Favorite Points

[+Dr. House]

Now that 2 weeks have passed since the introduction of the "Favorite Points" feature, and many people who are able to utilize this feature have had a chance to exercise their ability to do so, I'm curious to hear what criteria people use when they choose to give a point to a cache.

 

Thusfar, I've chosen to offer a few points to caches that offered at least one of a few things:

 

• Nice scenery
  
• Fun with friends
  
• Inherent uniqueness (of a puzzle or location)
  
• Effort required to log a find
  

 

...I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of them now.

 

I've also chosen not to assign favorite points to caches that have been archived. I've enjoyed many caches that are now archived and have stated as much in my found log, but I just don't feel I should "favorite" something that is no longer searchable.

 

So, let's discuss. How have you chosen to use this feature?

[+Keith Watson]

After doing a little research I feel lucky that in the provinces I have cached in, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, I have personally found the caches with the most favorite points in each province. I also notice that one of my caches has climbed to the fourth most favorite cache in Ontario, thanks to all those that have enjoyed it, I love reading the logs of how much cachers enjoy visiting it.

 

I am not decided 100% on awarding points to archived caches. It is kind of similar to awarding points to events. If the purpose is to help cachers decide what cache to visit then I don't think awarding points to events or archived caches serves any purpose. On the other hand events and archived caches were visited and if they would have received favorite points if they were not archived then I guess that should be reflected as well.

 

I do like the ability to see who has awarded the points. If you are familiar with the cachers and know what they like it will give you an idea if you will like the cache.

 

I have awarded a few points and have based them on the whole experience. These were caches that stand out and mean something to me. They are also caches I would recommend and in locations that I have also recommend to none cachers.

[+hamgran]

Whoa! First time I've been to the Forums since the format changed. Looks wonderful.

Yes, I've used the points feature a couple of times. As I think of a great cache I've done, I'm going back into my old logs and "favouriting" it. A great cache because, for whatever reason, I can really remember it - the view, the adventure, whatever.

But I really wish we got a point to award for every 50 caches, instead of 10. Getting a point would be that much more special... with the influx of LPCs, AMIATs and the like anymore, great caches aren't near as common as they used to be.

[+Avernar]

• Inherent uniqueness (of a puzzle or location)

Or unique cache containers that have been custom made.

 

I've also chosen not to assign favorite points to caches that have been archived. I've enjoyed many caches that are now archived and have stated as much in my found log, but I just don't feel I should "favorite" something that is no longer searchable.

I'm still slowly going through my history assigning points and I'm also skipping archived caches for that reason. Which leads to this next question. Would you take back points from an archived cache if you were out and really wanted to favorite one you just found?

Edited January 5, 2011 by Avernar

[+CanadianRockies]

I haven't awarded any favourites to archived caches or events, and I don't expect to do so. For me, the primary purpose of the points isn't to offer kudos for a job well done; I use logs for that. Instead, I use my points to help other geocachers select good caches to visit. If any of my favourites later get archived, then I'll retrieve my points and use them elsewhere.

 

I'd prefer that favourite points be anonymous. I suspect some people might feel an obligation to give undeserved points to friends. I've also noticed that among what I consider to be the mediocre caches out there, a higher percentage of EarthCaches and virtuals (where you must email information to the cache owners) get awarded favourite points. Maybe others find these topics more interesting than I do (although that seems doubtful in some cases). Or maybe finders hope their favourite points might influence the COs' decisions about accepting their emailed answers.

 

I'm not suggesting that COs are influenced by points, especially since most probably reject very few answers. But the perception might exist.

[+hamgran]

I thought I read somewhere that the points can't be awarded to events?

[+Flintstone5611]

I haven't personally used any of my points for archived caches, but if you notice peoples bookmarks you will see many archived caches amongst their favs there. I don't see a problem with it, especially since it could draw attention to a well executed cache idea and perhaps inspire some newer ones.

 

This entire idea of favourites is IMO a neat filter of sorts. I have been trying to draw attention to caches that left me with a good cacheperience and I hope that will be representative in the long term. The best part about the distribution is that you can only offer one vote, in the long run this should limitthe amount of 'fluffed' caches (friend votes), since time will show if the general caching public likes a cache or not. It will be interesting to see how caches are rated after a year of this.

[+northernpenguin]

I haven't personally used any of my points for archived caches, but if you notice peoples bookmarks you will see many archived caches amongst their favs there. I don't see a problem with it, especially since it could draw attention to a well executed cache idea and perhaps inspire some newer ones.

 

This entire idea of favourites is IMO a neat filter of sorts. I have been trying to draw attention to caches that left me with a good cacheperience and I hope that will be representative in the long term. The best part about the distribution is that you can only offer one vote, in the long run this should limitthe amount of 'fluffed' caches (friend votes), since time will show if the general caching public likes a cache or not. It will be interesting to see how caches are rated after a year of this.

 

The thing is with favourites, is it is still a bit of a flawed system. You can "like" a cache but you can't "hate" it. The assumption becomes a cache without "likes" must be a bad cache when it may simply be a reflection of a low visit count. Take a cache like the Tour de Matchedash series. You're not going to see them rise to the top of the Favourites list in Ontario against something like Niagara Falls Table Rock Earthcache. The Matchedash series caches are located in the middle of wilderness, and require an 8 hour paddling session to complete them. Table Rock is one of the most frequently visited places on earth, regardless of geocaches.

 

What I'd like to see is a percentage of visitors who favourited a cache list. Bet that list would be ordered differently.

 

Having said the above, I will admit the Favourites list is a good beginning for a rating system and I value the tool for hunting out caches that may be more interesting overall. I will generously dish out fav points to any cache I feel was enjoyable in some way or another. I have not been using fav points for archived caches as I am in agreement with those who feel it's more a way of telling people which caches would be enjoyable than a list of my historical favs.

