Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
SuperKrypto

tagging people's logs as great story or helpful

Recommended Posts

just saw this awful new element: the ability to vote on someone's log as a 'great story' or 'helpful' - this is really crappy i think - logs are not competitions or sources for other people's entertainment or education - i don't write my logs for others beyond being respectful not to swear or post spoilers

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SuperKrypto said:

logs are not competitions or sources for other people's entertainment or education

 

Says you.

 

I write logs to be entertaining and/or useful.  Tell a story, mention trail conditions, report all-is-well with the cache, that sort of thing.

 

This appears to be a limited test rollout, and it looks like your feedback on the feature will cancel out mine.  I like it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I generally like the idea. I can float the helpful stuff to the top, then make my decision about whether I want to hunt for the cache. Or I can float the helpful stuff to the top when I can't find the cache and need to know if anyone left remarks that might help, like cache was a few metres off or isn't where the hint says it is, etc. 

 

But like most tools on the site, I'm worried this feature will get abused. Used by the numbers players for statistics, grid-filling and competition and end up not helpful.  

Edited by L0ne.R
Grammar
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Or I can float the helpful stuff to the top when I can't find the cache and need to know if anyone left remarks that might help, like cache was a few metres off or isn't where the hint says it is, etc.

This is inevitably what the "Helpful" flag will become: a way to indicate the spoiler or semi-spoiler logs. I can also foresee various instances where the conditions at GZ will change, people will be searching based on the old "Helpful" logs, and will DNF/NM/NA based on out-of-date information because they aren't looking at the more recent logs.

 

I could be proven wrong and the flags may become mildly useful for some, but I'm not sure it's worth the development time when there are so many pre-existing issues that need to be dealt with or functionality that many more members have asked for.

 

Quote

But like most tools on the site, I'm worried this feature will get abused. Used by the numbers players for statistics, grid-filling and competition and end up not helpful.

I have no doubt that these will become a stat, even if only unofficially. I expect there to be some regional (or wider) leaderboards where some members compete for the most "Helpful" or "Great story" "points", complete with unintended usage of the feature, getting friends to up-vote logs that aren't deserving, etc.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I'm not sure it's worth the development time

 

 

It's been developed. It's working now. (I won the limited-rollout lottery this time).  I think Frog HQ just needs to figure out if people want it.

 

Sorting by helpful / good story is quick and slick.

 

And, I think it'll encourage better logs. I'm hugely in favor of that.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Viajero Perdido said:
1 hour ago, SuperKrypto said:

logs are not competitions or sources for other people's entertainment or education

 

Says you.

yeah obs but i should have said i don't consider logs as such - i did overreact when i first saw these features but i still don't care for them - i would not like people's logs to be a competition of 'likes' - and i don't want people to be commenting on my logs like it's a forum

Edited by SuperKrypto
clarity
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

(I won the limited-rollout lottery this time)

This time it's a region-based beta. They started with making it available on Norwegian caches, and now they've expanded it to Canadian caches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

This time it's a region-based beta. They started with making it available on Norwegian caches, and now they've expanded it to Canadian caches.

 

Thanks for that.  Checked my area JIC.   :)

 I didn't see "Unhelpful"  for the guy leaving a couple dozen cut n paste logs on everything but the cache visited. 

 - That I could use...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

There's already been extensive debate about the feature in concept when it first rolled out in the initial country.  This is one of those features that doesn't actively make anything worse, it really is just an added feature for people who use it, and if not, it's nothing.  Yep, it could be abused, like any self-contained little feature of the website. Same arguments were made for favourite points when they launched.  That's even a stat, and as far as we know this isn't. If it's made a stat unofficially, then it's even more unimportant to we who wouldn't care.  Heck if people compete to get the most votes, would that not be a good thing? Because better logs? Honestly, I don't see why there's complaints about this... if there was a downvote option I could understand much of the criticism.  But the features here, really, are only beneficial.

