Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Enjayen

Am I a jerk for removing FPs on archived caches?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Imagine how different this game would be if Ground speak didn't have the favorite point feature. 

 

Favorite points weren't a thing until  December 2010, so we didn't have to "imagine" it.  ;)

I liked it better.  People showed their appreciation of another's cache with a nice log...   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Favorite points weren't a thing until  December 2010,

I didn't realize they've been around for almost 10 years! I'm

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

People showed their appreciation of another's cache with a nice log...   

Some people created bookmark lists of notable caches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Imagine how different this game would be if Ground speak didn't have the favorite point feature. 

Pretty easy to do.  The favorite point features was added in 2011.  It's been played longer without a favorites feature than with one.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/11/2020 at 10:56 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

Pretty easy to do.  The favorite point features was added in 2011.  It's been played longer without a favorites feature than with one.

 

 

2011? Then what is all the fuss by members about taking back favorite points from archived caches?  

Edited by HunterandSamuel
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post

Did I mention that I now have 4 extra favorite points that I took back from archived caches? Yay!  I'm saving them for children's homemade caches that parents proudly hide. Absolutely love those hides. Geocaching is so much better than Pokemon. 

  • Surprised 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/10/2020 at 3:14 PM, Max and 99 said:
On 8/10/2020 at 3:12 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

Premium members get a notification when favorites are removed from their archived caches?

I've seen this advertised on the homepage as a perk.

 

I believe it's only for Project-GC members, not a GC Premium membership perk (I've never seen a notification from GC for removed FPs).  That notification is provided along with summaries of photos added to logs on your caches, and when someone edits a log on your caches.

 

 

On 8/11/2020 at 8:31 AM, niraD said:
On 8/10/2020 at 11:55 PM, cerberus1 said:

People showed their appreciation of another's cache with a nice log...   

Some people created bookmark lists of notable caches.

 

Some people still do :lol:  (and it then also lets you provide reasons for noting it as a favourite, which the FP system doesn't provide, inherently)

 

 

8 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Then what is all the fuss by members about taking back favorite points from archived caches?  

 

Because the public unified 'badge' of favourite points on a listing is a very differently promoted visual and statistical mechanic than public bookmark list inclusion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I believe it's only for Project-GC members

That's the homepage I was referring to. Sorry I wasn't more clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:
46 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I believe it's only for Project-GC members

That's the homepage I was referring to. Sorry I wasn't more clear. 

 

oh oh sorry that was my bad - the initial comment that lead to that quoted quote I replied to did specify Project-gc:

 

 

On 8/5/2020 at 6:40 PM, Boomshanka said:

Project-gc premium members get notifications when FPs are added *and removed* from their caches, so it doesn't go unnoticed!

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/6/2020 at 1:41 AM, thebruce0 said:

 

I believe it's only for Project-GC members, not a GC Premium membership perk (I've never seen a notification from GC for removed FPs).  That notification is provided along with summaries of photos added to logs on your caches, and when someone edits a log on your caches.

 

 

 

Some people still do :lol:  (and it then also lets you provide reasons for noting it as a favourite, which the FP system doesn't provide, inherently)

 

 

 

Because the public unified 'badge' of favourite points on a listing is a very differently promoted visual and statistical mechanic than public bookmark list inclusion.

 

 

I'm glad people are not notified when a favorite point has been taken back. I know when a photo is deleted from a log, the geocache who logged the photo is notified. As for archived caches, I doubt very much the CO looks through their archived history to see if favorites are taken back lol I prefer, as I have mentioned, to give my favorite points to active caches. But if I am an owner of 100 favorite points for finding 5,000 + caches, then I will not even think of taking them back. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

But if I am an owner of 100 favorite points for finding 5,000 + caches, then I will not even think of taking them back. 

I don't understand. 

On 9/5/2020 at 3:50 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

Then what is all the fuss by members about taking back favorite points from archived caches?

7 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm glad people are not notified when a favorite point has been taken back.

But some are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

 

How? 

This was already explained in the posts above. It is a feature for project GC members. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

This was already explained in the posts above. It is a feature for project GC members. 

 

I don't think it's a feature. I lost a favorite and wasn't notified. I wasn't offended. I figure they found another worthy cache hide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I don't think it's a feature. 

LOL

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

LOL right back at you. Grow up. 

 

Project GC Fav point notification.png

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Guess it's old news as I have never been notified. And I doubt anyone else has. 

They have.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Guess it's old news as I have never been notified. And I doubt anyone else has. 

 

Favorite Point notification, edited log notification, and photo added notification are all available to Project GC paid members. They're not automatically sent unless you request them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:
3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Guess it's old news as I have never been notified. And I doubt anyone else has. 

They have.

As have I.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Um. I don't know how to reply to that.

 

I regularly get my emails with all the details mentioned above. Why would that bother me? (that's a rhetorical question)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Um. I don't know how to reply to that.

