Favorite Ratios

18.9k · February 1, 2011

Now that we can see the favorited Ratio of premium users on caches - any thoughts? observations?

I have a cache with 5 favorites but 24%

I have a cache with 8 favorites but only 3%

A cache I found has 27 favorites but only 5%

Seems like a fairly "high" ratio thus far is anything much over a paltry 4 or 5%.

9.4k · February 1, 2011

Since I have to click on the favorites (the little arrow by the number) I probably won't pay any attention to it. Just seeing that a cache has more than a few votes is enough to tell me it's an above average cache (i.e. anything besides a lamp post).

2.8k · February 1, 2011

This is such an arbitrary number. I agree the average will be somewhere around 10% or 12%. I doubt there will be very many that hit over 30%. Especially older caches with hundreds of finds. Since its very likely that a great number of the people who found them have dropped out of the sport or no longer pay for a premium membership.

1.7k · February 1, 2011

This is such an arbitrary number. I agree the average will be somewhere around 10% or 12%. I doubt there will be very many that hit over 30%. Especially older caches with hundreds of finds. Since its very likely that a great number of the people who found them have dropped out of the sport or no longer pay for a premium membership.

Exactly, there's a virtual in my area, best virtual I have ever done. Extremely low ratio because there are finds from as far back as 2002. Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it... Nobody. But a new cache, just an above average one has a higher ratio.

Ratio's are pointless. Why'd they even decide to add them?

18.9k · February 1, 2011

... Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it...

Me - already have.

7k · February 1, 2011

Exactly, there's a virtual in my area, best virtual I have ever done. Extremely low ratio because there are finds from as far back as 2002. Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it... Nobody. But a new cache, just an above average one has a higher ratio.

Ah, so you personally think it should be the other way around, and that necessarily means that the numbers must be wrong and meaningless.

Right right...

1.4k · February 1, 2011

... Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it...

Me - already have.

YUP!! Me too!

6.7k · February 1, 2011

This is such an arbitrary number. I agree the average will be somewhere around 10% or 12%. I doubt there will be very many that hit over 30%. Especially older caches with hundreds of finds. Since its very likely that a great number of the people who found them have dropped out of the sport or no longer pay for a premium membership.

Exactly, there's a virtual in my area, best virtual I have ever done. Extremely low ratio because there are finds from as far back as 2002. Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it... Nobody. But a new cache, just an above average one has a higher ratio.

Ratio's are pointless. Why'd they even decide to add them?

The good news is using them is totally voluntary. If you don't find them useful don't click on the link.

February 1, 2011

Exactly, there's a virtual in my area, best virtual I have ever done. Extremely low ratio because there are finds from as far back as 2002.

Without knowing what cache you're referring to, I would bet money that it has plenty of favorite votes and will be easy to find without ratios. The ratios are not needed to highlight that kind of cache.

Ratio's are pointless. Why'd they even decide to add them?

Because lots of people asked for it.

Topic on the feedback forum with 500+ votes:

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1322185-of-cachers-favorited-not-of-cachers-favorited?ref=title

Also, I'm sure you saw the very long threads where lots of people indicated that they thought they would be useful.

IMO ratios will be a lot more useful when the ability to sort or filter using them is added.

Edited February 1, 2011 by sdarken

February 1, 2011

Extremely low ratio because there are finds from as far back as 2002. Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it... Nobody. But a new cache, just an above average one has a higher ratio.

My "Cache of the Month" idea gets around this problem, as it reflects only those favourites cast recently. I'll work up a real example some time.

5.2k · February 1, 2011

Just wanted to mention I just published a new version of my Favorites Percentage script.

When you first open a cache page, the old-fashioned Favorites/Total Logs percentage is added to the Favorites box. It is shown in a gray color to denote that it's not the best percentage, but it's still somewhat useful for a quick estimate.

When/if you click on the box, the percentage is replaced by the newer Favorites/Premium Logs and is shown in a dark blue.

When you drag your mouse over the percentage, a tooltip will show the formula used to compute the ratio. In the case of Premium Logs, the number is only approximate because the percentage returned by geocaching.com is a whole number, so precision is lost.

Since I have to click on the favorites (the little arrow by the number) I probably won't pay any attention to it.

It should be noted that you don't have to click directly on the little arrow. Clicking anywhere in the rounded box is sufficient.

