Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
hal-an-tow

If you were constructing an algortithm ...

Recommended Posts

If you were constructing an algorithm to select 'worthy' cache setters for some reward , lets say ownership of a virtual for instance , what criteria (both positive and negative) would you set ?

 

For rreasons of impartiality and fairness critera must be related to the cache setter's on-line caching information, we are devising a fantasy computer algorithm here, not conducting an election by popular vote. 

 

I'll kick off with:  'No caches archived by reviewer for lack of maintenance. '

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

If you were constructing an algorithm to select 'worthy' cache setters for some reward , lets say ownership of a virtual for instance

I think you'd need to start by understanding or at least considering what is possible in terms of site scraping. 

For instance, I think that a good indicator  of an interesting cache is log length - this site isn't set up to determine that, AFAIK. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

If you were constructing an algorithm to select 'worthy' cache setters for some reward , lets say ownership of a virtual for instance , what criteria (both positive and negative) would you set ?

 

 

I would set up a competition with public rules. For example number of favorites collected during the competition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

I'll kick off with:  'No caches archived by reviewer for lack of maintenance. '

 

This could be very difficult to automate.  I am regularly asked by Responsible Cache Owners to archive their old listing when I publish their new listing nearby, so they would be excluded unfairly if the algorithm searched for all archived caches where the archive log came from a reviewer.  Conversely, an archive log from a retired reviewer or lackey would not show up in the results if the algorithm searched for archive logs from the reviewer or lackey account types.

 

"Well then, just search for the word 'maintenance' in the archive log."  That won't work, either.  You would need to search in every language used by a reviewer worldwide.  Not all reviewers use the same template.  For example, I talk about the maintenance issue in my temp disable log or my reviewer note log.  The archive log is very short and sweet:  "As there's been no response to my prior note, I am archiving this cache page."

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

good indicator  of an interesting cache is log length

 

I've seen a LOT of lengthy cut n paste logs that go something like this:

 

Out for a day of geocaching with the xxxx group -- the group's xxxth outing.  It was on one of the coldest/hottest days of the year.   We found 52 caches and surpassed last month's find count by xx caches. A great day was had by all. Lots of fun and laughs over the entire day. We found xxx non-traditionals and now quality for 3 of xxx's challenge caches. Thanks xxxx for organizing the hike and thanks to all the CO's for their contributions to our adventures.

 

For some of my cache hides, 40% of the logs are lengthy cut n paste style logs. 

 

I agree with hal-an-tow, 'no caches archived by a reviewer for lack of maintenance' would be a priority requirement if I were constructing an algorithm. 

Another requirement, cache owner has logged into the site in the last year (I have yet to see evidence that cache owners who don't log in at least yearly to be exemplary owners). 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I am regularly asked by Responsible Cache Owners to archive their old listing when I publish their new listing nearby

 

Why wouldn't they archive their own listing? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
  • A good spread of D/T ratings.
  • A variety of basic concepts across their hides.
  • Relatively short "NM Log / Owner Response" intervals. Not necessarily the wrench-killing "OM" log; it could just be an acknowledging "Write Note" log.
  • Rare, if any, caches that feature: "I put one here because it needed it!"  or "..hate to waste the space!" or "Just a quick P&G...". I know people like those, but a good CO, in my opinion, would do more.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea of a variety of cache types.

Since Favorite Points weren't  even around until the end of 2010 ,I don't see how they factored in this time as well as the "future". 

 - Our area, we were the only ones who "went back" and logged many of the older caches done. 

Older caches that are rarely found today because of distance,  and simply have few FPs because of their age.

Share this post


Link to post

The thing to keep in mind is that you're still building a sort of spam-filter algorithm which is bound to produce false positives (and why I stopped blacklisting and work with a whitelist while quick-scanning everything that doesn't get through). There's no algorithm that can determine a "good cache owner" because there will always be exceptions to most every rule, even if only by mistaken actions.  With that in mind, you could form an algorithm, but it means being prepared for blowback.

It would be a matter of weighting various qualifications differently and providing a final overall 'score' as a good estimate, but not a guarantee, of good cache ownership.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

I would set up a competition with public rules. For example number of favorites collected during the competition.