 

Spoilers? Well the CO is the one who really decides what's spoilerworthy in the logs and photos posted to their listing. At worst, a previous finder might wait a while, then edit a previous log to include spoiler content the CO wouldn't know about. In that case the votes don't it any good - it'll bubble up if it's noticed, but if the CO is attentive then it'll get reported real quick. If the CO isn't attentive, then they either don't care, don't know (yet), or are AWOL. That's about the worst that could happen, imo, based on the current structure of the feature. Everything else is beneficial, if used.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 28. 9. 2018 at 9:51 PM, SuperKrypto said:

just saw this awful new element: the ability to vote on someone's log as a 'great story' or 'helpful' - this is really crappy i think - logs are not competitions or sources for other people's entertainment or education - i don't write my logs for others beyond being respectful not to swear or post spoilers

 

Why awful? My log can get nothing (as it is today) or earn one of these "Great story" or "Helpful" points. As long as these are positive points only I don't see how anyone could have problems with them. :blink: 

 

By the way, you post your logs to a public cache page, everyone can read them (even not-logged-in visitors!) so you actually DO write your logs for others as well...

 

I will only appreciate if this triggers competing regarding better logs - many of them today are a "TFTC" ones or those long copy'n'paste whole-trip-descriptive ones (this type is on the rise). Cachers sure may continue writing them, no problem, and they will continue not getting these new FPs for them, no problem. But some write nice unique stories and I would like to be able to easily get to them even if they are burried under tons of junk over time.

 

Also from a cache owner's perspective: this can become a useful tool for me to easily check for spoilers on my caches if people tag such logs as "Helpful".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 9/28/2018 at 2:51 PM, SuperKrypto said:

just saw this awful new element: the ability to vote on someone's log as a 'great story' or 'helpful' - this is really crappy i think - logs are not competitions or sources for other people's entertainment or education - i don't write my logs for others beyond being respectful not to swear or post spoilers

I know I will make someone mad by posting this, but if this voting feature is implemented my future logs are likely to be this:

.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

I know I will make someone mad by posting this, but if this voting feature is implemented my future logs are likely to be this:

.

I've checked a couple of your recently found caches and realized that you like to share nice stories with the world. I am quite puzzled as to why you would stop doing that just because you might be given "Great story" or "Helpful" on them... But I respect such a decision.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 28/09/2018 at 9:29 PM, The A-Team said:

I can also foresee various instances where the conditions at GZ will change, people will be searching based on the old "Helpful" logs, and will DNF/NM/NA based on out-of-date information because they aren't looking at the more recent logs.

 

^ This is the only real downside I can see.

 

Otherwise, anything to encourage better logs has to be welcome, surely?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

Otherwise, anything to encourage better logs has to be welcome, surely?

Sure, but it remains to be seen whether this feature would actually encourage "better" logs. Instead, it might just encourage long logs that tell a "great story" completely irrelevant for the cache in question, or more spoilers in a misguided attempt to be more "helpful".

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Sure, but it remains to be seen whether this feature would actually encourage "better" logs. Instead, it might just encourage long logs that tell a "great story" completely irrelevant for the cache in question, or more spoilers in a misguided attempt to be more "helpful".

Yep.

Near me a few have exceedingly-long cut n paste logs, talking more of the number of caches, who they're with (a lot of those - "out with so n so on a lovely fall day...") , with maybe a sentence or two tops on the actual cache found.

To a new person, this may look like someone who really enjoys the game and "helpful".  Sort of similar to "Like"....

To us,  it's the same cut n paste log presented on every cache found in the area that day (with maybe a sentence ending differently), and we're told by them it's just for some stat site thing on "log length" ...

 

We see a bit of "creativity" when it comes to giving others hints on the cache page ("Luckily my boyfriend's a tall fella"), not seeing the "it's behind the rail" like a newbie might leave.

I can see that creativity being pegged as "helpful", but it is just a spoiler.   :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

and we're told by them it's just for some stat site thing on "log length" ...