February 1, 2011

This is such an arbitrary number. I agree the average will be somewhere around 10% or 12%. I doubt there will be very many that hit over 30%. Especially older caches with hundreds of finds. Since its very likely that a great number of the people who found them have dropped out of the sport or no longer pay for a premium membership.

I have noticed that popular puzzle, multi and Wherigo caches may have a higher average. Just a few minutes of searching has turned up five established hides at 33-40+%.

3k · February 1, 2011

Ratio's are pointless. Why'd they even decide to add them?

Because not having ratios is more pointless.

Big difference if a cache has been found 100 times and has 10 Favorites vs 10 Finds & 10 Favorites.

February 1, 2011

Hmmm. I have 3 caches sitting at 100% as of the new site update.

This is such an arbitrary number. I doubt there will be very many that hit over 30%.

4.1k · February 1, 2011

IMO ratios will be a lot more useful when the ability to sort or filter using them is added.

Sdarken's optimism shines. But just don't be totally seduced by them. Numbers are just numbers. If I had filtered for favorites on a recent trip I would have missed out on a cache I added to my favorites list -- in fact it was so good I had to go bring my noncaching family there and make the location into a mission for the ispy iphone/gps game.

Edited February 2, 2011 by mulvaney

2.2k · February 1, 2011

... Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it...

Me - already have.

YUP!! Me too!

Same here. Since I have been keeping a bookmark list of the best caches I have found it was a trivial process to go back and retroactively award Favorite points, even to caches which have long since been Archived.

10.1k · February 2, 2011

I don't like it becaue it takes an extra step to see who favorited the cache.

24 favorites = 13% That's impressive to me!

1 favorite = 14% Nice cache, but I'm not sure why anyone favorited it. Much less impressive.

2 favorites = 67% Nice that 2 of the 3 finders enjoyed it! (The third -finder is not using favorites.) Evil, off-the-wall mystery cache, with 3 finds in 9 months. 67# favorite is going to entice more people into finding it? Somehow, I doubt that. But, I am impressed! Thanks, guys!

4.1k · February 2, 2011

I am willing to give it some time, but if a favorites ratio means watching the little round circle moving around when I go to load the cache page, or favorites means looking at signal's thermometer when I log a find, then it may be more trouble than its worth.

Edited February 2, 2011 by mulvaney

February 2, 2011

A % is a nice feature to have but I don't see myself using it. I will use the favorites feature to rate my favorite caches and to seek out caches that I would like to make a special caching day to travel to but for the most part I will stick to seeking caches that are nearby and are grouped so I can do serveral in a day. I can see myself using the favorites to find caches when out of town and I have limited caching time but the percentage will have little meaning.

All I can wonder about when I see the % number is how many people are actually using the feature and how many have bothered to go back to favorite caches they have already found. There are just too many factors influencing the accuracy of % number that it has little meaning to me. I have caches that are exceptional (at least in my crazy head) with logs that say they are one of the cachers favorite caches but yet they have no favorite votes. Many are premium members. These caches were mostly last found prior to the favorites system being in place. I suspect that I might receive some votes from future seekers.

The raw number is good enough for me, regardless of how many people have actually found the cache. If 20 people favorite a cache, even if it has been found by 400 premium members, that gives me a good indication that it is worth reading the logs to determine if it is an exceptional cache worth going out of my way to find.

14k · February 2, 2011

Ratio's are pointless. Why'd they even decide to add them?

Because their users asked for it.

A Feedback topic was started asking GS to provide a percentage of favorites instead of just the number of favorites and 552 voted for it. Groundspeak responded and implemented the change. To me, that's exactly how customer support *should* work.

2.2k · February 2, 2011

A Feedback topic was started asking GS to provide a percentage of favorites instead of just the number of favorites and 552 voted for it. Groundspeak responded and implemented the change. To me, that's exactly how customer support *should* work.

Sure, but 552 is a raw number and really doesn't tell me anything. If only there was some sort of ratio to tell me how many people viewed the topic and then voted for it that would be a MUCH more useful number :rolleyes: .

2.2k · February 2, 2011

I am willing to give it some time, but if a favorites ratio means watching the little round circle moving around when I go to load the cache page, or favorites means looking at signal's thermometer when I log a find, then it may be more trouble than its worth.

Agreed. I have noticed the cache page seems to load a lot slower now than it did before the change, with the little circle going around and around and around by the Favorite section.

