Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
little-leggs

not enough Favourite point

Recommended Posts

I like the OP's general premise of figuring out how to get more caches that aren't just a film pot by a gate.  

Things that don't work though: Favorite points, and "setting a good example". 

 

I think discouraging owners from hiding hundred's of caches would make a difference. But that's something GCHQ and reviewers would have to change. It's unlikely because reviewers had a big influence on changing the don't-hide-a-cache-every-.1-miles rule (if you do, it's got to be listed as a multi). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

Many we see with the most  FPs are often those breaking guidelines.

 

You are so right about that. Things screwed into trees. Holes drilled into trees, trail posts, telephone poles, guard rail posts. Magnetic sheets or signs where the "container" is the log (bring a sharpie and sign the item). 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

I think discouraging owners from hiding hundred's of caches would make a difference. But that's something GCHQ and reviewers would have to change. It's unlikely because reviewers had a big influence on changing the don't-hide-a-cache-every-.1-miles rule (if you do, it's got to be listed as a multi). 

 

Curious how you know this.  It was my understanding that HQ accepted that the majority was requesting it.    Thanks.  :)

I know of two Reviewers who've even said in these forums that they'd make it more than .1 if it was up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Curious how you know this.  It was my understanding that HQ accepted that the majority was requesting it.    Thanks.  :)

I know of two Reviewers who've even said in these forums that they'd make it more than .1 if it was up to them.

 

Keystone has mentioned a few times how difficult the .1 rule was for reviewers. (Although I don't know how much easier their lives are when they wake up to a list of 200+ PT caches that need publishing asap.)

However, I do know of one reviewer who has said lifting the rule was a bad idea. 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

The FP at the end, at least from my prospective, is not for the CO but for all following cacher searching for cache using filters.  The FP shows following cachers that this cache might be worth to visit.

You make a good point, and I think this is a good way to look at it. It is incidental that the CO will like that you're recommending the cache to other seekers, but I do think it's an important reality that makes it not terribly off the mark to think of FPs as a reward, too.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

You make a good point, and I think this is a good way to look at it. It is incidental that the CO will like that you're recommending the cache to other seekers, but I do think it's an important reality that makes it not terribly off the mark to think of FPs as a reward, too.

I don't think there were primarily intended to be a reward, though. From what I remember, like niraD has said, they were intended to indicate the "best of the best" of the caches you've found. With each member getting an FP for every 10 caches they find, it's implied that you're highlighting the top 10% of your finds. If someone targets caches such that all of them are really good, then they need to pick out the top 10% of those. Yes, that may mean that "worthy" caches don't get "rewarded", but the reality is that such a cache will likely get plenty of FPs from other finders, so it isn't that big a deal.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I don't think there were primarily intended to be a reward, though. From what I remember, like niraD has said, they were intended to indicate the "best of the best" of the caches you've found.

I think we might be skittering over insignificant differences in terminology. Don't you think having ones cache called the "best of the best" would be rewarding?

Share this post


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

I don't think there were primarily intended to be a reward, though. From what I remember, like niraD has said, they were intended to indicate the "best of the best" of the caches you've found. With each member getting an FP for every 10 caches they find, it's implied that you're highlighting the top 10% of your finds. If someone targets caches such that all of them are really good, then they need to pick out the top 10% of those. Yes, that may mean that "worthy" caches don't get "rewarded", but the reality is that such a cache will likely get plenty of FPs from other finders, so it isn't that big a deal.

 

Many of the ones on my favourites list are at the end of long and strenuous hikes, and for such a cache that doesn't quite make it into my "best of the best", it's unlikely to get plenty of FPs from other finders simply because it's unlikely to get many other finders. There's one cache on my list of favourites (GC7KCD9), published in early 2018, that's still only had 3 finders, the other two being the joint FTF team. From the other perspective, most of my own hides are in a region that gets few cachers now; none of the five caches I've hidden in the last twelve months have had more than 6 finders and the one that's got 6 is an urban D2/T2 multi. So sometimes, when pondering whether to give an FP on one of those rarely visited caches, I have to bear in mind that if I don't, the chances are no-one else will either because there'll unlikely be many anyone-elses.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I think we might be skittering over insignificant differences in terminology.