[+Flintstone5611]

Take a cache like the Tour de Matchedash series. You're not going to see them rise to the top of the Favourites list in Ontario against something like Niagara Falls Table Rock Earthcache. The Matchedash series caches are located in the middle of wilderness, and require an 8 hour paddling session to complete them. Table Rock is one of the most frequently visited places on earth, regardless of geocaches.

 

True, but when you take into account the overall demographic of Geocachers, wouldn't the lower favourite rating for these really tough caches be perfect. In all honesty there are many people who would never go for a cache like that because it may not appeal to them. For the very adventurous you could look at the finds/favs ratio and get a good feel for the cache.

 

If you look at the 3 Matchedash caches with a 5/5 rating, they average 21% of the peopple that found it made it a favourite. Whereas the stats for Table rock are only a 3.5% of favs to finds. Too me that works... for now, lol!

[+northernpenguin]

If you look at the 3 Matchedash caches with a 5/5 rating, they average 21% of the peopple that found it made it a favourite. Whereas the stats for Table rock are only a 3.5% of favs to finds. Too me that works... for now, lol!

 

Exactly. Now, how do I get the list of caches in Ontario, ranked by Favourite percentages so I can plan my next outing

[+Tequila]

I don't have the link but Lil Devil has created a Greasemonkey that shows the percentage on the cache page.

[+Dr. House]

• Inherent uniqueness (of a puzzle or location)

Or unique cache containers that have been custom made.

 

Agreed, to a certain extent. Perhaps the first of that custom container type would get "favorited" by me, since, after that, it's no longer unique.

 

I've also chosen not to assign favorite points to caches that have been archived. I've enjoyed many caches that are now archived and have stated as much in my found log, but I just don't feel I should "favorite" something that is no longer searchable.

I'm still slowly going through my history assigning points and I'm also skipping archived caches for that reason. Which leads to this next question. Would you take back points from an archived cache if you were out and really wanted to favorite one you just found?

 

Hasn't happened to me yet, but I believe I will retract them. I have plenty to go around, and while it doesn't really hurt to leave them posted to an archived cache, I'm just not sure what purpose it would serve to leave them there. Perhaps there's some validity to offering them to archived caches from the standpoint that some cacher may stumble through someone's profile and discover that a cache used to be placed in an area where currently none exists, but that seems sorta far fetched in today's game.

[+Keith Watson]

Unfortunately trying to perform any calculation won't come up with an answer that means anything. Too many variables like how long the cache has been out for and have some of the favorites been back dated to before favorites were introduced. Over time the number of favorites will become more representative of what premium members think. Remember to keep in mind this is a premium feature only and not representative of what all cachers think.

[+Dr. House]

If you look at the 3 Matchedash caches with a 5/5 rating, they average 21% of the peopple that found it made it a favourite. Whereas the stats for Table rock are only a 3.5% of favs to finds. Too me that works... for now, lol!

 

Exactly. Now, how do I get the list of caches in Ontario, ranked by Favourite percentages so I can plan my next outing

 

I think the first person I saw request or suggest something like this in the forums was Narcissa, and I would agree that having both figures would lend a far better impression of the cache.

 

The flaw in the system, IMO, would be the traffic that a cache sees. I work right beside one of the most iconic waterfalls in the world, in an area which draws millions of people annually, so it doesn't really surprise me that 3 of the top 4 favorited caches in Ontario (and 3 of the top 9 in NY) are in Niagara Falls. I'm certain that if I went to somewhere in the world equally as iconic (perhaps Iguazu Falls, Angel Falls or Victoria Falls, to keep it similar), I would also likely give caches in those areas favorite points, but you might miss other gems without the percentage being available too.

[+L0ne.R]

I don't have the link but Lil Devil has created a Greasemonkey that shows the percentage on the cache page.

 

Here's the link:

 

https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/93574

[+res2100]

I have over 600 Favourite points to award, but do I really want to award a favourite point to a cache simply because it was a good cache or do I truly want to award a favourite to my truly favourite caches of all time, which is what I currently lean towards.

 

I've been keeping track of my favourite caches since I first started caching over 8 years ago, so it was easy to pick the caches which I should award a favourite point to. To answer Dr. House, caches I consider a favourite usually showed me something unique and unexpected, gave me an an awesome experience, brought me to a place where the place made me stop caching and spend the time enjoying the place because it was so neat, etc. From my web site, these are my favourites of all time and I only have 21 that I can truly call a favourite. And yes I have favourited archived caches, since they were my favourites.

 

Favourite cache find: Ishpatina Ridge Picnic - The entire experience of getting there, being there and getting out...pushing me to my limits. I don't think anything will ever top this one and anyone that was there has agreed.

 

2nd Favourite cache find: The Falls Tour : 2004 Final - Brought me to many unique places and showed me lots of beauty.

 

3rd Favourite cache find: 2nd Annual Great Potato Head Multi-Cache Hunt - A unique and fun event around the east end of Toronto.

 

4th Favourite cache find: That side of the bridge (Part 1) - Found it during a hurricane. What a crazy experience that was, but very memorable.

 

5th Favourite cache find: After the Gold Rush - Neat spot, neat adventure getting there, fun times at the cache after finding it. Spent quality time with my son having loads of fun building a snowman at the cache site.

 

6th Favourite cache find: Keppel Croft Gardens Cache - Very neat what the property owner has done. You could spend hours here. Neat to see Stonehenge and an ancient time telling device, etc.

 

7th Favourite cache find: SCREAMING SKULLS - Cache itself really sucked, but spending a few hours wandering around the ground of the sculptures was really neat.

