ATXTracker

I've found that I have more favorite points than I am using. If I get 1 favorite point for every ten caches, then does Groundspeak expect me to favorite about the top 10% of caches I find? If so, then I am being too stingy with my favorite points. I'm considering being more liberal, after all, if I only favorite my top 1% (for example), then a cache in the top 95 percentile has no way to be distinguished from the very worst caches. What do you do? Do you aim to use all your favorite points, or do you have an excess? Do we owe it to the top 10% to try and recognize them?

that one may top the thunderbird series. best I've seen.

Great that this will be fixed soon. I echo that testing is good. Please test and release when the fix is ready!

glad this is being addressed.

here are the steps to reproduce: 1) log in and click 'keep me signed in' 2) close your browser 3) open a new browser and go to geocaching.com - you are still signed in. 4) close your browser 5) open a new browser and go to geocaching.com - YOU ARE NOT SIGNED IN. The cookie expiration date is not being reset correctly in step 3.

... I mean 'Keep Me Signed In' not 'remember me,' of course. I forgot the wording. also, I think I'm having to log in to both the main site and then the forums separately now more often.

Recently, I've noticed that I have to re-sign-in to the website much more often. Even when I click the 'remember me' box, it seems to not remember me, or at least not for very long. I've noticed this on at least two computers and my phone, so maybe GS changed something. Has anyone else noticed this? In firefox, it looks like the cookie is now set to expire every 2 days. I wonder if that was recently reduced. In the past, it seemed to remember for a long time.

Both are fun for me at different times. Sometimes I like to see if I can snag 20 in a single outing. Other times I get tiered of simple little hides and I seek out better quality caches. There's a local caching organization that does yearly cache awards to try and promote good caches, which is awesome. There are definitely more poor hides than 5 years ago, but also with volume comes popularity, and with the popularity the number of quality hides increases as well (in quantity if not percentage). There are many more awesome hides in my area then there were 5 years ago. Hide quality is relative. Even if all caches were better across the board, there would still be the top 10% and bottom 10% when it come to trying to measure quality. If micros were banned, people would complain that there are too many smalls.

Please no un-favorite points. As these forums are proof, when semi-anonymous people are online, many tend to be more negative and mean then they would be in person. Negative incentive has proven to turn amiable communities in to nasty, competitive communities quickly. Why do you think it is so hard to dis-like something on facebook? Not voting is a nicer way to hate.

No. Got a link? Found a youtube video. Sounds like the same thing, just a challenge not a cache.

When I heard (or misunderstood) that Virtual caches were coming back in the form of challenges, this is what I envisioned. A cache-less location with a more automated system for questions and answers which could either be automatically validate or optionally validated by the cache owner. A Picture is worth a thousand words ...

Possibly several containers inside each other. Also, you can get very good large diameter plugs for PVC pipes.

This a visualization of one way DNFs could be shown on the map. A blue halo around the edges of a cache icone shows a DNF was logged. If you click oto view the full-size image you can see it better. This is helpful to quickly see caches that you DNFed sometime in the past, without loosing the cache icon by replacing it with a blue frowny face. I submitted this as an idea into the old feedback system and it was declined because it represented multiple suggestions.

I agree with both points. 1) Finders who dropped out or don't have the ability to favorite a cache for some reason should not be included in the denominator when calculating the percentage. This error does go to zero over time, however. 2) The bigger issue is caches which are very new. I don't have an immediate solution to this, but it does highlight the problem of of time-binding the metric. This is sort-of the same problem with old caches having an advantage due to their age. I still think that percentage is better than raw count, though perhaps very new caches need some filter as well.

