Give favorites a chance to work

8k · January 25, 2011

Since Sandy said I could start a new thread, I will. Please obey the forum guidelines. There is no need to attack people with a different viewpoint. I believe people can debate the issues respectfully. And yes, if someone wants a change that is only helpful to a small number of people than it is a legitimate response that Groundspeak spend their limited resources on other projects. If resource were unlimited then certainly people who don't want a feature can ignore if does no other harm. But resource are not unlimited so shouldn't they be spent on features that do the most good for the most people?

I believe that I got some good answers from people who want to see the ratio of favorite votes to finders (or to premium member finders). I'm confident that many of these people are not trying to find a way to make the results fit their personal view of which cache is best, but instead believe that normalizing for the effect of number of finders gives a value that more accurately reflects the likelihood they would enjoy a cache. Had the other thread continued, I may have debated whether dividing by the number or finders (or any other number) would give you accurate results for what you are trying to measure. However, this is a new thread and instead I want to discuss the many other ideas that have been suggested both in the feedback forum and in this forum for changes the favorites system.

In addition to using a ratio of raw favorites to number of finders some other ideas are:

Allow -1 vote for caches you think are lame.
Allow multiple votes to be given to one cache. For example allow 1 to 3 votes to be given to a cache to give more weight to the caches you feel deserve more credit; or if you only think of 5% of your finds are worth awarding points to, give two points to each favorite cache.
Provide a reason why you favorited a cache.
Change the number of finds for awarding a vote either higher or lower.
Instead of voting for favorites, allow finders to rank the cache as to what percentile find it is.
Implement a 1 to 5 star system ala GCVote.
Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)
Use the favorites to provide personal recommendation based on cachers who favorited some of the same caches you favorited.
Eliminate favorites altogether and go back to what we use to have.

Again my questions for those who want a change are:

1. How are you planing to use favorites (or the replacement)?

and

2. Why is this an improvement over the current favorites system.

Once again I have the impression that many of these suggestion are from people who expect favorites will provide a ranking of all geocaches from the "best" to the worst. And when they look at the current results, they find what looks like anomalies because caches are not being rank in the order they expected. They believe that a modification to the favorites will result in an ordering that is more correct as far as they are concerned.

Any attempt to rank cache caches will, in my opinion, fail not just for some geocachers but for most geocahers. What we like about geocaching is so varied that we shouldn't expect a ranking based on a hypothetical average cacher is going to be useful. Yet many people seem to assume just that.

Some of the suggestion seem to be more along the lines of making the favorites more useful without much tweaking of the way point are awarded. These may be nice enhancements, but do we really know if these ideas will do what they claim. Just the simple act of having people voluntarily comment on the "reason" they favorited a cache might not actually provide any useful information. Perhaps people will say "Overall impression" because they can't pick one reason over the others. Perhaps they will pick a primary reason, but the secondary reasons of all the cachers would be the only thing they agree on. Wouldn't the secondary reason be helpful information in deciding whether you might enjoy the cache? If you support one of these enhancements what proof do you have that it will be useful?

2k · January 25, 2011

I think the system is not perfect, but its not bad. Even IMDB top 100 movies of all time has some flaws in its rankings....like anything else, favorites are partly a popularity contest of cachers. A number of people are more likely to favorite their friends' caches. Older caches implemented before the favorite system are going to be a lower percentage (minus the best of the best ones) because folks wont remember many of the old ones.

I think the system is fine personally. You sure had a lot to say on the subject, I wanted to at least give one vote to keeping the system as status quo.

Edited January 25, 2011 by lamoracke

January 25, 2011

I nodded off, as usual, but based on the title, I agree.

5.3k · January 25, 2011

In addition to using a ratio of raw favorites to number of finders some other ideas are:

Allow -1 vote for caches you think are lame.

Allow multiple votes to be given to one cache. For example allow 1 to 3 votes to be given to a cache to give more weight to the caches you feel deserve more credit; or if you only think of 5% of your finds are worth awarding points to, give two points to each favorite cache.

Provide a reason why you favorited a cache.

Change the number of finds for awarding a vote either higher or lower.

Instead of voting for favorites, allow finders to rank the cache as to what percentile find it is.

Implement a 1 to 5 star system ala GCVote.

Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)

Use the favorites to provide personal recommendation based on cachers who favorited some of the same caches you favorited.

Eliminate favorites altogether and go back to what we use to have.

The only change I support is the ratio change, which is really just a way to extract more information from the current system. All the other suggestions are not part of the current favorites implementation for good reasons. In my opinion, none of them would be an improvement. Several, such as negative votes, would completely undermine the whole idea.

15.3k · January 25, 2011

1. How are you planing to use favorites (or the replacement)?

I won't always use the favorites system; there will be times when I'm still just grabbing whatever cache happens to be nearest. But when I expect to have time to go geocaching somewhere outside my normal "blast radius", and I have time to plan ahead a bit, I'll use the favorites system to help choose which caches to seek.

2. Why is this an improvement over the current favorites system.

Well, I think only a couple of the ideas on your list would be significant improvements, specifically:

7. Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)

8. Use the favorites to provide personal recommendation based on cachers who favorited some of the same caches you favorited.

