Jump to content

Favorites for Premium Only?


at1a5

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure why this would not benefit geocaching.com if given to the masses.

 

It would be as if Facebook started charging people before they could like a post/status. Seems silly.

 

Thank you though for everything else!

Link to post

I'm not sure why this would not benefit geocaching.com if given to the masses.

 

It would be as if Facebook started charging people before they could like a post/status. Seems silly.

 

Thank you though for everything else!

Well, then look at it as a type of "inducement" to have more paying members.

It is a business after-all, not a give-everyone-everything-they-want charity.

 

Harsh reality, but true. :ph34r:

Edited by Gitchee-Gummee
Link to post

Would you prefer every page on geocaching.com be filled with ads like on Facebook?

 

I happily pay a premium membership every year to keep ads away. As a matter of fact, I have 3 premium memberships so I can get all the extra benefits, mainly lots and lots of PQs.

Link to post

I believe one of the reasons that favorite voting was limited to premium membership was to discourage people from creating sock puppet accounts to award points to their own or a friend's cache. Of course it doesn't stop this completely. A premium member could hide cache under the sock puppet account and give favorite points to these caches, or if some wanted it enough they could pay for another premium membership.

Link to post

I believe one of the reasons that favorite voting was limited to premium membership was to discourage people from creating sock puppet accounts to award points to their own or a friend's cache. Of course it doesn't stop this completely. A premium member could hide cache under the sock puppet account and give favorite points to these caches, or if some wanted it enough they could pay for another premium membership.

 

Amen to that. I often see a hide by a new user with no finds. It's usually either a bad hide by someone with no finding experience, or a sock pocket hide by somebody that wanted to be able to find their own cache.

 

EIther way, I believe 100 finds before you hide is a good idea, and favorites for premium (or at least validated) players only.

Link to post

I'm not sure why this would not benefit geocaching.com if given to the masses.

 

It would be as if Facebook started charging people before they could like a post/status. Seems silly.

 

Thank you though for everything else!

Facebook would have to pay me $30.00 a year to join it.

Link to post

I'm not sure why this would not benefit geocaching.com if given to the masses.

 

It would be as if Facebook started charging people before they could like a post/status. Seems silly.

 

Thank you though for everything else!

Facebook would have to pay me $30.00 a year to join it.

 

LIKE!

Link to post

I can see very little good coming out of opening this feature up for everybody. Too many possibilities for abuse. Right now, only "serious" players can vote so you can reasonably view the favorite system as being fairly accurate. [ yeah, I know not all serious players have premium memberships, but most premium members take the game more seriously ]

Link to post

I can see very little good coming out of opening this feature up for everybody. Too many possibilities for abuse. Right now, only "serious" players can vote so you can reasonably view the favorite system as being fairly accurate. [ yeah, I know not all serious players have premium memberships, but most premium members take the game more seriously ]

I disagree.

 

Why shouldn't the person who only finds 10 caches a year not be able to say which of the 10 was his favorite. Perhaps this person was highly selective in choosing caches to find on the rare occasions he went caching. His favorite point may be much more valuable then the so-called "serious" cacher's.

 

On the other hand the "serious" cacher may be more interested in power trails or in quick and easy urban hides. Their favorites might include every 10th cache on a power trail or the LPC cache they found to keep their 365 consecutive day streak going. But I guess that's more accurate because these are "serious" geocachers.

Link to post

I can see very little good coming out of opening this feature up for everybody. Too many possibilities for abuse. Right now, only "serious" players can vote so you can reasonably view the favorite system as being fairly accurate. [ yeah, I know not all serious players have premium memberships, but most premium members take the game more seriously ]

 

Not every Premium member is a "serious" Geocacher. Recently someone referred to FTF averse cachers in general as FTF CHICKENS (I would be one of those). I think that gives me license to refer to FTF addicted cachers as FTF TURKEYS. Some of those birds award every FTF a favorite point. Seriously? A Premium membership does not automatically make you an intelligent voter. The cost does keep the abuse to a more acceptable level. Keep it that way. Since this is somewhat a popularity contest, accuracy will always be an elusive target.

