Jump to content

The Favoriteist Caches


briansnat

Recommended Posts

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Ape cache tunnel of light had 240 when I looked

Original stash plaque had 170ish

Groundspeak headquarters had 140ish

Mingo had 71

welcome to vegas (or something like that) had high 30's

Magic kingdom had 30 something

Necropolis of Britannia Manor (lord british cache) had 29 when I last looked

Edited by M 5
Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

 

Addisonbr pointed out in another thread that the triad caches had a lot of votes. I mentioned that they're also in a area where there are a lot of geocachers. I hope that we don't start equating popular caches (because it has a lot of votes) with quality. A decent cache in an area with a high density of geocachers is going to get found a lot more than a decent cache in an area with only a handful of active geoecachers. Since we can only vote for caches that we have found, a really excellent cache in a sparsely populated area could have a lot fewer votes than a decent cache in an area with a lot of geocachers.

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

 

Addisonbr pointed out in another thread that the triad caches had a lot of votes. I mentioned that they're also in a area where there are a lot of geocachers. I hope that we don't start equating popular caches (because it has a lot of votes) with quality. A decent cache in an area with a high density of geocachers is going to get found a lot more than a decent cache in an area with only a handful of active geoecachers. Since we can only vote for caches that we have found, a really excellent cache in a sparsely populated area could have a lot fewer votes than a decent cache in an area with a lot of geocachers.

 

It will be helpful though to be able to look at a cachers favorites list. If I know another cacher also likes hiking ones, I can read their list and do those caches when I'm in their area! Pretty neat.

 

How do we view a players favorites?

 

I added all mine last night.

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

 

Addisonbr pointed out in another thread that the triad caches had a lot of votes. I mentioned that they're also in a area where there are a lot of geocachers. I hope that we don't start equating popular caches (because it has a lot of votes) with quality. A decent cache in an area with a high density of geocachers is going to get found a lot more than a decent cache in an area with only a handful of active geoecachers. Since we can only vote for caches that we have found, a really excellent cache in a sparsely populated area could have a lot fewer votes than a decent cache in an area with a lot of geocachers.

 

It will be helpful though to be able to look at a cachers favorites list. If I know another cacher also likes hiking ones, I can read their list and do those caches when I'm in their area! Pretty neat.

 

How do we view a players favorites?

 

 

Go to their profile and look at the "Lists" tab. Favorites are listed first, then any public bookmarks they've created.

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

I put together a bookmark list by state yesterday afternoon. Manuka Chunk is still tops for New Jersey.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=48fe8e5f-de53-45a9-93e0-e62ecbadb916

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

 

Addisonbr pointed out in another thread that the triad caches had a lot of votes. I mentioned that they're also in a area where there are a lot of geocachers. I hope that we don't start equating popular caches (because it has a lot of votes) with quality. A decent cache in an area with a high density of geocachers is going to get found a lot more than a decent cache in an area with only a handful of active geoecachers. Since we can only vote for caches that we have found, a really excellent cache in a sparsely populated area could have a lot fewer votes than a decent cache in an area with a lot of geocachers.

 

Definitely a flawed system. Popular or "notable" caches obviously get more favorites, regardless of how good they actually are. For example, from what I understand of Mingo, it's rather unremarkable other than the fact that it's the oldest active cache. But it has a ton of favorites.

 

In NJ the 2nd most favorited cache is the Gerbil cache (16 last I looked) which is the first cache in the state. A nice enough cache, but little different from most of the other caches in the same park (I admit I favorited Gerbil).

 

Is the Tunnel of Light APE cache really 240 times better than GC1HQBR which is a short distance away?

 

Anyway we can discuss the merits of the system in that other thread.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
I put together a bookmark list by state yesterday afternoon. Manuka Chunk is still tops for New Jersey.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=48fe8e5f-de53-45a9-93e0-e62ecbadb916

Here is one with caches receiving 20+ favorites votes. It's obviously subject to change as people gradually learn about the voting and add their info; moving forward I may have to raise the threshold a bit.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=18462241-8377-4ce9-baf9-2979b65986e8

Link to comment
Definitely a flawed system. Popular or "notable" caches obviously get more favorites, regardless of how good they actually are. For example, from what I understand of Mingo, it's rather unremarkable other than the fact that it's the oldest active cache. But it has a ton of favorites.