Essentially, the point of either of these would be to identify caches that were enjoyed by people with similar preferences to your own. I expect others to vote for favorites for reasons I disagree with. I expect others to disagree with my reasons for voting for favorites. For the purpose of choosing caches that I'll enjoy, the favorites of those I agree with are more significant than the favorites of those I disagree with.

January 25, 2011

Since Sandy said I could start a new thread, I will.
etc.

It's not up to us to give favourites a chance to work. It's up to GS.

Perhaps I should start a new thread "give opinions a chance to be aired". You seem awfully protective of the raw count as indicated by your extremely long and repetitious lectures on the subject.

<_<

6.7k · January 25, 2011

7. Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)

8. Use the favorites to provide personal recommendation based on cachers who favorited some of the same caches you favorited.

This is pretty much what I had suggested ages ago when the idea of a rating system wad being debated. Well, actually I think I mentioned it in several of the dozens of threads debating a rating system. :laughing: The difference is that I didn't see the need for posting the count on the cache page. I guess some people need that validation.

18.9k · January 25, 2011

A few possibles addtion to the PQ options would include:

favorited by (cacher or list of cachers) and meets other criteria
Has a ratio of x% of PMs or higher
Has a total number of favorites > x
has favorites

1.2k · January 25, 2011

I like it the way it is (with the addition of my greasemonkey that shows a ratio on the cache page).

If they could do

7. Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one

8. Use the favorites to provide personal recommendation based on cachers who favorited some of the same caches you favorited

then that would be neat, but I don't expect that this year.

2.3k · January 25, 2011

I would like to have the option of turning them off.

Or a more discreet option when logging the find would suffice.

6.7k · January 25, 2011

I would like to have the option of turning them off.

Or a more discreet option when logging the find would suffice.

Could you explain in a bit more detail?

January 25, 2011

People favorite caches for different reasons. I think the system they have now works well. I feel they need to add one thing to the favorites and that would be the reason why the cacher gave the cache a favorite point. Other than that it's a good system. You like the cache give it a point, if you don't like the cache don't give it a point.

1.8k · January 25, 2011

Allow multiple votes to be given to one cache. For example allow 1 to 3 votes to be given to a cache to give more weight to the caches you feel deserve more credit
...

If you support one of these enhancements what proof do you have that it will be useful?

It seems to work well on the Feedback site. I'd have liked to have had a way to express a stronger opinion about some caches. Maybe at some point in the future Groundspeak can award cachers a handful of "SuperVotes" that accrue 1/100 caches instead of 1/10. It would be an interesting way to see what caches people really, really, really liked.

I think it's pretty hard to 'prove' beforehand one way or another. On these forums especially, what 'proof' would have been accepted for the idea that people might find Favorites useful? All you can do is introduce ideas you think people will like to use and hope that you're right.

I don't think that offering suggestions means that people are not giving Favorites a chance to work.

1.8k · January 25, 2011

Any attempt to rank cache caches will, in my opinion, fail not just for some geocachers but for most geocahers. What we like about geocaching is so varied that we shouldn't expect a ranking based on a hypothetical average cacher is going to be useful. Yet many people seem to assume just that.

Many cachers have posted that ranking/sorting Favorites in different ways (raw and ratio) has been useful for them. There is some continued insistence that ranking/sorting Favorites is a Fail, but I'm not sure how I could convince so many people that something they find useful is actually not.

If I contrast Favorites with Souvenirs I see what appears to be a relative smashing success:

- A lot of people wanted and asked for a ranking system

- I don't remember anyone asking for a foursquare-type system

- Now that it's been introduced, a lot of people have expressed enthusiasm for Favorites

- The level of excitement for Souvenirs appears to be lower to me

- Favorites seem to have been introduced with few glitches

- Souvenirs seem to have Lackeys running around like crazy fixing things - JYoungman and Moun10Bike in particular seem to be spending a lot of energy trying to figure out why particular souvenir roll-outs didn't work, going into people's individual accounts to delete or add souvenirs, etc. (I'm happy for the personalized attention, but given how much I hear about Groundspeak's limited resources I sometimes find myself wishing that Souvenirs would stop taking up so much of them)

Taken as a whole, Favorites seems like a Win to me.

January 25, 2011

7. Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)

I don't see how that would work in a useful fashion.

I decide I am going to go caching in Seattle.

I do a PQ of the area I will be able to cache in.

I see a listing that has 50 votes. I click this new link that shows what other caches these 50 people also voted for. Now all the other caches they voted for that are not in the area I can cache in is useless information since I can't cache there (time restraints etc). And all the caches that they voted for that are in the area I can cache in are already in my PQ of the area. So it seems that this would either be giving me information I already have or information that I can't use.

Maybe someone who likes the idea could explain to me what I am missing here.

1.5k · January 25, 2011

1. How are you planing to use favorites (or the replacement)?

and

2. Why is this an improvement over the current favorites system.

1. I'm using it to identify the better caches that I haven't visited yet. I'm also going to use it to monitor how my caches are being received.

