Favorite Cache System

[+The Leprechauns]

My point is that I am intentionally skipping the likely blue ribbon caches in Erie, and only possibly hitting any of the ones at my destination. For example, we don't like puzzle caches, generally, although these are likely to receive high ratings if well constructed. For those who enjoy them, that's terrific! I'd be surprised if our goal -- finding a nice park with several caches -- would include any of the top rated caches. What is top rated for the visiting Leprechauns would not necessarily be the case for the locals. I would *still* read the logs for a "top rated" cache before deciding to make it a destination cache, and I would *still* look at others which fit our own subjective criteria, even if not top rated.

 

I spent an hour or so thus far in my planning and preparation, not counting time when I was multitasking, like when loading the appropriate Mapsource maps onto my GPS.

[+TrailGators]

I actually asked you to tell me the favorite caches in my area: 92127!

 

But you are right, the favorite caches will be all types. But Geocaching.com will still have the other parameters available to sort out even the favorites!

[Jeremy]

Maybe I don't understand completely how these lists will work, but I thought we'd also be able to have an "ignore" list. I wouldn't want *that* list to contribute towards "popularity"

Ignore lists would be ignored, of course!

[+TrailGators]

Maybe I don't understand completely how these lists will work, but I thought we'd also be able to have an "ignore" list. I wouldn't want *that* list to contribute towards "popularity"

Ignore lists would be ignored, of course!

[Jeremy]

For example, we don't like puzzle caches, generally, although these are likely to receive high ratings if well constructed.

You could filter these out. Since there are a large number of cachers who like what you like, I would assume that there would be all kinds of blue ribbon caches since there are more easy cache finders around.

 

Perhaps instead of having an actual "award" like a blue ribbon, a less over the top way is to just show a number of folks who recommend each cache?

[+Markwell]

My point is that I am intentionally skipping the likely blue ribbon caches in Erie, and only possibly hitting any of the ones at my destination.

If that's the case, the favorites just doesn't apply to you. You can still search the caches any way you like. But would it affect your planning in any way if some of them were rated as favorites? Probably not - and that's OK.

 

But for those of us that might be going somewhere unfamiliar and only had a limited time to do some real cool caches, the favorites would be a godsend.

 

Consider this hypothetical (and more likely) situation. My business decides to send me to a conference in L.A. I know I'm staying at a posh hotel near Sunset and Figueroa (N 34.0627° W 118.2463°) . They are sending me out 2 days early with a rental car with unlimited mileage. I don't personally know anyone in L.A., and I'd like to go at my own pace.

 

Let's start with just a proximity search: 786 caches within 20 miles of that location.

 

OK - pull it into a PQ. I'm a traveler, so...

• *single stage caches (Traditional, Letterbox or APE)
  *as I said in an early post, I'm not keen to micos, so small, regular or large containers
  *less than 3 for terrain and less than 2 for difficulty (I'm not in that great of shape, and I won't have time for hard difficulty caches)
  

That leaves me with 106 caches within 20 miles of my hotel. I'd probably be able to weed some out (10%) with recent DNFs or SBAs using Watcher.

 

After all that, I'm still left with 100 caches that fit my criteria. Wouldn't it be nice to whittle that down even further to those caches that are rated as "cream of the crop" by the people that found it?

 

========================================

 

Of course (and I know it's all been said before), it also makes sense to reward the people that have done something above and beyond the mundane. That will give incentive for more people to do something above and beyond the mundane - and the overall quality of caches should improve.

[+TrailGators]

Perhaps instead of having an actual "award" like a blue ribbon, a less over the top way is to just show a number of folks who recommend each cache?

The downside of that is people would feel insulted if nobody recommended their caches. I can see that concern as being legit. However, if you had levels like something that said "Recommended by over 50 cachers" and "Recommended by over 100 cachers" or something like that, then that maybe that appraoch would alleviate that concern.

Edited November 23, 2004 by TrailGators

[Jeremy]

However, if you had levels like something that said "Recommended by over 50 cachers" and "Recommended by over 100 cachers" or something like that, then that maybe that appraoch would alleviate that concern.

I doubt most caches could be rated by so many - especially the ones I go to. I would recommend caches with only 6 logs on my 10% list.

 

Which actually raises the issue with some easier caches having an unfair advantage over harder ones. The cache I referenced would have to get most of them to rate it in order to show up with a top 10% "award."

[+TrailGators]

However, if you had levels like something that said "Recommended by over 50 cachers" and "Recommended by over 100 cachers" or something like that, then that maybe that appraoch would alleviate that concern.

I doubt most caches could be rated by so many - especially the ones I go to. I would recommend caches with only 6 logs on my 10% list.

 

Which actually raises the issue with some easier caches having an unfair advantage over harder ones. The cache I referenced would have to get most of them to rate it in order to show up with a top 10% "award."