A competition with public rules would lead to people gaming the system, doing things only because it scores points for the competition. I don't think that's a good thing for anything related to cache ownership.

 

And the number of Favorites collected during a specific time window would reward those who are prepared to place new caches in well-trafficked locations at the beginning of the competition time window. I'm not sure that's a good thing either.

 

A percentage of Favorites awarded might be useful, but still, not restricted to a competition time window. And some compensation for old caches where most of the Finds occurred before Favorites existed would be necessary.

 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Another requirement, cache owner has logged into the site in the last year (I have yet to see evidence that cache owners who don't log in at least yearly to be exemplary owners). 

If logging into or interacting with the site at least annually is a concern, then I think attaching this requirement to a reward algorithm is the wrong approach. I think it would be better to send cache owners email if they haven't logged into or interacted with the site in a year. The email would include a "yes, I'm still active" link that the cache owner could click, which would have them log into the site restart the one-year clock.

 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Why wouldn't they archive their own listing? 

I assumed from Keystone's description that they wanted one cache to replace another, so the old cache would be archived and the new cache would be immediately published. That way, one cache or the other would be available. The old cache wouldn't be archived until the new cache was being published. The only way to make that happen is to have the reviewer do both.

 

1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

A variety of cache types, not all trads or puzzles.

Why should someone be penalized because they like hiding only traditional caches? or only puzzle caches? or only multi-caches? or whatever else?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

A competition with public rules would lead to people gaming the system, doing things only because it scores points for the competition. I don't think that's a good thing for anything related to cache ownership.

 

You must agree that it is better with public rules than with secret rules. And how can you justify that making caches that collect many favorites is not good or does not relate to cache ownership? It is gaming because it is a competition.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I think you'd need to start by understanding or at least considering what is possible in terms of site scraping. 

For instance, I think that a good indicator  of an interesting cache is log length - this site isn't set up to determine that, AFAIK. 

 

 

 

 

It must be accessible somewhere as I've seen stats pages which indicate "average log length".   The API can be used to retrieve logs given a GC code.  It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to iterate over a COs hides,  retrieve the logs, then compute an average log length.    While a high average log length is likely a reasonable indicator there are quite a few geocachers that are extremely brief when posting found it logs.  I got a couple the other day on my cache with the highest number of favorite points that was just a smily face emoji.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Relatively short "NM Log / Owner Response" intervals. Not necessarily the wrench-killing "OM" log; it could just be an acknowledging "Write Note" log.

 

Agree with this one.   Another measure of owner responsiveness (which is, in an of itself, a metric for good cache ownership) is how responsive the owner is to multiple DNFs.  The algorithm would have to account for the difficulty of the hide as well.   There are some very difficult hides out there that rack up lots of DNFs.  Even though all of the DNFs are a result of simply not finding the cache, it's nice to see a CO occasionally post a OM log indicated that they've checked on the cache and it's there to be found.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

You must agree that it is better with public rules than with secret rules. And how can you justify that making caches that collect many favorites is not good or does not relate to cache ownership? It is gaming because it is a competition.

 

Ari - the English word "gaming" in this context has a special meaning.

 

It refers to how people will manipulate a collection of rules or a situation to get a result, regardless of the 'spirit' of those rules.

 

For example, consider a challenge where you're supposed to find a cache every day in the month of January.

On January 1st, you have a good day and find 31 caches, BUT, to get the Challenge, you file them one day at a time, as if you actually went out caching every day, which was the intent of the challenge. 

 

The rationale could be that your 'FIND' isn't official until you log it online, so the sixth find isn't complete until January sixth when you log it on the site, etc.

 

I can see the technical argument, but it's clearly not the intent of the challenge.

 

-------------------

Boy, do I know I'm gonna take heat for this one.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
Mis-spelling.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Ari - the English word "gaming" in this context has a special meaning.

 

I can see this but here we want to see all kind of "gaming" because it is a competition. In your example there is no competition and the "gamer" is just cheating himself. What you can do to win? Destroy your competitor's caches? It happens even without competition so it is possible side effect. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

 

I can see this but here we want to see all kind of "gaming" because it is a competition. In your example there is no competition and the "gamer" is just cheating himself. What you can do to win? Destroy your competitor's caches? It happens even without competition so it is possible side effect. :)

 

My definition lays out the meaning intended by niraD in his post.

