Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
pingurus

New Feature rating logs?

Recommended Posts

image.png.6bb4db4464e710eb1c125edbff4f3b4f.png

 

Did anyone else get these buttons (they're not clickable though) under logs?

The only place I get them is this listing.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Yeah, it's been around for a few months, but only for caches in Canada and (I think) Norway.

 

The idea was, try it out in some minor countries, then forget all about it.

 

PS, you can't vote for your own logs, and speaking of which, could you tone down the loudness just a little?

 

Edited by Viajero Perdido

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

The idea was, try it out in some minor countries, then forget all about it.

Canada a minor country??? We are ranked 5th for the number of geocache.

 

For the OP I never used this feature because it's only visible on the website.

Share this post


Link to post

Log upvotes were introduced one year ago and they've been testing it in Norway and Canada only. They haven't done anything with it since the beginning, still the same uncomfortable UI (drop-down for choosing Best story/Most helpful).

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:
8 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

The idea was, try it out in some minor countries, then forget all about it.

Canada a minor country??? We are ranked 5th for the number of geocache.

 

This might be a good time to let you know that Viajero Perdido is Canadian.

 

You may have missed his forum title, "Edmonton, Alberta (±6m)"

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Every time this is mentioned I look at a couple caches, and see "Helpful" on a couple TFTC logs.  :D

 

Maybe to show how well this idea is going ?   ;)

 

 

Edited by cerberus1
replc
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Cachly and Geooh apps now enable log up votes for all countries. They are still somewhat experimental and Groundspeak could discontinue it at any time.

Share this post


Link to post

I started logs in the field and left them as drafts so I could write better logs at home.  I can't find the drafts and after logging on line the smiley doesn't show on the map.  Help!

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, bellyrot said:

I started logs in the field and left them as drafts so I could write better logs at home.  I can't find the drafts and after logging on line the smiley doesn't show on the map.  Help!

You'll probably get more help if you start a separate topic for your issue with Drafts. Go HERE and click on the "Start new topic" button at the upper-right of the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, SpiritGuide said:

Cachly and Geooh apps now enable log up votes for all countries. They are still somewhat experimental and Groundspeak could discontinue it at any time.

Are those app-specific upvotes, or are those sync'd with the Most Helpful/Great Story votes within geocaching.com?  If they are sync'd, then they wouldn't show up on the geocaching.com website for countries that are not Canada/Norway, so again the voting is very limited and only reflects users that use those specific apps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, noncentric said:

Are those app-specific upvotes, or are those sync'd with the Most Helpful/Great Story votes within geocaching.com?  If they are sync'd, then they wouldn't show up on the geocaching.com website for countries that are not Canada/Norway, so again the voting is very limited and only reflects users that use those specific apps.

 

I just tested with Cachly, and it does sync with the geocaching.com servers. For example, I gave "Great story" to a log on a Canadian cache in Cachly, and I could see that reflected when I looked up the cache on the website. Like you suspected, though, while I was able to upvote a log on an Oregon cache in Cachly, you can't see that on the website.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, noncentric said:

Are those app-specific upvotes, or are those sync'd with the Most Helpful/Great Story votes within geocaching.com?  If they are sync'd, then they wouldn't show up on the geocaching.com website for countries that are not Canada/Norway, so again the voting is very limited and only reflects users that use those specific apps.

 

Yes, the apps sync with servers so upvotes are shared everywhere. Plus the apps let you upvote all countries unlike the website just for Canada and Norway.

Share this post


Link to post

I have never seem an upvote on any cache in the USA.

 

If there is an upvote, there should also be a downvote for the tftc amd emoji-only logs.

Share this post


Link to post

What I want is to be able to rate difficult and (especially) terrain.  Rating someone's log is very low in my wants. It's obvious if it's a nice log, or a lazy log (ie. TFTC or thanks).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, K13 said:

If there is an upvote, there should also be a downvote for the tftc amd emoji-only logs.

+1

 

As long as the person can speak the local language. TFTC is acceptable for a visitor from a country that doesn't speak the local language. But for the rest....😠

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

What I want is to be able to rate difficult and (especially) terrain. 

 

OT, but I wouldn't care for that.   

A relative in NC thinks our terrain is terrible.  We live here and think nothing of it.   Why should their "rating" affect anything on a cache here ?