 

I regularly get my emails with all the details mentioned above. Why would that bother me? (that's a rhetorical question)

 

 

From what I remember, taking back a favorite was an insult. That's what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/19/2020 at 11:39 PM, brodiebunch said:

 

I have 513 favorite points that are unused. Find a way for me to transfer them and you can have mine.

They are unnecessary for us-I have never used favorite point to determine how I geocache or which geocache to search for.

We started giving favorite points but got bored. 

 

If you are only quantity caching, power trailing, no problem, but you do realize that if you find a nice cache with many FPs, you are downvoting it by refusing to give it an FP? You may be the first to downvote an excellent gadget cache. Would you do that?

You give FPs to help others, not yourself. You let the CO know if the cache is a good one, and others can use it as recommendation. If my cache has less than 10% FPs, I put it on my "death list" for likely removal since it obviously is below average.

Using existing FPs for planning caching or not is a matter of cache style, and there we are different. Giving them is a matter of helping the community.

BTW, how do you write your logs? TFTC? Copy-paste?

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2020 at 11:18 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

 

From what I remember, taking back a favorite was an insult. That's what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion. 

 

I am not so sure about that. Taking back an FP could also mean that the cache has gotten competition that deserved the FP better, but it could be nice to tell the CO that that was the case - you still like the cache but it is not quite top 10% any more. (FPs are primarily recommendations in my view.)

 

However, there is one case where I think redrawing FPs is percectly fine, an archived cache belonging to an inactive CO, who you know has quit the hobby and does not care. That hurts nobody.

 

I have at some time removed an FP from a cache belonging to an active CO that I know doesn't care about FPs, and doing that on an archived cache is just fine but not on an active one if I still believes it deserves it, for the good of other cachers, not the CO.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

...but you do realize that if you find a nice cache with many FPs, you are downvoting it by refusing to give it an FP?  

 

Nope.  It's not taking anything away from the cache by not giving it a FP.  It's not a negative endorsement (DON'T find this cache because it's not good) nor is it a slight to the CO for not giving a FP on a cache with many FPs.  You do realize that this logic of yours works in an unintended manner as well, right?  For example, let's say a new cache is published and quickly gets two finds, both of which attach a FP to the cache.  By your logic, the next person that comes along "downvotes" this cache because they don't give it a favorite point because it's a simple LPC and yet the two finders gave it a FP because they were FTF, they were a friend of the CO, it was a tribute cache to one of them, it was a milestone find, they found 20$, they connected with a friend they haven't seen for years at the cache, etc.... I can still have an enjoyable experience at a cache with FPs but not award a FP.  How is that a "downvote" or a negative endorsement of the cache?

 

5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

You give FPs to help others, not yourself.

 

No, YOU give FPs to help others.  I give FPs to caches that I enjoyed, for whatever reason I may have enjoyed them.  My awarding of a FP is based on my enjoyment, not based on what I think anyone else may think about a cache, based on my FP.  What I like doesn't necessarily translate to what someone else may like.  I continue to use this example because it applies and helps explain the difference.  During GWSX in southern Indiana, there were two very similar caches, both with a good number of FPs.  The first one was located in a mall parking lot and was a fake bass (fish) with a bison tube inside, hanging from a tree by fishing line and called Bad Cast (or something very similar).  It was cute but I didn't find it worth a FP mostly because of the location.  The other cache was a few miles away and involved a short walk along the Ohio River and took you to an old brick bridge support and flood abatement wall that looked like the walls of a castle that you were able to explore a bit (can't now as it's fenced off).  It too, was hanging from a fishing line that dangled into a hole that looked like an old room that used to be part of some larger structure and was themed around something similar to Indiana Jones.  It was a nice walk and a a neat old structure that when combined, were worth the FPs that were attached to it.  Both were the same style hide (bison tube hanging from fishing line) but one I really liked and the other was just, well, plain to me, but cute.  

 

However, cute isn't worth a FP, at least to me.  I'm sure it is to others, which is why I find FPs only somewhat helpful.  There's certainly a higher chance that a cache with more FPs will be "better" than one with less or one that I'll enjoy more than one with less, but there's no guarantee because there are so many reasons cachers award a FP.  Here's another example I've used. I was caching in a country cemetery just outside town limits when a local came into the cemetery and asked what I was doing.  After explaining it to him, he then told me his family's story.  Turns out that his ancestors settled this land, owned all the land in this area, including the church and cemetery which his family donated, and still own large tracts that surrounded this little cemetery.  He pointed out his family members interred here and then told me to go look at the other cemetery that's more of a family plot, just about 3/4 of a mile away.  I had to walk between a narrow fence strip of land, between quite a few cows to get to it and had already visited it first, as there was a cache in there as well.  I gave this cache a FP, not because the cache stood out in any way, but because I got to hear a firsthand account of what his family did to allow this location to come to pass and learned some local history as well.  The only way anyone else will have an experience like that is if he happens to do the same thing he did with me, the odds of which are very small.  How is that helpful to others?