"All kinds of gaming," as you say, was not what was being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

 

 

Why should someone be penalized because they like hiding only traditional caches? or only puzzle caches? or only multi-caches? or whatever else?

 

In my eyes, I wouldn't consider it penalizing.

 

If someone puts out great trads, I'll consider them a great cache hider.

 

If another player puts out great trads AND puzzles AND multis, I might have an even higher opinion, all other things being equal.

 

Call me crazy (please don't call me crazy), but I don't buy the competition side of this. In my eyes, you being 'great' doesn't diminish ME being 'great'.

 

That's especially true in this context, where (in most cases) interaction between hiders and cachers is transactional; I'm only doing THIS ONE right now. The fact that you have ten other hides doesn't matter.

 

This is truly a difficult topic. Is someone better simply because they have different TYPES of hides? No. But, if they're ALL great hides, then the quality to be admired is the ability to produce great work across the 'types', and not just in a specialty, where all your practice and learning goes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Keystone said:

The archive log is very short and sweet:  "As there's been no response to my prior note, I am archiving this cache page."

 

Then use this as the criteria for selecing caches disabled by reviwer: reviewer disables, no Owner Maintenance, reviewer archives. It's not perfect but might have a decent success rate.

 

Anyway back to the OP:

 

The prospective award recipient should have:

  1. No caches archived by reviewers (see above).
  2. Not having been a recipient of a previous "award".
  3. A reasonable response time to any NM logs, not necessarily an OM, but a note from the owner.
  4. A good favourite point percentage on logs since favs were introduced.
  5. A low (zero?) occurrence of short lived caches.
  6. There should be some evidence of recent participation, either logging onto the site, or the app, or the API, or responding to Emails, or maintaining their PM subscriptions.

The precise numbers for 3,4,5,6  could be tweaked during testing to produce the desired number of awards, so the fewer awards available the higher the thresholds would need to be set.

 

Criteria that I don't think should be considered:

  1. Number of caches owned.
  2. Any sort of competition against a published set of criteria.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

You must agree that it is better with public rules than with secret rules.

I'm not convinced of this, except perhaps if the public rules are general, rather than specific. With specific public rules, you'll get people doing things because it earns them points. I don't think there should be any incentive for owning a cache other than the desire to own and maintain a cache for the long term.

 

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

And how can you justify that making caches that collect many favorites is not good or does not relate to cache ownership?

In my experience, favorites themselves are not a useful indication of cache quality. Caches that are frequently visited will accumulate more Favorites than higher-quality caches that are visited infrequently. Measuring the percentage of Favorites is more useful, but is still biased in favor of caches placed after the creation of the Favorites system.

 

 

24 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

A reasonable response time to any NM logs, not necessarily an OM, but a note from the owner.

How can the system tell the difference between an owner logging "Just replace the wet log yourself" as opposed to an owner logging "The seal cracked, so I replaced the container"?

 

27 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Number of caches owned.

While I don't think someone who owns 100 caches should have an advantage over someone who owns 10, I think it could be useful to ignore those who own only one or two caches.

 

27 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Any sort of competition against a published set of criteria.

Absolutely. Any algorithm should be based on what cache owners have been doing on their own for as long as they have been hiding caches, not on what they do for a specified competition period to earn points according to specified rules.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

A low (zero?) occurrence of short lived caches.

 

Not sure about this, as sometimes there are circumstances where a short-lived cache is unavoidable, like if a month after the cache is published the bulldozers move in and destroy GZ. Natural calamities like fires and floods can also prematurely terminate a cache. One of my own hides only lasted a bit over a year before the roof of the cave it was in collapsed on top of it.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Not sure about this, as sometimes there are circumstances where a short-lived cache is unavoidable, like if a month after the cache is published the bulldozers move in and destroy GZ. Natural calamities like fires and floods can also prematurely terminate a cache. One of my own hides only lasted a bit over a year before the roof of the cave it was in collapsed on top of it.

