If you were constructing an algorithm ...

[+niraD]

18 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

Good maintenance history

For the purposes of an algorithm that automatically evaluates the data available to it, what would "good maintenance history" mean? No active caches with the NM attribute? Short intervals between NM logs and OM logs? Something else?

 

20 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

No reviewer intervention - maintenance reminders / archiving

Less intervention from the volunteer reviewers is better than more, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say NO intervention. Some intervention (e.g., "Is construction still blocking access to this disabled cache?") is relatively minor.

 

22 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

High percentage of FP's to owned caches ratio

This would favor those who hide frequently visited caches over those who hide more remote and/or more challenging caches.

 

23 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

Regular CITO host / attendee

Is there a reason to single out CITO hosts above other event hosts?

[+MartyBartfast]

9 hours 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.

 

In my view people who DON'T  respond promptly to NM logs would receive a negative weighting, people who have no NMs and people who DO respond promptly would both be neutrally rated - so you'd be in the same boat as prompt responders.

 

[+MartyBartfast]

8 hours ago, niraD said:

 

8 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

High percentage of FP's to owned caches ratio

This would favor those who hide frequently visited caches over those who hide more remote and/or more challenging caches.

 

I'm not sure that's true as long as the percentage of FPs rather than the absolute number of FPs is used.

 

Remote/challenging caches are more likely to attract people who make a positive decision to go look for them, so as long as they are up to scratch then they're probably more likely to be awarded an FP; frequently visited caches are more likely to be in an area with a high footfall, or a cache dense area and so could be lost among many other cache finds on that visit. So using the % of FPs may actually favour infrequently found caches over frequently found ones.

 

 

 

[+arisoft]

From a geocachers view (meaning visiting geocaches) I see only marginal value for focusing maintenance cycles because I can see the maintenance status from the recent logs.

 

Will someone tell me what added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, arisoft said:

Will someone tell me what added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

First explain to us how the algorithm will decide which caches are interesting and to whom.

 

At least reaction time to maintenance is a metric that can be measured with some accuracy.

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

First explain to us how the algorithm will decide which caches are interesting and to whom.

 

At least reaction time to maintenance is a metric that can be measured with some accuracy.

 

You are trying to avoid my question. Tell me how fuzzy maintenance measurement is better than exact favorite point counting?

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, arisoft said:

9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

First explain to us how the algorithm will decide which caches are interesting and to whom.

 

At least reaction time to maintenance is a metric that can be measured with some accuracy.

 

You are trying to avoid my question. Tell me how fuzzy maintenance measurement is better than exact favorite point counting?

 

Strictly speaking I'm indirectly pointing out why your question is already based on a flawed premise.

 

Your second flawed premise is that counting favourite points is somehow a more accurate metric. I shouldn't need to point out to you how fuzzy those favourite points are in the first place.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Team Microdot
word choice

[+arisoft]

Just now, Team Microdot said:

Strictly speaking I'm indirectly pointing out why your question is already based on a flawed concept.

 

Your argument does not fit in this question. Please answer the question.

 

13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Will someone tell me what added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

Thanks!

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Strictly speaking I'm indirectly pointing out why your question is already based on a flawed concept.

 

Your argument does not fit in this question. Please answer the question.

 

Any answer to your question depends on your answers to the question your question raises.

 

If your question were not so poorly formed you might get more meaningful answers.

 

As it stands, I doubt it.

 

But I see that you are determined so good luck with it anyway

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If your question were not so poorly formed you might get more meaningful answers.

 

It might be poorly formed because your answers miss the question totally. So help me to reformulate the question.

 

24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by arisoft

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, arisoft said:

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If your question were not so poorly formed you might get more meaningful answers.

 

It might be poorly formed because your answers miss the question totally. So help me to reformulate the question.

 

26 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

 

 

Completely missing the point again. Deliberately and vexatiously, it would seem. And basically asking the same question just with slightly different words.

 

You appear to be favouring a metric which has no accurately measurable value against a metric which can be accurately measured, which seems rather pointless.

[+arisoft]

2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Completely missing the point again.

 

OK, then we must wait for the second opinion. Maybe someone else gets the point of the question:

 

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by arisoft

[+Hynz]

On 8/7/2018 at 7:10 PM, cerberus1 said:

I like the idea of a variety of cache types

I'm amazed that for quite some participants this seems important.