Isn't that the primary purpose of these forums? :laughing:

 

Quote

Don't you think having ones cache called the "best of the best" would be rewarding?

Sure, it's rewarding to know that your cache was flagged as being in the top 10% of niraD's finds, but is it a "reward"? I guess it does depend on how each person defines that word in the context of this game. I thought we were discussing this like it was "you got another point", but others are defining it more like you did, like "you got some rewarding feedback".

 

At this point, I'm not sure that it really matters which way you lean. FPs have been around long enough that their usage has an inherent definition, and adding lots more FPs to the mix would water down the previous meaning and render them less useful (ie. you get an FP, you get an FP, EVERYONE GETS AN FP!). Rather than turn them into participation trophies, let's just do the hard work of picking which baby is cutest.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

Awarding a FP can be a personal thing. In the pst I've awarded a FP because finding the cache brought me to a place that evoked fond memories of being at that spot or an event of some sort happened at that spot. There would be nothing out of the ordinary about the container and how it was placed. I would also say in my log why the FP was awarded.

Is there a cache on Blueberry Hill?

Edited by colleda
clarification of point

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

they'd make it more than .1 if it was up to them

 

Granted, I don't live in an area rife with guardrail trails (actually, guardrails [and other DOT-owned property] are out of bounds in my state) or teeming with COs competing for placement space, but I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

 

Before you bring out the tar and feathers, do consider that while a cache may be .1 as the crow flies, that crow may be flying over a ravine or other impassable territory.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, colleda said:

Dadgum it! I see there's now 2 FPs on my "America's Favorite Cache". GC5JFF5

Some people have no class.

 

That's really funny! 

FWIW, I've only ever found one Altoids-like tin (it was actually a metal mini first aid kit, but definitely looked like one).  Maybe because things tend to rust quickly in the SE US.

Edited by VAVAPAM
extra stuff

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, colleda said:

Awarding a FP can be a personal thing. In the pst I've awarded a FP because finding the cache brought me to a place that evoked fond memories of being at that spot or an event of some sort happened at that spot. There would be nothing out of the ordinary about the container and how it was placed. I would also say in my log why the FP was awarded.

Is there a cache on Blueberry Hill?

 

I couldn't agree more. Favourites are very much a personal thing. Just last week I favourited one of the new virtuals in Sydney's botanical gardens. It was a nice cache anyway, but a large part of why I favourited it was from the childhood memories of visits to that park it conjured up and, at the Wollemi pine exhibit, recalling the occasions in the late 90s when I met up with the discoverer of that tree to do some hiking in the Blue Mountains.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess it boils down to how one defines the word "favorite."

 

Every time I log ten caches, Groundspeak gives me a favorite point to assign to a cache.  By design, then, I can call up to 10% of my finds "my favorite finds."

 

I am more selective than that.  I currently have 9417 finds, so theoretically I've gotten 941 FPs to hand out.  (There was a bug for a little while that may have affected this, but for discussion's sake, let's say it's 941.  I have 396 FPs remaining, so I should have given out 545.  So I've listed not quite 6% of my finds as my favorite.  Perhaps some cachers would consider me miserly.  So be it.  They're my points, and I get to decide when to hand 'em out.

 

Add to that, a fair number of my favorites are now archived.  Should I go back and reclaim my favorite points?  They're not really helping anyone who's searching for active caches.  But that doesn't change the fact that I liked those caches enough to consider them one of "my favorites."  And as above, it's not like I'm running out.  So I'm letting them stand.

 

Enough of my approach.  We're looking for solutions here.

 

Unless/until the OP's recommended suggestion is implemented, there are a few potential ways forward while working within the current setup.

 

- Consider your criteria for awarding favorite points.  By design, they can't all be your favorite, only 10% of them can be.  So before clicking that heart, maybe start thinking about whether a given cache is really in your top 10%.

- If you only want your FPs to be used as an indication to other cachers of caches you consider more worthy of finding than others, consider taking FPs back from now-archived caches.