We noticed some COs rate their cache for them most times, but will change it if a few people say similar in their log.   :)

We've noticed some areas rate their caches lower/higher than others as well.

The  Help Center even says "Ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in Banff, Canada, is a different experience than a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland. Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area and guidance in the table below."

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

standards in your area

 If everyone could rate a cache, and the average was displayed, this would be a far better indication of reality than one person's idea and if most people are local who find that cache, that would make a truer match to local standards. This would make it closer to the local standards, than one person rating (extreme rating, but I have come upon it) a cache up a tree as 1.5 terrain, because the walk to the cache is flat. Possibly that is a local standard, because there weren't many caches in the area. Local standards like that need a 'boot'.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

On the site, I saw this yesterday on some US cache. I *think* it was California, I could be wrong, but I know it was USA. A hiccup perhaps, as I don't see it today.   It continues as Norway and Canada.  

When I look at caches in those places, I see nothing useful to me about the log ratings.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, SpiritGuide said:

 

Yes, the apps sync with servers so upvotes are shared everywhere. Plus the apps let you upvote all countries unlike the website just for Canada and Norway.

 

Which servers?   Are votes for logs on caches other than those located in Canada and Norway persisted on *Groundspeak* servers?  Otherwise, it's not very useful to able to upvote (and view upvotes) only from those apps.   

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What I want is to be able to rate difficult and (especially) terrain.

 

Off topic, but no thanks.  The ONLY way I'd consider this if it were done via a third party app and has no bearing on the CO changing the D/T rating on the cache.  Colorado Rockies terrain ratings are going to be much different than ratings in my relatively flat state of Indiana.  What we might consider a 3.5 in our area, they'd probably laugh at and a 3.5 out west would be more likely to be harder than what we'd typically expect.  I don't have a problem with that.  I actually prefer that COs rate their caches based on what their locality tends to do over some standardized one size fits all type of rating.  By nature, a majority of the caches in Central Indiana are going to be 1.5/2 because we just don't have that many big elevation changes.  I was in Sedona and most of the climbs were rated at 3 stars but here they'd probably be 3.5 because we just don't have that type of elevation gain.  The only gain is usually from climbing trees, unless you live in the southern portion of the state where the glaciers didn't get to.  Generally speaking, I don't find the T ratings to be that vastly different in all the places I've been fortunate enough to cache in.  I'm usually in agreement as to my assessment of what I think the T rating would be, usually no more than 1/2 a star.

 

As to the OP, I don't know how many cachers actually take the time to read the logs much, unless they're looking for a hint from a previous finder.  I don't typically read many logs unless it has lots of FPs AND a high FP percentage.  I don't know that a helpful or great log would really offer much, other than someone's opinion that they thought it was helpful to them or a good log, in general.  Is this something anyone wanted or is it something they're rolling out, thinking it was a good idea and would make things better?

Share this post


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

 

Off topic, but no thanks.  The ONLY way I'd consider this if it were done via a third party app and has no bearing on the CO changing the D/T rating on the cache.  Colorado Rockies terrain ratings are going to be much different than ratings in my relatively flat state of Indiana.  What we might consider a 3.5 in our area, they'd probably laugh at and a 3.5 out west would be more likely to be harder than what we'd typically expect.  I don't have a problem with that.  I actually prefer that COs rate their caches based on what their locality tends to do over some standardized one size fits all type of rating.  By nature, a majority of the caches in Central Indiana are going to be 1.5/2 because we just don't have that many big elevation changes.  I was in Sedona and most of the climbs were rated at 3 stars but here they'd probably be 3.5 because we just don't have that type of elevation gain.  The only gain is usually from climbing trees, unless you live in the southern portion of the state where the glaciers didn't get to.  Generally speaking, I don't find the T ratings to be that vastly different in all the places I've been fortunate enough to cache in.  I'm usually in agreement as to my assessment of what I think the T rating would be, usually no more than 1/2 a star.

 

As to the OP, I don't know how many cachers actually take the time to read the logs much, unless they're looking for a hint from a previous finder.  I don't typically read many logs unless it has lots of FPs AND a high FP percentage.  I don't know that a helpful or great log would really offer much, other than someone's opinion that they thought it was helpful to them or a good log, in general.  Is this something anyone wanted or is it something they're rolling out, thinking it was a good idea and would make things better?