ARRRRRRRGH!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

To a new person, this may look like someone who really enjoys the game and "helpful".

 

Maybe the first time, but do you really think even a newbie is gonna to like the same cut & paste log over and over again?  Give people some credit.  Surely, the lack of appreciation of these logs will tell their own story.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

or more spoilers in a misguided attempt to be more "helpful".

 

This is a danger, but that’s still up to the COs to deal with.  Checking for the ‘most helpful’ logs may actually give them a tool to help. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/1/2018 at 10:50 AM, thebruce0 said:

There's already been extensive debate about the feature in concept when it first rolled out in the initial country.  This is one of those features that doesn't actively make anything worse, it really is just an added feature for people who use it, and if not, it's nothing.  Yep, it could be abused, like any self-contained little feature of the website. Same arguments were made for favourite points when they launched.  That's even a stat, and as far as we know this isn't. If it's made a stat unofficially, then it's even more unimportant to we who wouldn't care.  Heck if people compete to get the most votes, would that not be a good thing? Because better logs? Honestly, I don't see why there's complaints about this... if there was a downvote option I could understand much of the criticism.  But the features here, really, are only beneficial.

 

Favourite points started as something like this that didn't matter, and then they got abused.... by Groundspeak... judging who is the better cacher, and which is the better cache, by favourite points.  Just wait until cachers get judged by how many helpful or great story votes their logs get.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Just wait until cachers get judged by how many helpful or great story votes their logs get.

 

We judge each other all the time.  It's part of living in society.

 

Better writing = better communication = better judgements.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

We judge each other all the time.  It's part of living in society.

 

Better writing = better communication = better judgements.

 

Well, I meant judged and announced as officially better cachers, rewarded, etc... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Favourite points started as something like this that didn't matter, and then they got abused.... by Groundspeak... judging who is the better cacher, and which is the better cache, by favourite points.

 

nah, favourite points are a very subjective, vague gauge of quality. GS doesn't say X favourite points is a good cache, or x upvotes is a good log. The closest they get is ordering caches by favourites - and we decide what we consider 'good'. There's no "A good cache has X favourites". The only judgment I see promoted by any official structure, is 'popular caches are likely to have more favourite points', and everyone gets that even then, a day old popular cache most likely won't have as many favourites as a year old mediocre cache.

 

 

5 hours ago, IceColdUK said:
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

To a new person, this may look like someone who really enjoys the game and "helpful".

 

Maybe the first time, but do you really think even a newbie is gonna to like the same cut & paste log over and over again?  Give people some credit.  Surely, the lack of appreciation of these logs will tell their own story.

 

Yep, complaining because a generally-considered not-so-good log gets one or two 'heplful' or 'great story' votes is like saying a cache with 2 favourites is objectively better than every cache with fewer points.  A cache with one or two favourite points doesn't really mean much at all if it's been found a lot... Once it hits 15-30 or more depending on lifetime find count, then I'll start thinking 'hey this could actually be a good cache'

If I'm scrolling through 50 logs, I'm likely not going to be stopping, deceptively led to believe that a log with 1 or 2 upvotes is actually helpful. I might pause a second, but that's about it if it looks to me like a c/p log. And if I sort by most helpful first, it's unlikely a 1-2 vote c/p log will be top of the list. And if it it, it's unlikely there's an actually helpful log; and I'd be left browsing the logs as if they were just logs anyway. So, no loss, really.

 

What it comes down to is choice. Good bubbles up. I can choose at what point I consider logs and votes to be worthwhile; that's not dictated by hq.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

nah, favourite points are a very subjective, vague gauge of quality. GS doesn't say X favourite points is a good cache, or x upvotes is a good log. The closest they get is ordering caches by favourites - and we decide what we consider 'good'. There's no "A good cache has X favourites". The only judgment I see promoted by any official structure, is 'popular caches are likely to have more favourite points', and everyone gets that even then, a day old popular cache most likely won't have as many favourites as a year old mediocre cache.

