Ratio vs. Raw Count

[+Avernar]

So basically, you are attempting to make favorites approximate the results that you could much easier obtain through a PQ.

I said prefer. I will hunt earthcaches and virtuals if they are interesting.

 

And even if I only wanted physical caches, how would I pick out the better ones? The ratio had the side effect of knocking a few of the non physicals further down but it still ordered the physical ones. And if the earthcaches or virtuals stayed on top (which they may have if we had the preferred denominator) I'd look at them more closely.

 

Besides, it's 20 caches. I'll get to all of them eventually.

You pick out the better ones using the tools available, one of which is the favorite count, but the tools are not limited to that.

You've got a circular argument there. You said that I'm trying to use favourites to get something I could get with a PQ alone. I ask how. Then you say use the favourite count?

 

What I think you were getting at was that there's other info and not just the cache pages. I agree. The fave count/ratio just lets me accomplish it faster.

 

What I get from your posts is not that you are looking to pick out the better caches to find (ie good caches vs not good caches) but that you are trying to make favorites alone show you the absolute best caches. This is not a job that faves can perform, in my opinion due to all of the reasons for error and skew already discussed in this thread and the various threads which have discussed this topic previously.

All this arguing debating has left the wrong impression. No, I'm trying to maximize the odds that the cache I'm going to is one that I'm going to like as well. I will take a look at the other cache info to veto the fave score/ratio if I don't want to attempt that cache for whatever reason.

[+addisonbr]

you are trying to make favorites alone show you the absolute best caches.

No, I'm trying to maximize the odds that the cache I'm going to is one that I'm going to like as well.

That's right. The goal isn't to ensure that we can find the bestest cache in the world. No system could do that.

 

The goal is to find tools that increase the chances I'll identify caches that I'll like. I believe favorites and ratios are two of those tools.

[+dfx]

Never suggested that at all. In fact I stated RAW will work for me. Kind of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I am not missing out on what other people think are one of their favorite.

 

What's one got to do with the other? Even if you'd see only the ratio, you could (probably) still click on the bagde and see whose favorite it is.

 

One and other what? I don't understand then question?

 

One and the other.

Edited January 22, 2011 by dfx

[+Avernar]

Besides, it's 20 caches. I'll get to all of them eventually.

Why then would you care to order them is a way you think better reflects the enjoyment (or the odds of enjoyment) you would have. Must you find the "best" cache today and one that is second "best" tomorrow?. Would it hurt to look of a cache that you have a good chance of enjoying today and leave the one you have an even better chance of enjoying till tomorrow?

Because I don't always cache alone. When we get most of the people in our caching group together and have limited time, grabbing one that has a greater chance of everyone will enjoy is important. Especially when everyone is in a mood for a good one. I'll save the ones further down the list for when I'm alone.

 

Of course where the favorites will have the most usefulness is when you travel someplace. You know you won't have time to find all the caches there so you do want to maximize the probability that you enjoy those caches you search for. Then the favorites becomes one more thing you can use in selecting caches. If you believe that the ratio better predicts how likely it is you will enjoy the cache, you can use it that way.

Now we have two situations where the list order matters.

 

But even you have indicated that you can't use the ratio that way. Instead you look at the raw count and when it is low you discount the ratio. Only if the raw count is above a threshold do you then use the ratio to get a finer resolution on which caches you are more likely to enjoy.

What's wrong with that? I'd bet you use that technique in your daily life. Someone tells you a new restaurant is good (1 fav, 100%) you're probably going to do some research yourself or hold off. Eventually when 7 out of 10 people tell you it's good (7 favs, 70%) you may decide to go and see for yourself. Or you can use your raw threshold an go to the place with 100 favs and eat at McDonalds...

 

Given all the other factors, I can't imagine that the ratio truly adds any information. When I use the raw count it's true that I will likely look to see if the favorite is high solely because the cache has lots of finders.

So if you do it manually it's fine but when it's done for you it's not? Even if you like raw number, wouldn't having the ratio next to it be helpful?

 

However, if I'm somewhere on vacation, just the fact that a cache gets lots of finder would already interest me. It may be a tourist destination that I am thinking about visiting anyhow. The fact that there is a cache there that a lot of people have favorited may be another reason for me to go there. This could very well be more important in selecting which caches I will look for than what percentage of the finders liked the cache. In fact I can't think of a reason that the ratio would make a difference. (The underlying reasons for a high/low ratio may make a difference, but I don't need a ratio to determine this).

