globalgirl

Indeed. And in this case, no doubt the M10Bman himself has a great big ol' SMILE on his face as he reads all those logs from a near dozen group of geo-lunatics, who expressly chose HIS cache for a momentous geocaching event - complete with a festive tailgate party and a new geo-dish (GotFritoPies?) named after the cache. If anything - your persistent grumbling here after the fact, would seem to be an attempt to wipe that smile off his face. Get a grip. It's a GAME. The object of the game is FUN. Saturday's party was great FUN. Your whining here isn't.

Good grief - puleeeze sayitisn'tso! Now I know that everybody plays the game differently (and thank goodness for that!) but... one does have to wonder, why somebody... in OR no less, would buy up a stash of errrr... "our" coins - only to resell them on Ebay. Oh yeah, I know why - $$$ Ah well, guess it takes all kinds...

Woa, that sounds great J - glad to hear it!

Yes thanks MM, I believe I now understand what TG is getting at, and therein lies what I see as the problem (or at least a serious weakness to that system.) If you can only query for those caches that are listed in "someone's" (i.e. anyone's, any SINGLE person's) favorites - you'd likely just end up with a long list of various folk's favorites lists (albeit folks who like the same type of caching as you) - but NOT a list of caches that were listed as favorites by several/many folk. IOW, not the creme de la creme - the aggregate favorite caches for that area which is what I thought we were trying to glean. AIS, no doubt about it - listing one's favorites on one's profile page is surely better than not (and that's what I presently do on mine.) But unless a system is devised that aggregates those individual favorites, I just don't see how useful simply expanding what some of us are already doing would be. Certainly it's a place to start - indeed a prerequisite to devising the aggregate system. But simply listing individual favorites isn't, in itself what I thought we've been striving for here.

Not sure I understand. I presume your solution above is theoretical - i.e. if and when we all have the ability to list our favorites on our profile pages AND that info is somehow integrated into the database for search purposes, then... one could run a PQ for a given area, for say... just favorites? Or... all favorites sorted by type (micro vs. multi vs. mystery, etc.) and/or terrain? That sounds great. No matter what the system, to me the key is to be able to easily glean a list of favorites in a given area - without having to click on random profile pages of folks I don't know. Then again, it would also be great if the list of sorted favorites could be prioritized by... how many favorites lists the cache appeared on. i.e. some min. number like... 3 or 4 as some of us agreed was min. to be useful.

Not sure what the offset gathering place is about (could somebody clarify please?) but... While sure, I'd like to have a fair chance of actually "finding" the cache by my own wits - especially given that it's a milestone but... I don't get all hung up on the details (as to who found a coin vs those who merely touched one, nor if I get/give a little help in sidling up to the hide, or... whatever). Heck I can cache by myself any day of the week. To me the whole point of choosing this adventure for my first halfway serious milestone (I know, I know, stop yer snickering...) - is the fun of going with the gang, to an esteemed cache (are ya listening Moun10bike?) - up in the hills amid all the splendor. Shoot, 'tis the fun and camaraderie (not the nitty-gritty of the numbers) - that's what it's all about. Or... gee, maybe you folks are all a gang of mean 'n hardcore cut-throats!

Yes, checking someone's profile page for favorites (especially if we happen to know that person and know that we like similar caches) is fine - and some of us already have such on our profiles page. And if a simple interface could be added to the profile page so that everybody could easily do that Jeremy, that would be great - at least for starters. But... what about a total stranger 'round here, visiting from another place, or a noobie just getting started? How would they know which profiles to look at? How would they know which folks had cache druthers similar to theirs? Guess it just seems to me that for veteran locals in any given area, the favorites aren't as important as they would be for noobies or visitors (or when we visit elsewhere). Here in our home territory, we have plenty of time and experience to get to know which cachers share our caching druthers and can simply set a bookmark to watch which caches they do. Leastwise that's what I do. But should I go skipping off to Colorado, or wherever (when caching time is arguably even more critical), how would I know which profiles to peer at to help wade through all the possibilities?