 

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Giving them is a matter of helping the community

 

Again, nope.  Giving them only tells the community that I enjoyed my experience enough to award a FP.  It doesn't guarantee that anyone else will have an enjoyable experience.  You seem to think that a lot of FPs is an infallible means of determining whether or not a cache is good, without realizing that not everyone uses them in the same manner as you appear to use them.  If everyone did use them like you do, then it would work in the manner you claim it does.  The problem is that not everyone does it the way you do it and that makes your information somewhat faulty because there's not one single standard being applied to the use of a FP.  You only need read this thread (among the countless others) to see that the awarding of a FP is an extremely subjective thing, rather than the objective thing you suppose it to be.  "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

 

As many others have mentioned, a cache with more FPs has a better chance of being a "better" cache experience but it in no way guarantees that.  I like gadget caches but I'm not going to award a FP to a gadget cache that I've found when I've already found 4 that were done just like it.  I remember thinking how cool my first LPC was and here I am, over 10 years later, thinking how uncool they are to me now. 

 

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

You let the CO know if the cache is a good one, and others can use it as recommendation.

 

I let the CO know that I enjoyed my experience finding their cache by awarding a FP, not that the cache is a "good" one.  I'll use my cemetery cache as an example again.  The cache was a medical tube hidden along a fence line.  There was NOTHING "good" about it.  What made it worth my FP was the experience I had with the man, not the actual experience of finding this cache.  I wouldn't recommend this cache to anyone, unless they were cemetery seekers, because there's nothing that makes it stand out, beyond my singular experience.  Others should use it at their own "risk" because it's extremely unlikely that anyone else will have the same experience I had.  

 

Some people enjoy "cute" caches.  Some people enjoy a demanding effort to get to the cache.  Some people enjoy a leisurely walk on a paved trail to get to the cache.  Some people enjoy LPCs.  Some people enjoy really tricky and difficult hides.  Some people enjoy small or larger caches.  Some people enjoy micros in the woods if the location is worth a visit.  Some people enjoy challenges.  Some people enjoy multis.  Some people enjoy gadget caches.  Some people enjoy ECs.  Do you notice anything that's missing from each of these short sentences about what some people like?  It's the word "all".  Everyone doesn't cache the same way, enjoy the same things, or award FPs the same way.  FPs are just as individualistic as cachers are and to rely on them as a determination of whether or not a cache is "good" is a stretch.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

If you are only quantity caching, power trailing, no problem, but you do realize that if you find a nice cache with many FPs, you are downvoting it by refusing to give it an FP? You may be the first to downvote an excellent gadget cache. Would you do that?

 

There's a cache hidden by one of my friends that gets lots of FPs. In the early days it was getting close to 100% but that's tapered off a bit and it's now sitting at 61% from 76 finds. I happened to be FTF but didn't give it an FP, not because there was anything wrong with it - it's a very clever and well-made cache that camoflages itself brilliantly into its hiding place - but simply because the experience I had didn't put it up in my top ten percent bracket. It was a quick urban find in an unappealing location whereas the sort of caches that are more likely to get an FP from me have at least a couple of hours of rugged hiking and some awesome natural beauty. It was still an enjoyable cache, though, and I wrote a comprehensive and complimentary log, it just wasn't quite up there in FP territory for me.

 

The same goes for my own hides. My three post-lockdown hides this year have only received two FPs between them but I don't think they're particularly bad caches. None are pill bottles in car parks at any rate:

 

GC8RTKC, From the Mountain to the Sea, is a nice little bushwalk out to a vantage point offering an unobstructed view from Mount Wondabyne in the south-west around to the sea in the south-east. It was published in May and has no FPs from eight finds.

 

8082cb29-193d-4d76-84aa-6494dd643b29_l.j

 

GC8TAFN, Big Lagoon, is a somewhat longer bushwalk through a section of Brisbane Water National Park from the ridge-top down to the water's edge. It has one FP from six finds.

 

e0ff680b-991b-49fa-8f6e-23c452112555.jpg

 

GC8V8WA, Old Stone Jetty, is an easy puzzle to solve followed by a kayak paddle out to the remains of what appears to be an old stone jetty although its purpose remains a mystery. It was published in June and has one FP from four finds.

 

JettyUpCloseSmall.jpg.0351b0beadb75173afc134dd6798b833.jpg

 

From the logs I've received, those who've done them seemed to enjoy them, well at least none have said they would have rather stayed home, so I don't consider them failures even if they're not getting lots of finds let alone lots of FPs. I'd much rather have caches like those to entice me outdoors than none at all.