Does this mean when I have a couple of well received hiking multis I need also to own some guard rail and LP caches to be 'worthy'?

I like to see the desirable variety of available caches as a result of a variety of different owners who are hiding what they prefer to find themselves and not each serving the very broad taste of the collective.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Hynz
spelling

[+LFC4eva]

9 hours ago, niraD said:

For the purposes of an algorithm that automatically evaluates the data available to it, what would "good maintenance history" mean? No active caches with the NM attribute? Short intervals between NM logs and OM logs? Something else?

 

I don't actually believe that any automated algorithm could evaluate a "good maintenance history" sufficiently - but it would be a shame to see cachers with a poor maintenance history being rewarded.   

 

To me, having a good maintenance history would mean acting promptly to any issues on your caches.  Of course in reality, any CO can respond immediately to a NM log by posting an OM log despite not going anywhere near the cache.

 

Example Owner Maintenance log I see regularly - "I'll sort it out soon"  "It's not my fault the log is wet"  "if the DNF's keep mounting up this will be archived"

 

None of the above are active maintenance so unless there is going to be some human input during the algorithm process, it's not going to work.

 

9 hours ago, niraD said:

Less intervention from the volunteer reviewers is better than more, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say NO intervention. Some intervention (e.g., "Is construction still blocking access to this disabled cache?") is relatively minor.

 

I would hope the algorithm can distinguish between a Reviewer Note and a Reviewer Disable Listing / Reviewer Archive log.

 

9 hours ago, niraD said:

This would favor those who hide frequently visited caches over those who hide more remote and/or more challenging caches.

Not if it is implemented correctly it wouldn't.  A remote cache with 5 finds and 5 favourite points has exactly the same percentage FP's as the frequently visiting cache which has 1000 finds and 1000 FP's.

What I would hope to avoid is the algorithm seeking out CO's with high volumes of FP's scattered over high volumes of hides.  e.g. 2000 FP's when you own 1000 caches is not a high percentage FP's.. you might have 10 caches which are frequently visited which receive a high percentage of FP's  and 990 mediocre caches which receive none.

 

 

9 hours ago, niraD said:

Is there a reason to single out CITO hosts above other event hosts?

Yes - hosting / attending CITO events shows you have a genuine  desire to give something back to the community and the environment.. something which should be actively encouraged. 

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Will someone tell me what added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

The very nature of Virtuals  (the only category to so far be subjects for the "reward scheme") requires a response from the CO for every log, to validate and accept/reject responses and hence the logs; the same goes for Webcams, which have also been suggested as possible candidates for future awards. A CO with a proven track record of responding to issues promptly is likely to respond to the finders logs promptly.

 

Someone with "interesting" (which is highly subjective anyway and therefore, as has been pointed out, very difficult if not impossible to measure), does not necessarily show any tendency to deal with the paperwork required for a virtual/webcam.

 

Of course these two criteria are NOT mutually exclusive, so someone who places interesting caches and has a good track record on maintenance is still going to be in the running, doubly so if there was a way to reliably measure "interesting".

 

 

  

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 8/8/2018 at 12:12 AM, 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 simply wouldn't do it.  No algorithm can possibly select "worthy" cache hiders.  It's impossible.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

The very nature of Virtuals  (the only category to so far be subjects for the "reward scheme") requires a response from the CO for every log, to validate and accept/reject responses and hence the logs; the same goes for Webcams, which have also been suggested as possible candidates for future awards. A CO with a proven track record of responding to issues promptly is likely to respond to the finders logs promptly.

 

1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

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

 

As you see the reward can also be  something else than a virtual. Your explanation is understandable when the reward is for offering more work to do then there is a reason to select well known good workers. One rewarded virtual owner already complained me the job he did not foresee to come with a virtual. One way to select good new virtual owners is the number of deleted log entries because the majority of the job is to delete logs which does not qualify and it needs a special (stubborn) mentality.

 

But, if the reward is a charter membership?