Link to post

Not every Premium member is a "serious" Geocacher.

 

True ... it's a generality.

 

Some of those birds award every FTF a favorite point. Seriously?

 

That's why you can't judge a cache by a single favorite point. They will average out, and the top caches do pop to the top as time goes on. I have awarded caches a favorite point not because there was anything special about the cache, but because there was something about the experience that was special to me. Nobody else will experience the same thing, so the favorite point might appear to be odd. But that's ok - they are my favorite points to give out as I wish.

 

The cost does keep the abuse to a more acceptable level. Keep it that way.

 

Yes. Nobody (well, very few) are going to become a premium member just to give their buddies extra favorite points or their own caches extra favorite points.

Link to post

That's why you can't judge a cache by a single favorite point. They will average out, and the top caches do pop to the top as time goes on.

 

I do not agree. I depends heavily on the preferences of the majority of cachers in an area.

A single favourite point awarded by a cacher with similar preferences as mine can mean a lot more for me than 100 FPs (>75% ratio) from cachers with different

preferences.

 

I do not see it as privilege to be able to award favourite points. It is not me who can profit from my own list of favourites. In my local area I feel that the loss caused by the fact that basic members have no favourite list is much higher than the potential abuse would be. I do not rely on number of favourites or favourite ratios, but on the favourite lists of a handful of cachers and I'm missing the lists of the basic members among which there are many that share my preferences.

 

Cezanne

Link to post

I believe one of the reasons that favorite voting was limited to premium membership was to discourage people from creating sock puppet accounts to award points to their own or a friend's cache. Of course it doesn't stop this completely. A premium member could hide cache under the sock puppet account and give favorite points to these caches, or if some wanted it enough they could pay for another premium membership.

 

Amen to that. I often see a hide by a new user with no finds. It's usually either a bad hide by someone with no finding experience, or a sock pocket hide by somebody that wanted to be able to find their own cache.

 

EIther way, I believe 100 finds before you hide is a good idea, ...

 

You probably wouldn't feel that way if you lived in or visited one of the 177 countries in the world that has fewer than 100 caches in the entire country. Placing a 100 finds before you can hide a cache would effectively prevent geocaching from growing from what it is now in over 70% of the countries in the world.

Link to post

Allowing non-paying members to give favorite points would make favorite points MEANINGLESS.

 

Think about it for a minute.

 

Jane Doe hides her first cache. She's proud of it, but the cache itself is nothing special. People are logging finds on it, but no favorite points. She is disapointed.

 

So she creates a bunch of sock puppet accounts, logs a bunch of finds on it, and awards favorite points to her own cache.

 

I know it seems silly, but I'd bet alot of people would be tempted to do this.

 

So for favorite points to continue to have meaning, they MUST remain a PMO feature.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to post

So for favorite points to continue to have meaning, they MUST remain a PMO feature.

 

As I have said before, it depends on the way one wants to use the favourite point info. I do not care

at all about the number of favourite points, but only about who awards them.

 

I like to view the favourite lists of a selected group of cachers and there are many basic members whose list would

be far more interesting for me that than the lists of the average PM,

e,g,

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=1d2b3a17-46d9-4863-8fd5-9fbb4093f89e

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=48018a94-0540-4815-8e44-524b49a58a6b

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=0280c666-c694-40fb-8d2d-b6f0eeb67e0e

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=9b73a424-d317-4974-a720-004d982e2d2a

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=2563d212-eef1-44e2-9950-6df7d8209ff6

to just name a few prolific cachers in my country who are basic members like myself.

Link to post

Allowing non-paying members to give favorite points would make favorite points MEANINGLESS.

 

Think about it for a minute.

 

Jane Doe hides her first cache. She's proud of it, but the cache itself is nothing special. People are logging finds on it, but no favorite points. She is disapointed.

 

So she creates a bunch of sock puppet accounts, logs a bunch of finds on it, and awards favorite points to her own cache.

 

I know it seems silly, but I'd bet alot of people would be tempted to do this.

 

So for favorite points to continue to have meaning, they MUST remain a PMO feature.