It really isn't a tangent (though if you don't mind, can you leave the font size alone?). Sorry 'bout the font decrease J. - I was only trying to make what I thought was an unwelcome tangent, a little less obtrusive. Your custom search queries sound great (will have to knuckle down and try to figure out how to do that one of these days), though I would again caution against overusing the term "rating", "rated", etc. I know it's but semantic and "favorites" are ultimately likewise (albeit a quiet, personal) "rating" system. Just that the term "rate" seems to conjur up "higher" vs. "lower" and thus negatives. Whereas, "favorites" seems only positive. And speaking of "semantics" - now I DO think your "gravel" analogy is not only spot-on, but great fun!

Yes, I guess I've never quite understood what these pocket queries are all about. I've d/l a handful of caches to my gps but... Guess I need to read up on it more. Just seems most all the talk is on "paperless" caching, and alas, no pda. In any case, sorry I brought it up here - I just wasn't sure what you were getting at in your "aggregate data filter". I guess that's has nothing to do with the present discussion. Sorry, please ignore this little tangent...

Clearly Maxwell and I are of very similar (twin?) minds here (i.e. esp. on the issue of convenience - the "where" this new benefit will be made avalable). Nonetheless, my own "answers": Yup, 10% wouldn't be too many Yup2, appearance on min. 3 or 4 favorites lists Yup3 - most important - that it be aggregate, handy - not (just) buried in the logs Yup4 - site-wide, and that means... your favorites can be from ANYWHERE not just your homebase. min. 100 finds for first favorite(s) to get dumped into the aggregate. NO "ratings" - just simply "favorites" I vote for a teensy demure icon, that screams neither "award" nor "reward", but rather... a sincere "well done!" - perhaps a high-five? or... a wee thumbs-up? K.I.S.S. - keep it as simple as humanly possible, and that includes... NO silly pull-down menus on the "why" of it. 10% 'cuz... after the aggregate filter requisite appearance on 3-4 lists, likely won't produce but a small percentage of caches overall in any given area. Might have to play with the numbers some (i.e. more or less than 10%) appearence on at least 3 - 4 favorites lists 'cuz... fewer risks worthless data, more risks too few clusters. aggregate - need I/we say more? min. 100 finds - hey, I'm presently sitting at 99 and seems like a most reasonable requisite to me. Shoot, next week (after Got Coin?) that means I can finally choose my top 10 - kewl! <I know, I know - it isn't going to happen for goodly while..> silly pulldown "why" menus - a favorite is a favorite, period. No need to justify why you like blue, yes? Oh and... may as well add: Expect a miniscule of abuse, no matter how seemingly air-tight the plan. Expect a modicum of dissent, no matter how brilliant and well-thought out the scheme. Oh and finally... do bear in mind that not all of us (indeed, a vast majority?) don't rely on/happen to live by a pda, so when you speak of "use the aggregate data to filter out the top finds" - not sure what you mean... It has nothing to do with choice of premium membership, just seems like sometimes that is forgotten.

I think we covered this base before TG - didn't we agree that you'd need at least 100 finds before you could choose even 1 favorite? Just seems to me that 100 finds is plenty to have discerned what constitutes a "wow" factor. You don't need thousands - surely 100 would do. And besides, again - if/when (i.e. I know it will take time to fully get it's sealegs) you have most folks with their favorites list merged into the composite (aggregate as Max so nicely put it) - to a large extent the specifics of any one list (i.e. some perceived lack of "experience" due to the 1 favorite of some 100 find noobie perchance - allegedly - tainting the mix) will - just naturally dissipate. 'Tis the beauty of statistics!

Hey MM - 'twasn't I who initially chose the analogy. And most certainly no "waste" nor "by-product" reference was intended. Indeed, it never even ocurred to me. Truth is, as dear B & A earlier pointed out - semantically we're all treading on slippery "judgement" territory here as it is. I happen to believe that a "favorites" list is a GOOD thing - neither threatening nor a put down. Utterly devoid of emotional baggage/pc fervor. My "favorite" color happens to be blue (though some days it morphs to purple) - but that surely doesn't imply that yellow and green have now suddenly become "by-products" or somehow less desirable...