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, arisoft said:

 

 

As you see the reward can also be  something else than a virtual. Your explanation is understandable when the reward is for offering more work to do then there is a reason to select well known good workers. One rewarded virtual owner already complained me the job he did not foresee to come with a virtual. One way to select good new virtual owners is the number of deleted log entries because the majority of the job is to delete logs which does not qualify and it needs a special (stubborn) mentality.

 

But, if the reward is a charter membership?

 

Does anybody have a paper bag?

[+coachstahly]

3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

But, if the reward is a charter membership?

 

What?  That's not possible so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I simply wouldn't do it.  No algorithm can possibly select "worthy" cache hiders.  It's impossible.

 

Do not underestimate the power of the algorithm. The problem is not in the algorithm but the definition of the "worthy". Sure there is many different opinions who is worthy and how. One measurement is favorites. The CO who collected the most new favorites during last month was quite "worthy" during last month. During the current month someone else may be the one.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

7 minutes ago, arisoft said:

But, if the reward is a charter membership?

 

What?  That's not possible so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up.

 

It's called waffling.

 

[+arisoft]

10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

What?  That's not possible so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up.

 

Of course it is possible but not reasonable. New virtuals also were not possible before this rewarding system. When you own your business you can do what you want to do.

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

As you see the reward can also be  something else than a virtual. 

 

Well the OP specifically mentioned  virtual rewards:

lets say ownership of a virtual for instance

so it's reasonable that most responses were aimed in that direction.

 

 

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

But, if the reward is a charter membership?

If the reward was charter membership then I guess the the criteria would have to include being in possession of a time machine so they can go back to the beginning and start paying:
 

Quote

 A Charter Member is a status applied to Geocachers who have been paying users of Geocaching.com since the site was first started.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

One way to select good new virtual owners is the number of deleted log entries because the majority of the job is to delete logs which does not qualify and it needs a special (stubborn) mentality.

 

Then only current virtual owners would qualify for new virtual rewards. 

 

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, LFC4eva said:

16 hours ago, niraD said:

This would favor those who hide frequently visited caches over those who hide more remote and/or more challenging caches.

Not if it is implemented correctly it wouldn't.  A remote cache with 5 finds and 5 favourite points has exactly the same percentage FP's as the frequently visiting cache which has 1000 finds and 1000 FP's.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the ratio of FP to owned caches. It seems you were referring to the ratio of FP to Finds, for one's owned caches. Or something like that.

 

 

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, Hynz said:

I'm amazed that for quite some participants this seems important.

Does this mean when I have a couple of well received hiking multis I need also to own some guard rail and LP caches to be 'worthy'?

I like to see the desirable variety of available caches as a result of a variety of different owners who are hiding what they prefer to find themselves and not each serving the very broad taste of the collective.

 

IIRC,   Reviewers pick others as possible Reviewers by caching experience, a variety of hides, and cache types,  including events.

[+Team Christiansen]

New parameter - disregarding old cache owner behavior.

 

Scenario

• Ten years ago, CO 1 places a dozen high quality caches and promptly responded to any NM logs. But now, he hasn't been very active; hasn't placed or found a cache for five years. And it just so happens that none of his caches have been flagged with an NM, NA, or multiple DNFs.
• Ten years ago, CO 2 places a number of caches that end up with NMs and NAs and eventually end up reviewer archived. But then after a few years, CO 2 resurfaces having gotten his act together, places 40 high quality caches, all with a high favorite-point percentage, and promptly responds to NMs.
• Three years ago, a couple years after CO 2 gets his act together, CO 3 joins the game and under CO 2's mentorship, places 25 high quality caches with like results of CO 2's recent caches.

Result

• CO 1 earns a virtual reward, but because he is now inactive doesn't place one. Didn't even know he earned one.
• Of course, CO 2 doesn't earn one because of his documented early bad-owner behavior.
• CO 3 earns virtual reward and as expected, places a great one.

Chances are, with his extra experience, CO 2 may have placed an equal or better virtual than CO 3, but his past behavior disqualified him.

Suggested parameter -- discount behavior older than some lengthy fixed period. 5 years -- 6 or 7? If not deregard completely, then significantly reduce its weight; such as 0-5 years - 100%; 5-10 years - 10%; 10+ years - no weight.

 

Thoughts?

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, Hynz said:

On 8/7/2018 at 10:10 AM, cerberus1 said:

I like the idea of a variety of cache types

I'm amazed that for quite some participants this seems important.

