Difference between revisions of "Talk:Most active graticules/old"
From Geohashing
imported>Relet m (→Previous totals) |
imported>Danatar (→Calculating Rankings) |
||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
*one) Woo hoo! Slave Lake made the charts! Go me and ICWB! I don't think we'll manage the same for [[Grande Cache, Alberta]]. It's really mountainous here, and winter is coming on. | *one) Woo hoo! Slave Lake made the charts! Go me and ICWB! I don't think we'll manage the same for [[Grande Cache, Alberta]]. It's really mountainous here, and winter is coming on. | ||
*two) I think of the people in my graticule as a team who are out to beat mother nature as much as possible. I wish there were some way to register the people who belong to a graticule and then have all their exploits count. For example I remember recently that Vancouver and Bellingham coordinates were both do-able, but I chose the latter because I hadn't logged Bellingham yet. One of the Seattle meetups was actually me, dragging a local and another Vancouver person. So I effectively scored on my own net there, allowing Seattle to edge Vancouver in the standings. It's not really a competition, so who cares, but the standings don't accurately show how rabidly active the Vancouver graticule is, and I'm proud of us. | *two) I think of the people in my graticule as a team who are out to beat mother nature as much as possible. I wish there were some way to register the people who belong to a graticule and then have all their exploits count. For example I remember recently that Vancouver and Bellingham coordinates were both do-able, but I chose the latter because I hadn't logged Bellingham yet. One of the Seattle meetups was actually me, dragging a local and another Vancouver person. So I effectively scored on my own net there, allowing Seattle to edge Vancouver in the standings. It's not really a competition, so who cares, but the standings don't accurately show how rabidly active the Vancouver graticule is, and I'm proud of us. | ||
| + | ::We could add a category (or more if people from multiple graticules at the hashpoint) to each successful expedition: "Category:Count for (Coordinates e.g. Vancouver)". So if you go from Vancouver to Seattle, the expedition would (via an automated script) get 1 point for Seattle (because the expedition page name is 2008-10-08_Seattlecoords) and 1 point for Vancouver (because the page is included into the "count" category for Vancouver). This would lead to one ranking for "graticule with most active geohashers", one for "most visited graticule" and perhaps a combined one. [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
*three) The best register of graticule activity would probably be something like persons attending geohashes, divided by graticule population, multiplied by a million, so that the numbers aren't tiny fractions of one. You'd have to have graticules include an estimate of their population on their graticule page. This would also make the comparison more fair when considering split graticules, because including more potential geohashing locations would also include more population. | *three) The best register of graticule activity would probably be something like persons attending geohashes, divided by graticule population, multiplied by a million, so that the numbers aren't tiny fractions of one. You'd have to have graticules include an estimate of their population on their graticule page. This would also make the comparison more fair when considering split graticules, because including more potential geohashing locations would also include more population. | ||
*four)Thank you for the work you did in updating this, and I don't expect you or anyone to ever do it by population. It's just theory. | *four)Thank you for the work you did in updating this, and I don't expect you or anyone to ever do it by population. It's just theory. | ||
-[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC) | -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:31, 8 October 2008
Contents
Discussion
I added to the table for monthly totals. The Boston crew led for the first few months then vanished - is there an expiration date for internet memes and mobs? I also added the monthly leaders. My intention is to update this once a month, and keep an eye out for any old expedition page edits that might change the totals. I'd also like to add something to track metro areas and split cities - Vancouver and Surrey are together, etc. --Thomcat 18:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Previous totals
These were mostly the work of relet, Jevanyn and Thomcat.
- I actually only merged two pages of similar names, and made a few updates, really. -- Relet 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This page tracks the most active graticules, all time and for the preceding month. The count will be based on the number of meetup pages are connected to each graticule, based on the most linked-to categories that are "Meetup in lat, long". The meetup pages themselves will be passingly checked to see if anyone actually made it. This page is currently manually edited, so it's not complete. I'm hoping to work out a top-ten in each category.
Current ranking
as of 2008-08-20
One measure of graticule activity is the number of meetups attributed to that graticule. With no attempt to verify that geohashes were successful, or even attempted, I have gone through the wiki Meetup by location subcategories that have the most meetup links as of 03:00 UTC on the 20th of August 2008, and created a top five list, which is actually top seven, thanks to ties.
| Place | Number | Graticule | Meets in category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 34 | Boston, Massachusetts | 42 -71 |
| 2 | 32 | Seattle, Washington | 47 -122 |
| 3 | 17 | San Francisco, California | 37 -122 |
| Cincinnati, Ohio | 39 -84 | ||
| 4 | 16 | Berlin, Germany | 52 13 |
| 5 | 14 | Portland, Oregon | 45 -122 |
| Sacramento, California | 38 -121 |
Older records
Last updated: August 21, 2008, 10PM UTC
UNOFFICIAL - these numbers reflect whether a meetup page was created, not whether anyone was there.
June 2008 most active
- Boston: 16 meetups
- San Francisco: 10 meetups
- Detroit: 9 meetups
- Seattle: 7 meetups
- Canberra: 6 meetups
- Sacramento: 6 meetups
- San Jose, CA: 5 meetups
- Cincinnati: 5 meetups
- Los Angeles: 5 meetups
- Reno, NV: 5 meetups
Calculating Rankings
- one) Woo hoo! Slave Lake made the charts! Go me and ICWB! I don't think we'll manage the same for Grande Cache, Alberta. It's really mountainous here, and winter is coming on.
- two) I think of the people in my graticule as a team who are out to beat mother nature as much as possible. I wish there were some way to register the people who belong to a graticule and then have all their exploits count. For example I remember recently that Vancouver and Bellingham coordinates were both do-able, but I chose the latter because I hadn't logged Bellingham yet. One of the Seattle meetups was actually me, dragging a local and another Vancouver person. So I effectively scored on my own net there, allowing Seattle to edge Vancouver in the standings. It's not really a competition, so who cares, but the standings don't accurately show how rabidly active the Vancouver graticule is, and I'm proud of us.
- We could add a category (or more if people from multiple graticules at the hashpoint) to each successful expedition: "Category:Count for (Coordinates e.g. Vancouver)". So if you go from Vancouver to Seattle, the expedition would (via an automated script) get 1 point for Seattle (because the expedition page name is 2008-10-08_Seattlecoords) and 1 point for Vancouver (because the page is included into the "count" category for Vancouver). This would lead to one ranking for "graticule with most active geohashers", one for "most visited graticule" and perhaps a combined one. Danatar 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- three) The best register of graticule activity would probably be something like persons attending geohashes, divided by graticule population, multiplied by a million, so that the numbers aren't tiny fractions of one. You'd have to have graticules include an estimate of their population on their graticule page. This would also make the comparison more fair when considering split graticules, because including more potential geohashing locations would also include more population.
- four)Thank you for the work you did in updating this, and I don't expect you or anyone to ever do it by population. It's just theory.
-Robyn 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
