Talk:Most active Geohashers/old

Thank you for this page! --Q-Owl (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Seconded. Would be nice if this could be automated, and for that matter, extended back to the start. --Thomcat (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2015 (EST)

I'm currently working my way through past years (at July 2013 at the moment). When I have the whole year done it will be added to the totals. I'm also planning to give each year a sub-page so it will be easy to look back and see totals and monthly leaders without clogging the main page too badly. Fear not, it will get there in time. Mystrsyko (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Hello Mystrsyko,
at "Most Active Users By Coordinates Reached" (bottom of the page):
I think, I found only 4 hashes in November 2014.
Best greetings
--Q-Owl (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (EST)

I'm wondering how you deal with an expedition where one geohasher reached the coordinates and another did not. I'm also wondering if the Category:Coordinates reached (or not) could be replaced with a template that included the date, graticule and user name. Then the stats would be much easier to work out. How hard would it be to retro-edit all the expeditions to follow this format? Or is there an easier way to solve this problem? In all cases thanks for your effort and the interesting results. --Sourcerer (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2015 (EST)

I just found this page. I'll automate it. I already do something similar by the automated interactive map of users. [1] --NWoodruff (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

It is now Automated--NWoodruff (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2015 (EDT)

Hello NWoodruff. Well done, but something must have gone wrong. Although I'm absolutely fine with my success-rate of nearly 120%, I still can remember some progress for the posted achievement. Or in other words, 50 successful expeditions is still a little less than the 51 (until end of January) in my personal census, but it is much better than the automated 42 expeditions that should have taken place at all (and yes, these expeditions are also missing on the interactive map). DODO (talk)

I think only the top table (expeditions) is correct; the bottom still has Mystrsyko's manual count. Also, if you have 51 expeditions (aka 9 unreported) then get to your editing, young man!  :) --Thomcat (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, I'm with you. Only the top table is automated and the lower one is still Mystrsyko's manual count. But I have to disagree about the correctness. In 2014 there has been 54 reported expeditions that I was involved in as you can see here, and the 45 successful ones are almost exactly what Mystroko counts. So there are obviously some errors in my reports, so Woodruff doesn't find them, but I have no idea what it could be. And given the count of them, I'm afraid, I'm not the only one with missing expeditions. DODO (talk)

I'm fairly certain that NWoodruff's automation isn't pulling the full amount of data. I'm curious what it uses to pull it's information. The main reason I've been doing this page manually was because I found a number of issues that would cause bots to have trouble trying to pull accurate data. That being said, I'll go over DODO's expeditions again, because I'm not sure why our counts differ. Mystrsyko (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2015 (EDT)