 

8th Favourite cache find: Determination - How bad do you want it. - Fun group challenge getting to the cache in blow up boats across the half frozen water.

 

9th Favourite cache find: Eternal Flame Falls Earthcache (Chestnut Ridge County Park, New York, USA) - Who would expect to see fire in the water and I like waterfalls. Definitely something unique.

 

10th Favourite cache find: The Echo Chamber (Savannah, Georgia, USA) - Most unique and unexpected place I have experienced. We had doubts upon arriving here, but were blown away with what happens at the virtual.

 

11th Favourite cache find: BFL Bootcamp II - Creepshow - Very well done nightcache.

 

12th Favourite cache find: BFL Boot Camp II - Interstellar Navigation - Very well done and unique nightcache.

 

13th Favourite cache find: Whirlpool Rapids (Great Gorge Route) (Niagara Gorge, New York, USA) - A very neat cache with effort to get there, twice!

 

14th Favourite cache find: Mining Some Cold Hard Cache Too - Another neat location that took some physically effort to get to to an area I have been to before but never to the end of the tunnel.

 

15th Favourite cache find: Chedoke Trail Treasure - First time we ever saw deer while geocaching. 4 of them were really close to us as we sat down and just watched them do their thing.

 

16th Favourite cache find: RACK'EM UP - Neat spot\trail I never been to before and a neat way of figuring out how to open the lock of cache at the end.

 

17th Favourite cache find: Simcoe County Trails Series - Blue Grass - What an awesome sledding hill! Made us stop caching that day and enjoy sledding down the hill. Glad I used to keep the sled in the trunk of the car.

 

18th Favourite cache find: Don't Be Scared (Phantom Canyon Road, Colorado, USA) - Along a winding dirt road, scrambled down a steep hill, cross the stream and send son into the cave to retieve the cache.

 

19th Favourite cache find: Carlisle - Neat spot, and had fun playing with my son and seeing him have fun with the ice chunks there on a cold winter day.

 

20th Favourite cache find: tt - Bruce's Caves Cache - Very neat caves.

 

21th Favourite cache find: Webster's Falls -Was a neat experience to see 2 different seasons - Green at the top and snow\ice down below.

[+Tequila]

 

8th Favourite cache find: Determination - How bad do you want it. - Fun group challenge getting to the cache in blow up boats across the half frozen water.

 

 

I am guessing filmclips doesn't have it listed as one of his favourites. :laughing:

 

It was a great outing and a great bunch of cachers. Stands out as one of my favourite outings.

[+Avernar]

Just finished going through my history and marking favorites. I've used 26% of my points which means that I've marked 2.6% of the non archived caches I've visited as favorites.

[+CanadianRockies]

Of course, one is free to use their favourite points any way they like. I'll use mine to recommend good caches that I think others might enjoy finding for various reasons. If I have a memorable geocaching experience while going to a mediocre cache and others are unlikely to share a similar experience, then it won't get one of my favourite points. Instead, I'll share that adventure in my log (and/or on a web site).

 

Most people will be using favourite points to help them determine which caches they might want to visit, so I'll do my best to assist them.

[+Keith Watson]

Question: I have received 39 favorites on a cache with only 6 visits since the favorites were introduced. Does that mean my cache if 650% more favorable than other caches?

 

I have noticed with adding the few favorites I have, it has brought back some memories of some very nice caches I have visited.

[+Dr. House]

Question: I have received 39 favorites on a cache with only 6 visits since the favorites were introduced. Does that mean my cache if 650% more favorable than other caches?

 

I don't think so. I will say that 1 out of the 6 have ranked it as a favorite which has raised its "Favorites Percentage" ([Favorites/Finds] x 100 = FP) by approximately 0.07%, for what it's worth.

 

I have noticed with adding the few favorites I have, it has brought back some memories of some very nice caches I have visited.

 

Me too. This is maybe the nicest benefit of all, regardless of how all the caches get quantified.

 

***Edit to correct math... I never was good at that stuff.***

Edited January 6, 2011 by Dr. House

[+ElectroQTed]

Personally, I have favourited several archived caches. While they are no longer available to find and log, they were great caches. They are not only a part of my personal geocaching history, but a part of geocaching history in general.

 

"ROCKIN" "CHAIR" by PumpkinOneA

A challenging scramble along a rocky peninsula leading to a challenging find.

 

After the Gold Rush by Couparangus & Squeakieboots

In the winter, it was a challenge to even find trails and the final was in an awesome spot.

 

Bruce Coast Lighthouse Series: FINAL (CABOT HEAD) by hikerboy and hikergirl 1

We had a great time visiting many lighthouses along the Bruce coast that culminated with a cache at the end of the long road to Cabot Head, a scenic and historic place.

 

Message in a Bottle #5: Rescued! by Paraseekers

The final of a fun series that involved a paddle in an amazing place.

 

Mining Some Cold Hard Cache by RockHarder

An awesome cave adventure.

 

Parry Sound Tower Hill by dex4

High above Parry Sound in an old fire tower.

 

Troglosheep by Ogof

A Mount Nemo subterranean adventure.

 

Great archived caches can be inspiring for new and veteran caches alike. Perhaps they would encourage others to seek out similar caches, or even spark an urge to hide a similar cache.

[+JesseVader08]

I only have 5 points to award as favourites since I'm relatively new to the game, but I chose ones that either led me to a beautiful location or were just plain fun to do with my kids. Simple requirements, but I think others may enjoy the ones I chose, which is what I think this is supposed to achieve.

[+Avernar]

Message in a Bottle #5: Rescued! by Paraseekers

The final of a fun series that involved a paddle in an amazing place.

It got archived?! Shows how well I tuned out archived when going through my finds list.

 

After going through my finds assigning favorites and having over 300 points left, I've reconsidered and am going to mark archived ones as well. After all, it is called Favorites and not Recommendations. TomAYtoe, TomAHtoe.