 

In NJ the 2nd most favorited cache is the Gerbil cache (16 last I looked) which is the first cache in the state. A nice enough cache, but little different from most of the other caches in the same park (I admit I favorited Gerbil).

 

Is the Tunnel of Light APE cache really 240 times better than GC1HQBR which is a short distance away?

 

Anyway we can discuss the merits of the system in that other thread.

Those were almost my exact same conclusions as I started compiling the data. I know I said before that I thought older caches would be at a disadvantage, and I still think that's true. But what I'm seeing is that *extremely* old caches, generally the first placed or oldest active in each state, get a ton of votes seemingly independent of the quality of the cache itself.

 

I certainly don't begrudge cachers voting with their hearts - a pilgrimage can be a very satisfying experience. But if I was giving advice to a new cacher, I would tell her to focus on votes for caches that aren't considered "historic". The 30+ votes garnered by Necropolis of Britannia Manor III (TX) and the 20+ votes garnered by Manuka Chunk Tunnels (NJ) and the 15+ votes garnered by Athena's Curse (NC) probably mean more than the 70+ votes garnered by Mingo.

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

 

Addisonbr pointed out in another thread that the triad caches had a lot of votes. I mentioned that they're also in a area where there are a lot of geocachers. I hope that we don't start equating popular caches (because it has a lot of votes) with quality. A decent cache in an area with a high density of geocachers is going to get found a lot more than a decent cache in an area with only a handful of active geoecachers. Since we can only vote for caches that we have found, a really excellent cache in a sparsely populated area could have a lot fewer votes than a decent cache in an area with a lot of geocachers.

 

I agree and disagree. I agree that comparing my local caches to your local caches is pointless because the differences in size, and active cachers. But I do think this will help a lot when you travel somewhere. You can look at all caches within 20 miles of where you're staying and instantly see what caches are must do's in that one community. Yes some get voted up due to the icon or it's history but I see nothing wrong with that. I know if I was in Seattle the Triad would be a must do no matter how underwhelming the actual finds are.

Link to comment

 

Is the Tunnel of Light APE cache really 240 times better than GC1HQBR which is a short distance away?

 

Anyway we can discuss the merits of the system in that other thread.

 

I wouldn't say 240 times better (I found both mentioned caches). The Ape is going to be more popular because it gives you the "APE ICON." Throwing out the Ape Icon, I truly enjoyed the amazing hike and journey, when I made my find, on the Tunnel of Light cache. The scenery along the trail is amazing. The sad part are all the lame "park & grab / cut & paste" logs that "power cachers" leave for the Tunnel of Light cache.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

I just wanted to thank all involved for, what I believe, is a great addition to the site. I've always wanted to see a " rating system " and this will work fine. Looking forward to being able to load a file of only " favorite " caches in a given area.....I'll probably load my regular file as well.

The new tool gives more options.

Re the OP I'm typing this from View Carre' ( GCE02C ) which has 100+

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

 

Manunka Chunk is on my all-time top 10 list out of 4300 some odd finds. LOVED IT.

Link to comment
Definitely a flawed system. Popular or "notable" caches obviously get more favorites, regardless of how good they actually are. For example, from what I understand of Mingo, it's rather unremarkable other than the fact that it's the oldest active cache. But it has a ton of favorites.

 

In NJ the 2nd most favorited cache is the Gerbil cache (16 last I looked) which is the first cache in the state. A nice enough cache, but little different from most of the other caches in the same park (I admit I favorited Gerbil).

 

Is the Tunnel of Light APE cache really 240 times better than GC1HQBR which is a short distance away?

 

Anyway we can discuss the merits of the system in that other thread.

Those were almost my exact same conclusions as I started compiling the data. I know I said before that I thought older caches would be at a disadvantage, and I still think that's true. But what I'm seeing is that *extremely* old caches, generally the first placed or oldest active in each state, get a ton of votes seemingly independent of the quality of the cache itself.

