Do Favorite Points Matter?

[+Poker70]

When Mrs Poker70 and I travel (which is occurring with less frequency as this lousy economy drags out), I check our destination's Geocaches by Favorite Points. I figure that the caches with the most Fav points are the ones most interesting. What I have noticed is that more and more of the logs on my caches read that the finder really likes my cache, but doesn't give a Fav Point. I'm speaking mostly about my "Angry Birds" series. Is this a shift with more people using "Smart Phones"?

[+St.Matthew]

Are people allowed to like your hides without giving it a favorite point? There's a lot, lot of caches that I've liked, but not enough to give a favorite point to.

 

Newbie smartphone cachers are not premium members, and thus do not accumulate favorite points to distribute, so it could be that.

Edited November 13, 2013 by St.Matthew

[+fizzymagic]

When Mrs Poker70 and I travel (which is occurring with less frequency as this lousy economy drags out), I check our destination's Geocaches by Favorite Points. I figure that the caches with the most Fav points are the ones most interesting. What I have noticed is that more and more of the logs on my caches read that the finder really likes my cache, but doesn't give a Fav Point.

 

Favorite points are very useful. I have learned (the hard way) to pretty much only say nice things about cache hides unless there is something really wrong. Cache owners are often very defensive about their caches, so I follow my mother's advice: if I don't have anything nice to say, I don't say anything. I give out my favorite points only to caches that I would really go out of my way to find. There are plenty of perfectly good caches that do not meet that criterion.

 

Not giving a favorite point doesn't mean I didn't like the cache; likewise, writing nice things doesn't necessarily mean I liked the cache a lot.

 

When I go someplace new, I use favorite points to narrow down the list of caches I would really like to do. Even so, I usually read the logs before heading to one, as sometimes favorite points are given to caches for reasons different from mine, and sometimes caches with a lot of favorite points are very difficult to get to while traveling.

 

But on the whole I have found them extremely useful.

[+cerberus1]

I think if you're only going by favorites, you're probably missing out on a lot of nice, older hides.

Many of the older hides get few favorites simply because there was no such thing then and few premium members finding it years ago, will go back just to place 'em.

Many of the favorited ones I see today, I wouldn't even bother going after.

When LPC hides get favorites, no, I don't think favorites matter.

- Would you put one on your list as "most interesting"?

I place favorites when it appears so to me.

I've got twenty or so on (now) archived hides. They were my favorites.

 

I know one who doesn't favorite hides that already have a bunch, feeling it makes no sense (to him) just to pile on.

He saves 'em for lonelier hides that he enjoyed.

[+kunarion]

more and more of the logs on my caches read that the finder really likes my cache, but doesn't give a Fav Point. I'm speaking mostly about my "Angry Birds" series.

I took a peek at your cache list, and all of the "Birds" caches have an impressive number of favorite points.

 

Lots of logs (including logs on my caches) are very enthusiastic, yet no Favorite Point happens. I guess the cache needs to be even better than it is . But I already doled out my Favorite Points, so I hope when I post about how much I loved a cache, that will tide the CO over for a while, because I don't have extra Favorite Points yet. AND I eventually have a couple to give, I go over the list and hand them out. Many cachers probably do that, rather than Favoriting each one right away (I may find a super impressive cache tomorrow and already gave away my Point). Other cachers, who knows, they might not place any Favorite Points anywhere, yet still tell how much they enjoyed the cache.

 

There's another thing I've wondered. It's just a hunch, that it's tough for people to put Favorite Points on a cache series, because they can't pick out the one they liked the most. And they don't have a whole series-full of Favorite Points to give out. People seem to love my "Beetle" cache series, but I've always expected they'd have a hard time deciding which cache gets a Favorite Point and which doesn't -- and that therefore they may opt to not give any at all. I simply feel humbled and honored when someone does put a Favorite Point on any of my caches.

Edited November 13, 2013 by kunarion

[+briansnat]

First the fact that one cache has a lot of favorites and another doesn't can mean something, or it can mean little. The most favorited cache in NJ is a rather ordinary cache. There are a number of caches even within the same park that I think are better, but those have few (and in some cases no) favorite points. The reason that cache gets all of those favorites is because it's the oldest cache in the state. For some reason when many cachers make a special trip to find a cache they tend to give it a favorite point, and nearby caches get ignored regardless of merit.

 

When favorites were introduced I recall one forum participant stating that after a year he would archive any of his caches that didn't garner a favorite point. I thought about doing that with mine but realized that I'd be archiving some darn good caches, so I decided against it. I'm not sure why those caches haven't received a favorite, but it is probably because they are a notch below some nearby caches and those get the favorites instead. It's likely a matter of a very good cache being overshadowed by a great cache nearby.

 

I'm sure NJ isn't unique and most areas have somewhat ordinary caches with a bunch of favorites and some fine caches that have few or none.

 

As far as not giving favorite points to a cache after a positive log, I only hunt caches that I think I will enjoy, so nearly every one of my logs will say something nice about the cache. Therefore I may mention how much I enjoyed a cache in my log without giving it a favorite point. I can't give one to every cache I hunt so they are saved for the ones that I feel are a cut above the rest.

Edited November 13, 2013 by briansnat

[+Chief301]

I think Fave points are useful for the reason the OP stated....when I'm planning a caching outing in an unfamiliar area I will usually sort the PQ by Fave points to see what caches I should make a point to visit. I'm usually not disappointed. I won't skip all the others and just go for the heavily favorited ones, but with the proliferation of lame, boring micros stuck to street signs, I want to make sure that my day includes at least a few pretty cool ones.