That raises a very good point. Hmmm. Could you look at percentage of people recommending a cache? If 75% percent recommend the cache then that might solve the problem with the less visited "wow" caches.

[+globalgirl]

So, basically, what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter why someone marks it as one of their favorites.  If you want to find out why people are marking it as a favorite - THAT'S when I'd say go to the logs and read the page.

 

Also, don't forget that I'm proposing that this is something that will be integrated into the cache coding - and could therefore be combined with other characteristics in pocket queries.  Difficulty and Terrain ratings, cache attributes and other options could combine to get you the best caches in the area with the attributes you want.

Precisely. That's the beauty of favorites combined with the cache attributes that already exist. The former needn't spell out (i.e. be laboriously catagorized) WHY folks chose it as one of their favorites. It is enough (quite a LOT actually) to simply know that it apparently has SOME combination of factors and/or something about it that was especially "wow" in order for it to... be carefully chosen as a priority favorite from among a host of other finds (i.e. 50 or 100) that are... No judgement/denigration of the others at all - all 49/99 others might well be just dandy caches - just that when push comes to shove (i.e. time is limited and you're trying to separate the wheat from the chaff as J. put it) - that "wow" factor sets the cache apart from the rest.

 

Then the specific attributes of micro vs. multi vs. puzzle vs. terrain vs. whatever - becomes a value added layer to discerning individual tastes from among the favorites. IOW, "favorites isn't just another attribute - it would be a whole new layer for the present attributes to float in. (and if "favorites" don't float your boat, then just feel free to ignore them and bumble along with but whatever random caches meet your attribute fancy.)

 

Furthermore, the mere fact that there are no 'rules" of even "guidelines" involved in folks choosing their favorites is a PLUS. That way, given the natural selection of druthers over many different cachers - if a given cache somehow ends up on several favorites lists - then it simply MUST be something special overall - not just 'cuz it's a micro or a puzzle or a pretty view, or, or, or... IOW it's clearly got the elusive "WOW!"

 

<last minute addendum>: geesh, you folks are adding blather faster than I can peck my own!

[Jeremy]

In some ways I'm thinking that a cool way to do this is to actually have the 10% listed on the actual log entry for that user, with a star (or trophy), at least initially. After we get enough ratings on the site we can consider what makes one cache more recommended over another one. I'd rather go slow than fast with this kind of implementation.

 

That way, initially, it is the finder that gives an "award" to the cache lister.

 

Let's also get into the whole 10% idea. Personally I think you can take away a top 10% favorite and move it to another cache listing.

[+TrailGators]

In some ways I'm thinking that a cool way to do this is to actually have the 10% listed on the actual log entry for that user, with a star (or trophy), at least initially. After we get enough ratings on the site we can consider what makes one cache more recommended over another one. I'd rather go slow than fast with this kind of implementation.

 

That way, initially, it is the finder that gives an "award" to the cache lister.

 

Let's also get into the whole 10% idea. Personally I think you can take away a top 10% favorite and move it to another cache listing.

The only problem with that is now we'd have to go back and modify the logs for the caches that we liked. But this would not be that hard to do.

 

Another idea (might be simple - I'm not sure) would be to let each cacher list his top 5 favorite caches in his profile. The site could grab this info and use a formula to mark these caches per Markwell's idea. Maybe a cache in the top 5 of a cacher that has found 1000 could have more weight versus one in the top 5 of a cacher that has found 10. It would make sense that the cache must be darn good to show up in top 5 of a cacher with 1000 finds. It would even be fun to view different cachers opinions. You tend to learn which ones like the same things you like after a while!

 

Edit: Each cachers top 5 list would be dynamic. Meaning that if he found a better cache his previous number 5 cache would get bumped from the list. So the list would evolve over time! I said top 5 but you could do top 10 or whatever.

Edited November 23, 2004 by TrailGators

[+Moose Mob]

10% is a lot. If I understand correctly, since I have 600 finds or so, I would be able to list 60 caches in my "favorites" list?

 

As far as why a cache is on that list, a dropdown list the normal reasons:

- Great view

- Great hide

- because it's mine/my buddy's

- Cool Container

- Great SWAG

etc.

 

But, with the option to add thier own reason that nobody foresaw.

[Jeremy]

The only problem with that is now we'd have to go back and modify the logs for the caches that we liked. But this would not be that hard to do.

You wouldn't have to. We could automate that process for you.

 

re: 60 for 600 finds, you're right. You would be able to rate 60 of them but you aren't forced to.

[+TrailGators]

The only problem with that is now we'd have to go back and modify the logs for the caches that we liked. But this would not be that hard to do.

You wouldn't have to. We could automate that process for you.