The vacation situation is where the ratio would make the difference. Most people will probably grab the caches that are next to their hotel or close to the tourist bus destinations. The high count may just be because of the "Wow, I've found one so far from home in a foreign country" effect. I'd rent a 4x4 and head off to find so of the hidden gems.

 

What I'm getting out of this thread is that there are two groups of cachers. Those that want the good mass apeal caches. And those that want the good rare ones. Kind of like movies. There are those that like the big blockbusters and there are those who like the good indie films. The blockbuster crowd can use the raw grossing numbers that you see in the newspapers to pick. The indie crowd needs to use some kind of ratio approach.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Avernar

[+Keith Watson]

Never suggested that at all. In fact I stated RAW will work for me. Kind of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I am not missing out on what other people think are one of their favorite.

 

What's one got to do with the other? Even if you'd see only the ratio, you could (probably) still click on the bagde and see whose favorite it is.

 

One and other what? I don't understand then question?

 

One and the other.

 

If a bunch of people favorites a cache, I blow it off because is has a low ratio, and then find out I missed an awesome cache I would feel pretty stupid.

 

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.

Homer Simpson

[+Avernar]

If a bunch of people favorites a cache, I blow it off because is has a low ratio, and then find out I missed an awesome cache I would feel pretty stupid.

Same thing could be said if you blow off a cache that has a low count.

 

Besides, nobody said you can't use both methods. Find some high count caches some days and high ratio caches the other days. Get the best of both worlds.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Avernar

[+Keith Watson]

If a bunch of people favorites a cache, I blow it off because is has a low ratio, and then find out I missed an awesome cache I would feel pretty stupid.

Same thing could be said if you blow off a cache that has a low count.

 

Besides, nobody said you can't use both methods. Find some high count caches some days and high ratio caches the other days. Get the best of both worlds.

 

That wouldn't work for me. I really don't care. I go out caching with friends and family. We go out and have a good time. My 3,000th find was a guard rail micro. I loved it because everyone had a good laugh about it. I don't decide if a cache is worthy enough for me to spend time finding it. I find that kind of attitude disrespectful to the cachers that have spent the time to hide a cache for all of us to find. Some cachers are trying to make every cache outing a life changing experience or to find the best of the best caches. It won't take long to run out of caches following that approach. Look at any cacher's profile. If they average 1,000 to 2,000 finds per year I am pretty sure they are not picky about what caches they find.

[+dfx]

That wouldn't work for me. I really don't care. I go out caching with friends and family. We go out and have a good time. My 3,000th find was a guard rail micro. I loved it because everyone had a good laugh about it. I don't decide if a cache is worthy enough for me to spend time finding it. I find that kind of attitude disrespectful to the cachers that have spent the time to hide a cache for all of us to find.

 

So now you're saying that you not only don't care about the ratio, you don't care about the raw favorite count either?

 

Why have you been arguing against having a ratio all this time again?

[+Keith Watson]

That wouldn't work for me. I really don't care. I go out caching with friends and family. We go out and have a good time. My 3,000th find was a guard rail micro. I loved it because everyone had a good laugh about it. I don't decide if a cache is worthy enough for me to spend time finding it. I find that kind of attitude disrespectful to the cachers that have spent the time to hide a cache for all of us to find.

 

So now you're saying that you not only don't care about the ratio, you don't care about the raw favorite count either?

 

Why have you been arguing against having a ratio all this time again?

 

I never said I would use either for finding caches. I said I was using it to see if I have found the caches with the most favorites. That means prefer the RAW and do care about the RAW.

 

I have not argued against having a ratio. I have pointed out the obvious and less than obvious flaws in the logic I am seeing in some of the posts and have done that for both RAW and ratio.

[+tozainamboku]

My guess is that some of the caches that are found most often get a lower ratio for other reason than just number of finds.

Caches don't have a low ratio *because* they have a lot of finds. Not at all. It's generally because the caches themselves aren't interesting enough to get votes from more than (say) 2% of the cachers who find them. (Yes, it's true that there are weird effects for a few special classes of caches, like really old caches where none of the finders have logged on in years, or caches that for some reason are never found by premium members... I'm holding those out as special exceptions for the moment.)