2. The change I'd most like to see in the system is the ability to give an explanation to my favorite vote. I've given votes to some LPC's because there was some originality or creativity to the cache. A lot of people don't like LPC's and should know why I favorited one. I've also favorited a 'historic' cache that isn't inventive and favorited very difficult micros that were extremely well-done. To the system they all looks the same with a generic 1-vote but for very different reasons. Other caches should have a clue as to why a cache is being favorited so they can determine if the cache is one they'd like to hunt.

6.7k · January 25, 2011

7. Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)

I don't see how that would work in a useful fashion.

I decide I am going to go caching in Seattle.

I do a PQ of the area I will be able to cache in.

I see a listing that has 50 votes. I click this new link that shows what other caches these 50 people also voted for. Now all the other caches they voted for that are not in the area I can cache in is useless information since I can't cache there (time restraints etc). And all the caches that they voted for that are in the area I can cache in are already in my PQ of the area. So it seems that this would either be giving me information I already have or information that I can't use.

Maybe someone who likes the idea could explain to me what I am missing here.

Actually I think you missed the point. It doesn't start with a cache you might find but with one you did find. Say you find a cache you really like so you post a favorite vote. The system would return a list "Those who also enjoyed this cache enjoyed these caches"

I would set it up to start with caches that were favorites of most of those fifty people and working down to those that only one or two of the fifty had voted for.

2.1k · January 25, 2011

Actually I think you missed the point. It doesn't start with a cache you might find but with one you did find. Say you find a cache you really like so you post a favorite vote. The system would return a list "Those who also enjoyed this cache enjoyed these caches"

I think that would be awesome. Amazon.com seems to know what books I would like, so similarly, geocaching.com should be able to suggest caches I would like.

There is one little fly in the ointment: Amazon.com owns a patent on that algorithm. (Whether an algorithm should be patentable is a whole different argument.)

1.8k · January 25, 2011

I think that would be awesome. Amazon.com seems to know what books I would like, so similarly, geocaching.com should be able to suggest caches I would like.

There is one little fly in the ointment: Amazon.com owns a patent on that algorithm. (Whether an algorithm should be patentable is a whole different argument.)

Apple has something similar with 'Genius'. They take your playlist, and based on a number of things including the aggregated playlists of others, they make suggestions.

It's a big step up in complexity, but it could be interesting. I don't think Amazon's patent on their own method or Apple's on their own method would interfere.

1.8k · January 25, 2011

Just the simple act of having people voluntarily comment on the "reason" they favorited a cache might not actually provide any useful information.

It might not. When I look at bookmark lists where people have bothered to write something in the Comments field, sometimes it is not useful information. And yet - it often *is* helpful. When I come across a skilled bookmark list creator who uses the Comments field well, I'm exceptionally glad it's an option.

January 25, 2011

Actually I think you missed the point. It doesn't start with a cache you might find but with one you did find. Say you find a cache you really like so you post a favorite vote. The system would return a list "Those who also enjoyed this cache enjoyed these caches"

I would set it up to start with caches that were favorites of most of those fifty people and working down to those that only one or two of the fifty had voted for.

Ah, see in that case I would simple look at other caches that particular hider has hidden. But I now see what you are getting at with the 'also enjoyed' concept. Personally I've not had much luck with those on other sites (like Amazon) providing me useful information. Most of the time it seems very random.

I am however not against the idea of the concept being implemented here. I generally ignore the function on Amazon and can easily ignore it here as well if I don't find it personally useful.

6.7k · January 25, 2011

One of the issues at Amazon is the scope of their product diversity. No such issue here, they are all caches. It shouldn't be all that difficult to return an ordered list from the database sorted by those users who voted for a cache and returned with those caches most common among those hypothetical 50 users. The whole idea is just to automate what many are doing now.

20.7k · January 25, 2011

7. Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)

I don't see how that would work in a useful fashion.

I decide I am going to go caching in Seattle.

I do a PQ of the area I will be able to cache in.

I see a listing that has 50 votes. I click this new link that shows what other caches these 50 people also voted for. Now all the other caches they voted for that are not in the area I can cache in is useless information since I can't cache there (time restraints etc). And all the caches that they voted for that are in the area I can cache in are already in my PQ of the area. So it seems that this would either be giving me information I already have or information that I can't use.

Maybe someone who likes the idea could explain to me what I am missing here.

Actually I think you missed the point. It doesn't start with a cache you might find but with one you did find. Say you find a cache you really like so you post a favorite vote. The system would return a list "Those who also enjoyed this cache enjoyed these caches"

I would set it up to start with caches that were favorites of most of those fifty people and working down to those that only one or two of the fifty had voted for.

I like this idea. I further think that a button could (should) be included on all cache pages that would return the 'people who faved this cache also faved these caches' list.

This would be handy not just after a cacher finds these caches, but also when planning a trip to a new area. I'm imagining that someone I trust suggests a 'best' cache to me. I could then go to that cache page to see what other caches are similarly enjoyed. I then could use this larger group of caches to plan my day.

Of course, if my trusted cacher friend steers me wrong on the initial cache, I might end up looking for a bunch of caches that I won't think are awesome, but you pays your money and you takes your chances.

8k · January 25, 2011

Since Sandy said I could start a new thread, I will.
etc.

It's not up to us to give favourites a chance to work. It's up to GS.