Gee J. - sigh or no sigh - I surely don't believe that advancing a "woa there" reminder is overreacting. AIS, babysteps/slow in these matters is surely ideal, and most certainly I well understand that any system will take time/input to get it's sealegs. But I still caution the wisdom of going to all the trouble to begin implementation of a whole new system if - the way it's implemented effectively negates the primary benefit. Kinda like tossing the baby out with the bath water... Yes indeed, AIS, a wee icon by each log will no doubt catch my eye quicker, and thus - arguably is progress. But... just seems like the loss of benefit of choosing that route... might not be worth the trouble. And indeed, might well make it difficult/hamper implementing the more beneficial composite favorites system in the long run. Just my .02 - after all we're all just brainstorming here - constantly weighing the pros 'n cons...

Yes MM, as J. says just 'cuz you have the option of choosing 60 doesn't mean you must, plus more importantly... Re: the magic "%" - as I noted way back on page 1 of this burgeoning thread - statistically you'd need the percentage to be moderately high enough to (quoting myself here): IOW... 1% would seem likely too stringent to yield the clusters we'd need, and 10%... Likely more than enough to yield nice clusters. Perhaps the more important question is - how many lists does a given cache have to appear on - to get on the composite favorites system?

Geez, I can barely keep up here (and am getting little else re: rubles in the bank, done) but - still... I just hate to see a good notion with a lot of potential benefit go south due to insufficient airing. I agree J. that ideally it's best to take baby steps/go slow if at all possible, but... Sorry but while on the surface that might appear to be the "safe" way to go, imho it utterly negates the whole point of having a favorites factor at all. I mean... if I want to wade through logs to discern the wow caches, I can do that now, yes? Just a matter of scrolling through the logs to spot glowing reports. And while adding a wee star/trophy icon might catch my eye a tad quicker - wading through ALL the logs on each and every INDIVIDUAL cache page is... hardly going to help QUICKLY SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF, which... I rather thought was the main benefit - indeed the original impetus - of a favorites system to begin with.

Precisely. That's the beauty of favorites combined with the cache attributes that already exist. The former needn't spell out (i.e. be laboriously catagorized) WHY folks chose it as one of their favorites. It is enough (quite a LOT actually) to simply know that it apparently has SOME combination of factors and/or something about it that was especially "wow" in order for it to... be carefully chosen as a priority favorite from among a host of other finds (i.e. 50 or 100) that are... No judgement/denigration of the others at all - all 49/99 others might well be just dandy caches - just that when push comes to shove (i.e. time is limited and you're trying to separate the wheat from the chaff as J. put it) - that "wow" factor sets the cache apart from the rest. Then the specific attributes of micro vs. multi vs. puzzle vs. terrain vs. whatever - becomes a value added layer to discerning individual tastes from among the favorites. IOW, "favorites isn't just another attribute - it would be a whole new layer for the present attributes to float in. (and if "favorites" don't float your boat, then just feel free to ignore them and bumble along with but whatever random caches meet your attribute fancy.) Furthermore, the mere fact that there are no 'rules" of even "guidelines" involved in folks choosing their favorites is a PLUS. That way, given the natural selection of druthers over many different cachers - if a given cache somehow ends up on several favorites lists - then it simply MUST be something special overall - not just 'cuz it's a micro or a puzzle or a pretty view, or, or, or... IOW it's clearly got the elusive "WOW!" <last minute addendum>: geesh, you folks are adding blather faster than I can peck my own!

That's precisely what I was specifically differentiating between "rating" and "favorites" above Byron: Why do you keep insisting that simply letting folks list their favorites is somehow ominous/threatening?

Yes indeed TG - though it may seem but semantic nitpik - it is important to differentiate the connotation of "rating" a cache, vs. simply compiling a list of folks' favorites. Thus Jeremy - best to dub any such "lists" as "favorites" or somesuch, not "ratings." The latter would seem to conjur up images of a numbers system with some caches "rated" low (i.e. negative) and some rated high. While the former "Favorites" has no negative connotation whatsoever.