 

 

I think you're forgetting the reward for "the top 1% of geocachers in the community" based at least partially on number of favourite points...  GS did say that.

 

Other than that, I agree that favourite points are "a very subjective, vague gauge of quality".

Edited by funkymunkyzone

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I think you're forgetting the reward for "the top 1% of geocachers in the community" based at least partially on number of favourite points...  GS did say that.

 

Well first, that was owners, not caches by favourite points, even though caches with higher favourite points likely weighed the owner score better.  But they basically admitted that the wording was not taken as intended when they reworded it. And I can understand the mistake. Statistically, yes they ordered stuff by quantity (said as much above), but took an arbitrary max count off the top. And as I intimated looong ago, if there was a tie for say 100,000 people, only 1000 were chosen, so that arbitrary cut off can't fundamentally imply that #1001 is any 'worse' than #999, only that they didn't get selection. They explained at some point that there was no hand selection (other than pre-selection like reviewers); it was algorithmically pulled, which means there must have been some kind of tie unless the 'score' structure ranged up into the millions to avoid any potential "tie" at the cut off. Basically, it's pointless to try to put some objective standard on a rating system like favourite points merely because the wording of the reward system could be inferred to state as much.

So no, once again the points system only implies that more is, well, more popular and only per the lifetime it's been collecting. It's absolytely not an objectively "better" rating to be compared evenly across the board. No one in their right mind could possibly think that.

 

In the context of log votes, it's all relative. How long as the log been visible? How many people have seen it? How many people have found the cache? What region is the cache in and what's the community makeup lake? How many points have been handed out in the listing relative to others in the same?  All things that people who are already scanning through the log history will most likely be taking into consideration naturally. And again, even then, without that extra vote detail, the worst experience is the native one - scrolling through endless logs chronologically manually skimming content until something pops out.  Any indication that it could be worthwhile to spend a few more seconds skimming one is helpful at that point.

Share this post


Link to post

 

19 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

To us,  it's the same cut n paste log presented on every cache found in the area that day (with maybe a sentence ending differently), and we're told by them it's just for some stat site thing on "log length" ...

 

18 hours ago, niraD said:

ARRRRRRRGH!

 

You just need to introduce them to the Log Similarity stats (on ProjectGC).

 

Now, try keeping the log length up and the similarity down - that'll confuse them enough that they might even realise that stats that get manipulated deliberately are just boring.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Well first.... <snip>

That's a lot of words Bruce, but mostly not relevant to this discussion. There are a few things I would debate but...

 

The point is that favourite points were created as a vague subjective indication of how "liked" a cache was, until such time GS decided to use it as an objective measure, part if an algorithm, to judge (and reward) who was the better geocacher. GS admitted they did this. Any discussion of the algorithm beyond that is not relevant to this discussion.

 

I actually think that the great story and helpful log buttons are a cool idea.

 

Until GS decides to use them as an objective measure of who is a better geocacher based in any part on how many great story or helpful logs each geocacher has collected.  And based on what happened with favourite points, as above, I dont trust GS to resist the temptation.

 

Edit to add:

PS - straight from the horse's mouth today (the bold is mine): "Searching by Favorite points also offers a time-saving advantage, since you sort the search results to find the best geocaches in an area!"

Edited by funkymunkyzone
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

IMO, this is a feature that will get little use. Generally speaking, I won't know if a log is useful until I am out in the field. At that time, I can't upvote the log, my GPSr does not, and will never support that feature. To upvote a log, I will have to remember to do it at a later time. Sorry, I'm not going to do that extra work. If I won't, I know there are others that won't also. Therefore, I wonder about the usefulness of a log upvoting system. There are so many ways that one can look at a log (website, API, app, GPS, etc.) How many of those ways will support log upvoting? Because of all this, IMO upvotes will be skewed to people that are researching whether or not to go for the cache, and not by people that have been to the cache. So, I see more upvotes for logs by people that think the log is helpful, rather than for logs that actually were helpful.

