Feature Request: Millifavourites

[+technetium]

Recently I was caching with a friend an we found a cache that was quite nice, but not really worth a full favourite. We said to each other: Wouldn't it be nice to be able to award millifavourites.
So my request to split up favourites in to one thousand millifavourites (mFav). This will give us the possibility to give 1/2 (500 mFav), 1/3 (333 mFav), 1/4 (250 mFav), 1/5 (200 mFav) 1/6 (167mFav) etc. favourites.

 

Tc 

Edited April 24, 2021 by technetium
missed prefix milli in award favourites

[+Max and 99]

33 minutes ago, technetium said:

Recently I was caching with a friend an we found a cache that was quite nice, but not really worth a full favourite. We said to each other: Wouldn't it be nice to be able to award favourites.
So my request to split up favourites in to one thousand millifavourites (mFav). This will give us the possibility to give 1/2 (500 mFav), 1/3 (333 mFav), 1/4 (250 mFav), 1/5 (200 mFav) 1/6 (167mFav) etc. favourites.

 

Tc 

Oh Lordy. 

[+capoaira]

Really? ? I don't like this request. If the cache good then give a favourite, if not then not. 

Sometimes I wish to give an cache more then one favourite.

But this as a feature is a bit too complex. 

[+Viajero Perdido]

Would those be called a "Jeremy"? 

 

Seriously though, this is where the English (or whatever) language comes in handy.  You can praise the cache with a thousand different kinds of nuance: meh to migawd and lots in between.

[Johannis10]

In order to be able to give a more precise rating, GCvote was a common solution, used especially in Germany. Eache cache could be given 1 to 5 stars. It was possible even before the FPs were introduced at GC. The advantage over FPs is, that you could not only evaluate every 10th cache. Unfortunately, GCVOTE has not been maintained for a long time. A newer similar rating system is cachevote, But it's not yet as common as GCvote.

Greetings Johannis10

Edited April 24, 2021 by Johannis10

[+cerberus1]

This is the second today that could have been written April 1st.     

[+technetium]

2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Would those be called a "Jeremy"? 

You mean like the bitcoin is divided into one hundered million Satoshi. That kind of precision might be a little bit too excessive. And since Satoshi is presumed to be a pseudonym, Signal might be a better name.

 

Tc

 

[Johannis10]

51 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

This is the second today that could have been written April 1st.     

As you can see on GCVote, the idea of being able to evaluate caches more precisely is not new and was not only used on April 1st. You could see at GCvotes the quality of 1400354 different Caches. There was also the possibility of giving half stars so that a cache could be rated very precisely in ten steps. The embedded solution made it possible to see the stars on the overview gc-map too and quickly identify worthwhile caches.

Greetings Johannis10

[+cerberus1]

12 minutes ago, Johannis10 said:

As you can see on GCVote, the idea of being able to evaluate caches more precisely is not new and was not only used on April 1st. You could see at GCvotes the quality of 1400354 different Caches. There was also the possibility of giving half stars so that a cache could be rated very precisely in ten steps. The embedded solution made it possible to see the stars on the overview gc-map too and quickly identify worthwhile caches.

Greetings Johannis10

 

Really ?  You're saying that numerous peoples opinions on what a cache means to them is precise ?  

That gcvote site even says "There is no detailed guidance on how to rate a geocache, but please rate in a kind of common sense so that any fellow cacher can see where you felt a detour is really rewarding."     

I'm still trying to figure what "kind of" common sense is.   

So is this request by the OP more or less requesting that HQ replace a third-party site that has issues ?

[Johannis10]

 

12 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Really ?  You're saying that numerous peoples opinions on what a cache means to them is precise ?

No, I didn't mean to say that. Sorry english is not my native language.

With the words "more precisely" I mean:

To select if I like a Cache to visit, or select if i like to read the listing to see if I'm interesstet, my opinion is:

- The GS FP-System is better than nothing.

- The 5 Star GC- VOTE System is better than the GS FP-System

Both Systems are not precise, but better such things then nothing.

Greetings Johannis10

[+2Abendsegler]

1 hour ago, Johannis10 said:

A newer similar rating system is cachevote

 

CacheVote seems to be nice, but the coding seems to be not public and the response times in the event of errors seems to be long. A public coding in a public development platform like for example Github would be much better. In addition, it does not seem to be possible to rate caches that have not been found. Of course, this must also be possible, regardless of possible revenge ratings. Very nice seems to be the possibility to transfer the own GCVote ratings easily to CacheVote.  

Thanks for your notice about this tool.

 

[+2Abendsegler]

19 minutes ago, Johannis10 said:

To select if I like a Cache to visit, or select if i like to read the listing to see if I'm interesstet, my opinion is:

- The GS FP-System is better than nothing.

- The 5 Star GC- VOTE System is better than the GS FP-System

Both Systems are not precise, but better such things then nothing.

Yes, it helps to select caches and to separate garbage from potentially good caches.

[+cerberus1]

4 hours ago, Johannis10 said:

No, I didn't mean to say that. Sorry english is not my native language.

 

Okay.  Thanks for responding.  

(To me), a "rating", or someone picking a cache apart by "half-a-star" increments, as well as the OP's thought, with ratings even more fragmented, doesn't sound like much fun.

The fact that folks are actually deciding by a fraction of a point how much they liked/disliked each individual cache really seems like micro-managing to me.  And/or have way too much time on their hands.  

I'm really happy now that Groundspeak gave us only "one for every ten found" Favorite Points...

 

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, technetium said:

8 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Would those be called a "Jeremy"? 

You mean like the bitcoin is divided into one hundered million Satoshi. That kind of precision might be a little bit too excessive. And since Satoshi is presumed to be a pseudonym, Signal might be a better name.

 

Oh my, imagine if FPs were based on market value. One day a gift of 1/6th FP could be worth 20 whole FPs!  Hopefully a cache doesn't degrade so much that the 29.56 FP value it's accumulated in 2 years sinks to a new low of 0.89 FPs!   If you gave it FPs, better retract them before it loses all that value!  The FP market could fluctuate immensely! Got to be quick quick quick!

[+technetium]

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Oh my, imagine if FPs were based on market value.

Great idea, this will give creators of great caches a possibility to make some money with their caches. I hope this will also lead to more high quality caches.

Tc