This is not completely off topic, as it is about rating, and it refers to how important rating logs is against other areas, which if something is going to be rated, maybe other areas should be considered first. If the score that finders rate the cache for D/T was possible, and it was then averaged, it would be up the top. Yes, maybe the individual score could be shown on each log, but I would see that best as a private thing, so that only the logger would see that for their own log; instead with the average displayed at the top of the page, so no need to read logs for this. As most caches are generally found more often by locals (except for touristy areas), the average would likely mirror how locals felt about the D/T, so that the difference in areas that you mention, if there is a difference, would likely stay. There would be no reason for a stubborn CO to change their 1.5 ratings if they didn't want to (there are some CO who mark ALL their caches this or lower, regardless of how difficult the cache is), even if the finders' ratings were far removed. It would become that the rating to look at would be the finders', as some CO's ratings don't mean a thing, except they will NOT rate their caches over 1.5, on some warped principle.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Which servers?   Are votes for logs on caches other than those located in Canada and Norway persisted on *Groundspeak* servers?  Otherwise, it's not very useful to able to upvote (and view upvotes) only from those apps.   

Groundspeak servers... It's their upvote feature.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

It would become that the rating to look at would be the finders', as some CO's ratings don't mean a thing, except they will NOT rate their caches over 1.5, on some warped principle.

 

A few concerns here. Firstly, I would imagine (or at least hope) that such 1.5-regardless COs are a tiny minority of the whole. I can only speak for the caches I've found, which are mostly in the Central Coast, Watagan Mountains, lower Hunter and northern Sydney, but I could count on one hand the number where I'd seriously question the T rating and of those, probably more are rated higher than I would have thought (like the T3 that was on the ground within 10 metres of a sealed road just down a slight embankment). In the grand scheme of things, is such a rating system worth all the time and effort to both implement by HQ and use by loggers?

 

Secondly, I would expect few finders to post their opinion of the rating, especially not if they thought the CO's choice was about right (which is nearly all the time). I would hope any scheme like you're suggesting would take any logs without a rating to count in the average as if their rating agreed with that posted by the CO, otherwise it'll be heavily skewed by a small number of logs (possibly only one) where the logger disagreed with the CO.

 

Thirdly, any such scheme is going to be pretty meaningless on caches with few finds as the average won't be statistically valid, and around here now most newer caches are struggling to get more than a handful of finds, even the low-T ones.

 

Really, if you think the T rating is wildly out, say so in your log, and if the CO ignores it, move on. Some battles just aren't worth fighting.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

 

A few concerns here. Firstly, I would imagine (or at least hope) that such 1.5-regardless COs are a tiny minority of the whole. I can only speak for the caches I've found, which are mostly in the Central Coast, Watagan Mountains, lower Hunter and northern Sydney, but I could count on one hand the number where I'd seriously question the T rating and of those, probably more are rated higher than I would have thought (like the T3 that was on the ground within 10 metres of a sealed road just down a slight embankment). In the grand scheme of things, is such a rating system worth all the time and effort to both implement by HQ and use by loggers?

 

Secondly, I would expect few finders to post their opinion of the rating, especially not if they thought the CO's choice was about right (which is nearly all the time). I would hope any scheme like you're suggesting would take any logs without a rating to count in the average as if their rating agreed with that posted by the CO, otherwise it'll be heavily skewed by a small number of logs (possibly only one) where the logger disagreed with the CO.

 

Thirdly, any such scheme is going to be pretty meaningless on caches with few finds as the average won't be statistically valid, and around here now most newer caches are struggling to get more than a handful of finds, even the low-T ones.

 

Really, if you think the T rating is wildly out, say so in your log, and if the CO ignores it, move on. Some battles just aren't worth fighting.

There are some (not small) areas of inland NSW where 1.5 appears to be the norm. Those who have cached there will know where I mean. (I thought I better recheck the area, and WOW some are now marked 2 stars.) I remember tittering on top of a table, on top of a stool on top of that table with a mirror in my hand stretched out as far as I could, (trying hard not to have the stool overbalance), just to see the  T 1.5 cache. The next person who came left, and said he was too old to do this. This is the very reason why a rating score would be helpful. It would stop people turning up at a wrongly rated cache and then finding they couldn't do it, and leaving disappointed. They might have travelled a long distance too.  I think it was done this way, because the app didn't allow non-paying members to see caches marked over 1.5. If this were implemented I believe it should be for paying members only, there should be a minimum number of finds and perhaps only after the cache has had say ten finds should the scored rating show.

