Update % Favorite Points calculation to exclude Premium Members who don’t use them

[+mykey987]

Currently the % Favorite Points calculation for a geocache is determined by:

 

Number of FPs / Number of Premium Member Logs

 

However, if a Premium Member does not use FPs at all does this penalise the cache ranking unfairly?

 

I would suggest it would be fairer to only include premium members logs counts for those members that have used at least 1 FP, i.e.

 

Number of FPs / Number of Premium Member Logs from members who have used at least 1 FP

 

Thoughts?

[+barefootjeff]

I can see where you're coming from with this. Around here we've had something of a rash of new players who are PMs before they've even found their first cache, have usually never visited the website and have no interest in learning anything about the game. They typically find a few dozen caches over the course of several months then disappear. I had one leave this log on one of my highly-favourited caches last year:

 

 

It might have been the most awesome cache they'd found but they didn't give it an FP, nor did they give one to any of the other 16 caches they found before they'd had enough of caching a few months afterwards. I suppose I should be grateful they actually wrote a log that contained two English sentences, as that's a lot more than most of this generation of cachers do.

 

Whether this is enough of a problem to be worth putting in the coding effort to implement is another matter, though, and there's a good argument that FPs should be seen as a bonus, not an entitlement, even on the most awesomest of caches. I've long since stopped worrying about how many FPs my caches get; it's nice when one pops up occasionally but it doesn't bother me when it doesn't. Everybody plays the game their own way, enjoying the many different aspects to it, and some just choose not to award FPs, either intentionally or through a lack of awareness of them.

[+Goldenwattle]

I give favourite points, but only because I log on a computer. I have no idea where to find favourite points on a phone, but then, I've had little incentive to search for them on a phone. I also can't find where to visit TBs to caches on a phone. Haven't searched for them either. I say this, because a beginner likely can't find features either. It's not as easy to use as the computer.

[+Lynx Humble]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I give favourite points, but only because I log on a computer. I have no idea where to find favourite points on a phone, but then, I've had little incentive to search for them on a phone. I also can't find where to visit TBs to caches on a phone. Haven't searched for them either. I say this, because a beginner likely can't find features either. It's not as easy to use as the computer.

On the official app you just need to click on the heart sign with your log to give FP.

 

TBs are really combursome and not user friendly at all. 

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

On the official app you just need to click on the heart sign with your log to give FP.

 

But is there anything in the app that explains what that heart sign is for and how FPs work? The trouble is most of the PM-before-they-start newbies I've been encountering of late have never visited the website and the official app is their entire experience of caching, so they have no idea about the subtleties of the game that go beyond just incrementing their score.

[+Lynx Humble]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

But is there anything in the app that explains what that heart sign is for and how FPs work? The trouble is most of the PM-before-they-start newbies I've been encountering of late have never visited the website and the official app is their entire experience of caching, so they have no idea about the subtleties of the game that go beyond just incrementing their score.

The AL app is even worse at explaining anything...

 

On topic : 

 

The OP idea could be nice to implement but we are already waiting for multiple years now for Groundspeak to just implement filtering by FP%...

Edited October 26, 2021 by Lynx Humble

[+mustakorppi]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

But is there anything in the app that explains what that heart sign is for and how FPs work? The trouble is most of the PM-before-they-start newbies I've been encountering of late have never visited the website and the official app is their entire experience of caching, so they have no idea about the subtleties of the game that go beyond just incrementing their score.

The heart icon and the word ”favourites” are shown on the cache page. The icon changes if you’ve marked the cache as favourite.  So yeah it’s not explained but I guess most people can figure out the rough idea, which IMHO is plenty for such a non-essential part of the game.

[+barefootjeff]

35 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

The heart icon and the word ”favourites” are shown on the cache page. The icon changes if you’ve marked the cache as favourite.  So yeah it’s not explained but I guess most people can figure out the rough idea, which IMHO is plenty for such a non-essential part of the game.