 

Smartphone users might use this feature, provided that whatever app they are using has a real easy, unobtrusive way to mark the log. If it pops to a confirmation screen, or takes me away from looking at the remainder of the logs, I wouldn't use it. Will all of the various apps support this feature? Is it even in the API to where it could be used?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

IMO, this is a feature that will get little use. Generally speaking, I won't know if a log is useful until I am out in the field. At that time, I can't upvote the log, my GPSr does not, and will never support that feature. To upvote a log, I will have to remember to do it at a later time. Sorry, I'm not going to do that extra work. If I won't, I know there are others that won't also. Therefore, I wonder about the usefulness of a log upvoting system. There are so many ways that one can look at a log (website, API, app, GPS, etc.) How many of those ways will support log upvoting? Because of all this, IMO upvotes will be skewed to people that are researching whether or not to go for the cache, and not by people that have been to the cache. So, I see more upvotes for logs by people that think the log is helpful, rather than for logs that actually were helpful.

 

Smartphone users might use this feature, provided that whatever app they are using has a real easy, unobtrusive way to mark the log. If it pops to a confirmation screen, or takes me away from looking at the remainder of the logs, I wouldn't use it. Will all of the various apps support this feature? Is it even in the API to where it could be used?

 

 

Good point, although it raises the question of what defines "helpful".  It appears, and I may be wrong, that you've decided for you helpful means was it helpful in searching for the cache (perhaps did it provide just the right nudge for you to make a tricky find, for example).

 

For me, helpful might be a mix of that, or if I felt it was helpful for me to decide whether or not I was going to look for a cache at all - much like marking a review of a hotel helpful if it helped me decide whether or not to stay there.

 

Potential examples of helpful logs, for different reasons, all depending on what one might find helpful:

"This cache is awesome, the best one I visited in this country..."

"This cache is dreadful, avoid it at all costs..."

"After finding the cache I visited a lovely pastry shop next door..."

"Watch out for the security camera..."

"I found a free car park just around the corner..."

"After searching in the thorny bush I figured out it wasn't there at all..."

"I counted 5 posts from the left, not 7..."

Etc...

 

It's really, really subjective, not only whether something is helpful, but in what way it is helpful.  Does that make the feature worthless?  I don't know.  Is this post helpful?  Maybe, maybe not... lol

 

 

Edited by funkymunkyzone
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

It's really, really subjective, not only whether something is helpful, but in what way it is helpful.  Does that make the feature worthless?  I don't know.  Is this post helpful?  Maybe, maybe not... lol

 

:P

 

The feature seems designed to encourage "helpful" logs.  So when typing a log, someone may begin to wonder if their "TFTC" is "helpful".  When I started Geocaching, I saw many "TFTC" logs, so I didn't know it wasn't a favorite of all, let alone not helpful.  I didn't know anyone cared what I type.

 

But as the new feature comes online, get ready for a lotta "What Is Helpful?" threads.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

:P

 

The feature seems designed to encourage "helpful" logs.  So when typing a log, someone may begin to wonder if their "TFTC" is "helpful".  When I started Geocaching, I saw many "TFTC" logs, so I didn't know it wasn't a favorite of all, let alone not helpful.  I didn't know anyone cared what I type.

 

But as the new feature comes online, get ready for a lotta "What Is Helpful?" threads.

 

Very true.  Although I would hazard a guess that the "TFTC" or "." loggers won't care if their logs are "helpful" and will never go back to find out!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

PS - straight from the horse's mouth today (the bold is mine): "Searching by Favorite points also offers a time-saving advantage, since you sort the search results to find the best geocaches in an area!"

 

Sadly this is biased very heavily in favour of easily reached caches in high population areas. A cache with 20 FPs from 1000 finds will rank higher than one with 10FPs from 10 finds, but which is likely to be the "best" cache?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Sadly this is biased very heavily in favour of easily reached caches in high population areas. A cache with 20 FPs from 1000 finds will rank higher than one with 10FPs from 10 finds, but which is likely to be the "best" cache?