 

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I think it was done this way, because the app didn't allow non-paying members to see caches marked over 1.5.

Yeah, the app used to limit basic members to difficulty and terrain ratings of 1.5 or less. Now it limits basic members to difficulty and terrain ratings of 2.0 or less.

 

Either way, the app's limitations are causing artificial difficulty and terrain ratings. Some are rating their caches artificially low, to make sure they're available to basic members using the app. Others are rating their caches artificially high, to block access to basic members using the app.

 

And when caches are rated accurately, new basic members are shown that geocaching is all about easily found caches that are easy to get to. :(

Edited by niraD
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, niraD said:

Yeah, the app used to limit basic members to difficulty and terrain ratings of 1.5 or less. Now it limits basic members to difficulty and terrain ratings of 2.0 or less.

That's what I figured when I checked the area I was talking about that used to rate nearly every cache 1.5 tops. Now they appear to have increased that to 2, which just shows if they have changed their old caches, they were not rated corrected when the limitation was 1.5.

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, niraD said:

 

And when caches are rated accurately, new basic members are shown that geocaching is all about easily found caches that are easy to get to. :(

 

I've often though that limiting the difficulty rating to 2.0 makes sense to prevent new, inexperienced cachers from getting discouraged when they can't find the cache.  However, limiting the terrain rating makes less sense to me as it limits caches to those that are close to where one might park and can't really showcase caches which require a little effort to get to, and might show the interesting locations where some have placed a cache. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

...  However, limiting the terrain rating makes less sense to me as it limits caches to those that are close to where one might park and can't really showcase caches which require a little effort to get to, and might show the interesting locations where some have placed a cache. 

 

You're kidding, right ?  Most I'm visiting are seen twice a year.  Maybe.

We're having a tough time getting long-time members out further than 200 feet from parking.    :D

A kid with their face buried in their phones most of the day is gonna venture in the woods ?  

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I've often though that limiting the difficulty rating to 2.0 makes sense to prevent new, inexperienced cachers from getting discouraged when they can't find the cache.  However, limiting the terrain rating makes less sense to me as it limits caches to those that are close to where one might park and can't really showcase caches which require a little effort to get to, and might show the interesting locations where some have placed a cache. 

I can understand limiting the search function to returning D2 and lower caches by default. And maybe even limiting the terrain because it might not be a good idea to send a random unprepared app user on a "very strenuous" (D4) journey, or one that requires "specialized equipment" (D5) that they may not have.

 

But if I introduce someone to geocaching, I just might include a difficult cache in the mix, just to show them the kinds of things that are possible. If I tell them that we're going to GC4A4FX (or to any of catomcat's amazing "Somewhere..." caches), then they should be able to enter the GC code and pull up the cache info. Blocking it because it's an "advanced" cache is counterproductive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

I can understand limiting the search function to returning D2 and lower caches by default. And maybe even limiting the terrain because it might not be a good idea to send a random unprepared app user on a "very strenuous" (D4) journey, or one that requires "specialized equipment" (D5) that they may not have.

But if I introduce someone to geocaching, I just might include a difficult cache in the mix, just to show them the kinds of things that are possible. If I tell them that we're going to GC4A4FX (or to any of catomcat's amazing "Somewhere..."   caches), then they should be able to enter the GC code and pull up the cache info.

Blocking it because it's an "advanced" cache is counterproductive.

 

What's the difference ?     

 - Simply because they're "with you" they should be able to see advanced caches they're not normally allowed ?

If they're with you, you can lead them there, let them do all or most of whatever's need themselves, , and without "rigging" the D/T limitation.

We've done that with dozens of new folks wishing to learn the hobby.

They can still see what they're  missing (if that big a deal...) with a basic membership.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 - Simply because they're "with you" they should be able to see advanced caches they're not normally allowed ?

If they were not allowed to search for advanced caches, they should not be able to see the listings. Outdoor searching is more difficult but not forbidden. The only caches not allowed to basic members are PMO ones and even these caches can be logged on-line. As you wrote, "They can still see what they're  missing".

