Not using favourites

[+Chokecherry]

Why do they have to be on the bookmark list? I have some book mark lists that are started and that I have never maintained. Does it really matter?

 

I personally have saved about 3 of my favorite votes in case I find caches in the next 10 I do that warrant a favorite. Otherwise I simply marked the caches that I really enjoyed. There's no mystery about it. There's no ranking (some super favorite versus just favorite versus just good caches). To me it's like ranking friends. I'd rather just call them friends.

[+Lil Devil]

People, repeat after me. Favorites is not a rating system. It doesn't tell you what the "best" cache is. It only gives you a list of caches that are worth going to; caches that other people like for some reason. You may or may not like them too, but they're worth trying.

[+rovers3]

That's just it, I call them all caches and not favourites.

 

I think that they are all worth trying for whatever reason, for instance you have to accompany your wife to the mall but are not into shopping so you do the LPC that's nearby to pass the time. Then there are those that you decide not to go after, for whatever reason, once you arrive in the vicinity.

[+StarBrand]

People, repeat after me. Favorites is not a rating system. It doesn't tell you what the "best" cache is. It only gives you a list of caches that are worth going to; caches that other people like for some reason. You may or may not like them too, but they're worth trying.

 

I don't think it is a large logical leap: "best" = "worth going to".....

 

Not using at least some of your favorite votes because you do not like the idea of "rating" any cache becomes a valid argument. I don't feel that way but I do think on some level we are trying to locate the "best" caches. Maybe just "best" for us but "best" none-the-less.

[GOF and Bacall]

People, repeat after me. Favorites is not a rating system. It doesn't tell you what the "best" cache is. It only gives you a list of caches that are worth going to; caches that other people like for some reason. You may or may not like them too, but they're worth trying.

 

I don't think it is a large logical leap: "best" = "worth going to".....

 

Not using at least some of your favorite votes because you do not like the idea of "rating" any cache becomes a valid argument. I don't feel that way but I do think on some level we are trying to locate the "best" caches. Maybe just "best" for us but "best" none-the-less.

 

I'm not particularly looking for the best caches. I'm happy if I can keep it to the better than average caches. Whatever average is these days.

[+fizzymagic]

That's just it, I call them all caches and not favourites.

 

I think that they are all worth trying for whatever reason,...

 

You are wrong. They are not all worth trying for. Maybe you haven't found any execrable caches yet, but believe me, they exist.

[+t4e]

I'm not saying that anyone feels compelled to award them just to get rid of them.

nOk1a did not go back to find the 6 favourite caches, he had bookmarked them, but he did go back to award the other 16 caches that he awarded but had not bookmarked as favourites. Did he feel compelled to award them? Only he can answer that but if they were his favourites then why were they not included in his bookmark list?

 

why do you care how nOk1a, or anyone for that matter, chooses to award their favorite points?

 

i don't get why there's so much concern with how/when/why favorite points are being used up

[+n0k1a]

People, repeat after me. Favorites is not a rating system. It doesn't tell you what the "best" cache is. It only gives you a list of caches that are worth going to; caches that other people like for some reason. You may or may not like them too, but they're worth trying.

I think this sums it up pretty nicely. I believe that I have used the official favorites system in this way, which is how I perceive that it was intended to be used.

 

FWIW, I find it interesting that someone cares how I awarded them, and I have no problem explaining my reasoning. Those which got my favorites votes were caches which had something going for them above and beyond the norm: a particularly cool container (or lack thereof, but that is another matter entirely!), a location with an unusually nice view or hike, a particularly enjoyable or unusual puzzle, that sort of thing. Something which I found to be significantly more interesting than just another MKH in a guardrail, just another film can in a lamp post skirt, just another food container in a tree stump, or just another ammo can under a pile of sticks and rocks. Not that there's anything wrong with any of those, but the bulk of them don't stand out enough to warrant favorite votes.

 

Yes, there were a few which would likely have earned negative points had I had them available...it is probably a good thing that the system does not support this!

