Favorite Points %

[+DrAwKwArD]

It seems as though "most" favorite points are a frequent topic of conversation. How about greatest "percentage" favorited? Any caches in your area with 100% fav votes? 75%?

 

E.G. The original stash tribute plaque with a staggering 1745 fav points only scores a 35%

[+lamoracke]

Any cache that was created before the favorited system starts is at a disadvantage as many folks will not go back into old finds and add them and many folks are not around anymore who did, so any cache in the last couple of years will probably have higher percentage than the older ones.

 

Also, we have some folks in our area who do not give favorite points so 100% is a luxury usually not possible. Course, some folks do not give favorites to people they do not care for personally so there are many reasons a cache may never get 100%. Either way, a high percentage cache should be a good one.

Edited September 26, 2013 by lamoracke

[+lamoracke]

I looked in the state of Washington at all caches with over 100 favorite points to see what the highest percentage was. Of those 43 caches, 3 of them have over 70%, with the ranges going from 71% to 74%.

 

Lesson for Urban Geocaching 74%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EE3H_lesson-for-urban-geocaching

 

Trollhaugen 71% (which I did not favorite)

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC37KA1_trollhaugen

 

SUPER Pages 71%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3863H_the-super-pages

 

only one other one got over 60%

 

T T III X 3 65%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2P8XW_tt-iii-x-3

 

Not surprising, all 3 are in the last few years.

 

No other ones

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Might there be a problem getting to 100%? Basic Members cannot award Fav Points, so I believe.

That would make it a little difficult to achieve 100%.

[+Panther&Pine]

Might there be a problem getting to 100%? Basic Members cannot award Fav Points, so I believe.

That would make it a little difficult to achieve 100%.

Isn't it based on % of PMs who log it as found?

[+DrAwKwArD]

Might there be a problem getting to 100%? Basic Members cannot award Fav Points, so I believe.

That would make it a little difficult to achieve 100%.

I believe since they cannot vote basic members' finds aren't factored into the percentage. For instance, I have a cache that has 7 finds and 3 favorite points. It has a 75% rating.

Edited September 26, 2013 by DrAwKwArD

[+terrkan78]

I was thinking I'd logged one or two recently that were at 100%, but I'm not finding them now. Here's one (in Oregon) published in 2003 that's at 80%: GCGJQM

[+OHail]

87% http://coord.info/GC3MFAD

 

79% http://coord.info/GC3Y1GE

 

Highly recommend both.

 

It is my understanding that caches hidden by The Raven in Arizona have high percentage of favorite votes.

[cezanne]

Here is one with 100% in my region

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EFT1_vulkanland?guid=bc6fc608-511d-4790-91a6-63898366b82c

I logged it as a basic member and if I were able to distribute FPs, I also would have assigned one to this cache.

It is a long distance hiking cache (around 180 km).

[+redsox_mark]

From this site http://project-gc.com/CacheStats/TopFavPct

You can get a list sorted by FP% (10 or more FPs needed to qualify).

Looking at 50 KM from my home location, there are four with 100%. Of these four, the one with the greatest absolute number of FPs is h4ck3r (currently has 23).

 

While it is true that older caches are at a disadvantage (cachers less likely to go back and award FPs to older caches), finders who have left the game should not affect the stats as I believe that when a member moves from premium to basic they are no longer counted in the calculation. (And those who have left the game are unlikely to be paying for premium membership).

 

I own a cache which has 100%, but it only has one FP, so not statistically significant. My best percentage cache with > 10 FPs is 67% (and 35 FPs).

Edited September 26, 2013 by redsox_mark

[+redsox_mark]

A further data point: In the UK (where I live) there are 25 caches with 10 or more FPs and 100%.

In the US, there are 40 caches with 10 or more FPs and 100%.

 

Of the UK ones, the one with 100% and the most absolute # of FPs is the same "h4ck3r" which is close to me.

 

In the US, this cache TIN MAN has an impressive 130 FPs and with 100%.

