Favorites Points: What should we do with them next?

[sdarken]

In an idle moment I was thinking what else we might be able to do with favorite points.

 

A couple of things are obvious:

- Most importantly, I'd like to see a selection criteria to select caches with at least a certain number of favorite points

- Favorite points obviously needed to be added to GPX files so that we can use them in tools like GSAK.

 

How about some less obvious ways

- Suggestions for caches based on favorites votes (eg: 5 people that voted this cache a favorite, also voted xxxx as a favorite)

- Some kind of Karma rating based on the number of favorite points for owned caches.

- Perhaps some kind of stat that totals up the number favorite points for found caches.

 

What other ideas do people have for ways they could be used?

[+J the Goat]

In an idle moment I was thinking what else we might be able to do with favorite points.

 

A couple of things are obvious:

- Most importantly, I'd like to see a selection criteria to select caches with at least a certain number of favorite points

- Favorite points obviously needed to be added to GPX files so that we can use them in tools like GSAK.

 

How about some less obvious ways

- Suggestions for caches based on favorites votes (eg: 5 people that voted this cache a favorite, also voted xxxx as a favorite)

- Some kind of Karma rating based on the number of favorite points for owned caches.

- Perhaps some kind of stat that totals up the number favorite points for found caches.

 

What other ideas do people have for ways they could be used?

 

I like the suggestion idea. How about also some sort of percentage stat/information. IE "40% of finders have voted this cache a favorite". A cache that has 200 finds and 10 favorite points doesn't interest me much. A cache that has 10 finds and 10 favorite points is one I'll go out of my way for. Easily seen, I know, but I'm sure somebody smarter than me could figure out a way to work that in to help out a bunch.

[+Isonzo Karst]

- Most importantly, I'd like to see a selection criteria to select caches with at least a certain number of favorite points

 

oh yes, that would be great!

 

I'd settle for a PQ selection box of

and has favorite point...

 

The key stat is Fav-0-rites as ratio of Premium Member finds, but it's too soon to do it. But in 6 months or so? yes. Of course, a cache with 2 finds and one Fav-0-rite isn't telling you much. The FTF will Fav-0-rite a lot of otherwise mediocre caches.

 

So perhaps some lower limit on points before inclusion in the stat(3?) There are remote caches that just aren't going to have much in the way of finds or points.

 

Here's a link to the caches with the most favorite points in Florida. I'm not knocking those virts, but do their number of favorite points tell you much? they're less then 1% of finds, for the most part.

 

On the other hand, one of my favs has 5 points; it only has 10 finds in 6 years, so nearly all the PMs who have found it have "favored" it. (a couple of the PMs who've found it haven't built any fav list yet, I bet they'll add it when they do).

 

- Favorite points obviously needed to be added to GPX files so that we can use them in tools like GSAK.

 

yes, that would be nice too, or maybe instead of adding it as a PQ criterion.

[+Markwell]

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1319519-searching-for-favorites?ref=title

 

PQ and GPX are already planned.

[+baloo&bd]

Since I won't be using mine, I plan on sharing them with friends that want to use them.

[+L0ne.R]

 

- Perhaps some kind of stat that totals up the number favorite points for found caches.

 

 

GC Favorites Percentage by Lil Devil. A greasemonkey script.

[+Isonzo Karst]

GC Favorites Percentage by Lil Devil. A greasemonkey script.

 

Nice of him to get that up so quickly.

 

However, only PMs can Fav-0-rite a cache, so it's a skewed number; favs/finds is not the same as favs/PM finds.

[+Cliff's Notes]

You know what would be cool too is some way of telling if the guy who gave the favourite has unspent favorites.

 

Like if he had 60 points available, but has only awarded 25. Those 25 favorites could have more weight don't you think?

 

Prestige percentage????

[+Lil Devil]

GC Favorites Percentage by Lil Devil. A greasemonkey script.

 

Nice of him to get that up so quickly.

 

However, only PMs can Fav-0-rite a cache, so it's a skewed number; favs/finds is not the same as favs/PM finds.

I completely agree with you. However a page script doesn't have access to enough information to give you favs/PM finds. Until Groundspeak can implement that for us, favs/finds is better than nothing.

[+Isonzo Karst]

a page script doesn't have access to enough information to give you favs/PM finds. Until Groundspeak can implement that for us, favs/finds is better than nothing.