 

The ones I'm referring to, and I'm guessing at least some of the ones that prompted this thread, are the newbies that start out with a premium membership before they've even found any caches and do all of their caching activities through the app as their profile shows they've never visited the website. Presumably looking at an actual cache page in a phone browser, as opposed to just reading the description in the app, would count as a visit to the website. We've had quite a flurry of them of late, most notably during our extended COVID lockdowns last year and this year. All PMs who never visit the website, never give FPs, usually write one-word or nonsense logs and then disappear after a few months.

Edited October 27, 2021 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+mustakorppi]

38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The ones I'm referring to, and I'm guessing at least some of the ones that prompted this thread, are the newbies that start out with a premium membership before they've even found any caches and do all of their caching activities through the app as their profile shows they've never visited the website. Presumably looking at an actual cache page in a phone browser, as opposed to just reading the description in the app, would count as a visit to the website. We've had quite a flurry of them of late, most notably during our extended COVID lockdowns last year and this year. All PMs who never visit the website, never give FPs, usually write one-word or nonsense logs and then disappear after a few months.

I'm referring to the cache page in-app. Not the cache description, not the website. Look just below the Navigate and Log buttons.

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

I'm referring to the cache page in-app. Not the cache description, not the website. Look just below the Navigate and Log buttons.

 

Okay, but that just says that hearts are favourites. It doesn't say what FPs are, how they're accrued or how they're used. And I can't find any of these app-only PMs who've never visited the website who have actually given out any FPs. I'm sure there must be one or two out there, somewhere, but not around here it seems.

Edited October 27, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+mustakorppi]

8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It doesn't say what FPs are, how they're accrued or how they're used.

Yeah, that's what I said. The app has it's problems, but the way it avoids inundating new users with inconsequential information is one of the things it kind of does right.

[+barefootjeff]

 

3 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Yeah, that's what I said. The app has it's problems, but the way it avoids inundating new users with inconsequential information is one of the things it kind of does right.

 

By avoiding inundating new users with inconsequential information we end up with logs like these:

 

 

These really inspire me to go out and hide caches that take people to interesting and out of the way places, especially when they ended up damaging the cache or leave it sitting out exposed. All of these started off as PMs, left a trail of mayhem for a few months then disappeared, although some are still auto-renewing their PM. A nice little earner for HQ no doubt, which I guess is why they're encouraging this sort of cacher.

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

By avoiding inundating new users with inconsequential information we end up with logs like these:

Were these all in one group?

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Were these all in one group?

 

No, some were in last year's lockdown and some in this year's one. All by different cachers except the last two which were the same person (but they signed different names in the logbooks, neither of which was their online name).

[+mustakorppi]

43 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

By avoiding inundating new users with inconsequential information we end up with logs like these:

There's a thread in the Finnish section of these forums from 2008 complaining about new users only logging with a smiley face. But if you want to continue discussing new user onboarding in ways completely unrelated to fav points, perhaps another thread?

[+barefootjeff]

Just now, mustakorppi said:

There's a thread in the Finnish section of these forums from 2008 complaining about new users only logging with a smiley face. But if you want to continue discussing new user onboarding in ways completely unrelated to fav points, perhaps another thread?

 

As I said earlier, none of these short-lived PM app-only cachers left any FPs in their wake, which is where it all started.

[+barefootjeff]

Back in the pre-COVID days, most of the short-lived app-only never-visited-the-website cachers were basic members so they didn't impact FP percentages or get out of their depth on higher D/T and non-traditional caches, but since the first lockdown here in March last year, they're suddenly all turning up as PMs from the get-go. I'm curious to know whether there's some COVID-related free PM promotion going on or whether the social media sign-up for membership defaults to PM and everyone just pays it because they think they have to.

Edited October 27, 2021 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+kunarion]

On 10/26/2021 at 9:27 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I give favourite points, but only because I log on a computer. I have no idea where to find favourite points on a phone, but then, I've had little incentive to search for them on a phone. I also can't find where to visit TBs to caches on a phone. Haven't searched for them either. I say this, because a beginner likely can't find features either. It's not as easy to use as the computer.