 

I think it's important, too, to consider the PERCENTAGE of Fave points, not just the number. A cache in a busy location that gets several visits a week might amass a healthy number of Fave points just because it is visited so frequently, whereas a lonely cache in a remote location that only gets visited a handful of times a year might have only a few. I can think of a couple of caches in the French Quarter in New Orleans that are fairly unremarkable (in my opinion at least) but have a whole bunch of Faves because they get heavy traffic (and they're in the French Quarter too, I guess that has an effect 😊

 

I also think a bit like the forum poster that Briansnat referred to....if your cache has been out for 5 years, gets a fair amount of traffic, and has NEVER earned a single Fave point, maybe you really need to consider upping your game a bit. I want people to ENJOY my caches, not just rack up another smiley.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And, then you get favorite points on caches that violate the guidelines. Because they are 'unique'! Oh, well. Cache has no log book. "Wow! Great!" Cache nailed into a tree. "Wow! Great!"

[+NeverSummer]

And, then you get favorite points on caches that violate the guidelines. Because they are 'unique'! Oh, well. Cache has no log book. "Wow! Great!" Cache nailed into a tree. "Wow! Great!"

It's really a tough call. So many of the caches I've come across with many favorite points don't really convey the importance of visiting it. Here in AK especially, we only have a few hundred active geocachers, and only a portion of them are premium members. And of them, only a few actually give caches a point after they find it. (Some wish for a big "wow" factor, others just don't use them much)

 

This makes for points to be only awarded by tourists and temporary visitors to the state. Not many caches see favs, and those that do aren't really that exciting IMO.

 

Then, combine the facts of what Harry says above. Not everyone has a good grasp on what constitutes a "favorite", and how it relates to other caches. For example, look at how many favorites the "Original Stash Tribute Plaque" has. It's remarkable as a pilgrimage site, but is the cache itself or the location (other than being close to the original stash) notable? Is a search of caches with the most favorites in an area the best measure of the caches one should seek? Not always...

 

Also, the fact that when favorites were created, most Premium members who have been around for a while have not gone back through their entire find list and awarded favorites retroactively. I have, and it really opened my eyes as to what types of caches I think are favorites within the 1500+ I've found while being a member on this website for the last 8 years.

 

All of that said, I do think it can be very helpful for someone from out of town to filter which caches they should visit. Sometimes it means including caches with 1-2 favorites, and sometimes it means including only caches with over 20. It's all about where you're searching, and what the percentage of favs is for each PM visit.

[+lamoracke]

High favorite points are very useful, but its not the end all reason for a cache. I have a friend who has over 100 favorite points on a cache and its mainly just volume and a cool spot, he even admits the cache is not that good. I have seen caches with many favorite points just for being a fake outlet on a bench. I am not saying its not a bad hide, but when I thought that many favorites, I thought the spot or hide would be more interesting.

 

Just because a cache has 20 favorites does not mean its great and a cache can have 0 favorite points and be still a good spot and a nice cache, it just was not exceptional to anyone.

 

Its a great place to start though, looking at the favorite points.

[+nikcap]

I do focus/target my cache hunts around favorite points.

Basically, I look for caches that have 5-10 favorite points, and in general, I am very pleased with these. But there are lots of things to take into account.

Often the first and last caches in a power trail or cache series will have tons of favorite points. Since I don't really have interest in power trails, I do not bump those caches to the top of my to-do list.

 

As of right now, this is one of the best tools we have to find "good" caches, so I use it. I will often look at a CO's hides and if there are many caches with favorite points on his/her resume' I will target around his hides too. While I'm at a cache page that has many favorite points, I will look to see if there is a bookmark list that cache is on that may indicate it's a "worthy" cache. So, yes, favorite points do matter.

 

If anyone has a better method, please share!

[+geocat_]

First the fact that one cache has a lot of favorites and another doesn't can mean something, or it can mean little.

 

True. The cacher with the most favorite points in Ohio lives right near the location of the annual Mega event and has some pretty nifty caches in the area. A few of these are worth a favorite point, however, he benefits greatly by having hundreds of first-time-to-the-area cachers every summer. With this comes a healthy dose of favorite points. So, if you were to look at the most favorited caches in Ohio you would see a few of his at the top because of this.

 

I only mention this to illustrate how one fact, like proximity to a steady supply of new cachers, can skew favorite points. Clearly, other factors such as location away from the PNG cachers will limit the number of finds as well as favorite points. Some caches are so difficult that only a select few can locate them either due to terrain or difficulty and may only have a few favorite points.

 

I am guilty of using favorite points to locate cool caches away from home and, despite what I have mentioned above, still find them pretty useful, usually leading me to a fun find

[Pup Patrol]

I've seen people give favorite points to caches because they were First to Find.

 

There's usually not much praise for the location, or container, just that they were FTF, so they gave a favorite point.

 

 

 

B.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I don't think it has anything to do with smartphones.

 

Your caches already have alot of favorite points. I've noticed when a cache has that many, it's less likely to be awarded a new favorite point. People figure it's already got enough, why not save their favorite points for other caches with less.

[+lamoracke]

Actually, I do think there is a small effect of the smart phones. I personally do not use them, or the apps, but have had friends tell me they cannot favorite a cache until are home to log it and often if they forget to do that, it will remain unfavorited. I had a friend who wrote the most glowing log ever and next time I talked to him, I asked did you forget to leave a favorite? He said yes, he does that occasionally when he logs from the field using his phone app.

 

So, its possible some folks do, but as I log all my caches using the website, vs an app, I do not have the personal experience directly. However, some friends have said they have forgotten to favorite caches when they use the apps more than at their desktop.

[+T.D.M.22]

Ill just point out that if the cache is newly published, it won't be have had hundreds or thousands of find that a cache a couple years old could have. So even if the cache has 100% PM's giving it a fav point, it still might have less points than the cache with only 20% fav points. You might miss out on an amazing cache...

[+JesandTodd]

. Is this a shift with more people using "Smart Phones"?

 

I'm curious as to why you would think this? How does ones GPS affect favorite points? Maybe Garmin users give more? Delorme less?

???

 

Actually, I do think there is a small effect of the smart phones. I personally do not use them, or the apps, but have had friends tell me they cannot favorite a cache until are home to log it and often if they forget to do that, it will remain unfavorited. I had a friend who wrote the most glowing log ever and next time I talked to him, I asked did you forget to leave a favorite? He said yes, he does that occasionally when he logs from the field using his phone app.