Yep, hence my quoting of this statement from GS as an example of the misuse of "favourite points" and how I fully expect any other great story or helpful log "points" to be similarly misused in the future.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

PS - straight from the horse's mouth today (the bold is mine): "Searching by Favorite points also offers a time-saving advantage, since you sort the search results to find the best geocaches in an area!"

 

 

As if I cared what Groundspeak calls the "best caches".

 

Over on the Statistics page, they confuse best with most.  I've been laughing ever since.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Just got this log notification, which is similar to what someone else posted;  bolded by me.

______________________________________



I will apologize right now, because everything from here on is here solely for the purpose of padding the word count. It seems that there are caching statistical challenges that look at the word count in your logs.
__________________

Edit: removed long log for privacy concerns.

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, kunarion said:

The feature seems designed to encourage "helpful" logs.  So when typing a log, someone may begin to wonder if their "TFTC" is "helpful".  When I started Geocaching, I saw many "TFTC" logs, so I didn't know it wasn't a favorite of all, let alone not helpful.  I didn't know anyone cared what I type.

 

But as the new feature comes online, get ready for a lotta "What Is Helpful?" threads.

 

Well, it's possible that some might just give that tftc a "helpful",  just to show how silly this whole thing is,  and speed that process up a bit.  :D

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Well, it's possible that some might just give that tftc a "helpful",  just to show how silly this whole thing is,  and speed that process up a bit.  :D

 

The basic idea of rating logs is to show that someone is actually reading them. Any feedback including your example is good for this goal.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

The basic idea of rating logs is to show that someone is actually reading them.

Where did you get that from? Did GS announce that somewhere? I mean, since they came up with the idea, they would be the ones to say what the basic idea is, right?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Where did you get that from?

 

It's elementary logic. You may have different line of reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

part if an algorithm, to judge (and reward) who was the better geocacher. GS admitted they did this.


Sincerely, can you point me to where Groundspeak has "admitted" to labeling "the better geocacher" as one who meets a standard/threshold and who has algorithmically been determined?  (seems to me this is exactly the same mindset that has stopped from the putting a minimum find count on a user before being allowed to hide a cache)

 

17 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Until GS decides to use them as an objective measure of who is a better geocacher based in any part on how many great story or helpful logs each geocacher has collected.  And based on what happened with favourite points, as above, I dont trust GS to resist the temptation.

 

I firmly believe that they never will make such a statement.

 

17 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

PS - straight from the horse's mouth today (the bold is mine): "Searching by Favorite points also offers a time-saving advantage, since you sort the search results to find the best geocaches in an area!"

 

What does that tell you? It tells you you use filters - to include or exclude caches - so you can find the best caches. What if your search returns ALL best caches? What if your search returns NO good caches?

 

As I said in my earlier comment, that's an arbitrary ranking system - and it's only admission of that. There's no objective "This is where a geocache becomes great, and the others are not great."  If you rank by favourite points, you determine for yourself where you think the 'best' are. By definition ranking in an order determines a higher and lesser ordering based on other parameters, and by definition favorite points determine which are more popular and visited (aka a very very arbitrary community-determined relative sorting).

 

The only thing that statement explains is that more is better, not based on crossing an actual amount. That's it. And yes, that was always the intent of the favourite points. But it's up to the user to determine what actually constitutes "best" for themselves rather than for the community.

 

50 FP doesn't mean one cache is great and that another with 5 is not. It just means there's a greater chance you'll think it's a good cache.

So yes indeed, sort by favourite points to find the best geocaches in an area.

 

** In short, Groundspeak will never say "a geocache with 50 favourite points is universally and objectively a better cache than one with 5" (and likewise, for logs with upvotes)

 

 

16 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

IMO, this is a feature that will get little use.

 

In the grand scheme, I agree :) stats would be nice to see on that though after a few months or a year.