Edited September 26, 2013 by redsox_mark

[+OZ2CPU]

when we select special and maybe good/cool caches to visit

we use how many FP it got, we also look on the %

since either of that, is not perfect alone.

a new cache with two friends finding it, both give their beginner friend FP

now he got amazing 100% FP score, for a normal front yard cache..

wait 4 years, and it got 140 visits, and still the same 2 FP :-)

[+edscott]

One of my newest ones has two favorites out of 3. The opinions of the 7 DNFs are still unknown.

[+The Jester]

I looked in the state of Washington at all caches with over 100 favorite points to see what the highest percentage was. Of those 43 caches, 3 of them have over 70%, with the ranges going from 71% to 74%.

 

Lesson for Urban Geocaching 74%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EE3H_lesson-for-urban-geocaching

 

Trollhaugen 71% (which I did not favorite)

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC37KA1_trollhaugen

 

SUPER Pages 71%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3863H_the-super-pages

 

only one other one got over 60%

 

T T III X 3 65%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2P8XW_tt-iii-x-3

 

Not surprising, all 3 are in the last few years.

 

No other ones

You missed Washington History Challenge at 83%.

[+Ambrosia]

I think that the subject of favourite points is an interesting one.

 

Looking at my own hides, my two top favourited caches are both at 33%. One is a virtual that has been found 336 times. The other one is a traditional that has been found 6 times. Total opposites.

[+lamoracke]

I looked in the state of Washington at all caches with over 100 favorite points to see what the highest percentage was. Of those 43 caches, 3 of them have over 70%, with the ranges going from 71% to 74%.

 

Lesson for Urban Geocaching 74%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EE3H_lesson-for-urban-geocaching

 

Trollhaugen 71% (which I did not favorite)

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC37KA1_trollhaugen

 

SUPER Pages 71%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3863H_the-super-pages

 

only one other one got over 60%

 

T T III X 3 65%

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2P8XW_tt-iii-x-3

 

Not surprising, all 3 are in the last few years.

 

No other ones

You missed Washington History Challenge at 83%.

 

I did not miss any, I only looked at ones with 100 or more favorite points.

 

Otherwise, would not have missed that one, I favorited it.

Edited September 28, 2013 by lamoracke

[+ATXTracker]

This can be argued both ways. Both metrics have merit. Raw point count favors easy and accessible caches over more remote or difficult caches.

 

Can we agree that it would be nice if both were sortable? Then the user could decide which number was most valuable.

 

Still, I think as time goes to infinity, the percentage is more interesting than the raw count.

[+J Grouchy]

KANPAI!!!: http://coord.info/GC4M4XJ

 

10 finds, 10 favorites (I was FTF, by the way)

 

The thing about this one...it was almost entirely in the craftsmanship of the cache. The location is unremarkable, but what the CO had to do in order to get the cache installed was impressive.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Percentage doesn't always tell the story.....there are older caches that were placed way before favorites. Were they new caches they would be 100% ....they may now show only 50%.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This can be argued both ways. Both metrics have merit. Raw point count favors easy and accessible caches over more remote or difficult caches.

 

Can we agree that it would be nice if both were sortable? Then the user could decide which number was most valuable.

 

Still, I think as time goes to infinity, the percentage is more interesting than the raw count.

 

What percentage does do is level the playing field for caches that are located where there are a lot of other geocachers and geocaches that are located in places that are not visited often. There are probably run-of-the-mill hides that get dozens favorite points because the cache name starts with a 7 while a cache like the one I found near Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe (which is often included in a Natural Wonders of the World list) only has 25 simply because it's not found that often.

 

[+tozainamboku]

This can be argued both ways. Both metrics have merit. Raw point count favors easy and accessible caches over more remote or difficult caches.

 

Can we agree that it would be nice if both were sortable? Then the user could decide which number was most valuable.

 

Still, I think as time goes to infinity, the percentage is more interesting than the raw count.