 

I hope I didn't sound cranky, yep, I understand that ->> you built the script that you could (and fast too)(and boy, the price is right).

I just get the impression that many folks don't realize that Favorites is limited to PM.

[+tozainamboku]

GC Favorites Percentage by Lil Devil. A greasemonkey script.

 

Nice of him to get that up so quickly.

 

However, only PMs can Fav-0-rite a cache, so it's a skewed number; favs/finds is not the same as favs/PM finds.

All else being equal it is not a skewed number. However, the truth is that all else is not equal. The ratio of premium members to basic members is not the same in every area. And there is probably a difference in the ratio of premium to basic members who go after park and grabs vs. going after higher terrain or difficulty. But if you are comparing two similar type caches in the same locale the difference between computing the ratio of favorites to all finds vs. the ratio of favorites to premium member finders is probably not going to make a difference.

 

Some have already argued that since not all premium members will use the favorites feature, you need to look at the number of finders who use have voted for at least on favorite. But you can even make it more complicate if you want. You could look at what percent of their favorites someone has used. Perhaps someone only votes for their top 1% should have their favorite votes count more?

 

The percentage of finds who favorite a cache isn't particularly any better than the absolute favorite count for comparing two caches. The idea is that if a lot of people favorite a particular cache it is like getting all those people to recommend you do the cache. More people recommending doesn't make it a better cache, but it tells you that a larger number of cachers felt this cache had something special that made it worth recommending and perhaps that increases the chance that at least one of them likes the same cache you do. The ratio idea is simple to counter the problem with a cache with high terrain or difficulty getting far fewer visitors than a park and grab, or a new cache having fewer visitors than one that has been around for a while. If you are looking for recommended high terrain or high difficulty cache, just compare the raw favorite count against other similar caches. If you want to see newer caches that are recommended, run a PQ by date placed and in the preview sort by favorite count.

[medoug]

Since I won't be using mine, I plan on sharing them with friends that want to use them.

 

baloo&bd,

I think that's a bad idea. The reason we're granted 1 favorite vote for every 10 finds is because they want cachers to identify their top 10% most favorite caches. By sharing your points with your friends, they will be voting for their top 20% or maybe 50% most favorite caches. This will be result in including some mediocre caches into the numbers. If many people did this, both you and others would probably be more disappointed in some of the higher ranked caches that we find. I believe that the new favorites system is meant to improve the geocaching experience. Please don't do this.

 

medoug.

[+baloo&bd]

baloo&bd,

I think that's a bad idea. The reason we're granted 1 favorite vote for every 10 finds is because they want cachers to identify their top 10% most favorite caches. By sharing your points with your friends, they will be voting for their top 20% or maybe 50% most favorite caches. This will be result in including some mediocre caches into the numbers. If many people did this, both you and others would probably be more disappointed in some of the higher ranked caches that we find. I believe that the new favorites system is meant to improve the geocaching experience. Please don't do this.

 

As pointed out by a few posts in this and other threads, rating systems such as this simply do not work. Since they have not for companies using them for much longer (EBay, Amazon, etc.) and this system is set without even basic weighting nor bothered to let all cachers have access to the system (not that either would have had any real impact on it's success) there is no reason to ecpect different here. Can't help but hear the Einstein quote in the back of my mind saying "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In this case, shortsighted is more applicable than insane.

 

With these things in mind, I will never be using it. From chatter I have heard and seen, I doubt a large percentage of others will either, at least after the novelty wears off and they end up going to caches they feel are less than worthy and realize the subjective nature, so my doing so will have little to no impact one way or another. I won't be the only one doing so, just more open about it.

[+addisonbr]

I'm not sure that I'd say that online rating systems "don't work" so much as I'd acknowledge that they're not perfect.

[+Lil Devil]

The thing is, you people need to stop thinking of "Favorites" as a rating system. It's not. It's simply a list of caches that some other cachers recommend. Stop looking at how many points a cache has, or what percentage a cache has, and just assume that if a cache has any points at all, then it is likely above average.

 

Really, to me anyways, the only time Favorites would be useful is when you're in a far-away city for a limited time, and you want to find a cache or two. Previously, you'd probably look at the caches nearest your hotel, read a few of the descriptions, and decide on one or two that sound interesting. Now, with Favorites, you have a shorter list of caches you need to look closely at.

