Shared Bookmarks

[+Too Tall John]

We've all seen it, someones Bookmark of DNFs, FTFs or Challenge Cache Requirements in the "Bookmarks List" box on a cache page. The question comes to mind, "Why do I care if So-and-so couldn't find the cache? Why don't they make the list private?"

 

At the same time, there are some bookmarks that are actually useful. A list of favorite caches, for example. Flask's "short list" comes to mind. I've shared my bookmarks of "Archived Caches Near Home" for reference to local cachers. After a great NH cacher passed away, I bookmarked all his caches so that once they were adopted out, people could still find them.

 

The list that brought me to my question is for the "Central NH Railway Progressive Challenge." I created the list so that cachers wishing to "do" the CNHRPC has a quick and easy download of the caches they can access from the trail. Today, I read the following in the feedback:

Not Useful

 

No use to anyone but the owner, if you need this for a compiliation cache, why not wait to make it public during the review? Otherwise it should be kept private and not cluttering up others cache pages.

A better use of bookmarks are a list of your favorites with the location in the description field, it will help others ignore the crappy caches.

Not useful to others? The whole point of the bookmark is to make it easier for cachers to get a PQ of the caches accessible from the trail! My gut reaction is that this feedback is:

Not Useful

 

Since the person offering the feedback obviously missed the point of the list, they should keep their uninformed opinion to themselves. It should be kept private and not cluttering up others' bookmark feedback.

So, where do you think the line is drawn for the usefulness of a bookmark? When is it clutter, and when is it useful?

[+Vater_Araignee]

One mans trash is an others...

 

I think that if a person wants to make their bookmarks public then it is their choice. Addressing DNF bookmarks specifically, DNF can be just as entertaining as found it logs. I'll wager that the percentage of interesting DNF logs is much higher than it is for Found its.

 

Now I'm gonna go make a DNF bookmark list.

[+Too Tall John]

One mans trash is an others...

 

I think that if a person wants to make their bookmarks public then it is their choice. Addressing DNF bookmarks specifically, DNF can be just as entertaining as found it logs. I'll wager that the percentage of interesting DNF logs is much higher than it is for Found its.

 

Now I'm gonna go make a DNF bookmark list.

Heheh.... Now there's a response I didn't expect!

 

I have a DNF bookmark, but never looked at it as something others might enjoy reading. Maybe a list of "My Favorite DNF's"?

[+J-Way]

The list that brought me to my question is for the "Central NH Railway Progressive Challenge." I created the list so that cachers wishing to "do" the CNHRPC has a quick and easy download of the caches they can access from the trail. Today, I read the following in the feedback:

Not Useful

 

No use to anyone but the owner, if you need this for a compiliation cache, why not wait to make it public during the review? Otherwise it should be kept private and not cluttering up others cache pages.

A better use of bookmarks are a list of your favorites with the location in the description field, it will help others ignore the crappy caches.

This looks like an over-reaction from the abundance of Bookmark Lists required by lots of challenge caches. Someone saw your list, made a few (wrong) assumptions, and started criticizing. There needs to be a way for list owners to respond to comments.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Quote

 

Not Useful

 

No use to anyone but the owner, if you need this for a compiliation cache, why not wait to make it public during the review? Otherwise it should be kept private and not cluttering up others cache pages.

A better use of bookmarks are a list of your favorites with the location in the description field, it will help others ignore the crappy caches.

 

End Quote

 

Excuse me, but isn't it the cache owner that places the bookmark list on the cache page? So the list isn't "cluttering up other's cache pages", now is it? It is the COs right to put whatever they want on their cache page!

[RuideAlmeida]

I think that bookmarks are only useful if we can shared them... so they should be widely shared.

More than one times I wish to have such bookmarks from geocachers that I admire... to learn with.

[+Kit Fox]

My cache The Llano Del Rio Cache, has eight bookmarks. Five of these bookmarks are for the same "quadrangle challenge." To me, this is redundancy.

[+Glenn]

This looks like an over-reaction from the abundance of Bookmark Lists required by lots of challenge caches. Someone saw your list, made a few (wrong) assumptions, and started criticizing. There needs to be a way for list owners to respond to comments.

 

It looks like an over-reaction to me to. Especially if "I have created and maintain this list so that anyone who wishes to "do" the CNHRPC has a quick and easy download of the caches they can access from the trail." was there in the description before that comment was made.