 

What percentage does do is level the playing field for caches that are located where there are a lot of other geocachers and geocaches that are located in places that are not visited often. There are probably run-of-the-mill hides that get dozens favorite points because the cache name starts with a 7 while a cache like the one I found near Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe (which is often included in a Natural Wonders of the World list) only has 25 simply because it's not found that often.

The problem with percentage is the sample is biased. The visitors to the cache near Victoria Falls are more likely to give this a favorite vote simply because this cache is hard to get to. There are certainly many puzzle cache that have percentages just because these are only found by people who already have a preference for puzzle caches.

 

When I see high raw count of favorites it tells me that many people liked a cache. When I see a high percentage it tells me nothing. Sure - if everything else were equal, percentage would normalize for the number of visitors. But everything else is not equal.

[+RaNa2009]

We have a series here in Düsseldorf, Germany. 29 Caches, in the top ten, all caches are way above 50%:

 

 

Overall the series has about 3600 'Found it' logs and gained over 1500 FPs in less than 60 days. So yes, given a relevant number of finds, a high percentage of gained FPs seems to be a good indicator for a good cache.

[+redsox_mark]

When I see high raw count of favorites it tells me that many people liked a cache. When I see a high percentage it tells me nothing. Sure - if everything else were equal, percentage would normalize for the number of visitors. But everything else is not equal.

 

I look at both numbers. A cache with 100 FPs says 100 people liked it enough to award a FP. But if that cache has 5000 premium found logs, then that is 2%... that tells me something. A cache with 100 FPs and 100% FPs tells me something else.

 

I also read the description and logs to see if I think I will like it. I don't like climbing trees much; if it has a lot (and/or high percentage) of FPs because people like the tree climb then it's probably not for me.

[+tozainamboku]

But if that cache has 5000 premium found logs, then that is 2%... that tells me something. A cache with 100 FPs and 100% FPs tells me something else.

No it doesn't. Unless two caches are similar caches in similar area the cache with 100% may simply be a cache that only attracts people who are likely to get favorite points. The cache with 2% tells you that is a cache that attracts a lot of finders and even then a significant number of people were willing to give a favorite point.

 

Also this example is very contrived. It would be exremely rare for any cache to get 5000 finds If I saw a cache with this many finds I might want to check it out even if it had zero favorite points. A cache with 100 premium finds and 100 votes is even rarer - but lets assume a more reasonable 10 premium finds and 10 votes. Here I'd question if all the finders weren't friends of the hider and perhaps discount the favorites on the cache.

 

Certainly if you first check the cache description, type, terrain, difficulty, and location and you select two caches that are fairly similar and would appeal to similar geocachers, you might want to normalize the favortite votes to account for the fact that one of the caches has been in place longer and therefore has more finds. But it has been pointed out that if the older caches significanty predates favorite points, it may have a lower percentage because people don't always go back to award favorite points to caches they found in the past.

 

I understand that people may want to have a method to look at two caches and decide which of the two would be more enjoyable. Unfortunately, this isn't easy to do given the broad range of tastes among geocachers. Instead the favorite points provides some feedback to cachers about whether other people liked a particular cache. I find it most useful when I click on "View who favorited this cache" and see a name I recognize and know that they like similar caches to what I like. Certainly for others, once you pre-select based on other criteria, you may find that looking at percentage to account for differences in number of vistors is a good way to find the caches that are more likely to be enjoyable.

Edited October 7, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+redsox_mark]

But if that cache has 5000 premium found logs, then that is 2%... that tells me something. A cache with 100 FPs and 100% FPs tells me something else.

No it doesn't. Unless two caches are similar caches in similar area the cache with 100% may simply be a cache that only attracts people who are likely to get favorite points. The cache with 2% tells you that is a cache that attracts a lot of finders and even then a significant number of people were willing to give a favorite point.

 

Also this example is very contrived. It would be exremely rare for any cache to get 5000 finds If I saw a cache with this many finds I might want to check it out even if it had zero favorite points.

