"What the game once was"

[+Roman!]

 

Maybe we're just spoiled here but I have enough cool hikes and bie rides to do for many many years to come.

 

I'm in your area - we are spoiled, especially where you live.

 

So instead of complaining the solution s simple, they can all move here.

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

Maybe we're just spoiled here but I have enough cool hikes and bie rides to do for many many years to come.

 

I'm in your area - we are spoiled, especially where you live.

 

So instead of complaining the solution s simple, they can all move here.

 

SHHH! There is a reason it's still green, silly.

 

You're all welcome to come and visit us here in Beautiful British Columbia. Roman! has bunkbeds and a 15-year-old futon you can crash on...

[+briansnat]

I do not find "favorites" particular useful...

If you add one more step to your repertoire, those favorite points might become your new best friend. Once you sort the caches near you by favorite points, pick an entirely arbitrary number, (I use 10), and exclude any caches with less than that number. Then look at what I consider to be the critical data point; How many premium members awarded each cache a favorite point. A Virtual like Disney World will have a huge number of favorite points because, as you mentioned, it gets a lot of visits. But as of this writing, it only has a 13% ratio. For fairly good caches, look for a 20% ratio, or better. Rather good = 40%. Very good = 60%. Great = 80%. I've been using this sorting method for a while, and it hasn't done me wrong yet. You might miss a great cache because it is either too challenging or too new to have accumulated enough points when you start your sorting, and you might have the occasional stinker slip through, but it beats the heck out of going in blind.

 

One problem with that is that older caches might get lower percentages they they might deserve. For a cache that is say 8 or 9 years old, many of the finders who might have favorited them had there been favorites at the time are out of the game now, and there is also a segment of people who use favorites for new finds but never bothered to take the time to go though their older finds and add them.

[+Roman!]

 

Maybe we're just spoiled here but I have enough cool hikes and bie rides to do for many many years to come.

 

I'm in your area - we are spoiled, especially where you live.

 

So instead of complaining the solution s simple, they can all move here.

 

SHHH! There is a reason it's still green, silly.

 

You're all welcome to come and visit us here in Beautiful British Columbia. Roman! has bunkbeds and a 15-year-old futon you can crash on...

 

And if you need extra money you can return my beer cans.

[+Roman!]

I do not find "favorites" particular useful...

If you add one more step to your repertoire, those favorite points might become your new best friend. Once you sort the caches near you by favorite points, pick an entirely arbitrary number, (I use 10), and exclude any caches with less than that number. Then look at what I consider to be the critical data point; How many premium members awarded each cache a favorite point. A Virtual like Disney World will have a huge number of favorite points because, as you mentioned, it gets a lot of visits. But as of this writing, it only has a 13% ratio. For fairly good caches, look for a 20% ratio, or better. Rather good = 40%. Very good = 60%. Great = 80%. I've been using this sorting method for a while, and it hasn't done me wrong yet. You might miss a great cache because it is either too challenging or too new to have accumulated enough points when you start your sorting, and you might have the occasional stinker slip through, but it beats the heck out of going in blind.

 

One problem with that is that older caches might get lower percentages they they might deserve. For a cache that is say 8 or 9 years old, many of the finders who might have favorited them had there been favorites at the time are out of the game now, and there is also a segment of people who use favorites for new finds but never bothered to take the time to go though their older finds and add them.

 

We've established it's not about te numbers so if you want a rewarding day of Geocaching you're looking at a a handful of interesting caches. Using favorites, filtering out lame hiders, using satellite view,reading a few logs, etc. really, how hard could it possibly be to find a few caches that'll keep you busy and happy for a day?

[cezanne]

We've established it's not about te numbers so if you want a rewarding day of Geocaching you're looking at a a handful of interesting caches. Using favorites, filtering out lame hiders, using satellite view,reading a few logs, etc. really, how hard could it possibly be to find a few caches that'll keep you busy and happy for a day?