 

If (ok, when) Groundspeak introduces the ability to filter a PQ by favorites, this will become even more important.

 

Whenever I travel to a new area, I always sort my list of nearby caches by favorites and see what's sitting at the top of the list. If someone was out there voting up their own cache with sock puppets, that would skewer the results to prop up a cache that I wouldn't otherwise go out of my way to find on my trip.

Link to post

If (ok, when) Groundspeak introduces the ability to filter a PQ by favorites, this will become even more important.

 

Whenever I travel to a new area, I always sort my list of nearby caches by favorites and see what's sitting at the top of the list. If someone was out there voting up their own cache with sock puppets, that would skewer the results to prop up a cache that I wouldn't otherwise go out of my way to find on my trip.

 

Personally, I use favourites in a completely different manner.

 

In any case I think that there would exist solutions to address the concern raised above and yet offer basic members the chance to award favourites. It could be as simple as providing the choice between displaying the overall number of favourites and the number of favourites awarded by PMs (and of course also providing the option of displaying the associated ratios).

 

Of course it is up to Groundspeak to decide which features they offer to whom. I just do not think that referring to a potential abuse is a strong argument against allowing basic members to award favourite points.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to post

I believe one of the reasons that favorite voting was limited to premium membership was to discourage people from creating sock puppet accounts to award points to their own or a friend's cache. Of course it doesn't stop this completely. A premium member could hide cache under the sock puppet account and give favorite points to these caches, or if some wanted it enough they could pay for another premium membership.

 

Amen to that. I often see a hide by a new user with no finds. It's usually either a bad hide by someone with no finding experience, or a sock pocket hide by somebody that wanted to be able to find their own cache.

 

EIther way, I believe 100 finds before you hide is a good idea, and favorites for premium (or at least validated) players only.

 

It would make more sense to have cachers' first few hides flagged as such (even if the flag was only visible to reviewers) so that any issues could be dealt with quickly. A first hide is a first hide whether the hider has found 1 or 10,000 caches.

 

If such a flag were implemented it could also be used to rein in the people who don't maintain their existing hides yet still put more new ones out. Maybe if someone had more than 5 caches archived by a reviewer for non-maintenance they would go back to "new cache hider" status, or even have three levels of hider - "new hider", "experienced hider and "negligent hider", so those who don't maintain their caches get dropped to a lower level than a new hider. Obviously if someone decided a particular area was too prone to muggling and archived it themselves they wouldn't be marked down for it, but if a cache had been disabled for weeks and ended up being archived by a reviewer they would.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry to resurrect this one a little bit. But I just posted this on the geocaching blog comments section today and thought I'd share my thoughts here:

 

Favorite points should be available for all users to leave (not just premium members), and I will tell you why. Leaving a favorite point is not really benefit for premium members, it's a benefit for the cache you have just visited. Limiting it to premium members is limiting the number of favorite points some great caches out there can get. Secondly, voting works best when there is a larger sample size. When you look at movie, restaurant, or any other review, would you rather see it got 95/100 with 2 people voting or 93/100 with 900 people voting. The larger the sample size legitimizes the favorite point system. Caches that are really great will get many, many favorite points and attract the warranted attention. Caches that are just ho-hum will get very few (or none at all) favorite points and get the attention they deserve. In my area right now, there are a few caches with 1 or 2 favorite points, a few with 3 or 4. Many with none at all. In its current state, except for a few exceptions, the great caches just aren't getting the favorite points they deserve and it makes the voting system meaningless when a great cache and a not so great cache have the same amount of favorite points. TLDR? Let basic members vote for favorite points to improve the sample size and legitimize the system.

Link to post
In its current state, except for a few exceptions, the great caches just aren't getting the favorite points they deserve and it makes the voting system meaningless when a great cache and a not so great cache have the same amount of favorite points. TLDR? Let basic members vote for favorite points to improve the sample size and legitimize the system.

I think if you did read any of the posts above, you'd see that one of the reasons it's currently limited to premium members is otherwise, it would easily be open to abuse.

 

What do you feel makes a cache great?

We all play differently.

My idea of a great cache few would go for in my area.

Some think hitting a hide every .1 is awesome.