 

Around home, the favorites are no help. I'm likely to find everything local eventually anyways, so I don't really care how many points they have. I'll still mark the ones I like however, because someday someone else might be visiting and have limited time to cache and will want to shorten his list by using Favorite Points.

[+Isonzo Karst]

and just assume that if a cache has any points at all, then it is likely above average.

 

agreed. In a year or so, I'd say that looking at hides with 3+ favs is apt to be a way to find pleasant caches. Not THE BEST EVER, but nice stuff.

 

Right now, there are too many people who haven't noticed the feature, or done much with it.

 

If you have a 1000+ finds, it takes some time to fav-0-rite a hundred caches...going back to do it.

 

But people who start now will be more apt to do it as they go along. I hope.

 

I've got way more points then ambition to award them, but I will keep at it, bit by bit.

[+L0ne.R]

Since I won't be using mine, I plan on sharing them with friends that want to use them.

 

How does one do that? Your name appears when someone checks to see who awarded a Favorite, not your friend's name? Everyone would assume that you awarded the Favorite vote. What would be the point of not wanting to use the Favorites system, yet using it (by proxy) via a friend.

[+L0ne.R]

I just get the impression that many folks don't realize that Favorites is limited to PM.

 

Probably true, since the feature is so new. I think it's a good thing that Favorites are a PM feature. Otherwise what would stop people from creating a whole bunch of free accounts just so they can vote on their own caches or their friends caches numerous times.

[+baloo&bd]

How does one do that? Your name appears when someone checks to see who awarded a Favorite, not your friend's name? Everyone would assume that you awarded the Favorite vote. What would be the point of not wanting to use the Favorites system, yet using it (by proxy) via a friend.

 

Someone ask me to put it on a cache, I put it on the cache. I don't care if my name appears or not. Simple.

 

Probably true, since the feature is so new. I think it's a good thing that Favorites are a PM feature. Otherwise what would stop people from creating a whole bunch of free accounts just so they can vote on their own caches or their friends caches numerous times.

 

That is how they will be handed out now, to friends. I don't understand, you will trust people to mark their true "favorite's", but don't trust people enough not to create bogus accounts designed simply to give a cache a coveted favorite point

Edited January 3, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+baloo&bd]

The thing is, you people need to stop thinking of "Favorites" as a rating system. It's not.

 

Groundspeak does not seem to agree. They are the ones that touted this as the answer to people request for a rating system.

[+L0ne.R]

How does one do that? Your name appears when someone checks to see who awarded a Favorite, not your friend's name? Everyone would assume that you awarded the Favorite vote. What would be the point of not wanting to use the Favorites system, yet using it (by proxy) via a friend.

 

Someone ask me to put it on a cache, I put it on the cache. I don't care if my name appears or not. Simple.

 

Probably true, since the feature is so new. I think it's a good thing that Favorites are a PM feature. Otherwise what would stop people from creating a whole bunch of free accounts just so they can vote on their own caches or their friends caches numerous times.

 

That is how they will be handed out now, to friends. I don't understand, you will trust people to mark their true "favorite's", but don't trust people enough not to create bogus accounts designed simply to give a cache a coveted favorite point

 

OK, I think I get it. You're saying you're going to use your favorite votes to favorite your friends' caches (whether they're worthy of a favorite or not, or am I incorrect in that assumption?). So, is it more like an anti-favorites protest kind of vote.

[+baloo&bd]

OK, I think I get it. You're saying you're going to use your favorite votes to favorite your friends' caches (whether they're worthy of a favorite or not, or am I incorrect in that assumption?). So, is it more like an anti-favorites protest kind of vote.

 

Not sure how you came up with that. As long as you're ok with it.

[+rob3k]

Love the idea of suggestions.

 

 

The percentage of finds who favorite a cache isn't particularly any better than the absolute favorite count for comparing two caches.

 

I do think it is a better metric. For example, in my area (near DC) the top dozen+ favorited caches by total favorites are all virtuals on the mall with 1000+ finds. A ratio would certainly be skewed by caches with just a few finds, but hopefully Groundspeak can add this along with the total favorite count and perhaps require a cache have some minimum number of finds before it officially gets a ratio. Or at least let apps like GSAK have some way to know a caches total find count along with the favorite count so macros can handle the rest...