[+Keith Watson]

I believe there are three major aspects that affect a cache. The first is longevity. If a cache is placed well and taken care of there is no reason why a cache should not remain in place for as long as possible. The longer a cache is available to be found, the better the chances it will be found. This leads to the second aspect, how many times the cache has been found. Geocaching is basically about finding geocaches. The more a cache is found, the more the placer has achieved this basic principal. The third aspect is the enjoyment of the cache. When a cacher enjoys a cache they are more likely to recommend it to other cachers. Cachers are also more likely to visit a cache when they hear or read how much other cachers enjoyed it.

 

This leads to what makes a cache enjoyable or a good quality cache. Some cachers like long hikes, some like a short walk from the car. Some cachers prefer a challange where others want it easy. Some cachers would enjoy spending a day finding only eight caches verses others who would like to find 50. With so many possible combination and variations, more than I am listing here, the only way left to know if a cache is enjoyable is to reads the logs and see what finders are saying. As for the quality of the cache, the same things applies. Both enjoyability and quality are subjective so it is up tho the individual finder to answer this.

 

Up until favorites were introduced, the only way to judge a cache was based on its longevity, how many finds, reading the description and logs, or by word of mouth. Word of mouth only travels in small circles so now favorites have given a louder voice to word of mouth.

 

Reading through this tread I can see disagreeing with the result of favorites. I can see disagreeing in the caches that have been given favorites. The fact is far more cachers have awarded favorites to the caches in question verses the number of posters in this forum. This would indicate to me that the majority is speaking with favorites verses the disagreeing in this thread. No matter how one wants to twist the numbers to fit their view or personally rate cache quality or worthiness, in the end the majority will reveille the truth about what the majority of cachers really enjoy.

[+CanadianRockies]

No matter how one wants to twist the numbers to fit their view or personally rate cache quality or worthiness, in the end the majority will reveille the truth about what the majority of cachers really enjoy.

It matters very much how cachers use their favourite points. If everyone uses them to rate their individual experiences while looking for caches and those experiences are unlikely to be duplicated (e.g., "We saw a lynx on this hike!"), then the most favoured caches might not be very enjoyable for a majority of cachers.

 

However, it appears that most people are using their points to draw attention to caches they believe many people will like. So, I suspect the latter half of your statement will prove to be true.

 

Of course, just because different uses produce different results, that doesn't mean everyone has to agree on how these points should be applied. This is geocaching, after all.

Edited January 6, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+Avernar]

It matters very much how cachers use their favourite points. If everyone uses them to rate their individual experiences while looking for caches and those experiences are unlikely to be duplicated (e.g., "We saw a lynx on this hike!"), then the most favoured caches might not be very enjoyable for a majority of cachers.

I don't think that's the case. If you treat it like statistics, it doesn't matter what the specific experiences were. Let's say a cache had 100 visitors and 75 of them have had a good experience at it then odds are that you have a 75% chance of having a good experience. The fact that one person happened to see a lynx is statistical noise.

 

Now if a cache only had 1 or 2 favorites on it then it would be more important to see who the people are that liked it. If you know those people and know what they like then you can base your decision on that.

 

However, it appears that most people are using their points to draw attention to caches they believe many people will like. So, I suspect the latter half of your statement will prove to be true.

This method has it's own problems. Now you're trying to determine what other people like. Unless you really know what other people like then this method may actually produce worse results than the "I liked it" method.

[+CanadaKate]

I like the introduction of the Favorites points despite the possible issues that people have discussed. There will always be people who will try to game the system. Overall, I think as time goes on, it will become easier for cachers to assess the value of points/percentages/visits, etc. as more info gets fed into the system.

 

Personally, I'm using the points to mark those caches that stood out for *me* for whatever reason (amazing hike, cool container, branch to hang my backpack on while I checked out the ammo can's contents ...) more than I feel that I'm taking on a responsibility to point out caches that some other undefined cacher may like.

 

Having said that, I think being able to see which cachers have identified a cache as one of their Faves goes a long way to helping me identify which caches might also interest me.

[+CanadianRockies]

It matters very much how cachers use their favourite points. If everyone uses them to rate their individual experiences while looking for caches and those experiences are unlikely to be duplicated (e.g., "We saw a lynx on this hike!"), then the most favoured caches might not be very enjoyable for a majority of cachers.

I don't think that's the case. If you treat it like statistics, it doesn't matter what the specific experiences were. Let's say a cache had 100 visitors and 75 of them have had a good experience at it then odds are that you have a 75% chance of having a good experience. The fact that one person happened to see a lynx is statistical noise.

 

It depends on how likely it is that those great experiences will be shared, which is why I added the now emphasised "and those experiences are unlikely to be duplicated" in my statement. The more likely there will be common shared experiences (e.g., good scenery, clever hide, creative cache container), the more likely the most favourited caches will be enjoyed by a majority of visitors. The less likely there will be common shared experiences (e.g., sighting wildlife, enduring hurricane conditions, building snowmen with your kids), the less likely the most favourited caches will be enjoyed by the majority.

 

Of course, good scenery, clever hides, and creative cache containers also are what many people enjoy, so why not just take the direct route and highlight those caches you think others will like to visit?

 

However, it appears that most people are using their points to draw attention to caches they believe many people will like. So, I suspect the latter half of your statement will prove to be true.

This method has it's own problems. Now you're trying to determine what other people like. Unless you really know what other people like then this method may actually produce worse results than the "I liked it" method.

While no two people's tastes are exactly the same, I think there's fairly widespread agreement about what constitutes the better and worse caches. I base that on discussions I've had with people while geocaching with them, talking with them at events, and reading forums. With one favourite point for every ten finds, it's not as if you have to pinpoint only the very best caches.