 

Percentages DO tell me something and I will continue to use them (as well as the total number and other information) when deciding which caches to attempt. Especially when looking at caches outside my area/country, where I don't know the cachers.

 

As for 5000 finds it depends on the place. In Prague for example it is pretty common. Here is one I've found, has over 500 favourite points.. but that is from 12,000+ finds and is 7%. (Not all 12,000 are premium logs of course).

 

Cache my Czech (Prague)

[cezanne]

But if that cache has 5000 premium found logs, then that is 2%... that tells me something. A cache with 100 FPs and 100% FPs tells me something else.

No it doesn't. Unless two caches are similar caches in similar area the cache with 100% may simply be a cache that only attracts people who are likely to get favorite points. The cache with 2% tells you that is a cache that attracts a lot of finders and even then a significant number of people were willing to give a favorite point.

 

Also this example is very contrived. It would be exremely rare for any cache to get 5000 finds If I saw a cache with this many finds I might want to check it out even if it had zero favorite points.

 

That is not too rare in Europe

See e.g.

http://project-gc.com/CacheStats/toploggedcaches/?profile_name=&country=Germany&region=&county=&location=&max_distance=0&fromyyyy=&frommm=&fromdd=&toyyyy=&tomm=&todd=&hidden_fromyyyy=&hidden_frommm=&hidden_fromdd=&hidden_toyyyy=&hidden_tomm=&hidden_todd=&bml_owner=&bml_guid=&my_route=&submit=Filter&submitbutton=Filter

(even the entry on place 60 has almost 4500 finds)

 

http://project-gc.com/CacheStats/toploggedcaches/?profile_name=&country=Czech+Republic&region=&county=&location=&max_distance=0&fromyyyy=&frommm=&fromdd=&toyyyy=&tomm=&todd=&hidden_fromyyyy=&hidden_frommm=&hidden_fromdd=&hidden_toyyyy=&hidden_tomm=&hidden_todd=&bml_owner=&bml_guid=&my_route=&submit=Filter&submitbutton=Filter

 

http://project-gc.com/CacheStats/toploggedcaches/?profile_name=&country=Austria&region=&county=&location=&max_distance=&fromyyyy=&frommm=&fromdd=&toyyyy=&tomm=&todd=&hidden_fromyyyy=&hidden_frommm=&hidden_fromdd=&hidden_toyyyy=&hidden_tomm=&hidden_todd=&bml_owner=&bml_guid=&my_route=&submit=Filter&submitbutton=Filter

 

Having many finds does not mean anything in these areas and most caches on the list are nothing that matches with my geocaching preferences (some of the caches are hidden at well known sights which deserve a visit if one has never been there, but those are the ones listed in all tourist guide books too).

 

 

A cache with 100 premium finds and 100 votes is even rarer - but lets assume a more reasonable 10 premium finds and 10 votes. Here I'd question if all the finders weren't friends of the hider and perhaps discount the favorites on the cache.

 

It depends on the cache.

I can provide you with an example with 10 finds and 10 votes and only one of the finders is a friend of the hider (but would awarded a FP anyway). I dare to conjecture that whoever completes the cache on foot and is PM will award a FP. The experience is so special http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EFT1_vulkanland

[+kayakdannj]

A local one Jersey Shore area 85% with 62 finds is pretty good in my book.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC458KK_in-honor-of-g-o-cacher

[+lamoracke]

And again, you guys are debating the percentage of a cache that was around in 2003, so most of the folks who logged it did not have the ability to favorite it at the time they logged it and most folks will not go back into their finds and update it and many folks do not cache anymore. I think you can directly compare virtual FP percentage to other virtuals but not to other caches.

Edited October 7, 2013 by lamoracke

[+DrAwKwArD]

 

When I see high raw count of favorites it tells me that many people liked a cache. When I see a high percentage it tells me nothing.

