TrailGators

I actually pulled up in front of the house and found it at 5:02 PM, if you must be hyper-accurate. Don't know why admin is taking so long on approving mine: (GCJM47) --TT-- TT are you on wireless Internet with some kind of new cache alert? You can't be camped in front of your PC hitting the refresh button.

What if that cache were rated in the top 5 of a cachers 10%? So the actual ranking within the favorite list could carry some additional weight too! So if you rated that cache your #2 all-time favorite and Evergreen rated it in a similar manner, it quickly gather the credentials it would need to get a ribbon!

I doubt most caches could be rated by so many - especially the ones I go to. I would recommend caches with only 6 logs on my 10% list. Which actually raises the issue with some easier caches having an unfair advantage over harder ones. The cache I referenced would have to get most of them to rate it in order to show up with a top 10% "award." Good point! that one was an excellent cache! Maybe group thre cache ratings by terrain difficulty. by 1-2.5, 3-4, 4.5-5 Three main groups to vote for 3-5 favorite votes should give that one a ribbon! By the way, that one looks like an awesome cache! I know of one like down here like that one too with only 22 logs. BTW, who is that guy?

I really like that idea! I read the Amazon blurbs all the time before I buy a product! Then I go to Froogle to find out where I can buy it cheaper!

The guy that gave it a "1" probably slid down the snow covered mountain on the way back down!

You got it right. I'm just considering an implementation schedule for the concept. It won't happen all at once. First, you would have an area to manage your top finds. Second, the trophy icons will show up for your logs for listings you deemed your top 10% Third, you can use the aggregate data to filter out the top finds. Fourth, there will be an indication somewhere on the results page indicating that it was a top 10% pick. Working on First creates limited controversy (and shows your favorites to other people). Second is a bit more controversial since some people may want to rate their top list anonymously (which I disagree). Third and Fourth will cause the most controversy and should be carefully implemented. Sounds like a smart plan. Implementing 1 and 2 would give you the data you need to smoothly implement 3 and 4.

Who's Max? The guy on Get Smart! By the way we have an awesome Get Smart theme cache in our area! That one will get my vote for sure!

My answers: 1) I prefer a Top 5, 10 or Top 20 type thing (just the ultimate caches). 2) Blue ribbon criteria depends on the system used. But I think it should take into account both quantity and percentage. For example, if 9/100 people voted for a Cache A is it really a favorite? On the other hand if 9/10 people voted for Cache B it probably is a really good one! 3) I also think favorites should be site-wide

Markwell I feel exactly like you do! Trust me, I am a peon (in my area) when it comes to # of finds. I met a guy with 4000 finds at a recent gathering to give you some idea of what I'm talking about. But I would love to see his top 5! Anyhow, I did a poor job of making the point I was trying to make. I was trying to equate experience with judgement. When you first start caching every cache is a "wow" cache because geocaching is new and very exiting. But the more you do it, the more you discover some of the really cool caches! So maybe it would be better to have a fixed number of caches to put on your own list. As you find better and better caches you update your list and it evolves with you. Edit: I can spell but I wish I could type!

You wouldn't have to. We could automate that process for you. re: 60 for 600 finds, you're right. You would be able to rate 60 of them but you aren't forced to. Then that would be OK! I agree with Moose Mob. I think 1% is too many. When I think back on my own 300 something finds only a handful come to mind as "Wow!". 1% would work if you were to have selections like "Wow" and "Very Fun" and "Fun". Even the so-so ones could still get a fun rating!

The only problem with that is now we'd have to go back and modify the logs for the caches that we liked. But this would not be that hard to do. Another idea (might be simple - I'm not sure) would be to let each cacher list his top 5 favorite caches in his profile. The site could grab this info and use a formula to mark these caches per Markwell's idea. Maybe a cache in the top 5 of a cacher that has found 1000 could have more weight versus one in the top 5 of a cacher that has found 10. It would make sense that the cache must be darn good to show up in top 5 of a cacher with 1000 finds. It would even be fun to view different cachers opinions. You tend to learn which ones like the same things you like after a while! Edit: Each cachers top 5 list would be dynamic. Meaning that if he found a better cache his previous number 5 cache would get bumped from the list. So the list would evolve over time! I said top 5 but you could do top 10 or whatever.

Chuy, can you do Chris' suggestion. you lost the topo part and the tracks doing it like that. Edit: That thing was huge! I guess that stuff on the TV commercials really works!

I doubt most caches could be rated by so many - especially the ones I go to. I would recommend caches with only 6 logs on my 10% list. Which actually raises the issue with some easier caches having an unfair advantage over harder ones. The cache I referenced would have to get most of them to rate it in order to show up with a top 10% "award." That raises a very good point. Hmmm. Could you look at percentage of people recommending a cache? If 75% percent recommend the cache then that might solve the problem with the less visited "wow" caches.