Perhaps I should start a new thread "give opinions a chance to be aired". You seem awfully protective of the raw count as indicated by your extremely long and repetitious lectures on the subject.

This is about the snarkiest reply I've ever gotten.

While I belive the raw count is sufficient to use the favorites for the reasons I plan to use them (and which I believe is what most people will use them for) both of these threads I have asked the questions "How do you plan on using favorites?" and "Why do you believe that whatever change you are asking for will be an improvement?". I have learn a lot from the people who care to answer my question. I have enjoyed debating them when I disagree with their answers but I haven't censored anyone's opinion. I can't anyway.

The title of this thread is due to my surprise that a brand new system has already produced so many requests for changes. It is not up to GS to respond to every request for a change made in the feedback forum. GS resources are limited and they are looking at areas where a change will benefit the most. Just because an idea gets a lot of votes on the feedback site doesn't make it a good candidate to implement. It is up to those who request changes to show how they will benefit and why they should be implemented before other features.

The favorites are new and it's hard for me to understand why all the request already. It makes more sense to me for people to use the favorites as they now exist for a while and see how they are working. Only then if there are areas that need improvement to suggest them. At that time it becomes much easier to give examples of what isn't working and show how the suggested changes will actually improve something. IMHO, most of the suggestion made in the feedbacke forums are carp. They aren't thought out, they often address a non-problem or a problem that affects only a few individuals and for which there are already work arounds. The feedback forums are a horrible way to get people to think about these issues. Instead they are places where people solicit votes for their idea (much like soliciting favorites votes for one's caches). I find these forums much better for debates and that's why I started this thread. If you don't want to debate these issues then please don't post here.

If I contrast Favorites with Souvenirs I see what appears to be a relative smashing success:

- A lot of people wanted and asked for a ranking system

- I don't remember anyone asking for a foursquare-type system

- Now that it's been introduced, a lot of people have expressed enthusiasm for Favorites

- The level of excitement for Souvenirs appears to be lower to me

- Favorites seem to have been introduced with few glitches

- Souvenirs seem to have Lackeys running around like crazy fixing things - JYoungman and Moun10Bike in particular seem to be spending a lot of energy trying to figure out why particular souvenir roll-outs didn't work, going into people's individual accounts to delete or add souvenirs, etc. (I'm happy for the personalized attention, but given how much I hear about Groundspeak's limited resources I sometimes find myself wishing that Souvenirs would stop taking up so much of them)

Taken as a whole, Favorites seems like a Win to me.

I mostly agree with this. You should look up the threads I started when souvenirs were introduced.

However, at a recent event I polled some geocachers about souvenirs and favorites. Most were very enthusiatics about getting souvenirs for finding caches in different states and countries. This was definitely something they would consider in deciding where to go on vacation. They thought favorites are too much of a hassle to deal with. They certainly weren't planing to go back and mark 10% of the caches they found in the past as favorites. And they felt that favorites wouldn't change the way they select which caches they would go find. These are people who seem to enjoy finding every cache. If some cache is really special they will generally hear about it from friend and would be happy to go on a caching outing with their friend to find it, but otherwise it's just punching in the coordinates on the iPhone and finding the nearest unfound caches.

My general impression is that people who are looking for some elaborate scheme for ranking and selecting caches (whether to avoid crappy caches or to make sure the "best" caches aren't missed) are the minority in the geoaching community. Most people consider it fun whenever they go caching and realize that not every cache is going to be above average (unless they are Lake Wobegon caches). They enjoy it when the find 80 caches in a day and only a few of them are exceptional in some way. Or they may find only one or two caches at a time and even if both are LPCs, that's not enough to get bored or feel the need to whine about.

Edited January 25, 2011 by tozainamboku

6.7k · January 25, 2011

Toz, you are nothing if not long winded. I really haven't see anything suggested that seems all that complicated. Add to that the fact that TPTB have already stated that they are going to incorporate the favorites into PQs and I really see nothing wrong with suggesting ways that we would like to see the favorites used.

1.8k · January 25, 2011

However, at a recent event I polled some geocachers about souvenirs and favorites. Most were very enthusiatics about getting souvenirs for finding caches in different states and countries. This was definitely something they would consider in deciding where to go on vacation.

I'm fascinated that people who weren't otherwise interested in filling in their state maps, are now adjusting vacation plans around collecting Groundspeak souvenirs. I would not have guessed that.

1.4k · January 25, 2011

And yes, if someone wants a change that is only helpful to a small number of people than it is a legitimate response that Groundspeak spend their limited resources on other projects.

I agree. That's why the feedback site has a voting system so that Groundspeak can see how to prioritize the feature requests. What I have an issue with is when people say they shouldn't do a feature because they think something else deserves more attention. There's a big difference between giving something a lower priority and not doing it at all.

If resource were unlimited then certainly people who don't want a feature can ignore if does no other harm. But resource are not unlimited so shouldn't they be spent on features that do the most good for the most people?

Different feature require different amounts of effort. When a dev finishes their current task an has an hour or two to kill they may not want to start the next big feature until tomorrow (perhaps they need to plan it out with someone who's not available). They could get a lower priority but less complex feature off the list in the couple of hours they have.