 

re: 60 for 600 finds, you're right. You would be able to rate 60 of them but you aren't forced to.

Then that would be OK!

 

I agree with Moose Mob. I think 1% is too many. When I think back on my own 300 something finds only a handful come to mind as "Wow!". 1% would work if you were to have selections like "Wow" and "Very Fun" and "Fun". Even the so-so ones could still get a fun rating!

[+globalgirl]

Geez, I can barely keep up here (and am getting little else re: rubles in the bank, done) but - still... I just hate to see a good notion with a lot of potential benefit go south due to insufficient airing.

 

I agree J. that ideally it's best to take baby steps/go slow if at all possible, but...

 

...In some ways I'm thinking that a cool way to do this is to actually have the 10% listed on the actual log entry for that user, with a star (or trophy), at least initially.

 

Sorry but while on the surface that might appear to be the "safe" way to go, imho it utterly negates the whole point of having a favorites factor at all. I mean... if I want to wade through logs to discern the wow caches, I can do that now, yes? Just a matter of scrolling through the logs to spot glowing reports. And while adding a wee star/trophy icon might catch my eye a tad quicker - wading through ALL the logs on each and every INDIVIDUAL cache page is... hardly going to help QUICKLY SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF, which... I rather thought was the main benefit - indeed the original impetus - of a favorites system to begin with.

[Jeremy]

Sorry but while on the surface that might appear to be the "safe" way to go, imho it utterly negates the whole point of having a favorites factor at all. I mean... if I want to wade through logs to discern the wow caches, I can do that now, yes?

*sigh*

 

Don't overreact here. You can't start issuing group trophies on caches until a large group can go and post their top 10%. Until there is a large enough group to post their rewards, the stats won't have much meaning. And that is still progress.

 

I don't enter into this this lightly, which is why we'll be going into our 5th year without such a system in place.

 

All features on this site are implemented slowly. So yes, you'll have to "wade" through them for a period of time - but you're doing that now, yes?

[+Moose Mob]

Several quick comments.....

 

J - Would it be easier to start at 2% and increase to 10% if there were not enough caches floating to the top, or would it be easier to start at 10% and reduce it to 2% if there were too many "favorites"?

 

Even if I had 60 votes right now, only 5-10 come to mind as being on the list.

 

GG - "Seperate Wheat from the Chaff". It's a fair analogy, but, although I do not expect any of my caches to make the top of the list, but I do not consider most of them as "waste" or "by products" either. I am not offended but others might be.

[+globalgirl]

10% is a lot.  If I understand correctly, since I have 600 finds or so, I would be able to list 60 caches in my "favorites" list?

Yes MM, as J. says just 'cuz you have the option of choosing 60 doesn't mean you must, plus more importantly...

 

Re: the magic "%" - as I noted way back on page 1 of this burgeoning thread - statistically you'd need the percentage to be moderately high enough to (quoting myself here):

 

...i.e. yes, high standards (1 in 100 found) are ideal, but... think about the numbers if that were the case. First of all in some areas there aren't all that many folks with 100+ finds and precious few caches. Regardless, even in places where you have lots of caches and thus plenty of folks over 100, or 500, or even 1000 - what are the chances that each of those folks in say... even in an area the size of the entire state of WA - what are the chances that any (much less several) caches would show up more than once or twice on anybody's top 10 list?

 

Hard to explain, and I might well be way off base here, but just seems to me that what you'd want is a system that somehow generates only caches that show up on at least... a handful of individual folks' top 10 list.

 

Thus... metheenks maybe best to lower the standard somewhat. Perhaps each cacher gets to choose 1 favorite in 50 - that might work. Or even 1 in 20... At least it would likely generate a goodly list of repeat favorites and thus - better than no system at all.

 

Hard to say, dunno the stats for this area, much less locales with way few caches... Don't want the standard too low, but low enough to generate clusters of favorite caches that appear at least a few times on many top 10 lists...

IOW... 1% would seem likely too stringent to yield the clusters we'd need, and 10%... Likely more than enough to yield nice clusters.

 

Perhaps the more important question is - how many lists does a given cache have to appear on - to get on the composite favorites system?

[+globalgirl]

*sigh*

 

Don't overreact here. You can't start issuing group trophies on caches until a large group can go and post their top 10%. Until there is a large enough group to post their rewards, the stats won't have much meaning. And that is still progress.

Gee J. - sigh or no sigh - I surely don't believe that advancing a "woa there" reminder is overreacting.

 

AIS, babysteps/slow in these matters is surely ideal, and most certainly I well understand that any system will take time/input to get it's sealegs. But I still caution the wisdom of going to all the trouble to begin implementation of a whole new system if - the way it's implemented effectively negates the primary benefit. Kinda like tossing the baby out with the bath water...