And, yes, I'm sick of the thermometer after every Find. Look, I have more Favorite points accumulated then I will ever need to allocate so I don't really care how many more cache I need to earn another one.

February 2, 2011

A Feedback topic was started asking GS to provide a percentage of favorites instead of just the number of favorites and 552 voted for it. Groundspeak responded and implemented the change. To me, that's exactly how customer support *should* work.

Sure, but 552 is a raw number and really doesn't tell me anything. If only there was some sort of ratio to tell me how many people viewed the topic and then voted for it that would be a MUCH more useful number .

LOL :laughing:

1.4k · February 2, 2011

24 favorites = 13% That's impressive to me!

1 favorite = 14% Nice cache, but I'm not sure why anyone favorited it. Much less impressive.

2 favorites = 67% Nice that 2 of the 3 finders enjoyed it! (The third -finder is not using favorites.) Evil, off-the-wall mystery cache, with 3 finds in 9 months. 67# favorite is going to entice more people into finding it? Somehow, I doubt that. But, I am impressed! Thanks, guys!

You have to look at both numbers. If the number of favourites is too low then it lowers the precision of the percentage.

1.4k · February 2, 2011

I am willing to give it some time, but if a favorites ratio means watching the little round circle moving around when I go to load the cache page, or favorites means looking at signal's thermometer when I log a find, then it may be more trouble than its worth.

They only did it that way to get the feature out to us quickly. It takes a bit of processing to calculate it.

They said in the release notes topic that they're going to look at improving that. More than likely it means putting the percentage in the cache table in the database and updating it when the favourites number changes and when a log is added or deleted.

When that happens the percentage will be there when the page loads and we'll be able to sort on it as well.

1.4k · February 2, 2011

Agreed. I have noticed the cache page seems to load a lot slower now than it did before the change, with the little circle going around and around and around by the Favorite section.

Huh? It only loads the percentage when you click on it, not when the page loads.

7k · February 2, 2011

You have to look at both numbers. If the number of favourites is too low then it lowers the precision of the percentage.

Actually I think it's the number of (premium) finders that's significant, but generally you're right: high ratio with low favorite count = high "fuzz" factor.

Huh? It only loads the percentage when you click on it, not when the page loads.

They had a bug on their page at first - I had to hit reload once to get it working properly.

2k · February 2, 2011

personally, I find seeing the ratios annoying, especially since its the newer caches that will have higher ones on average. If someone wants to calculate it, great, but I hate seeing it on caches.

1.4k · February 2, 2011

personally, I find seeing the ratios annoying, especially since its the newer caches that will have higher ones on average. If someone wants to calculate it, great, but I hate seeing it on caches.

I could understand if you thought it wasn't useful, but how can you "find seeing the ratios annoying" or "hate seeing it"? It's just a small number on the page like any other (actually, you have to click to see it currently). It's not even 'in your face' like the find thermometer thingy after logging, which I hid with a greasemonkey script.

38.2k · February 2, 2011

Since I have to click on the favorites (the little arrow by the number) I probably won't pay any attention to it. Just seeing that a cache has more than a few votes is enough to tell me it's an above average cache (i.e. anything besides a lamp post).

I agree. Show me a cache with 5 favorites and it's on my radar regardless of how many finds it has. The mundane caches are unlikely to get many, if any favorites.

18.9k · February 2, 2011

...especially since its the newer caches that will have higher ones on average. ...

Define "newer".

20.7k · February 2, 2011

... Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it...

Me - already have.

YUP!! Me too!

Same here. Since I have been keeping a bookmark list of the best caches I have found it was a trivial process to go back and retroactively award Favorite points, even to caches which have long since been Archived.

The fact that some players have gone back to identify their favorites from years ago does not prove that all players will do so. This is especially true considering that some finders are no longer active in the game, may not have been a PM at the time of the find, or just don't care to wade through hundreds or thousands of caches found years ago to try to remember which ones were in teh top ten percent. Further, some players don't care about the favorites feature and will not make the effort to flag their faves.

20.7k · February 2, 2011

...especially since its the newer caches that will have higher ones on average. ...

Define "newer".

A quick and dirty definition might be 'since faves were introduced'.

That being said, I suspect if this sort of thing were plotted that the very, very oldest 'historical' caches would have a bunch of 'raw' faves and then it would trend downward until very recently, where there would be a significant increase. This would translate to a quite low ratio for old caches (except 'historical' ones) and a notably larger ratio for similar caches placed recently.