If you support one of these enhancements what proof do you have that it will be useful?

Why do we need proof? If enough people say it will be useful to them, isn't that good enough?

There wasn't a proof requirement for favourites in the first place. There was just enough noise made that Groundspeak decided to do it.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Avernar

1.4k · January 25, 2011

I kept my nose out of the other thread, but don't feel bad about jumping into this one.

First, I think that people are making suggestions on how to improve the favorites feature because they think that their ideas will work a little bit better. It's natural, it happens everywhere.

I like the idea of a ratio, as I think it would more accurately represent the "quality" of a cache. That's in quotes because this is an imperfect system and I'm well aware that there are tons of caches that don't receive any votes that are of great quality. I just feel that it says more about the cache, if it's voted for, if the percentage of finders who chose to administer a favorites point is high.

As far as your list, I'd also agree that #7 would be a very nice and very helpful addition. I'm always looking for suggestions on good caches, and another medium to receive those through, ie a list of other caches that have favorites points from the same cachers, is just another way for me to find caches I might enjoy.

No system will please everyone. No system will please most people. It is the way it is, and it may or may not change. People can ignore it if they wish. I'll use what's there to help me cache the way I want, and so will everyone else.

My question for you is this, and it's a serious one; no snarkiness. Why the resistance to changing the way the favorites system works? It's not anything that's been around forever and has worked for the same amount of time. If the potential is there for improvement, what's wrong with changes?

I'll follow that by saying while some changes would be convenient, I don't support change or the lack of, I'm just curious.

8k · January 25, 2011

And yes, if someone wants a change that is only helpful to a small number of people than it is a legitimate response that Groundspeak spend their limited resources on other projects.

I agree. That's why the feedback site has a voting system so that Groundspeak can see how to prioritize the feature requests. What I have an issue with is when people say they shouldn't do a feature because they think something else deserves more attention. There's a big difference between giving something a lower priority and not doing it at all.

Votes on the feedback site don't really indicate that a feature is useful. Since there is no negative voting (and no ratio of people who voted for versus the number of people who posted a negative comment ) all it measures is that some people are passionate about this idea. It could still be a foolish idea that really doesn't help anyone - or it may be that a slightly better idea will solve come along. Unfortunately the feedback site does not promote debate and open discussion of the issues. It becomes just a popularity contest.

If resource were unlimited then certainly people who don't want a feature can ignore if does no other harm. But resource are not unlimited so shouldn't they be spent on features that do the most good for the most people?

Different feature require different amounts of effort. When a dev finishes their current task an has an hour or two to kill they may not want to start the next big feature until tomorrow (perhaps they need to plan it out with someone who's not available). They could get a lower priority but less complex feature off the list in the couple of hours they have.

I won't debate software development methodologies here. Certainly one approach is to allow developers to choose to work on simple tasks when they have time in between big complicated ones.

If you support one of these enhancements what proof do you have that it will be useful?

Why do we need proof? If enough people say it will be useful to them, isn't that good enough?

There wasn't a proof requirement for favourites in the first place. There was just enough noise made that Groundspeak decided to do it.

I beg to differ here. Various proposals for rating systems have been discussed in these forums for years. The favorites system was first suggested by Markwell a long time ago. There was plenty of "proof" that some people felt they were finding to many caches they didn't enjoy or that it was to difficult to filter these out using the current tools. I may agree that it was only a minority that vocally complained on the forums and the most people were happy with current methods to find caches. But there did seem to be a significant number of geocaches who would find some rating system helpful. Among all of the suggested rating systems, the favorites had the least negative impact on the cachers who won't use it. It's simple enough to ignore. The awarding of favorites is optional. For cache owners a favorite vote can be seen as a positive thing unlike some the suggestions to let users rate caches they don't like as crap. Pehaps by limiting the favorites to the top 10% cache owners whose cache don't get liked will feel there cache is still good, just not in that top 10%.

True we don't know what motivated Jeremy to all of a sudden think there was a need to improve cache quality. But he didn't just pick a method because there was noise. He picked it based on years of discussion, and looking at various method used to rate things on other websites. There was strong evidence (perhaps a better choice of words than proof) that positive feedback recommendation/like systems are useful in helping people filter through choices and in encouraging the providers to think about quality. I believe the system will be tweaked over time if needed. But I don't believe we should be messing with it just for the sake of messing.

3.2k · January 25, 2011

I Like #2 ... I'm using about half my favorite points and feel that if I lower my standards any further I'll take away from the really superior caches I've already selected. So those extra votes will simply sit there doing nothing.

I like #8 ... I've already noticed a couple local cachers that seem to agree with my idea of what makes a good cache and will be checking their favorites list from time to time. It would be nice to get a notice when they find a good one.

January 25, 2011

I've already noticed a couple local cachers that seem to agree with my idea of what makes a good cache and will be checking their favorites list from time to time. It would be nice to get a notice when they find a good one.

Now that to me is a very good idea and a function of this favorite system that I might actually use.