 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

The opposite could be true as well. When YOU are seeing a high count of favs it tells YOU people liked the cache. It tells ME that it is likely in a high cache dense area and showing up in a lot of queries.. nothing more. A percentage, say 2%, tells me nothing about the quality of the cache even if the cache has 100 favorite votes. This could be 100 cachers who have never seen anything but a power trail trying desperately to use up their votes. The cache off the beaten path with 10 fav votes and 50% tells me this is a quality cache. This tells me something. More effort required to get to the cache? Yes, I would expect more fav votes for this among other criteria of course.

Edited October 9, 2013 by DrAwKwArD

[+edexter]

I've been tracking both the number and % of favorite points in my local area (Southeastern Massachusetts)for the past six months. Of the 3000 caches in this area, fewer than half have ANY favorite points and less than 5% have BOTH 5 or more favorite points AND have a premium member favorite point percentage above 25%. More than half the caches that "make the cut" are "non traditionals": primarily puzzles, virtuals, earth caches and multicaches. In my experience, using this filter does identify "quality" non-traditional caches quite well. (It also does a good job of identifying the "nothing special" group which is far larger). Reading the logs of the folks who favorited a cache often highlights what in particular they liked about the cache which aids in the decision process of what cache to go for when time is limited or when the drive to and fro is lengthy. Not a perfect system but much better than guessing.

edexter

[+Ranger Roo]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2R5T5_knock-knock

The best cache I have ever found - 93% with 75 points

[forrest_e79]

Hey there after a very lenghty search on the frozen river i didnt come up with you "Tubin for fun cache"??

[Clan Riffster]

But if that cache has 5000 premium found logs, then that is 2%... that tells me something. A cache with 100 FPs and 100% FPs tells me something else.

No it doesn't.

It may not tell you anything, but it speaks volumes to me. Since the whole favorite point thing came out, I have developed a sure fire method for determining if I will enjoy a particular cache. I start with an initial sorting by total favorite points, excluding those with less than 10 points. I picked that entirely arbitrary number because I like the way it rolls off the tongue. From there, I sort by percentages. A cache with a 30% ratio will be good. 50% will be very good. 70% will be stellar. To date, my findings have been absolutely accurate.

 

Granted, if a cacher's tastes lean more toward soggy log film cans stuck next to dumpsters, this method might not work very well.

[+briansnat]

But if that cache has 5000 premium found logs, then that is 2%... that tells me something. A cache with 100 FPs and 100% FPs tells me something else.

No it doesn't.

It may not tell you anything, but it speaks volumes to me. Since the whole favorite point thing came out, I have developed a sure fire method for determining if I will enjoy a particular cache. I start with an initial sorting by total favorite points, excluding those with less than 10 points. I picked that entirely arbitrary number because I like the way it rolls off the tongue. From there, I sort by percentages. A cache with a 30% ratio will be good. 50% will be very good. 70% will be stellar. To date, my findings have been absolutely accurate.

 

Granted, if a cacher's tastes lean more toward soggy log film cans stuck next to dumpsters, this method might not work very well.

 

There are also some very fine caches that have no favorites, or a small number or percentage of them. Perhaps they are close to one that has a lot of favorites and lose out because of that. If you look at NJ's most most favorited cache, The Gerbil Cache, there are many caches near it that are every bit as good, or perhaps better, yet have 0, 1 or a handful of favorites.

 

The Gerbil Cache is a fine cache in that it's a nice hike to get there, but beyond that it's fairly ordinary. An ammo box in a rock outcrop. No stunning views, no ingenious container or hide method. It's in reality little different than hundreds of caches in the region and actually pales in comparison with other nearby caches as far as a view or the hide location. If it wasn't NJ's oldest cache I can't see it having more than a handful of favorites.

 

Yet because people come from all over state and country to hunt it they seem to find it necessary to give it a favorite. Unfortunately they probably pass by most of the nearby caches because of their lack of favorites. The other caches in the area also suffer because there are so many good ones there. Nearly every one is good to excellent, however someone out for an afternoon of caching in the area isn't likely to favorite every cache they find, therefore some outstanding caches there get little notice when it comes to giving out favorites.