The system isn't "legitimate" now? Probably not.

- But allowing basic members to award favorites sure isn't going to make it correct either.

Link to post
In its current state, except for a few exceptions, the great caches just aren't getting the favorite points they deserve and it makes the voting system meaningless when a great cache and a not so great cache have the same amount of favorite points. TLDR? Let basic members vote for favorite points to improve the sample size and legitimize the system.

I think if you did read any of the posts above, you'd see that one of the reasons it's currently limited to premium members is otherwise, it would easily be open to abuse.

 

I did read the thread above. I don't buy the abuse argument. This whole game is based on mutual trust. People can log finds they never found, virtually move trackables, etc, etc. There's other ways they could avoid the situation anyway, such as with IP numbers.

Link to post

If someone is committed to geocaching and would like to give favorites in order to reward cachers who put out great caches, all they have to do is pay $30 for the year.

My point is not that it's a reward for premium members. My point is that the more favorite points being allowed, the more likely we'll have a legitimate voting system that rewards the best geocaches. Like I mentioned before if you go to UrbanSpoon or IMDB to pick out a restaurant or movie based on user reviews, you're much more likely to trust restaurants or movies that have thousands of reviews, than some that only have a few. The larger the sample size, the more legitimate the voting system, because the masses counterbalance the outliers of people who favorite cache which doesn't deserve it.

Link to post

Before we get into the whole "sample size" discussion it would be helpful to know what percentage of registered Geoxachers are Premium vs. the overall membership. The number of Preimium members who visit a particular cache may be a large enough percentage of its overall finds to constitute a decent sample size.

Link to post

Before we get into the whole "sample size" discussion it would be helpful to know what percentage of registered Geoxachers are Premium vs. the overall membership. The number of Preimium members who visit a particular cache may be a large enough percentage of its overall finds to constitute a decent sample size.

The issue really isn't one of sample size. I happen to like caches that are rarely found (long hike, difficult puzzle to solve), so the sample size is small no matter what. On the other hand most of the people who go for these caches like them and are more likely to give them favorite points.

 

The issue with only letting premium members vote is not sample size, but potentially a biased sample.

 

It may be that premium members do more caching and are more into numbers. They may have a high percentage of P&Gs or are more likely to do power trails. Depending on how they give out their favorite votes they may be more likely to give a favorite to a cache in a parking log or some other location I wouldn't care to visit.

 

Non-premium memberships includes people who only geocache a few times a year. They may be very selective in choosing what cache they go after, maybe even only looking a those that already have favorite points. Since they are limited to giving out favorites to 10% of their finds, these favorite points may be the creme de la creme.

 

Even with there being many more non-premium members, each of them will likely have few votes, and perhaps they will be even less likely to vote than premium members are. So I'm not convince the results are going to change that much.

 

One fallacy I see all the time is the idea that there is an average cacher and that with a large enough, unbiased sample, the favorite vote will reflect the view average cacher. People make the assumptions that most cachers will be close to the average cacher in what they like or dislike and that only a few geocachers are outliers whose taste are completely different.

 

The fact is we don't know how the tastes of cachers are distributed. I could be that nobody likes what the "average cacher" likes. Instead is could be that cachera clump in to groups with different groups prefering different types of caches. A cache with a high number of favorites may just mean is it liked by one of the larger groups. A cache with a high percentage of favorites may just mean it is one that gets ignored by cachers who are not in the group that likes it. A better use for the favorite points would be system that reported "If you liked this cache you might also like these..."

Link to post

Before we get into the whole "sample size" discussion it would be helpful to know what percentage of registered Geoxachers are Premium vs. the overall membership. The number of Preimium members who visit a particular cache may be a large enough percentage of its overall finds to constitute a decent sample size.

I agree. We don't know of any basic members in our area, so sample size would be predominantly premium members anyway.

- That probably changes towards more urban areas.

Link to post

Before we get into the whole "sample size" discussion it would be helpful to know what percentage of registered Geoxachers are Premium vs. the overall membership. The number of Preimium members who visit a particular cache may be a large enough percentage of its overall finds to constitute a decent sample size.