 

So, its possible some folks do, but as I log all my caches using the website, vs an app, I do not have the personal experience directly. However, some friends have said they have forgotten to favorite caches when they use the apps more than at their desktop.

 

I must say...I can't identify with this.

 

People log favorite points because they like to or want to. The smartphone has nothing to do with it. Also, I find it much easier to do via the app

 

If I want to give a fav point, I'll do it.

As a 99.9% iPhone only user, I've accrued 228 fav points, and have only 2 available to use

 

[+jellis]

I use to be careful who I gave them out to. Not my friends caches unless the cache was worthy of a fav. Then I ended up giving them to Virtuals and Webcams hoping to make a difference. Nope. Now I have too many. I give them to different caches but not those that violate guidelines. I have some caches that I get great reviews but I don't get upset because they don't put a favorite point on it. It's their choice. So, NO I don't think fav points matter because you could be passing up great caches just because they don't have enough of them.

[+redsox_mark]

Favorite points (and percentages) are generally useful in my view, so yes they matter.

 

Whether a cacher awards one or not will depend on many things - different cachers cache differently and award FPs differently. Some try to give out all their FPs. Others save them for ones they think are really special. Some don't give them out at all. Some cachers are more selective about the caches they look for in the first place - they only seek out what look like the best caches, so for them a FP is "best of the best". Other cachers are more "omnivores" - they might find a power trail one day (and collect a bunch of FPs to give); and do a few select caches another day... they will have more FPs to give.

 

It seems you (OP) are getting good logs and a good number of FPs as well, so I wouldn't worry.

 

I am honest in my logs. If I write a glowing log which says I loved it, I did. But I can love a cache and not give it a FP.

[+andyakashrek]

Smart phones are capable of awarding favourite points, I use Cachesense on a blackberry z10. I award points to caches that interest me personally, it may be in a nice location or the journey to get there was enjoyable or it may have been a hard puzzle to do first. I have given a point to a cache that had numerous finds but no points just because it was wet and muddy getting to GZ And once there it was so quiet I just sat down and did nothing for a few minutes, it was great.

Later maybe months later, I look back at my favourites list and can recall the moment, that's why they matter.

[cezanne]

I figure that the caches with the most Fav points are the ones most interesting.

 

That might work for you. For me it would not work at all.

If a cache has many favourites and a high number of visitors at the same time, it typically means that I will not like the cache at all and would be better off by almost every other cache with a smaller number of favourites.

 

A high proportion of favourites but a small number of visitors (say less than 20 for a cache that exists for at least half a year), can mean that I will like the cache, but need not mean this.

 

What I have noticed is that more and more of the logs on my caches read that the finder really likes my cache, but doesn't give a Fav Point. I'm speaking mostly about my "Angry Birds" series. Is this a shift with more people using "Smart Phones"?

 

There can be many reasons. For example, basic members are not able to assign favourites at all and they well can accompany a PM and then log a find on one of your caches and enjoy the experience. Moreover, you need to take into account that every PM only gets 1 favourite per 10 found caches. I know cachers that mainly visit caches they really like so they can assign a favourite only to 1 out of 10 caches they like. The favourite system is designed to provide a top 10% list for the cachers who make use of the system and not to reward cache owners. For the latter everyone would need to have as many favourite points as found caches.

Another reason for a positive log and no favourite point is that some cachers do not assign favourite points at all as they do not care about this aspect of the geocaching site.

 

From my personal point of view positive logs are much more helpful than favorite points and they mean much more to me as a cache hider. A two line found it log and a FP will not compensate me for a nice story.

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

I've seen people give favorite points to caches because they were First to Find.

 

There's usually not much praise for the location, or container, just that they were FTF, so they gave a favorite point.

 

B.

 

Yes. I've seen that practice quite a lot. Some people think of FPs as a personal bookmark list, rather then a way of recommending a cache to others or rewarding a CO for a job well done. One FP on a cache with more then 10 finders usually means the first finder gave it a point.

 

In our area most of the high FP caches make people climb a tree, use a boat, or wade through water. That's cool, but for me those caches are out of my league. But I still think FPs are the greatest geocaching thing since PQs.

I filter out the caches I can't do or don't enjoy (example high D/T, micros), then click the blue ribbon to sort and see which have 3 or more FPs. I will also, from time to time, run a PQ for the caches I don't normally do - micros, puzzles, multis then sort and download the high FP caches (with recent logs with good reviews).

 

FYI, a site that does a nice job at filtering and sorting (better then what's currently available on GC, but no option to download to a GPS) is Project GC.

 

[+L0ne.R]

I don't think it has anything to do with smartphones.

 

Your caches already have alot of favorite points. I've noticed when a cache has that many, it's less likely to be awarded a new favorite point. People figure it's already got enough, why not save their favorite points for other caches with less.

 

That's what I do. Anything over 10, to me says it's a good cache and worth searching for. Heck anything over 5 says it's a good cache - likely to be traditionally good (good container, good location, good hide). So I may not reward an already highly favored cache and instead save the point for a traditionally good cache that may not get many FPs because it isn't particularly unique or challenging.

Edited November 13, 2013 by L0ne R

[+wimseyguy]

Favorite points are just one valuable tool to help highlight caches to target. And their value is limited to comparing them to other caches in the same region. You cannot compare the point count of caches in normal areas to those in high tourism areas. It would be great if the website made it easier to view the percentage of finders who gave a fave point without extra clicks and navigating away from the listing.

When I'm in my home area, I determine which caches to seek based on location.

When I am traveling I will look for high fave point caches, caches that are old, and caches that might help me qualify for a challenge I am working on as well as simply the ones that are near my destination.

[+CanadianRockies]

I have some caches that I get great reviews but I don't get upset because they don't put a favorite point on it. It's their choice. So, NO I don't think fav points matter because you could be passing up great caches just because they don't have enough of them.