18.9k · February 2, 2011

... Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it...

Me - already have.

YUP!! Me too!

Same here. Since I have been keeping a bookmark list of the best caches I have found it was a trivial process to go back and retroactively award Favorite points, even to caches which have long since been Archived.

The fact that some players have gone back to identify their favorites from years ago does not prove that all players will do so. This is especially true considering that some finders are no longer active in the game, may not have been a PM at the time of the find, or just don't care to wade through hundreds or thousands of caches found years ago to try to remember which ones were in teh top ten percent. Further, some players don't care about the favorites feature and will not make the effort to flag their faves.

...but the question posed is "Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it"?? the answers clearly demonstrate that some folk will and that is enough for me.

20.7k · February 2, 2011

... Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it...

Me - already have.

YUP!! Me too!

Same here. Since I have been keeping a bookmark list of the best caches I have found it was a trivial process to go back and retroactively award Favorite points, even to caches which have long since been Archived.

The fact that some players have gone back to identify their favorites from years ago does not prove that all players will do so. This is especially true considering that some finders are no longer active in the game, may not have been a PM at the time of the find, or just don't care to wade through hundreds or thousands of caches found years ago to try to remember which ones were in teh top ten percent. Further, some players don't care about the favorites feature and will not make the effort to flag their faves.

...but the question posed is "Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it"?? the answers clearly demonstrate that some folk will and that is enough for me.

Certainly, some will and most won't. That's fine if you are looking at raw numbers, but a person using ratios to find the best ones are going to lose out.

1.4k · February 2, 2011

Certainly, some will and most won't. That's fine if you are looking at raw numbers, but a person using ratios to find the best ones are going to lose out.

Trying to find the "best" cache is a flawed concept, but I won't complain about anyone attempting to do so.

7k · February 2, 2011

Certainly, some will and most won't. That's fine if you are looking at raw numbers, but a person using ratios to find the best ones are going to lose out.

However, less so than somebody trying to use the plain favorite count to find the best caches.

3.2k · February 2, 2011

... Who's going to remember a cache they found 9 years ago and then search through all there finds just to find it and favorite it...

Me - already have.

Me too... but I'm retired and been snowed in for a couple weeks... :mad:

8k · February 2, 2011

24 favorites = 13% That's impressive to me!

1 favorite = 14% Nice cache, but I'm not sure why anyone favorited it. Much less impressive.

2 favorites = 67% Nice that 2 of the 3 finders enjoyed it! (The third -finder is not using favorites.) Evil, off-the-wall mystery cache, with 3 finds in 9 months. 67# favorite is going to entice more people into finding it? Somehow, I doubt that. But, I am impressed! Thanks, guys!

You have to look at both numbers. If the number of favourites is too low then it lowers the precision of the percentage.

Boy you sure make it complicated. How are you going to use both numbers? The next thing you wil ask for is the ratio with a confidence interval base on number of finders or based on the raw count.

Several people here have indicated how they would use the raw count without having to look at the ratio. But the ratio users seem to admit you need both.

I am willing to give it some time, but if a favorites ratio means watching the little round circle moving around when I go to load the cache page, or favorites means looking at signal's thermometer when I log a find, then it may be more trouble than its worth.

They only did it that way to get the feature out to us quickly. It takes a bit of processing to calculate it.

They said in the release notes topic that they're going to look at improving that. More than likely it means putting the percentage in the cache table in the database and updating it when the favourites number changes and when a log is added or deleted.

When that happens the percentage will be there when the page loads and we'll be able to sort on it as well.

Seems a waste of Grounspeak resources to have to compute a ratio based on a complicated concept like number of premium fnders or worse - number of premium finders who actual use the favorites, or even number of premium finders with an adjustment for the age of the cache and the frequency of finds. Wouldn't it be much easier to ask the oracle for the probability that Avernar would like the cache and store that number in the table so Avernar could sort on it?

It's becoming clear that percentage of people who might give a favorite vote to a cache is more dependant on the age of a cache, the type of cache, and how often a cache is visited, than on how likely someone really liked the cache. There are some caches that attract people who really enjoy that cache but among whom only a few will give a favorite, while there are other caches that attract the kinds of people who are generous giving out favorites so they have much higher ratios.

