Return to Project-GC

Welcome to Project-GC Q&A. Ask questions and get answers from other Project-GC users.

If you get a good answer, click the checkbox on the left to select it as the best answer.

Upvote answers or questions that have helped you.

If you don't get clear answers, edit your question to make it clearer.

0 votes
276 views

With the recent changes in Maps in Profile Stats, the Top Counties for a State is now showing the number of caches found in a particular county with a percentage next to it.  I think this percentage calculation is incorrect, as it is using a ratio of caches found per county / active caches in the county.   As a result, it is showing percentages greater than 100%.   For example, DrPflug is showing Travis County (TX): 5192 (181%)   while the Top Found Percent tool is showing him at 91.7 % of 2857 caches.   5192/2857 is 1.81 -> 181%.   This doesn't really seem to mean anything, since it is mixing units. 

in Bug reports by j2dad (280 points)

1 Answer

0 votes

The percentages was added to make it easier to see what level of color in relation to the dynamic requirement the user has, it would not make sense to have a different calculation for the percentages vs the dynamic requirements they are supposed to represent. More information about the dynamic requirements can be found in the wiki: https://project-gc.com/w/Maps_tab

by Pleu (45.1k points)
The website should show some kind on verbiage as to why the 215% in my case. At face value, It looks like I logged every cache twice with no 'legend' until someone has to drill down in to a forum and to a wiki page.
@x_xenolith_x The wiki is the place to go if you see something you don't understand on Project-GC so I don't really see the problem there. I'm also just a user so if this is something you want Project-GC to read you should probably add this as a new feature request.

And well, since it's not possible to log caches twice and haven't been since May 8, 2017 I would hope that most people would not jump to the conclusion that you've logged every cache twice since that wouldn't make any sense... :)
...