Well I was unsure how to phrase that point, I was more thinking of filtering out owners who repeatedly put out caches and archive them after a matter of months.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I can see this but here we want to see all kind of "gaming" because it is a competition.

I thought we were trying to identify the "best" cache owners, not the winner of some popularity competition.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Touchstone said:

 A willingness to accept all the tools on the website ;)

image.png.b065869915ed25ba3b67a5c11cc14df8.png

 Yes, preferring e-mails which I habitually check for twice a day, every day , rather than messages through a website I often don't  look at for 4 or 5 days in a row makes me a bad cache owner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe one useful criterion would be to ask first if C.O.s are actually interested in owning a virtual cache. That would certainly reduce the number of unused awards given to inactive cachers.

 

And for the record, given the choice I think I'd probably opt out, I just don't have a great idea for using a virtual.

Share this post


Link to post

Explain to recipients that it is a REWARD, not a competition.  Prove this to them by considering ONLY cacher data from the time period prior to the announcement of the reward.

MY criteria:

1.  Solid maintenance history.

2.  High percentage of FP on caches placed after FP were instituted.

3.  Hider owns various cache types.

4.  Solid maintenance history.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

Then use this as the criteria for selecing caches disabled by reviwer: reviewer disables, no Owner Maintenance, reviewer archives. It's not perfect but might have a decent success rate.

 

How do you know it's a reviewer account if the reviewer has retired?  Several reviewers retire each year.  Their status reverts to "Basic Member" upon retirement.

 

Why is it fair to exclude cache owners whose caches are disabled by a reviewer, but not to exclude cache owners who disable their own cache, but then never do anything until a reviewer steps in, posts a reminder, and then archives?

 

Remember, we are constructing an algorithm here.  All criteria must be selectable in the database automatically without human intervention.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Keystone said:

How do you know it's a reviewer account if the reviewer has retired?  Several reviewers retire each year.  Their status reverts to "Basic Member" upon retirement.

If the account which archived the cache was not the same account which owned the cache at the time of archival, then that account must have been a reviewer, or a lackey (same difference), or GCHQ,  as nobody else has the ability to archive an account. 

 

4 hours ago, Keystone said:

Why is it fair to exclude cache owners whose caches are disabled by a reviewer, but not to exclude cache owners who disable their own cache, but then never do anything until a reviewer steps in, posts a reminder, and then archives?

At least someone taking action and disabling their cache is taking some responsible action. Or go back to the original idea (which you didn't like) of excluding anyone who had a cache archived by a reviewer - and use which ever of the two solutions produces the lest number of false positives.

 

4 hours ago, Keystone said:

Remember, we are constructing an algorithm here.  All criteria must be selectable in the database automatically without human intervention.

I was very careful to only suggest criteria which I believe should be possible via an algorithm using information available within the database, but as I don't have access to the database schema all I can do is guess. Which of the criteria do you think could not be determined algorithmically (now that I've answered your point about identifying retired reviewers)?

 

Also remember no algorithm  is going to be perfect for something like this, there will always be some who get "unfairly" penalised, and some who are undeserving who get through the selection; however it should be possible by adjusting the thresholds and criteria to come up with something which has a good success rate; or we could just accept that "it's too difficult" and not bother;  or just carry on with the existing secret algorithm - which has more holes than a thing with a lot of holes in it. I don't think anybody in this thread is expecting GCHQ to jump in and accept their suggestions as the be-all and end-all, the best we could hope for is that perhaps some of the devs might read the thread  and get some ideas on how to improve the algorithm they've previously used.

Edited by MartyBartfast
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I can see this but here we want to see all kind of "gaming" because it is a competition

 

And here is where I disagree.  The practices of 3 cache monty (container swapping, which is technically against the "replace the cache as found" guideline),  and divide and conquer (split the "team" up into multiple vehicles) are normally not acceptable for "regular" geocaching, but many that want to participate in a competition, by finding as many caches as possible on a power trail,  consider those practice to be acceptable to get as many caches as they can.    You can call geocaching a competition (I disagree that it is for everyone that plays the game) but a competition doesn't mean that anything goes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:
11 hours ago, Keystone said:

How do you know it's a reviewer account if the reviewer has retired?  Several reviewers retire each year.  Their status reverts to "Basic Member" upon retirement.