 

The one which I would consider something of a failure is GC8DQXK, The Nemophilist Challenge. It was published almost a year ago and has 100% FPs but those are from just two finds which happened in the first week after publication. I'm happy enough to let it sit there and where it is it certainly isn't blocking anyone else's hides, but if something were to happen like a fire I wouldn't lose any sleep over archiving it.

 

So lots of FPs or a high percentage of FPs don't necessarily make a good cache and few or no FPs don't imply a bad cache, as everyone has their own tastes and their own preferences for what they consider to be their favourites.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

You give FPs to help others, not yourself.

You let the CO know if the cache is a good one, and others can use it as recommendation.

 

If my cache has less than 10% FPs, I put it on my "death list" for likely removal since it obviously is below average.

 

That's odd, even the site says they're "a simple way to track and share the geocaches that you enjoyed the most."   :)

 

Good thing others don't think the same...  

Many caches placed before 2011 could be scheduled for an undeserved "death list", just because they were created years before this FP thing came to be.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

... but you do realize that if you find a nice cache with many FPs, you are downvoting it by refusing to give it an FP? You may be the first to downvote an excellent gadget cache. Would you do that?

 

How would anyone, much less the CO, know the reason an FP was NOT awarded to a particular gadget cache?  Maybe the cacher has seen several like it and was unimpressed, which could conceivably be considered a "downvote".  But what if it's a basic member that HAS no favorite points to give?  Or someone who has already awarded all their points (new cacher, hasn't earned many yet, or other situations).  FP's are nice when I receive them, but I'm not going to archive any cache based on the rate of FP's it's getting, or not.  The logs peo[ple leave are much more informative and indicative of their enjoyment.

 

I don't understand how you can infer that someone "downvoted" a cache by NOT awarding a favorite point. That's so negative.  Keep it positive, as FP's are intended - a FP awarded means I enjoyed the cache, the hunt, the hide style, whatever, and I will remember that cache and experience above others, most likely.  To imply that the non-awarding of a FP is a downvote to that cache is simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

If you are only quantity caching, power trailing, no problem, but you do realize that if you find a nice cache with many FPs, you are downvoting it by refusing to give it an FP? You may be the first to downvote an excellent gadget cache. Would you do that?

You give FPs to help others, not yourself. You let the CO know if the cache is a good one, and others can use it as recommendation. If my cache has less than 10% FPs, I put it on my "death list" for likely removal since it obviously is below average.

Using existing FPs for planning caching or not is a matter of cache style, and there we are different. Giving them is a matter of helping the community.

BTW, how do you write your logs? TFTC? Copy-paste?

 

FP's are simply a feature of the geocaching website we choose not to use. There are a number of website features that are unnecessary to our way of geocaching. 

We do not find waymarks, almost never find an earthcache, haven't attended an event in over five years, we no longer drop/leave swag except trackables and we are no longer place geocaches.

 

We "downvote" a geocache by choosing not to find it. There are many geocaches in my city I chose not to find, we do not dislike them but we are not required to find them. That is not really a downvote, its just preference. 

 

We "upvote" a geocache by finding it, writing a decent online log that is not a cut and paste or just an acronym (TFTH) or "Thanks!" But full disclosure, we have been lazy and just posted "TFTH" or "Thanks" but its rare. 

 

An online log that gives some description of the area or experience in finding the geocache goes much further at helping other geocachers than receiving a FP, 

 

The way you are describing FP's is akin to the likes on Facebook or on Instagram. As if you are not getting enough validation with your geocache you place it on a death list for removal because of its below average quality.

 

We placed geocaches to show off an area, its history or quirkiness. We kept them well maintained and if they went awhile without a find we'd drop a trackable we found in it as a possible incentive. That is how we kept our geocaches average or above average in quality. 

 

But everybody has their own way of geocaching, to fit their needs, comfort, skills and sense of accomplishment. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/11/2020 at 6:00 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

Guess it's old news as I have never been notified. And I doubt anyone else has. 

 

Project-GC notifies me of every log edit, photo addition, FP being added or removed for several years now. If you aren't getting these notifications, you must not be a paying member.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 3:56 PM, K13 said:

 

Project-GC notifies me of every log edit, photo addition, FP being added or removed for several years now. If you aren't getting these notifications, you must not be a paying member.

 

If you want those notifications, you need to be a paying member of project-gc.com (different than geocaching.com); and you need to sign up to receive those notifications.  Just for clarification.

 

So yes, some people are paying and signed up and receive such notifications.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 3:14 PM, Ragnemalm said:

You give FPs to help others, not yourself. You let the CO know if the cache is a good one, and others can use it as recommendation.

 

Yesterday I gave a cache (GC6DQ30) an FP. It was the first FP it's received although it's only had 18 finds. The cache itself is a 2/2.5 traditional and is almost a park-and-grab; there's a climb up from the road and a bit of a rock scramble to get to GZ but getting from the road to the cache would only take a few minutes. But that's not how I did it. I left my car 5km away and 400 metres lower down in the valley and did what would have been a T4 hike up to it. It was the whole experience there and back again, plus the scenic locations along the way and at GZ and the good quality cache itself, that got it the FP.

