap they can look and see everyone in the clubs.

 

And more then specific names/scores, as a handicap indicates, it's a rating, and that's what I'd like to see.

 

How many have more then me, how many have less then me, how many am I averaging a week/month/year vs others with the same # finds or the same area, or the same amount of time caching, etc.

 

Do I care what their names are - nope. Do I like to compare myself to others - absolutely. Does it make me think any differently of others I compare myself to - absolutely not. It's about me and not them. How do I rate? is what I think we're all looking to see out of stats.

[+briansnat]

How do I rate? is what I think we're all looking to see out of stats.

 

Actually I want to see who the total losers are that have fewer finds than me so I can make fun of them and belittle them in the forums.

[+Team DEMP]

Actually I want to see who the total losers are that have fewer finds than me so I can make fun of them and belittle them in the forums.

We all know you don't need to see stats to accomplish that - LOL!

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Hmmm ... I just realized I have no idea ...

WAIT! Say it ain't so!!!

 

Something that you DON'T know???????????????????

Oh, sure, Billy ... and on the issue of "what constitutes an active member," apparently neither do TPTB.

 

For example, I went back and took a look at the profile pages of people that registered the same day as you, June 17, 2001. In order to increase the sampling, I also looked at the profile pages of people that registered on August 29, 2001 and December 31, 2002.

 

The results indicated that quite a few people that created accounts on those days never validated their accounts or never visited the website. Their status is listed as "inactive." That makes sense. Quite a few other accounts hadn't logged on in at least a year. (Some in well over two years.) Their status is listed as "active cachers." The smallest number of accounts were those "active" cachers who had logged onto the site within the past month.

 

This information appears to support the statement I made in my initial post to this thread, where I said it appeared that the stats Jeremy presented tended to suggest that for most people, interest in the game is short-lived.

 

Of course, one could also gauge this by looking at the registration numbers of the newest members and comparing that to the number of accounts that actually logged caches in the previous 7 days. (This info is found on the "About Geocaching" page.) Of course, that number is a tad too low, because some people choose not to log online...

 

Thanks for coming out of retirement to post to this thread, Billy. I enjoyed your two previous posts from February of 2003. Despite the fact that you have been a member since June 17, 2001 and have accumulated no geocaching statistics, you are truly and officially an "active" geocacher.

 

Hey Billy, have you ever noticed that many times, the membership dates listed on people's geocaching.com profile pages and on their forum profiles don't agree? In many cases, they are "off" by one day. I don't know why that is, either.

Edited May 8, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Team DEMP]

BP: I agree with all your stats and even the comment that it's likely that many people that participate in geocaching due so for a limited time. I don't think this is geocaching specific but more accurate for anything folks do as a hobby or entertainment.

 

I wonder how many people bought Nordic Track machines that are no longer in use, treadmills that are purchased, setup, used for a bit and then never used again. It's just the way things are. Just as there are folks that run a marathon once to say "they did it" and then never run one again and then there are those that run as many marathons as they can get in, the same will be seen here.

 

Now, "active" to a fellow geocacher and "active" to a web site owner marketing his site for advertising revenue, etc will likely have different meanings. I think "registered" is a more appropriate indication of the user counts Jeremy has indicated. I'd say "active" would reflect someone with a find in say the last 6 months.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

BP: I agree with all your stats and even the comment that it's likely that many people that participate in geocaching due so for a limited time. I don't think this is geocaching specific but more accurate for anything folks do as a hobby or entertainment. ...  Now, "active" to a fellow geocacher and "active" to a web site owner marketing his site for advertising revenue, etc will likely have different meanings. I think "registered" is a more appropriate indication of the user counts Jeremy has indicated. I'd say "active" would reflect someone with a find in say the last 6 months.

Well, I think most of us have probably registered at websites that we visited only once or twice ... perhaps registration was required to procure information we needed, or perhaps immediately after registering we discovered that whatever it was the website offered failed to meet our expectations, and we never visited it again. For example, geocaching.com has now registered over 223,000 users. I think we can agree that the number of people actively participating in the game is a fraction of that.

 

For example, fewer than 13,000 registered users posted logs to cache pages during the previous week. In a game such as this, that is natural and to be expected; no doubt the weekly/seasonal fluctuation in user activity is huge. But it would be interesting to see the break-down of those 13,000 registered users ... How many were newly registered; how many have been registered for three months, six months, one year, etc..

 

Similarly, a study of usage trends over the past three months, six months, year, etc. would clearly disclose user (and registration) trends. Of course, such information is "privileged information." I have no doubt TPTB study all such trends, and more, very closely.

 

I agree that being able to show potential sources of revenue that 223,000 people registered with the site is more impressive than showing that a significantly smaller number of registered users actually use the site on even a semi-regular basis or over a significant period of time.

Edited May 8, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[robertlipe]

Sorry, but if loading a couple dozen 200x50 pixel gifs is "killing the server" , there are deeper architectural issues than that.   

I have NO clue what you just said in all this but it clearly indicates that I am not a computer programmer by any means.

 

These stats gifs are not just limited to a couple dozen on that one page. Those stats gifs are robbed from GC.com all over the internet.

 

They aren't "robbed"; they are externally linked to. There was an announcement that these were available.

I see these stats gifs posted in personal websites, other geocaching websites, etc. That's gotta be some kind of significant burden on the servers or whereever it comes from, doesn't it?

As I said, if regenerating and 6K image by looking up 3 things from a GUID (user name, find count, hidden count) every couple of days (on average) is killing the server, it's badly implemented.

 

Also, wouldn't it be some kind of violation of the copyright law for them to be posted on that page or anywhere else? If you have to ask for permission to use the GC.com logo, shouldn't it apply to these stats gifs as well?

 

I'd have to look up the original announcement, but there's a clear expectation when you make information available (such as by putting it on the web) that it's there under standard "acceptable use" policies and external linking to web sites has been repeatedly declared by the courts to be acceptable use these days.

 

I'd still like to here why Jeremy considers this "abuse". If the answer doesn't involve legalities, answering the above is a distraction. If the answer is technical, perhaps we can help.