 

My bookmark list, on the other hand, represents those which are the very cream of the crop. A 5/5 puzzle/multi which involved months of work to solve the multidimensional puzzles, and numerous stages with additional mental and physical challenges, deserves that recognition. So do caches at or in amazingly unusual features, those with spectacular views, and/or those involving many miles of 4x4 driving on unpaved 'roads' out into the desert just to get there. I still maintain this list specifically because the favorites system is not a rating system. If it were ever to be extended to allow weighting, that might make this list unnecessary, though I still find it handy to be able to reference those best-of-the-best caches almost instantly.

[+dfx]

People, repeat after me. Favorites is not a rating system. It doesn't tell you what the "best" cache is.

 

In a way, that's what I said all along, however GS disagrees and says that this is what it is, or rather should be. So either it really is, and we (or them) just have to figure out how to use it as one, or they have failed to implement an actual rating system and this should be reopened.

Edited February 7, 2011 by dfx

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I don't get it. Why if your favourite bookmark list only has 6 caches would you award 22 favourite points?

This, in my opinion, is one of the places where the system fails. People will feel that they should award more points than they really should because they are available. I would prefer maybe 1 point for every 50 or even 100 cache finds. This number would give a better representation of the best caches that are out there because you would be more selective in awarding points.

 

We're relatively new to this sport w/ just a couple hundred finds. Think we received 10 fav votes for past finds when we became premium members and have given about that many out leaving about 10 in hand. It just seems that every 10 or so has some redeeming quality that sets it apart. We faved one for it's simplicity. It was a great hollow tree with many sub-tunnels and the placement of the container was perfect yet simple. Probably the only fav it will get, but it was our favorite during that span of a week or two. If we only had 2 favs to give (using the 1 per 100 plan), we probably would never use for fear of not having any when the next great cache was discovered. The idea here is that volume and time combined with diverse opinion will produce a representative sampling of what we like.

[+slukster]

I have not applied many of my favorites votes at all. For one thing, I'm having trouble remembering the details of caches I found several years ago, and as I have become less able to make longer hikes more of my finds do not rise to the level where I believe a favorite vote is applicable. Of course, my yardstick is my personal opinion and is not the same as that used by others.

 

There is no nagging feeling that I need to use them all.

This is where good logging practices comes in handy. If you gave nice descriptive logs when you found a cache that you really enjoyed, then it may be a little bit easier to now find your past favorites. Easy for me to say with only 352 finds to go back through but I found myself checking the logs on the caches that I thought were great but I couldn't remember for sure. Since I leave nice descriptive logs I was able to find and relive some of my favorite caches.

 

**This was not an attack on gpsfun (I have not looked to see what kind of logs he leaves) or those who do not leave long, descriptive logs. Just pointing out how my logs have helped me find those long ago found favorites.

Edited February 7, 2011 by slukster

[+JL_HSTRE]

I've used 40 of my 57 Favorites points.

 

I had started keeping a Bookmark list of Favorite finds so it was easy to vote the ones I'd found. It helps I've only been caching for a year though.

 

I don't feel the need to use all of my Favorites points. I've voted the caches I feel were noteworthy. Not every cache I find is going to be awesome any more than every book I read, movie I watch, or CD I buy will be awesome. I'm fine with this.

[+NicknPapa]

People, repeat after me. Favorites is not a rating system. It doesn't tell you what the "best" cache is.

 

In a way, that's what I said all along, however GS disagrees and says that this is what it is, or rather should be. So either it really is, and we (or them) just have to figure out how to use it as one, or they have failed to implement an actual rating system and this should be reopened.

That is why I have stopped awarding favorites points and am thinking very strongly about removing the ones I have awarded. A LOT of people are using the number of favorites points awarded as a rating system and, at least in my area, this fails abysmally. Example, the cache with the most favorites within 25 miles of my home location is a virtual cache at the corner of three states. Kinda cool in a way but not THAT cool, at least in my opinion. Now skip down to the third cache on the list. At one time it may have been a great cache except for the fact that the coords were at least 160 feet off. It is a traditional cache in the same place as number one. Originally it was an ammo can but it has been abandoned for over a year. The ammo can was muggled over a year ago and some random person threw a magnetic key holder in it's place. The email address is unverified so it's impossible to contact the CO. In short, what was once a great cache (according to favorites points) is now a pathetic excuse. I would much rather look at recent logs and make my decision to look or not based on them than the number of favorites points.