If we are voting I would like to see this implemented before ratios

1.4k · January 25, 2011

Votes on the feedback site don't really indicate that a feature is useful. Since there is no negative voting (and no ratio of people who voted for versus the number of people who posted a negative comment ) all it measures is that some people are passionate about this idea. It could still be a foolish idea that really doesn't help anyone - or it may be that a slightly better idea will solve come along. Unfortunately the feedback site does not promote debate and open discussion of the issues. It becomes just a popularity contest.

I like your parallel between the voting system on the feedback site and the favourite system. Both are highly subjective.

Negative votes can be bad in that you can't tell if it's they think the idea is flawed or they just being used to "steal dev time".

Regardless on the flaws of the feedback site, if an idea is sound then, yeah, I guess it is a popularity contest.

I beg to differ here. Various proposals for rating systems have been discussed in these forums for years.

I think we're on different levels here. I'm up higher in the concept stages. People wanted a rating system. It doesn't matter why they wanted it nor should they be required to provide proof that it's useful.

Down at the implementation level, yeah, proof and math and whatnot should be given. That's where the debate is necessary on how to accomplish it.

1.4k · January 25, 2011

I've already noticed a couple local cachers that seem to agree with my idea of what makes a good cache and will be checking their favorites list from time to time. It would be nice to get a notice when they find a good one.

Now that to me is a very good idea and a function of this favorite system that I might actually use.

I actually like this idea too.

If we are voting I would like to see this implemented before ratios

Even if I hated the idea I have no problem of you preferring it over the other.

1.3k · January 25, 2011

1) Allow -1 vote for caches you think are lame.

I don't like this. It can be used maliciously to put down another cache or cacher. Caching should be a positive experience.

2) Allow multiple votes to be given to one cache. For example allow 1 to 3 votes to be given to a cache to give more weight to the caches you feel deserve more credit; or if you only think of 5% of your finds are worth awarding points to, give two points to each favorite cache.

There have already been examples of caches abusing the favorites by soliciting favorites. I think this could add to the problem. If it becomes common practice to award multiple favorites to caches the effect would be lose its impact after a while and become pointless.

3) Provide a reason why you favorited a cache.

I awarded a favorite to a cache because the location was on top of a mountain. The experience of getting up there and being up there was just so amazing.

4) Change the number of finds for awarding a vote either higher or lower.

I have only used a few favorites. I think awarding too many dilutes the value of them.

5) Instead of voting for favorites, allow finders to rank the cache as to what percentile find it is.

I think the diversity of what cachers like in a cache would average the result over time loosing the value of individual rankings. This would end up wit no more value than favorite or no favorite.

6) Implement a 1 to 5 star system ala GCVote.

Same result as #5. Over time the individual ratings would average out.

7) Use the favorites to provide a list of caches you might like if you like this one (People who favorite this cache also favorite ...)

That sounds like a useful feature. You can already do that though if I understand correctly. Look at the people who awarded a favorite. Click on the user, then look at their favorites.

8) Use the favorites to provide personal recommendation based on cachers who favorited some of the same caches you favorited.

May be useful for finding cachers who may like the same types of caches as you do.

9) Eliminate favorites altogether and go back to what we use to have.

I like it. No need to take it away.

3.1k · January 25, 2011

However, at a recent event I polled some geocachers about souvenirs and favorites. Most were very enthusiatics about getting souvenirs for finding caches in different states and countries. This was definitely something they would consider in deciding where to go on vacation.

I'm fascinated that people who weren't otherwise interested in filling in their state maps, are now adjusting vacation plans around collecting Groundspeak souvenirs. I would not have guessed that.

I'm amazed as well. It's hard for me to imagine that adding a souvenir is among the top 100 factors a typical geocacher considers when deciding where to vacation. But whatever floats your boat. I'm glad souvenirs are available for these people.

3.1k · January 26, 2011

My general impression is that people who are looking for some elaborate scheme for ranking and selecting caches (whether to avoid crappy caches or to make sure the "best" caches aren't missed) are the minority in the geo[c]aching community.

What is an "elaborate scheme" for some might be rather straightforward for others, especially if Groundspeak developers did most of the calculations behind the scenes. Some geocachers find PQs to be "elaboratate" and PQ users probably are in the minority, but I'm glad Groundspeak offers this useful tool.

Most people consider it fun whenever they go caching and realize that not every cache is going to be above average...

But what if people could have even more fun when they go caching? I find most hikes to be fun, but I try to select trails that I expect will be more enjoyable than the typical trail.

Edited January 26, 2011 by CanadianRockies

6.7k · January 26, 2011

Most people consider it fun whenever they go caching and realize that not every cache is going to be above average...

But what if people could have even more fun when they go caching? I find most hikes to be fun, but I try to select trails that I expect will be more enjoyable than the typical trail.

This one still confuses me. Wouldn't those same people enjoy it even more if they could minimize the number of caches they visit that are bellow the current average? Is it not in everyone's best interest to encourage an upward creep of the point at which the bar is set instead of the long running trend downward?

7.9k · January 26, 2011

I have not used any of my favorites votes...yet.

I am highly in favor of a GCVote-type system because I feel the need responsibility to express my opinion on each and every cache I find...anonymously.

GCVote allows display by averages or means, and you can see the actual vote distribution if you like

I want a system that not only points out the really good caches, but also the really bad ones...as well as the in-between ones.

