Favorite Points (FP) - Recovering From Archived Caches

[+jellis]

I don't have any problem or reason for this deleting a favorite points because I'm short. I have way too many. I gave away about the same.

Edited May 7, 2015 by jellis

[+Ringrat]

I think that the system is ok the way it is.

I saw a suggestion in the thread for giving an idea of how recent the FPs on a cache have been awarded, which is an interesting thought.

 

I use FPs mostly for my own records of caches I liked, and also to show to the CO and maybe others that I liked it, though I prefer to use the text in my log for that. Others use FPs to look for caches they might like to search for.

 

I don't want my FPs auto-returned to me upon archival because, the way that I use FPs, having it on the archived cache has value to me. If I were to be out of FPs and find a cache that I loved, I could then make the decision as to whether I liked it more than another cache on my favourites list and choose to remove a FP from another cache and award it to the one I just found. I like that the FP system has a limit on the number of favourites that I can give away, and is not the equivalent of cliking "like" on an unlimited number of caches.

[kanchan]

I wouldn't like that at all.

We awarded many archived caches because they were our favorites.

- Sorry, but we don't see too much that compares with 'em today, and our favorites where maybe one in forty.

And your "remain on record" I don't care for eiither.

+1

[+dprovan]

Yes, I see the point and agree. I too look at a COs hides and how many FPs they get. That's why the OP's suggestion is a good one. The archived caches get to keep a record of the number of FPs at the time of archival, but the people who rewarded them get back the point to reward to an active cache.

All that's doing is inflating the number of points available. We each get 10%, which we are free to distribute as we see fit. If the fact that a cache is archived reduces its value to the point that you'd rather reward that point to some other cache, feel free to move the point, but it doesn't make sense to reward you with an additional point.

 

They start to become rare if you search for mostly caches with favourite points. I like to search for caches with 3 or more FPs. I then tend to give those caches on my 3+ list a fav point if they don't already have double digit favs. And, as I noted above, I like to recommend good well-maintained caches in nice locations because people rarely FP them, but they are the type of cache I would highly recommend to other cachers. Using my system, I tend to run out of FPs once a year.

This is an argument for you having more points in general. It has nothing to do with recovering points from archived caches other than the fact that it would, indeed, provide you with additional points.

[+geocat_]

Find more caches! Get more favorite points to hand out!!!!

[+L0ne.R]

Yes, I see the point and agree. I too look at a COs hides and how many FPs they get. That's why the OP's suggestion is a good one. The archived caches get to keep a record of the number of FPs at the time of archival, but the people who rewarded them get back the point to reward to an active cache.

All that's doing is inflating the number of points available. We each get 10%, which we are free to distribute as we see fit. If the fact that a cache is archived reduces its value to the point that you'd rather reward that point to some other cache, feel free to move the point, but it doesn't make sense to reward you with an additional point.

 

They start to become rare if you search for mostly caches with favourite points. I like to search for caches with 3 or more FPs. I then tend to give those caches on my 3+ list a fav point if they don't already have double digit favs. And, as I noted above, I like to recommend good well-maintained caches in nice locations because people rarely FP them, but they are the type of cache I would highly recommend to other cachers. Using my system, I tend to run out of FPs once a year.

This is an argument for you having more points in general. It has nothing to do with recovering points from archived caches other than the fact that it would, indeed, provide you with additional points.

 

I still end up having less than 10% on active caches. But that's OK. I will continue to remove FPs from archived favs as I need them. It's the best method we have to keep rewarding and recommending good active caches.

 

There's one other way I take back FPs, I sometimes check older active caches to see if they're still getting good logs. If the cache looks like it's in disrepair and being ignored by the CO, I'll remove my FP.

[jholly]

Yes, I see the point and agree. I too look at a COs hides and how many FPs they get. That's why the OP's suggestion is a good one. The archived caches get to keep a record of the number of FPs at the time of archival, but the people who rewarded them get back the point to reward to an active cache.

All that's doing is inflating the number of points available. We each get 10%, which we are free to distribute as we see fit. If the fact that a cache is archived reduces its value to the point that you'd rather reward that point to some other cache, feel free to move the point, but it doesn't make sense to reward you with an additional point.

 

They start to become rare if you search for mostly caches with favourite points. I like to search for caches with 3 or more FPs. I then tend to give those caches on my 3+ list a fav point if they don't already have double digit favs. And, as I noted above, I like to recommend good well-maintained caches in nice locations because people rarely FP them, but they are the type of cache I would highly recommend to other cachers. Using my system, I tend to run out of FPs once a year.

This is an argument for you having more points in general. It has nothing to do with recovering points from archived caches other than the fact that it would, indeed, provide you with additional points.

 

I still end up having less than 10% on active caches. But that's OK. I will continue to remove FPs from archived favs as I need them. It's the best method we have to keep rewarding and recommending good active caches.

 

There's one other way I take back FPs, I sometimes check older active caches to see if they're still getting good logs. If the cache looks like it's in disrepair and being ignored by the CO, I'll remove my FP.

Don't take back your Favorite Points, just go do a power trail and you will have points to burn.

[+dprovan]

I still end up having less than 10% on active caches.

That's right, it's 10% of all caches you've found, archived or active, since that's the same pool from which the points are given to you.

[+wimseyguy]

Nope no need to bother with the OP's process for me. I have over 1000 sitting in my account, and I am pretty generous with how I give them out. Running a few power trails will give you more fave points than you are ever able to properly distribute.

 

Before they were created I ran a BM list called my 2% solution with the top 2% of caches I had found. As soon as they were introduced I went through that list and gave a point to every cache I could (had some LC's and events on there that cannot get points).

 

If anyone is so short on points that they need to remove them from previous finds let me know and I'll see if I can't sell some on ebay or craigslist for you to get.

[knowschad]

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Just ask Nickelback.

 

A bit off topic, but... ain't that the truth.

 

It's very true for micros. I thought FPs were going to help me separate the wheat from the chaff in the abundance of carpy micros. They sort of do, especially initially in the first couple of years of the FP system. Now it's just same-old-same-old. A hollow bolt, a bison or centrifuge tube stuffed into a dollar store plastic animal, or a ball, or a branch/log, a soggy sheet of paper behind a lost dog sign.

 

 

There was a time when every one of those were brand new to you, and you probably thought they were very cool. The favoriting system didn't exist then, or you probably would have favorited them yourself. Tomorrow's cutting edge hiding technique will soon be old as well (happens pretty quickly today with ready made eBay hides and spoiler YouTube videos).

[knowschad]

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Just ask Nickelback.

 

A bit off topic, but... ain't that the truth.

 

It's very true for micros. I thought FPs were going to help me separate the wheat from the chaff in the abundance of carpy micros. They sort of do, especially initially in the first couple of years of the FP system. Now it's just same-old-same-old. A hollow bolt, a bison or centrifuge tube stuffed into a dollar store plastic animal, or a ball, or a branch/log, a soggy sheet of paper behind a lost dog sign.

 

Larger caches have the problem I outlined in my post above....some got most of their FPs when they were shiny new (e.g. anything covered with something that was glued on) but haven't received an FP in the last year because the weathered container isn't so impressive anymore. I'd like to see the number of FPs by year, in particular the number in the last 6 months.

 

Points don't factor into my caching decisions at all.

 

That's great. But they do for some. We're not just talking about Narcissa.

[knowschad]

I tend to run out of FPs once a year.

 

I never have...I think I still have 35 available to use. I still feel like I've been pretty generous with them, too.

 

495 here. See my eBay account.

[jholly]

I tend to run out of FPs once a year.

 

I never have...I think I still have 35 available to use. I still feel like I've been pretty generous with them, too.

 

495 here. See my eBay account.

What a bunch of spendthrift fave point holders, 1073 here. Wanta buy some?

[+geodarts]

 

What a bunch of spendthrift fave point holders, 1073 here. Wanta buy some?

 

It's clear I have been two generous. 814 to spare. Too many more and it would start to lose its primary purpose, to be a manageable list of places I want to remember. Originally, I intended to keep the list to 200, but it has grown to just over 400.

 

To be fair, I never use favorites as a way to find caches that are interesting to me, so I do not award them with the intention that they will be used in that way.

Edited May 8, 2015 by geodarts

[+K13]

I would like it to be that FP were not removable from a cache once it was awarded. If it was good enough for you when you found it to award the favorite, nothing should change that for you, and your FP should remain.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I would like it to be that FP were not removable from a cache once it was awarded. If it was good enough for you when you found it to award the favorite, nothing should change that for you, and your FP should remain.

 

While I like the idea behind this, I do think people should be able to change their minds some time down the road. I will admit that there have been some caches I've found that I've fallen "victim" to awarding it a FP simply because they had already garnered a huge amount of favorite points. Surely a cache that has been favorited by so many has to be unique and memorable, right? Well, yes. They are/were. But, looking back, I just don't feel like they are in my personal top 10%. I wouldn't feel bad for anyone (me, the CO, other cachers) if I decided to unfavorite any of those caches.

 

Of course, if I couldn't take those points back, it would certainly make me be far more selective and those caches wouldn't have been favorited in the first place. That's why I said I like the idea. I'd rather it were more strict than lenient when it comes to favorite points.

[+Malemotives]

I think while some... like the OP, may look at FPs and decide to chase after a particular geocache because it has a high number of FPs, it's not IMHO the overriding purpose for awarding FPs. I award them to geocache finds that rocked my boat; was imaginative beyond the norm; was other than what I expected; entertained me beyond being just another puzzle cache. Likewise, I like to think that my only hidden geocache continues to earn FPs for the reasons I stated. When a geocache has captured someone's appreciation such that it earns a FP, I see no reason to remove it just because.... as someone stated, it died. Even in death it remains memorable to some, as witnessed by its FP.

[+L0ne.R]

1431064295[/url]' post='5503099']

I would like it to be that FP were not removable from a cache once it was awarded. If it was good enough for you when you found it to award the favorite, nothing should change that for you, and your FP should remain.

 

Then it wouldn't be a recommendation tool. It would be a reward tool. What we asked Groundspeak for was a way to help separate the wheat from the chaff. It was getting too arduous to read through logs to determine what might be a good/great cache experience. When people try to determine which caches to hunt on a particular day they don't consider archived caches and they don't want to hunt for caches that use to be great 3 years ago but t has turned into a junk cache or one that used to be a golden ammo can but is now a throw away ziplock container.

[cezanne]

 

Then it wouldn't be a recommendation tool. It would be a reward tool. What we asked Groundspeak for was a way to help separate the wheat from the chaff. It was getting too arduous to read through logs to determine what might be a good/great cache experience. When people try to determine which caches to hunt on a particular day they don't consider archived caches and they don't want to hunt for caches that use to be great 3 years ago but t has turned into a junk cache or one that used to be a golden ammo can but is now a throw away ziplock container.

 

It is not as easy as that. Not everyone has the same expectations in FPs and what they should be good for.

 

I do not look at how many cachers favourited a cache but who and which other caches they favourited. It is very helpful if archived caches stay on the lists.

 

FPs can never be a tool for recommending caches for all cachers. There are caches with a very high FP percentage where seeing who favourited them already tells me that I'm better off with visiting caches with no FPs at all.

[+J Grouchy]

 

Then it wouldn't be a recommendation tool. It would be a reward tool. What we asked Groundspeak for was a way to help separate the wheat from the chaff. It was getting too arduous to read through logs to determine what might be a good/great cache experience. When people try to determine which caches to hunt on a particular day they don't consider archived caches and they don't want to hunt for caches that use to be great 3 years ago but t has turned into a junk cache or one that used to be a golden ammo can but is now a throw away ziplock container.

 

It is not as easy as that. Not everyone has the same expectations in FPs and what they should be good for.

 

I do not look at how many cachers favourited a cache but who and which other caches they favourited. It is very helpful if archived caches stay on the lists.

 

FPs can never be a tool for recommending caches for all cachers. There are caches with a very high FP percentage where seeing who favourited them already tells me that I'm better off with visiting caches with no FPs at all.

 

Yeah...some of my own caches that I like the most have no - or very few - favorite points. My own cache with the most favorite points is just a simple key-hide at the filming location for Terminus in 'The Walking Dead'.

[+narcissa]

1431064295[/url]' post='5503099']

I would like it to be that FP were not removable from a cache once it was awarded. If it was good enough for you when you found it to award the favorite, nothing should change that for you, and your FP should remain.

 

Then it wouldn't be a recommendation tool. It would be a reward tool. What we asked Groundspeak for was a way to help separate the wheat from the chaff. It was getting too arduous to read through logs to determine what might be a good/great cache experience. When people try to determine which caches to hunt on a particular day they don't consider archived caches and they don't want to hunt for caches that use to be great 3 years ago but t has turned into a junk cache or one that used to be a golden ammo can but is now a throw away ziplock container.

 

Some people wanted that. Some people wanted a reward system. We got something that sort of serves as both.

 

By awarding a point to a favorite cache, you help call attention to the highest quality caches in your area and reward cache owners for placing exceptional caches.

 

You just can't expect everyone to use the same criteria for awarding a point. It's totally subjective.

 

If I loved a cache when I found it, I gave it a point, and it's keeping that point.

[+J Grouchy]

I tend to run out of FPs once a year.

 

I never have...I think I still have 35 available to use. I still feel like I've been pretty generous with them, too.

 

495 here. See my eBay account.

What a bunch of spendthrift fave point holders, 1073 here. Wanta buy some?

 

Yowza...that's a lot. But I only have just over 1000 finds.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I tend to run out of FPs once a year.

 

I never have...I think I still have 35 available to use. I still feel like I've been pretty generous with them, too.

 

495 here. See my eBay account.

What a bunch of spendthrift fave point holders, 1073 here. Wanta buy some?

 

Yowza...that's a lot. But I only have just over 1000 finds.

 

Alamogul and Bobcam both have over 100,000 finds. I wonder how many of their 10,000+ FPs they've awarded.

 

With "only" 1000 finds it's probably a lot easier to remember 100 or so favorites than it would be to remember 1000.

 

 

[+The Rat]

I find the idea of retrieving FPs from archived caches disturbing and unhelpful. For starters, I haven't found FPs to be useful in identifying caches I like to find, although I know that some people do. I just don't consider that the main purpose of them. The main purposes are to provide a bookmark of sorts for the finders who award them and a reward for the CO of the cache. I have over 400 FPs on my caches including on many archived caches. When someone awards a FP to me, I know I've brought some enjoyment to someone, that I have succeeded in producing a good cache. That incentivizes me to continue to put out quality caches (mostly puzzles). I'm more interested in accumulating FPs than accumulating finds. If people started pulling their FPs from my old, archived caches I would be reluctant to archive caches that had FPs on them. Around here with the cache glut, I sometimes have to archive an old cache in order to have a good place to hide a new one. I only do that on hard puzzles where I think everyone who is going to solve it and find it already has done so. If I lost those FPs,though, I probably would not archive it and replace it with a new one, even though no one is finding the old one any longer. The point is, of course, that the original poster's idea would prevent new quality caches from being put out because the COs with the most FPs would be penalized for archiving old ones.

[+GeoBain]

The point is, of course, that the original poster's idea would prevent new quality caches from being put out because the COs with the most FPs would be penalized for archiving old ones.

 

Actually, the OP was hoping for a way to preserve FP on archived caches permanently.

 

I would like to suggest to TPTB that when a geocache is Archived the Premium Member's account that awarded the point be automatically given the FPs back, but that the record of FPs awarded to the cache remain on the Archived cache as a permanent record of its popularity.

[+The Rat]

I understand that, but if that were to happen, the explosion in the number of FPs would make them less useful than they are now. The number of FPs I have to award continues to grow even though I am not a high-volume cacher. That's because very few caches are worth FPs in my opinion. I think FPs should be granted perhaps only for every 20 or 30 finds, not every 10. There are already way too many granted on caches that if not lame, are no more than ordinary. I have sometimes taken one fork in a trail or chosen a route to pick up a cache or two with multiple FPs and almost always have been disappointed to find the cache is just another routine cache like many others I've seen. Allowing finders to grant the same FPs multiple times (which is what would happen under the OP's idea) would just exacerbate the problem.

[+GeoBain]

I personally think the current system is fine. Depending on how you view the usefulness of favorite points, you can either move them to currently findable caches to help fellow catchers in their search for active caches, or you can leave them forever as a tribute to the hiders to help encourage better placements.

 

Either way, you can never favorite more than 10% of your finds so you do not dilute the pool.

[+on4bam]

I don't retrieve FP from archived caches as I still have plenty left.

The FP system was flawed from the start as I see it. I used to use GC-vote which allowed me to rate caches from 0.5 a star to 5 stars. That way a favorite can be 4, 4.5 or 5 stars but a micro behind a lamppost gets a 0.5. If a system would be in place that along with your log would let you rate a cache that would be a better way to see the quality.

I've seen favorites on listings of caches I wouldn't even pick up if I came to less than 50m and on the other hand seen nice caches without FP's.

I do take FP's into account when planning a cachetrip but I also read logs especially from people I know also like "quality caches".

 

As for awarding caches with FP, I awarded 15 yesterday for 38 founds. We did 2 series of caches where all containers were "a little" special but 15 had "extra's". All handmade where finding the cache was half the work but getting to the log took something extra.

[+L0ne.R]

1431185867[/url]' post='5503452']

I find the idea of retrieving FPs from archived caches disturbing and unhelpful. For starters, I haven't found FPs to be useful in identifying caches I like to find, although I know that some people do. I just don't consider that the main purpose of them. The main purposes are to provide a bookmark of sorts for the finders who award them and a reward for the CO of the cache. I have over 400 FPs on my caches including on many archived caches. When someone awards a FP to me, I know I've brought some enjoyment to someone, that I have succeeded in producing a good cache. That incentivizes me to continue to put out quality caches (mostly puzzles). I'm more interested in accumulating FPs than accumulating finds. If people started pulling their FPs from my old, archived caches I would be reluctant to archive caches that had FPs on them. Around here with the cache glut, I sometimes have to archive an old cache in order to have a good place to hide a new one. I only do that on hard puzzles where I think everyone who is going to solve it and find it already has done so. If I lost those FPs,though, I probably would not archive it and replace it with a new one, even though no one is finding the old one any longer. The point is, of course, that the original poster's idea would prevent new quality caches from being put out because the COs with the most FPs would be penalized for archiving old ones.

 

Actually the current system would do that too. Some of us have stated we take back from archived caches. Our posts may even encourage others to do so too when they run out. How else are they going to give back to the community by helping like-minded cachers find good active caches?

I might find an active Rat cache that is quality but not Wow...example an ammo can in the forest by a brook. I have run out of FPs. I could take it from the archived plastic frog with a bison tube (the first one of these I found 5 years ago and thought it was wow - not so wow anymore) and give it to your ammo can cache or I could leave it where it is. Which would be better for the community?

[+geodarts]

 

Alamogul and Bobcam both have over 100,000 finds. I wonder how many of their 10,000+ FPs they've awarded.

 

With "only" 1000 finds it's probably a lot easier to remember 100 or so favorites than it would be to remember 1000.

 

I don't know, but in 2013 Alamogul qualified for a challenge that requires you to award 50 percent of your favorite points.

 

Took some effort for me to qualify for this one given that when favorite points were first instituted, they gave me over 4000 to start with!

Edited May 9, 2015 by geodarts

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The point is, of course, that the original poster's idea would prevent new quality caches from being put out because the COs with the most FPs would be penalized for archiving old ones.

 

Actually, the OP was hoping for a way to preserve FP on archived caches permanently.

 

I would like to suggest to TPTB that when a geocache is Archived the Premium Member's account that awarded the point be automatically given the FPs back, but that the record of FPs awarded to the cache remain on the Archived cache as a permanent record of its popularity.

The problem with the OP's idea is that it waters down FPs. I've found 3800 or so caches, giving me 380 favorite points. I just looked at My Finds PQ and 1898 of those caches are now archived. That means I have 380 FPs to give out between 1900 active caches, far more than 10%.

 

Devil's advocate: I could also give FPs out to all of the archived caches by assigning a FP then picking it up again (over and over) based on the OP's suggestion. That means I would be able to assign FPs to roughly 60% of the caches I've found.

 

Why not just leave it the way it is?

[+lamoracke]

Its your call but I disagree with the pulling of favorites from archived caches as well. Favorite points are your top 10%. I have 25% of my caches I have found archived. If I pulled all favorites from archived ones, my favorite percentage would be like over 20% and I cant see favoriting 1/5 of my caches. As a cache owner and just casual observer, I like to see what archived caches had as well. It was a favorite, not sure why if its active or not 5 years later it was not a favorite of yours at the time you did it, not whether it got archived years later or not.

[+GeoBain]

The point is, of course, that the original poster's idea would prevent new quality caches from being put out because the COs with the most FPs would be penalized for archiving old ones.

 

Actually, the OP was hoping for a way to preserve FP on archived caches permanently.

 

I would like to suggest to TPTB that when a geocache is Archived the Premium Member's account that awarded the point be automatically given the FPs back, but that the record of FPs awarded to the cache remain on the Archived cache as a permanent record of its popularity.

The problem with the OP's idea is that it waters down FPs. I've found 3800 or so caches, giving me 380 favorite points. I just looked at My Finds PQ and 1898 of those caches are now archived. That means I have 380 FPs to give out between 1900 active caches, far more than 10%.

 

Devil's advocate: I could also give FPs out to all of the archived caches by assigning a FP then picking it up again (over and over) based on the OP's suggestion. That means I would be able to assign FPs to roughly 60% of the caches I've found.

 

Why not just leave it the way it is?

 

I was rebutting The Rat's statement quoted above. In my subsequent post I pointed out that I think the current system is fine for pretty much the reason you stated.

[knowschad]

I would like it to be that FP were not removable from a cache once it was awarded. If it was good enough for you when you found it to award the favorite, nothing should change that for you, and your FP should remain.

 

Then it wouldn't be a recommendation tool. It would be a reward tool. What we asked Groundspeak for was a way to help separate the wheat from the chaff. It was getting too arduous to read through logs to determine what might be a good/great cache experience. When people try to determine which caches to hunt on a particular day they don't consider archived caches and they don't want to hunt for caches that use to be great 3 years ago but t has turned into a junk cache or one that used to be a golden ammo can but is now a throw away ziplock container.

 

In my area, at least, it is used as both. It most definitely is a rewards tool, probably above all else. It is common for someone to write in their log, "Awarding a favorite point!". Of course, it is natural, then, for some people to use the favorite point count as a recommendation as well.

[knowschad]

Alamogul and Bobcam both have over 100,000 finds. I wonder how many of their 10,000+ FPs they've awarded.

 

With "only" 1000 finds it's probably a lot easier to remember 100 or so favorites than it would be to remember 1000.

 

Depends. Is there a way to automate favorite points from GSAK?

[+dprovan]

In my area, at least, it is used as both. It most definitely is a rewards tool, probably above all else. It is common for someone to write in their log, "Awarding a favorite point!". Of course, it is natural, then, for some people to use the favorite point count as a recommendation as well.

Yeah, I agree it can be both reward and recommendation, even as I mention that I sometimes see FPs given mainly because the CO is a friend. What the point means is exactly what it says it means: marking which caches are your favorites. I don't find favorite points hugely useful whether I'm the owner, the finder granting the point, or a seeker looking at caches, but I think they're interesting enough, and I think they're perfectly named. When I say "maple walnut's my favorite ice cream": you would typically take that as a suggestion to try maple walnut ice cream, but you'd still be aware that it might be my favorite only because it was my mother's favorite.

 

Obligatory On Topic Comment: Yet my mother's passed away, so perhaps I should pick a different favorite flavor now.

[+on4bam]

Depends. Is there a way to automate favorite points from GSAK?

 

Yes, you can set the FP flag when logging via the API.

retrieving/dropping/discovering TBs is done at the same time too.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

I wouldn't do this as well. The archived cache is in my favourite list because it is/was remarkable and that's how it's going to stay.

[+gpsblake]

I think favorite points needs to stick with archived caches also. If I got back my favorite points on archived caches, I could hand them out to current caches like free candy if I wanted to. I rarely hand them out as it is now, but I did give geoart a favorite point on each cache in the series because I appreciated what the owner did to create it.

 

Also, with people who do the black belt challenge via a 3rd party website, removing favorite points from their archived caches could affect them.

 

1 out of 10 is more then enough, if you want to hand them out more then that, it just waters them down and makes a favorite point mean less.

[+niraD]

I would like it to be that FP were not removable from a cache once it was awarded. If it was good enough for you when you found it to award the favorite, nothing should change that for you, and your FP should remain.

While I like the idea behind this, I do think people should be able to change their minds some time down the road.

Yep. The first time you see a magnetic fake bolt cache, you might love it, thinking that it was conceived and crafted by the cache owner. But your impression might change a bit when you discover that they're available for sale in Groundspeak's online store.

[+L0ne.R]

I've decided I will still take back FPs from some archived caches. First on the list will be those that were archived by a reviewer and not the owner. That way my posthumous FP isn't rewarded to delinquent cache owners.

[knowschad]

In my area, at least, it is used as both. It most definitely is a rewards tool, probably above all else. It is common for someone to write in their log, "Awarding a favorite point!". Of course, it is natural, then, for some people to use the favorite point count as a recommendation as well.

Yeah, I agree it can be both reward and recommendation, even as I mention that I sometimes see FPs given mainly because the CO is a friend. What the point means is exactly what it says it means: marking which caches are your favorites. I don't find favorite points hugely useful whether I'm the owner, the finder granting the point, or a seeker looking at caches, but I think they're interesting enough, and I think they're perfectly named. When I say "maple walnut's my favorite ice cream": you would typically take that as a suggestion to try maple walnut ice cream, but you'd still be aware that it might be my favorite only because it was my mother's favorite.

 

Obligatory On Topic Comment: Yet my mother's passed away, so perhaps I should pick a different favorite flavor now.

 

To add to what you said, yes, maple walnut ice cream is one of my favorites as well! I guess we may have similar tastes in ice cream. Have you tried butterscotch crunch?

[+L0ne.R]

I've decided I will still take back FPs from some archived caches. First on the list will be those that were archived by a reviewer and not the owner. That way my posthumous FP isn't rewarded to delinquent cache owners.

 

Removed 7 today from my list - 5 archived by a reviewer, 2 temporarily disabled by a reviewer with cache owner not playing anymore.

[Andronicus]

I do not "Rocover" favorite points from archived caches. Infact, I have awarded favorite points to caches that were already archived.

 

I have plenty of spare favorite points, I am quite selective on who gets a point. If you are short on points, I suspect that you should raise the standard you use for awarding points.

[+cerberus1]

I do not "Rocover" favorite points from archived caches. Infact, I have awarded favorite points to caches that were already archived.

 

I have plenty of spare favorite points, I am quite selective on who gets a point. If you are short on points, I suspect that you should raise the standard you use for awarding points.

When we were PM, we were lucky to find one in thirty-forty that we thought were worth a FP.

 

- But please explain to me how a basic member is able to retain them. I lost all of mine (over 100).

[+WarNinjas]

We came across this list a while back that was pointed out by another cacher. It is a list by state of the CO's with the most favorites. Not that this should affect your decision but we like to hide good caches and we noticed we were on page 2! Like spot 32 or so. My daughter who likes to hide good caches said we need to be on the first page! We fixed up some of our older hides with a twist that would help them to get favorites and seeked out new hides that would also get favorites. We have been caching around 4 years and have just archived our first one in the last month or so. We are now in spot 26. We worked hard to get up there. I would feel bad if we decided to archive one of our caches with a lot of favorites and cachers decided to go take away there favorites and in effect drop us down on the list. Like others said we wouldn't archive them even if it meant we couldn't place a new better cache.

I also understand that the idea is not to take away but add more. That would dilute the favorites and make them not as valuable. I know this doesn't help out new cachers but I thought I would throw out the idea that taking them away can actually hurt some fun for hiders that try hard to make this game more fun.

[+Mudfrog]

Favorite points exist for at least 4 reasons, and not in any particular order:

 

1) A kind of public bookmark list

2) Feedback to the cache owner

3) Feedback to other potential finders

4) Feedback to other potential hiders

 

All of those reasons are equally valid.

 

There is no way that 1 out of every 10 caches that I've found would have any one of those reasons to be favorited by me.

 

This was the way it used to be for me but it was more like 1 out of 100. Things can change though...

 

In my case, i've become a little more picky as to which caches i choose to go after. Because of this, i'm going after a lot less caches overall but also potentially finding more caches that i might want to favorite. I have plenty of points to give out now but i can see where a person could be lacking if they cached like i'm doing now.

 

This being said, i still believe that 1 favorite per 10 caches is about right. I'm definitely NOT in favor of having favorite points automatically taken from an archived cache.

 

To the OP, i tend to add caches that i've favorited to my watchlist. You could always do this and then manually take back the favorite when a cache got archived.

[+L0ne.R]

1431752425[/url]' post='5505424']

We came across this list a while back that was pointed out by another cacher. It is a list by state of the CO's with the most favorites. Not that this should affect your decision but we like to hide good caches and we noticed we were on page 2! Like spot 32 or so. My daughter who likes to hide good caches said we need to be on the first page! We fixed up some of our older hides with a twist that would help them to get favorites and seeked out new hides that would also get favorites. We have been caching around 4 years and have just archived our first one in the last month or so. We are now in spot 26. We worked hard to get up there. I would feel bad if we decided to archive one of our caches with a lot of favorites and cachers decided to go take away there favorites and in effect drop us down on the list. Like others said we wouldn't archive them even if it meant we couldn't place a new better cache.

I also understand that the idea is not to take away but add more. That would dilute the favorites and make them not as valuable. I know this doesn't help out new cachers but I thought I would throw out the idea that taking them away can actually hurt some fun for hiders that try hard to make this game more fun.

This is why the OP's idea is a good one. It doesn't water down the FP system because you always have 10% to give out to active caches and archived caches have a record of how many FPs they received in their lifetime.

[+dprovan]

This is why the OP's idea is a good one. It doesn't water down the FP system because you always have 10% to give out to active caches and archived caches have a record of how many FPs they received in their lifetime.

10%? No, you'd have more that 10% to give out because the number you have is calculated including any you found that are now archived. So if half of all the caches you've found are now archived, you'd have 20% to give out to active caches.

[+K13]

This is why the OP's idea is a good one. It doesn't water down the FP system because you always have 10% to give out to active caches and archived caches have a record of how many FPs they received in their lifetime.

10%? No, you'd have more that 10% to give out because the number you have is calculated including any you found that are now archived. So if half of all the caches you've found are now archived, you'd have 20% to give out to active caches.

 

Exactly why they should be locked when a cache is archived. If, for example, a cacher with 700 finds had 50 of his 70 FP were on archived caches, he could remove them and have 70 available FP to place on any of his remaining 200.....roughly 1 FP for each 3 available finds, not 1 in 10 as designed. This would make the value of FP diminish, as they would only be his 'best of three' instead of 'top ten percent' when placed.