Effects of the favourite point indicator

[+granskog123]

It’s been over 6 months since the favourite point indicator was introduced, and I’m wondering if it had any impact on the way people choose caches. People who spend a lot of time planning their outings may already filter or sort by favourite points in some way, but those that just spontaneously decide to take a cache on a trip might not.

Maybe those kind of people takes more high fp caches now when they are highlighted on the map.

At the same time, those high fp caches may also be the ones with the most visits.

Have you noticed an increase in visitors on your high fp caches and have you started to cache differently because of this feature?

[+thebruce0]

(side note: This is related to the official geocaching app)

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by thebruce0

[+GeoElmo6000]

14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

(side note: This is related to the official geocaching app)

 

 

To answer your question, since I regularly use Cachly, which doesn't have this indicator, it doesn't affect me.

 

But I have opened the geocaching app and thought the FP indicator made the map too cluttered with data.

 

Generally when I'm planning a geocaching adventure, I use the website browse map, which I think is fantastic.  I add my targeted caches to a list and then filter by the list when I'm caching.  I can drive by 20 caches looking for two particular caches I'm interested in and not feel any regrets about caches I'm missing.  So if I do open the app to see what caches are around me, at that point I'm really curious what the closest cache is instead of which is the most favorited.

[+DreamMachine74]

I don't really geocache to new areas, so this indicator hasn't done much for me. However, I did look for two well liked newer geocaches because of the feature. They were well done and all, but the feature isn't much of a draw to me. I'd probably disable it if I was visiting a new city with a bunch of caches in it due to the clutter on the map....but that's all hypothetical.

[+m0bean]

I don't really pay much attention to it when on my home turf, since I usually have used the website to select which caches I am targeting.  However, when on a recent trip with some non-cachers, where I had not really known in advance where I might end up, it did help to look at the map in the app and have a few caches jump out at me as highly favorited ones that I could grab as we went about our other touring.

[+barefootjeff]

Around here, all the caches with FP indicators are more than seven years old. It's not that those old caches are any better than the newer ones, they've just had more time to accumulate finds and FPs and there were a lot more active players back then.

 

Locally, the threshold for an indicator is 19 FPs, but only one of my hides in the last two years has even reached 19 finders (that one is an AL bonus cache). It's almost impossible for a newer cache to get an indicator no matter how good it is.

Edited August 31, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+dealfarms1]

We don’t really pay much attention to FPs, except we do like them when we receive them on one of our caches.  We don’t usually filter for them when we travel and we have found just about every cache within 30 miles of our home base regardless of the number of FPs it has.  In fact we get excited when a  new cache publishes near us.
 

At this point, when we feel the need to feed the addiction, we pick a spot relatively close, drive there, find as many caches as we have time for and then drive home, we try to “clean an area out” so to speak.  It doesn’t matter the number of FPs.
 

Much of the time when we travel we county cache, grabbing the most convenient and interesting cache on our route, sometimes that is a cache with lots of favorites, sometimes not.

 

One thing that I feel is a negative about displaying FPs is that it causes people to skip newer caches in favor of older caches that have had more time to accumulate FPs, thus missing out at times on some really great caches.

[+fizzymagic]

It only affects which Traditional caches I search for.  Since the vast majority of trads are terrible, it's a way to introduce a little variety on caching trips, where we usually focus on non-traditional cache types.

[+cerberus1]

13 hours ago, dealfarms1 said:

One thing that I feel is a negative about displaying FPs is that it causes people to skip newer caches in favor of older caches that have had more time to accumulate FPs, thus missing out at times on some really great caches.

 

We see the opposite...  Many older caches that were placed well-before FPs were even a thing (Dec 2010), rarely had folks place FPs on them.

The first thing we did was place FPs on old caches we enjoyed, some were already archived by then...

Other than "oldest" in a state and similar with hundreds of FPs on 'em, those longer distance caches rarely catch up to a pill bottle in a guard rail.

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We see the opposite...  Many older caches that were placed well-before FPs were even a thing (Dec 2010), rarely had folks place FPs on them.