I agree. We don't know of any basic members in our area, so sample size would be predominantly premium members anyway.

- That probably changes towards more urban areas.

Looking at your current active caches you have a good percentage of people finding your cache that are not premium members. Typical Basic members are not generally going to be going to events or getting to know you, they just do it for fun.

Link to post

Before we get into the whole "sample size" discussion it would be helpful to know what percentage of registered Geoxachers are Premium vs. the overall membership. The number of Preimium members who visit a particular cache may be a large enough percentage of its overall finds to constitute a decent sample size.

I agree. We don't know of any basic members in our area, so sample size would be predominantly premium members anyway.

- That probably changes towards more urban areas.

Looking at your current active caches you have a good percentage of people finding your cache that are not premium members. Typical Basic members are not generally going to be going to events or getting to know you, they just do it for fun.

Well, since you brought it up...

Just on one of our hides, there were 18 basic members who found it within the past two years. All but 4 are no longer caching.

- In fact, most stopped within their first year.

Tell me how those numbers are gonna help again...

Link to post

Before we get into the whole "sample size" discussion it would be helpful to know what percentage of registered Geoxachers are Premium vs. the overall membership. The number of Preimium members who visit a particular cache may be a large enough percentage of its overall finds to constitute a decent sample size.

I agree. We don't know of any basic members in our area, so sample size would be predominantly premium members anyway.

- That probably changes towards more urban areas.

Looking at your current active caches you have a good percentage of people finding your cache that are not premium members. Typical Basic members are not generally going to be going to events or getting to know you, they just do it for fun.

Well, since you brought it up...

Just on one of our hides, there were 18 basic members who found it within the past two years. All but 4 are no longer caching.

- In fact, most stopped within their first year.

Tell me how those numbers are gonna help again...

18 out of how many? And just because they're premium members now, doesn't mean they started that way.

Link to post

Well, since you brought it up...

Just on one of our hides, there were 18 basic members who found it within the past two years. All but 4 are no longer caching.

- In fact, most stopped within their first year.

Tell me how those numbers are gonna help again...

Actually I'm losing sight of my original point. You said you weren't aware of "any" basic members and I was simply pointing out that you have had many visit your very own geocaches over the years.

Link to post

Sorry, but "We don't know of any basic members in our area" (that's what I wrote...) and basic members who hit our hides are two different animals.

 

The hide I referred is almost forty miles away, closer to a City than "our area". You assume people only hide in their area.

 

- And I'm done with you now.

Link to post

Sorry, but "We don't know of any basic members in our area" (that's what I wrote...) and basic members who hit our hides are two different animals.

 

The hide I referred is almost forty miles away, closer to a City than "our area". You assume people only hide in their area.

 

- And I'm done with you now.

I always make the mistake of forgetting that people discussing topics on forums don't behave like they do in public. I was not meaning to offend you, and I'm sorry if you were somehow offended. You seem to be missing my point, but your comment, "We don't know of any basic members in our area" does not necessarily translate to "The majority of geocachers in our area are premium members" which was your original point in regards to the bulk of favorite points coming from premium members (if they were to open it to basic members).

 

But besides the point, I am always shocked to see the animosity from so-called "serious" cachers towards others or from "premium members" towards "basic members." It's just a hobby/game.

Link to post

Before we get into the whole "sample size" discussion it would be helpful to know what percentage of registered Geoxachers are Premium vs. the overall membership. The number of Preimium members who visit a particular cache may be a large enough percentage of its overall finds to constitute a decent sample size.

The issue with only letting premium members vote is not sample size, but potentially a biased sample.

 

I would have guessed that premium members would award favorite points heavily to the clever hides. However, D1.5 hides that are extremely cute still rake in the most points.

 

Percent of premium members? I've asked and asked, but it seems to be confidential.

Link to post

If someone is committed to geocaching and would like to give favorites in order to reward cachers who put out great caches, all they have to do is pay $30 for the year.