You could be passing up great caches unless you scrutinize every cache's description, map, and logs. Heck, even then you could miss some caches you would have loved.

 

Favorite points matter to some people because they often point you to some wonderful caches with relatively little scrutiny. When I travel, one of the things (but not the only thing) I look at are favorite points. They have served me well, even though I'm sure I've still missed plenty of excellent caches.

[cezanne]

Favorite points matter to some people because they often point you to some wonderful caches with relatively little scrutiny. When I travel, one of the things (but not the only thing) I look at are favorite points. They have served me well, even though I'm sure I've still missed plenty of excellent caches.

 

Here is the list of the ten caches with the most FPs among my finds (taken from project-gc - so it caused me no work at all):

 

GCMJR4 100H2O Traditional Cache Austria Wien 389 (20%)

GCPNMZ Burgtor Traditional Cache Austria Wien 351 (7%)

GC46N0J Jurassic-Tour-03 Triceratops Traditional Cache Austria Wien 247 (55%)

GC17NBY 4 Nymphen an Bahnhofstrasse Zürich /PinzettenCache Traditional Cache Switzerland Zürich 234 (9%)

GC46N0V Jurassic-Tour-05 Euoplocephalus Traditional Cache Austria Wien 206 (49%)

GC2PH04 Schlossberg Letterbox Letterbox Hybrid Austria Steiermark 181 (60%)

GC2AQHQ Hinterholz 8 am (brennessel) Meer Traditional Cache Austria Steiermark 157 (53%)

GC1QQ55 Herrengasse Multi-cache Austria Steiermark 125 (43%)

GC272XQ Punktegeier # 2 Traditional Cache Austria Steiermark 119 (56%)

GC2QHRM Don Bosco - Kirche Traditional Cache Austria Steiermark 115 (29%)

 

Only a single one of this caches (Schlossberg Letterbox) is a cache that I liked. All other 9 rank relatively lowly on my personal scale.

 

I could provide you with many other examples as well that indicate that a high number of FPs (and also a high percentage) does not mean

that I will like the cache.

 

The FP approach will work for those who caching preferences are similar to the preferences of a reasonably large group.

 

Cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

Favorite points matter to some people because they often point you to some wonderful caches with relatively little scrutiny. When I travel, one of the things (but not the only thing) I look at are favorite points. They have served me well, even though I'm sure I've still missed plenty of excellent caches.

 

Here is the list of the ten caches with the most FPs among my finds (taken from project-gc - so it caused me no work at all):

 

[snip]

 

Only a single one of this caches (Schlossberg Letterbox) is a cache that I liked. All other 9 rank relatively lowly on my personal scale.

 

I could provide you with many other examples as well that indicate that a high number of FPs (and also a high percentage) does not mean

that I will like the cache.

 

The FP approach will work for those who caching preferences are similar to the preferences of a reasonably large group.

Please go back and reread what I wrote. I said favorite points matter to some people -- not everybody. I'm sure there are other people who get absolutely no use from favorite points, but that doesn't mean favorite points don't matter at all.

 

I also noted that favorite points are only one of things I look at when I try to narrow down the list of caches I'll seek while traveling. There are plenty of other factors that I consider, but favorite points are useful to many of us (but not all of us).

[+geodarts]

I don't think I have ever searched for a cache because it has a lot of favorite points. When traveling, there are things that I find more reliable than favorite points. So to that extent they do not matter to me. But it can still be fun to keep a list of some of the ones that have stood out for me.

[cezanne]

Please go back and reread what I wrote. I said favorite points matter to some people -- not everybody.

 

Yes, I know and I agree with you.

 

That favourite points do not matter to everybody is common knowledge anyway. What I tried to say is that for me the approach "sort caches with respect to a high

number of favourite points" (or also to a high ratio if the number of finders is high) could serve as negative selection and tell me rather which caches to avoid in certain areas (that's a much stronger statement when that FPs do not matter for someone). As you wrote that you can use the FPs to make some selection of excellent caches (being aware that you might miss others), my point was that for me the FPs rather lead me to caches I will not enjoy (of course again this approach will also miss caches that I will not enjoy as of course there are also caches that I do not enjoy with no favourites at all, but that's not surprising).

 

I think it depends a lot on the local preferences of the cachers. In a hypothetical area with many briansnats favourite points would be much more helpful for me for a positive selection than

in an area with many cachers for whom it is about the container and not the experience of the hike and the location. So I guess that also those who say that FPs help them to make a

selection when traveling should have a closer look whether it appears that the guidance by the number of FPs works for them in an unknown area with a completely different cache tradition.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 13, 2013 by cezanne

[+Semper Questio]

I don't put a lot o stock in the favorites points. I see very many favorites going to rather ordinary urban micros. I also know of multiple cachers who assign favorites to their FTFs while others assign them to their first cache of the day, and still others use the favorites points for other things that have little to do with favorite caches. Too many time the favorites points have more to do with using them as some sort of a listing mechanism.

[+NeverSummer]

I don't put a lot o stock in the favorites points. I see very many favorites going to rather ordinary urban micros. I also know of multiple cachers who assign favorites to their FTFs while others assign them to their first cache of the day, and still others use the favorites points for other things that have little to do with favorite caches. Too many time the favorites points have more to do with using them as some sort of a listing mechanism.

Hmmm...

I track my "Primary confirmation of existence" (FTF) on a hidden bookmark list. I know some use Favorites to track FTFs, as noted by you and others in this thread.

 

Then there's the watchlist, and other methods of tracking caches offline.

 

Call me crazy, and forgive me for realizing an important tangent, but doesn't it seem like the things Groundspeak has rolled out are starting to get muddled and overlap? Bookmarks are a good way to track FTFs (can be public or hidden, can receive notifications or not, comprehensive list that can be easily referenced and downloaded for mapping or other outputs), but require more clicks to track something most users want to make a simple process.