Some people like variety. Nothing surprising about that. What's disappointing is the leap from "I like variety" to "COs are only good if they cater to what I like." But about 90% of the suggestions in this thread are of that type, so I'm not sure why you picked on this one to be amazed about.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

Thoughts?

 

Good examples. Again this makes me thinking for what merits and why to give rewards. You took the timeline in the equation. For me it seems to be important factor. What happened 10 years ago is not important unless we are giving awards for a long career. In that case we should forget the CO3 for now because the short career. One important question is, should the algorithm punish the CO because he was sick few months eight years ago?

 

 

[+MNTA]

Honestly there is no such thing as a perfect algorithm. You will always include/exclude the wrong people. 

 

Having found 13 of the new virtual rewards deemed worthy to place a cache, I'd give some A+ and some not so great.

 

Instead of another algorithm that someone will complain about. I'd rather see a formal evaluation process more stringent than just going through a single reviewer. Really justify why a virtual really makes sense and why a traditional cache does not work. For instance park regulations, fear of terrorism etc. Earthcaches are already doing this. Possibly have a mechanism which local premium members can vote up/down or give input on proposed virtuals or even nominate sites. 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Another thought I had that I'm sure wouldn't fly, but would address the vagueness of 'reviewer action' -- was it due to an error or fault on the CO part, or an unavoidable circumstance that the CO shouldn't be punished for?  Reviewer could flag a sort of demerit if the action they take is due to negligent CO behaviour. The demerits would be taken into account by the CHS over the long term, and could also be weighted by other factors. But... that means a reviewer judgment; and even if 100% private (ltd to tptb), it's effectively another 'ugly baby' call I'm sure they wouldn't want to make. Unless it were a strict guideline violation that has no subjective weight at all.  That would help distinguish 'immediate construction required disabling' vs 'owner not responding to NM logs'.

But this is more an exploration of how to better identify reviewer action due to circumstance vs 'bad co behaviour', than an actual suggestion of something to implement. Without having the analyse and algorithmically interpret log text content.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

Suggested parameter -- discount behavior older than some lengthy fixed period. 5 years -- 6 or 7? If not deregard completely, then significantly reduce its weight; such as 0-5 years - 100%; 5-10 years - 10%; 10+ years - no weight.

 

Thoughts?

I think it makes sense to focus on relatively recent behavior as a cache owner (i.e., what have you been doing as a cache owner for the past few years), but I think it also makes sense to give a bonus if that pattern extends for more years.

 

Someone who started hiding caches 3 years ago and has been responsible could have a similar score to someone who was an irresponsible cache owner 10 years ago, but has been a responsible cache owner for the past 3 years. But someone who has been a responsible cache owner for 10 years could have better score than either of them.

[+barefootjeff]

17 hours ago, arisoft said:

Will someone tell me what added value the community will get, if this speculated rewarding algorithm focuses on, for example, reaction time for NM and DNF logs instead of interesting caches to visit?

 

I would hope that reaction time for DNF logs wouldn't become part of any algorithm. I just saw this DNF log on a cache on my watchlist:

 

Quote

Didn't find it

I've been here twice, and chickened out twice at way point 1....maybe another day

 

Just how is a CO meant to respond to a DNF like that? Or two of them, if he'd logged a DNF for the first time he chickened out? Or several more if he brings some mates with him next time and they all chicken out?

[+Rathergohiking]

Percentage of favorites. 

Variety of cache types. 

Variety of container types. 

Variety of cache sizes. 

Variety of D/T ratings. 

 

Anyone scoring high on those is highly likely to hide great caches.  Should focus on positive accomplishments not subjective behavior (response to DNFs, etc.) Just my opinion. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Rathergohiking

[+coachstahly]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

Having found 13 of the new virtual rewards deemed worthy to place a cache, I'd give some A+ and some not so great.

 

I've found 11 and would have to agree with the above.  I would also say that this holds true for the original virtuals still in play as well.

[+funkymunkyzone]

13 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Do not underestimate the power of the algorithm. The problem is not in the algorithm but the definition of the "worthy". Sure there is many different opinions who is worthy and how. One measurement is favorites. The CO who collected the most new favorites during last month was quite "worthy" during last month. During the current month someone else may be the one.