If I do award any more it will be because the cache made me happy for some reason or the other and will have nothing whatsoever to do with how anyone else will feel about it. Most of the few I have awarded are like that now, i.e. the first cache we found (by accident) that started all this, the soggy broken cache at a favorite spot I've always loved to visit, our first challenging puzzle cache that was also our first FTF, etc. They mean a lot to us, nothing whatsoever to anyone else.

[+Don_J]

I have not applied many of my favorites votes at all. For one thing, I'm having trouble remembering the details of caches I found several years ago, and as I have become less able to make longer hikes more of my finds do not rise to the level where I believe a favorite vote is applicable. Of course, my yardstick is my personal opinion and is not the same as that used by others.

 

There is no nagging feeling that I need to use them all.

This is where good logging practices comes in handy. If you gave nice descriptive logs when you found a cache that you really enjoyed, then it may be a little bit easier to now find your past favorites. Easy for me to say with only 352 finds to go back through but I found myself checking the logs on the caches that I thought were great but I couldn't remember for sure. Since I leave nice descriptive logs I was able to find and relive some of my favorite caches.

 

**This was not an attack on gpsfun (I have not looked to see what kind of logs he leaves) or those who do not leave long, descriptive logs. Just pointing out how my logs have helped me find those long ago found favorites.

 

Note that there is a GSAK macro that will find these caches for you. You set the word threshold, (100 words, 200 words, etc), and it will return the caches where your logs meet the criteria. It came in very handy to find the caches that I was impressed with enough to take the time to write an extra special log.

 

As far as the OP, I Have used roughly 50% of my favorites. I have no desire, nor do I feel compelled to use the rest.

[+tozainamboku]

People, repeat after me. Favorites is not a rating system. It doesn't tell you what the "best" cache is.

 

In a way, that's what I said all along, however GS disagrees and says that this is what it is, or rather should be. So either it really is, and we (or them) just have to figure out how to use it as one, or they have failed to implement an actual rating system and this should be reopened.

Just because GS calls it a rating system doesn't mean it is intended to be uses to rank caches or that either the raw count or some ratio indicates that one cache is "better" than the other.

 

There have been a number of request over the years for a "rating" system.

 

Some people believe that an "average" of the ratings given to caches by finders would in some way be indicative of cache quality. These people believe such a system would tell them which caches were super good, which were really bad, and which were somewhere in the middle.

 

Other people don't believe that quality can be quatified this easily, and even if it could, that such a system would not be useful to them because they don't believe that the average cacher is necessarily modal (i.e. that most cachers would rate caches close to the average cache). There is certainly some anecdotal evidence that some caches are bimodal where cachers either love or hate a certain type of cache. The average would put the chache in the middle where very few real cachers actually rated it. Each of us have our own tastes and favorites among cache. And it is doubtful any one is really average.

 

== snipped rest of my reply which went into why I thing the raw count is better to use with ratio, but I don't want to turn this thread into another debate with dfx over that subject ==

[RedShoesGirl]

Shame on you all.

 

1 out of 10 seems an ideal ratio for my favorite caches. Why? I'm very picky about what caches I go for, ya know, the whole quality vs. quantity trick. So tell me, are all of you in this thread in it for the numbers? Just curious.

 

i don't use the favourites at all. i figure if there is a fave thing there should be an "unfave" option. no, i do not cache for the numbers. i hate micros and i hate power trails, neither of which seem like geocaching to me.

 

but not to hijack the thread, i don't have faves.

[+dfx]

Just because GS calls it a rating system doesn't mean it is intended to be uses to rank caches ...

Wat? Isn't that the whole point of a rating system? What other purposes could it possibly have?

 

There have been a number of request over the years for a "rating" system.

Yes, and this is their answer.

 

WRT the OP's point: I find it silly to restrict favorite votes to 1 out of 10, or to 1 out of any number for that matter. Why not just let people put favorite votes on any number of caches? If someone wants to vote for every single one of their finds, let them! There's no harm in that.

Edited February 7, 2011 by dfx

[+addisonbr]

That is why I have stopped awarding favorites points and am thinking very strongly about removing the ones I have awarded... If I do award any more it will be because the cache made me happy for some reason or the other and will have nothing whatsoever to do with how anyone else will feel about it.