 

I certainly don't begrudge cachers voting with their hearts - a pilgrimage can be a very satisfying experience. But if I was giving advice to a new cacher, I would tell her to focus on votes for caches that aren't considered "historic". The 30+ votes garnered by Necropolis of Britannia Manor III (TX) and the 20+ votes garnered by Manuka Chunk Tunnels (NJ) and the 15+ votes garnered by Athena's Curse (NC) probably mean more than the 70+ votes garnered by Mingo.

Voting for a favorite cache may have nothing to do with quality of the hide. To think that it does is flawed thinking. One of mine is roadside micro (Dog Bark Park) that is at a very interesting place (IMO). Another I have no idea what a "normal" find on it is like, as we dug it out of a couple feet of snow after snowshoeing in to it. At least for me, a "favorite" encompasses the whole experience - travel, setting, and cache - the quality of the hide is probably the least of my considerations at times.

Link to comment
Those were almost my exact same conclusions as I started compiling the data. I know I said before that I thought older caches would be at a disadvantage, and I still think that's true. But what I'm seeing is that *extremely* old caches, generally the first placed or oldest active in each state, get a ton of votes seemingly independent of the quality of the cache itself.

Voting for a favorite cache may have nothing to do with quality of the hide. To think that it does is flawed thinking. One of mine is roadside micro (Dog Bark Park) that is at a very interesting place (IMO). Another I have no idea what a "normal" find on it is like, as we dug it out of a couple feet of snow after snowshoeing in to it. At least for me, a "favorite" encompasses the whole experience - travel, setting, and cache - the quality of the hide is probably the least of my considerations at times.

I'm not just talking about the quality of the hide. By "quality of the cache itself" I mean the cache overall - the journey, the location, the experience, the camo, the container, the etc., the etc. and the etc. Pretty much the only thing I'm excluding is the historical fact of something being the oldest or first or last special pixels or other sorts of descriptors that would be difficult if not impossible to know unless someone told you or you looked it up.

 

Again, I don't begrudge people voting something because they had a satisfying pilgrimage. But if I was giving advice to a new player looking for amazing caches, I'd suggest mentally discounting votes for "oldest in X" caches a bit.

Link to comment
Those were almost my exact same conclusions as I started compiling the data. I know I said before that I thought older caches would be at a disadvantage, and I still think that's true. But what I'm seeing is that *extremely* old caches, generally the first placed or oldest active in each state, get a ton of votes seemingly independent of the quality of the cache itself.

Voting for a favorite cache may have nothing to do with quality of the hide. To think that it does is flawed thinking. One of mine is roadside micro (Dog Bark Park) that is at a very interesting place (IMO). Another I have no idea what a "normal" find on it is like, as we dug it out of a couple feet of snow after snowshoeing in to it. At least for me, a "favorite" encompasses the whole experience - travel, setting, and cache - the quality of the hide is probably the least of my considerations at times.

I'm not just talking about the quality of the hide. By "quality of the cache itself" I mean the cache overall - the journey, the location, the experience, the camo, the container, the etc., the etc. and the etc. Pretty much the only thing I'm excluding is the historical fact of something being the oldest or first or last special pixels or other sorts of descriptors that would be difficult if not impossible to know unless someone told you or you looked it up.

 

Again, I don't begrudge people voting something because they had a satisfying pilgrimage. But if I was giving advice to a new player looking for amazing caches, I'd suggest mentally discounting votes for "oldest in X" caches a bit.

 

I favorited one on a Caribbean island. HAITI CACHE

So have several others. It was my favorite for many reasons, mainly the trip itself. I would hope that anyone that goes there at least tries to find it. Heck, there is not a lot else to do there all day but drink up the sun and surf.

Link to comment
Those were almost my exact same conclusions as I started compiling the data. I know I said before that I thought older caches would be at a disadvantage, and I still think that's true. But what I'm seeing is that *extremely* old caches, generally the first placed or oldest active in each state, get a ton of votes seemingly independent of the quality of the cache itself.