[+tozainamboku]

Granted, if a cacher's tastes lean more toward soggy log film cans stuck next to dumpsters, this method might not work very well.

I don't doubt that the people who like to hunt caches nipple deep in alligator infested swamps are more likely to give a cache that requires you to be nipple deep inan alligator infested swamp a favorite point. And since most everyone else is likely going to avoid caches that require you to be nipple deep in alligator infested swamps, these caches will have a high favorite percentage.

 

Scuba caches, rappelling caches, and difficult puzzles also tend to get high percentages of favorites.

 

Caches that appeal to a large cross-section of the geocaching community will get lower percentages - no matter how great a cache this is.

 

I'd argue that favorite points are more helpful for these caches with broad appeal. There are other ways to find the "adventure" caches with high terrain, or those that require mental effort to solve a puzzle, if these are the caches you like. But for caches with broad appeal, the favorite point may make the difference in deciding whether to hunt or not. You might argue that if you only look at lower D/T cache the percentages can be used to sort them, but I believe there are so many other factors that influence whether or not someone gives a favorite point that the percentage is no better that the raw count.

[+Oxford Stone]

Here are my top 10 off my project-gc stats with comments

 

GCCode

Cache name

Location

FP (%)

 

GC4E95

LAKE-VEGAS

Nevada

452 (9%)- an old virtual

 

GC9D67

Eiffel Tower

Nevada

362 (7%)an old virtual

 

GCB0EB

Toga Party

Nevada

254 (6%)an old virtual

 

GC171

View from Coombe Hill

Southern England

181 (38%)England's oldest cache

 

GC513F

A great view of Lisbon [Lisboa]

Lisboa

163 (16%)an old virtual

 

GC3RHPK

The Love Boat

Lisboa

145 (43%)a really fun one which necessitates a very public spot of paddling. I bet this is up to 200 by the end of the summer. It's quite new, a year or 2 IIRC.

 

GCG2VN

LV Money-makers

Nevada

133 (4%)an old virtual

 

GCHXGP

University Challenge 5 (munch munch)

Southern England

92 (25%)an old virtual

 

GC3B8C7

Life begins at Oxford Circus

London

84 (7%)film pot on railings at London Underground entrance. Usually about 100 people within 20 metres

 

GC2YB0P

Choc 23- Champagne Truffle

Southern England

75 (20%)the last in a loop of - let's be polite - family-friendly caches. I think 1 of the 23 took more than 5 seconds to find.

 

This list will be transformed when we go to Hamburg next month =- of the 18 caches I've stored I can see 777 (out of 2919, Oct 2005), 412, 163, 470, 756, 584 favourite points and all at least 6. Not looked at any other %s or pub dates - but no old virtuals!!!

 

Look up hidden by JJEF and you'll see that Berkshire's home-made cache guru (see also quirky caches page on Facebook) gets 66%+ for many of his caches.

 

I can also see that my own caches are at 22.9%, which I'm happy with. Especially as the 2 most visited are not likely to get any as they're pretty mundane.

[Clan Riffster]

But if that cache has 5000 premium found logs, then that is 2%... that tells me something. A cache with 100 FPs and 100% FPs tells me something else.

No it doesn't.

It may not tell you anything, but it speaks volumes to me. Since the whole favorite point thing came out, I have developed a sure fire method for determining if I will enjoy a particular cache. I start with an initial sorting by total favorite points, excluding those with less than 10 points. I picked that entirely arbitrary number because I like the way it rolls off the tongue. From there, I sort by percentages. A cache with a 30% ratio will be good. 50% will be very good. 70% will be stellar. To date, my findings have been absolutely accurate.

 

Granted, if a cacher's tastes lean more toward soggy log film cans stuck next to dumpsters, this method might not work very well.