 

As far as the owner needing a way to respond. There needs to be a lot of thought put in to it or it could turn in just another way for people to flame each other.

[+JBnW]

 

Excuse me, but isn't it the cache owner that places the bookmark list on the cache page?

 

Ummm, no. If one includes a cache in a shared bookmark list, a reference to that bookmark is then included on the cache's listing page. As KF mentioned, this could generate a lot of redundancy; however, IMHO, it occupies otherwise vacant space on the page.

[+Lil Devil]

In the case of the bookmark in the OP, it's description obviously needs to be boosted up to describe it's purpose better. I just looked at it quickly and almost came to the same incorrect assumption that the other guy did.

 

In general I agree that bookmarks that people use to track their progress are not useful, and I've been known to rate them so, so they'll drop off the page in favor of more useful lists.

[+Too Tall John]

Thanks to those who seem to be saying the rating was an overreaction. I agree. Poor, poor Too Tall John, he was given a bad mark.

 

I'd still like to know where you draw the line as to what is useful and what is clutter? As I've seen already with Vater_Araignee going off to make a DNF Bookmark after I give it as an example of a "bad idea", it seems this opinion will vary widely.

In the case of the bookmark in the OP, it's description obviously needs to be boosted up to describe it's purpose better. I just looked at it quickly and almost came to the same incorrect assumption that the other guy did.

Thanks for the feedback. Not sure exactly how to "boost" the description, short of saying in bold letters at the top

"This Bookmark List is for your reference, not mine!"

I did add the following:

If you are working on these caches, feel free to use this bookmark to help you on your way. If you are a Premium Member, you can even create a Pocket Query of the list by clicking the "Create Pocket Query" button in the lower left-hand corner of the screen.

It seems a little redundant, but there it is...

[+JBnW]

I'd still like to know where you draw the line as to what is useful and what is clutter?

 

I don't know that I'd consider it "clutter" just on appearances. After reviewing the page cited by KF, and others, it appears the number of bookmarks associated with any cache is limited either to 3 listings, or however many listing can fit into a field of that size. From a quick glance, it doesn't seem to be clutter in any way. If it extended beyond the length of the logs, that would be too much.

 

Now the contents of that field is a different matter. As TTJ found out, without some way to referee either the bookmarks, or the ratings of the bookmarks, the usefullness of bookmarks will quickly suffer as will the associated caches.

 

(BTW TTJ, the rating you received was not deserved. My .02).

[+shell1fish]

Not Useful

 

No use to anyone but the owner, if you need this for a compiliation cache, why not wait to make it public during the review? Otherwise it should be kept private and not cluttering up others cache pages.

A better use of bookmarks are a list of your favorites with the location in the description field, it will help others ignore the crappy caches.

I have seen this same complaint, with the same wording, on many diverse bookmark lists, from several different regions. Therefore, I would not take it personally. Even on bookmark lists with 20+ people describing how useful the list was, this person persists in responding that it is of "no use to anyone but the owner." However, they are entitled to their opinion, and everyone plays the game their own way.

 

As the owner of two large nation-wide public bookmark lists, I am conscious of cluttering up cache pages. Although I personally think that Geocaching.com has addressed the problem more than adequately by only showing the first three bookmark lists on the cache page itself, I have certainly removed caches from my Challenge lists upon request of a cache owner to avoid "clutter."

 

For personal bookmark lists, or ones that I would like to share only with a few specific people, I definitely utilize the option of having a bookmark list be "shared" but not "public."

 

Thanks for maintaining your lists, and I wouldn't worry about changing anything based on this one complaint.

[+J-Way]

I don't know that I'd consider it "clutter" just on appearances. After reviewing the page cited by KF, and others, it appears the number of bookmarks associated with any cache is limited either to 3 listings, or however many listing can fit into a field of that size. From a quick glance, it doesn't seem to be clutter in any way. If it extended beyond the length of the logs, that would be too much.

Yep, only three are visible on the cache page. You have to click a link to see all lists. This cache in Tennessee, USA, is currently featured on 20 lists. As for clutter, one of those lists is for Covered Bridges (this is an event cache nowhere near a covered bridge) and another is for caches near Sacramento, CA (1800+ miles away).