[+KDotBlueDot]

The number of favourite votes we receive is one tenth of our find count. The intent is obviously to distribute the points to your top 10% of finds. But no matter what the criteria I use and how many times I go over my history, I can't get rid of the darned things. It's not that I can't figure out my top ten percent, it's that there is a huge chasm between what I enjoyed and what I would consider a standout. Just too much difference between them. I still think, for this reason, a more robust rating system would be better.

[+Keith Watson]

Another thing that can help is the stats page when you look at a cacher's profile. If you see a cache and look at who have added a favorite, look at their profile. If they are sharing their stats you can see what size cache they find the most and what type of cache they find the most. For example if they have found more micro size caches than regular size you can probably guess they have no problem with finding lamp post micro's. Not 100% perfect, but it might help.

[+Avernar]

Of course, good scenery, clever hides, and creative cache containers also are what many people enjoy, so why not just take the direct route and highlight those caches you think others will like to visit?

That's the indirect route. I have to determine what others like. The direct route is to mark what I like.

 

Besides, you're marking ones you liked in both methods. The only difference is that in "recommends" method you're not marking ones that you liked but think others may think are just average. Why not let them make that determination? If they see a cache with 1 favorite they can then read the log of that person to see why they liked it.

 

With one favourite point for every ten finds, it's not as if you have to pinpoint only the very best caches.

Exactly. That argument works for both methods.

 

Since some people are going to mark based on "like" and others on "recommend" people are going to have to go by more that just the favorite count if it's a small percentage of the finds.

 

What I'm basically saying is that it doesn't matter which method you use to give out your points. Cachers will come up with their own way of using the favorite score to hunt caches. Some will go by number, others by percentage, others will look at the user names, etc. They won't care which method the the points were given out as long as their selection algorithm keeps bringing them to cool caches.

[+CanadaKate]

The number of favourite votes we receive is one tenth of our find count. The intent is obviously to distribute the points to your top 10% of finds. But no matter what the criteria I use and how many times I go over my history, I can't get rid of the darned things.

 

Agreed.

 

As a relatively new cacher, I only have/had 44 points to give away. I still have 10 banked. But, hey, maybe I'll have a caching expedition where I hit a bunch of outstanding caches and then I'll be glad I have extra points to bestow.

[+CanadianRockies]

What I'm basically saying is that it doesn't matter which method you use to give out your points. Cachers will come up with their own way of using the favorite score to hunt caches. Some will go by number, others by percentage, others will look at the user names, etc. They won't care which method the the points were given out as long as their selection algorithm keeps bringing them to cool caches.

People can use whatever method they want to give out points, of course. But the method they use does matter. Certain methods make it more convenient to pick potentially cool caches. A selection algorithm that requires people to read the logs as well as check the favourite ratings, for example, won't be as quick as simply checking the favourite ratings. And some people care about convenience.

Edited January 9, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+Avernar]

People can use whatever method they want to give out points, of course. But the method they use does matter.

You haven't been listening to what I've written then. When enough people assign points to a particular cache, the method that's used and the reasons they had become irrelevant. Statistics takes over at that point and it becomes an exercise in probabilities.

 

Certain methods make it more convenient to pick potentially cool caches. A selection algorithm that requires people to read the logs as well as check the favourite ratings, for example, won't be as quick as simply checking the favourite ratings. And some people care about convenience.

Funny you should mention this. There's a topic in the general forum that all caches should have parking coordinates to make it more convenient to the finders. And how about all the past topics on how the CO has to put the proper attributes, or rate their cache properly, or put a specific hint, and so on. There's always those who want everything spoon fed to them.

 

The favorite points a cache has is no different than any other piece of information on the cache page. Even if people assigned points using the "optimal" method, it's still a subjective thing. Here's an example: Tom and his friends all like hiking and all the cachers he's met also like hiking. He finds two caches, one was a short walk but had a nice waterfall that Tom liked. The other one was a long hike but the scenery was average. He assigns a favorite point to the second one only because that's what he thinks others like. Dave, someone Tom has never met, goes to find the second one because it has a favorite point. He didn't like it as the hike was a bit too much for him. But he would have really enjoyed the waterfall one as he's an avid photographer.

 

My point (pun intended) is that if a cache has few favorite points you'll have to do more research regardless as no method in assigning them is truly objective. Besides, the fact that it's called Favorites and not Recommendations is going to to sway people to assign it based on caches they liked.

[+Dr. House]

Personally, I have favourited several archived caches. While they are no longer available to find and log, they were great caches. They are not only a part of my personal geocaching history, but a part of geocaching history in general.

 

"ROCKIN" "CHAIR" by PumpkinOneA

A challenging scramble along a rocky peninsula leading to a challenging find.

 

After the Gold Rush by Couparangus & Squeakieboots

In the winter, it was a challenge to even find trails and the final was in an awesome spot.

 

Bruce Coast Lighthouse Series: FINAL (CABOT HEAD) by hikerboy and hikergirl 1

We had a great time visiting many lighthouses along the Bruce coast that culminated with a cache at the end of the long road to Cabot Head, a scenic and historic place.

 

Message in a Bottle #5: Rescued! by Paraseekers

The final of a fun series that involved a paddle in an amazing place.

 

Mining Some Cold Hard Cache by RockHarder

An awesome cave adventure.

 

Parry Sound Tower Hill by dex4

High above Parry Sound in an old fire tower.

 

Troglosheep by Ogof

A Mount Nemo subterranean adventure.

 

Great archived caches can be inspiring for new and veteran caches alike. Perhaps they would encourage others to seek out similar caches, or even spark an urge to hide a similar cache.