If this is how you are using the Favorites points, I think you're using it perfectly. Don't spend too much time thinking about how other people will enjoy the cache... If you and other cachers use it to describe caches that made *you* happy for whatever reason, the system will work as intended.

[+addisonbr]

Just because GS calls it a rating system doesn't mean it is intended to be uses to rank caches or that either the raw count or some ratio indicates that one cache is "better" than the other.

They introduce a rating system as part of a campaign to identify the best caches ('to encourage quality').

 

If they didn't intend it for what they said they intended it for, I'm confused as to what they intended it for.

[+sbell111]

That's just it, I call them all caches and not favourites.

 

I think that they are all worth trying for whatever reason,...

 

You are wrong. They are not all worth trying for. Maybe you haven't found any execrable caches yet, but believe me, they exist.

It's OK if that poster likes all caches. Just because others get jaded and picky doesn't mean that he needs to do the same.

[+L0ne.R]

i don't use the favourites at all. i figure if there is a fave thing there should be an "unfave" option. no, i do not cache for the numbers. i hate micros and i hate power trails, neither of which seem like geocaching to me.

 

I do not cache for the numbers either, that's why I like the Favorite system.

 

I don't want to look for every cache, I want to know generally, which caches people liked. I don't dislike all micros but most of them are placed poorly. I want to know which micros people enjoyed finding so I don't miss out on the good ones.

[+L0ne.R]

That is why I have stopped awarding favorites points and am thinking very strongly about removing the ones I have awarded. A LOT of people are using the number of favorites points awarded as a rating system and, at least in my area, this fails abysmally. Example, the cache with the most favorites within 25 miles of my home location is a virtual cache at the corner of three states. Kinda cool in a way but not THAT cool, at least in my opinion. Now skip down to the third cache on the list. At one time it may have been a great cache except for the fact that the coords were at least 160 feet off. It is a traditional cache in the same place as number one. Originally it was an ammo can but it has been abandoned for over a year. The ammo can was muggled over a year ago and some random person threw a magnetic key holder in it's place. The email address is unverified so it's impossible to contact the CO. In short, what was once a great cache (according to favorites points) is now a pathetic excuse. I would much rather look at recent logs and make my decision to look or not based on them than the number of favorites points.

 

Virtuals and high-difficulty/terrain caches seem to get the most favorite points. Also a lot of them have been around for years, and a fair amount of the favorite votes are from cachers who found them in the early years. So I always check the D/T ratings and the latest logs to see if the cache will be something I'd be interested in. I don't decide on which cache I'll hunt based solely on number of favorite votes.

 

I'm finding that my caching style seems to jive better with caches that have received at least a couple of favorite votes and D/Ts under 3.5 stars. Sure hope we can filter soon so I can set a PQ for those criteria.

[CoyoteRed]

I went back a voted for all of my favorites. I've go a lot of votes left over. I don't see the point in voting for an archived cache and I can't see the point in voting for a cache that didn't simply suck.

 

I guess that leaves me room for voting for future cache hunts that I've culled from a list of favorites that others have voted for. Yeah, it's piling on, but if it's favorite of mine then it's a favorite.

 

If I run out I'll have to hold my nose and log a bunch of trache to get more votes. (Which is what sucks about the system.)

[+dfx]

If I run out I'll have to hold my nose and log a bunch of trache to get more votes. (Which is what sucks about the system.)

 

I just posted a new feedback suggestion: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1465663-lift-the-restriction-on-number-of-favorite-votes?ref=title

Edited February 7, 2011 by dfx

[+tozainamboku]

Just because GS calls it a rating system doesn't mean it is intended to be uses to rank caches or that either the raw count or some ratio indicates that one cache is "better" than the other.

They introduce a rating system as part of a campaign to identify the best caches ('to encourage quality').

 

If they didn't intend it for what they said they intended it for, I'm confused as to what they intended it for.

Perhaps they realize that there is no one version of quality than can be quantified as what a average cacher thinks the quality of a cache is, but instead there are as many ideas about what quality is as there are cachers. They chose to implement a system where individuals can recognized certain caches by calling out their favorites. A cache that gets a lot of votes is one that a lot of cachers think has exceptional quality. A cache that gets one or two votes means that at least one or two cachers think that cache has exceptional quality. By limiting the number of votes, a cache with zero votes is not necessarily a bad cache, just not exceptional enough for any one of the finders to have favorited it.