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I have favorites points for sale. Someone make me an offer and I'll favorite the caches you want.

[sdarken]

Thanks for all the input.

 

A couple more ideas:

- I wonder whether at some point it might be possible to do a comparison of log length and GC vote ratings to see if the favorites point allocations are highlighting the same kinds of caches that those two techniques/systems would highlight. (My guess is that there would be a fairly high correlation.)

 

- I wonder whether it might be possible to combine either terrain rating or difficulty to produce another kind of rating. eg: 1 favorite vote on a cache with a terrain rating of 5 might be worth 5 points, 1 favorite vote for a terrain rating of 4 might be worth 4 points. Something similar could be done with difficulty. My thinking is that the difficulty of some caches means that they are never going to get as many visits or favorite points as easy caches. The kind of points system I'm proposing might cause less-visited caches to bubble up to the top of the list. Not sure if this idea has any merit or not.

[+tozainamboku]

and just assume that if a cache has any points at all, then it is likely above average.

 

agreed. In a year or so, I'd say that looking at hides with 3+ favs is apt to be a way to find pleasant caches. Not THE BEST EVER, but nice stuff.

Funny, that's the one part I of what 'Lil Devil said that I don't agree with. If a cache is on one person's favorite list it just means that for that person it was in their top 10%. Suppose the person had only found caches on a power trail. They could have hundreds of finds and their top 10% would just be some of the caches on the power trail. Now, because they could only favorite 10%, perhaps these are the exceptional stand out caches on that power trail. But they may still be below average caches for someone who likes to hike, or likes to find more difficult caches, or likes caches hidden in cool places. I do agree that if three or more people favorited the cache the odds of it being something special for me goes up. Or if has just one favorite but it is from someone who has favorited many of the same caches I have favorited, it would more likely be something I would like.

 

The thing is, you people need to stop thinking of "Favorites" as a rating system. It's not.

 

Groundspeak does not seem to agree. They are the ones that touted this as the answer to people request for a rating system.

Perhaps it would be better to say that it is not a ranking system. Many people asked for a way to rate caches because they think they could use the information to rank caches from the very worst to the very best. The favorite system was proposed a long time ago in part because it doesn't rank caches, it simply shows which caches many people liked. It can be used to filter caches, particularly when you are traveling and don't have time to find many caches. You can look at the caches that got a lot of recommendation and pick out the caches you want to look for based on this. It's touted as a way for cachers to recognize caches they liked and to provide this information to let people use it for filtering caches to look for. I'm sure some people will end up looking for the caches that get the most favorite votes, but most will probably view it as just another piece of information to use along with terrain, difficulty, size, type, and date last found in order to select the caches they want to hunt.

 

Love the idea of suggestions.

 

 

The percentage of finds who favorite a cache isn't particularly any better than the absolute favorite count for comparing two caches.

 

I do think it is a better metric. For example, in my area (near DC) the top dozen+ favorited caches by total favorites are all virtuals on the mall with 1000+ finds.

My point was that if you are looking for vituals in the Washington DC area you would compare the favorite count of virtuals in the DC area. You may end up using this to select which virtuals on the Mall you are going to look for and which you might skip. If you are looking for non virtuals, perhaps something with a higher terrain or something involving a puzzle, you would look for the caches with these attributes that got a lot of favorites.

 

If I'm not interested in virtuals I probably don't care that the virtuals got more favorites votes. If I'm not interested in doing puzzles I'm not interested that both of the people who found some difficult puzzle cache favorited it so it got 100% favorite votes. The favorite count and/or percent favorited should not be viewed as ranking caches. A bigger number does not mean a better cache. It just means more people favorited it, that might mean there is a better change I will enjoy it.

[+addisonbr]

The thing is, you people need to stop thinking of "Favorites" as a rating system. It's not.

To me, this is a bit of a "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck" thing. It's certainly different than a 5-star system, but regardless of whether or not people feel like they're "rating" a cache when they vote it as a top-10%-or-better cache - in the aggregate it seems to function as such.