 

There are also some very fine caches that have no favorites

I'm okay with that. As with my arbitrary exclusion of micros from my list of caches to hunt, I know I will pass up the occasional awesome micro. Since there are roughly 80 bajillion caches out there which I don't arbitrarily exclude, and my caching is infrequent enough that I'll never catch up, there will always be ones I enjoy available.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I have noticed the favorite points are somewhat given within "cliques" of geocachers. Those that cache together, do events together, etc. tend to get favorite points versus unknowns. It certainly isn't a system that is 100% based on the cache itself. That said, I'm fine with one or two points with any of my caches.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Caches that appeal to a large cross-section of the geocaching community will get lower percentages - no matter how great a cache this is.

 

 

You have a point here. Caches which I'm most likely to give a FP to are ones where I say "wow" and feel great afterwards. And often that involves caches which are "harder" in some way. That might be a tough puzzle, a difficult hike, etc. A cache which I can park to and is easy to find is less likely to "wow" me.

 

But I still think percentages are useful.

 

If I look at a cache like

 

http://coord.info/GCZQ7Q

 

with 317 favourites but only 5%.... that tells me something compared to

 

http://coord.info/GC2M0AF

 

with 371 but 71% FP.

 

I agree you are less likely to find a cache with a high number of finds and 90% FP. A cache with 300 FPs and 30% is still impressive. But 300 and 5% to me is not... it more likely means it is in a popular location.

[+tozainamboku]

 

If I look at a cache like

 

http://coord.info/GCZQ7Q

 

with 317 favourites but only 5%.... that tells me something compared to

 

http://coord.info/GC2M0AF

 

with 371 but 71% FP.

 

I agree you are less likely to find a cache with a high number of finds and 90% FP. A cache with 300 FPs and 30% is still impressive. But 300 and 5% to me is not... it more likely means it is in a popular location.

Comparing apples to oranges

One cache is in Prague the other in London. Favorites are not likely to be given out at the same rate in these two different cities. The number of favorites is likely to be influenced by what other caches there are to find in the area. Perhaps cachers in Prague have to split their favorite points among more caches.

 

The cache in Prague was hidden in 2006 (before favorite points), while the one in London wasn't hidden till 2011. It has often been pointed out that older caches will have a lower percentage because many finders do no go back and give favorites to caches they found before favorite points were started.

 

The cache in London is a multi and slightly more difficult. I'm surprised that so many people looked for the multi. Perhaps the location in London makes this a convenient one to search for - especially for tourists. Some finders probably gave this a favorite point because of the satisfaction in completing a multi.

 

The cache in Prague is a micro and the London cache is large. The higher percentage no doubt reflects that large caches are rare and that some people may have a preference for large caches (or a dislike for micros).

 

Frankly, I like things related to the Beatles. Who would have thought I'd prefer a cache in the Czech Republic to one in England

Edited January 23, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+wmpastor]

It seems as though "most" favorite points are a frequent topic of conversation. How about greatest "percentage" favorited? Any caches in your area with 100% fav votes? 75%?

 

E.G. The original stash tribute plaque with a staggering 1745 fav points only scores a 35%

Many caches have 100% favorites - for a few hours or days. The FTF gives favs more often than other finders, especially is there is a good bribe ftf-prize.

[+wmpastor]

Granted, if a cacher's tastes lean more toward soggy log film cans stuck next to dumpsters, this method might not work very well.

I don't doubt that the people who like to hunt caches nipple deep in alligator infested swamps are more likely to give a cache that requires you to be nipple deep inan alligator infested swamp a favorite point. And since most everyone else is likely going to avoid caches that require you to be nipple deep in alligator infested swamps, these caches will have a high favorite percentage.

 

Scuba caches, rappelling caches, and difficult puzzles also tend to get high percentages of favorites.

 

Caches that appeal to a large cross-section of the geocaching community will get lower percentages - no matter how great a cache this is.

 

I'd argue that favorite points are more helpful for these caches with broad appeal. There are other ways to find the "adventure" caches with high terrain, or those that require mental effort to solve a puzzle, if these are the caches you like. But for caches with broad appeal, the favorite point may make the difference in deciding whether to hunt or not. You might argue that if you only look at lower D/T cache the percentages can be used to sort them, but I believe there are so many other factors that influence whether or not someone gives a favorite point that the percentage is no better that the raw count.