If the account which archived the cache was not the same account which owned the cache at the time of archival, then that account must have been a reviewer, or a lackey (same difference), or GCHQ,  as nobody else has the ability to archive an account. 

 

Yup ;)

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:
11 hours ago, Keystone said:

Remember, we are constructing an algorithm here.  All criteria must be selectable in the database automatically without human intervention.

I was very careful to only suggest criteria which I believe should be possible via an algorithm using information available within the database, but as I don't have access to the database schema all I can do is guess. Which of the criteria do you think could not be determined algorithmically (now that I've answered your point about identifying retired reviewers)?

 

Quote

Algorithm - a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.

 

Note especially rather than exclusively.

 

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

You can call geocaching a competition

 

I did not. Maybe you should read again what I wrote about this topic.

Share this post


Link to post

I know its not an algorithm but something that could be done to reward good CO is to make a vote and each geocacher can submit X number of people (to be determined) they think is worthy to the local reviewer and after a lapse of time close the poll and give the rewards to those who got the most vote in that reviewer area.

 

I know its not perfect for those living in remote area of the country/state but any algorithm would likely miss those too.

  

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

 

6. There should be some evidence of recent participation, either logging onto the site, or the app, or the API, or responding to Emails, or maintaining their PM subscriptions.

 

 

THIS FOR SURE.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd select users by the "interestingness" of their user name.

 

Specifically I'd look for users with three distinct words in their user name, one of which is a colour and one a shape. The other I don't care about.

 

That seems an entirely fair and reasonable way of defining what makes someone great. Doesn't it? </irony>

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Specifically I'd look for users with three distinct words in their user name, one of which is a colour and one a shape. The other I don't care about.

 

That seems an entirely fair and reasonable way of defining what makes someone great. Doesn't it? </irony>

 

How is that ironic? Making a funny while referring to yourself isn't irony. Now if I said that it "might" be.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think a CO with 100 hides is more worthy than a CO with 10 hides, but it would make sense to have some kind of threshold, five or ten hides to for example. 

 

I believe the time of how quickly CO responds to NM logs identifies the owners who care about their caches the most. Let it be OM, writing a note, or disabling the cache - all these show that owner is aware of the possible issue and is taking action to fix it.

 

Including favorite points to the algorithm seems a bit tricky to me. Caches placed in touristic places would have a higher FP percentage than more remote locations that are mostly visited by locals. I've cached in towns where the majority of local cachers don't hold premium membership so they can't award their favorite hides. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
9 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:
14 hours ago, Keystone said:

How do you know it's a reviewer account if the reviewer has retired?  Several reviewers retire each year.  Their status reverts to "Basic Member" upon retirement.

If the account which archived the cache was not the same account which owned the cache at the time of archival, then that account must have been a reviewer, or a lackey (same difference), or GCHQ,  as nobody else has the ability to archive an account. 

 

Yup ;)

Nope.

I'm aware of a cacher who transfers ownership of their caches to their 'basic account' which then archives the cache. Original cache owner account has no archived caches showing in their profile stats, while their 'basic account' has numerous archived caches. (No, they didn't receive one of the recent Reward Virtuals.)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, K13 said:

Nope.

I'm aware of a cacher who transfers ownership of their caches to their 'basic account' which then archives the cache. Original cache owner account has no archived caches showing in their profile stats, while their 'basic account' has numerous archived caches. (No, they didn't receive one of the recent Reward Virtuals.)

 

Meh.

 

I'd exclude them on principle for contravening the guidelines by having a sock account.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, K13 said:

Nope.

I'm aware of a cacher who transfers ownership of their caches to their 'basic account' which then archives the cache. Original cache owner account has no archived caches showing in their profile stats, while their 'basic account' has numerous archived caches. (No, they didn't receive one of the recent Reward Virtuals.)

This example is nothing to do with identifying whether the cache was archived by a reviewer, which is what my original point was, and what Keystone was questioning.