- For that matter, take a look back at the FPs you've awarded, regardless of whether they are archived.  If you've changed your mind on it being a favorite, take your point back.

- And if you really want 10 more FPs to award without taking them away from other caches, then, under the current system, the only way forward is to go find more caches and amass more FPs to award.  If your local area is cached out and that means taking a road trip, then that's going to have a more immediate effect than waiting for Groundspeak to change the system.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/15/2019 at 4:24 PM, cerberus1 said:

I know of two Reviewers who've even said in these forums that they'd make it more than .1 if it was up to them.

 

I know one who says the system is fine as is.  I'd let him say so, but I'm hogging the keyboard and I need to get off the forums and get back to work.

 

edit: wait, I was reading hastily and thought this was on favorite points and not proximity.  But either way, I'm OK with 528' / 161 m, or 10 finds = 1 FP.  As a cacher, I usually walk cache to cache, so I'm good with that walking distance.  (And as a geoaware, proximity is less important.)

Edited by hzoi
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/16/2019 at 1:07 AM, VAVAPAM said:

 

Granted, I don't live in an area rife with guardrail trails (actually, guardrails [and other DOT-owned property] are out of bounds in my state) or teeming with COs competing for placement space, but I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

 

Before you bring out the tar and feathers, do consider that while a cache may be .1 as the crow flies, that crow may be flying over a ravine or other impassable territory.

 

 

That no longer matters.  Before the guidelines were changed to remove to the "don't place a cache every 600' just because you can" reviewer gave a little more latitude for the proximity guideline when the terrain between two caches was impassable (rivers, and busy highways even qualified) and the caches were less that .1 of a mile apart.  Once people were allowed to places caches just over .1 of a mile apart, just because they can,  at least one reviewer I've read has said that the .1 mile proximity guideline has become more of strict, hard rule.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/15/2019 at 4:01 PM, The A-Team said:

I don't think there were primarily intended to be a reward, though.

 

And if I recall correctly, the forumites for years were requesting some kind of favorite point system, not so they could keep a list of the caches they liked best (bookmarks work for those), but as a way to filter for the "cream of the crop" caches. 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

And if I recall correctly, the forumites for years were requesting some kind of favorite point system, not so they could keep a list of the caches they liked best (bookmarks work for those), but as a way to filter for the "cream of the crop" caches. 

 

Which lends even more credence to the argument that this isn't what they're intended to be used for. After all, when do we ever get a feature that does what we requested? :ph34r:

 

SICNR :laughing:

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, hzoi said:

I guess it boils down to how one defines the word "favorite."

 

Every time I log ten caches, Groundspeak gives me a favorite point to assign to a cache.  By design, then, I can call up to 10% of my finds "my favorite finds."

 

I am more selective than that.  I currently have 9417 finds, so theoretically I've gotten 941 FPs to hand out.  (There was a bug for a little while that may have affected this, but for discussion's sake, let's say it's 941.  I have 396 FPs remaining, so I should have given out 545.  So I've listed not quite 6% of my finds as my favorite.  Perhaps some cachers would consider me miserly.  So be it.  They're my points, and I get to decide when to hand 'em out.

 

Add to that, a fair number of my favorites are now archived.  Should I go back and reclaim my favorite points?  They're not really helping anyone who's searching for active caches.  But that doesn't change the fact that I liked those caches enough to consider them one of "my favorites."  And as above, it's not like I'm running out.  So I'm letting them stand.

 

Enough of my approach.  We're looking for solutions here.

 

Unless/until the OP's recommended suggestion is implemented, there are a few potential ways forward while working within the current setup.

 

- Consider your criteria for awarding favorite points.  By design, they can't all be your favorite, only 10% of them can be.  So before clicking that heart, maybe start thinking about whether a given cache is really in your top 10%.

- If you only want your FPs to be used as an indication to other cachers of caches you consider more worthy of finding than others, consider taking FPs back from now-archived caches.

- For that matter, take a look back at the FPs you've awarded, regardless of whether they are archived.  If you've changed your mind on it being a favorite, take your point back.