Groundspeak apparently does not realize there are indeed REALLY BAD caches out there.

If people were caches...

Mother Theresa would get many favorites votes.

Joe B. citizen would probably get none.

Jeffery Dahmer would also get none.

I wouldn't mind meeting the Joe B. citizens, but I probably want to avoid the Jeffery Dahmers.

January 26, 2011

The only one I see being useful is being able to write why you favorited a cache. When I first clicked on the favorites box of a cache, I actually was wondering where the text next to the names was. I think this feature would be helpful because it allows me to know what to expect. Before favorites, I used to look through bookmarks of "favorites" of local cachers, read the comments about the caches, then go to the ones that sounded appealing. I would like favorites to work in a similar way.

January 26, 2011

I Like #2 ... I'm using about half my favorite points and feel that if I lower my standards any further I'll take away from the really superior caches I've already selected. So those extra votes will simply sit there doing nothing.

I like #8 ... I've already noticed a couple local cachers that seem to agree with my idea of what makes a good cache and will be checking their favorites list from time to time. It would be nice to get a notice when they find a good one.

That was my thought when I first had the idea, as well. There are a lot of caches in L.A., and my caching time is limited. If there is someone who has two or more favorites identical to my own, I think there's a very good chance that we're going to have similar tastes. So when I get the time to go caching, and I'm trying to decide on an area of L.A. to target, I can build my day around caches that were favorited by the same people who seem to like the same types of caches I like.

Do I think that that means the current system doesn't work? Absolutely not. It's simply me saying, "Wow, this is cool... and here's something that might make it even cooler!"

8k · January 26, 2011

Most people consider it fun whenever they go caching and realize that not every cache is going to be above average...

But what if people could have even more fun when they go caching? I find most hikes to be fun, but I try to select trails that I expect will be more enjoyable than the typical trail.

But then you miss the chance to be surprised that what you thought was a typical trail is really special. Hopefully it's something that others saw there and they gave it a favorite vote. But maybe something happens while your hiking the trail that didn't happen to anyone else - like seeing a grizzly or a double rainbow.

I've actually considered not looking at the favorites votes when I'm caching locally because it might spoil the fun of being surprised when I visit an execeptional cache.

Groundspeak apparently does not realize there are indeed REALLY BAD caches out there.

I'm not certain what AZcachemeister thinks is really bad. It could be he thinks all urban hides are really bad, or just LPCs, or perhaps too many muggles, or caches near playgrounds, or hide he considers needle-in-the-haystack searches. I know people who think any hike is a really bad cache, or sometimes a hike is OK, but not if you have to go off trail and get ticks or need to watch out for snakes. I know a lot of people who think any puzzle is a really bad cache.

I don't doubt there are caches with sub-standard containers with logs that are always wet or need maintenance. But that's what a needs maintenance log is about. Or there may be caches that violate the cache placement guidelines. They should get a needs archive. And I understand the disgust that you might feel if the cache in a dumpster or some place that homeless use for a toilet. Please mention this in the log. Responsible cache owners will move the cache or archive it. And if they don't then, it's more helpful to see the specifics in the log than to guess why someone gave a negative vote.

5.3k · January 26, 2011

I'm not certain what AZcachemeister thinks is really bad.

Let me help you.

A cache hidden under the dirt behind a dumpster at a fast-food joint with used needles lying all around.
A cache located 6 inches from human excrement in a homeless camp.
A cache disguised as a piece of garbage in a pile of other rotting garbage.

And yes, I have actually seen each of the above. Each had been in the described situation since it was placed. None of the owners had made any attempt to fix the problems.

FWIW, I think negative points are a bad idea, but this persistent belief you have about how "good" and "bad" are always just opinions is (IMO, as always) nonsense.

Edited January 26, 2011 by fizzymagic

1.8k · January 26, 2011

I've actually considered not looking at the favorites votes when I'm caching locally because it might spoil the fun of being surprised when I visit an execeptional cache.

Not for nothing, but if Favorites are repeatedly ruining the surprise of finding a particularly exceptional cache by letting people know ahead of time that it is exceptional - that's a pretty nice endorsement of the effectiveness of Favorites.

8k · January 26, 2011

I'm not certain what AZcachemeister thinks is really bad.

Let me help you.

A cache hidden under the dirt behind a dumpster at a fast-food joint with used needles lying all around.

A cache located 6 inches from human excrement in a homeless camp.

A cache disguised as a piece of garbage in a pile of other rotting garbage.

And yes, I have actually seen each of the above. Each had been in the described situation since it was placed. None of the owners had made any attempt to fix the problems.

FWIW, I think negative points are a bad idea, but this persistent belief you have about how "good" and "bad" are always just opinions is (IMO, as always) nonsense.

Kind of interesting that in my post I gave examples very close to yours. It seems I already know that sometimes caches are in areas that really aren't fit for geocaches but which may not be called out as such in the guidelines. One problem is that conditions sometimes change after a cache is hidden. When hidden, the area near the dumpster may have been clear of needles and trash (other that what's in the dumpster and it may have been covered and a significant distance from where the cache is hidden). There may not have been a homeless camp and certainly nobody had pooped on the cache. The use of camouflage that looks like trash may be controversial, but I've certainly looked for cache in areas that need CITO. Again the trash may not have been there when the cache was hidden or the cache owner may have hidden the cache there in hopes that cachers would do CITO.

