Am I a jerk for removing FPs on archived caches?

[+niraD 3289]

10 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Yes, you are downvoting.

Okay, you got us. All premium members are downvoting at least 90% of the caches we've found.

 

I blame Groundspeak. It's their fault, because they won't let us upvote more than 10% of the caches we've found. They're forcing us to downvote the other 90%, and you managed to uncover their diabolical plan.

[+cerberus1 3313]

43 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Yes, you are downvoting.

 - snip - 

So what am I supposed to judge cache quality from?  Logs?

 

One in ten caches can receive a favorite point.  Everyone gets a nice log.  That's not good enough, maybe this hobby isn't for you.  

 

Sure. 

It was good logs that allowed folks to realize what caches were good, and  imagine folks suffered reading those good logs for ten years until "favorite points" came along.    

When favorite points are given for FTF, or just because the CO is a friend, how do you derive "quality" from that ?

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by cerberus1
folks

[+barefootjeff 3827]

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

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.

 

The trouble is the people who play this game aren't all the same. They each like different things. I especially like caches that take me into wild places where there are waterfalls, caves, unusual rock formations, scenic views, etc., caches that will take most of the day to get to and back and leave me feeling afterwards that I really achieved something. Conversely, the ones I like the least are highly-camouflaged urban hides in places swarming with muggles, especially when the hint doesn't help narrow down the options. But there are plenty of cachers who feel the opposite: they love the challenge of those urban hides but hate anything that takes them more than a short easy walk from their car. There are some that love big containers full of swag, for some it's cryptic puzzles or gadget caches, then there are those who are more interested in statistics than the caches themselves and get their enjoyment from looping their D/T grid or their calendar or fulfilling the requirements for a challenge cache. We're all different and no cache is going to please everyone or even a majority. One of the things I love about this game is its diversity.

 

Unless your cache really is rubbish, there's bound to be someone it'll resonate with and it's those logs that truly matter, not all the others for whom it's just another smiley. Or would you rather people didn't attempt your caches at all? One of mine was published just on a year ago, two people found it within the first week and both gave it FPs, but that's it, no other interest. If someone told me I had to archive one of my caches, that one would be high on the list even though it has 100% FPs.

Edited October 16, 2020 by barefootjeff

[Unit473L 114]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

One of the things I love about this game is its diversity.

 

Seconded! Very much agree with this, the flexibility is both one of the great assets but also one of the big liabilities of GeoCaching.

[+on4bam 1495]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

Okay, you got us. All premium members are downvoting at least 90% of the caches we've found.

 

I blame Groundspeak. It's their fault, because they won't let us upvote more than 10% of the caches we've found. They're forcing us to downvote the other 90%, and you managed to uncover their diabolical plan.

 

That's why GCVote was a much better system. People could rate a cache 0-5 with 3 being "average".  That made filtering caches >3.5 a lot more efficient than filtering on FP or FP%

The fact that people could also "vote" <3 stars is likely the reason why GS didn't like this system (no things negative allowed).

I "downvote" by not finding (skipping/ignore list) caches, not by not giving FPs.

 

[+coachstahly 682]

On 10/14/2020 at 9:24 AM, Ragnemalm said:

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.

 

Since when is any cache trivial?  While the CO may have done the minimal bit of effort to get coordinates, write up a cache page, and get it approved by a reviewer, they still put it out with some level of effort for others to be able to find.  I don't find that trivial in any sense whatsoever.  While I certainly have very limited interest in finding PT caches, that doesn't mean that they're trivial.  They still serve a purpose.

 

Why just PTs?  What about P&Gs that aren't part of trails?  Are those trivial?  Where do you draw the line?  From my seat, it appears that you think any cache hidden for quantity, however you define that, is trivial and FPs are irrelevant while any other cache is hidden for quality, again, however you define that. Why can't a 1.5/1.5 cache, meant to garner more logs for the CO, also be a high quality cache worth awarding favorite points to?   I've given caches FPs for a variety of reasons and I've never assumed that my FP is a recommendation for other cachers to give the cache a try.  If I think other cachers should give it a try, I will mention that in my log, mention it to my friends in person when I see them, or mention it in FB groups when cachers are looking for recommendations on what caches they should find in a given area.

 

There is NO single standard that exists within geocaching that can define quality - not even favorite points - due to the diversity that can be found within this activity.  There is also NO single standard that exists within geocaching that defines the "value" of an awarded favorite point.  You appear to want to believe that FPs are an infallible means of determining a cache's quality - the more FPs it has, the better the cache is.  I've found enough high FP caches to realize that high FP count caches aren't always better.  Sometimes they're just old and that's the inherent value of that cache (there's absolutely nothing wrong with that either) that causes cachers to award a FP.  It's your FP to award, regardless of the reason you choose to award it.  Placing an inherent belief that a cache with lots of FPs is automatically better than a cache with less disregards the notion that a FP can be awarded for a cache for ANY reason, many of those completely unrelated to the quality of the cache.