 

Choosing to "favorite" a cache for a FTF is simple, because the process to assign a FP to a cache has been made to be very simple. Simple wins over cumbersome any day (as is evidenced by the power trails creating an easy way to build your numbers, e.g.). Urban caches get more visits than remote hikes. Simple>Difficult. So, Groundspeak created the most simple way to track caches, as FPs are kept in a list just like your watchlist or bookmarks.

 

The intention of FPs was to assign a "score" for favorite caches in an area. While a great idea, there is no control over what people use them for. For example, if someone doesn't know about, care to use, or like bookmarks to track FTFs, then FPs are an easy go-to for that tracking purpose. But, then we don't see FPs necessarily being used for their original intent. (Which does not negate the valid reasoning of the FP user from using them as they please)

 

Without a way to "enforce" (Don't read into this, I don't mean it that way) how FPs are used, it isn't, statistically speaking, a valid way to weed out "good-to-great caches" to seek in any case of home or travel.

[+L0ne.R]

I don't put a lot o stock in the favorites points. I see very many favorites going to rather ordinary urban micros. I also know of multiple cachers who assign favorites to their FTFs while others assign them to their first cache of the day, and still others use the favorites points for other things that have little to do with favorite caches. Too many time the favorites points have more to do with using them as some sort of a listing mechanism.

Hmmm...

I track my "Primary confirmation of existence" (FTF) on a hidden bookmark list. I know some use Favorites to track FTFs, as noted by you and others in this thread.

 

Then there's the watchlist, and other methods of tracking caches offline.

 

Call me crazy, and forgive me for realizing an important tangent, but doesn't it seem like the things Groundspeak has rolled out are starting to get muddled and overlap? Bookmarks are a good way to track FTFs (can be public or hidden, can receive notifications or not, comprehensive list that can be easily referenced and downloaded for mapping or other outputs), but require more clicks to track something most users want to make a simple process.

 

Choosing to "favorite" a cache for a FTF is simple, because the process to assign a FP to a cache has been made to be very simple. Simple wins over cumbersome any day (as is evidenced by the power trails creating an easy way to build your numbers, e.g.). Urban caches get more visits than remote hikes. Simple>Difficult. So, Groundspeak created the most simple way to track caches, as FPs are kept in a list just like your watchlist or bookmarks.

 

The intention of FPs was to assign a "score" for favorite caches in an area. While a great idea, there is no control over what people use them for. For example, if someone doesn't know about, care to use, or like bookmarks to track FTFs, then FPs are an easy go-to for that tracking purpose. But, then we don't see FPs necessarily being used for their original intent. (Which does not negate the valid reasoning of the FP user from using them as they please)

 

Without a way to "enforce" (Don't read into this, I don't mean it that way) how FPs are used, it isn't, statistically speaking, a valid way to weed out "good-to-great caches" to seek in any case of home or travel.

 

Very new perspective for me. I think you've got something there.

 

Also FPs get misused when people enjoyed caching with a specific person, all the caches the day the went out with Carl the Cacher get a fav point. It wasn't about the cache it was about how Carl made the day enjoyable. It's like telling me that I should go to the MacDonald's restaurant in a plaza strip mall near your house, because you went there with your best friend and he told the funniest jokes.

 

But still, all-in-all the FPs work as they should, especially in my experience, when the FPs get past 5 votes.

Edited November 13, 2013 by L0ne R

[cezanne]

The intention of FPs was to assign a "score" for favorite caches in an area.

 

I'm not sure as the decision to limit the number of FPs to 10% of the found it logs will mean that cachers that mainly visit caches they really enjoy are not represented in the same way as those who visit a lot of caches that they do not enjoy (that much). Those who visit a lot of junk, have a greater impact on the overall result.

 

I think it is very debatable to use the term "score" in connection with favourites.

 

Cezanne

[+Ambrosia]

Favorite points matter to some people because they often point you to some wonderful caches with relatively little scrutiny. When I travel, one of the things (but not the only thing) I look at are favorite points. They have served me well, even though I'm sure I've still missed plenty of excellent caches.

 

Here is the list of the ten caches with the most FPs among my finds (taken from project-gc - so it caused me no work at all):

 

GCMJR4 100H2O Traditional Cache Austria Wien 389 (20%)

GCPNMZ Burgtor Traditional Cache Austria Wien 351 (7%)

GC46N0J Jurassic-Tour-03 Triceratops Traditional Cache Austria Wien 247 (55%)

GC17NBY 4 Nymphen an Bahnhofstrasse Zürich /PinzettenCache Traditional Cache Switzerland Zürich 234 (9%)

GC46N0V Jurassic-Tour-05 Euoplocephalus Traditional Cache Austria Wien 206 (49%)

GC2PH04 Schlossberg Letterbox Letterbox Hybrid Austria Steiermark 181 (60%)

GC2AQHQ Hinterholz 8 am (brennessel) Meer Traditional Cache Austria Steiermark 157 (53%)

GC1QQ55 Herrengasse Multi-cache Austria Steiermark 125 (43%)

GC272XQ Punktegeier # 2 Traditional Cache Austria Steiermark 119 (56%)

GC2QHRM Don Bosco - Kirche Traditional Cache Austria Steiermark 115 (29%)

 

Only a single one of this caches (Schlossberg Letterbox) is a cache that I liked. All other 9 rank relatively lowly on my personal scale.

 

I could provide you with many other examples as well that indicate that a high number of FPs (and also a high percentage) does not mean

that I will like the cache.

 

The FP approach will work for those who caching preferences are similar to the preferences of a reasonably large group.

 

Cezanne

 

Favourite points have enabled me to finally cache like it was 2002 again. It is true that favourite points aren't perfect, especially as each year passes I think that their helpfulness is getting muddier and muddier. But still, I can go somewhere, and check out the top favourite points in the area, look at the description and logs, and get a fair amount of really good caches to search for.

 

I looked at my list of finds that had the highest favourite points, but I don't think it's a very fair list. As has been brought up, if it's a high traffic area, the amount of favourited caches can be rather high. Since I have traveled quite a bit around the country, my list is somewhat scewed. But, looking through the first couple of pages (40 caches), I see a lot of caches that I also favourited, and have quite good memories from.