 

Also  in the  case you mentuon the human owner of the caches in question is still archiving their own caches (albeit under a different account) ,  and not letting them languish until a reviewer is forced to archive them, hence  under the criteria I stipulated the CO is taking responsibility for archiving their own caches and is therefore deserving of consideration for a reward.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:
 

You can call geocaching a competition

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I did not. Maybe you should read again what I wrote about this topic.

 

Am I missing something?   Aren't you saying here the geocaching is a competition?

21 hours ago, arisoft said:

I can see this but here we want to see all kind of "gaming" because it is a competition.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'd exclude them on principle for contravening the guidelines by having a sock account.

I don't see anything prohibiting the creation of additional accounts in either the hiding guidelines or the TOU. The forum guidelines prohibit certain uses of additional accounts, but that does not affect one's geocaching activity, only one's forum activity.

 

10 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

If the account which archived the cache was not the same account which owned the cache at the time of archival, then that account must have been a reviewer, or a lackey (same difference), or GCHQ,  as nobody else has the ability to archive an account. 

And you still run into the problem Keystone described earlier, where caches archived by a volunteer reviewer someone other than the CO can indicate responsible cache ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

And you still run into the problem Keystone described earlier, where caches archived by a volunteer reviewer someone other than the CO can indicate responsible cache ownership.

So if we consider  the different types of archival:

 

  1. CO archives their own cache because they're being responsible.
  2. Reviewer archives a cache because the CO is not taking responsibility.
  3. Reviewer archives a cache because they were asked to do so by the CO, who is being responsible.

 

I wonder how they would balance out percentage wise? I'm pretty sure that #3 would a miniscule percentage of the whole, and therefore would result in very few false positives - so how big a "problem" would it really be? and would that sacrifice be worth making in order to filter out the much larger issue being addressed in #2? I think it would.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bflentje said:

 

How is that ironic? Making a funny while referring to yourself isn't irony. Now if I said that it "might" be.

 

 

Because I got clothes without creases as a result.</ironing>

 

Now, seriously...

 

It strikes me that it's all very well to try and come up with an algorithm but, inherently, when you do that in these circumstances you tend to come up with something that favours yourself - your own caching traits, for example. Inherently you'll tend to a situation where you put "people like you" (not necessarily yourself) as the most likely to score highest via the algorithm. Of course, that's not always true, but given the nature of a lot of the discussion surrounding virtual awards it's very likely to trend towards that way. it's human nature.

 

I was being ironic when I made my suggestion - rather than anything else (say, for example, sarcastic). I added the tag to symbolise that was the case, that's all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Am I missing something?

 

You are missing the topic.

 

On 7.8.2018 at 6:41 PM, arisoft said:

I would set up a competition with public rules. For example number of favorites collected during the competition.

 

But you are not the only one. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, EggsTheBest said:

I believe the time of how quickly CO responds to NM logs identifies the owners who care about their caches the most. Let it be OM, writing a note, or disabling the cache - all these show that owner is aware of the possible issue and is taking action to fix it.

 

None of my thirty-something hides have ever received an NM, so how would you rate me, or any of the many others who'd be in the same situation, on this criterion? We're still an unknown quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

None of my thirty-something hides have ever received an NM, so how would you rate me, or any of the many others who'd be in the same situation, on this criterion? We're still an unknown quantity.

As neither negative, nor positive. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:
17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

None of my thirty-something hides have ever received an NM, so how would you rate me, or any of the many others who'd be in the same situation, on this criterion? We're still an unknown quantity.

As neither negative, nor positive. 

 

I would just hope that, in ranking COs for a reward, someone wouldn't be disadvantaged because their caches were sufficiently robust and well planned to have prevented any maintenance issues from having arisen, or they've been sufficiently on top of things to have nipped any problems in the bud before they've reached the NM stage.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, niraD said:

The forum guidelines prohibit certain uses of additional accounts, but that does not affect one's geocaching activity, only one's forum activity.

 

 

That's interesting.

 

I know of at least one sock puppet account which is a regular on the forums.. they've never posted anything but they usually appear soon after the genuine account has posted something. :lol:


As for the OP..

Good maintenance history
No reviewer intervention - maintenance reminders / archiving
High percentage of FP's to owned caches ratio
Regular CITO host / attendee

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×