 

Yes indeed, AIS, a wee icon by each log will no doubt catch my eye quicker, and thus - arguably is progress. But... just seems like the loss of benefit of choosing that route... might not be worth the trouble. And indeed, might well make it difficult/hamper implementing the more beneficial composite favorites system in the long run.

 

Just my .02 - after all we're all just brainstorming here - constantly weighing the pros 'n cons...

[+Markwell]

Another idea (might be simple - I'm not sure) would be to let each cacher list his top 5 favorite caches in his profile. The site could grab this info and use a formula to mark these caches per Markwell's idea. Maybe a cache in the top 5 of a cacher that has found 1000 could have more weight versus one in the top 5 of a cacher that has found 10. It would make sense that the cache must be darn good to show up in top 5 of a cacher with 1000 finds.

 

Sorry, but I don't really want to "weight" someone's opinion based solely on the number of finds. As a person who's been around a long time but caches only once or twice a month, I think my opinion is valid, too. It IS true however that I haven't found as many as some others.

 

I would feel a lot more disgruntled as the person voting for a cache if opinion were weighted less just because I have less finds. I think it's much nicer to the voters to say - "Listen - you haven't found as many as BruceS, so he'll get more votes."

 

I also think we're getting away from the simplistic nature of this suggestion. 10% is easy to figure out - I've got 284 finds; I get 28 favorites. Which caches are my favorites is completely dynamic and up to me on a whim. If I choose to only vote for 1 or 2 favorites, so be it. However, until I find my 290th cache, I can't have more than 28 favorites.

 

Why are my favorites my favorites? We don't need to describe why in a dropdown or a freeform field. That's where Jeremy's link to the logs (not Lincoln Logs) would come in handy. For example, I could hypothetically go to BruceS's profile and pull up a list of what he has marked as his favorites. I could then see those logs on those caches by clicking on the cache's name.

 

 

Taking Jeremy's idea, on the cache side, if I marked The Mushroom as one of my favorites, my log as seen individually, and on the cache page would have a little trophy icon (or ribbon or whatever) that would indicate that based on THIS log, I marked it as a favorite. If some time down the road The Mushroom gets bumped from my "favorites" list, that icon would disappear from the log (completely dynamic).

[+globalgirl]

GG - "Seperate Wheat from the Chaff".  It's a fair analogy, but, although I do not expect any of my caches to make the top of the list, but I do not consider most of them as "waste" or "by products" either.  I am not offended but others might be.

Hey MM - 'twasn't I who initially chose the analogy.

 

And most certainly no "waste" nor "by-product" reference was intended. Indeed, it never even ocurred to me.

 

Truth is, as dear B & A earlier pointed out - semantically we're all treading on slippery "judgement" territory here as it is. I happen to believe that a "favorites" list is a GOOD thing - neither threatening nor a put down. Utterly devoid of emotional baggage/pc fervor. My "favorite" color happens to be blue (though some days it morphs to purple) - but that surely doesn't imply that yellow and green have now suddenly become "by-products" or somehow less desirable...

[+Markwell]

Man - I spend my time formatting my post and checking it over twice, and the tone changes.

 

I originally read Jeremy's intent to mean that if I designated a cache as my favorite, my found log would have the little "trophy" icon - in addition to all we've talked about, not replacing the aggregate favorites. I'm not sure, but I think I read that wrong.

 

The whole idea behind the favorites is that the end result would be a quick way to show at a glance without reading the logs that this cache has been nominated by at least a few people as a cache of choice. The results would be available in PQs and on search pages (much like the attributes intend to be). Anything less negates the benefit of doing such a project.

 

There are obvious variables to take into account yet: How many can people choose? At what minimum number of recommendations does a cache become recommended? Is it a trophy, a ribbon or just some text? Is this a members only feature or site-wide implementation?

 

But I definitely think that baby-steps into the aggregate function is not the way to go. Sure there won't be that many caches that aggregate into the "recommended" status early on, but without having the target of getting your caches as a "recommended" cache, what's the incentive to place better caches, and to seek out that status?

 

My answers:

I still say 10%

Minimum - 3 or 4

It doesn't really matter except that it needs to be on the cache level, in addition to log level

I think it should be site-wide to have true meaning

[+TrailGators]

Sorry, but I don't really want to "weight" someone's opinion based solely on the number of finds.  As a person who's been around a long time but caches only once or twice a month, I think my opinion is valid, too.  It IS true however that I haven't found as many as some others.

 

I would feel a lot more disgruntled as the person voting for a cache if opinion were weighted less just because I have less finds.  I think it's much nicer to the voters to say - "Listen - you haven't found as many as BruceS, so he'll get more votes."