 

I do not know how reliable favourite points are in North America and I realize that their usage varies from region to region. In countries like Austria and Germany, my experience is that favourite points (both absolute number and percentages) are not very helpful for me to guide my selection. In areas where I do not know the hiders and searchers well, it is hard to select caches that fit my preferences well. Many favourite points (percentages well over 60% for caches with many finds) very often mean that I will not enjoy the cache and among those I really enjoyed there are many with hardly any favourite points. For example, I noticed that typically traditionals only have a chance to get many favourite points if the hideout and the container are special.

 

Have a look for example at these cache owners

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=tomgela

 

They are famous in the area for their craftsmanship as containers are regarded. Their caches with many favourites are however simply not what fits my preferences, regardless of whether the hides are urban or in a forest.

 

In contrast consider this hiking cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ee0cb471-feb3-48a2-819d-024355bd9ba3

which I really enjoyed enormously. It has only a single favourite point.

(If it were set up as multi cache, it certainly would have a few more when still being the same kind of cache.)

In the specific example, I know the hider and his style, so of course I knew in advance that I will enjoy the cache. In an unknown area, I cannot use this approach, however, and will miss such caches when looking at the favourite points and the enthusiams expressed in the logs. Puzzle caches with a puzzle people enjoy, night caches and caches with special containers are typically the ones here that get many favourites.

 

Cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

I do not find "favorites" particular useful...

If you add one more step to your repertoire, those favorite points might become your new best friend. Once you sort the caches near you by favorite points, pick an entirely arbitrary number, (I use 10), and exclude any caches with less than that number. Then look at what I consider to be the critical data point; How many premium members awarded each cache a favorite point. A Virtual like Disney World will have a huge number of favorite points because, as you mentioned, it gets a lot of visits. But as of this writing, it only has a 13% ratio. For fairly good caches, look for a 20% ratio, or better. Rather good = 40%. Very good = 60%. Great = 80%. I've been using this sorting method for a while, and it hasn't done me wrong yet. You might miss a great cache because it is either too challenging or too new to have accumulated enough points when you start your sorting, and you might have the occasional stinker slip through, but it beats the heck out of going in blind.

 

One problem with that is that older caches might get lower percentages they they might deserve. For a cache that is say 8 or 9 years old, many of the finders who might have favorited them had there been favorites at the time are out of the game now, and there is also a segment of people who use favorites for new finds but never bothered to take the time to go though their older finds and add them.

 

Yeah, noticed that for a long time, a lot of people just don't go back through their old finds to award favorites. Possibly my all-time favorite is in NE Pa., and probably no more than 100 miles from BrianSnat; he needs to go there. It is doing better than I thought, 12 favorite points, and 31%, but that sucker should be a solid 90%.

 

In general though, I think the favorites system is brilliant. And very rarely does this grumpy old fart call anything brilliant.

[Clan Riffster]

I do not find "favorites" particular useful...

If you add one more step to your repertoire, those favorite points might become your new best friend. Once you sort the caches near you by favorite points, pick an entirely arbitrary number, (I use 10), and exclude any caches with less than that number. Then look at what I consider to be the critical data point; How many premium members awarded each cache a favorite point. A Virtual like Disney World will have a huge number of favorite points because, as you mentioned, it gets a lot of visits. But as of this writing, it only has a 13% ratio. For fairly good caches, look for a 20% ratio, or better. Rather good = 40%. Very good = 60%. Great = 80%. I've been using this sorting method for a while, and it hasn't done me wrong yet. You might miss a great cache because it is either too challenging or too new to have accumulated enough points when you start your sorting, and you might have the occasional stinker slip through, but it beats the heck out of going in blind.

 

One problem with that is that older caches might get lower percentages they they might deserve. For a cache that is say 8 or 9 years old, many of the finders who might have favorited them had there been favorites at the time are out of the game now, and there is also a segment of people who use favorites for new finds but never bothered to take the time to go though their older finds and add them.

It's not a perfect system, but it certainly proves helpful, to me.

For a perfect list of caches, guaranteed to stimulate your personal preferences, one must involve Le Frog. That pointy thing poking out of Signal's head is actually a psyonic receiver, which reads your individual brain waves to see exactly what kind of cache best fits your aesthetics. Hold your Garmin in your right hand and grab Signal's antenna with your left, and that completes the circuit. Your GPSr will then be loaded with caches which will make you happy.