[+addisonbr]

That is how they will be handed out now, to friends. I don't understand, you will trust people to mark their true "favorite's", but don't trust people enough not to create bogus accounts designed simply to give a cache a coveted favorite point

That only Premium Members can vote takes care of most of that I would imagine. I'm not particularly worried about the possibility of someone spending $30/year for a bunch of accounts so that they can vote a few extra favorite points for their own caches. Maybe the rest of us will get some extra servers out of the added revenue. I could live with that.

[+addisonbr]

I wonder whether at some point it might be possible to do a comparison of log length and GC vote ratings to see if the favorites point allocations are highlighting the same kinds of caches that those two techniques/systems would highlight. (My guess is that there would be a fairly high correlation.)

For my own caches, I have observed a correlation between log length and GCVote. There is also a correlation between those two metrics and Favorites totals, but Favorites introduces a pretty powerful factor in terms of total finds that can overwhelm long length.

 

I wonder whether it might be possible to combine either terrain rating or difficulty to produce another kind of rating. eg: 1 favorite vote on a cache with a terrain rating of 5 might be worth 5 points, 1 favorite vote for a terrain rating of 4 might be worth 4 points. Something similar could be done with difficulty. My thinking is that the difficulty of some caches means that they are never going to get as many visits or favorite points as easy caches. The kind of points system I'm proposing might cause less-visited caches to bubble up to the top of the list. Not sure if this idea has any merit or not.

I think the more abstract the system gets, the more it loses its power. You might wind up with something that's (making up a number here) 20% more descriptive, but if people find it 90% less intuitive, usage will be affected. A nice thing about the simplicity of the Favorites system (or a percentage system) is that it conveys a lot more information than what we had before, but it's not very difficult to wrap your head around.

 

I'd also prefer for folks not to inflate their ratings in the belief that it will add a larger multiplier to their favorites points.

[+addisonbr]

The percentage of finds who favorite a cache isn't particularly any better than the absolute favorite count for comparing two caches.

I do think it is a better metric.

My point was that if you are looking for vituals in the Washington DC area you would compare the favorite count of virtuals in the DC area... The favorite count and/or percent favorited should not be viewed as ranking caches. A bigger number does not mean a better cache. It just means more people favorited it, that might mean there is a better change I will enjoy it.

I'm also in the camp that believes percentage would probably be a better metric than absolute number. I own a very high-find cache in a park in my city, that's currently the #2 vote getter among Traditionals in my state (behind only what I think? is the oldest cache east of the Mississippi). Mine is a perfectly fine cache, but I think the Favorites count is massively affected by the number of finds.

 

I agree with how Favorites are best used - comparing totals between otherwise similar types of caches. But FWIW it also seems to me that "there is a better chance I will enjoy it" and "a better cache" are close enough in concept to be functionally about the same thing in practice.

[+pppingme]

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1319519-searching-for-favorites?ref=title

 

PQ and GPX are already planned.

I read that as saying that you can based a PQ on favorites (i.e. if >1), not that the data will actually be in the pq or gpx.

 

Remember last time gc tried changing something about gpx files? All the Delorme users freaked.

 

Although I agree that fiasco was 100% a Delorme problem, I'm betting that gs/gc is now a bit trigger shy on changing whats in a .gpx file.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Potato Finder

[+GroveBird]

For me it will be used as a imperfect guide. If I come across a cache that has 200 finds but no "favorites" and a cache that has 200 finds and 10 "favorites", I going to look into the favorited one first.

 

You gotta remember, people all have different opinions. (Some people like tiny micros place in a wooded area...some dont. Some people really like earth caches, some dont....etc).

 

Also, some people may be more tempted to "Favorite" thier friends caches that may not even really be all that great.

 

Your going to use "Favorites" your own way, Just as people play this game in thier own way.

[+kpanko]

You know what would be cool too is some way of telling if the guy who gave the favourite has unspent favorites.

 

Like if he had 60 points available, but has only awarded 25. Those 25 favorites could have more weight don't you think?

I do not like that idea because it encourages people to not use their votes, and it favors people with a higher "found it" count.

 

The favorite system will work best when people are encouraged to cast all their votes. Otherwise, we will see the majority of caches having zero votes, which is almost the same situation as not having a favorite system at all.

 

I do not think the system should favor people with a higher found count. Should the system favor someone who has found 5,000 caches and weight their opinion more than someone who has found only 500?