 

16 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

It's really, really subjective, not only whether something is helpful, but in what way it is helpful.  Does that make the feature worthless?  I don't know.  Is this post helpful?  Maybe, maybe not... lol

 

Yep, just..like..favourite points.

 

15 hours ago, kunarion said:

But as the new feature comes online, get ready for a lotta "What Is Helpful?" threads.

 

I dunno, if it gets as little relative use as we think it will, the only threads that pop up may be from people who deeply don't like the feature and want to complain, more than people really looking for answers in a positive light; and then probably the same few people will be talking amongst themselves about the feature as usual :)

 

9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Well, it's possible that some might just give that tftc a "helpful",  just to show how silly this whole thing is,  and speed that process up a bit.  :D

 

ie, sabotaging needlessly.  That, essentially, is why Geocaching Challenges died, imo. It was far to lax on rules, allowed abuse, and didn't really accomplish providing the experience I think they hoped it would. That may well happen here - a great idea in concept, just not fleshed out enough if it far too easily allows for the noise to drown out the signal.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Just got this log notification, which is similar to what someone else posted;  bolded by me.

______________________________________

I will apologize right now, because everything from here on is here solely for the purpose of padding the word count. It seems that there are caching statistical challenges that look at the word count in your logs.
__________________

 

Something tells me that's an old challenge, which isn't allowed under today's guidelines... at least I've never seen a new one that uses the word count stat.

 

Also, oh man that log would irk me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

On a local Geocaching Facebook page, the ability to tag logs has only been met with positive responses. "It's about time!" "Yay!" "This is great!"

Funny how the community at large doesn't seem to see the down side like forums folks do. :)

 

I've upvoted one log on one of my owned caches. It's a recent one, a couple days earlier than when the functionality came online. It was a log I appreciated as a CO, and I'm glad I could tag it. I don't feel like taking the time to go back and tag older logs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

IMO, this is a feature that will get little use. Generally speaking, I won't know if a log is useful until I am out in the field. At that time, I can't upvote the log, my GPSr does not, and will never support that feature. To upvote a log, I will have to remember to do it at a later time. Sorry, I'm not going to do that extra work.

 

What if it's a vote from the cache owner?  Sometimes I get a message from a CO saying that my "logs are always fun to read!", and until then, I wondered if anybody reads them (or worse, that they're annoyed at my logs).  Who knew.  That encourages me to type more creative logs.  Don't encourage me.  B)

 

As to whether or not a "fun to read" log is "helpful", that's part of what's already being considered by people in this thread.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

On a local Geocaching Facebook page, the ability to tag logs has only been met with positive responses. "It's about time!" "Yay!" "This is great!"

Funny how the community at large doesn't seem to see the down side like forums folks do. :)

 

You explained it nicely.    It's popular with faceboook, where people "like" each other, and everyone's your "friend".        :D

Believe it or not, not everyone's on faceboook, preferring to stay in reality and keeping some privacy secure.  Go figure...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

It's elementary logic. You may have different line of reasoning.

It's your opinion and theres no logic or evidence behind it.

 

Elementary logic would suggest that it's got nothing to do with showing logs are being read and everything to do with indicating logs that you think are a great story, or were helpful to you in some way.

Edited by funkymunkyzone

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:


Sincerely, can you point me to where Groundspeak has "admitted" to labeling "the better geocacher" as one who meets a standard/threshold and who has algorithmically been determined?  (seems to me this is exactly the same mindset that has stopped from the putting a minimum find count on a user before being allowed to hide a cache)

 

You know *exactly* where they did this.  They built a rewards system and favourite points was one of the factors.  This is accepted fact and I'm not going to debate it any more.

 

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I firmly believe that they never will make such a statement.

 

I believed the same about favourite points until such time as they were (ab)used to help figure out who were the top 1% of geocachers, as above.  It's fine, we can agree to disagree about our predictions for what GS will or will not use these great story and helpful log points for in the future.