 

I read it on the Internets.

 

It must be true...

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

For a perfect list of caches, guaranteed to stimulate your personal preferences, one must involve Le Frog. That pointy thing poking out of Signal's head is actually a psyonic receiver, which reads your individual brain waves to see exactly what kind of cache best fits your aesthetics. Hold your Garmin in your right hand and grab Signal's antenna with your left, and that completes the circuit. Your GPSr will then be loaded with caches which will make you happy.

 

I read it on the Internets.

 

It must be true...

That statement should be enshrined on a gold rimmed stone tablet and preserved ad infinitum.

 

Thank you.

[knowschad]

 

Must have been worth asking twice.

 

 

This reminded me to change to my holiday avatar.

 

I'm not sure if, by that, you are being naughty or nice.

[cezanne]

It's not a perfect system, but it certainly proves helpful, to me.

 

And it proves not to be helpful at all for me. I guess noone expects a perfect system. What many seem to overlook, however, is that the favourite system as it is now

is of hardly any use for those who have different preferences than the majority in the concerned area. I have no issues with the fact that the favourite system exists, but only with the fact that too often the existence of the favourite system is provided as argument for how easy it is easy for everyone to select suitable caches by making use of the favourite system.

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

 

In contrast consider this hiking cache

http://www.geocachin...9d-024355bd9ba3

which I really enjoyed enormously. It has only a single favourite point.

 

Cezanne

 

I noticed you didn't give that scenic cache a favorite point. The photos look great. Another favorite point could increase the chance that more people, who like a mountain climb and view, will notice this cache and go hunt it. Then they, in turn, may give it more favorite votes.

[cezanne]

 

In contrast consider this hiking cache

http://www.geocachin...9d-024355bd9ba3

which I really enjoyed enormously. It has only a single favourite point.

 

Cezanne

 

I noticed you didn't give that scenic cache a favorite point.

 

I'm not a PM for certain reasons (not financial ones) and Groundspeak has decided to allow only PMs to distribute favourites.

 

Another favorite point could increase the chance that more people, who like a mountain climb and view, will notice this cache and go hunt it. Then they, in turn, may give it more favorite votes.

 

No, it would not. On one hand, caches in that area are almost exclusively visited by cachers not living more than say 100km away and those know the hider anyway. On the other hand, as I have mentioned there is a strong local trend to favour multi and puzzle caches over traditionals when distributing favourite points. Traditionals only have a decent chance to get many favourites if the hideout and container are special.

 

I do not know whether you are familiar with the GCVote system - one can assign a rating from 1 up to 5 (half points exist as well). Some of the locals assign 4 as best grade for traditionals and reserve 4.5 and 5 exclusively for multi caches and puzzle caches. I'm a fan of hiking multi caches myself, but in my opinion it's not the cache type that plays the key role, but the overall experience. Hiking traditionals that do not involve an absolute sensation have it very difficult in my area to receive a higher number of favourites.

 

Cezanne

[Clan Riffster]

And it proves not to be helpful at all for me. What many seem to overlook is that the favourite system as it is now is of hardly any use for those who have different preferences than the majority in the concerned area.

I suspect you are right. So far, having instituted my favorites/percentages sorting method in many different geographic regions, the ones which seem to come to the top of the list happen to match my caching aesthetics, specifically, a quality container at an interesting location. If I were, for instance, a numbers oriented cacher who only wanted uninspired P&Gs, my system would fail me utterly. The reverse is also true, I suppose. If I attempted my sorting method where the vast majority of players only gave favorite points to P&Gs, I would fail again.

 

To date, I have not seen such a result, but I recognize that it could happen.

 

As you mentioned, no system is perfect.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I do not know whether you are familiar with the GCVote system

 

 

Yes, very familiar. I see that the cache has an overall 4 star rating (8 votes). Using the GCVote system plus the Favorite Vote system ups the chances of finding a good cache experience and weeding out unpleasant caches.