- And if you really want 10 more FPs to award without taking them away from other caches, then, under the current system, the only way forward is to go find more caches and amass more FPs to award.  If your local area is cached out and that means taking a road trip, then that's going to have a more immediate effect than waiting for Groundspeak to change the system.

I thought about this and had a look at my own FPs and found that I've 9.5% award rate with 20 spares up my sleeve.

I was thinking if there could be a case for awarding few points than at preset, say 1 per 15 finds or even 1 per 20? One drawback I see is, it would skew the point value of those FPs already awarded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, colleda said:

I thought about this and had a look at my own FPs and found that I've 9.5% award rate with 20 spares up my sleeve.

I was thinking if there could be a case for awarding few points than at preset, say 1 per 15 finds or even 1 per 20? One drawback I see is, it would skew the point value of those FPs already awarded.

 

 

Skew the point value?

 

I find a cache, I like a cache enough to consider it one of my favorites, I award a FP.

 

For me, I don't care about 'ratios awarded' or any other statistic having to do with FPs. I recently read (took part in, maybe?) a thread where there was the attitude that you were shirking your responsibility if you didn't give out your FPs.

 

Ridiculous.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Skew the point value?

 

I find a cache, I like a cache enough to consider it one of my favorites, I award a FP.

 

For me, I don't care about 'ratios awarded' or any other statistic having to do with FPs. I recently read (took part in, maybe?) a thread where there was the attitude that you were shirking your responsibility if you didn't give out your FPs.

 

Ridiculous.

What's ridiculous?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, colleda said:

What's ridiculous?

 

The idea that I'm not fulfilling my 'responsibility' to support my fellow COs by holding them back. That 'hoarding' them was, well, 'hoarding' them.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

The idea that I'm not fulfilling my 'responsibility' to support my fellow COs by holding them back. That 'hoarding' them was, well, 'hoarding' them.

They're not my words. Nowhere did I mention anything remotely like that. Have you misquoted?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, colleda said:

They're not my words. Nowhere did I mention anything remotely like that. Have you misquoted?

 

No, no, I'm commenting on the attitudes held in that other thread. Sorry if you thought it was directed at your post.

 

But, I am curious about what you meant by "skewing the point value."

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

No, no, I'm commenting on the attitudes held in that other thread. Sorry if you thought it was directed at your post.

 

But, I am curious about what you meant by "skewing the point value."

OK. No worries.

By skewed I meant that if the existing favourite points only took 10 finds and if there was a change to, say, 15, finds per FP then there is an obvious difference. It would mean fewer caches may be awarded FP as cachers could become more discerning. Are FPs still form part of some challenges and in some way affect challenges? Caches would take longer to accumulate FPs. An older cache with FPs accumulated at the old value could see more attractive to a seeker.  Or if cachers like me don't take into account how much a cache is favourited it would make no difference at all.

I'm not sure I've explained myself very well.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, colleda said:

OK. No worries.

By skewed I meant that if the existing favourite points only took 10 finds and if there was a change to, say, 15, finds per FP then there is an obvious difference. It would mean fewer caches may be awarded FP as cachers could become more discerning. Are FPs still form part of some challenges and in some way affect challenges? Caches would take longer to accumulate FPs. An older cache with FPs accumulated at the old value could see more attractive to a seeker.  Or if cachers like me don't take into account how much a cache is favourited it would make no difference at all.

I'm not sure I've explained myself very well.

 

Understand, thanks for explaining.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/13/2019 at 4:59 PM, Max and 99 said:

Someone new to geocaching asked me which was more important to me: Favorite Points or a good log.  Hands-down; a good log!

 

Good logs and Favorite points are beneficial to both COs and other seekers, but I daresay Favorites mean more to other seekers than to the CO.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Good logs and Favorite points are beneficial to both COs and other seekers, but I daresay Favorites mean more to other seekers than to the CO.

I wouldn't know in general, but I rarely notice favorite points until I go to award one and see whether I'm alone or not in thinking the cache was special. I know from the forums that some people select highly favorited caches to seek them preferentially, but I've always assumed that was rare. At least in day to day caching, I have other criteria that are much more important to me than how many people considered the caches particularly excellent.

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 4

×
×
  • Create New...