[cezanne]

Favourite points have enabled me to finally cache like it was 2002 again.

 

I find this statement very surprising. In my experience (in Austria, some areas of Germany, Switzerland ans Slovenia - I have not followed the favourites in other countries that much) the caches that have a high number of favourites or a high ratio and at the same time a higher number of finders (what I write does not apply to a high ratio, but a small number of finders) are mainly caches where it is not about the location and the experience on the way to the cache, but its about the container, the puzzle or other things.

 

In 2002 in my area no one cared a bit about creative hideouts, special container etc. So geocaching in 2002 was very different to the type of caches that are highly esteemed today by the majority of the new generation (most of the old retired from geocaching).

 

 

I looked at my list of finds that had the highest favourite points, but I don't think it's a very fair list.

 

Probably not for demonstrating that FPs are not useful at all (which is not true anyway). I used the list of the ten caches with the most FPs among my finds for two reasons, first because this was easily available to me and second because I wanted to point out that among those ten caches there was only one that I enjoyed - I did not like the other nine.

 

There are certainly caches with a high favourite ratio that I enjoyed enormously. My all time favourite cache has a 100% rate of FPs (but less than 15 finds - it is a 180km hiking multi cache that makes the masses stay away anyway and so the FP ratio stays high as the cache is visited only by fans of such caches). What the masses enjoy here, is in most cases something that turns me down. These caches are not bad caches at all - quite often the owners have invested a lot of work and creativity, but the location is boring and there is nothing to be experienced for me on the way to the caches.

Edited November 13, 2013 by cezanne

[+Ambrosia]

Favourite points have enabled me to finally cache like it was 2002 again.

 

I find this statement very surprising. In my experience (in Austria, some areas of Germany, Switzerland ans Slovenia - I have not followed the favourites in other countries that much) the caches that have a high number of favourites or a high ratio and at the same time a higher number of finders (what I write does not apply to a high ratio, but a small number of finders) are mainly caches where it is not about the location and the experience on the way to the cache, but its about the container, the puzzle or other things.

 

In 2002 in my area no one cared a bit about creative hideouts, special container etc. So geocaching in 2002 was very different to the type of caches that are highly esteemed today by the majority of the new generation (most of the old retired from geocaching).

 

 

Well, when I'm traveling, I can't spend too much time on "location", necessarily. In 2002, granted, a lot of the local caches that I went to were hiking caches. But, when I traveled to the NE in 2002, we had a grand time being taken to some cool spots that we wouldn't have found without caching. But they weren't all places that took us very long to get to or do, either.

 

The trip where the light bulb came on for me was when we went to Texas, drove around down to Florida and back (spent the biggest chunk of caching time in New Orleans), in 2011. Up to that point, I'd been a bit disheartened by caching and traveling, because it just wasn't the same anymore. But I looked up the cities that we would be spending a bit of time in on the journey. It is true that I researched the heck out of the caches with the most favourites, but I don't mind doing that. It made the trip one of the better caching trips that we've had for many years.

[cezanne]

Well, when I'm traveling, I can't spend too much time on "location", necessarily. In 2002, granted, a lot of the local caches that I went to were hiking caches. But, when I traveled to the NE in 2002, we had a grand time being taken to some cool spots that we wouldn't have found without caching. But they weren't all places that took us very long to get to or do, either.

 

When I talked about the location, I did not mean exclusively caches that take me long to get there. I have experienced more than one phase where I was not able at all to go for a longer walk and I'm also in situations where I did not have much time for caching.

 

But there is still a difference between a cache that brings me e.g. to a nice not very known chapel or shows me a nice view at sunset or whatever to the typical type of highly favourited caches around here: Imagine e.g. the parking lot of an inn where on a weekend day many cars arrive and depart during the period of 30 minutes and then imagine a huge container fixed to the wall with an ingenious mechanism with handles, bars etc where a cacher like me takes quite some time to find out how to open the container and at the same time one always has to watch not be be observed by muggles (the owner of the inn knows about the cache, but not the visitors of the inn).

Another very popular cache is a fake huge electric box mounted to the wall of the house where the cacher owner and his family live (this is not mentioned in the cache description) in the middle of a village. The neighbours know about the cache, but still I felt uncomfortable there even on the occasion of my second visit when I knew that I had to open the box and then remove the fake separation wall inside the box to find the container and the logbook behind the wall. Normally I do not touch such objects at all.

 

I do understand why other appreciate such caches (and many other ideas like that), but they are simply not the type of geocaching I enjoy. I feel too much watched and also I do not feel comfortable with handling such constructions. I'm always worried and get nervous that I'm not able to reconstruct everything as it has been - I do not have any talent as a craftsman.

 

Yet another example is this mystery cache - first one needs to answer questions about Donald Duck and other Disney characters and

then count letters and then the cache leads to a very boring location

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=2aaba2fd-c178-466a-896c-7e666bb7f6f8&IID=3635f61e-1b28-4b0e-94bd-d97f49e6d55c

Still the cache got a lot of FPs and mainly due to the way the container and the log book look like (you can see them at the picture above which is

part of the gallery and no spoiler).

 

Actually hardly any of those especially acclaimed caches is really a cache that I could visit and log successfully when I do not have much time at my disposition. Many caches with much less FPs would take me much less time and be much more relaxing to me (no muggle stress and no stress to be too clumsy for the cache and fail to leave the cache as it should be left) and at the same time they lead me to nice places. Traditionals of this latter type hardly get any FPs in my area. For a traditional to get many FPS, it needs to be like what I described above.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 13, 2013 by cezanne

[+fizzymagic]

I think something needs to be clarified here. Favorite points cannot (and never will) necessarily lead you to the very best cache in an area. But that's not how I use them, and I submit that is not what they were intended for.

 

There are far, far too many caches out there for me to ever do. The vast majority of caches out there I would not find very enjoyable. I am picky; I happily admit to that.