 

To a certain extent, I agree with this thought process. Having discussed this with a few folks to kinda get their thoughts on assigning favorite points to archived caches, the reason I don't allot them to archived caches I liked (and there were a bunch) is because there isn't really a user-friendly method to discover which archived caches were highly-favorited. I would be more apt to hand those out readily if there was a way that the general cacher population could view them without having to randomly view someone's profile of placements and hope to view something inspiring.

 

I agree that folks should get pats on the back for their great archived caches. To me, I think it would mean more to them and be more beneficial to everyone else looking to create that level of experience with their new placement should it be visible to everyone. I recognize that may be a difficult proposition for TPTB, but if the focus for this coming year is on quality of caches, then showing archived caches in the "favorite" sort would be a great thing to implement.

[+CanadianRockies]

People can use whatever method they want to give out points, of course. But the method they use does matter.

When enough people assign points to a particular cache, the method that's used and the reasons they had become irrelevant. Statistics takes over at that point and it becomes an exercise in probabilities.

I think you misunderstand statistics. Here's a simple (and somewhat simplified) example.

 

Scenario 1: Everybody assigns points to the caches they think are the smallest. As more and more geocachers assign their favourite points, then, statistically, the more likely it is that the caches with the most points will be the caches that any randomly selected geocacher will think are the smallest.

 

Scenario 2: Everybody assigns points to the caches they think are the biggest. Again, as more geocachers assign their favourite points, then the more likely it is that the caches with the most points will be the caches that any randomly selected geocacher will think are the biggest.

 

Scenario 3: Half the geocachers assign favourite points to the smallest caches and half of them assign favourite points to the biggest caches. What will NOT happen, as the number of voting geocachers grows, is that there will be a convergence on which caches the two groups select.

 

I'll say it again: the methods people use do matter.

 

They won't care which method the the points were given out as long as their selection algorithm keeps bringing them to cool caches.

Certain methods make it more convenient to pick potentially cool caches. A selection algorithm that requires people to read the logs as well as check the favourite ratings, for example, won't be as quick as simply checking the favourite ratings. And some people care about convenience.

There's a topic in the general forum that all caches should have parking coordinates to make it more convenient to the finders. And how about all the past topics on how the CO has to put the proper attributes, or rate their cache properly, or put a specific hint, and so on. There's always those who want everything spoon fed to them.

So, it appears we now agree that people care about the selection algorithm they use to locate cool caches. I suspect more than a few geocachers like convenience. Pocket queries are a good example.

 

Even if people assigned points using the "optimal" method, it's still a subjective thing.

No disagreement from me.

 

My point (pun intended) is that if a cache has few favorite points you'll have to do more research regardless as no method in assigning them is truly objective.

But what about those caches that have lots of favourite points? Wouldn't it be nice if the majority of people used similar methods of assigning those points so the numbers were more meaningful? If everyone uses favourite points in completely different ways, then the meaning of those numbers becomes less decipherable. Particularly if the different ways are based on experiences that are unlikely to be shared by others.

Edited January 10, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+KDotBlueDot]

People can use whatever method they want to give out points, of course. But the method they use does matter.

When enough people assign points to a particular cache, the method that's used and the reasons they had become irrelevant. Statistics takes over at that point and it becomes an exercise in probabilities.

I think you misunderstand statistics. Here's a simple (and somewhat simplified) example.

 

Scenario 1: Everybody assigns points to the caches they think are the smallest. As more and more geocachers assign their favourite points, then, statistically, the more likely it is that the caches with the most points will be the caches that any randomly selected geocacher will think are the smallest.

 

Scenario 2: Everybody assigns points to the caches they think are the biggest. Again, as more geocachers assign their favourite points, then the more likely it is that the caches with the most points will be the caches that any randomly selected geocacher will think are the biggest.

 

Scenario 3: Half the geocachers assign favourite points to the smallest caches and half of them assign favourite points to the biggest caches. What will NOT happen, as the number of voting geocachers grows, is that there will be a convergence on which caches the two groups select.

 

I'll say it again: the methods people use do matter.

 

They won't care which method the the points were given out as long as their selection algorithm keeps bringing them to cool caches.

Certain methods make it more convenient to pick potentially cool caches. A selection algorithm that requires people to read the logs as well as check the favourite ratings, for example, won't be as quick as simply checking the favourite ratings. And some people care about convenience.

There's a topic in the general forum that all caches should have parking coordinates to make it more convenient to the finders. And how about all the past topics on how the CO has to put the proper attributes, or rate their cache properly, or put a specific hint, and so on. There's always those who want everything spoon fed to them.

So, it appears we now agree that people care about the selection algorithm they use to locate cool caches. I suspect more than a few geocachers like convenience. Pocket queries are a good example.

 

Even if people assigned points using the "optimal" method, it's still a subjective thing.

No disagreement from me.

 

My point (pun intended) is that if a cache has few favorite points you'll have to do more research regardless as no method in assigning them is truly objective.

But what about those caches that have lots of favourite points? Wouldn't it be nice if the majority of people used similar methods of assigning those points so the numbers were more meaningful? If everyone uses favourite points in completely different ways, then the meaning of those numbers becomes less decipherable. Particularly if the different ways are based on experiences that are unlikely to be shared by others.

You are absolutely right, if I was trying to decipher WHY they selected a cache as a favourite, but the favourite points are just a trigger for me to investigate further. I can usually, if not always figure out why a cache was favourited by reading the logs. But the favourites work to intrigue other possible finders. I would like to have a more detailed rating system, but at least this is better than just word of mouth.

[+Avernar]

I think you misunderstand statistics. Here's a simple (and somewhat simplified) example.

 

Scenario 1: Everybody assigns points to the caches they think are the smallest. As more and more geocachers assign their favourite points, then, statistically, the more likely it is that the caches with the most points will be the caches that any randomly selected geocacher will think are the smallest.

