DrAwKwArD

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is not correct. The container for this cache is placed under 6000'.

It depends on your definition of highest "cache". The one on top of the Steen's is the highest physical cache. The multi you mentioned takes you higher but the cache is placed much lower on the mountain due to wilderness issues.

Ok, I'll bite. The opposite could be true as well. When YOU are seeing a high count of favs it tells YOU people liked the cache. It tells ME that it is likely in a high cache dense area and showing up in a lot of queries.. nothing more. A percentage, say 2%, tells me nothing about the quality of the cache even if the cache has 100 favorite votes. This could be 100 cachers who have never seen anything but a power trail trying desperately to use up their votes. The cache off the beaten path with 10 fav votes and 50% tells me this is a quality cache. This tells me something. More effort required to get to the cache? Yes, I would expect more fav votes for this among other criteria of course.

I believe since they cannot vote basic members' finds aren't factored into the percentage. For instance, I have a cache that has 7 finds and 3 favorite points. It has a 75% rating.

It seems as though "most" favorite points are a frequent topic of conversation. How about greatest "percentage" favorited? Any caches in your area with 100% fav votes? 75%? E.G. The original stash tribute plaque with a staggering 1745 fav points only scores a 35%

One of my caches went 3 years, 1 month before it was found. That was back in 2011 and it is still waiting for STF.

GC28A2Y Could you give me the GC code of the cache in question? I'd like to investigate this. Thanks!

I mentioned this in the general forum and was given a possible explanation. There apparently is a bug with the percentage of favored votes. If a log owner has deleted a found it log in the past apparently it is still being factored in the percentage ratio. I.E. I saw a cache with 3 found it logs, 1 favorite, but the percentage said 25%. Could be because of a log deletion.

Not at all. I've found quite a few stinkers but I'm saying that the new feature will help me avoid these. Couldn't agree more.

Trust me. I would use more if I could. I would say as the new favorites feature gets utilized I will find myself much closer to the 100% you mention. Before, I was caching on a hunch or past logs. I'd say the new feature will be quite useful for me.

Shame on you all. 1 out of 10 seems an ideal ratio for my favorite caches. Why? I'm very picky about what caches I go for, ya know, the whole quality vs. quantity trick. So tell me, are all of you in this thread in it for the numbers? Just curious.

This cache has 3 found it logs but when you click on the favorites it indicates that 1 user/25% of premium members voted it as a favorite. Correct me if I'm wrong but this percentage must be 33% at the very least or am I wrong?

Hmmm. I have 3 caches sitting at 100% as of the new site update.

I like the new favorites feature but the way it's setup it favors caches found frequently. My favorite caches are the ones with a hike involved and only a handful of cachers go for these. In the end they will be penalized since only finders of the cache can appoint a favorite rating to them. I see a high likelihood of going to a new area and bypassing the best caches (err, my favorite) simply because others are rated higher. IMO, this means the higher rated ones will keep going up while the others get skipped.

1 find in 945 days active: Killamacue Lake Trail 1 find in 900 days: Summit Point No finds in 580 days:Pine Lakes

Power trails and most caches found in a day... that's all we hear about anymore. How about those lonely caches that haven't been found in over a year? Got any? Do you have plans to find some? Are there any geocaching organizations in your area that reward such a find? I personally have two caches that will soon be 1 find/1000 days. I guess after the FTF chase was over they lost their luster! Pity.....

The hider of the series, "NGA" increased his cache hides by 6800% in one day!

This part got me: "October 23, 2009 by Michael Hanson I think we have a real chance to start hiking the AT and filming the documentary in March, 2010. Getting this far has taken quite a while. I hope the hike is easier than the planning!"

A tree fell on a remote ammo can hide. It was smashed and warped bad. I found it two years later and it was dry as a bone inside. I couldn't believe it because it didn't even close tight. It's been in the wild 4 1/2 years and no comments about wetness inside.

I found the 20-piece set at a local Bi-Mart for $19.99. They look like the good sturdier ones. Buying them individually would put the price somewhere near $50.00. The smaller ones (4) are not something I'd use as a cache container, though others would and do. I gave these to my wife and still have 6 containers leftover for caching.

You don't. KML files w/Google Earth got the axe. See recent site updates. I'm still a bit dumfounded that only 200 cachers were using this feature. Perhaps they forgot a zero??

Perhaps you tried giving the dispatcher your coordinates from the GPSr. Sounds reasonable enough but most of the time they don't know what to do with them! The manual they use asks to find out nearby landmarks or cross-streets. Not too helpful when lost in the woods full of briars.

Agreed. There's commonly other kinds of caches that are ignored besides lame urban micros. Hard puzzle caches come to mind. Top of the list might be the caches I prefer to hide involving a few miles of walking to a scenic location. Seems that more Americans would just assume leave those trails alone. Same goes with the majority of cachers. That doesn't mean I'll stop hiding them because the few logs that do come back to me are always positive.

Grandfathered is one thing but it appears this cache was never placed. The "no DNF" line of reasoning has no merit since it has been confirmed by two phone calls the cache is missing or was never placed to begin with. As far as I can tell, the cache owner gave the container to a guy named Wayne who then supposedly gave it to a to the proprietor, Ricardo. Did he ever do anything with the cache? Apparently not. Did he ever have it in his hands? Hard to say. Seems like this has lost its luster, should therefore be archived and published again under a new GC #.

Actually, what a great idea for a ALR cache, benh57! "You must post your biggest gripes about ALR caches (like this one) in your log. Otherwise, it will be deleted."