Voting for a favorite cache may have nothing to do with quality of the hide. To think that it does is flawed thinking. One of mine is roadside micro (Dog Bark Park) that is at a very interesting place (IMO). Another I have no idea what a "normal" find on it is like, as we dug it out of a couple feet of snow after snowshoeing in to it. At least for me, a "favorite" encompasses the whole experience - travel, setting, and cache - the quality of the hide is probably the least of my considerations at times.

I'm not just talking about the quality of the hide. By "quality of the cache itself" I mean the cache overall - the journey, the location, the experience, the camo, the container, the etc., the etc. and the etc.

 

 

ET #001 has 29 votes.

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

I put together a bookmark list by state yesterday afternoon. Manuka Chunk is still tops for New Jersey.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=48fe8e5f-de53-45a9-93e0-e62ecbadb916

 

May I ask how you are searching on Favouriteistness (if that's a word)? I can't see anything to select for Favourites in PQs.

Link to comment
May I ask how you are searching on Favouriteistness (if that's a word)? I can't see anything to select for Favourites in PQs.

Searching on a region from the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page and then sorting by the favorites column.

 

FWIW, It's actually very buggy for countries as opposed to US states. But if you're persistent you should be able to get it to work.

Link to comment

Is the Tunnel of Light APE cache really 240 times better than GC1HQBR which is a short distance away?

 

Interesting point. The number of favorites designations is not a multiplier. Ten "favorites" does not mean it is ten times as good, it simply means that ten folks liked it to some degree.

 

Another way to look at your question is that the Ape cache will get tons of folks up on that rail-trail and from there they can go grab GC1HQBR (and about 20 others if they ride all the way down the hill next summer when the tunnel reopens). But, if the Ape cache did not exist there would easily be 240 fewer geocachers visiting GC1HQBR.

 

A few years ago a hastily thrown-together team of San Francisco Bay area cachers jumped in to several cars and drove straight to the Ape cache and then right back home again with only one over-night stay. You won't be seeing anybody doing that for GC1HQBR even though it is a very worthy cache.

 

When we see tons of favorites on a cache page that will definitely tell us that something very significant is going on. We will need to make area specific adjustments as we consider the favorites designations.

 

I do plan on visiting GC1HQBR next summer and ride through that fun and very dark tunnel again.

Link to comment

In Florida, currently the Top 3 Favorites are all Virtuals, as are 7 out of the Top 12. I think that says something about the popularity of Virtuals. And Disney. ;)

 

Am I the only one who has "wasted" a vote on an archived cache?

 

ET #001 has 29 votes.

Yeah that's a pretty interesting one. I'm guessing that's not for the actual hide and camo.

 

I'm sure those 29 votes are for the ET Highway as a whole. Which shouldn't be surprising: most people who do the first one probably do the whole power trail and feel it was an epic adventure.

Link to comment

If you were planning a visit to this part of NC and asked which hiders caches to focus on because you liked variety and interesting caches I would have said The Blanks, without much hesitation. When I checked a few hours ago, they owned 2 of the top five and 5 of the top 25 favorited caches in the area.

The system does have its flaws, but any system will. I think we're off to a pretty good start. I think the cream will rise, and some caches will get additional votes because of popularity, not necessarily greatness. Since greatness hasn't been defined I am happy with what we have now.

 

Kudos to markwell for suggesting something like this a few months years ago. B)

Link to comment

Now that we have the favorites feature, which caches have you see that have had the most "favorites"?

 

Manunka Chunk has 20 right now.

 

The best caches are often a topic discussed here and obviously "best" is subjective, but now we actually have a way to measure the "best", regardless of the method's flaws.

 

What are the most favorited caches that you've seen?

 

This was the first one I favorited!

Link to comment

I....

 

Am I the only one who has "wasted" a vote on an archived cache?

 

....

 

Nope.. I'm picking out my favorites regardless of their current status. Maybe an archived one with loads of votes will spur someone else to put out a replacement, or at least look at what makes a good cache. I've used 104 of my votes and 25 are on archived caches. Another 200+ votes will probably never be used.

Link to comment

I....

 

Am I the only one who has "wasted" a vote on an archived cache?

 

....

 

Nope.. I'm picking out my favorites regardless of their current status. Maybe an archived one with loads of votes will spur someone else to put out a replacement, or at least look at what makes a good cache. I've used 104 of my votes and 25 are on archived caches. Another 200+ votes will probably never be used.