I just read the blog article on sorting by favorite points. (http://blog.geocaching.com/2012/03/Groundspeak-weekly-newsletter-march-22-2012/) IMO, sorting should be by the percentage of finders who favorited the cache, rather than the total number of favorites. I think the idea of favorites is to quantify the quality of a cache as perceived by premium members. Sorting by total number of favorites weights older caches over newer ones, which is a little redundant with the sort-by-date feature. The percentage should be the default value shown everywhere that favorites is displayed, and hovering should show the total count. Percentage normalizes the stat and disregards finds and age. In one search, I see a cache from 2001 with 44 (16%) favorites ranked above a cache from 2009 with 31 (48%). (Yes, this is a re-post of a thread previous flagged as a SUGGESTION that was not picked up. My mistake.)

Thanks. This is a duplicate thread and can be closed.

Also, I just noticed the note that says this was planned for 'just after the first' of 2012, when personal cache notes was released. While that date description is relative, it does sound to mee like that time-frame has come and gone. Can we get an update on this and if it is still planned?

I labeled this as a 'feeling' rather than a suggestion since I know it has been declined several times. As a passionate geocacher, and I believe in providing feedback, even if it is repetitive. I mean no disrespect and only want to share in a constructive manner. It has been a while since the removal of the UserVoice feedback system. I've tried to get use to the forum feedback board and I'm having a hard time. It is harder to browse the ideas, see what others are thinking, and see what Groundspeak is planning in the way of cool new features. The search doesn't work as well, and all the sorting, ranking, and status is missing. Yes, some of this is available by reading titles, and the bodies of all the threads, but it's more difficult. I won't bother to speculate as to why they took it down, but I'll just say I miss it. It was a superior system for engaging the community to provide quality feedback. Even if all my ideas are marked 'declined,' it was better than the forums. I feel now like I'm jotting down notes on post-its and cramming them in an already full mail slot, to be covered over with everyone else entries in a few days, never to be seen again. I am a big Groundspeak fan, which is why I continue to cache and provide honest feedback Happy Caching, John

+1 Yes please. And also the percentage is key.

IMO the percentage of premium members who favorite a cache is more important than the raw favorite point count. Over time, the point count will favor older caches, but the percentage is a better indicator of the quality of the cache. For example, a four year old cache with 10 points is not the same as a three day old cache with 8 points. Since the publish date is available, old caches already have an indicator of their age, so I see favorites as the best indicator of a cache's quality (dare I say awesomeness). But, again, the point count has to take into consideration the age or the value is less helpful. So, any place that favorites is exposed, the percentage should be the default rather than the raw count. This is especially true when sorting by the metric like in a pocket query preview. Today, you can sort by favorite points and not by percentage of favorites.

I'm not seeing favorite points in the queries. Is this available yet? Also, the percentage of premium member finders who favorite-ed the cache should be included because the percentage normalizes the rating across time, so that older caches aren't favored in the scoring mechanism.

I'm not seeing favorite points in my pocket queries. Are they there somewhere? Do I have to do something to enable them, or is the feature not available?

Groundspeak is not the only one ... http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/01/foursquare-replaces-google-maps-with-openstreetmap-mapboxstreets/

This is just a poll of your personal opinion. Ultimately, I think it is up to the cachers and COs to decide, but I'm curious where the community's threshold for a 'team find' is. If two people are caching together, which of the following scenarios are acceptable (to you) as a team find, where in both cachers later log the find on the website. For simplicity, please keep your answers to each scenario shortish, so many can participate. 1) Both cachers spot the cache at the same time, and both sign the log. 2) One cacher spots it first and both sign. 3) One cacher spots it and signs for both, while the other stands next to each other. 4) One cacher spots a difficult cache up a tree and the other climbs to retrieve it. 5) One cacher spots and retrieves a cache up a tree, while the other is nearby on the ground. 6) One cacher drives while the other jumps in and out of a car grabbing an easy power trail, signing for both. The driver doesn't see the cache because it is behind a tree. 7) A large team has multiple cars leap-frogging each other on a long power trail signing for the entire team.

I like this idea, if the licensing allows for it. Does anyone know if fragmenting the API keys by user, or country, or something could be a loophole to allow a greater volume of requests without costing big bucks?