 

So when I go to a new area, I am mostly interested in finding caches that I will enjoy. Using favorite points, I can reduce the number of cache descriptions I have to read to identify those caches. It's a big time-saver that keeps caching in new areas from being a chore. If I find some caches that I enjoy, that's a win. If I miss the very best cache in the new area, I am not terribly upset. First, it's not like I would have found it had there not been favorite points. Second, all I wanted to do was find caches that I would enjoy and I succeeded at that.

 

If I really want to find the very best cache in the area, then I contact a local and ask them. I have met some wonderful people that way and it has never failed to take me to some great caches. Cachers tend to be fantastic people, and I highly recommend that method!

[+Ambrosia]

I think something needs to be clarified here. Favorite points cannot (and never will) necessarily lead you to the very best cache in an area. But that's not how I use them, and I submit that is not what they were intended for.

 

There are far, far too many caches out there for me to ever do. The vast majority of caches out there I would not find very enjoyable. I am picky; I happily admit to that.

 

So when I go to a new area, I am mostly interested in finding caches that I will enjoy. Using favorite points, I can reduce the number of cache descriptions I have to read to identify those caches. It's a big time-saver that keeps caching in new areas from being a chore. If I find some caches that I enjoy, that's a win. If I miss the very best cache in the new area, I am not terribly upset. First, it's not like I would have found it had there not been favorite points. Second, all I wanted to do was find caches that I would enjoy and I succeeded at that.

 

If I really want to find the very best cache in the area, then I contact a local and ask them. I have met some wonderful people that way and it has never failed to take me to some great caches. Cachers tend to be fantastic people, and I highly recommend that method!

Well said.

[cezanne]

I think something needs to be clarified here. Favorite points cannot (and never will) necessarily lead you to the very best cache in an area.

 

I fully agree with you on that. But in my experience lots of FPs on a cache in my area rather tell me that I will not like a cache at all. That's something completely different than talking about the "very best caches" in an area. It is clear anyway that whatever approach one uses for cache selection that does not look at all caches in detail, one always will miss something and one always will have some misclassified caches, but in my experience FPs are no meaningful indicator for me at all and in that respect I have completely different experiences than those reported here by the majority.

 

If I really want to find the very best cache in the area, then I contact a local and ask them. I have met some wonderful people that way and it has never failed to take me to some great caches. Cachers tend to be fantastic people, and I highly recommend that method!

 

I'm surprised that you think that something like "the very best caches" in an area exist at all. I feel that's completely subjective and the cache person X might enjoy the most, could be a cache that really annoys person Y. In my personal concept I do not distinguish between good and bad caches (I do not even know how to measure that), but make the distinction based on how well a cache fits to a certain cacher.

 

Asking other cachers for their preferences has certainly some value and I have done that myself and also have often tried to provide recommendations for others, but that's not so easy as it might seem. One need to know the preferences of the other person very well.

 

Cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

I looked at my list of finds that had the highest favourite points, but I don't think it's a very fair list. As has been brought up, if it's a high traffic area, the amount of favourited caches can be rather high. Since I have traveled quite a bit around the country, my list is somewhat scewed. But, looking through the first couple of pages (40 caches), I see a lot of caches that I also favourited, and have quite good memories from.

 

Same for me. The 7 caches I've found with the most favorite points are all in Prague - even though caches there are only ~1% of my finds. I gave a FP to 2 of them. The number of FPs here is mainly down to the volume of traffic in Prague (and Prague being a nice location in general).

 

The system isn't perfect but I find it helps. Generally a cache with a lot of FPs (especially if it has a high percentage as well) has something special about it. It can help narrow down choices of what to search. You do need to look at the caches to try and see why they are liked so much and if it applies to you. If the cache is a amazing container high in a tree, and you don't like climbing trees, then the cache isn't for you (for example).

[cezanne]

Generally a cache with a lot of FPs (especially if it has a high percentage as well) has something special about it.

 

I agree and I think that this is also the reason why FPs do not help me in my choice. I'm mainly interested into caches that I regard as nice - I prefer relaxing and pleasant experiences to take a timeout from my stressful everyday life. I'm not seeking out for caches that are special, except in rare cases maybe 1-2 per year.

 

The flaw with FPs for me is that they there is a huge bias towards something special. Take for example night caches: Those that have many FPs ate typically those I enjoy less - they are indeed however those that are very special and different from those that I prefer and that are more conventional.

 

 

Cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

The flaw with FPs for me is that they there is a huge bias towards something special.

 

Not sure if is a "flaw", but I think that it is true. Most of my favourites are on more difficult - or at least more elaborate - caches. Those caches often have a lot of work put into them by the owner, and I will have done more "work" to find it. That makes it more memorable and special to me, so more likely I'll give a FP. Though I have given FPs on easy caches where the location and container were both exceptional.

 

I will sometimes give a FP to the "very good but ordinary" cache. A nice walk to an interesting or scenic location (but not a spectacular location), which a good quality box but a simple hide (ammo box under a pile of sticks). I agree it is a limitation of the FP system that you can't easily separate these "good but ordinary" caches from "bad caches".

 

I cache differently on different days when I have a different caching mood. Some days I feel like doing something more "epic" - even if that might mean failing halfway through after spending several hours as I get stuck on a field puzzle, or can't climb the tree. Other times I feel like a good walk where I can find easy caches along the way.

 

When I'm feeling like the latter, I find the maps more useful than anything. Look for where there are trails in what seems to be interesting terrain (hills, forests, etc). Do a check of caches there; are the logs generally positive, do they seem to be in good condition etc. But when I'm doing that, I'll still check if there are some in the area with high FP counts/percentage.. to see why and avoid missing something special that I might love.

[cezanne]

The flaw with FPs for me is that they there is a huge bias towards something special.

 

Not sure if is a "flaw", but I think that it is true.

 

Flaw only from my personal point of view as the helpfulness of FPs for my personal usage is concerned, not a flaw in general.