 

Just because GS calls it a rating system doesn't mean it is intended to be uses to rank caches ...

Wat? Isn't that the whole point of a rating system? What other purposes could it possibly have?

A rating system does not have to try to give each cache a "quality" score based on what a hypothetical average cacher would do. It can be a system where individuals can express what they think of a cache and the raw number of individuals (or the percentage if you think that raw number is influenced too much by number of finders) gives a rough idea of how many geocachers might find this cache to be a quality cache. Eventually, such a system could be used to recommend caches based on individual's taste. For example, when you favorite a cache, the system can look at what caches others who favorited this cache have favorited and show you this list. Or it can look at your entire list of favorites and find cachers who have similar tastes and let you know what they have favorites but you haven't found yet.

Edited February 7, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+Don_J]

 

WRT the OP's point: I find it silly to restrict favorite votes to 1 out of 10, or to 1 out of any number for that matter. Why not just let people put favorite votes on any number of caches? If someone wants to vote for every single one of their finds, let them! There's no harm in that.

 

You mean like the Facebook "Like" button, so half of us can become mindless dolts and click it every time they see it?

 

Classic example:

Headline: Paroled Child Molester Suspected of Killing 2yr Old. Then you see, 658 people liked this.

 

The current system actually awards too many votes. at least with this system, people have to think about what they are voting for.

[+dfx]

You mean like the Facebook "Like" button, so half of us can become mindless dolts and click it every time they see it?

 

Classic example:

Headline: Paroled Child Molester Suspected of Killing 2yr Old. Then you see, 658 people liked this.

 

The current system actually awards too many votes. at least with this system, people have to think about what they are voting for.

 

Can you explain to me what difference it would make to you if other people are "mindless dolts" and actually vote for every cache they've found?

[+dfx]

A rating system does not have to try to give each cache a "quality" score based on what a hypothetical average cacher would do. It can be a system where individuals can express what they think of a cache and the raw number of individuals (or the percentage if you think that raw number is influenced too much by number of finders) gives a rough idea of how many geocachers might find this cache to be a quality cache.

 

Yeah, so you have a rating system (with ratings 0-1 in this case, as opposed to 1-5 with gcvote for example) that can be used to rank caches. That's exactly what I said, but you just said before that this is not what it's meant for. I'm completely lost now.

Edited February 7, 2011 by dfx

[+DanOCan]

I went back a voted for all of my favorites. I've go a lot of votes left over. I don't see the point in voting for an archived cache and I can't see the point in voting for a cache that didn't simply suck.

 

Sounds pretty much like me. Only reason I voted for some Archived caches was so they would appear on my profile and help keep their memory alive.

[+Don_J]

You mean like the Facebook "Like" button, so half of us can become mindless dolts and click it every time they see it?

 

Classic example:

Headline: Paroled Child Molester Suspected of Killing 2yr Old. Then you see, 658 people liked this.

 

The current system actually awards too many votes. at least with this system, people have to think about what they are voting for.

 

Can you explain to me what difference it would make to you if other people are "mindless dolts" and actually vote for every cache they've found?

 

At some point, the votes become meaningless. The idea is to see what caches stand taller than the others. Voting for every cache you found defeats that purpose. It's like voting for every candidate in an election.

[+dfx]

At some point, the votes become meaningless. The idea is to see what caches stand taller than the others. Voting for every cache you found defeats that purpose. It's like voting for every candidate in an election.

 

This is only true if everyone would do that. Obviously that won't be the case because most people will know the difference between "like" and "favorite". Even in the worst case, with a lot of cachers voting for everything, the stats would remaining meaningful. The span between highest rated and lowest rated will be smaller, but the relative ranking will remain unchanged.

Edited February 7, 2011 by dfx

[+addisonbr]

What is the argument in favor of unlimited voting? I'm not implying that there isn't one, I'm just trying to get my arms around what it is so I can figure out if I agree with it or not...

[+dfx]

What is the argument in favor of unlimited voting? I'm not implying that there isn't one, I'm just trying to get my arms around what it is so I can figure out if I agree with it or not...