You have no way to know if these are special exceptions. It's generally accepted that some caches are popular because there are easy to get, in place where lots of geocachers (or just lots of people) visit. You keep saying these get lower ratios because they are not interesting enough to more than 2% (or whatever the ratio they get) of the finders. Yet in every case its easy to come up with other reasons for a low ratio. These are older caches, the are found by a higher proportion of non-premium members, etc.

 

I'll give one other reason and that may be the reason that ratios seem to work for people like you. It may be that at least for now, the cachers who are taking the time go back and mark a lot of favorite caches are exactly those that would avoid these touristy hides. Who knows, they may even have gone to do the tourist thing and just didn't bother doing the cache there because they didn't expect it would add anything to their visit. However these same people may have done other caches where they remember a unique container, or a cleverly camoflaged and hidden in plain sight cache. And of course they voted for these caches. So people whose criteria is clever camouflage or a unique hiding style may be more likely to vote and these caches will have higher favorite counts and higher ratios (fewer visitors than the cache in the tourist location and perhaps even a higher rate of DNF if the camouflage was really effective.) Now if this is correct, then for people who enjoy these particular caches may find ratios better, but only because there is a bias in who is using the favorites votes right now.

 

If we really had the same people visit the same caches than the ratio would be a good estimate that the next finder will enjoy the cache. But every cache gets visted by different people with different tastes. And while caches that get visited by more people may have been visit by a more diverse sample of geocachers, it is not a random sample. Even the most popular hides select a biased sample of cachers. And this bias will be reflected in the ratio of favorite votes because some cachers will not give out favorite votes as freely as others. You could probably come up with a way to weight the favorites based on what portion of their points the finders have given out and how many of their points they have given out to caches they found in the past. But this will be very hard to calculate so I don't see it being done.

 

Now it may be that for many caches this isn't going to make much difference. And it may be for some finders, the bias doesn't matter or it actually makes using ratios appear to be a little better. I'd almost be willing to bet that if I did the experiment on the top caches in So. California, I would find ratio is closer to what I like as well. However, I don't believe it is the best for the majority of cachers. I have no doubt when Mr. Watson says he finds the raw count a better predictor of the cache he likes.

 

To me, raw count is easier to understand. It's the number of cachers who put a cache on their favorite list - essentially saying, "If you like the same sort of caches I like, you will probably like this on". When more cachers like a cache there is more chance that I will like the same sort of things one of them likes. Of course I realize that the type of caches is going to bias that sample of cachers who found it. So I'm going to look at the cache as well to see if it may be a type of cache I would enjoy. I still think that those using ratios are using it as if the sample of cachers who favorite a cache is a random sample and therefore the ratio is the probability someone would like a cache. I don't think in general you can make this claim.

[+addisonbr]

Yet in every case its easy to come up with other reasons for a low ratio.

There are lots of reasons a cache might not get votes. I'm simply of the opinion that the driving force behind most of the voting? ... is the extent to which people liked the cache. I think that for most caches, a higher proportion of people putting it on their favorites list probably means a higher proportion of people really liked it.

 

I know it is not 100% correlated. But does it have to be?

 

I still think that those using ratios are using it as if the sample of cachers who favorite a cache is a random sample and therefore the ratio is the probability someone would like a cache. I don't think in general you can make this claim.

I have never claimed that the ratio is the probability that someone would like a cache. I don't think that a 25% favorites ratio means that I am 25% to like a cache.

 

What I do think, is that if I've run a PQ for the types of caches I'd like to hunt and am comparing two caches with similar total favorites counts, if one of them has a ratio of 2% and the other has a ratio of 30%, the latter is more likely to be a cache I would enjoy.

 

I don't know exactly what percentage chance it is that I'll enjoy it, but my goal isn't to deduce that number. I'm just trying to sort a list.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't know exactly what percentage chance it is that I'll enjoy it, but my goal isn't to deduce that number. I'm just trying to sort a list.

And absolute raw count works just as well for sorting a list.

 

I think we both agree that the reason someone favorites a cache is that they thought that cache was in their top 10%. What we don't agree on is the reason that a finder did not favorite the cache. When you look at ratio you're including both the favorites (which we know something about) and those who did not favorite the cache (which we know nothing about).

[+dfx]

I never said I would use either for finding caches. I said I was using it to see if I have found the caches with the most favorites. That means prefer the RAW and do care about the RAW.

 

So you just wanna look at the number of favorites and you're saying that only the number of favorites works for that. Really?