 

I also think we're getting away from the simplistic nature of this suggestion.  10% is easy to figure out - I've got 284 finds; I get 28 favorites.  Which caches are my favorites is completely dynamic and up to me on a whim.  If I choose to only vote for 1 or 2 favorites, so be it.  However, until I find my 290th cache, I can't have more than 28 favorites.

Markwell I feel exactly like you do! Trust me, I am a peon (in my area) when it comes to # of finds. I met a guy with 4000 finds at a recent gathering to give you some idea of what I'm talking about. But I would love to see his top 5!

 

Anyhow, I did a poor job of making the point I was trying to make. I was trying to equate experience with judgement. When you first start caching every cache is a "wow" cache because geocaching is new and very exiting. But the more you do it, the more you discover some of the really cool caches! So maybe it would be better to have a fixed number of caches to put on your own list. As you find better and better caches you update your list and it evolves with you.

 

Edit: I can spell but I wish I could type!

Edited November 23, 2004 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

My answers:

1) I prefer a Top 5, 10 or Top 20 type thing (just the ultimate caches).

2) Blue ribbon criteria depends on the system used. But I think it should take into account both quantity and percentage. For example, if 9/100 people voted for a Cache A is it really a favorite? On the other hand if 9/10 people voted for Cache B it probably is a really good one!

3) I also think favorites should be site-wide

Edited November 23, 2004 by TrailGators

[+globalgirl]

...I was trying to equate experience with judgement. When you first start caching every cache is a "wow" cache because geocaching is new and very exiting. But the more you do it, the more you discover some of the really cool caches! So maybe it would be better to have a fixed number of caches to put on your own list. As you find better and better caches you update your list and it evolves with you.

I think we covered this base before TG - didn't we agree that you'd need at least 100 finds before you could choose even 1 favorite? Just seems to me that 100 finds is plenty to have discerned what constitutes a "wow" factor. You don't need thousands - surely 100 would do.

 

And besides, again - if/when (i.e. I know it will take time to fully get it's sealegs) you have most folks with their favorites list merged into the composite (aggregate as Max so nicely put it) - to a large extent the specifics of any one list (i.e. some perceived lack of "experience" due to the 1 favorite of some 100 find noobie perchance - allegedly - tainting the mix) will - just naturally dissipate. 'Tis the beauty of statistics!

[+Moose Mob]

My answers:

1) 2% with option to increase (I would rather be told I had more votes later than to be told that I had to cut my list in half)

2) A cache with 4 visits and 3 cachers put it in thier logs, it does warrant recognition. 3 of 300 visits also should not be summarily (sp?) ruled out.

3) Site wide, but minimum number of finds before opinions count.

4) PQ's need a limit of more than 500. Oops, sorry, wrong thread.

[+Markwell]

...And besides, again - if/when (i.e. I know it will take time to fully get it's sealegs) you have most folks with their favorites list merged into the composite (aggregate as Max so nicely put it)...

Who's Max?

[+Moose Mob]

Max hasn't even vavlidated thier account since 2001. No vote for him (her?).

[+TrailGators]

...And besides, again - if/when (i.e. I know it will take time to fully get it's sealegs) you have most folks with their favorites list merged into the composite (aggregate as Max so nicely put it)...

Who's Max?

The guy on Get Smart! By the way we have an awesome Get Smart theme cache in our area! That one will get my vote for sure!

[+RocketMan]

...And besides, again - if/when (i.e. I know it will take time to fully get it's sealegs) you have most folks with their favorites list merged into the composite (aggregate as Max so nicely put it)...

Who's Max?

The guy on Get Smart! By the way we have an awesome Get Smart theme cache in our area! That one will get my vote for sure!

It will probably get my vote too. RM

[Jeremy]

I originally read Jeremy's intent to mean that if I designated a cache as my favorite, my found log would have the little "trophy" icon - in addition to all we've talked about, not replacing the aggregate favorites. I'm not sure, but I think I read that wrong.

You got it right. I'm just considering an implementation schedule for the concept. It won't happen all at once.

 

First, you would have an area to manage your top finds.

Second, the trophy icons will show up for your logs for listings you deemed your top 10%

Third, you can use the aggregate data to filter out the top finds.

Fourth, there will be an indication somewhere on the results page indicating that it was a top 10% pick.

 

Working on First creates limited controversy (and shows your favorites to other people). Second is a bit more controversial since some people may want to rate their top list anonymously (which I disagree). Third and Fourth will cause the most controversy and should be carefully implemented.

[+globalgirl]

My answers:

I still say 10%

Minimum - 3 or 4

It doesn't really matter except that it needs to be on the cache level, in addition to log level

I think it should be site-wide to have true meaning

Clearly Maxwell and I are of very similar (twin?) minds here (i.e. esp. on the issue of convenience - the "where" this new benefit will be made avalable).