 

My argument is that the 1 out of 10 ratio is purely arbitrary. For some people it's too much, which will cause some of them to feel compelled to vote for not-so-stellar caches, while for others it's not enough (some people carefully pick the caches they go for and only choose the stuff they're probably gonna enjoy lots), so those can't vote for everything they'd like to. So why not just let people vote for whatever they want to and let the system do the rest?

[+BulldogBlitz]

i don't use the feature to parse out any caches, hence i don't slough off a vote for any cache. if i like the cache, i just remember the cache. i don't need to go back to the cache page.

 

or...

 

maybe i am just a numbers hound and eventually all your cache will be mine anyway no matter who favorited them.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

I do not cache for the numbers either, that's why I like the Favorite system.

 

I don't want to look for every cache, I want to know generally, which caches people liked. I don't dislike all micros but most of them are placed poorly. I want to know which micros people enjoyed finding so I don't miss out on the good ones.

 

a cache can receive a favorite one day or even two because it had good swag in it or whatever criteria the finder chooses, but then the next cachers don't have such a quality experience, the cache changes etc. so you may hunt it based on the favorite system but that does not guarantee the cache is still going to be in good shape or worth finding.

 

the favorite system seems like changing things just to be changing things. not really adding any real value to caching. it's a made-up thing.

[+addisonbr]

the favorite system seems like changing things just to be changing things. not really adding any real value to caching. it's a made-up thing.

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally have found Favorites to be incredibly useful (especially when I compare them with the relative usefulness of other recently introduced features). They have enriched my attempts to plan out some future trips.

[+addisonbr]

What is the argument in favor of unlimited voting? I'm not implying that there isn't one, I'm just trying to get my arms around what it is so I can figure out if I agree with it or not...

 

My argument is that the 1 out of 10 ratio is purely arbitrary. For some people it's too much, which will cause some of them to feel compelled to vote for not-so-stellar caches, while for others it's not enough (some people carefully pick the caches they go for and only choose the stuff they're probably gonna enjoy lots), so those can't vote for everything they'd like to. So why not just let people vote for whatever they want to and let the system do the rest?

I see... while I can't disagree that the number itself is arbitrary, I'm glad that there is some sort of number. I like the idea that for folks to Favorite a cache, it had to crack some threshold of quality (in their own eyes) for them to make the suggestion. I don't know what the right number is, but 1/1000 votes seems like not enough for me and 1000/1000 votes seems like too many. 100/1000 might be wrong, but I don't think it's wrong by an order of magnitude, and as such I can live with it.

 

Going far in the opposite direction, I'd love to see Super Votes though!

[+tozainamboku]

What is the argument in favor of unlimited voting? I'm not implying that there isn't one, I'm just trying to get my arms around what it is so I can figure out if I agree with it or not...

 

My argument is that the 1 out of 10 ratio is purely arbitrary. For some people it's too much, which will cause some of them to feel compelled to vote for not-so-stellar caches, while for others it's not enough (some people carefully pick the caches they go for and only choose the stuff they're probably gonna enjoy lots), so those can't vote for everything they'd like to. So why not just let people vote for whatever they want to and let the system do the rest?

I tend to agree. The ratio of favorite votes to finds is arbitrary and I would not mind if were higher, even though I've only used about 1/3 of my votes. I suspect that some people may feel that they can recommend more than 1/10 caches they have found. You do have to watch out for people who click like on everything. I suspect that Facebook hates those people because the information from them is not as useful as with some who is selective about what they like. But they probably like them better than people who never like anything.

 

Over the years the idea of a limiting the number of favorites has had support in that it will force people who aren't already choosy to be so. The idea is for the caches that get favorite votes to be outstanding in some way and not just "above average".

 

...

 

I do not cache for the numbers either, that's why I like the Favorite system.

 

I don't want to look for every cache, I want to know generally, which caches people liked. I don't dislike all micros but most of them are placed poorly. I want to know which micros people enjoyed finding so I don't miss out on the good ones.

 

a cache can receive a favorite one day or even two because it had good swag in it or whatever criteria the finder chooses, but then the next cachers don't have such a quality experience, the cache changes etc. so you may hunt it based on the favorite system but that does not guarantee the cache is still going to be in good shape or worth finding.