[+Lil Devil]

The thing is, you people need to stop thinking of "Favorites" as a rating system. It's not.

Groundspeak does not seem to agree. They are the ones that touted this as the answer to people request for a rating system.

Perhaps it would be better to say that it is not a ranking system.

Interestingly, Groundspeak's official Knowledgebase article on Favorites does not mention "rating" or "ranking" at all. It does however use the term "above average" which is probably where I subconsciously got that from, although I had forgotten the source.

 

Just because they closed a support request for a rating system doesn't mean they think this is a rating system. Maybe they're just giving you your votes back cause this is all you're going to get for a while.

[+addisonbr]

Interestingly, Groundspeak's official Knowledgebase article on Favorites does not mention "rating" or "ranking" at all. It does however use the term "above average" which is probably where I subconsciously got that from, although I had forgotten the source.

FWIW, the first status update on the Feedback site said "We will complete our first attempt at a rating system by the end of the month. In lieu of a generic (and IMO unhelpful) 1-5 star rating system we have decided to let people rate a percentage of their finds as their favorites."

[sdarken]

The favorite system will work best when people are encouraged to cast all their votes. Otherwise, we will see the majority of caches having zero votes, which is almost the same situation as not having a favorite system at all.

 

I'm OK with lots of caches having zero votes. Once the favorites system has existed for a while, if I see a cache with zero votes it's going to suggest to me that there's nothing particularly special about the cache. I'm going to guess that a fairly large percentage of caches are probably not going to get any votes.

 

I've given votes to all my top favorites and am gradually adding votes to lots of other caches that I also think are worthy of a vote but I still have 239 unused votes. I don't see any reason why I should feel inclined to use all those votes.

[+kpanko]

I'm OK with lots of caches having zero votes. Once the favorites system has existed for a while, if I see a cache with zero votes it's going to suggest to me that there's nothing particularly special about the cache.

Yes -- once the system has existed for a while, and people have cast their votes. My point is that casting votes is what makes the system useful. Not voting, for whatever reason (you do not think there are any caches worth voting for, you do not want to take the time to vote, or whatever your reason may be) makes the system less useful. If a cache gets zero votes, and people are casting their votes, then it is not a special cache. However, if people are not casting votes, then you cannot draw any conclusion based on the number of favorite points.

 

The original premise, that a vote is more meaningful if cast by a person with many unused votes, and less meaningful if that person casts all their votes, is what I disagree with.

 

If you choose not to cast all your votes, that's fine, but I do not think that makes your other votes more special.

 

Voting for favorites, like logging online, is not required, but I think it does help the game if you choose to do it.

[+addisonbr]

If you choose not to cast all your votes, that's fine, but I do not think that makes your other votes more special.

I wouldn't advocate changing how the system is 'scored' to account for people using more or less of their allocated votes. Simplicity can be powerful, and as someone mentioned above you probably don't want people to have a mathematically verifiable incentive to withhold votes.

 

But I do think that more selective voting can make votes more special. If someone with 10,000 finds maintains a bookmark list of his 1,000 favorite caches, I am pretty unlikely to page through it. If he maintains a list of his 50-100 favorite caches, I'd see what it says. IMO, I think the hit rate will be a lot higher with the latter list.

 

I wouldn't want to introduce some sort of opaque weighting system to the voting to reflect this. But it's something I'd take into consideration when looking through Favorite lists.

[+kpanko]

I'm OK with lots of caches having zero votes.

I just realized the implied statement here. Would you say there should be some minimum standard for a geocache to be a favorite?

 

This is not a "scale from 1 to 10" rating system. Either the cache was your favorite, or it was not. So, maybe only the very best ones can be favorite, and those that were merely good but not great, do not get any votes?

 

My approach is a bit different. I think I should cast all my votes because that tells the community the most information. In doing so, I have to lower my standards until I use up all my votes.

 

(Of course, I only got 23 votes so far. So, I did not have to find hundreds of caches like some of you might.)

Edited January 3, 2011 by kpanko

[+tozainamboku]

I'm also in the camp that believes percentage would probably be a better metric than absolute number. I own a very high-find cache in a park in my city, that's currently the #2 vote getter among Traditionals in my state (behind only what I think? is the oldest cache east of the Mississippi). Mine is a perfectly fine cache, but I think the Favorites count is massively affected by the number of finds.