 

Nonetheless, my own "answers":

Yup, 10% wouldn't be too many

Yup2, appearance on min. 3 or 4 favorites lists

Yup3 - most important - that it be aggregate, handy - not (just) buried in the logs

Yup4 - site-wide, and that means... your favorites can be from ANYWHERE not just your homebase.

min. 100 finds for first favorite(s) to get dumped into the aggregate.

NO "ratings" - just simply "favorites"

I vote for a teensy demure icon, that screams neither "award" nor "reward", but rather... a sincere "well done!" - perhaps a high-five? or... a wee thumbs-up?

K.I.S.S. - keep it as simple as humanly possible, and that includes...

NO silly pull-down menus on the "why" of it.

 

10% 'cuz... after the aggregate filter requisite appearance on 3-4 lists, likely won't produce but a small percentage of caches overall in any given area. Might have to play with the numbers some (i.e. more or less than 10%)

appearence on at least 3 - 4 favorites lists 'cuz... fewer risks worthless data, more risks too few clusters.

aggregate - need I/we say more?

min. 100 finds - hey, I'm presently sitting at 99 and seems like a most reasonable requisite to me. Shoot, next week (after Got Coin?) that means I can finally choose my top 10 - kewl! <I know, I know - it isn't going to happen for goodly while..>

silly pulldown "why" menus - a favorite is a favorite, period. No need to justify why you like blue, yes?

Oh and... may as well add:

Expect a miniscule of abuse, no matter how seemingly air-tight the plan.

Expect a modicum of dissent, no matter how brilliant and well-thought out the scheme.

 

Oh and finally... do bear in mind that not all of us (indeed, a vast majority?) don't rely on/happen to live by a pda, so when you speak of "use the aggregate data to filter out the top finds" - not sure what you mean... It has nothing to do with choice of premium membership, just seems like sometimes that is forgotten.

[Jeremy]

Oh and finally... do bear in mind that not all of us (indeed, a vast majority?) don't rely on/happen to live by a pda, so when you speak of "use the aggregate data to filter out the top finds" - not sure what you mean... It has nothing to do with choice of premium membership, just seems like sometimes that is forgotten.

Not really. You can create and use a Pocket Query without owning a PDA.

[+TrailGators]

I originally read Jeremy's intent to mean that if I designated a cache as my favorite, my found log would have the little "trophy" icon - in addition to all we've talked about, not replacing the aggregate favorites.  I'm not sure, but I think I read that wrong.

You got it right. I'm just considering an implementation schedule for the concept. It won't happen all at once.

 

First, you would have an area to manage your top finds.

Second, the trophy icons will show up for your logs for listings you deemed your top 10%

Third, you can use the aggregate data to filter out the top finds.

Fourth, there will be an indication somewhere on the results page indicating that it was a top 10% pick.

 

Working on First creates limited controversy (and shows your favorites to other people). Second is a bit more controversial since some people may want to rate their top list anonymously (which I disagree). Third and Fourth will cause the most controversy and should be carefully implemented.

Sounds like a smart plan. Implementing 1 and 2 would give you the data you need to smoothly implement 3 and 4.

[beebot]

In summary, the type of cache I'm looking for is highly dependent on the type of trip I'm taking, whether I'm on my own or with my daughter or another adult, and the type of cache that *I* enjoy the most personally.  A cache rating system would be of some value, but only limited value, to assist in these subjective determinations.

I agree that the rating system would of a limited value based on what I'm looking for.

 

But I guess what most of the people of this thread are saying is that they truly want other peoples opinions (averaged together) so they can find the best caches quickly.

 

So perhaps a kind of poll system could be developed (probably overkill but...).

 

Rate your experience finding this cache (5=best):

Scenic Location? 1-2-3-4-5

Challenging? 1-2-3-4-5

Theme? 1-2-3-4-5

Current Swag? 1-2-3-4-5

or whatever...

 

At least this way cachers could look at aspects of the cache and base their decision on more specific "reasons". And an overall rating could be made by averaging all specific ratings together.

 

But again it's just going to be skewed by each raters viewpoint. A beautiful mountain top cache might get a rating of "1" because someone doesn't like snow. Of course most people would probably appreciate the view and it would average out to a 4 out of 5 for scenery.

[beebot]

oh there was a third page of this thread I didn't read.

 

I like the Favorites idea where you can see other peoples list of fav's.

 

I would suggest adding a comment section to each favorite choice (unless you can go back and edit your log of the find on your old favorite cache).

 

This comment section would allow the cachers to list their reasons why they consider each of their choices to be their favorites. It could even be a Review of the cache, like Amazon's book reviews written by readers. That you'd see at the bottom of the cache page.