Thanks Chris! That will work! The Groundspeak images are too compressed!

Did you try using Cialis on your upload? Where is Rocket Man when you need him! He's a wizz at doing stuff like this. Can you do a screen capture from mapsource or whatever you are using? You need the full uncompressed image for it to look good. Edit: I can spell but I can't type!

The downside of that is people would feel insulted if nobody recommended their caches. I can see that concern as being legit. However, if you had levels like something that said "Recommended by over 50 cachers" and "Recommended by over 100 cachers" or something like that, then that maybe that appraoch would alleviate that concern.

Ignore lists would be ignored, of course!

Hi Chuy, I did the full Iron Mountain loop a while ago before the fire and I was pretty tired after hiking the 9 miles. The total vertical around the loop had to be pushing 2500 feet. Now I see that there are all new caches around the loop that I haven't done so I'll have to go back! I'm not going at night but I would like to go back in the day sometime because the views are awesome! So could you please post your map in this forum for future reference!? It is hard to read on your page because of the high compression required for the normal site (that isn't a limitation here)!

I actually asked you to tell me the favorite caches in my area: 92127! But you are right, the favorite caches will be all types. But Geocaching.com will still have the other parameters available to sort out even the favorites!

Hi Leprechauns sounds like a fun trip! You forgot to answer the time portion of the question but that's OK. Anyhow, if there had been a few blue ribbon caches in the area you are heading to you could have quickly scanned through them! Maybe you wouldn't have appreciated the time savings but I'm sure some others would!

Byron and those like him should read the book "Who Moved My Cheese"! It is the Hem's and Haw's that drive businesses down the drain due to lack of creative thinking and adapting to changing conditions. I honestly think that Geocaching is facing a threat of having a too many banal caches and not enough "wow" caches. It's reminds me of renting a movie. How many movies do you have to rent before you finally rent one of those awesome inspiring movies? Maybe 10-20? It used to be a lot less. So sticking with the status quo can cause more harm than good. The favorites concept puts some wind back in the sails of Geocaching by incentivising the output of higher quality caches. It isn't a competition is is an acknowedgement by your own caching piers that you have created a cache that given them a memorable and very enjoyable experience! Edit: We have some guys in our area that go to a lot of effort and why not reward them with a blue ribbon? Plus if you ever visit our area you can have a blast doing some of these caches that you'd never know about without the aid of a blue ribbon next to it!

There is an apparent demand for a way to filter the wheat from the chaff, so how would you address this need? In my eyes it isn't a particularly competitive reason that raised these questions but a practical one. If there are 1,000 caches in the area and you only have a limited amount of time to go caching, how do you determine whether a cache is a drive-by or a well-placed cache. On the same note, why wouldn't other geocachers want to recognize folks who take a lot more time and energy to make their cache something to remember? I don't know why the concept that when you start handing out "this is good" awards you've created a competation. Let put this another way. This cache is better than the one above it or one below it. Now you've put a lot of your customers in a "not quite as good as the next guy" situation. That doesn't sound good from a business standpoint or a "let's all enjoy geocaching" standpoint. As soon as you start this little rating system cliques will form. You help me get the "pretty little icon" and I'll help you get one. There's been a lot of whinning about "cheating" because somebody logged a cache they didn't find. Well you aint seen nothing yet once a cache rating system is implemented. Do you really want that? Byron <edited for spelling, I think> It is NOT a competition! Why do people keep saying that? How is listing a handful of very fun consensus caches in your area a competition? Are there any caches in your area that stand out? If you were taking a newcomer to the sport out caching, where would you take them? If you were traveling to another state and had a few hours to spare which caches would you visit? Please back up your opinion with some examples that would frequently occur and be a problem!

I don't particularly like the "rate the rater idea". Plus it seems like do that makes things more complex than they need to be. I think most of us so far agreed that it was better not to "rate" a cache but simply pick a handful of our favorites. The word "rating" scares a lot of people as evidenced by some of the responses already to this topic. So if each cacher were to maintain his own short favorite list, the data could be compiled to produce a local favorites list. The programmers could set limits to make sure a cache had >50 votes (or whatever) before a cache was given a special symbol like Markwell's proposal.

Thanks for recognizing the intent here, Jeremy! I'm not a programmer but Markwell's favorites list seems like a relatively simple thing to do. It also seemed like most liked that approach. If only 1-2% of caches are given a gold medal I don't think feelings would be hurt. Mine certainly wouldn't be! I agree with making this a premium option thus making it a another benefit to those who become premium members! It also might draw more people to become premium members, who knows?! The bottom line is that it would be really awesome to have the local favorite caches loaded in my GPSr and my Palm the next time I visit a new part of the country!

Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever seen Rocket Man and TT in the same place at the same time. Hey...I can't tell if you guys have more fun here or actually caching. Is there a simple answer? CACHING!