Certainly, some will and most won't. That's fine if you are looking at raw numbers, but a person using ratios to find the best ones are going to lose out.

However, less so than somebody trying to use the plain favorite count to find the best caches.

:rolleyes:

It seems pretty clear that there are as substantial number of geocachers who are not going back and given favorites to old caches. And there are many more who are going to be more stingy with old cache and only give out favorite to ones that really stand out (for example only top 5%, while they may award the top 10% of recent finds). So the ratio on old caches will be less that it "should be". Yet these caches may have a relatively high raw count. sbell's argument is that if you use the raw count these older caches are more likely to show up and if you use ratio they are less likely to show up. If you are using favorites to find good caches you need to be aware of this weakness in the ratios.

Edited February 2, 2011 by tozainamboku

February 2, 2011

Interesting feature but I don't think I'm particularly going to do anything with it because I can't see how it's very useful. For example I favorited a cache in the Louvre courtyard in Paris as did 30+ other people but that still puts it at a 4% level because it's a popular cache visited at least once a day!

I guess it really depends what you'd be using the favorites points for, as I just think it's interesting in the context of "I'm in a new city let's see what the favorite caches are around here with my limited time," so I'd certainly check out a cache with 30+ favorites even if the percentage is low. If someone can think of how that information might be useful I'm definitely all ears.

(Actually now that I think about it probably the issue is not all geocachers go out of their way to favorite caches, yet all people who log are included in the percentage. Naturally this will drive down percentages on all caches, especially the older ones who probably have quite a few finds from people who aren't cachers anymore. And I wonder if it only counts premium member finds in the first place, as basic membership people can't use favorites?)

February 2, 2011

I agree with the idea that if it has even one favorite, I will look at it. If it has 3 or more, then I will look at it for sure. More than 3, I will make an effort to go find it.

I think the favorite thing was an excellent move for Geocaching.

1.4k · February 2, 2011

Boy you sure make it complicated. How are you going to use both numbers? The next thing you wil ask for is the ratio with a confidence interval base on number of finders or based on the raw count.

More than X favourites, look at the ratio. Less than X favourites, read the logs carefully. Pick the value of X that works for you. Doesn't seem complicated to me.

Several people here have indicated how they would use the raw count without having to look at the ratio. But the ratio users seem to admit you need both.

And why is needing both numbers a bad thing?

Seems a waste of Grounspeak resources to have to compute a ratio based on a complicated concept like number of premium fnders or worse - number of premium finders who actual use the favorites, or even number of premium finders with an adjustment for the age of the cache and the frequency of finds.

"Waste of Groundspeak resources" is subjective. There's a whole whack of things on the site that I'd consider a waste but other people find useful.

Wouldn't it be much easier to ask the oracle for the probability that Avernar would like the cache and store that number in the table so Avernar could sort on it?

Yes, but I can't seem to find an oracle. Statistics will have to suffice.

It's becoming clear that percentage of people who might give a favorite vote to a cache is more dependant on the age of a cache, the type of cache, and how often a cache is visited, than on how likely someone really liked the cache. There are some caches that attract people who really enjoy that cache but among whom only a few will give a favorite, while there are other caches that attract the kinds of people who are generous giving out favorites so they have much higher ratios.

All that would affect the raw count just as much as the ratio.

8.9k · February 2, 2011

GC28 - placed May 13, 2000

Traditional cache

740 found logs

126 favorites

24% Favorites/Premium Logs

GC5165 - listed April 25, 2002

Virtual cache

1242 found logs

41 favorites

5% Favorites/Premium Logs

GCGH9Y - placed June 26, 2003

Multicache

318 found logs

24 favorites

25% Favorites/Premium Logs

GC55B1 - placed April 30, 2002

Traditional Cache

266 found logs

15 favorites logs

12% Favorites/Premium Logs

My personal recommendations for caches align with the ratio, although I'd still like it limited to "accounts who have used favorite points", but I think it's working OK. Now to have all of this incorporated in the GPX file.

For example I favorited a cache in the Louvre courtyard in Paris as did 30+ other people but that still puts it at a 4% level because it's a popular cache visited at least once a day!

Yep - but it's only 4% of the premium members that have it on the favorite list.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Markwell

18.9k · February 2, 2011

...