 

If I'm going to consider other peoples opinions about their favorites, I want to know why. (because I'm just that curious)

[+TrailGators]

But again it's just going to be skewed by each raters viewpoint. A beautiful mountain top cache might get a rating of "1" because someone doesn't like snow. Of course most people would probably appreciate the view and it would average out to a 4 out of 5 for scenery.

The guy that gave it a "1" probably slid down the snow covered mountain on the way back down!

[+TrailGators]

oh there was a third page of this thread I didn't read. 

 

I like the Favorites idea where you can see other peoples list of fav's.

 

I would suggest adding a comment section to each favorite choice (unless you can go back and edit your log of the find on your old favorite cache).

 

This comment section would allow the cachers to list their reasons why they consider each of their choices to be their favorites. It could even be a Review of the cache, like Amazon's book reviews written by readers. That you'd see at the bottom of the cache page.

 

If I'm going to consider other peoples opinions about their favorites, I want to know why. (because I'm just that curious) 

I really like that idea! I read the Amazon blurbs all the time before I buy a product! Then I go to Froogle to find out where I can buy it cheaper!

Edited November 24, 2004 by TrailGators

[+Moose Mob]

oh there was a third page of this thread I didn't read.

 

I like the Favorites idea where you can see other peoples list of fav's.

 

I would suggest adding a comment section to each favorite choice (unless you can go back and edit your log of the find on your old favorite cache).

 

This comment section would allow the cachers to list their reasons why they consider each of their choices to be their favorites. It could even be a Review of the cache, like Amazon's book reviews written by readers. That you'd see at the bottom of the cache page.

 

If I'm going to consider other peoples opinions about their favorites, I want to know why. (because I'm just that curious)

There is quite the flurry going on here, and I am still finding posts that I didn't notice earlier today.

 

I do want to note that comments about "why" a cache is on a person's favorite list will undoubtedly have limited useflness. Going to the logs of that cacce will likely server to be most informative. I'm not against the idea by any means, just not sure how it would fit.

[+globalgirl]

Not really. You can create and use a Pocket Query without owning a PDA.

Yes, I guess I've never quite understood what these pocket queries are all about. I've d/l a handful of caches to my gps but... Guess I need to read up on it more. Just seems most all the talk is on "paperless" caching, and alas, no pda.

 

In any case, sorry I brought it up here - I just wasn't sure what you were getting at in your "aggregate data filter". I guess that's has nothing to do with the present discussion.

 

Sorry, please ignore this little tangent...

[Jeremy]

Sorry, please ignore this little tangent...

Actually it really isn't a tangent...

 

You can preview a pocket query online which essentially makes it a custom search tool. It is far superior to searching by zipcode or even lat/lon. Just keep the days to generate unchecked and you won't get the big files.

 

Ultimately you will be able to say "only caches rated more than x in the top 10 percentile" and only get those results.

 

I mention slashdot since they rate posts which can be filtered. So you can say "only show me responses rated higher than x" and filter out the chaff.

 

Yes, I didn't mean chaff to mean non top 10% ers were chaff. It is a figure of speech. Like diamonds in the rough. When you say that about someone it doesn't mean everyone else is gravel.

Edited November 24, 2004 by Jeremy

[+globalgirl]

Sorry, please ignore this little tangent...

It really isn't a tangent (though if you don't mind, can you leave the font size alone?).

 

Sorry 'bout the font decrease J. - I was only trying to make what I thought was an unwelcome tangent, a little less obtrusive.

 

Your custom search queries sound great (will have to knuckle down and try to figure out how to do that one of these days), though I would again caution against overusing the term "rating", "rated", etc. I know it's but semantic and "favorites" are ultimately likewise (albeit a quiet, personal) "rating" system. Just that the term "rate" seems to conjur up "higher" vs. "lower" and thus negatives. Whereas, "favorites" seems only positive.

 

And speaking of "semantics" - now I DO think your "gravel" analogy is not only spot-on, but great fun!

[+evergreenhiker!]

However, if you had levels like something that said "Recommended by over 50 cachers" and "Recommended by over 100 cachers" or something like that, then that maybe that appraoch would alleviate that concern.

I doubt most caches could be rated by so many - especially the ones I go to. I would recommend caches with only 6 logs on my 10% list.

 

Which actually raises the issue with some easier caches having an unfair advantage over harder ones. The cache I referenced would have to get most of them to rate it in order to show up with a top 10% "award."

Good point! that one was an excellent cache! Maybe group thre cache ratings by terrain difficulty. by 1-2.5, 3-4, 4.5-5 Three main groups to vote for

[Jeremy]

I could do some kind of ratio, where 1 top 10% rating on a low find cache would have more significance than a 5 top 10% rating on a more popular cache. Not sure how to work the ratio though.

 

So the idea is that a new cache gets recommended it gets a better rating and can get the icon easier than if an older cache with more finds doesn't get a whole lot of 10%ers. Starting to get complicated again.