 

On 10/14/2020 at 9:24 AM, Ragnemalm said:

A good cache should have more than 10% FPs.

 

Where does it say this in the guidelines?  I can answer that for you.  It doesn't.  You've just made it up to help support your belief regarding FPs and their value in determining what a "good" cache is vs. what a "bad" cache is.  Why 10%?  That means that only 1 out of 10 cachers find it a "good" cache while 9 out of 10 find it, by your definition, a "bad" cache.  That ratio seems to be a good counterpoint to your argument that a good cache will have more FPs.  Only 1 cacher in 10 determines what a quality cache is?

 

On 10/14/2020 at 9:24 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Why should I not put it on my death list if it is clearly not popular?

 

FPs are now about popularity?  I thought they were about quality.  Are you equating quality with popularity?  Those aren't the same, unless you're attempting to define it that way.

 

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

...but an omitted FP on a cache with 90-100% FPs is obviously a downvote.

 

No it's not.  A new cache (let's say it's a 2/2 small, hidden just a short walk from the start of a trail, that involves going off trail for about 20 feet) gets two finders who are co-FTF and both award a FP because it's their very first FTF cache.  The next cacher comes along and doesn't award a FP because there's nothing inherently bad about the cache but there's also nothing inherently good enough with the cache to award a FP, in their opinion.  Here's the dilemma you have on your hands, based on how you think FPs should be used.  Either you hold onto your notion that this third cacher downvoted this 100% favorited cache (a quality cache by your definition) or you realize that the 2 FPs that were awarded to the cache weren't really comments or recommendations on the "quality" of the cache but were instead given for reasons completely unrelated to what other cachers might use as an indication of quality.  You can't have it both ways or your points raised here in this thread significantly weaken.

 

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

Of course it hurts to see a great cache falling from the local top 10 to an anonymous lower top 100.

 

So it's all about how you "rank" when compared to other cachers in your area?  So cache #11 is now anonymous and not worth the time to try to find?

 

8 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

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?

 

We have a choice to award a FP or not, based on our own determination of what we think of that particular cache.  I can thoroughly like a cache and not award a FP because I've already found one done better than this one (so it's not exceptional compared to that other one), I had a portion of the experience ruined by something outside of the CO's control (trash, construction, so so view due to growth, soggy log because previous cacher didn't close it right, cracked lid due to rock falling on it, hidden in a manner different than the CO intended, etc...), or I just didn't think the cache warranted the awarding of a FP due to some general "feeling" of mine that I can't define.  

 

If you think not awarding a FP isn't any help to the rest of the community, then I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.  Isn't a downvote (or a failure to award a FP) a form of a negative endorsement, meaning since we didn't find it worthy of a FP that it shouldn't be worthy of a visit from anyone else?  If the awarding of a FP is a recommendation to go find this particular cache, then the failure to add a FP should be a recommendation to avoid this particular cache.  That's where your logic appears to be taking you.  FP - go find this cache - no FP - don't go find this cache.

 

8 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

So what am I supposed to judge cache quality from?

 

From YOUR actual experience doing the cache in question.  You may select a cache to find because others gave it FPs but you won't know until you actually do it.  Seems to me that you're more concerned about what others think of a cache than you are about what your experience is going to be like.

 

8 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

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.

 

And this is where the crux of the issue lies.  Sharing your experience is different than stating that it's helpful for others.  Here's what I experienced when doing this cache.  Do you really think that others will have the exact same experience?  What if I do mine in a pouring rain?  What if someone else does it after a heavy snowfall?  What if someone else does it during hunting season and has an encounter with a hunter?  What if someone has the perfect weather for their outing?  What if someone does it in 100 degree weather with 85% humidity?  What if someone does it at sunset with some glorious views?  What if someone does it at sunrise and there is no view?  What if someone does it in the middle of the day?  All these experiences are different but why would you assume that any of them are helpful to others who choose to do it at a different time of day, a different season, or for any other reason that would make their experience one that's completely different than the one you had?  That singular experience that I had was reason for ME to give a FP, not for others to assume that they're going to have as good as an experience as I did.  Maybe they will and maybe they won't.  Until such time as you actually do the cache, you won't know whether or not you feel it's FP worthy because your experience is bound to be somewhat different than any other experience up to that point in time in the cache's life.

