looking at when sites were added to the personal visited list in the history of this website would falsely include the newly added sites
I did point out that "There may also be differences in practice as to whether members count previously visited newly inscribed sites (we do, so our "annual" figures include these additions)"
The 2016 "added" figures for my wife and myself are 67 and 49 respectively - yet we both visited exactly the same places across the year!! These visits included ones to WHS in Italy and Iran which I, but not my wife, had previously visited. We both "claimed" new WHS in the form of Antigua, Nalanda and Le Corbusier which we had both visited in the past but, in addition, I claimed Antequara which I had visited before meeting her. And then neither of us claimed sites we were both revisiting such as Edinburgh!!
It would perhaps be more precise to title the Topic "Number of new "Visited WHS" added each year by Community Members
It is probably the case that those WHS travellers who have visited the most WHS will also be those who gain the most each year from newly inscribed WHS since their "travels" are likely to have been more widespread. But the same could be true for any travellers who have used the T List or the details available on this Web site about upcoming nominations to direct their travel plans. And, time spent visiting them "detracts" from time available to see more WHS in that year so it isn't unreasonable to count them when (if!!) they do get inscribed! My T List visited count stands at 341, at least partly determined by the sorts of "likelihood" factors mentioned above, so I am certainly "disappointed" each year if I don't find that I have visited around 5-8 of the "Newly inscribed" WHS. So, each of my "annual" figures for additional "Visited Sites" is inflated to that extent compared with a figure for new sites actually visited during that year.
But - as stated this is not a "competition" and the information on numbers of WHS visited is for "general interest" only - not to permit one person to establish some sort of primacy over another!. For all I know some of the "claimed visits" were achieved merely by driving by or flying over the site - every traveller will have different criteria for claiming" a "visit"! One person might have "claimed" one for a site they only spent 30 minutes at whereas someone else spent 5 days there!! On the other hand someone might have spent days investigating and following up on aspects of a site when someone else who saw it for the same length of time as they did brought no knowledge to it and gained nothing afterwards. Someone might have flown in on a private plane for a couple of hours whilst someone else took 4 days of hard bush travel to reach and leave the same site. We, and our travel experiences, are all different and not directly comparable!!