Favourite points are horribly flawed as a measure of anything but a general guide of how popular a cache hide is.  Note I said popular, not good.

 

PS you completely misquoted me in an earlier post.

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Favourite points are horribly flawed as a measure of anything but a general guide of how popular a cache hide is.  Note I said popular, not good.

 

 

100% agree 

 

You also have to remember not everyone even gives out favorites even when well deserved. So even favorite % is not a good metric. 

 

 

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Favourite points are horribly flawed as a measure of anything but a general guide of how popular a cache hide is.  Note I said popular, not good.

 

Because you tends to give your favorites to your friends, not to good caches?

 

Can you give some examples of caches which have got many favorites recently but are not good caches.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, Rathergohiking said:

Percentage of favorites. 

Variety of cache types. 

Variety of container types. 

Variety of cache sizes. 

Variety of D/T ratings. 

 

Anyone scoring high on those is highly likely to hide great caches.  Should focus on positive accomplishments not subjective behavior (response to DNFs, etc.) Just my opinion. 

 

• Cache types - once you get away from the big three (traditional, multi and mystery) the rest become rather specialised (LBH, Wherigo), unavailable to the average cacher (mega, giga, lab and HQ caches) or grandfathered (virtual, webcam, locationless, Project APE, etc.).
• Container types - not sure how an algorithm is supposed to figure this out since it isn't recorded anywhere in the database, but even so, I refuse to use a film pot or mint tin just to increase my container type score.
• Cache sizes - it'd probably be difficult for most cachers to find somewhere they could hide a large (>20l) container. I also wouldn't want to be compelled to hide micros and nanos to broaden my cache sizes, nor would I want to see an explosion of micros (currently 18% of hides here) as others in the community who normally hide smalls and regulars try to boost their size score.
• Even if you don't consider the likelihood of people faking their D/T ratings to boost their score, sometimes specialisation is good. Most of my hides are in the D1-D3 and T3-T5 range and are generally well received. I have one D4 puzzle that's only had two finders since it was published in February, so clearly that's not my forte. Likewise my one and only T1.5 (my first hide) was pretty bland and the only one of my hides not to get any FPs. Pushing hiders outside their comfort zone is likely to result in some poorer quality hides, like a needle-in-a-haystack nano or read-my-mind puzzle just to get a D5 ticked off.

[+MartyBartfast]

6 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Favourite points are horribly flawed as a measure of anything but a general guide of how popular a cache hide is.  Note I said popular, not good.

 

I agree it's not a very useful measure, I've thought since it was introduced that a scoring system along the lines of GCvote would be more useful and would produce more reliable results, particularly if it was available to all and not just Premium Members.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

100% agree 

 

You also have to remember not everyone even gives out favorites even when well deserved. So even favorite % is not a good metric. 

 

 

 

However that same effect influences favorite points for all caches.    If a subset of all geocachers doesn't give out favorites for caches that deserve them that effect applies equally to all deserving caches, thus comparing the % of favorite points still provides a useful, but perhaps not perfect metric.  

[+IceColdUK]

The main problem with FPs is their subjectivity, and this can go well beyond the actual cache and its location.

 

Of course the ‘quality’, ingenuity, originality, etc. of the cache (and/or puzzle) and the beauty, challenge, interest, etc. of the location play a big part in my decision to award a FP, but there are other factors that have little to do with the cache per se that also influence me to some extent:

 

- Maybe the thrill of an FTF hunt;

- Maybe it helps me towards a personal goal or a challenge, such as an unusual cache type in a new country;

- Maybe a memorable experience along the way;

- Or a ‘cumulative’ award for an arbitrary cache in a good series.  (As a side discussion, should ‘bonus’ caches be excluded from any algorithm?)

- I don’t think I award friends disproportionately, but subconsciously, who knows?

 

All that said, I think they’re the best we’ve got to identify good / popular / interesting / unusual caches.  Absolute numbers shouldn’t be used, but as a percentage of PM finds (made since FPs were introduced) seems a reasonable measure.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

All that said, I think they’re the best we’ve got to identify good / popular / interesting / unusual caches.  Absolute numbers shouldn’t be used, but as a percentage of PM finds (made since FPs were introduced) seems a reasonable measure.

