[Az-Geocaching] Re: Az-Geocaching digest- inaccurate stats.
Andrew Ayre
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:27:36 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C35F4B.8BB4E560
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The UK equivalent of azgeocaching.com, geocacheuk.com, also suffers from
problems like this as they have to resort to scanning and processing GPX
files, etc. I wish that geocaching.com would allow local sites like
azgeocaching.com and geocacheuk.com some kind of back door limited access to
the database so that more reliable data may be obtained. For example, they
could allow access to cache data in only a specific area (AZ and the UK for
my examples) and missing the coordinates and cache descriptions. However, I
understand that that does not make business sense for geocaching.com to do.
And remember, geocaching.com is a business.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
[mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of Gale
Draper
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:07 PM
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Re: Az-Geocaching digest- inaccurate stats.
This is only my best guess. I have very little knowledge of computer
programming.
Since there have been issues with geocaching.com recently, I suspect the
thing at azgeocaching.com which daily scans the main site and updates our
stats has been hung up on some technical glitch. I appreciate all of
azgeocaching.com's efforts to provide a great site for local cachers too. We
have 36 out of state finds even though only 1 is technically "out of state"
as a member's only cache. I hope the glitch will be corrected soon.
Pat Thompson <tylert113@cox.net> wrote:
I've read the latest list serve "munged stats" submittals after
forwarding our concern(this morning-8-10-0) about inaccurate
stats on the Az.Geocaching page. I''m not sure if these notes are a
response to my inquiry or just other cachers expressing
concerns similar to the ones I had. We have never found an out-of-state
cache, yet the page shows that we have 12. These
12 have been subtracted from our legitimate Arizona cache finds. We have
noted similar inaccuracies in the past and
reported them. One was corrected and the other never was adjusted to
reflect the accurate facts. I am not sure whether
certain in-state caches have been classified as out-of-state for a
legitimate reason, or if the software has a programming defect.
If necessary,I will identify the erroneously labeled caches, although
since none of the found ca! ches were out-of-state,
it would seem like a relatively easy proposition to simply reflect all
of the caches as in-state.I have recently attempted
to reach someone at the az.geocaching @geocaching.com site, but there
was no reply and no change in the stats.
Several months ago I was able to contact someone at that site, and was
advised that they wanted to be informed
about any inaccuracies in the stats, and that is why I have continued to
pursue this issue. However, the issue is
not a major concern for me, and I will be more than happy to let it
rest, if no response is forthcoming. I am not
a premium member of the geocaching site, so I hardly feel entitled to
register a concern, and recognize that I have
no right to complain about a service I did not pay to receive. Further,
we appreciate all of the time, energy and technical
skill that has gone into designing, executing and maintaining both the
National and Az. Geocaching sites.
All the best,
Pat Thompson
Team Seeking
____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com
Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes
On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:
"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --
"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"
Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C35F4B.8BB4E560
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D464232321-10082003>The UK=20
equivalent of azgeocaching.com, geocacheuk.com, also suffers from =
problems like=20
this as they have to resort to scanning and processing GPX files, etc. I =
wish=20
that geocaching.com would allow local sites like azgeocaching.com and=20
geocacheuk.com some kind of back door limited access to the =
database so=20
that more reliable data may be obtained. For example, they could allow =
access to=20
cache data in only a specific area (AZ and the UK for my =
examples) and=20
missing the coordinates and cache descriptions. However, I understand =
that that=20
does not make business sense for geocaching.com to do. And remember,=20
geocaching.com is a business.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Andy<BR></FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com=20
[mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]<B>On Behalf Of =
</B>Gale=20
Draper<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:07 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Az-Geocaching] Re:=20
Az-Geocaching digest- inaccurate stats.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>This is only my best guess. I have very little knowledge of=20
computer programming. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Since there have been issues with geocaching.com recently, I =
suspect the=20
thing at azgeocaching.com which daily scans the main site and updates =
our=20
stats has been hung up on some technical glitch. I appreciate all of=20
azgeocaching.com's efforts to provide a great site for local cachers =
too. We=20
have 36 out of state finds even though only 1 is technically "out of =
state" as=20
a member's only cache. I hope the glitch will be corrected=20
soon.<BR><BR><B><I>Pat Thompson <tylert113@cox.net></I></B> =
wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid; WIDTH: 100%"><BR><BR>I've=20
read the latest list serve "munged stats" submittals after =
<BR>forwarding=20
our concern(this morning-8-10-0) about inaccurate<BR>stats on the=20
Az.Geocaching page. I''m not sure if these notes are a <BR>response =
to my=20
inquiry or just other cachers expressing<BR>concerns similar to the =
ones I=20
had. We have never found an out-of-state <BR>cache, yet the page =
shows that=20
we have 12. These<BR>12 have been subtracted from our legitimate =
Arizona=20
cache finds. We have <BR>noted similar inaccuracies in the past=20
and<BR>reported them. One was corrected and the other never was =
adjusted to=20
<BR>reflect the accurate facts. I am not sure whether<BR>certain =
in-state=20
caches have been classified as out-of-state for a <BR>legitimate =
reason, or=20
if the software has a programming defect.<BR><BR>If necessary,I will =
identify the erroneously labeled caches, although <BR>since none of =
the=20
found ca! ches were out-of-state,<BR>it would seem like a relatively =
easy=20
proposition to simply reflect all <BR>of the caches as in-state.I =
have=20
recently attempted<BR>to reach someone at the az.geocaching =
@geocaching.com=20
site, but there <BR>was no reply and no change in the =
stats.<BR>Several=20
months ago I was able to contact someone at that site, and was =
<BR>advised=20
that they wanted to be informed<BR>about any inaccuracies in the =
stats, and=20
that is why I have continued to <BR>pursue this issue. However, the =
issue=20
is<BR>not a major concern for me, and I will be more than happy to =
let it=20
<BR>rest, if no response is forthcoming. I am not<BR>a premium =
member of the=20
geocaching site, so I hardly feel entitled to <BR>register a =
concern, and=20
recognize that I have<BR>no right to complain about a service I did =
not pay=20
to receive. Further, <BR>we appreciate all of the time, energy and=20
technical<BR>skill that has gone into designing, executing and =
maintaining=20
both the <BR>National and Az. Geocaching sites.<BR><BR>All the =
best,<BR>Pat=20
Thompson<BR>Team=20
=
Seeking<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>______________________________________________=
______________<BR>Az-Geocaching=20
mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR>To edit your setting, =
subscribe or=20
unsubscribe=20
=
visit:<BR>http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching=
<BR><BR>Arizona's=20
Geocaching =
Resource<BR>http://www.azgeocaching.com</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#6633cc>Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang =
interminable=20
changes<BR> On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- =
so:<BR>"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the =
Ranges=20
--<BR> "Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for =
you.=20
Go!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#6633cc></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#6633cc>Rudyard Kipling , The =
Explorer =20
1898</FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com"=
>Yahoo!=20
SiteBuilder</A> - Free, easy-to-use web site design=20
software</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C35F4B.8BB4E560--