 

the favorite system seems like changing things just to be changing things. not really adding any real value to caching. it's a made-up thing.

The favorite system is a response to those who wanted a way to recognize caches that are outstanding in some way. Some people may use this information to help select the caches they want to hunt. It is also possible that some cache owners will use this to guide what sort of caches to place and which of their caches to archive. This may or may not result in more quality caches, but some will no doubt believe that it does.

Edited February 7, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+addisonbr]

This may or may not result in more quality caches, but some will no doubt believe that it does.

I'm far from convinced that it *will* result in more quality caches. I think it's *possible* mind you, but far from certain.

 

What is certain is that the system has helped *me* identify high quality caches out of the ones that exist, and for that I'm pretty psyched.

[+L0ne.R]

...

 

I do not cache for the numbers either, that's why I like the Favorite system.

 

I don't want to look for every cache, I want to know generally, which caches people liked. I don't dislike all micros but most of them are placed poorly. I want to know which micros people enjoyed finding so I don't miss out on the good ones.

 

a cache can receive a favorite one day or even two because it had good swag in it or whatever criteria the finder chooses, but then the next cachers don't have such a quality experience, the cache changes etc. so you may hunt it based on the favorite system but that does not guarantee the cache is still going to be in good shape or worth finding.

 

True, that's why it's still important to read the last few logs. I also like to click on who favored the cache to see when it was that they found the cache. If both favored votes were from cachers that found the box 5 years ago that tells me that there's a good chance that the cache is not as good as it once was. Personally, to speed things up, I'd like to see the date the cache was found in the "Users Who Favorited This Cache" page (maybe next to the "View log" link).

 

The favorite system is especially nice when leaving my home area and going somewhere new. If I'm going to a new location and want to start somewhere with a good cache or two I don't have time to read a few logs in every cache in that city. Now I can float the most favored to the top and read those logs until I find a few good caches to plan my caching day.

[+baloo&bd]

the favorite system seems like changing things just to be changing things. not really adding any real value to caching. it's a made-up thing.

 

That pretty much sums up why they were instituted.

[+Markwell]

the favorite system seems like changing things just to be changing things. not really adding any real value to caching. it's a made-up thing.

That pretty much sums up why they were instituted.

I've seen this statement made numerous times with some individuals being quite adamant that they don't like the favorite system as it was instituted, but I believe this crosses the line. There is indeed a desire that was not being met. To say that the reason for favorites was just "shaking things up" denies the work and consideration that went into the implementation of this feature.

 

There are feature on the site which I really dislike their method of implementation:

• criteria on the PQ selection page that allows for mutually exclusive selections
• the friends links that doesn't add any functionality (like finding caches that you and your friends haven't found) but merely "links"
• The Off-Topic Forum
• statistics on profile pages
• the entire Waymarking site and its navigation
• Wherigo
• ...many more

...but to say that any one of these features was implemented for "changing things just to be changing things" insults the developers of this site. That statement reads as an insult to the site developers and to Groundspeak in general.

 

For over eight years there have been numerous requests in the forums for SOME type of finder response feedback beyond the text of the logs. Over six years ago, the site founder acknowledged this request:

There is an apparent demand for a way to filter the wheat from the chaff, so how would you address this need? In my eyes it isn't a particularly competitive reason that raised these questions but a practical one. If there are 1,000 caches in the area and you only have a limited amount of time to go caching, how do you determine whether a cache is a drive-by or a well-placed cache.

In other places I've posted these comments:

When I started caching in 2001, there were 16 caches in my area (not the full GONIL area, but a region in which I usually cache). I tried to find them all. But the sport grew faster than my ability to find caches. Some time in April of 2002 I found a couple of caches that were what I personally would call "sub-standard". Most of the early caches I had found were ones that took me to cool and interesting places, places of significance or history, or sometimes were cleverly placed caches in mundane locations. But these "sub-standard" caches left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I enjoy caching for the experience, but my recreation time is somewhat limited. So I like my experiences to reflect the best reasons I get out for recreation - cool hikes, beautiful scenery, etc. The day I found a pill bottle taped to the side of a guard rail in an extremely urban area littered with - well - litter, I thought to myself "Why did this person feel the need to bring me here?"