 

It's not that I'm against using FPs as a means for determining which caches might make my list.  I'm against the notion that they're infallible means of determining what a quality cache is. I'm against the notion that they help determine (with some degree of certainty) what a "quality" cache is.  I'm against the notion that the awarding of a FP indicates some sense of community help for determining whether or not the cache is worth a visit from other cachers.  I'm against the notion that I'm endorsing a particular cache for every cacher out there by awarding a FP.  MY FP is for MY experience when doing a cache, not for someone else's experience when doing the same cache.

[+niraD 3289]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Since when is any cache trivial?  While the CO may have done the minimal bit of effort to get coordinates, write up a cache page, and get it approved by a reviewer, they still put it out with some level of effort for others to be able to find.  I don't find that trivial in any sense whatsoever.  While I certainly have very limited interest in finding PT caches, that doesn't mean that they're trivial.  They still serve a purpose.

The first cache in a numbers trail might not be trivial. It might be merely easy. But after that, the rest are trivial. There is no challenge to finding them. They're fungible film canisters hidden in an identical manner to each other.

 

Yes, the CO invested "some level of effort", but that doesn't make the caches themselves non-trivial.

[+The Jester 576]

16 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

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?

 

Your logic has a flaw in it.  If every time I don't give a Fav Point I'm "downvoting" it that means that 90% of what I find is "downvoted" as I only get 1 Fav Point per 10 finds.  If every cache that I don't Fav were to be archived there goes 8,400+ caches because I don't have that many Fav Points.

[+coachstahly 682]

21 hours ago, niraD said:

The first cache in a numbers trail might not be trivial. It might be merely easy. But after that, the rest are trivial. There is no challenge to finding them.

 

The first LPC might not be trivial.  It might be merely easy.  But after that, the rest are trivial.  There is no challenge to finding them.

 

The first pill bottle thrown under a bush might not be trivial.  It might be merely easy.  But after that, the rest are trivial.  There is no challenge to finding them.

 

The first GRC might not be trivial.  It might be merely easy.  But after that, the rest are trivial.  There is no challenge to finding them.

 

The first micro at the base of a sign might not be trivial.  It might be merely easy.  But after that, the rest are trivial.  There is no challenge to finding them.

 

Is that where you're going with this because that's where your comment took me. Each of these types of hides are common and easy (at least where I am and have cached).  There might be some occasional variation but generally speaking, the hides are pretty much the same - lift up the skirt, find the cache - look at the base of the bush, find the pill bottle - look along the guardrail, find something magnetic or something resting in the spot where the vertical I-beam is bolted to the rail - look at the base of a sign, find the bison tube.  

 

While I'm certainly no fan of power trails for a variety of reasons, every cache has some sort of value to someone, regardless whether it's the 1st, 2nd or 1000th cache in the ET trail.  I'm in no way saying that they're good caches but when you say every other cache in a power trail is trivial, you're saying that they have no importance or value to anyone.  I disagree with this notion.  At the very minimum (and that's pretty much all I can conjure up for a PT), it has a value of +1.  Like it or not, that's how some people willingly choose to participate in this activity and have a good time while doing it.  At some point in time, it will be # X hundred or thousand as well, making it just a little bit more meaningful than the ones that came before and will come after.  A PT has some value to the CO as well, although since I don't own/maintain a PT, I'm not sure what the lure of owning one might be.

[+niraD 3289]

58 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Is that where you're going with this because that's where your comment took me.

No, not really.

 

The other types of caches aren't organized every 528ft/161m along a remote highway, and named LPC #0001, LPC #0002, LPC #0003, etc. If they were, then they would be trivial too. But they aren't. So they might be merely easy.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I'm in no way saying that they're good caches but when you say every other cache in a power trail is trivial, you're saying that they have no importance or value to anyone.  I disagree with this notion.  At the very minimum (and that's pretty much all I can conjure up for a PT), it has a value of +1.

I would argue that the only value any of those caches has is the +1. To me, that is pretty trivial ("of little worth or importance").

 

And as mentioned before, the caches themselves are trivial ("simple, transparent, or immediately evident") once you've found the first one and know that there will be an identical hide every 528ft/161m.

[+HunterandSamuel 225]

Update. I found more favorites that I placed on caches that have since been archived.  

I took them back, you bet I did, and can now give them to new caches published, especially new geocachers. Gives them that lift and incentive to become a life time member and addict of the geocache community. 

[+igator210 237]

Was talking about this over the weekend. One analogy that was brought up:

 

If you take a picture of a loved one, and they die... do you throw out the photo?

[+sernikk 138]

3 hours ago, igator210 said:

Was talking about this over the weekend. One analogy that was brought up:

 

If you take a picture of a loved one, and they die... do you throw out the photo?

 

That is a really nice analogy with which I agree! I think I may even give this as an example to some cachers I know