 

Scenario 2: Everybody assigns points to the caches they think are the biggest. Again, as more geocachers assign their favourite points, then the more likely it is that the caches with the most points will be the caches that any randomly selected geocacher will think are the biggest.

 

Scenario 3: Half the geocachers assign favourite points to the smallest caches and half of them assign favourite points to the biggest caches. What will NOT happen, as the number of voting geocachers grows, is that there will be a convergence on which caches the two groups select.

 

I'll say it again: the methods people use do matter.

Nope, I understand statistics quite well. From the "most points" phrase you used you're not thinking probabilities. It's the percentage of finders that assigned a point that's what I'm talking about. There's a greasemonkey script that displays this number under the point total.

 

Scenario 1/2: Since everyone either likes small or large caches then those will have 100%. The people hunting the caches will be 100% certain they'll get the one the like. What's statistically improbable here is that everyone is the same in their preference.

 

Scenario 3: So all the small and large geocaches will have a favorite percentage of 50%. That means that future finders have a 50% chance of finding what they like. For example, a small liking cacher has a 50% of getting a small and a 50% chance of getting a large. The have a 0% chance of getting a medium. There's no requirement that there be any kind of convergence.

 

So what happens in scenario 3 when you find a small and are assigning based on the recommends method? Do you give a point or not? You know that half the people will like it and half won't. Whatever you do it will help one group and hurt the other.

 

So, it appears we now agree that people care about the selection algorithm they use to locate cool caches. I suspect more than a few geocachers like convenience. Pocket queries are a good example.

I never said people didn't care about their selection algorithm. I'm saying they have to take account that the points were assigned in a variety of methods.

 

Pocket queries may be a good example of convenience but are an apples to oranges comparison. PQs are a way of getting the information on the cache page to the users. The better example is the D/T rating. I wish everyone rated their caches the same way. They don't. So I have to look at other info to determine if I want to hunt that particular cache. Same thing with favorite points. Hopefully they'll get included in the PQ data.

 

But what about those caches that have lots of favourite points? Wouldn't it be nice if the majority of people used similar methods of assigning those points so the numbers were more meaningful? If everyone uses favourite points in completely different ways, then the meaning of those numbers becomes less decipherable. Particularly if the different ways are based on experiences that are unlikely to be shared by others.

I actually wouldn't consider hunting a cache with a lot of favourite points. I'd consider hunting a cache with a higher percentage of favourite points.

 

If a cache had an 80% favorite rating out of 100 finders, even if all were because of unique experiences, I'd still be interested and impressed. The fact that a cache could cause that many unique experiences is worthy of pursuit. Odds are that I'd have a unique experience of my own there. Odds are also good that I may have the same experience as one of the previous finders.

[+CanadianRockies]

It matters very much how cachers use their favourite points. If everyone uses them to rate their individual experiences while looking for caches and those experiences are unlikely to be duplicated..., then the most favoured caches might not be very enjoyable for a majority of cachers.

I don't think that's the case. If you treat it like statistics, it doesn't matter what the specific experiences were.

When enough people assign points to a particular cache, the method that's used and the reasons they had become irrelevant. Statistics takes over at that point and it becomes an exercise in probabilities.

There's no requirement that there be any kind of convergence.

Exactly. It sounds like we're finally in agreement.

 

If people use favourite points to highlight caches for individualistic reasons (saw wildlife, saw a rainbow, found it with visiting cousins, found it in a blizzard), then it's less likely that the most favoured caches (in raw terms or in percentage terms) will converge on a group of caches that a majority of geocachers will enjoy.

 

If people use favourite points to highlight caches for reasons that are widely shared (good scenery, clever hide, creative containers), then it's more likely that the most favoured caches will be enjoyed by significantly more geocachers.

 

The reasons are relevant. Statistics won't wipe out the differences that result from these different reasons.

 

If a cache had an 80% favorite rating out of 100 finders, even if all were because of unique experiences, I'd still be interested and impressed.

Empirically, I think you'll find that the vast, vast majority of those caches will have a few widely shared reasons for receiving those points rather than a large number of individualistic reasons.

[+Flintstone5611]

Odds are also good that I may have the same experience as one of the previous finders.

Oops, not according to your test group. If they all had unique experiences then the odds would provide you with a similar experience but impossible to be the same (too many variables, )!

[+Avernar]

There's no requirement that there be any kind of convergence.

Exactly. It sounds like we're finally in agreement.

 

If people use favourite points to highlight caches for individualistic reasons (saw wildlife, saw a rainbow, found it with visiting cousins, found it in a blizzard), then it's less likely that the most favoured caches (in raw terms or in percentage terms) will converge on a group of caches that a majority of geocachers will enjoy.

Almost in agreement. I don't believe that there will be a convergence with the recommends method either. Too many interests diverging interests.

 

If people use favourite points to highlight caches for reasons that are widely shared (good scenery, clever hide, creative containers), then it's more likely that the most favoured caches will be enjoyed by significantly more geocachers.

You've just provided a prime example. You've just pointed out which group you're in. I'm in the same group. But there are cachers who don't care about any of those things. Some people don't care about scenery. Or get frustrated if they can't find it because of the clever hide or unique containers.

 

The reasons are relevant. Statistics won't wipe out the differences that result from these different reasons.

I think you're taking this position because you're being too specific with your reasons. Take the wildlife example. Someone sees some deer and likes the cache. Why did they see the deer? Because the cache is on a nice nature trail.

 

Or that they found it with visiting relatives. Why was that fun? Maybe because it was a clever hide and the teamwork of finding it made it fun.

 

Empirically, I think you'll find that the vast, vast majority of those caches will have a few widely shared reasons for receiving those points rather than a large number of individualistic reasons.