 

I've talked about this topic many times before, and seen many, many reasons for this to be implemented. It hardly seems that it's "just to change things up". It's another tool - like caches on a route, like filtering PQs by terrain or difficulty, or filtering by attributes, or filtering by size. You can load all of the caches into your GPS and disregard terrain or difficulty.

 

For those of you that are so adamantly against favorites (regardless of the implementation method), I ask you this specific question: How does having a favorite point or points added to a cache or not added to a cache hinder your ability to continue caching as you have done in the past?

[RedShoesGirl]

...

For those of you that are so adamantly against favorites (regardless of the implementation method), I ask you this specific question: How does having a favorite point or points added to a cache or not added to a cache hinder your ability to continue caching as you have done in the past?

 

didn't say i was adamantly against favorites, just said i didn't see the value and questioned their implementation.

 

does your listing of the things you don't like on the site deny the developers' work and consideration that went into the implementation of those features?

 

and yes, i will continue to cache as i have in the past without the aid of faves.

 

rsg

[+geocat_]

I have been using them and enjoy using them as well. I am a newbie so it might be easier. I would have trouble thinking back over even 250 finds I have much less 4000! I think it's most useful going forward. When I find a cache that I like for some reason, I can "favorite" it the same time I log it.

[+Manville Possum]

Haven't doled any out, won't be doling them out, and never pay attention to them on other pages or my own. I hide a given cache because I wanted to place that particular hide...not in any anticipation that some magic percentage of finders will vote for or against it, be wowwed by it or put to sleep by it. I hide what I'd like to find at that time in my caching life, usually. Equally, I try to not project any expectation of my own onto another's hides...if I hunt it and like it, I'll let the CO know in my log. If I hunt it and dont like it, I assume our tastes didn't match at that moment, and move on.

That's about how I feel also. I have gave a few out to some caches that I liked, but they seem to be a PMO thing and I have little interest in them. They are quite meaningless to me, and would be no factor that I would use to seek a cache.

[+t4e]

 

the favorite system seems like changing things just to be changing things. not really adding any real value to caching. it's a made-up thing.

 

inquiring minds need to know

 

give an example of something that would add value to caching

[+Markwell]

does your listing of the things you don't like on the site deny the developers' work and consideration that went into the implementation of those features

No, but while I don't necessarily like their implementation, I never said that they implemented those things "seems like changing things just to be changing things" or that changing things just to be changing things "sums up why they were instituted". That's assigning that there is no reason for the change. Of course there were reasons for favorites (as I described). There's a reason for the friends feature. There's a reason for statistics on profile pages. While I don't necessarily like them, I don't go on to say that "the only reason they instituted these features was to change things just to be changing things".

[+fizzymagic]

does your listing of the things you don't like on the site deny the developers' work and consideration that went into the implementation of those features

No, but while I don't necessarily like their implementation, I never said that they implemented those things "seems like changing things just to be changing things" or that changing things just to be changing things "sums up why they were instituted".

 

What Markwell said.

 

I, too have some things about the site that I don't like, and I have probably complained about some of them. IMO, the favorites feature is the best thing since pocket queries. It has already made a big difference in my caching. You are free not to use it, but for at least some of us, it was worth the time and effort.

[+Manville Possum]

I need to start logging my own caches so I can use my favorite points. I never had a reason to do so until now.

 

Darn! I just tryed and it don't work!!!

Edited February 8, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+L0ne.R]

does your listing of the things you don't like on the site deny the developers' work and consideration that went into the implementation of those features

No, but while I don't necessarily like their implementation, I never said that they implemented those things "seems like changing things just to be changing things" or that changing things just to be changing things "sums up why they were instituted".

 

What Markwell said.

 

I, too have some things about the site that I don't like, and I have probably complained about some of them. IMO, the favorites feature is the best thing since pocket queries. It has already made a big difference in my caching. You are free not to use it, but for at least some of us, it was worth the time and effort.

 

I agree with Markwell and fizzymagic.

 

For example, the new stats feature doesn't interest me and I'm free not to use it, so I don't. I certainly don't feel it was implemented just to change things. I acknowledge that there are a majority of cachers who love it and get a lot of use and enjoyment from the statistics page.