[+addisonbr]

And absolute raw count works just as well for sorting a list.

I'm guessing that this is where we disagree. Given two caches, one of which has 50 favorites out of 2500 finds, and another which has 50 favorites out of 200 finds, I'd prefer a sorting which bubbles the latter cache to the top. I honestly feel, in my teeth, that while there are plenty of reasons I may enjoy both or neither, I am probably more likely to enjoy that one.

[+Keith Watson]

I never said I would use either for finding caches. I said I was using it to see if I have found the caches with the most favorites. That means prefer the RAW and do care about the RAW.

 

So you just wanna look at the number of favorites and you're saying that only the number of favorites works for that. Really?

 

Kind of seams self evident. If I am looking for trees then bushes just aint going to cut it so I guess you are right. I think if anyone wants to look at the number of favorites, the only the number of favorites will work for that.

[+Avernar]

I never said I would use either for finding caches. I said I was using it to see if I have found the caches with the most favorites. That means prefer the RAW and do care about the RAW.

 

So you just wanna look at the number of favorites and you're saying that only the number of favorites works for that. Really?

 

Kind of seams self evident. If I am looking for trees then bushes just aint going to cut it so I guess you are right. I think if anyone wants to look at the number of favorites, the only the number of favorites will work for that.

Let me get this straight: After participating in an debate about the best way to use the favourite system to find caches, for several days I might add, you finally admit you don't want to use it to find caches?

[+Keith Watson]

I never said I would use either for finding caches. I said I was using it to see if I have found the caches with the most favorites. That means prefer the RAW and do care about the RAW.

 

So you just wanna look at the number of favorites and you're saying that only the number of favorites works for that. Really?

 

Kind of seams self evident. If I am looking for trees then bushes just aint going to cut it so I guess you are right. I think if anyone wants to look at the number of favorites, the only the number of favorites will work for that.

Let me get this straight: After participating in an debate about the best way to use the favourite system to find caches, for several days I might add, you finally admit you don't want to use it to find caches?

 

I am not finally admitting anything as you put it. Again, I never said I would use either to find caches. I don't see why wanting to use either to find caches or not has anything to do with "participating in an debate about the best way to use the favorite system to find caches".

[+DanOCan]

It's clear that there is a correlation between number of finds and the raw favorite count and that people would like to account for this in order to seek caches that are found less often but may be just as enjoyable or perhaps even more enjoyable.

 

I would say it's clear that there is a perception of a correlation between the number of fionds and the raw favorite count. In looking at my own hides, I find my most Favorited cache (GCZMVV)has 8 Favorites against 27 Finds -- and it's been well over a year since it was found by anyone.

 

Yet, compare that to some of my caches which are found on a much more regular basis:

 

GCZVWW: 0 Favorites against 203 Finds

GC12GZB: 0 Favorites against 128 Finds

GC175JC: 0 Favorites against 286 Finds

 

The last one is the proverbial "tourist" cache which so many people seem to feel a ratio would help them avoid. It's easily accessible for the many people who fly into Calgary and are driving out to Banff National Park. It gets lots of logs from people just passing through. Yet, no Favorites. (And, I don't expect many since it isn't a particularily special cache.)

 

Look, I don't begrudge people who want a ratio. Whether it exists or not doesn't hurt me. I just encourage people to really consider whether the ratio is going to provide them what they think it will.

[+addisonbr]

I would say it's clear that there is a perception of a correlation between the number of fionds and the raw favorite count.

Among the top 100 Favorites-gathering caches in New York state, there is a 46% correlation between find count and Favorites votes.

 

So, it's a big factor, but far from the only factor. That's in line with my gut.

[+dfx]

I would say it's clear that there is a perception of a correlation between the number of fionds and the raw favorite count. In looking at my own hides, I find my most Favorited cache (GCZMVV)has 8 Favorites against 27 Finds -- and it's been well over a year since it was found by anyone.

 

Yet, compare that to some of my caches which are found on a much more regular basis:

 

GCZVWW: 0 Favorites against 203 Finds

GC12GZB: 0 Favorites against 128 Finds

GC175JC: 0 Favorites against 286 Finds

 

The last one is the proverbial "tourist" cache which so many people seem to feel a ratio would help them avoid. It's easily accessible for the many people who fly into Calgary and are driving out to Banff National Park. It gets lots of logs from people just passing through. Yet, no Favorites. (And, I don't expect many since it isn't a particularily special cache.)