 

I agree with how Favorites are best used - comparing totals between otherwise similar types of caches. But FWIW it also seems to me that "there is a better chance I will enjoy it" and "a better cache" are close enough in concept to be functionally about the same thing in practice.

Again my point is that a cache with 10 favorite points is not necessarily better than a cache with 5 favorite points, just as one with one point may not be any better than one with zero points. But I can look at how each favorite point means another cacher recommends the cache and that means the probability that at least one of these cachers likes the same sort of caches I would like goes up. If I look at who favorited the cache and I recognize the name of someone who has favorited many of the same caches that I have favorited, that would make the probability that I would enjoy it go up even more.

 

A real world example:

 

I looked one of the most favorited local caches trying to decide if I should favorite it as well. It's sort of borderline the way I look at it.

 

It is listed as a letterbox hybrid. It really isn't as its a nano container with no stamp. It is a multi-cache that uses letterboxing style clues, and these are often mis-classified as letterbox hybrids in my area. It is located in a strip mall and most of the stages are behind stores - yes, back where the dumpsters are. The final is in the back as well. The cache container is an unusual type that the cache owner has used in several of his hides. I have not seen anyone else use these containers. It requires a TOTT to open the container and the owner has hidden an appropriate TOTT at the next to last stage.

 

My guess is that this cache has gotten a large number of favorite votes because cachers found the experience unique in some way. For many this may be the only letterbox hybrid they have found. For some it may be the letterboxing clues - though I have done letterboxing style caches with much better clues than this one. Finally, I think many people found the container unique, perhaps even if they had found some other caches where this hider has used the container, this particular instance stood out due to the other factors. My guess as well is that this cache may be down near the bottom of many peoples list of favorite caches, but because it had several components which could be unique for some people it was memorable and got added to a lot of lists. Now you may want to define "more memorable" as "better" or "above average". I would argue that this was not a letterbox hybrid, below average letterbox style clues, not an entirely unique container, and not in the best of locations. But it got a lot of votes.

[+addisonbr]

Again my point is that a cache with 10 favorite points is not necessarily better than a cache with 5 favorite points

I'm certainly not disagreeing with that. In fact, I whole-heartedly agree with that.

 

I was just saying that I thought percentage numbers would probably be more more helpful in many situations than cumulative numbers (and I say that as the owner of a cache that quite clearly benefits from the cumulative number system).

[+L0ne.R]

I'm OK with lots of caches having zero votes.

I just realized the implied statement here. Would you say there should be some minimum standard for a geocache to be a favorite?

 

This is not a "scale from 1 to 10" rating system. Either the cache was your favorite, or it was not. So, maybe only the very best ones can be favorite, and those that were merely good but not great, do not get any votes?

 

My approach is a bit different. I think I should cast all my votes because that tells the community the most information. In doing so, I have to lower my standards until I use up all my votes.

 

(Of course, I only got 23 votes so far. So, I did not have to find hundreds of caches like some of you might.)

 

I use GCVote. I went through my list of 4-star and 5-star finds and added favorites. Then I went over my list again and favorited 3.5-star caches because they are good, decent caches that provide a traditional enjoyable caching experience (a pleasant walk, a nice location, a well maintained cache, a good cache container, a swag size cache). To me that's a notch above the average. As a finder, I want to know about the good caches whether they're a notch-above-average or cream-of-the-crop, so that's how I'm applying my voting criteria.

[+L0ne.R]

It is listed as a letterbox hybrid. It really isn't as its a nano container with no stamp. It is a multi-cache that uses letterboxing style clues, and these are often mis-classified as letterbox hybrids in my area.

 

Boy oh boy, you are so right about that. It's one of my biggest pet peeves, as I like the one-of-a-kind stamp-aspect of letterboxing.

 

If it's a directional cache then it's a multi or puzzle. A letterbox is all about the stamp. For me it's like being a movie reviewer at a theater that doesn't play the movie but I write a rave review about the buttered popcorn and cushy seats.

[medoug]

I have favorites points for sale. Someone make me an offer and I'll favorite the caches you want.

 

I'm not sure how you're planning to make this work. First of all, you can only favorite caches that you have logged as found. Secondly, you're only allowed one vote per cache, so you can sell votes for any caches you have already voted as one of your own favorites.