 

I expect that the 'Wisdom of Crowds', over time, makes FP's a far more useful metric than some would have us believe.

 

Quote

Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts

 

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Because you tends to give your favorites to your friends, not to good caches?

 

Can you give some examples of caches which have got many favorites recently but are not good caches.

 

This isn't really recent, but in 2012 Geowoodstock was in the area and this got LOTS of FPs over the course of two weeks.  I found it cute, but it wasn't a good cache as I define it (another problem when it comes to defining good).  It was a fake plastic bass, hanging from a fishing line, with a film can inside its mouth in a parking lot near a shopping center.  It jumped into the top 10 FP cache in the state after Geowoodstock came through but is now #20.

 

https://coord.info/GC2KYXG

 

I would venture to guess that this one accrued a hefty percentage of its FPs in May of this year when the giga Geowoodstock was in town across the river.  I haven't found it but it's my assumption that it's a rubber snake in a container in a LPC, that pops out when opened.  Cute, yes, but good?  Not by my definition.  However, it's now #9 in Indiana.

 

https://coord.info/GC2PJNC

 

 

[+arisoft]

9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

This isn't really recent, but in 2012 Geowoodstock was in the area and this got LOTS of FPs over the course of two weeks.  I found it cute, but it wasn't a good cache as I define it (another problem when it comes to defining good).  It was a fake plastic bass, hanging from a fishing line, with a film can inside its mouth in a parking lot near a shopping center.  It jumped into the top 10 FP cache in the state after Geowoodstock came through but is now #20.

 

https://coord.info/GC2KYXG

 

I would venture to guess that this one accrued a hefty percentage of its FPs in May of this year when the giga Geowoodstock was in town across the river.  I haven't found it but it's my assumption that it's a rubber snake in a container in a LPC, that pops out when opened.  Cute, yes, but good?  Not by my definition.  However, it's now #9 in Indiana.

 

https://coord.info/GC2PJNC

 

 

Both of these examples are quite old caches and I think that they do not collect so many favorites now. Currently 182/236. My own cache https://coord.info/GC2JTFK which is about as old has collected more favorites (300) but the overall percentage is much lower. Let's see after few weeks if there is any change.

 

My idea is to evaluate the COs by number of new favorites. If one CO do not get any and another CO gets many, the second must be more favorable to the community just now. Favorites from earlier years do not count in this method.

 

 

 

[+MartyBartfast]

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

My idea is to evaluate the COs by number of new favorites.

Why are favourites awarded recently of more value than favourites awarded several years ago?

 

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, arisoft said:

My idea is to evaluate the COs by number of new favorites. If one CO do not get any and another CO gets many, the second must be more favorable to the community just now. Favorites from earlier years do not count in this method.

 

Then your idea is flawed.

 

Firstly because FP's are award to caches - not to CO's.

 

Secondly because some CO's get FP's for all sorts of reasons even though their caches / maintenance thereof sucks.

 

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Why are favourites awarded recently of more value than favourites awarded several years ago?

 

Good question. It is practically the same I asked earlier, why quick response to NMs or DNFs is more valuable than good caches. My answer is that for me the current situation matters when we are speaking about new (virtual) caches. If we want to honor someone for long career the new (virtual) cache may not be the best or eligible award at all. The honorary membership suit better for that situation.

[+baer2006]

15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Secondly because some CO's get FP's for all sorts of reasons even though their caches / maintenance thereof sucks.

I fully agree. In my community, it's absolutely standard procedure to give FPs based on an "ideal" state of the cache. I.e., a cache with one or more outstanding features gets lots of FP regardless of its current state of repair. That's especially true for complex multis and night caches. Even if they are impossible to find without the help of the CO and/or previous finders because of missing or defective stages, they get FPs, if the overall experience is still great. I'm guilty of this as well .

 

So lots of FPs and good maintenance behavior by the CO are loosely correlated at best, or even not at all.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

It was a fake plastic bass, hanging from a fishing line, with a film can inside its mouth

 

I see this a lot. Plastic animals with a micro in the mouth or butt (most often listed as small --nice to see that the bass is listed as micro) get lots of FPs. It's a cheap easy way to get one's FP score up. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by L0ne.R