 

I do find it interesting that you did NOT quote me saying the below, I assume because it didn't help you in painting me as super negative in this discussion...

On 10/3/2018 at 9:10 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

I actually think that the great story and helpful log buttons are a cool idea.

Hmmm...

 

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yep, just..like..favourite points.

Precisely what I am talking about - meaning no worries, unless they get (ab)used to start pseudo-objectively judging people based on how many ticks they get.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What does that tell you? It tells you you use filters - to include or exclude caches - so you can find the best caches. What if your search returns ALL best caches? What if your search returns NO good caches?

 

As I said in my earlier comment, that's an arbitrary ranking system - and it's only admission of that. There's no objective "This is where a geocache becomes great, and the others are not great."  If you rank by favourite points, you determine for yourself where you think the 'best' are. By definition ranking in an order determines a higher and lesser ordering based on other parameters, and by definition favorite points determine which are more popular and visited (aka a very very arbitrary community-determined relative sorting).

 

The only thing that statement explains is that more is better, not based on crossing an actual amount. That's it. And yes, that was always the intent of the favourite points. But it's up to the user to determine what actually constitutes "best" for themselves rather than for the community.

 

50 FP doesn't mean one cache is great and that another with 5 is not. It just means there's a greater chance you'll think it's a good cache.

So yes indeed, sort by favourite points to find the best geocaches in an area.

 

** In short, Groundspeak will never say "a geocache with 50 favourite points is universally and objectively a better cache than one with 5" (and likewise, for logs with upvotes)

 

Actually the statement of  "Searching by Favorite points also offers a time-saving advantage, since you sort the search results to find the best geocaches in an area!" tells you if you perform this search, which yields caches with most favourite points at the top, you will find the best geocaches at the top of the list (otherwise it wouldn't be time-saving) - meaning the ones with the most favourite points are the best.  I know we all realise this isn't the case in reality, but that's what GS tells people.  I mean you can argue semantics of language if you really really want to, but we can all see that's what the statement is saying.  With an exclamation mark at the end too! :)

 

Edited by funkymunkyzone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious, do we know exactly how this feature works?

 

How is it implemented? Is it simply a 'like' type button? Would the cacher be able to add a comment about why they marked the log?

 

When viewing the log, would I be able to see all of the people that marked the log? Or is it just a count?

 

Who gets notified when a log is marked? That is assuming that notifications are sent. Does the cacher that wrote the log get a notification? What about the CO? And let's not forget about the watchers, would they be notified?

 

Assuming that there are notifications, how are they sent? Message center, web site, API, app?

 

What does the notification contain (again, assuming a notification is sent)? Does it contain the handle of the person that marked the log? What other details are included? Hopefully, the name and code of the cache, along with the name of the logger and the contents of the log.

 

And, is this feature available on all logs, or only on logs going forward? Am I able to mark a 15 year old log as helpful?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

50 FP doesn't mean one cache is great and that another with 5 is not. It just means there's a greater chance you'll think it's a good cache.

 

If those 50 FPs are on a cache with 2000 finds (a P&G with a novelty container, perhaps), whereas the one with 5 FPs has only had 5 finds (because it's off the beaten track, tougher to reach or only recently published), I'm sure there's a greater chance I'll think the latter is a good cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a screenshot.

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-03 at 5.50.35 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Here's how it looks after you've given a compliment.  If you click it again, it removes the compliment.

 

If someone else has given the compliment, then it shows in regular text, rather than bold green.

 

You can compliment logs back to the beginning of time, but not those on caches in other countries.

 

There's no email notification, and if there's a screen where you can see a summary of your compliments, I haven't found it yet.  (One of my logs did get marked Great Story, thanks, which is how I know.)

great-story.jpg

 

Oh, and you can't compliment your own logs, but given there's no apparent limit on the compliments you can drop, I imagine some sock puppet accounts will begin complimenting like crazy.  For what it's worth.

 

Edited by Viajero Perdido
  • 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 5

×