BTW, knowing some basic members with over 8 thousands of finds, actively hiding caches and organising events, it partly amuses, partly irks me the equality sign between a basic member and an inexperienced cacher.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, rapotek said:

If they were not allowed to search for advanced caches, they should not be able to see the listings. Outdoor searching is more difficult but not forbidden. The only caches not allowed to basic members are PMO ones and even these caches can be logged on-line. As you wrote, "They can still see what they're  missing".

BTW, knowing some basic members with over 8 thousands of finds, actively hiding caches and organising events, it partly amuses, partly irks me the equality sign between a basic member and an inexperienced cacher.

 

Not sure why you picked me, but my post to another was in regard to the app.    The app "won't allow" a basic member to access above 2.

Sometimes I choose to go basic a while, so familiar with what's needed for higher D/T.  I don't do pmo anyway.   :) 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:
3 hours ago, niraD said:

I can understand limiting the search function to returning D2 and lower caches by default. And maybe even limiting the terrain because it might not be a good idea to send a random unprepared app user on a "very strenuous" (D4) journey, or one that requires "specialized equipment" (D5) that they may not have.

But if I introduce someone to geocaching, I just might include a difficult cache in the mix, just to show them the kinds of things that are possible. If I tell them that we're going to GC4A4FX (or to any of catomcat's amazing "Somewhere..."   caches), then they should be able to enter the GC code and pull up the cache info.

Blocking it because it's an "advanced" cache is counterproductive.

 

What's the difference ?     

 - Simply because they're "with you" they should be able to see advanced caches they're not normally allowed ?

 

They wouldn't have to be with an experienced geocacher. They could do their own research on the web site, or they could hear about a great cache on a forum or in a Facebook group. The point is, they already know about the cache. The app should let them view the description and log their experience with the cache.

 

Let me try again. It's okay to limit the search function for basic members by default. The out-of-the-box behavior should be appropriate for clueless newbies.

 

But if they're entering the GC code, then they are no longer clueless newbies. Get out of their way. Better yet, if they go to the app's settings menu and choose to turn off (or adjust) the difficulty/terrain/type limits for searches, then that should override the default limits for searches. Again, get out of their way.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

A kid with their face buried in their phones most of the day is gonna venture in the woods ? 

 

Many of the best higher-terrain caches in the woods around here were hidden by a couple of face-buried phone-wielding kids some four to eight years ago. They're now in their early twenties and have been distracted away from caching by all the things that distract people of that age (university courses, finding employment, starting a family, etc.). It seems these days any newcomers just do the small number of urban D2/T2-or-less traditionals then disappear from the game without ever experiencing any of those bushland hides.

Share this post


Link to post

A couple of days ago I asked the HQ about any updates on the log upvote function, as to when it could be available in more countries after a year of testing. I received this universal answer:

 

 

Quote

 

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ.

Geocaching HQ often conducts tests of potential new products and improvements to existing products. At this time, we have released log upvotes feature only on caches in Canada and Norway on Geocaching.com. We want to see how geocachers respond to upvoting, before releasing it to a wider audience. More information can be found here.

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

A couple of days ago I asked the HQ about any updates on the log upvote function, as to when it could be available in more countries after a year of testing. I received this universal answer:

Thanks for that.  :)

"...We want to see how geocachers respond to upvoting, before releasing it to a wider audience. More information can be found here. "

"Here" doesn't have any information how folks are responding, because it's closed. 

 - And if any logs I've seen are any indication, if TFTC is "helpful", that should put "upvote" to rest.     :D

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

If people can upvote a TFTC as Helpful, then others should be able to downvote that 'Helpful TFTC' to keep things in the realm of reality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/28/2019 at 2:28 AM, pingurus said:

image.png.6bb4db4464e710eb1c125edbff4f3b4f.png

 

Did anyone else get these buttons (they're not clickable though) under logs?

The only place I get them is this listing.

 

I'd been looking at an Earthcache near Caledon, Ontario, when I noticed this feature.  Spot-checked around: Yep, they all had them, though I saw none in the USA.

I came to the Forums today, to ask this very same question - thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

I could have sworn that I've seen these icons when I was logging some caches two to three weeks ago (Wisconsin geocaches) but they've since disappeared. I don't know. Maybe I was imagining it.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 PM, cerberus1 said:

Every time this is mentioned I look at a couple caches, and see "Helpful" on a couple TFTC logs.  :D

 

Hmm.  Didn't see that phenomenon on the ones I checked around Cheltenham Badlands Earthcache . Guess mileage may vary.