 

I've seen a few votes on archived caches. Makes sense. If a cache was a favorite of yours the fact that it archived shouldn't change a thing.

Link to comment
If a cache was a favorite of yours the fact that it archived shouldn't change a thing.

I found myself in a similar dilema. Many of the caches I loved the most have been archived. I decided, after some thought, to not include them in my favorites list. Not because I want to deny those stellar caches their due recognition, but rather, because I want to spend my votes listing caches that folks can go hunt for. Since I still have a buttload of votes left, perhaps I will go spend them on a few archived ones. :unsure:

Link to comment
If a cache was a favorite of yours the fact that it archived shouldn't change a thing.

I found myself in a similar dilema. Many of the caches I loved the most have been archived. I decided, after some thought, to not include them in my favorites list. Not because I want to deny those stellar caches their due recognition, but rather, because I want to spend my votes listing caches that folks can go hunt for. Since I still have a buttload of votes left, perhaps I will go spend them on a few archived ones. :unsure:

 

I went ahead and awarded my points to archived caches where they applied.

 

When bestowing all of my favorits points, I discovered that most of my favorites had more to do with the people I was with than the cache itself. Close second was location, but very few of my favorites have to do with the cache itself. Caches like BUILD A BETTER GEOCACHE, COFFIN, DR. Who., and Things with Wings, in my favorites are few and far between.

 

There would actually be a lot less caches in my list if I could award points to my favorite events. There should be a separate way to recognize the best events. :unsure: Event hosts deserve it. They are the front line promoters of the great sport/hobby/activity. B)B)B)

Link to comment

I....

 

Am I the only one who has "wasted" a vote on an archived cache?

 

....

 

Nope.. I'm picking out my favorites regardless of their current status. Maybe an archived one with loads of votes will spur someone else to put out a replacement, or at least look at what makes a good cache. I've used 104 of my votes and 25 are on archived caches. Another 200+ votes will probably never be used.

 

I've seen a few votes on archived caches. Makes sense. If a cache was a favorite of yours the fact that it archived shouldn't change a thing.

 

I put a favorite on an archived cache and will likely go back through and add some more. What I've done so far were based on just a quick run through. I figure my favorites are my favorites, archived or not, but the archived status does make me want to think about them a bit more before losing a point on one.

Link to comment

I haven't started Favorite-ing yet. But what I was thinking was going back threw all my finds and giving 1 per 10 as I found them. That way old caches would get their due, and newer caches wouldn't be overly represented. Also I suppose as I think about all the caches I have found, many I did in the first years come back to mind just because of the excitement and newness of the hobby.

 

BTW, merry Christmas

Link to comment

I haven't started Favorite-ing yet. But what I was thinking was going back threw all my finds and giving 1 per 10 as I found them. That way old caches would get their due, and newer caches wouldn't be overly represented. Also I suppose as I think about all the caches I have found, many I did in the first years come back to mind just because of the excitement and newness of the hobby.

 

BTW, merry Christmas

 

I did something like that, but didn't stick to a strict 1 for each 10 rule. There were stretches where I found 20 or more caches in a row that were not remarkable enough to be considered a favorite and a few times when I found more than 2 favorites in a group of 10.

 

So I just went through my find list and looking at each cache title, asked myself it I considered it to be one of my favorite caches. If yes I favorited it. I didn't come close to using up my votes as I would have had I used a 1 out of each 10 rule or a top 10 percent rule.

Link to comment

When bestowing all of my favorits points, I discovered that most of my favorites had more to do with the people I was with than the cache itself. Close second was location, but very few of my favorites have to do with the cache itself. Caches like BUILD A BETTER GEOCACHE, COFFIN, DR. Who., and Things with Wings, in my favorites are few and far between.