[mtbikernate]

When I look at them, any favorites on a cache indicates one that might be interesting. If I look deeper, I'll compare that number to the total number of finds. Any conclusions I draw from that aren't set in stone, but it does give me an idea of a cache that might be interesting, especially when I'm traveling.

 

I live in an area with very few active cachers. 2 of my 5 caches have earned favorite points, yet none of my caches has more than half a dozen finds so far. One of them is an earthcache with only two finds. As a cache owner, I look at favorites as a measure of my success at creating a memorable experience for someone. I also notice that the two caches that have favorites also happen to be the two caches that generate the longest logs and the most pictures. Maybe favorites are a little bit redundant and just tend to reflect caches with long logs, but if GS makes it a filterable attribute of some type, then favorites become a better measure in my book that make it a whole lot easier for me to find high quality caches.

[+DanOCan]

You know what would be cool too is some way of telling if the guy who gave the favourite has unspent favorites.

 

Like if he had 60 points available, but has only awarded 25. Those 25 favorites could have more weight don't you think?

I do not like that idea because it encourages people to not use their votes, and it favors people with a higher "found it" count.

 

The favorite system will work best when people are encouraged to cast all their votes. Otherwise, we will see the majority of caches having zero votes, which is almost the same situation as not having a favorite system at all.

 

I must respectfully disagree with you here.

 

I had been (and likely still will) maintain a Bookmark list of "Best Caches". They were the caches that, for me, stood out above the rest either because of their location, the container, the experience, whatever. Something made me think of them as "the caches I will remember".

 

When Favorites was released I went back and assigned my Favorite points to all of the caches on that list, including Archived ones. The result? I still have more than 200 Favorite points left unallocated, and likely will never allocate them.

 

If I were to go back and start assigning those points to the "next level down of awesomeness" caches, it most certainly would water down the impact of my Favorite point.

 

For some a Favorite will mean "this is my top 2%", for others it will mean "top 10%". I don't think we need to add a weighting to the Favorite points allocated however. When I see a cache with Favorite points that warrants more investigation I will check and see who has marked it as a Favorite and do that weighting myself. If it is a cacher I know and respect who hunts caches similar to me his/her Favorite point will naturally mean more to me than a Favorite point from a newbie with 50 Finds.

Edited January 4, 2011 by DanOCan

[+Avernar]

Although I agree that fiasco was 100% a Delorme problem, I'm betting that gs/gc is now a bit trigger shy on changing whats in a .gpx file.

Why would the have a problem with adding stuff to the GPX file? They solved the backwards compatibility problem with the config option in the profile settings. All they'd have to do is add a 1.0.2 version to the dropdown box which would enable the favorite count in the GPX.

[+power69]

and just assume that if a cache has any points at all, then it is likely above average.

 

agreed. In a year or so, I'd say that looking at hides with 3+ favs is apt to be a way to find pleasant caches. Not THE BEST EVER, but nice stuff.

Actually all that'll get you is the group of people "if you fav my cache i'll fav yours"

good caches will have 50+ in a year.

[AZcachemeister]

Really, to me anyways, the only time Favorites would be useful is when you're in a far-away city for a limited time, and you want to find a cache or two. Previously, you'd probably look at the caches nearest your hotel, read a few of the descriptions, and decide on one or two that sound interesting. Now, with Favorites, you have a shorter list of caches you need to look closely at.

 

Yes, this is probably the only situation when favorites will be truly useful.

 

And as such I think they should be anonymous. I am becoming increasingly annoyed with folks soliciting my favorite point for their caches. If it were anonymous, they wouldn't know if I had or not, and I doubt if some visitor from far away is going to delve into my profile to try and decipher why AZcachemeister favorited any particular cache.

 

Since there are now 'points' to be given, some people seem to think there is a contest to collect them.

[+Isonzo Karst]

good caches will have 50+ in a year.

 

Interesting. The best cache in Florida - in my opinion - has 10 finds in 6 years.

 

It has 5 favorites, 100% of the PMs who have created a favorites list. In general, the caches I'd recommend most highly are unlikely to have 50 finds in a year or 3 years, let alone 50 favorites.

 

I'll stick to, if it's got more then 3 favorites, it's probably a nice cache.