 

None of the previous finders have hiked up from the valley and I don't expect any future ones will either, so my FP (and most of my log for that matter) is irrelevant to others. At the end of my log I said, "They say the journey's as important as the destination and that was certainly the case today, so have a favourite point for an adventure I'll long remember as one of the classic journeys and destinations." My FP was simply because that journey to the cache and back made it one of my favourites, and even when that cache is archived my FP will stay on it because that will always have been a memorable and thoroughly enjoyable adventure I wouldn't have done if not for the cache.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 8:01 PM, brodiebunch said:

We "downvote" a geocache by choosing not to find it. There are many geocaches in my city I chose not to find, we do not dislike them but we are not required to find them. That is not really a downvote, its just preference. 

 

We "upvote" a geocache by finding it, writing a decent online log that is not a cut and paste or just an acronym (TFTH) or "Thanks!" But full disclosure, we have been lazy and just posted "TFTH" or "Thanks" but its rare.

 

That's the "votes" that are valid for P&G and PTs. A CO making a PT wants a lot of logs and FPs are irrelevant since the caches are trivial. It says nothing about quality, only quantity. But this is totally irrelevant for a hard multi or a neat gadget cache where the numbers are lower and the quality a lot higher.

 

On 9/17/2020 at 8:01 PM, brodiebunch said:

The way you are describing FP's is akin to the likes on Facebook or on Instagram. As if you are not getting enough validation with your geocache you place it on a death list for removal because of its below average quality.

 

This is not really the same thing. On the services you mention, only the number of likes matter, just like the "upvotes" you argue for above.

 

On Geocaching, the percentage matters more. A good cache should have more than 10% FPs. If it has 1000 finds and 20 FPs, then it is probably not a very good cache. If it has 30 finds and 20 FPs, then it is likely to be really good.

 

Why should I not put it on my death list if it is clearly not popular? I want to make good caches, not fillers and PTs. I want them to have a point. If I missed the point, then I can trash it and make a new, better one.

 

So please rethink your downvotes. They don't matter on PTs and P&G, skip them as much as you like, just rethink for those caches that are really special, with much work put into, or a particularly nice location, great challenge or whatever. The ones that stand out. Don't treat them as another petling in a bush. We want your help to identify them.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 9:56 PM, K13 said:

Project-GC notifies me of every log edit, photo addition, FP being added or removed for several years now. If you aren't getting these notifications, you must not be a paying member.

 

I am a paying member but get no notification on FP changes. I guess I have to activate that manually somehow, right?

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 5:45 PM, CAVinoGal said:

How would anyone, much less the CO, know the reason an FP was NOT awarded to a particular gadget cache?  Maybe the cacher has seen several like it and was unimpressed, which could conceivably be considered a "downvote".  But what if it's a basic member that HAS no favorite points to give?  Or someone who has already awarded all their points (new cacher, hasn't earned many yet, or other situations).  FP's are nice when I receive them, but I'm not going to archive any cache based on the rate of FP's it's getting, or not.  The logs peo[ple leave are much more informative and indicative of their enjoyment.

 

Well, you are answering yourself. The reason why FPs are given or not given can be, and often are, in the logs. Not so often for the ones that don't though - they are often copy-paste logs with no information whatsoever. FYI: A basic member doesn't count for the FP %.

 

I very much count nice logs as well, and try to give them when I can't afford an FP or the cache is not quite good enough for it, but I still want to let the CO know that I liked it.

 

Why should I not archive a cache with 3% FPs in order to replace it with something better? The users have voted, let it go, think again, improve.

  

On 9/17/2020 at 5:45 PM, CAVinoGal said:

I don't understand how you can infer that someone "downvoted" a cache by NOT awarding a favorite point. That's so negative.  Keep it positive, as FP's are intended - a FP awarded means I enjoyed the cache, the hunt, the hide style, whatever, and I will remember that cache and experience above others, most likely.  To imply that the non-awarding of a FP is a downvote to that cache is simply wrong.

 

On a cache with few or even 30-40% FPs, FPs are very much a positive thing, but an omitted FP on a cache with 90-100% FPs is obviously a downvote. Of course it hurts to see a great cache falling from the local top 10 to an anonymous lower top 100.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

I am a paying member but get no notification on FP changes. I guess I have to activate that manually somehow, right?

Yup. If you want to activate it, go to your Project GC Settings page and scroll down until you get to "Notifiers", where there is a checkbox for FP notifications.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

I am a paying member but get no notification on FP changes. I guess I have to activate that manually somehow, right?