People often place geocaches in locations they feel will not be found by muggles or where geocachers can search without being seen by muggles. In urban areas, these are also locations that homeless people might use for toilets or people may use as trash dumps. I believe that often the caches were placed in these area before there was a problem or the problem was not as evident on the day the cache was placed (after it rained for example). The property owner or appropriate agency will sometimes clean up these locations when brought to their attention. I've seen caches that I complained about in my log that a month or two later get glowing logs on what a great hide they were (who knows, they may even get on someone's favorite list). There may be a small number of geocahers who are not disturbed by garbage or even by excrement and they may see the opportunity to hide is such location is an advantage. Certainly, those who want to avoid these locations have a right to know what to expect so they can be avoided.

I believe the best response to these caches is to mention it in your log. If cachers are aware that there may be a problem they can decide whether to search for these caches or not, and cache owners can decide to move or archive the cache.

3.1k · January 26, 2011

Most people consider it fun whenever they go caching and realize that not every cache is going to be above average...

But what if people could have even more fun when they go caching? I find most hikes to be fun, but I try to select trails that I expect will be more enjoyable than the typical trail.

But then you miss the chance to be surprised that what you thought was a typical trail is really special. Hopefully it's something that others saw there and they gave it a favorite vote. But maybe something happens while your hiking the trail that didn't happen to anyone else - like seeing a grizzly or a double rainbow.

Most of the nice trails I select also have potential for really special surprises, like seeing wildlife or double rainbows. And even if I don't encounter these surprises, at least I probably got to enjoy some more predicatable features, such as exceptional scenery or an interesting old cabin.

By being selective, I might increase my likelihood of enjoying a hike from, say, 60 percent to perhaps 95 percent. For me, that's a good thing.

5.3k · January 26, 2011

I believe the best response to these caches is to mention it in your log.

You completely missed the point. We're not talking about the best approach to bad caches; we are discussing their existence.

Every one of the caches I mentioned had been that way since they were placed. Two of the three hiders took great pride in their number of hides.

All three were bad caches. Not "bad for me, good for others" caches, but just plain bad. They were placed thoughtlessly and they had no redeeming qualities.

I hope you now understand what people mean when they refer to "bad caches."

1.8k · January 26, 2011

There may be a small number of geocahers who are not disturbed by garbage or even by excrement and they may see the opportunity to hide is such location is an advantage.

I'll be honest in saying I don't see an issue, at all, with *any* system that marginalizes the very few people that could possibly describe. Someone who loves P&G's is one thing; but we're really stretching the theoretical limits of academic thought experiments when we worry about people who like caches stuck in poop and surrounded by trash.

8k · January 26, 2011

There may be a small number of geocahers who are not disturbed by garbage or even by excrement and they may see the opportunity to hide is such location is an advantage.

I'll be honest in saying I don't see an issue, at all, with *any* system that marginalizes the very few people that could possibly describe. Someone who loves P&G's is one thing; but we're really stretching the theoretical limits of academic thought experiments when we worry about people who like caches stuck in poop and surrounded by trash.

While I find poop caches pretty disgusting, I've rather enjoyed finding some fake poop caches.

But I look at it this way. I'm looking for a cache in some bushes in a park the homeless sometimes use. If by chance one of them pooped in the bush the poop is not going to jump up and bite me. Even if I accidentally get some on me, there is only some small risk I'll get some infection and die from it. I know that many geocachers carry hand sanitizer with them just in case. But if I go looking for a cache in swamp infested with alligators, an alligator may decide to come after me without warning and, if it's a big one, I may not survive to clean out the poop I will have made in my own pants. Yet there are people here who will tell me that one a bad cache that shouldn't be allowed at all while the other is a great location for a cache.

I admit I don't have much experience with alligator swamps to know if the risks of wading in the swamp is greater than the risk of looking is some bush where a homeless guy pooped. The only experience I had was this EarthCache, and from my log you will see I waited until after the alligator was captured.

I have no doubt that most cachers don't care to be looking around where someone has made a toilet. However I can tell you the most distgusting poop caches I've found were one on a small island in the middle of a lake and another near a backcountry campsite. It seems the jetskiers were too lazy to go back to the shore and use the outhouse so they pooped on the island near where the cache was hidden, and the campers apparently hadn't heard about burying your waste or packing it out. So finding human poop is not limited to urban caches near homeless encampments. If you happened to find the cache in either of these places without seeing the used toilet paper stuck in the bushes, you'd proabably list both of these as great caches. I'm sure if you found scat from a wild animal, you probably think the cache was worth a favorite.

January 26, 2011

[*]Provide a reason why you favorited a cache.

I just look at the logs for the cachers who favorited the cache. That's what I would have done when searching for exceptional caches to find before this system was in place. There is a link to the cacher's log right next to their username in the favorites list. Seems easy enough to me.

7.9k · January 27, 2011

poop poop pooped poop

pooped. poop pooped poop

You seem to have a poop fetish.

Give favorites a chance to work

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment