Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Wildguineapig530

Introducing "Log Expressions" example included

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

This is what I'm worried about too.

 

In no way am I worried about it,  just saying that if there's a "point" or total on anything, it's a new side game soon.  :D

Share this post


Link to post

There are a couple of completely-foreseeable and inevitable side effects that will arise from this:

  1. Those who don't want their logs judged in any way, and have been given no way to opt out, will choose not to log online. This will deprive the community of the description of their experience and any feedback they may have about the cache.
  2. This will become a stat, leading to people gaming the system to improve their stats.
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, The A-Team said:
  • Those who don't want their logs judged in any way, and have been given no way to opt out, will choose not to log online. This will deprive the community of the description of their experience and any feedback they may have about the cache.
  • This will become a stat, leading to people gaming the system to improve their stats.

 

To me, #1 seems much more extreme than logging DNFs. Not logging finds takes you out of the web stuff almost entirely; find count would need to become irrelevant, at least as it pertains to your online profile. It would take a VERY dedicated and frustrated geocacher to not log finds just because they don't like the voting system - compared to the amount of desire it takes not to log DNFs because they don't like the CHS :)

As for #2, as long as GS doesn't put the stat in the log download data and leaves it a web-ONLY feature, then it'll have a tough time becoming anything near a popular side game. A 3rd party would have to break the TOS and scrape the site to keep updated stats or retrieve a user's log stats.  So again, highly unlikely, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

To me, #1 seems much more extreme than logging DNFs. Not logging finds takes you out of the web stuff almost entirely; find count would need to become irrelevant, at least as it pertains to your online profile. It would take a VERY dedicated and frustrated geocacher to not log finds just because they don't like the voting system - compared to the amount of desire it takes not to log DNFs because they don't like the CHS :)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not quite sure how DNFs come into play here.

 

Quote

As for #2, as long as GS doesn't put the stat in the log download data and leaves it a web-ONLY feature, then it'll have a tough time becoming anything near a popular side game. A 3rd party would have to break the TOS and scrape the site to keep updated stats or retrieve a user's log stats.  So again, highly unlikely, IMO.

A third-party app and its countless users have been scraping the site for years, so it isn't hard to believe that other scraping could occur. Even if there wasn't any scraping, it's likely that HQ would want to include this functionality in the official apps, which means making it available through the API. The data would then be available for stat use.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, The A-Team said:
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

To me, #1 seems much more extreme than logging DNFs. Not logging finds takes you out of the web stuff almost entirely; find count would need to become irrelevant, at least as it pertains to your online profile. It would take a VERY dedicated and frustrated geocacher to not log finds just because they don't like the voting system - compared to the amount of desire it takes not to log DNFs because they don't like the CHS :)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not quite sure how DNFs come into play here.

 

I just made the comparison of the DNF (non-)logging issue due to CHS with the Find (non-)logging issue due to Log ratings. A similar effect, imo, once it was suggested people might stop logging Finds because of the ratings.

 

 

11 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

A third-party app and its countless users have been scraping the site for years, so it isn't hard to believe that other scraping could occur. Even if there wasn't any scraping, it's likely that HQ would want to include this functionality in the official apps, which means making it available through the API. The data would then be available for stat use.

 

Yep, said 3rd party app employs a number of tricks to get data, which annoys a lot of people (mainly at HQ); but that's a whole different drama.  Point is, if GS doesn't provide a way for people collect log rating stats, then people would have to make use of a method that is not condoned or suppported, presuming a 3rd party developer comes up with an efficient and/or effective way to get all of that data. If the ratings are web-only and shown only on logs and listings, it's going to be one hefty website or app process to gather all the needed info. If someone creates that sort of 3rd party process, they pretty much are giving HQ the finger just to play a numbers game.  I don't see that being much of an issue.  I mean, you can pretty much gamify anything, and right now the above 3rd party app is at least mimicking common funcionality even without the behest or support of Groundspeak. It would take some hefty cahonas to gamify the individual log stats which can change minute to minute in a very sparsely distributed limited selection of web pages.

 

But sure, I could still be wrong about that, who knows... I just don't see it happening any time soon :)

 

ETA: There may perhaps be a bigger chance of easier scraping if they provide the data for mobile apps (or at least the official app) since a request for recent cache logs would need to include that stats for mobile display. That could be an 'in' for scraping with successful spoofing.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

When we post a Found It, we often had the CO email us, thanking us for the nice or kind log.   I thought that was a shame, that just saying something, to them, was a nice log. 

 - But yet another "point" system,  just to say more than TFTC seems odd to me.   Positive reinforcement? 

 

I remember the site said  "Ignore CO" for searches wasn't gonna happen, as they didn't want to say anything negative about someone. 

A line of uplifting, well-meaning logs, saying they enjoyed the area may not see one story "point".  I believe that shows as a negative towards them.

 - I just see "helpful" as someone got an extra hint from another's log,  if it wasn't an outright spoiler...

 

But I expect the cut n paste overly-long  loggers might now figure a way to get these silly "great story" "points"  (when many don't really bother to even read 'em anymore), to combine "great story" totals to their word/length totals on one of the third-party stat sites.     :D

 

I've made (actual, not virtual)  friends with several CO's who have thanked me for logs ( the thanks often include something along the lines of "Reading your log took us back to the old days of caching ...") and with folk who in turn I've thanked for logs on my caches. These have always turned out to be pleasant and thoughtful people well worth searching out at events.

 

'Helpful' , hmm, suggesting a good parking place, mentioning any current local conditions which may be a problem , outlining a good route or approach, they would be helpful logs which would get my vote. I suspect, however, 'helpful' may be construed by many as helpful with finding the cache, i.e. a spoiler. Give the cache owner the ability to 'un-helpful' logs on their hides to avoid this. In fact, make the whole thing an opt in choice on the cache setting page and avoid annoying COs with the inevitable 'helpful' spoilers.

 

Those 'copy/paste screeds of pointless rubbish + 30 smiley' loggers, well, in my area they tend to hunt in packs, so I look forward to seeing their (awful) logs where a gang of 4 found a cache, I'm betting each copy/paste log will have 3 votes for everything good  ... unless you can vote fror your own log of course, in which case, 4 .

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The A-Team said:

There are a couple of completely-foreseeable and inevitable side effects that will arise from this:

  1. Those who don't want their logs judged in any way, and have been given no way to opt out, will choose not to log online. This will deprive the community of the description of their experience and any feedback they may have about the cache.
  2. This will become a stat, leading to people gaming the system to improve their stats.

I can be quite verbose with my logs.  But if others start judging them, I'll start logging TFTC.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

The experiences we've had of people who never logged online seemed more in tune to what  the hobby used to be, before it changed for the sake of it.   They left wordy logs in the log book, with drawings and poems too.  Swag traded.

 - Try getting similar in an online log. Most don't even mention swag or trackables online anymore. 

The only reason I log is so the system removes that cache from my searches.  I don't claim a good percentage of caches/events now...

 

Why does someone with an opinion  have to be frustrated ?   Just because they don't cache the same?  Sheesh...

I've dropped my PM a couple times over the years (once as simple as Newest caches removed from the profile), and still won't cache during certain time periods.     That's conviction...        :)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The A-Team said:

There are a couple of completely-foreseeable and inevitable side effects that will arise from this:

  1. Those who don't want their logs judged in any way, and have been given no way to opt out, will choose not to log online. This will deprive the community of the description of their experience and any feedback they may have about the cache.
  2. This will become a stat, leading to people gaming the system to improve their stats.

You forgot the third option:

 

3.  People will continue doing what they've always done, without regard to what people think.  This is the group of cachers that represent the vast majority of active Users on the website, I would guess.

 

We've survived the introduction of Attributes, Favorite Points, and Health Scores.  Seems likely that the game will survive this trauma as well.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The A-Team said:
  1. Those who don't want their logs judged in any way, and have been given no way to opt out, will choose not to log online. This will deprive the community of the description of their experience and any feedback they may have about the cache.

 

There sure will be such people. But I guess more people stop logging everyday because they die.

 

Edited by Pontiac_CZ
a new line
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, The A-Team said:

There are a couple of completely-foreseeable and inevitable side effects that will arise from this:

  1. Those who don't want their logs judged in any way, and have been given no way to opt out, will choose not to log online. This will deprive the community of the description of their experience and any feedback they may have about the cache.
  2. This will become a stat, leading to people gaming the system to improve their stats.

 

On the other hand...

 

Adding a "helpful" or "great story" reaction may provide an incentive for people to write more helpful or entertaining logs.  

Has anyone written an app that shows a "leaderboard" for those that post on the forums based on the number of reputation points? 

 

Remember Geocaching Challenges?   Before they were wiped off the face of the internet I made a feature request asking for the ability to "upvote" logs.  While there were a lot of things to complain about,  since Challenge completions did not count as "a find" I thought that the logs could (or should) be about *how* one completed a challenge rather just a "check box" which indicated that the challenge was completed.  For example, for a "take a picture at a waterfall" challenge, someone completing the challenge with a photo of a particularly impressive waterfall might get an "upvote".  The idea was to encourage better logs.  I actually got a direct response from rather famous lackey indicating that it was something they'd consider.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/17/2018 at 10:55 AM, thebruce0 said:

And yet favourite points have been and are indeed very useful to many many people.

Favorite points are for caches, not logs.

Different things, different purpose. Logs and favorite points are the "feedback mechanism" for caches.

 

This would be a feedback mechanism on logs, therefore feedback on feedback

 

What's next, scoring the favorite points? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:

Favorite points are for caches, not logs.

Yes, there are no favourite points for logs.

 

12 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:

Different things, different purpose.

Also yes, cache listings and logs.

 

12 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:

Logs and favorite points are the "feedback mechanism" for caches.

Not so much today; logs are themselves often attractions - explanations of experiences with photos, stories, moments, not merely "the cache was ...", and quite often shared as standalone postings.  And even so, that's not a reason there can't be feedback on logs as well.

 

12 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:

This would be a feedback mechanism on logs, therefore feedback on feedback.

Note I'm not saying you're wrong for not wanting it, but how is this an argument against the concept?  What you say is true by your own reasoning, but 'feedback on feedback' bad merely because it's true?  Say it with a different inflexion and that could be a sentence filled with excitement! (see below)

 

12 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:

What's next, scoring the favorite points? 

I'm sure there would be some people who'd like to see that :P or some form of that.  (there have been plenty of discussions about what a favourite point represents, since there's no explanation to go along with it, so the point count is certainly not a guaranteed indication of the quality of a cache or chance that you yourself will enjoy it).

 

Likewise there have been piles of discussion about irrelevant logs, annoying logging practices, short logs, too long logs, informative logs, spoiler logs, and on and on... this is what led to the addition of log ratings, to help sort signal from noise for those who care to do so.  Another reason I think "Helpful" is more useful than "Great story" (the former is more practically applicable for geocaching, the latter is more of a social praise)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, there are no favourite points for logs.

 

Also yes, cache listings and logs.

 

Not so much today; logs are themselves often attractions - explanations of experiences with photos, stories, moments, not merely "the cache was ...", and quite often shared as standalone postings.  And even so, that's not a reason there can't be feedback on logs as well.

 

Note I'm not saying you're wrong for not wanting it, but how is this an argument against the concept?  What you say is true by your own reasoning, but 'feedback on feedback' bad merely because it's true?  Say it with a different inflexion and that could be a sentence filled with excitement! (see below)

 

I'm sure there would be some people who'd like to see that :P or some form of that.  (there have been plenty of discussions about what a favourite point represents, since there's no explanation to go along with it, so the point count is certainly not a guaranteed indication of the quality of a cache or chance that you yourself will enjoy it).

 

Likewise there have been piles of discussion about irrelevant logs, annoying logging practices, short logs, too long logs, informative logs, spoiler logs, and on and on... this is what led to the addition of log ratings, to help sort signal from noise for those who care to do so.  Another reason I think "Helpful" is more useful than "Great story" (the former is more practically applicable for geocaching, the latter is more of a social praise)

 

Yup, and you've just given a perfect example of why I don't want my logs rated, judged, scored, assessed, commented on, or anything of the sort. Because a feature like that will inevitably turn into a discussion forum. And I really don't need my thoughts on a cache quoted and commented on LINE BY LINE!!!

 

Not everything needs to be commented on. 

 

Edited by CanUSeeIT
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:

Yup, and you've just given a perfect example of why I don't want my logs rated, judged, scored, assessed, commented on, or anything of the sort. Because a feature like that will inevitably turn into a discussion forum. And I really don't need my thoughts on a cache quoted and commented on LINE BY LINE!!!

 

Not everything needs to be commented on. 

 

But... that can happen already. Ratings don't enable that. When you post your log online, you have to realize they are public, and can be shared and commented on over at other sources at will. Ratings don't change that. Helpful is something that, well, is intended to make finding helpful information more streamlined. I would not be against the removal of "Great Story", but not because it's a rating - only because it's doesn't really serve a practical geocaching purpose, only a social one.  I can get your argument for 'Great Story' in that you don't necessarily want your logs to bubble up to the top for more people to read because some random people thought it was good (knowing that it'd otherwise slip down into the history of the cache logs).  But "helpful" - that is something that's good for geocachers, assuming the cache CO maintains their listing to keep spoilers out (to the degree they don't want them listed; otherwise the spoilers would still be there anyway, so no change).

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Yup, and you've just given a perfect example of why I don't want my logs rated, judged, scored, assessed, commented on, or anything of the sort. Because a feature like that will inevitably turn into a discussion forum. And I really don't need my thoughts on a cache quoted and commented on LINE BY LINE!!!

This happens sometimes, even without log expressions. And the reviewers shut it down quickly when they find out it's happening.

 

Log expressions will not turn the online logs into a forum discussion any more than they are now. The reviewers won't allow it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, yes, if implying the online log book would turn into a discussion forum itself, then yeah, that certainly won't happen any more than it does now. It still can, but it's disallowed and will get stopped as soon as it's reported.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/16/2018 at 7:38 PM, thebruce0 said:

With this rating system, it's not judgement - there's nothing inherently negative about it. There's no active "this is a bad log" option. However, it is easy to, say, believe you made a great log, then look back later and see no one else 'upvoted' your log, and maybe someone else's log you think is mundane somehow did better. The rating system, even though it's a positive reinforcement, can still instill a sense of competition or relative underappreciation...  But then, others might just say if you don't care about ratings, then you should care if someone else got positive ratings and yours didn't.

On 5/17/2018 at 7:44 AM, Mudfrog said:

There's no doubt this will end up having a negative effect with some if a positive reaction never comes their way.

Reminds me of how some cachers complained when they didn't get a Virtual Reward, yet other cachers did.  Some cachers may feel slighted if other logs are 'upvoted', even though they think their log is better.  Of course, the former was based on an algorithm, while the latter was based on human action, but the feeling of being 'slighted' by not getting 'upvoted' is similar.

I don't know how many cachers will notice that other logs have been 'upvoted' more than theirs, especially since many cachers don't go back to read through the logs of caches they've already "found".

 

On 5/17/2018 at 7:55 AM, thebruce0 said:

And yet favourite points have been and are indeed very useful to many many people. I don't put a loads of weight on favourite points, and most anyone who uses them would say the same, because they're clearly not a guarantee of a "great" cache. But they're informative. Just like these ratings.

As a critique, I'd prefer the Helpful tag over the Great Story tag, since the former is more neutral and certainly helps in situations like a non-responsive CO not responding to requests for clarity, or missing parking/trailhead waypoints, or adjusted coordinates, or comments about temporal changes to the area like construction and whatnot. "Helpful" isn't a synonym for spoiler.  Again, it's possible that a log might get upvoted which spoils the cache a bit. If it's too much, the CO would deal with it. If it's iffy, well why are you reading the logs in the first place if you want to avoid spoilers, since those have always existed?

 

I agree that 'Great Story' is adding another level of social value to cache logs. I disagree that it'll be overly negative to the geocaching community, but have a similar effect to favourite points (love'em or hate'em) - every feature has its lovers and haters. It wouldn't bug me if that one were removed though. But 'Helpful' - that at least has been a suggestion that's been around for years which I'm pleased to see is being tested.

I'm just concerned about how it's being tested.  From what I can tell, the 'helpful and 'great story' options are only available when viewing cache logs on the website.  If not available in the app, then the test is only in regards to cachers that read logs on the website.

 

I'm pretty sure that cachers usually refer to previous logs while they are searching for the cache, which means they are looking at the cache logs in an app or GPSr. They are not able to 'upvote' previous logs using those devices. So, they search for caches, then submit their logs. How many of those cachers are then going to open the cache page on the website just to flag the previous logs that they read during their search?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just getting around to reading about this feature now and wanted to mention something that I didn't see mentioned already in this thread.

 

Will a cacher's selection of "Newest", "Best story", or "Most helpful" be sticky?

 -- If not, then certainly come cachers will complain and want their selection to be sticky, since they don't want to have to re-select "Most helpful" every time they look at a cache page.

 -- If yes, then it's certainly possible that cachers could miss recent DNF's and/or changes to the cache hide.  For example, a cache might have 3 DNF's in the past week, but they were not flagged as "Helpful" as much as the older "Found It" logs from last month. The cacher will not see that the cache has a string of DNF's.  Another example, the CO might've adjusted the hide two weeks ago - a log from one week ago mentions the new hide and gets 1 Helpful vote, but logs from last month that mentioned the old hide got 5 Helpful votes - a cacher that sorts by "Most helpful" will see last month's logs that don't apply to the current hide.

 

ETA:  My examples are problematic whether the selection is sticky or not.  At least, if the selection is not sticky, then maybe the cacher will see the recent DNF's before selecting "Most helpful" and ending up with a not-so-helpful view.

 

Edited by noncentric
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, noncentric said:

I'm just concerned about how it's being tested.  From what I can tell, the 'helpful and 'great story' options are only available when viewing cache logs on the website.  If not available in the app, then the test is only in regards to cachers that read logs on the website.

 

I'm pretty sure that cachers usually refer to previous logs while they are searching for the cache, which means they are looking at the cache logs in an app or GPSr. They are not able to 'upvote' previous logs using those devices. So, they search for caches, then submit their logs. How many of those cachers are then going to open the cache page on the website just to flag the previous logs that they read during their search?

 

heh true. Maybe part of this 'test' is to see if it gets users to visit the website more often :P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, noncentric said:

I don't know how many cachers will notice that other logs have been 'upvoted' more than theirs, especially since many cachers don't go back to read through the logs of caches they've already "found".

 

Agreed.  We usually don't back unless to add a pic.  Maybe if someone marked it within a day or so we'd notice...

Sorta like how many actually go back to see that bells n whistles glitter flyin' with fireworks marquee for ftf.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, noncentric said:

Reminds me of how some cachers complained when they didn't get a Virtual Reward, yet other cachers did.  Some cachers may feel slighted if other logs are 'upvoted', even though they think their log is better.  Of course, the former was based on an algorithm, while the latter was based on human action, but the feeling of being 'slighted' by not getting 'upvoted' is similar.

I don't know how many cachers will notice that other logs have been 'upvoted' more than theirs, especially since many cachers don't go back to read through the logs of caches they've already "found".

 

18 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Agreed.  We usually don't back unless to add a pic.  Maybe if someone marked it within a day or so we'd notice...

Sorta like how many actually go back to see that bells n whistles glitter flyin' with fireworks marquee for ftf.    :)

 

I would say that most of us never think about going back to look at our old logs. But I can guarantee you that if this scoring/grading/upvoting, whatever you want to call it, comes into play, a lot of people would start doing it just to see if any positives came their way. 

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with trying to treat cache logs like product reviews, where 'helpful' is actually helpful, is that product reviews are for a static product that doesn't change over time the way caches do.

 

For example, someone reviews a particular phone like an iPhone 7. Those reviews are for that specific phone model, which doesn't substantially change over time. When the phone gets an upgrade, then it's a different model, like an iPhone 8. That upgraded product would then have a separate page with different reviews that are relevant for that upgraded phone model.

 

Cache logs are only helpful if the cache doesn't change. As long as the cache is always hiddent the same way and never goes missing, then previous cache logs are accurate. But caches change over time, so the best way to present cache logs are chronologically.

 

If cachers really, really, really want to have logs 'judged' - then maybe add a 'helpful'/'good story' counter to the log, but don't change the order of the logs because cachers need to see the sequential activity of the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently it would be best to leave it as it is:

- default sorting on "Newest"

- not make it sticky so people don't miss latest logs with essential info

 

Those who are not interested in this feature will not have to do anything, they can scroll down as before and see the logs in date-order. Those who are can use the sorting function. No harm for anyone. Well, except psychoanalyst's cases. :)

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/16/2018 at 7:11 PM, CanUSeeIT said:

I'm going to give this one a big thumbs down.

 

When I write a log, it's about what I thought about the cache, the find, the experience. My thoughts.

 

No matter whether the ratings are positive or negative, I don't want my logs being judged. That's what this is. Judging.

Well said!! 

Share this post


Link to post

This is perhaps the worst idea to come from GS. I missed this thread a few months back. 

 

Has this "Feature" been implemented?  I don't see the judgment icons on any logs of any caches I've seen.

 

I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT NOBODY GIVES ONE OF MY LOGS ANY TYPE OF UNFAVORABLE RATING.  THAT WOULD BE REASON TO FIND A CACHER - IN PERSON - AND DEMAND A REVISION FROM THEM.

 

Mu log is about MY experience with that cache, NOT as a data point to be rated by others - which then leads to a Challenge Cache based on the number of cache ratings of a certain type.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/17/2018 at 6:59 AM, CanUSeeIT said:

It absolutely is judgment. Even if you decide to say something is positive, you are making a judgment. And then Logs become like Forum posts. They are different things, and should remain so.

If this feature is put into place, most of my Finds will be posted as Notes. Assuming the reactions only apply to Found It Logs. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

If this feature is put into place, most of my Finds will be posted as Notes. Assuming the reactions only apply to Found It Logs. 

Or, start posting obvious spoilers in logs to get the Helpful Votes!

 

Or quote bits of "50 Shades..." to get the Great Story votes!

 

This is the kind of thing that may move people to quit logging finds, or leave the hobby entirely!

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, K13 said:

Or, start posting obvious spoilers in logs to get the Helpful Votes!

 

Or quote bits of "50 Shades..." to get the Great Story votes!

 

This is the kind of thing that may move people to quit logging finds, or leave the hobby entirely!

LOL. OK!

Share this post


Link to post

I think just a like would be enough. I feel far more important than this, would be the finders ability (premium membership and minimum number of finds, so the rating is not effected by beginners ignorance) to rate the difficulty and terrain (esp. terrain, as that's a safety issue). This would bypass those COs who won't rate anything higher than 1.5 stars.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I think just a like would be enough. I feel far more important than this, would be the finders ability (premium membership and minimum number of finds, so the rating is not effected by beginners ignorance) to rate the difficulty and terrain (esp. terrain, as that's a safety issue). This would bypass those COs who won't rate anything higher than 1.5 stars.

 

Perhaps not having 1.5/1.5 as the default on the new cache page, but rather force COs to actually set values, might go some way to addressing that. But no, the PTB seem hooked on the idea of having defaults for everything.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Perhaps not having 1.5/1.5 as the default on the new cache page, but rather force COs to actually set values, might go some way to addressing that. But no, the PTB seem hooked on the idea of having defaults for everything.

A particular geocacher (with many caches) I was thinking of when I made that comment (there are others who do this too), would still not rate any cache (even tricky terrain ones) higher than 1.5 stars. They do it on principle. A good suggestion (I too dislike default settings for geocaching), but it wouldn't work for many.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

A particular geocacher (with many caches) I was thinking of when I made that comment (there are others who do this too), would still not rate any cache (even tricky terrain ones) higher than 1.5 stars. They do it on principle. A good suggestion (I too dislike default settings for geocaching), but it wouldn't work for many.

Is that because they want their cache available yo Basic Members in the official app?  If so, then they should know the limit is now 2/2, so they can at least go to 2 if more appropriate to their cache. I don't know when it changed, but at least a couple months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Is that because they want their cache available yo Basic Members in the official app?  If so, then they should know the limit is now 2/2, so they can at least go to 2 if more appropriate to their cache. I don't know when it changed, but at least a couple months ago.

I suspect that's the reason. It was more than two months ago that I found some of their caches, so I'm not sure how they rate their caches now. But needing to climb to find a cache and only rated 1.5 stars. Ridiculous!

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, K13 said:

Has this "Feature" been implemented?  I don't see the judgment icons on any logs of any caches I've seen.

Only for caches in Norway. You'll see the buttons for each log if you view the cache page, on the website, for any Norway cache. And at the beginning of the logs section is a drop-down to sort the logs by these ratings, which I find problematic for reasons I already stated earlier in this thread.

 

I don't see any implementation in the official app, which led me to say that this "test is only in regards to cachers that read logs on the website".

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Only for caches in Norway. You'll see the buttons for each log if you view the cache page, on the website, for any Norway cache. And at the beginning of the logs section is a drop-down to sort the logs by these ratings, which I find problematic for reasons I already stated earlier in this thread.

 

I don't see any implementation in the official app, which led me to say that this "test is only in regards to cachers that read logs on the website".

 

I shudder to think that what "plays in Norway" may make it to the "big time" here. ( Does the GDPR allow for judging people's online comments? )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

GDPR is about personal information, not public posts and their "likes".

I do not think these new log FPs will be problematic as long as default log order stays at post time.

Edited by Pontiac_CZ
typo

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/30/2018 at 2:10 AM, K13 said:

I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT NOBODY GIVES ONE OF MY LOGS ANY TYPE OF UNFAVORABLE RATING.  THAT WOULD BE REASON TO FIND A CACHER - IN PERSON - AND DEMAND A REVISION FROM THEM.

 

If you did any digging, you'd see that the feedback is limited to "great story" and "helpful," so I don't see what you're up in caps lock about.  I rate your post "unfavorable" based on the disconnect from the facts at hand and the caps lock, and no, I'm not going to revise my rating.  :anibad:  

 

On 8/30/2018 at 6:26 AM, K13 said:

I shudder to think that what "plays in Norway" may make it to the "big time" here.

 

Let's be fair.  After all, Norway has given the world skiing, paper clips, aerosol cans, and the cheese slicer.  Maybe this is the next big thing.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hzoi said:

After all, Norway has given the world skiing, paper clips, aerosol cans, and the cheese slicer.

 

Having just had a good laugh at an “Only Fools And Horses” clip on another post, here’s one from another British comedy - ok, not quite Norwegian but it does include aerosol...  The Swedish Chemist Shop.

Share this post


Link to post

People think the positive ratings are actually negative because people don't get them will feel judged.

 

Now, maybe if someone doesn't want to feel positively judged (ie praised?) Groundspeak could implement an opt out for these ratings. To a degree, I could actually see that as useful. If someone only ever makes logs for themselves, they may not want their logs to have any additional visibility; force them to 'stay down' as it were. Then no worries that that log you posted last year suddenly got a bunch of 'great story's and popped to the top of the sorted list again.

Even so, all I understand about the negative reaction to these "judgments" is in comparing oneself to those receiving more kudos. Not a good recipe for happiness.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

People think the positive ratings are actually negative because people don't get them will feel judged.

 

Not everyone gets a trophy.  Life is hard sometimes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×