My point is not that it's a reward for premium members. My point is that the more favorite points being allowed, the more likely we'll have a legitimate voting system that rewards the best geocaches. Like I mentioned before if you go to UrbanSpoon or IMDB to pick out a restaurant or movie based on user reviews, you're much more likely to trust restaurants or movies that have thousands of reviews, than some that only have a few. The larger the sample size, the more legitimate the voting system, because the masses counterbalance the outliers of people who favorite cache which doesn't deserve it.

 

The trouble is even the system have now isn't a "legimate voting system that rewards the best geocaches". It's a system that lets a subset of the caching community award points based on whatever criteria they consider appropriate.

 

It would be akin to reading restaurant reviews that recommended the place was only to find that the person who happened to post the recommendation enjoyed the band so much they didn't care that the steak was undercooked and the vegetables were served cold, or avoiding a restaurant based on bad reviews only to find they had been left by the owner of the restaurant next door and his extended family. With the favourites points it's not like you can give a meaningful assessment of the cache, it's equivalent of posting a review that says nothing more than "I liked this restaurant" with no indication as to why.

 

When people have wildly differing ideas of what counts as "a good cache" the favourites system is all but meaningless. As a rule I dislike nanos and am increasingly disinterested in finding film pots behind signs, but every once in a while come across one that piques my interest sufficiently to not only go and find it but also give it a favourite point. Sometimes the point is for a clever hide, sometimes it's for a clever puzzle, sometimes it's for a pleasant area, and all you as an observer can see is that I liked some aspect of the cache. Someone who is aware of my dislike of nanos (it's not exactly a secret) and shares the same dislike for them who sees I have awarded a favourite point to a cache might therefore assume it's not a nano and then be annoyed when they encounter what they consider to be an utterly dull nano behind a sign.

 

Also a lot of really good caches are the ones that have been out there for many years, since before favourite points were available. Most of them have tiny ratios of favourite points to visits simply because they chalked up thousands of visits before favourite points existed. So that's just another reason they are all but irrelevant as a comparison tool.

 

ETA: Your comment about those who "favorite cache which doesn't deserve it" misses the mark completely. Giving a favourite point means it's a cache that I consider to be among my favourite caches. As such nobody else can meaningfully say it doesn't deserve a point - my list of my favourite caches is correct. Saying a cache doesn't deserve a favourite point is like saying you can't consider liver and onions to be your favourite food - however distasteful I may find liver and onions if it's your favourite you'll award it favourite points.

Edited by team tisri
Link to post

I'm not sure why this would not benefit geocaching.com if given to the masses.

 

It would be as if Facebook started charging people before they could like a post/status. Seems silly.

 

Thank you though for everything else!

 

as i am learning in life nothings free everything costs money and geocaching wouldnt be as awesome as it is if it didnt have the premium members:)

Link to post
  • 2 years later...

hi all

 

i would like basic members to have favourite points because i would like to award some cachers by giving them a favourite point without using dads.

 

i think basic members should have to get 100 caches before getting 1 favourite point then the 10 to 1 rate after the 100 because there some good and great caches out there that i want to give a point to.

Link to post

hi all

 

i would like basic members to have favourite points because i would like to award some cachers by giving them a favourite point without using dads.

 

i think basic members should have to get 100 caches before getting 1 favourite point then the 10 to 1 rate after the 100 because there some good and great caches out there that i want to give a point to.

 

Maybe Dad could purchase a Premium membership for your next birthday. In the meantime, just write great logs thanking the cache owner for the really great hide. Adding a favorite point without explaining why may not mean much to a cache owner. Was this a Favorite because you were FTF? because it was your latest milestone? Was it because the container was the neatest thing you have seen as a cache?

Link to post

hi all

 

i would like basic members to have favourite points because i would like to award some cachers by giving them a favourite point without using dads.

 

i think basic members should have to get 100 caches before getting 1 favourite point then the 10 to 1 rate after the 100 because there some good and great caches out there that i want to give a point to.

 

Maybe Dad could purchase a Premium membership for your next birthday. In the meantime, just write great logs thanking the cache owner for the really great hide. Adding a favorite point without explaining why may not mean much to a cache owner. Was this a Favorite because you were FTF? because it was your latest milestone? Was it because the container was the neatest thing you have seen as a cache?

 

+1

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...