 

There would actually be a lot less caches in my list if I could award points to my favorite events. There should be a separate way to recognize the best events. :unsure: Event hosts deserve it. They are the front line promoters of the great sport/hobby/activity. B)B)B)

 

In addition to that, almost all of our favorites had some specific memory associated with the hunt (racing to beat the clock, a storm, completing a challenge, etc.). Something uniquely fun or memorable for us. Besides the virts and puzzles, many of our favorite physical caches are either ammo cans or lock-n-locks in cedar trees. Granted those are a big step up from any LPC, but I don't think others will get the same "thrill" out of any of them that we did, and it ain't that hard to toss an ammo can under a cedar tree.

 

+1 on voting for events, great idea!

Link to comment

 

I did something like that, but didn't stick to a strict 1 for each 10 rule. There were stretches where I found 20 or more caches in a row that were not remarkable enough to be considered a favorite and a few times when I found more than 2 favorites in a group of 10.

 

So I just went through my find list and looking at each cache title, asked myself it I considered it to be one of my favorite caches. If yes I favorited it. I didn't come close to using up my votes as I would have had I used a 1 out of each 10 rule or a top 10 percent rule.

 

I did the same and have a ton left. I plan to go back and add some more since my first run through was fast and ignored a bunch of archived caches. But I'll still have extra. I think the number of points I have left will balance out over time though because I no longer go on cache runs as often as I used to and tend to only go for ones that particularly appeal to me now. So, I imagine that I'll be earning less new ones but will be giving more away.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

It would be nice if there were a way to search by the ratio of favorites to finds. It still wouldn't be perfect because a tough cache where only a couple finders all favorited it (is that a word?) would be 100% while a cache with 200 finds but 10% favorites would probably be awesome.

Link to comment

I have a few thoughts. I did not discuss it with anyone, or see any discussions of it prior; but I made a rather instant 5 second on-the-spot decision that I would not favorite any long since archived caches under this system. :)

 

I have used most of my votes, and have favorited several what I would consider rather ordinary, maybe very slightly above average caches. If he standard is 1 in 10, that's how I'm going to roll.

 

I did a zip code search, it gives me 100 miles and 16,000 caches. I sorted it by favorites. I found only about 1,800 of those 16,000 caches had 1 or more favorite votes. Slightly over 10%, but of course we're still very early in this whole thing.

Link to comment

I will favorite archived caches because they were my favorite.

I will never even come close to using all my favorite points, I will be lucky to use ten percent of my favorites

I will search out high number favorite caches even if they are unremarkable because even and unremarkable historic cache is better than a box store micro

I will be archiving any cache I own that doesn't have at least two favorites after a year of being placed with one exception. My first placed cache will be available as long as I am a cacher. This will improve the quality of caches in Kansas City.

 

This is the extent of my New Year resolutions.

Link to comment

It would be nice if there were a way to search by the ratio of favorites to finds. It still wouldn't be perfect because a tough cache where only a couple finders all favorited it (is that a word?) would be 100% while a cache with 200 finds but 10% favorites would probably be awesome.

 

It also wouldn't be perfect because older caches may have a significant number of finders who have left the game and won't be favoriting the cache even if it was a favorite of theirs when they were playing.

Link to comment

I agree with you Brian. My guess is that loads of newer cachers, that have cut their teeth in the throw down micro era, will be likely to call anything near a decent piece of woodland 50+ away from the nearest asphalt or concrete a "favorite". I hope to have my listing current by the end of the day.. Only three more years to go.

Link to comment

When I ran through my list of caches and picked out favorites I noticed that the three virtuals I included had been well-favorited, with one in DC (GCK12J) being up to 74 (out of almost 3000 finds). I was only the 2nd on another (GC85EB) but it has had only 36 found logs in almost nine years. The top two caches within 50 miles of me are both virtuals as well. I understand why virtuals are no longer allowed but it sure seems that grandfathering existing ones was a good idea.

Link to comment

I will favorite archived caches because they were my favorite.

I will never even come close to using all my favorite points, I will be lucky to use ten percent of my favorites

I will search out high number favorite caches even if they are unremarkable because even and unremarkable historic cache is better than a box store micro

I will be archiving any cache I own that doesn't have at least two favorites after a year of being placed with one exception. My first placed cache will be available as long as I am a cacher. This will improve the quality of caches in Kansas City.

 

This is the extent of my New Year resolutions.

 

I like your thinking...

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...