 

Obviously, someone looking for an easily accessible "tourist" cache won't bother looking at any favorite numbers. Plus, in this example it wouldn't make a difference anyway: the count is zero and so the ratio is zero too.

 

The point is that if someone is trying to use the favorite points as a kind of rating system to determine the cache "quality" or whatever you want to call it, they have to use the ratio. But right now they can't because it's not provided.

 

Whether the use of the favorite votes as a rating system is valid/invalid/pointless/correct/incorrect/whatever is up for debate, but since it's supposed to be Groundspeak's implementation of exactly that, I don't see why not. In any case, it's everybody personal choice.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Right Keith. So rather than ratios, you would suggest we just get rid of favorites altogether, as they are unnecessary.

 

Back in 2003 I didn't have paperless Geocaching in the field- does not mean I find it useless today. Same will happen with favorites.

 

Never suggested that at all. In fact I stated RAW will work for me. Kind of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I am not missing out on what other people think are one of their favorite.

I don't think you understand what RAW means. You stated you found caches before the favorites system was implemented, so you didn't even use the RAW score (the number of people who have marked the cache as a favorite). Therefore, you seem to prefer not even having any favorite data available.

[+Avernar]

I am not finally admitting anything as you put it.

OK, revealed instead of admitted. It would have been nice to know that before I went to all the trouble of trying to convince you to try both ways to find caches.

 

Again, I never said I would use either to find caches.

I went down East three years ago and then out West last year. There were no such thing as favorites so I had to do some research. Turns out that I hit the nail onthe head as those turn out to be the ones with the most favorites. This tells me that RAW will work for me.

Really?

 

I don't see why wanting to use either to find caches or not has anything to do with "participating in an debate about the best way to use the favorite system to find caches".

Because it means you're not going to try to see if your theory that raw is better actually works as a prediction tool. Just because you've already found ones with high counts proves nothing because you've already found ones with low counts too.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Avernar

[+Keith Watson]

Right Keith. So rather than ratios, you would suggest we just get rid of favorites altogether, as they are unnecessary.

 

Back in 2003 I didn't have paperless Geocaching in the field- does not mean I find it useless today. Same will happen with favorites.

 

Never suggested that at all. In fact I stated RAW will work for me. Kind of gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I am not missing out on what other people think are one of their favorite.

I don't think you understand what RAW means. You stated you found caches before the favorites system was implemented, so you didn't even use the RAW score (the number of people who have marked the cache as a favorite). Therefore, you seem to prefer not even having any favorite data available.

 

Again, that is not true and I have not said that. I award favorites to some of my favorite caches and I do look to see which caches have the most favorites.

[+cx1]

 

The point is that if someone is trying to use the favorite points as a kind of rating system to determine the cache "quality" or whatever you want to call it, they have to use the ratio. But right now they can't because it's not provided.

 

See it's that 'have to' bit that has not been properly established.

 

Cache A has 39 favorite votes but a 25% ratio

Cache B has 1 favorite vote but a 50% ratio

 

The cache with only 2 finds is somehow potentially better just because it's ratio is better?

 

or how about this example

 

Cache A has 20 favorites and a 50% ratio

Cache B has 20 favorites and a 30% ratio

 

But cache A is PMO. How would that skew the ratios?

[+dfx]

See it's that 'have to' bit that has not been properly established.

 

Cache A has 39 favorite votes but a 25% ratio

Cache B has 1 favorite vote but a 50% ratio

 

The cache with only 2 finds is somehow potentially better just because it's ratio is better?

 

or how about this example

 

Cache A has 20 favorites and a 50% ratio

Cache B has 20 favorites and a 30% ratio

 

But cache A is PMO. How would that skew the ratios?

 

We've already been through this. I didn't say you have to use the favorites/finders ratio, but you have to use some kind of ratio, because it's just how the system works. We've already established that the simple favorites/finders ratio isn't optimal and a more sophisticated ratio (taking into account premium members etc) would be preferable, but IMO in order to keep it simple, the favorites/finders ratio is "close enough" to make the number useful. As opposed to the raw favorite count, which is utterly useless for this purpose.

 

The "rating system" is based on two possible "ratings": favorite point awarded vs. no favorite point awarded. To make those "ratings" usable, the raw numbers have to averaged over the number of people who have submitted a rating. Since this doesn't happen explicitly, but implicitly when a cacher logs a find, you have to use at the very least the number of finds.