 

+1

 

I place a Favorite Point only while on a PC, and only while looking through the list of caches I've found.  I notice I have a bunch to dole out, but these FPs are not infinite, only 1 in 10 finds produces a FP to place.  And never from an App (although I can get the whole web site from a website App of course).

 

I hope there's not a time limit, or an expectation to quickly place all my FPs.  Will I also be "excluded" because of FPs I haven't placed?  What if I have all my FPs because I can't find a "Favorite" cache yet... do I lower my expectations until I can place one?  Lately I've been super extra stingy about placing a FP.  Or less interested in doing so...  Or more jaded because I've seen the type that I once thought was cool, or because this one is kind of cool but a cheap knock-off of the original.

 

Maybe add a filter so you can select the parameters.

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

On 10/26/2021 at 4:13 AM, mykey987 said:

Currently the % Favorite Points calculation for a geocache is determined by:

Number of FPs / Number of Premium Member Logs

However, if a Premium Member does not use FPs at all does this penalise the cache ranking unfairly?

I would suggest it would be fairer to only include premium members logs counts for those members that have used at least 1 FP, i.e.

Number of FPs / Number of Premium Member Logs from members who have used at least 1 FP

Thoughts?

 

I don't see how a lack of FPs "penalizes" a cache.       

It seems (to me) that the percentage of FP to finds is accurate as-is.  It doesn't change because my idea of a FP is different than another's...

Maybe it'd be better understood if you knew that Favorite Points weren't even created until six months after you started.

That's ten years that there were no favorite points until after you started.    We gave almost half we received to long-archived caches...  

[+Pleu]

Funny, I thought from the title that this was going to be about making the calculation more correct, not less correct. 
 

The calculation should be (Number of FPs)/(Number of Premium Member logs + number of Basic Members that left an FP). Currently a cache can have 100% FP even tho a number of premium members did not leave FPs. Why? Because if somebody leaves an FP and then stops being a PM their FP is counted but their PM status is not counted, so +1 above the / and +0 under the /.

 

On the other hand I guess the current calculation in some way evens out the issue you're having were some PMs just don't leave FPs at all. 

[+Harry Dolphin]

So, we should discriminate against geocachers who choose not to use the options available to them?

[+Lynx Humble]

1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:

So, we should discriminate against geocachers who choose not to use the options available to them?

We already discriminate against basic member that can't use FP. As a previous premium member I can't even manage those I accumulated...

[+edexter]

    My thoughts on the original question (should you exclude PMs who never award Fav Points from the Fav Pt % calculation) are that doing so wouldn't change the relative rankings very much so it wouldn't be very helpful.  

       I generally use d/t ratings, Fav Point totals and cache longevity combined as a screening tool when looking for caches I might want to find.  I use Fav Pt.s as one screening tool:   I assume that if a cache has been around for a couple of years and has two or fewer Fav Points, I'm not going to enjoy it much.  That eliminates about half the caches out there.  Since I cache to get out in the woods, anything with a d/t of less than 1.5/2 also gets excluded.  That leaves about a third of the listings and sorting them by longevity of placement and Fav Pts is then useful.  

     Consider two caches both with 10 Fav Pts, both placed more than 5 years ago and one with 350 finds and the other with 25 finds, the first is going to have a Fav Pt % of roughly 5% and the second around 50%.  The greater accuracy of, say, 4.6% vs 45% doesn't matter much.   For me the choice is obvious and relative.   (Folks who are more interested in numbers can simply do the reverse of this as the easier more popular caches will have many more finds and fewer Fav Points...)  

    On my own caches, I will occasionally query a finder whose log includes "great cache" but no Fav Point and (when folks answer) I get  versions of "I don't give out Fav Points" or "Opps I forgot".  In general, there is a roughly inverse relationship between the Quality of the cache and the Quantity of finds (higher Quality equals fewer finds) and a positive relationship between the Percentage of Fav Points and the Quality of the cache.  While a small percentage of highly popular caches also have a high number of Fav Points as well as a high % of Fav Points, in general the absolute number of Finds and Fav Points a cache has depends more on how long it has been around and how easy it is to find.  