Not sure what you mean by "making tours out of them" (would love to hear more details), but your general notion about the ability to create a number of different "lists" is especially welcome. Indeed, I presently use the "watchlist" as a "wannadooz" substitute for the "todo" list you describe (though I must admit, given the achingly clumsy 2 page d/l for each "watch" and likewise every "delete", 'tis rather like using a club to sign a micro log in the dark - sigh...) I also use bookmarks to "watch" my caching chums' (as well as a nemesis or two) daily activities. Oh, and what with 2 daughters now fully corrupted ) living in distant states, I also use the watchlist to keep an eye on THEIR caches. So if we could create a "list" of chums to watch, that'd be great too. Al of which is a long and verbose way of pecking... yes, YES "lists" - a system where we can create various and sundry lists would be truly swell. Furthermore, if as you say, the plan is that each cache listing would include a note/icon w/ "10 lists have this cache listing" or somesuch. Then great - that's pretty much what I understand Maxwell's system to be. Only... Puleeeeeze include such info on the searched list of caches please (as opposed to only on the individual cache page itself) - so we don't have to click on each and every cache listing - only to find out it's not a favorite (much like we do now - sigh - on the state search lists we set to stay abreast of new caches - alas, no way of knowing til we click through to each individual cache page if the silly cache is even remotely nearby.)

By all means, keep it simple. Of course we know that some people have finds of questionable legitamacy, but how many would do that? and how many would go through all that effort? I know that 1% system abusers can seem pretty obvious. Well yes, no doubt a few will abuse the system. But shoot, some will abuse ANY system. And if some (presumably small) percentage of folks inflate their finds so they can add what? - 1 or 2 or 3 additional favorites? 1. such small numbers wouldn't seem likely to bankrupt/negate the benefits of the entire favorites system, and 2. regardless, those few extra would indeed be "favorites" after all, so arguably wouldn't contaminate the data anyway. And I dunno about systems that allow folks to "rate the rater" (please explain, what is that all about?), but surely we're not talking such here, are we? Granted, there are no doubt many factors to consider (to ANY system.) But it just doesn't seem that Maxwell's plan is all that complicated. And surely the benefits would more than eclipse whatever few (potential) negatives that might arise (that would inevitably likewise accompany any other such system as well).

Have searched on cancel/remove/delete/younameit and nothing turns up on deleting an account. In this case it's but a sockpuppet that I don't plan to use. Guess I could just let it ride... But that smacks of littering the gc.com database, and I would imagine they'd prefer to get rid of inactive accounts - if for no other reason, than perchance someone else might want to grab the name. Can anybody point me in the right direction?

Yes, yes - will be there with bells on. Am now sitting at 99 eagerly awaiting a milestone at Got Coin? Alas, that means I can't cache now for a full 5 days - uh oh, this could be an unbearably long week! Can't wait to see what shinanigans the PM has up his sleeve...

Congrats to LandR - great to meet ya at Clam Cowboy yesterday, before you set sail for the high seas! twoTWOzeroZERO - geesh! Someday...oneday... in my DREAMS!

All opinions are welcome here but... B & A - we get the idea that perhaps you're not in favor of some of the notions being discussed here, but 5 letters of colorful input really doesn't add much enlightenment to the discussion. Please do feel free to join in with your views in a more expansive manner, with your own pros, cons, support, non-support, and/or any unique new idea you might have on the subject. Otherwise, you risk being ignored as simply a toddler having a bad day.

Being completely against a rating system, I could get behind this idea. I could recommend 99.9% of caches too, but I wouldn’t give them all a stamp of approval. It has my vote. Hmmm... not sure what you mean here. First you say you're completely against any kind of a rating system. Then you say - on one hand you'd "...recommend 99.9% of caches", yet on the other "wouldn't give them all a stamp of approval." I'm confused. Not sure whatcha mean, and thus - perhaps a good example of the potential pitfalls of a Y/N system. Point is, just seems to me that most folks - when faced w/ a Y/N choice, would favor punching the Y recommend button for all but a most problematic cache. It's human nature to give folks the benefit of the doubt. To punch N, not recommend is a far more serious decision. Thus... such a system would inevitably lead to worthless data.