I don't recall any special settings needed, but was several years ago when I became a paid member.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

On Geocaching, the percentage matters more. A good cache should have more than 10% FPs. If it has 1000 finds and 20 FPs, then it is probably not a very good cache. If it has 30 finds and 20 FPs, then it is likely to be really good.

 

I see, so GC8RTKC (From the Mountain to the Sea), with no FPs from 10 finds, is a rubbish cache.

 

GC8RTKC.thumb.jpg.886d6c103e08b0a03244692a77af28af.jpg

 

Likewise GC6647D (Swamp Critter) which has just 2 FPs from 43 finds.

 

GC6647D.jpg.b2ae9758c949156c0074c597eea7257b.jpg

 

These are in a region that has no power trails or LPCs, where the smalls and regulars outnumber the micros by a good margin and where there's lots of scenic bushland locations for caches to go, but the cachers here can still only award their FPs to a tenth of them. If I were to archive these, there'd just be two less caches for people to find and other more worthy caches would then have to miss out on FPs.

 

I judge my caches by what finders say in their logs, although that's getting harder now with these app-only cachers rarely saying more than one or two words. If they enjoy it then for me it's a good cache and worth the effort of creating and hiding it, regardless of whether it's amongst people's top ten percent of favourites. Even if all the caches in a region are good well-maintained containers in beautiful locations, the finders can still only give FPs to their top ten percent. You need that 90% foundation of good sound caches in order to be able to give FPs to the other 10%. For me, FPs are an added bonus, not an expection or a requirement.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Why should I not archive a cache with 3% FPs in order to replace it with something better? The users have voted, let it go, think again, improve.

 

That is totally up to you as a CO.  For me (and I don't presume to speak for anyone else, and I know you already disagree with me!) I'm not going to archive a cache just because it's not getting favorite points.  I enjoy creating the caches I hide, creating an experience for the finder, but I don't expect or require favorites to keep my caches in play.  As BFJ said:

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

FPs are an added bonus, not an expection or a requirement.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Why should I not archive a cache with 3% FPs in order to replace it with something better? The users have voted, let it go, think again, improve.

 

Just because I didn't give a cache an FP, it doesn't mean I didn't like it or think it needs to be either improved or archived. I enjoy just about all the caches I do but can only give FPs to a tenth of them. For example, lee737 and his son Samuel737 have put out some excellent series around the Newcastle area and I've enjoyed them enough to keep driving the 100km each way to do more of them, but I simply don't make enough more mundane finds in between to give them anything more than a token FP. They're all good caches, fun puzzles with well-maintained containers in bushland locations, but so are most of the other caches I do and those that get FPs from me have to have something extra on top of that, usually a challenging hike to some spectacular location.

 

As for replacing it with something better, there are plenty of cache locations I've visited where even the most amazing container wouldn't entice an FP out of me. For me, location matters a lot more than the container; as long as it's adequate to hold the logbook and keep it dry, it's done its job as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more interested in the journey to GZ and the views, rock formations or whatever I find along the way and when I get there.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Why should I not archive a cache with 3% FPs in order to replace it with something better?

 

If the point of your cache is to gather FP, then clearly it has failed and should be archived.

 

If the point of your cache is anything else, then it could still fulfill that purpose even if it isn't among the top 10% of all caches found by most of the people who find it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

For me, FPs are an added bonus, not an expection or a requirement.

 

If only the community as a whole, and Groundspeak in particular, saw it that way.  But we keep getting told by Groundspeak that FPs are important and tell us which caches are the best!

 

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I see, so GC8RTKC (From the Mountain to the Sea), with no FPs from 10 finds, is a rubbish cache.

 

Likewise GC6647D (Swamp Critter) which has just 2 FPs from 43 finds.

 

Well, according to every Groundspeak blog post or promotion that mentions FPs, sadly yes.

 

(But obviously NO!)

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

If only the community as a whole, and Groundspeak in particular, saw it that way.  But we keep getting told by Groundspeak that FPs are important and tell us which caches are the best!

 

So out of curiosity, what are the best caches?

 

Looking firstly at just the total number of FPs and excluding archived caches, these are the top ten in my region (New South Wales Central Coast):

 

            Cache                                                               Year Placed    D/T       Type       Size     FPs/Finds        %FPs

  1. Twisty Turny                                                          2015       3.5/2.5     Trad        Reg       65/203             40%
  2. Tuggerah Lakes Royal Mail                                2014           5/2         LBH      Large      53/88               62%
  3. Breathless                                                             2006         1.5/3       Trad      Small      50/156             48%
  4. Beach Access                                                       2015       2.5/1.5     Trad      Micro      49/188             32%
  5. The Can Man                                                        2011         1/1.5       Trad      Small      44/330             26%
  6. M1 Bugpacker Motel                                          2016           1/2         Trad      Large       41/88              56%
  7. The Basin Bison                                                   2016       2.5/2.5      Trad     Micro        36/76              61%
  8. #19 Haunted Highway                                        2001          2/2          Trad      Reg          35/224            28%
  9. Bill & Ben                                                               2012         2.5/2       Trad      Micro       34/137            30%
  10. Head like a Box                                                    2001         3/3.5       Trad       Reg          33/173            38%