It seems pretty clear that there are as substantial number of geocachers who are not going back and given favorites to old caches. And there are many more who are going to be more stingy with old cache and only give out favorite to ones that really stand out....

Based on what data?? This thread seems to indicate that to not be true at all. So where are you getting your data? When I look at my own caches, many of my 7 to 9 year old caches have many more favorite votes than several of my 1 to 3 year old ones. Just not enough data to lean either way.

However,I still think that favorites are still a bit too new to make any real judgement on how well raw votes or ratios will ultimately work out in a year or so for finding the better caches.

4.1k · February 2, 2011

I agree. Show me a cache with 5 favorites and it's on my radar regardless of how many finds it has. The mundane caches are unlikely to get many, if any favorites.

In my area, there are only a handful of eligible cachers using this feature, so if you relied on any given number you would miss many of the hidden gems -- of course, most of these require hikes that might cut down on the number of travelers visiting these caches. It probably works better for the caches I have looked at in our nearby city (San Francisco) where the number of people using favorites is much greater and the caches are easily accessible.

So far, the favorites feature has been fun - my list goes back to the first cache that I found. But it is not a useful tool for me. When traveling, I still look at the caches near where we plan to visit, focus on earthcaches. virtuals, and traditionals that might have interesting sounding names. The Roadside Attractions list has been a better measure for the caches that I enjoy than the favorites. Perhaps this will change over time.

Edited February 2, 2011 by mulvaney

2.3k · February 2, 2011

I like to cache rurally the most off the beaten path. Not necessarily a long or difficult hike. By nature of that those caches typically have a lot less finds in general. I like the ratio so instead of having to search all over the cache page to see the finds and what not I can now see that one that as 1 favorite vote and only 10 finds is still probably a worth while trip for me. It's just another piece of information that I use to decide which caches to do that includes recent logs and cache descriptions and what not. I'll do some caches with no favorite votes. It's not the sole determining factor but if a cache is lacking all the areas I tend to look and has no votes as well I'm probably going to pass it over completely.

Yes it's a flawed system but for a simpleton like me that just wants another piece of information to decide which caches I do I enjoy it.

February 2, 2011

Based on what data?? This thread seems to indicate that to not be true at all. So where are you getting your data? When I look at my own caches, many of my 7 to 9 year old caches have many more favorite votes than several of my 1 to 3 year old ones. Just not enough data to lean either way.

Just for fun take a look at these older caches (and the newer ones for that matter) and see how many of the votes were cast by cachers who found them AFTER the favorites system was in place compared to those that went back to favorite them. I will go out on a limb and say that most of the favorites came by cachers finding it after the system was in place. I could be wrong.

18.9k · February 2, 2011

Based on what data?? This thread seems to indicate that to not be true at all. So where are you getting your data? When I look at my own caches, many of my 7 to 9 year old caches have many more favorite votes than several of my 1 to 3 year old ones. Just not enough data to lean either way.

Just for fun take a look at these older caches (and the newer ones for that matter) and see how many of the votes were cast by cachers who found them AFTER the favorites system was in place compared to those that went back to favorite them. I will go out on a limb and say that most of the favorites came by cachers finding it after the system was in place. I could be wrong.

Your wrong - none of the caches I mentioned has any finds at all since early December. And the folks that added the favorite votes on the old ones found them long ago (for the most part).

10.1k · February 3, 2011

Just for fun take a look at these older caches (and the newer ones for that matter) and see how many of the votes were cast by cachers who found them AFTER the favorites system was in place compared to those that went back to favorite them. I will go out on a limb and say that most of the favorites came by cachers finding it after the system was in place. I could be wrong.

I don't think that any of the favorites on my caches have come from finders after favorites came into play.

February 3, 2011

Based on what data?? This thread seems to indicate that to not be true at all. So where are you getting your data? When I look at my own caches, many of my 7 to 9 year old caches have many more favorite votes than several of my 1 to 3 year old ones. Just not enough data to lean either way.

Just for fun take a look at these older caches (and the newer ones for that matter) and see how many of the votes were cast by cachers who found them AFTER the favorites system was in place compared to those that went back to favorite them. I will go out on a limb and say that most of the favorites came by cachers finding it after the system was in place. I could be wrong.

Your wrong - none of the caches I mentioned has any finds at all since early December. And the folks that added the favorite votes on the old ones found them long ago (for the most part).

I stand corrected. :lol:

Favorite Ratios

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