Talk:Graticuleader achievement

This is a proposal made on 2024-07-11. Please leave comments and suggestions below, indicating your thoughts on the proposal, including:

• Support - you think this proposal should be added with zero or minor changes
• Do not oppose - you think it's boring/meh/not for you, but it wouldn't harm to have it created
• Oppose - you have a specific reason as to why this ribbon should not exist (state this reasoning in your comment)
• Needs work - you think the achievement should be created after more significant changes have been made

See Proposed achievements for more information on this process.

Discussion

• Support for the achievement itself, but the page needs work on clarity and generally tidying things up, which can be done once it becomes an achievement. --KerrMcF (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support --Fippe (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Needs Work - I like the concept, but I don't think it's possible at the moment to view, on the wiki, a geohasher's total coordinates reached/expeditions per graticule. You have to go elsewhere, like geohashing.win. If tables similar to at Most_active_Geohashers, but limited to a single graticule, could be able to be created and posted to each graticule's page so it's easy to keep track of the relevant stats then this would work. A related issue that I have been thinking about and also I think needs to be addressed before this achievement goes live, is the issue of unsuccessful expeditions to a hash that others sucessfully reach. For example, Lachie did not make it to this hash, but as far as I'm aware, the stats gathering system would credit him with a success, as he is tagged as a participant on a hashpage labelled "coordinates reached". I'm sure this is solvable, but I'm not sure of the best approach. Johnwrw (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • To follow up, I mainly think having the relevant data easily accessible on the wiki itself in some way is necessary. As great as geohashing.win is for things like this, I think the wiki should be fairly self-contained. (Also, sometimes the data on geohashing.win fails to load for me). Less fussed about the issue of unsuccessful expeditions to hashes that others have success at. I would like to see it dealt with, but I would support this achievement going live even without that fixed, so long as we can view totals on the wiki Johnwrw (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the notion that this data must be easily available for the achievement to be accepted. Consider all the other achievements spanning multiple expeditions where the burden of proof always is on the claimant, not the wiki: There is no easy way to find out all your regional/reverse regional/subdivision/etc achievements. Sometimes I discover that I achieved one of those after the fact. Achievements like this require the claimant to keep records.

That being said, I can write a script that will provide a rough idea of who is graticuleading where. I have a draft ready and have shared some screenshots on our Discord server, but I have yet to do some polishing.

One of the things that the script cannot do at the moment is account for expeditions that you did not reach but others did. One way to solve this would be tagging those expeditions with Category:Coordinates not reached by {participant}. Those categories do not exist at the moment, and even if they did, I'd have to rewrite the scrip, which I am willing to do. What I won't do is tag everyone's expeditions with those categories, that responsibility is up to the individual Geohasher.

Using those categories will make you score worse in the rankings, of course. So if you faithfully tag your expeditions with them and the script still shows you graticuleading, you can be somewhat certain that you are the graticuleader. Someone not using those categories cannot be certain that they are.

Another edge case are ties, in particular same-day ties. I think I might be able to get the script to break ties occuring on different days, but same-day ties will likely not be breakable. In those cases it is up to the individual Geohasher to have an overview.

The script is fallible. It heavily depends on reports being categorized correctly and having a clean Participants section that AperfectBot can parse. Don't just claim the achievement because the script says so, you should be reasonably certain that you actually achieved it. --Fippe (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Thanks Fippe for your detailed response (and all your work in general!) I can understand completely that it should be up to individuals to keep track of the details of their own expeditions in order to claim various achievements. To me, the difference here, is that hashers would also be required to keep track of the expeditions of every other hasher in the graticule, to know how they stand relative to them. I think this is too much of a burden. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know how many successes a hasher has had in a certain graticule, if they do not diligently keep their user page updated with all their expeditions (as definitely happens). The only option would be to trawl through every page in a "Meetup in [Graticule]" category, and manually add things up. You can generate these stats on geohashing.win, but like I said, this doesn't always work for me, and I think it would be easier for everyone if people didn't need to go to a different site, but if we could publish a table to a graticule's page (e.g. refreshed daily, like the "most active" pages).

As for the coordinates reached by only some participants problem, like I said, I'm less bothered by this, I think this is something that could just be accounted for manually when claiming this achievement, but if it could be dealt with that would be excellent. And yeah, definitely it's not your job to edit all relevant expeditions, just if that functionality is there, then individuals can edit pages as necessary. Johnwrw (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Valid points by Johnwrw above, but I still support the achievements even without those changes. Also, alternative name suggestions are appreciated; I like Graticuleader but suggested it mostly as a joke, there might be a cleverer name. --π π π (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I think the Graticuleader name works really well. --KerrMcF (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. But as said above, it will be (for those who have visited lots of graticules) tedious to check all the graticules you've visited and whether you have the most expeditions there. That's okay though.

Proposal for small change: Multiple expeditions reaching the top count on the same day should count for all people, not only for the first one.

Additional clarification required: Is the "rating" (which counts the number of other people) only for one graticule or the sum of all? So if I'm leader in five graticules that have been visited by 5/4/3/2/1 other people respectively, is my rating 5 or 15? I suggest a two-part count: Number of graticules you are the leader in AND total number of other geohashers in those graticules - Danatar (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• • I believe the reason for multiple expeditions taking place on the same day only counting for the first person is because it encourages people to try to get there before anyone else can do so. It adds a bit more competitiveness to an achievement designed as a competition.

I think the rating is supposed to be dependent solely on the graticule it was obtained in. For your example of being leader in 5 different graticules, you would have earned the achievement five different times. Your rating for these graticules individually would be 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. The rating is not for the geohasher as a whole, but for the geohasher with respect to each graticule. I also like the idea of a rating of the number of graticules you are the leader in, and I believe this was discussed when the achievement was being written up, but I don't think we could have two ratings without entering dangerous territory of the achievement becoming confusing. This would be rating two different things simultaneously: individual graticules (number of geohashers), and all graticules combined (graticules led). --KerrMcF (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)