Now the top ten caches on percentage FP, excluding archived caches and caches with less than ten FPs:

  1. Boudi Peninsular                                                 2015       2.5/3.5      Multi      Reg           10/12             91%
  2. The Cave of Power                                              2018        1.5/3        Trad      Small         14/16             88%
  3. Siren of Mooney Mooney                                   2015       3.5/3.5      Myst      Reg           23/27             85%
  4. Quest for the Middle Sea Diamond                  2015          3/5          Myst      Reg           20/27             77%
  5. Prince in Distress                                                2014       3.5/2.5      Myst     Small         25/34             76%
  6. Stepping through Rumbalara II                         2015        5/3.5        Multi     Small         17/24             74%
  7. The Hyperbolic Paraboloid                                2016        3.5/3        Myst       Reg           14/19             74%
  8. The Bushranger                                                   2015        3/3.5        Myst     Small          12/17             71%
  9. The Great Train Heist                                         2016        2.5/4        Multi       Reg           26/37             70%
  10. Plodfoot's Revenge                                            2015        3.5/3         Myst       Reg           16/25             67%

The stand-out difference between the two lists is the cache types. All but one in the total FPs list are traditionals whereas only one of the top percentage FPs list is a traditional and that has some electronic special effects. D/T ratings are generally higher for the percentage FP caches than the total FP ones, and the latter are generally older caches, meaning they've had more time to accumulate lots of finds and thus higher numbers of FPs. Perhaps some of those FPs are even because they're old caches.

 

I would summarise by concluding that the highest total FP caches are more generalist ones with broad appeal, whereas the highest percentage FP ones are mostly specialist caches (higher D/T mysteries or multis) with niche appeal.

 

Finally, Project-GC's Wilson Score adds yet another variation on this:

image.png.e7c0d885a18e3200fac5eb7c96220335.png

 

The only one in there that didn't make either of the other two lists is Chasing Waterfalls 5 (a 2/3 multi) which has 90% FPs but, with only 9 FPs from 10 finds, didn't make the cut in the percentage table.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I would summarise by concluding that the highest total FP caches are more generalist ones with broad appeal, whereas the highest percentage FP ones are mostly specialist caches (higher D/T mysteries or multis) with niche appeal.

Interesting analysis.

 

Using only the tools at the geocaching.com site, I've used FP to prepare for a geocaching trip by getting a list of multi-caches in the area, and then sorting by FP. That gives me a filtered list to review by hand. Then I repeat for other types (EarthCache, virtual, Wherigo, etc.)  The potential caches go on a bookmark list, and then I plan the trip from that bookmark list.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/14/2020 at 9:37 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Why should I not archive a cache with 3% FPs in order to replace it with something better? The users have voted, let it go, think again, improve.

 

On a cache with few or even 30-40% FPs, FPs are very much a positive thing, but an omitted FP on a cache with 90-100% FPs is obviously a downvote. Of course it hurts to see a great cache falling from the local top 10 to an anonymous lower top 100.

 

Many caches I head to now were created years before there was such a thing as "favorite points". 

A positive sign that you enjoyed a cache, that wasn't added until a little over a year before you started.   :)

Those same caches many consider "lonely", and people actually get upset when another shows just before they were heading out a year later. 

It'd be a shame that a fine cache was archived simply because folks didn't go back-in-time to give them a FP. 

 - How would anything afterwards be "better" ?

 

It may be just me, but when I go to one of those "famous" caches that have hundreds of favorite points, I rarely if ever give it one myself.

So far, most of those FPs were simply due to its placement date...

That doesn't mean I'd give it a "down vote", it just means that everyone else kinda covered notice, if folks hunt caches by FPs.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So out of curiosity, what are the best caches?

 

Looking firstly at just the total number of FPs and excluding archived caches, these are the top ten in my region (New South Wales Central Coast):

 

            Cache                                                               Year Placed    D/T       Type       Size     FPs/Finds        %FPs

  1. Twisty Turny                                                          2015       3.5/2.5     Trad        Reg       65/203             40%
  2. Tuggerah Lakes Royal Mail                                2014           5/2         LBH      Large      53/88               62%
  3. Breathless                                                             2006         1.5/3       Trad      Small      50/156             48%
  4. Beach Access                                                       2015       2.5/1.5     Trad      Micro      49/188             32%
  5. The Can Man                                                        2011         1/1.5       Trad      Small      44/330             26%
  6. M1 Bugpacker Motel                                          2016           1/2         Trad      Large       41/88              56%
  7. The Basin Bison                                                   2016       2.5/2.5      Trad     Micro        36/76              61%
  8. #19 Haunted Highway                                        2001          2/2          Trad      Reg          35/224            28%
  9. Bill & Ben                                                               2012         2.5/2       Trad      Micro       34/137            30%
  10. Head like a Box                                                    2001         3/3.5       Trad       Reg          33/173            38%