 

Whatever the case, I do like the idea that I could go to evergreenhiker's profile page and see his favorites, since I like the caches he likes. If I can pinpoint one cache we both went to I can probably determine that his favorites are similar to mine.

[+TrailGators]

However, if you had levels like something that said "Recommended by over 50 cachers" and "Recommended by over 100 cachers" or something like that, then that maybe that appraoch would alleviate that concern.

I doubt most caches could be rated by so many - especially the ones I go to. I would recommend caches with only 6 logs on my 10% list.

 

Which actually raises the issue with some easier caches having an unfair advantage over harder ones. The cache I referenced would have to get most of them to rate it in order to show up with a top 10% "award."

Good point! that one was an excellent cache! Maybe group thre cache ratings by terrain difficulty. by 1-2.5, 3-4, 4.5-5 Three main groups to vote for

3-5 favorite votes should give that one a ribbon! By the way, that one looks like an awesome cache!

I know of one like down here like that one too with only 22 logs.

BTW, who is that guy?

Edited November 24, 2004 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I could do some kind of ratio, where 1 top 10% rating on a low find cache would have more significance than a 5 top 10% rating on a more popular cache. Not sure how to work the ratio though.

 

So the idea is that a new cache gets recommended it gets a better rating and can get the icon easier than if an older cache with more finds doesn't get a whole lot of 10%ers. Starting to get complicated again.

 

Whatever the case, I do like the idea that I could go to evergreenhiker's profile page and see his favorites, since I like the caches he likes. If I can pinpoint one cache we both went to I can probably determine that his favorites are similar to mine.

What if that cache were rated in the top 5 of a cachers 10%?

So the actual ranking within the favorite list could carry some additional weight too! So if you rated that cache your #2 all-time favorite and Evergreen rated it in a similar manner, it quickly gather the credentials it would need to get a ribbon!

[+globalgirl]

Yes, checking someone's profile page for favorites (especially if we happen to know that person and know that we like similar caches) is fine - and some of us already have such on our profiles page. And if a simple interface could be added to the profile page so that everybody could easily do that Jeremy, that would be great - at least for starters.

 

But... what about a total stranger 'round here, visiting from another place, or a noobie just getting started? How would they know which profiles to look at? How would they know which folks had cache druthers similar to theirs?

 

Guess it just seems to me that for veteran locals in any given area, the favorites aren't as important as they would be for noobies or visitors (or when we visit elsewhere). Here in our home territory, we have plenty of time and experience to get to know which cachers share our caching druthers and can simply set a bookmark to watch which caches they do. Leastwise that's what I do. But should I go skipping off to Colorado, or wherever (when caching time is arguably even more critical), how would I know which profiles to peer at to help wade through all the possibilities?

[+TrailGators]

Yes, checking someone's profile page for favorites (especially if we happen to know that person and know that we like similar caches) is fine - and some of us already have such on our profiles page. And if a simple interface could be added to the profile page so that everybody could easily do that Jeremy, that would be great - at least for starters.

 

But... what about a total stranger 'round here, visiting from another place, or a noobie just getting started? How would they know which profiles to look at? How would they know which folks had cache druthers similar to theirs?

 

Guess it just seems to me that for veteran locals in any given area, the favorites aren't as important as they would be for noobies or visitors (or when we visit elsewhere). Here in our home territory, we have plenty of time and experience to get to know which cachers share our caching druthers and can simply set a bookmark to watch which caches they do. Leastwise that's what I do. But should I go skipping off to Colorado, or wherever (when caching time is arguably even more critical), how would I know which profiles to peer at to help wade through all the possibilities?

I know how!

 

You run a PQ for the new area and sort for favorites. If it were Jeremy or Evergreenhiker, they would sort the PQ for > 4 terrain levels. Then they' read the the cache logs and click on some cachers names to open their profiles to view their local favorites list!

[+globalgirl]

You run a PQ for the new area and sort for favorites. If it were Jeremy or Evergreenhiker, they would sort the PQ for > 4 terrain levels. Then they' read the the cache logs and click on some cachers names to open their profiles to view their local favorites list!   

Not sure I understand. I presume your solution above is theoretical - i.e. if and when we all have the ability to list our favorites on our profile pages AND that info is somehow integrated into the database for search purposes, then... one could run a PQ for a given area, for say... just favorites? Or... all favorites sorted by type (micro vs. multi vs. mystery, etc.) and/or terrain?

 

That sounds great. No matter what the system, to me the key is to be able to easily glean a list of favorites in a given area - without having to click on random profile pages of folks I don't know.

 

Then again, it would also be great if the list of sorted favorites could be prioritized by... how many favorites lists the cache appeared on. i.e. some min. number like... 3 or 4 as some of us agreed was min. to be useful.