Edited January 23, 2011 by dfx

[+Keith Watson]

I am not finally admitting anything as you put it.

OK, revealed instead of admitted. It would have been nice to know that before I went to all the trouble of trying to convince you to try both ways to find caches.

 

I have not kept anything un-revealed so there is nothing to be finally revealed. I never said I was looking to use this to find a cache either way. If you belived that then you were in error on your assumption.

 

Again, I never said I would use either to find caches.

I went down East three years ago and then out West last year. There were no such thing as favorites so I had to do some research. Turns out that I hit the nail onthe head as those turn out to be the ones with the most favorites. This tells me that RAW will work for me.

Really?

Yes

 

I don't see why wanting to use either to find caches or not has anything to do with "participating in an debate about the best way to use the favorite system to find caches".

Because it means you're not going to try to see if your theory that raw is better actually works as a prediction tool. Just because you've already found ones with high counts proves nothing because you've already found ones with low counts too.

 

I am not looking to use either as a prediction tool. I think I have made that pretty clear by now.

[+Avernar]

Cache A has 39 favorite votes but a 25% ratio

Cache B has 1 favorite vote but a 50% ratio

 

The cache with only 2 finds is somehow potentially better just because it's ratio is better?

No. Please see my posts where I explain the raw count needs to be large enough sample size to make the ratio more precise. That's why we want both numbers.

 

Cache A has 20 favorites and a 50% ratio

Cache B has 20 favorites and a 30% ratio

 

But cache A is PMO. How would that skew the ratios?

We've already said that this is a flaw. That's why we want Groundspeak to implement it as the can use "finders that have given out at least one favourite to any cache" as the denominator. That would filter out non-PMO and non participants.

[+northernpenguin]

Guess the easy fix here for Groundspeak is to put the Fav count in the Pocket Queries and then us PMs can run the ratio calcs ourselves , but over a smaller area

[+dfx]

Guess the easy fix here for Groundspeak is to put the Fav count in the Pocket Queries and then us PMs can run the ratio calcs ourselves , but over a smaller area

 

Not really, because the number of finders (or any other number that would be usable) isn't included in the PQ.

[+northernpenguin]

That is correct dfx but it will at least give us a start. The optimal solution is for the algorithm as discussed here.

[+northernpenguin]

The other question is the upcoming API. if GSAK is on the API beta then we may be able to use the GSAK macro engine to build what we want, with finder counts et al

[+addisonbr]

Guess the easy fix here for Groundspeak is to put the Fav count in the Pocket Queries and then us PMs can run the ratio calcs ourselves , but over a smaller area

I would love that, but while number of Favorites is supposedly coming the GPX data, number of finds isn't.

 

The only way I know of to bring in the number of finds is through a GSAK macro that you're only allowed to run on your own caches.

[+Avernar]

I have not kept anything un-revealed so there is nothing to be finally revealed.

You failed to mention you're not using it to find caches. That would have changed my replies to you had I known this at te beginning.

 

I never said I was looking to use this to find a cache either way. If you belived that then you were in error on your assumption.

You jumped into a conversation about using the fav system to find caches and didn't mention you were not. The error was on your part.

 

Again, I never said I would use either to find caches.

I went down East three years ago and then out West last year. There were no such thing as favorites so I had to do some research. Turns out that I hit the nail onthe head as those turn out to be the ones with the most favorites. This tells me that RAW will work for me.

Really?

Yes

Raw will work for you as a finding tool? Great!

 

No, don't tell me. That's not what you meant in the bolded sentence. In hindsight now that we know you're using the favourite score as a confirmation that your other selection method is working it has a totally different meaning.

 

I am not looking to use either as a prediction tool. I think I have made that pretty clear by now.

We know that now. You're using it for entertainment as someone else suggested it could be used for.

[+dfx]

The only way I know of to bring in the number of finds is through a GSAK macro that you're only allowed to run on your own caches.

 

Yeah, and that macro can also be used to get the favorite count without having it in the GPX file, so that makes having just the favorite count in the GPX really useless.

[+Keith Watson]

I have not kept anything un-revealed so there is nothing to be finally revealed.

You failed to mention you're not using it to find caches. That would have changed my replies to you had I known this at te beginning.

 

I never said I was looking to use this to find a cache either way. If you belived that then you were in error on your assumption.