Here we agree. But even most of the individualistic reasons will have a shared reason as a foundation. The few very specific reasons that don't will just be drowned out.

[+Avernar]

Odds are also good that I may have the same experience as one of the previous finders.

Oops, not according to your test group. If they all had unique experiences then the odds would provide you with a similar experience but impossible to be the same (too many variables, )!

Don't be so specific. If someone sees a deer jumping a creek with a fox chasing it and a squirrel falling out of a tree, yeah, you're not going to duplicate that. But there's a good chance you'll see some kind of wildlife if the cache is in a good area for that.

[+Flintstone5611]

So I tried searching for caches in Ontario and prioritizing them based on favourites. What a neat little bit of info. The top 10 are currently:

 

1. GCMH1C - Table Rock Earthcache by Team Tigger International

2. GC6069 - The Old City Hall Message by Nozzletime

3. GCABA1 - Niagara Falls Virtual by Licorice

4. GCN6M2 - Niagara Whirlpool Earthcache by Keith Watson

5. GCHM4W - The Talented Mr.Bean by Couparangus

6. GC16JWX - The Cache Butler by Cletus and Brandine

7. GC2B4 - Deer Bait by kdkk17

8. GCNXFF - Cheltenham Badlands Earthcache by res2100

9. GCPJNV - SCREAMING SKULLS by THE GO GETTERS

10. GCN9AD - The Devil Made Me Do It by saf47

 

Congrats on getting these acclaims and thanks for creating and maintaining these great caches!!

[+The Blue Quasar]

When it comes to spending my favorite points, I didn't concern myself with whether a cache had been archived or not. I went through the "My Finds" PQ in GSAK and ticked the ones that I remembered enjoying. I figure that everything I've found contributed to the number of favorite points I had to dole out and I wanted to give praise to any listing that was in the top 10% of what I've experienced. If the cache was fun because of the cache, it was considered. I'm not sure how my caching companions factored into it since I always have fun with my friends regardless of the caches we do during an outing.

 

I like that favourites allows us to say "These are the best 10% of what I've done in my opinion" without having to label the rest as anything less than a favourite. For now I'm not sure how the percentages would factor in since there are so many variables like location, D/T ratings, listing type, and to be honest who made the cache, among many others. What does sway me is when my friend's have said it was a favourite then that adds value to doing it.

 

Last time I checked Dr. House has a cache that has been found only 9 times and from that 7 people tagged it a favourite. I'm one of them. Truth is, not a lot of people are going to do that cache for various reasons. Might the high percentage drive some more visits? I dunno. Maybe just as much as the D/T rating does for some other challenge cache. Doesn't matter. My vote was for one specific reason.... it's one of my favourites, nothing more and nothing less.

 

BQ

[+ToonAl]

So I tried searching for caches in Ontario and prioritizing them based on favourites. What a neat little bit of info. The top 10 are currently:

 

1. GCMH1C - Table Rock Earthcache by Team Tigger International

2. GC6069 - The Old City Hall Message by Nozzletime

3. GCABA1 - Niagara Falls Virtual by Licorice

4. GCN6M2 - Niagara Whirlpool Earthcache by Keith Watson

5. GCHM4W - The Talented Mr.Bean by Couparangus

6. GC16JWX - The Cache Butler by Cletus and Brandine

7. GC2B4 - Deer Bait by kdkk17

8. GCNXFF - Cheltenham Badlands Earthcache by res2100

9. GCPJNV - SCREAMING SKULLS by THE GO GETTERS

10. GCN9AD - The Devil Made Me Do It by saf47

 

Congrats on getting these acclaims and thanks for creating and maintaining these great caches!!

 

Can anyone explain how this search was done? I mean ordering by Favourite numbers? is this a Groundspeak website thing or some manual method?

 

thanks,

 

ToonAl

[+Flintstone5611]

Can anyone explain how this search was done? I mean ordering by Favourite numbers? is this a Groundspeak website thing or some manual method?

 

thanks,

 

ToonAl

All you have to do is search for caches in Ontario and when the list comes up you click on the little blue ribbon at the top of the list (whatever the symbol for the favourites is in the listing). it will reprioritize the list in that order.

[+Juicepig]

Favorites seem to be a fantastic way to "filter the weak"

On a recent road trip rather then doing all 2000 caches en-route (and never likely making it to my destination) I chose to only look at caches that had been favourited. It was a great trip!

[+dfx]

Favorites seem to be a fantastic way to "filter the weak"

On a recent road trip rather then doing all 2000 caches en-route (and never likely making it to my destination) I chose to only look at caches that had been favourited. It was a great trip!

 

Too bad you can't actually filter for them, except manually...

[+Fababoo]

Favorites seem to be a fantastic way to "filter the weak"

On a recent road trip rather then doing all 2000 caches en-route (and never likely making it to my destination) I chose to only look at caches that had been favourited. It was a great trip!

 

I agree completely on this score. I've been researching a trip out west for the summer and it makes it almost effortless to find interesting caches and great locales. When I go out there I don't want to spend time finding average run of the mill caches so my to do list will include only things with favored points. Sure, I'll drop in a bunch of caches close to the good ones if I have time but with my wife note really interested in caching much, the better the quality the better.

 

So for me, I treat my favorite points as I hope others would, to draw attention to something that is 'not your average cache'. Yes, it's possible that someone could rate an average cache with a favorite point based on somethin that happened just to them but in the long run something with few or more favorite points will most likely have something of interest to cachers looking for that better than average cache. The more points awarded to a cache the better the chances of that "something special" factor. It's interesting to note the percentages of those that did/didn't favor a cache but to me, I look at the fact that it's been favored and then look into it in more detail to see if it fits what I would like.