Now the top ten caches on percentage FP, excluding archived caches and caches with less than ten FPs:

  1. Boudi Peninsular                                                 2015       2.5/3.5      Multi      Reg           10/12             91%
  2. The Cave of Power                                              2018        1.5/3        Trad      Small         14/16             88%
  3. Siren of Mooney Mooney                                   2015       3.5/3.5      Myst      Reg           23/27             85%
  4. Quest for the Middle Sea Diamond                  2015          3/5          Myst      Reg           20/27             77%
  5. Prince in Distress                                                2014       3.5/2.5      Myst     Small         25/34             76%
  6. Stepping through Rumbalara II                         2015        5/3.5        Multi     Small         17/24             74%
  7. The Hyperbolic Paraboloid                                2016        3.5/3        Myst       Reg           14/19             74%
  8. The Bushranger                                                   2015        3/3.5        Myst     Small          12/17             71%
  9. The Great Train Heist                                         2016        2.5/4        Multi       Reg           26/37             70%
  10. Plodfoot's Revenge                                            2015        3.5/3         Myst       Reg           16/25             67%

The stand-out difference between the two lists is the cache types. All but one in the total FPs list are traditionals whereas only one of the top percentage FPs list is a traditional and that has some electronic special effects. D/T ratings are generally higher for the percentage FP caches than the total FP ones, and the latter are generally older caches, meaning they've had more time to accumulate lots of finds and thus higher numbers of FPs. Perhaps some of those FPs are even because they're old caches.

 

I would summarise by concluding that the highest total FP caches are more generalist ones with broad appeal, whereas the highest percentage FP ones are mostly specialist caches (higher D/T mysteries or multis) with niche appeal.

 

Finally, Project-GC's Wilson Score adds yet another variation on this:

image.png.e7c0d885a18e3200fac5eb7c96220335.png

 

The only one in there that didn't make either of the other two lists is Chasing Waterfalls 5 (a 2/3 multi) which has 90% FPs but, with only 9 FPs from 10 finds, didn't make the cut in the percentage table.

 

One cache in your first list is on my ignore list due to being fixed to a structure, in a way that it contravenes GC guidelines and I doubt very much there was placement permission from the owner of the structure (local council). This can often explain why some caches get FPs (although the cache in question is well made). There is a buried cache near Narrabeen that gets a lot of FPs because finders think it's cool because it would be rare for them to find one like it, despite the log being almost always soggy or mush.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Many caches I head to now were created years before there was such a thing as "favorite points". 

A positive sign that you enjoyed a cache, that wasn't added until a little over a year before you started.   :)

Those same caches many consider "lonely", and people actually get upset when another shows just before they were heading out a year later. 

It'd be a shame that a fine cache was archived simply because folks didn't go back-in-time to give them a FP. 

 - How would anything afterwards be "better" ?

 

It may be just me, but when I go to one of those "famous" caches that have hundreds of favorite points, I rarely if ever give it one myself.

So far, most of those FPs were simply due to its placement date...

That doesn't mean I'd give it a "down vote", it just means that everyone else kinda covered notice, if folks hunt caches by FPs.

 

Yes, you are downvoting. You have a choice and you choose to not make the choice. So you refuse to help the rest of us? Why? Just because the concept is "new"? Most people wouldn't consider a concept established more than a decade ago to be some new thing. And why do you ignore it just because it is too new for you?

 

So just because the tool gives a few very old caches fewer votes, you refuse to use it? That sounds like you personally try to limit the value of this "modern concept" that you don't like.

 

So what am I supposed to judge cache quality from? Logs? Well, I do that too. Every non-informative log is a downvote too, especially copy-paste which really means "I don't care at all about your cache so I refuse to even tell you if it is in good shape". I hate them. Every such log means "archive that cache, it is junk" to me. And yes, the positive ones are upvotes, but the bad ones always hits me harder. I can take constructive criticism (actually, I like it) but indifference is harder to take.

 

Maybe I should just stop making caches at all. I care too much. I want to make good ones that people like, but when I get copy-paste logs on my most ambitious caches, it really feels that I should do something else.

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 4:42 PM, cerberus1 said:

That's odd, even the site says they're "a simple way to track and share the geocaches that you enjoyed the most."   :)

 

 

Now you are misreading your own citation. Your citation doesn't say that it is a way for me to personally remember what I enjoyed, but to share. To tell others. Which is exactly what I have been talking about all along. Sharing, helping others. Helping the CO to know what the majority likes, helping others to find good caches.

  • Funny 1

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...