 

 

Apart from the bias towards "special" caches, there is another issue that comes into play and limits the usefulness of FPs for me.

At least in my area many cachers seem to see FPs as a reward for the work of the cache owner and this means that they try to evaluate the

owner's contributions which leads to the situation that tricky hideouts, special containers, puzzles etc are much higher valued than nice and

interesting locations as they have been there before and have of course not been created by the cache owner.

 

My interest into geocaching however mainly comes from my interest into nice locations and nice walks/hikes and not from an interest into creative containers, technical gadgets, special puzzles etc

 

Cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

But in my experience lots of FPs on a cache in my area rather tell me that I will not like a cache at all.

This reminds me of the joke about the terrible fortune teller. Her stock predictions always were wrong. If she said a stock was about to go up in value, it always went down. If she said a stock was going to go down in value, it always went up. For obvious reasons, her services were in great demand.

 

It looks like favorite points are indeed useful to you...just not in the same way they are useful to most other people.

[+nikcap]

I don't think I have ever searched for a cache because it has a lot of favorite points. When traveling, there are things that I find more reliable than favorite points. So to that extent they do not matter to me. But it can still be fun to keep a list of some of the ones that have stood out for me.

 

I'm always looking for tips and tricks to improve my caching experience. What are the tools and methods that you use to identify good and interesting caches?

[cezanne]

But in my experience lots of FPs on a cache in my area rather tell me that I will not like a cache at all.

This reminds me of the joke about the terrible fortune teller. Her stock predictions always were wrong. If she said a stock was about to go up in value, it always went down. If she said a stock was going to go down in value, it always went up. For obvious reasons, her services were in great demand.

 

It looks like favorite points are indeed useful to you...just not in the same way they are useful to most other people.

 

To some extent yes, but what I described holds only for my area and some areas where FPs are awarded in a similar manner (like in Germany).

It can be entirely different for other areas and that really makes it difficult as only in areas well known to me I have a good feeling about what

many FPs mean there. In areas I know well, I have better means available however for making my choice anyway.

I do not have any feeling how useful FPs could me for me for example in your area. It could well be there that many FPs also could mean that a substantial

number of those caches are of interest to me as well.

 

Cezanne

[+fizzymagic]

In areas I know well, I have better means available however for making my choice anyway.

 

I am not sure exactly what it is you are trying to get across in your multiple posts to this thread. You don't find favorite points useful; we got that from your first post. Are you trying to tell people that since you don't find them useful nobody else should either? Are you trying to say that they should somehow be different? I am genuinely confused about why you keep posting again and again that you don't like them.

[cezanne]

In areas I know well, I have better means available however for making my choice anyway.

 

I am not sure exactly what it is you are trying to get across in your multiple posts to this thread. You don't find favorite points useful; we got that from your first post. Are you trying to tell people that since you don't find them useful nobody else should either? Are you trying to say that they should somehow be different? I am genuinely confused about why you keep posting again and again that you don't like them.

 

I did not say whether I like them or not. I said that in the areas where I cache the most they rather lead me to a negative selection.

There typically a high number of FP means that I will not enjoy a cache. What brought me to repeating my statement is that other repeatedly make claims of the type that by choosing caches above a certain FP rate/number of FP points the probability that the caches will be enjoyable increases and this is the point where I object.

As long someone just comments about that FPs are useful for them, this is nothing I will start a discussion about as this is something subjective.

Statements like " A cache with a FP ratio over x% (provided a reasonable number of finders) will be an exceptionally good cache" are the statements that I disagree with.

They turn something subjective into something which is treated like something beyond the the personal level.

 

The other message I tried to get across (apparently in vain) is that there are considerable regional differences.

After coming across a post by Clan Riffster in another thread (on the beginners app) where he posted a rule he uses to narrow down the selection for him I had a look at the FP distribution in his area and realized that there indeed a higher ratio of FPs comes more close to caches I would enjoy as well. Before this investigation I was wondering how it could be that Clan Riffster's rule works for him while at the same time I had got the impression that location and the experience on the way to a cache play a role for him.

 

Most traditionals on mountains in my area receive much less FPs than caches with a specially crafted container at a supermarket parking lot.

So my using the method of Clan Riffster and others in my area, almost all caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1VGHV_schrottcache?guid=abc65593-31ff-4b47-80c4-60fd4bfcedc6

(it is just one example of many, not something pathological)

will be missed.

 

What I learnt from looking at some areas of Florida reinforces my belief that FPs can mean very different things and that rules that work perfectly fine for cacher A in region X will not work at all for cacher B in region Y even if their tastes are not that different.

Somehow I feel that it might also play a role that almost all people who write in this thread come from North America where there is more open land available - look at the galleries of the people who post here and then look at the gallery of some typical cachers in my area. Then you will maybe understand better what's the difference and why FPs in my area are not a good guidance for me.

 

While I would like to have a method which tells me whether the FPs usage in a certain area could provide me with some guidance (and if so, whether with a positive one or the negative one), I do not think that such a method exists.

 

I do not have any suggestion to improve the system which really would apply to all situations. The ways people cache are too different. For some cachers I would wish that they could assign more than 10% FPs, for others 10% is already too much. A while ago a caching colleague with a background in math and statistics asked me some questions about the implications that could draw from FPs and whether one could turn them into a reliable indicator - she had thought about the issue herself, but like me could not come up with any really convincing concept.

 

I guess what I really would like is if there existed information about the main reason for awarding a FP, but if such a check box system existed, people would not use it.

So that will stay another wish on my side that never will come true. I believe that the more inhomogenous a local community is, the more it might help to be able to distinguish between different reasons for awarding FPs.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 14, 2013 by cezanne

[+fizzymagic]

So that will stay another wish on my side that never will come true. I believe that the more inhomogenous a local community is, the more it might help to be able to distinguish between different reasons for awarding FPs.

 

I still have no idea what you are hoping to accomplish with your posts. Feel free to keep on writing them; I don't wish to discourage you. But whatever point you are trying to make, you are not getting through. To me, anyway.