FR24 Feeder Statistics

[Patrick Reeves]

I downloaded the global feeder stats from the Statistics page and converted to csv, You can open in a spreadsheet, type your radar callsign in the search window and see how you rank. I'm 969 out of 5793 total feeders. Cool.

s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=63562896488989175664


EDIT- Please use link downstream at #6 for complete file.

[SoCalBrian]

Wow!
Ranked 45 out of 5793 feeders on that list.

Ranked 16 for United States feeders.

[Patrick Reeves]

The KLAX F- feeder is #2526. That's quite a spread...

[Mike]

The list shows FR24 feeders and software feeders with latest version of Raspberry Pi feed software. Old feeder software is not supported.

[SoCalBrian]

I'm sure the KLAX F feeders is alot closer to the LAX airport area.
My box(T-KLAX1) is located in San Diego County on top of the mountain at the house.

[Patrick Reeves]

Update-

I accidentally truncated the original file. There are 8,344 feeders with rankings. Not 5,793.

Updated csv file:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?file_id=97434842319709320130&t=9743484231970932013097361

Since the live page is dynamic the number of ranked feeders probably fluctuates. No doubt everybody has that feeder in Bulgaria in their sites.

[Patrick Reeves]

This is a list sorted by number of feeders per country. First is in alphabetical order, second is descending- most feeders first, as of Nov. 6.
I was surprised by some of the results.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=35780745924278393499

[Kpin]

Now it seems to be really cooked up
The hours uptime has been corrected - sometimes and sometimes not.
Here the first 30 feeders seems to have old data and the next 30 newer data.
ranking2.JPG

[Guest]

Now it seems to be really cooked up
The hours uptime has been corrected - sometimes and sometimes not.
Here the first 30 feeders seems to have old data and the next 30 newer data.

Hi!

Thank you for reporting this bug. Now it is fixed.

[patrick1501]

I downloaded the global feeder stats from the Statistics page and converted to csv, ...

May I ask you how you managed to download all the stats? Did you simply scroll again and again until all the data has been loaded on the page, or did you find a more clever way to do it?

Forget the question, I found a clever way

[Kpin]

May I ask you how you managed to download all the stats? Did you simply scroll again and again until all the data has been loaded on the page, or did you find a more clever way to do it?

Forget the question, I found a clever way

Please share your clever way.

[KD4MOJ]

HHmm 294... oh well... I'm in podunk N florida.

...DOUG
KD4MOJ

[Patrick Reeves]

Please share your clever way.

I place a small weight on the scroll key and go have breakfast. Very high tech.

[Kemistry]

This post is not intended to be critical of statistics reporting which is a really good idea – only to point out “improvement opportunities”. And it assumes that improvements are being considered. Do we need a “sticky” thread to discuss various improvements to statistics?
While I can understand the “encouragement” associated with Up-time-daily and Max-range-daily, I think that the addition into the scoring of Average-range-daily (as a crude and simple average) adds very little practical encouragement. In fact, it actually “punishes” certain feeders. For example, if a feeder is close to an airport with thousands of reports at close range but otherwise has 360deg azimuth cover at high range, the sheer number of these close reports overwhelms the denominator of the averaging equation and reduces this Average-range-daily to a much lower number than it probably should be. I understand that this factor has been weighted less than Max-range but it is still a very crude measure of azimuth cover.
Anyway, we should not only be encouraging just azimuth-range cover. Range at lower altitudes is much more valuable with a sparse feeder population. I seem to remember reading that low altitude cover was one of FR24’s strategic objectives. It may be more complex but a better measure of average-range should also factor-in the altitude of each report to encourage feeders to increase their antenna (or location) height as well as their azimuth cover. And maybe clear some trees.
I do wonder how easy it might be to factor-in the altitude of a report to this “averaging” process. It would have to be an inverse factor so that lower altitude reports scored higher. It’s just too easy to set up a receiver with good azimuth cover at 40000 feet. But it’s much harder to get good azimuth at less than 2000 feet. This is a new sort of encouragement that we now need.

[milair]

Quick suggestion - is it possible to add a search box so that you can type your ID into that will take you straight to your current ranking ?

John