You jumped into a conversation about using the fav system to find caches and didn't mention you were not. The error was on your part.

 

Again, I never said I would use either to find caches.

I went down East three years ago and then out West last year. There were no such thing as favorites so I had to do some research. Turns out that I hit the nail onthe head as those turn out to be the ones with the most favorites. This tells me that RAW will work for me.

Really?

Yes

Raw will work for you as a finding tool? Great!

 

No, don't tell me. That's not what you meant in the bolded sentence. In hindsight now that we know you're using the favourite score as a confirmation that your other selection method is working it has a totally different meaning.

 

I am not looking to use either as a prediction tool. I think I have made that pretty clear by now.

We know that now. You're using it for entertainment as someone else suggested it could be used for.

 

This has nothing to do with the topic of this forum. It looks to me to be nothing more than trying to prove I have misrepresented myself in this forum and is providing nothing to the original subject. I have done no such thing. Please discontinue this and return back to the original topic. If not, you will be tacking this up with Groundspeak.

[+tozainamboku]

Those critical of Mr. Watson for not using the favorites they way they do should look at my OP in this thread. There I asked the people who want to use ratios

 

1. Why do you think ratios are better statistic than the raw count?

2. How are you planing to use this number?

 

I even went for a while speculating that the ratio was being proposed as better way to do what Keith is doing. In other words that some people who didn't like that the caches with the highest raw count was not the cache they thought was the best cache and were looking for a statistic that would more fit their own view of the "best" cache. It took quite a bit of explaining from the ratio supporters for me to understand that ratio was not being used to get a different ordering of what was best but instead to produce an ordering that they believe would better predict the likelihood that they would enjoy the cache. I actually think now my two questions have been answered (at least by those who stuck with it). I still have my doubts that this scheme works any better than one using the raw count, but in keeping with fizzymagic's request I can't tell people not to use it. All I can do it try to make clear why I think ratios give at least as biased estimate of likelihood of enjoying a cache as raw counts do.

[+Avernar]

Those critical of Mr. Watson for not using the favorites they way they do should look at my OP in this thread. There I asked the people who want to use ratios

 

1. Why do you think ratios are better statistic than the raw count?

2. How are you planing to use this number?

I hope you don't think that I was telling him not to use the favourites the way he wants to. I've always been a proponent of the idea of using the site and playing the game any which way you want.

 

What let to a bit of confusion and misinterpretation by myself and a few others is that he answered question 1 early on and question 2 much later. Nothing more.

 

All I can do it try to make clear why I think ratios give at least as biased estimate of likelihood of enjoying a cache as raw counts do.

I do agree that bias in the raw counts will cause bias in the ratio. What I was hoping to get across is that the ratio tries to minimize the effect of how often a cache is visited. For some people it looks like a more visited cache correlates to a more popular cache. I have no problem with that.

 

What hasn't been satisfactorily answered for me is this question:

 

3) If you just like the raw count, why would you want to deny the site supporting the ratio to others?

Edited January 23, 2011 by Avernar

[+Keith Watson]

3) If you just like the raw count, why would you want to deny the site supporting the ratio to others?

 

Has anyone said that want to deny the site supporting the ratio to others?

[+Avernar]

Has anyone said that want to deny the site supporting the ratio to others?

Here's one:

 

If coming up with a ratio means stalling development in other areas then I'd rather they not.

 

I can't find the other one I'm thinking of, maybe in another thread. But I'm not the only one who noticed this attitude, about this topic and others:

 

Personally I'm amazed that this thread is still going. Why do people always argue against things that could be useful to others, but make no difference to themselves if they don't use it?

 

Fully agreed. I don't see what the problem is with providing this information to those who want it.

[+TeamMagicParrot]

My friend actually was the one who submitted the idea! (I do know him in real life)

 

I have to say, it is a good idea. What's the fuss about? It's not like we are removing the amount of favorites given to a cache. The idea is to display them both. That's not taking away anything from anyone, nor is it adding anything over the top.

 

I say go for it- he made a great idea, and it's only going to help the website improve. Showing both is not going to detract from anyone's experience with the website.

[+dfx]

But I'm not the only one who noticed this attitude, about this topic and others:

 

Hey, don't pull me into this!

[Sandy]

This thread - once productive discussion - has devolved into a series of misunderstandings and rather curt comments. Closing to avoid further digression. If the OP has not been addressed, please start a new thread. Everyone, please keep to the topic.