 

On 5/30/2019 at 12:19 PM, coachstahly said:

 Is this something anyone wanted or is it something they're rolling out, thinking it was a good idea and would make things better?

 

Writing a good log is suggested multiple times by many, including HQ. Just a guess, but perhaps a reward of sorts for doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, VAVAPAM said:

Writing a good log is suggested multiple times by many, including HQ. Just a guess, but perhaps a reward of sorts for doing that?

 

A couple of things to unpack here.  Writing a good log should be encouraged; voting on whether or not it's a good log isn't encouraging writers to write a good log.

 

I'm not sure what "reward" anyone gets out of this, other than an "attaboy" type thing.  Honestly, I would equate this type of "reward" with the same type of "reward" we get here on the forums.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I'm not sure what "reward" anyone gets out of this, other than an "attaboy" type thing.  Honestly, I would equate this type of "reward" with the same type of "reward" we get here on the forums.  

 

Yep. 

Add in how many people go back to view simple caches not on watch, and they wouldn't even know they received that "attaboy" anyway.    :)

I thought maybe it'd just end up another thing added to third-party sites for stats.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Honestly, I would equate this type of "reward" with the same type of "reward" we get here on the forums.

 

I just gave you another "upvote" on your post. With this upvote and $5, you could buy a cup of coffee. Come to think of it, just the $5 would work too...

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post

For geocachers who do sift through past logs, "Helpful" filtering is extremely .. helpful. Assuming of course a level of trust in the community that any upvotes are relevant and legitimate. It's not a HUGE help, but it's a value-add feature. If you don't use it, no need to use it; also no need to advocate for removal. It is, remember, still in a test phase to determine how much it's used, how effective it is, and whether it's worth keeping around.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a survey provided, likely for Canada and Norway geocachers, to express their thoughts about the feature. If not, I'd assume they have loads of analytics to run through to make a decision (plus threads and discussion like this).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 1:08 PM, K13 said:

If people can upvote a TFTC as Helpful, then others should be able to downvote that 'Helpful TFTC' to keep things in the realm of reality.

 

I don't feel taking the time to counter a TFTC log is anywhere near the realm of reality.         :D

 - But I kinda agree. 

Not having a "downvote" means that every time a log is voted on, it may not be relevant or legitimate. 

Only two options for the multitude of people who can't help themselves, and click on things ... "Great story" or "Helpful". 

I like to tell the truth, so guess only my log will be what I'll concern myself with.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

For geocachers who do sift through past logs, "Helpful" filtering is extremely .. helpful.

Strange. I'm (again :wacko:) not able to detect as a visitor of such listing how I would be able to apply such filter. Where is this button?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Hynz said:

Strange. I'm (again :wacko:) not able to detect as a visitor of such listing how I would be able to apply such filter. Where is this button?

 

If you have the feature, it will show as a drop down on the left just above the log activity on listings, below the log type counts. You can't miss it.

Order by: [ dropdown ]

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
23 hours ago, Hynz said:

Strange. I'm (again :wacko:) not able to detect as a visitor of such listing how I would be able to apply such filter. Where is this button?

 

If you have the feature, it will show as a drop down on the left just above the log activity on listings, below the log type counts. You can't miss it.

Order by: [ dropdown ]

Then apparently I don't "have the feature" which leads to the question: Why not and who has the feature? Is this also restricted by GS to a small and random(?) audience? Or maybe resctricted to canadian and norwegan IPs?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hynz said:

Then apparently I don't "have the feature" which leads to the question: Why not and who has the feature? Is this also restricted by GS to a small and random(?) audience? Or maybe resctricted to canadian and norwegan IPs?

Don't think it's restricted, but you only see it on those caches in Canada/Norway which have the log rating enabled, so e.g. on this cache https://coord.info/GC2CXV1 you see the feature here:


image.png.170edbb4e4fa2823e5d14a06dee0828c.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

Don't think it's restricted, but you only see it on those caches in Canada/Norway which have the log rating enabled, so e.g. on this cache https://coord.info/GC2CXV1 you see the feature here:

No I don't :P That's what I see. I checked already with different browsers. Is everybody else getting this dropdown?

1660325049_2019-07-0512_48.47www.geocaching.comd71c68dfaa82.png.8f2ca6d5dd37362f907ca7c26948b6e9.png

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...