    From my perspective, caches with a Fav Point % above 20-25% are "worth the drive" ;-)  It's been a consistent  feature of the game that what I consider to generally be "low quality caches" (low d/t ratings, tiny cache containers, placements adjacent to or above pavement) are both widely popular (they constitute more than a third of placements and more than two thirds of finds) and of low quality (their Fav Pt% is less than 5%).

dexter 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, edexter said:

On my own caches, I will occasionally query a finder whose log includes "great cache" but no Fav Point and (when folks answer) I get  versions of "I don't give out Fav Points" or "Opps I forgot".

 

My most common reason is that I don't have any FPs left to give out. Yesterday is a good example, when I went out with a group of caching friends to do a few caches around the Hawkesbury River. The first was a 2015 3.5/3.5 puzzle cache located at an elevated vantage point looking east down the river:

 

 

That cache currently has 35 finds, 29 FPs and 91% FPs.

 

The second was a 2006 1.5/3 traditional set at a vantage point on the western side of the ridge and looking up-river:

 

 

It's still the original container (a 200ml Sistema) in excellent condition, with the original but full logbook plus some additional log sheets. In its 15 years it's had 165 finds with 51 FPs and 52% FPs.

 

The third was a 3.5/2.5 puzzle cache published just last week, set in the rocky ten-metre high embankment between the old Pacific highway and the water. I don't have a photo from that one, as we were too busy spending the best part of an hour scrambling back and forth and up and down along those rocks looking in the myriads of potential hidey-holes before someone found the cleverly themed container. The two finders who preceded us both gave it FPs.

 

They were all good and enjoyable caches but I only had one available FP to give out and that went to the first one. The second one was right up there and if I ever find myself with a surplus of FPs I might well give it a belated one for the climb and the view. The third one was an enjoyable well-themed multi-level puzzle with a cool container but, for me, missed out on an FP because of the lacklustre (and frustrating) hiding place. But even so, one of my companions gave it an FP (another has yet to log his find) so it currently has 5 finds, 3 FPs and 60% FPs.

 

Even though most of the caches I do are good enjoyable ones, including yesterday's three, I can still only give an FP to a tenth of them so a lot of good caches have to miss out.

Edited November 7, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+edexter]

Now that is a great reason!  More fav point worthy caches than favorite points is a good problem ;-)

 

[+Mockingbird559]

As one post pointed out, the difference wouldn't likely be all that significant.

My Frustration is with people with many THOUSANDS of finds and never posting a single FAV. These are often the same people who go out (often with a group of like minded people) who find dozens of caches in a weekend, where those caches have high favorite counts, still not leaving a single FAV.

 

Thanks for allowing me to vent.

 

mb

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Mockingbird559 said:

These are often the same people who go out (often with a group of like minded people) who find dozens of caches in a weekend, where those caches have high favorite counts, still not leaving a single FAV.

 

During the Cache Carnival promotion a couple of years ago, where caches with 50+ FPs earned the most points, I did a couple of day trips to Sydney where there a quite a few 50+ FP caches in the tourist areas around the harbour. I didn't give any of those caches an FP because they weren't particularly appealing to me. I grew up in Sydney so the harbour was just the everyday backdrop and the caches themselves were mostly magnetic containers attached to guard rails or street furniture in high muggle areas, or trivial virtuals, the antithesis of most of the caches on my favourites list. Something to do with one man's meat being another's poison, I guess.

 

One of my multis, which at the time was sailing pretty close to 100% FPs, was visited by a group from Sydney who were only interested in its D/T rating for their grids. To them, the widely scattered scenic waypoints, two of which are water-access (although there are workarounds if you're devious enough), were likely an impediment to their goal rather than an attraction. To each their own and I don't begrudge them their finds, I'd rather someone get something from the cache even if it's just a square on their grid than have it just sitting there with no finders at all. For the record, that one's now at 81% FPs from 29 finds after six years which is pleasing enough for me.