The first thing we did was place FPs on old caches we enjoyed, some were already archived by then...

Other than "oldest" in a state and similar with hundreds of FPs on 'em, those longer distance caches rarely catch up to a pill bottle in a guard rail.

 

Of the top 100 caches in the world for FPs, 20 were placed prior to 2010, so 20%. Considering that pre-2010 caches only make up 8.5% of the world's caches, that doesn't sound like they're under-represented. On the other hand, only 7 of those top 100 caches are less than 5 years old. I'll stick with my assertion that FP indicators are mostly about indicating the oldest caches rather than the best ones.

Edited September 2, 2023 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+MNTA]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Of the top 100 caches in the world for FPs, 20 were placed prior to 2010, so 20%. Considering that pre-2010 caches only make up 8.5% of the world's caches, that doesn't sound like they're under-represented. On the other hand, only 7 of those top 100 caches are less than 5 years old. I'll stick with my assertion that FP indicators are mostly about indicating the oldest caches rather than the best ones.

The use of the top 100 may not be a good sample size since it appears the Germans love giving favorites. I also observe that the higher the favorite count the older the caches are, with some exceptions for sure.

 

80 - Germany

1 - Locationless

5 - US HQ, APE, Original Stash Mingo

14 - Rest of Europe

 

 

[+fizzymagic]

14 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We see the opposite...  Many older caches that were placed well-before FPs were even a thing (Dec 2010), rarely had folks place FPs on them.

The first thing we did was place FPs on old caches we enjoyed, some were already archived by then...

Other than "oldest" in a state and similar with hundreds of FPs on 'em, those longer distance caches rarely catch up to a pill bottle in a guard rail.

 

I tend to also look for older caches, but even if that were not so, missing a small number of "should be favorited" caches in order to avoid swathes of broken pill bottles in utterly unremarkable places seems worth it to me.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

I tend to also look for older caches, but even if that were not so, missing a small number of "should be favorited" caches in order to avoid swathes of broken pill bottles in utterly unremarkable places seems worth it to me.

 

Wasn't there another thread recently calling for an expiry date on cache listings because anything more than five years old has turned to rubbish?

[+MNTA]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Wasn't there another thread recently calling for an expiry date on cache listings because anything more than five years old has turned to rubbish?

You are taking the headline out of context. 

 

Expiration date was for unmaintained caches. Expiration dates can be reset if maintained. I still predict it will happen but may be more subtle. Can't wait to see.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, MNTA said:

Expiration date was for unmaintained caches. Expiration dates can be reset if maintained. I still predict it will happen but may be more subtle. Can't wait to see.

 

A cache doesn't need to be maintained, or even have an active owner, to get an FP indicator. Since all the caches around here with FP indicators are over seven years old, it's likely many will have long-gone COs and the condition they're in will depend on how well made they were in the first place and the type of placement.

[+terratin]

Does this indicator exist? Never noticed it. I usually search for popular caches on project-gc.

[+barefootjeff]

49 minutes ago, terratin said:

Does this indicator exist? Never noticed it. I usually search for popular caches on project-gc.

 

Yes, but only in the app, not on the website. It shows a heart and the number of FPs next to those caches that are in the top ten percent of FP count in the region, for example:

 

[+Goldenwattle]

The numbers don't show up on my computer, which is where I plan my trips, so those numbers don't influence me. However, I checked my phone which I rarely use for caching and I see the numbers there. I have never noticed them before. My cache outside my house I see has 80 beside it. Is that 80 out of 100 finds, or 80 out of 1,000 finds. Numbers alone make it irrelevant. I would need to go in and check for the % to get a proper idea, which makes it more time consuming. Putting % this wouldn't be needed.  (It's 56%.)

[+colleda]

22 hours ago, terratin said:

Does this indicator exist? Never noticed it. I usually search for popular caches on project-gc.

I didn't know about it until I read this thread. So, I went and checked and there they are, little numbered boxes.

Paused.

 

I just went and had another look at the map (GC.com) and they're no longer showing.

[+Sottiwotti]

I don't really look at the favorite points. I just look which caches are the closest to me and have a nice D/T rating