Apologies if this exact subject has already come up.
If you count Olympic success by number of Gold then China is top, USA second, and GB third.
if you count it by number of medals then USA is top, China is second, Australia third and (I think) GB fourth.
Most of the medal tables I have seen count number of Golds. But I’ve seen a number from US newspapers and website which (perhaps unsurprisingly) count number of medals.
Which is a more ‘valid’ measure?
Wow that was quick… this has been moved… somewhere.
Edit: To the Game room. I guess Am still getting used to the Game room encompasing subjects wider than what I originally thought - Computer games.
Yup, I got it.
So, to your post - what’s the question? I’m not sure the total number of golds or the total number of medals can be interpreted to mean very much.
The official count the IOC uses is number of Gold medals. If that is tied, Silvers are counted, then Bronze.
Well, that’s a debate really. I’m not surprised either that an American newspaper is listing the results by number of medals. Yet if the US had more golds I’m willing to bet they’d list by number of golds.
I think a point system seems fair, 3 points for each gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. Add up.
Best way IMO is to count gold medals as 3 points, silvers as 2, bronze as 1, then count point totals. Haven’t seen any publications use that method, though.
Edit: Gold goes to pentadent, silver to BabaBooey.
great minds think alike
I prefer to assign a weighted scale to the count, giving Golds a 3, Silver a 2 and Bronze a 1. Then I calculate the totals for all the countries, print them on a spreadsheet and show it to my cat.
ETA: Oh hell.
Of course, that damned biased U.S. I knew it was their fault.
Seriously - granted I only live in one country, but in past Olympics I never saw a list by number of golds rather than the total number of medals.
It’s not really a criticism of the USA, just a recognition of human nature. As for a list by golds rather than total medals, check out the official medal count for the Beijing Olympics. Interesting that a Chinese website would choose to list the results by number of golds rather than total medals, huh.
Thanks 
What he said. I wasn’t criticising the US. Merely expressing my lack of surprise that given two ways of looking at something a country will choose the one that puts them in a better light.
I prefer weighting the medals thusly:
In “cool,” or “relevant” sports like basketball, swimming and women’s beach volleyball, Gold=54 pts, Silver=39.63 pts, Bronze= 11 pts
In lesser sports, such as badminton, trampoline and handball, Gold=2.1 pts, Silver=1.6 pts, Bronze=0.25 pts
Here are my results:
USA 2103.750 pts
AUS 1008.951
GBR 883.707
CHN 458.750
Suck that China! USA! USA! USA!
What if you add the following to ‘cool sports’ cycling, rowing, sailing.
And Dressage - don’t forget dressage! 
What does that even mean? “Official count”? Does the IOC announce “so-and-so won the Olympics” at the end?
Agreed. This is the first Olympics where I’ve seen the number of Golds mentioned as more important than total medals.
It’s interesting that the host country has the most Golds though.
It means that the people who actually run the Olympics use the number of Gold medals as the primary way of ranking a country’s performance in the Games.
That’s probably because the country with the highest Gold count and the highest overall count has been the same since 1968. 1964 was the only exception I could find going back to 1920.
Using the 3-2-1 theory the top 10 would be (current standings in parenthesis):
Are you sure? I never saw an official rank from any IOC source.
Ed