 

Agreed that "specialty" caches (tree caches are another example) will get a higher percentage of favorites because seekers love them and wish there were more. Also, no statistic is a perfect barometer, but FP's do give useful information.

 

A cache may be unfairly penalized if it is very good but a great cache is nearby. Someone finding the two on the same caching trip may be unwilling (or unable) to hand out two FP's on back-to-back finds.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Comparing apples to oranges

One cache is in Prague the other in London. Favorites are not likely to be given out at the same rate in these two different cities. The number of favorites is likely to be influenced by what other caches there are to find in the area. Perhaps cachers in Prague have to split their favorite points among more caches.

 

 

I could come up with 2 examples in London, but it's not worth it. If you think the percentage means nothing - that if a cache has 300 FPs whether it is 5% or 50% makes no difference - then we will just have to disagree.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Comparing apples to oranges

One cache is in Prague the other in London. Favorites are not likely to be given out at the same rate in these two different cities. The number of favorites is likely to be influenced by what other caches there are to find in the area. Perhaps cachers in Prague have to split their favorite points among more caches.

 

 

I could come up with 2 examples in London, but it's not worth it. If you think the percentage means nothing - that if a cache has 300 FPs whether it is 5% or 50% makes no difference - then we will just have to disagree.

Mark Twain wrote that Benjamin Disraeli once said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Unfortunately many people put too much faith in statistics without understanding concepts such as sampling bias.

Edited January 23, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+DanOCan]

I tend to only use the raw number of Favorite points, but find it is only really useful when comparing caches that are similar in type, accessibility, location, etc.

 

If I search in an area for caches involving a decent hike (say a T3 or higher) and one cache has 8 favorites and the other has 2, I will assume the higher number of Favorites is the "better" cache. If I do a search in that same area and don't use other criteria to filter my results, I might find the cache on top of the mountain or the end of the trail has 8 points but the cache at the parking lot has 15 favorite points -- yet I would expect the cache on top to be the "better" cache despite having fewer points.

 

In that latter case I'm not sure a percentage would be useful either -- the caches appeal to two different demographics so does knowing 75% of the PnG crowd liked the cache at the parking lot make it a "better" cache than the summit cache with 50% favorites? I don't think so.

 

So many factors go into what makes a cache enjoyable that using any single criteria in isolation is likely to lead to less than satisfactory results.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Mark Twain wrote that Benjamin Disraeli once said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Unfortunately many people put too much faith in statistics without understanding concepts such as sampling bias.

 

True I am not a statistics expert.

 

I do know that I have found favourite point percentages useful to me (using a similar method to Clan R - i.e. they need to have at least 10 FPs).

 

I also look at other things. I don't scuba dive... if I find a cache with 100% FP but you need to scuba dive I don't do it.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I'd rather have the ability to favorite a log. Always was big on reading and leaving lengthy logs with lots to tell.

[+ottieolsen]

I've got one that has 22 favorites with a 71% (GC4CAN8) and one with 15 favorites with a 60% (GC458XR). I recently put one out that has a 100% but has only been favorite 3 times.

[Shortleaf]

I found a cache that had 7 favorites, which is pretty respectable for this area. It turned out to be 'hidden' behind an air conditioner in the side yard of a business. It felt awkward enough traipsing around the yard of a business wondering who all was looking out the windows at us. The worst part was that not all of the employees know about the cache... I should have looked closer beforehand and noticed the 2% favorite ratio and all the other logs mentioning employees coming out to ask what they were doing. Why even 1 person would favorite that cache is beyond me, let alone 7, but clearly the ratio comes in to play there to paint a more accurate picture.

 

I agree with the comment that it would be nice to be able to list or sort by ratio, not just quantity of favorites.

[Blue Square Thing]

I don't think this has been dealt with in the thread already, but can anyone tell me when, roughly, favourite points were introduced? Ta.