Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
TrailGators

Favorite Cache System

Recommended Posts

By the way, I personally favor keeping the favorites lists to Top 10 for each cacher. This would help keep the focus on "Wow"!

How is that fair to someone who's found a lot of caches? Why weight the favorites process disproportionately in favor of newer cachers?

 

When I had 100 finds, and I had to pick my top 10, I'd give a very different answer than I'd give today. Included in my "newbie top ten" would be my first lamp post cache, which took me 45 minutes to find, and "wow'd" me.

 

Today, as I approach 1,400 finds, I have 67 caches listed on my Top 5% list (see link below). Each of them is worthy of the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
By the way, I personally favor keeping the favorites lists to Top 10 for each cacher. This would help keep the focus on "Wow"!

How is that fair to someone who's found a lot of caches? Why weight the favorites process disproportionately in favor of newer cachers?

 

When I had 100 finds, and I had to pick my top 10, I'd give a very different answer than I'd give today. Included in my "newbie top ten" would be my first lamp post cache, which took me 45 minutes to find, and "wow'd" me.

 

Today, as I approach 1,400 finds, I have 67 caches listed on my Top 5% list (see link below). Each of them is worthy of the distinction.

I've found 650 and have ten favorites. These ten keep getting better as I find more and more caches. The point I was making is that I'd love to see the top 10 of some of these cachers like you that have found 1000-2000 caches. But I see your point about someone that has only found 50 having 10. You are right, giving each cacher up to 5% of their finds would be better.

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The problem is, your sample size will not be large enough. If caches got hundreds of visits, you might have interesting data. Unfortunately, difficult, but awesome, caches get few visits while drive-up micros get loads. You won't help but get horribly skewed data.

I do agree with your argument. This is just one of many possible solutions - and who knows? - I expect to try out more than one option for finding out the real gems.

 

I don't object to other rating systems but, IMO, it would have to be opt-on for the cache lister. So if a cache owner doesn't want their cache listing to be rated for whatever reason, they can switch it off. That also means their listing may be avoided by folks that like the rating system but at least they have that option.

 

As a favorites list goes I see no downside, so that would not have an opt out.

Share this post


Link to post

What does not getting a valid sample size really mean?

 

Well let's give an example:

You are an a geocaching event in Somewhere USA. You talk to 5-10 local cachers and half recommend that you visit Cache A and the other half recommend that that you check out Cache B.

 

So here are some choices based on that data:

A) You don't have a valid sample size you you ignore these people.

B ) You go home and read about these two caches. You find out that Cache A a 4 terrain on the top of a local mountain and Cache B is a puzzle cache. You decide that neither of these caches is what you are looking for.

C) You go home and read about these two caches. You find out that Cache A a 4 terrain on the top of a local mountain and you love hiking caches so you head out and find an awesome cache with a scenic view that you may have never found had you not talked to somebody.

D) You go home and read about these two caches. You find out that Cache B is a puzzle cache and you love puzzle caches so you head out and find it. But in your opinion that cache wasn't that great but that's OK.

E) You want to go back to the Event and talk to some cachers to find some more recommedations. But the event is over. Now what?! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Out of the 900 caches I have found so far, I guess I could trim the favorites list down to 25, 10 of which are not in my area. To trim it smaller, I would feel like I wouldn't be sharing all my best caching experiences.

 

When I hit 2000 caches found, the list might be 50 or 100 around the world that I would want to share.

 

Edit: spelling.

Edited by Moose Mob

Share this post


Link to post
Out of the 900 caches I have found so far, I guess I could trim the favorites list down to 25, 10 of which are not in my area.  To trim it smaller, I would feel like I wouldn't be sharing all my best caching experiences.

 

When I hit 2000 caches found, the list might be 50 or 100 around the world that I would want to share.

 

Edit: spelling.

It still amazes me how many people are hitting 1K and 2K. When I first started caching I used to be amazed by these cachers that had 300 finds! :unsure:

 

Anyhow, I agree that trimming isn't a good idea! I was just concened that if too many favorites were allowed the result could be watered down. So what if....we could put one, two or three stars on our favorites list? Or is this getting to granular?

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
What does not getting a valid sample size really mean? ...

Ummm....

 

You might want to read my entire post. :unsure: My comment was in refernce to your post way up on the first page (fifth post in the thread, I think). You were the one who mentioned that your idea would be effective once the sample size became large enough.

 

I actually kind of like the idea of favorites. For instance, If I'm caching in an area, and I like one that Lep has hidden, I probably would like to know what his favorite caches are. My theory being that he would hide the type of cache that he would enjoy finding. I realize that this logic is rather flawed, but its still the best I could go by to find caches that I would like and skip those that I didn't.

 

For this reason, I would favor larger 'favorites' lists. In my example, I don't need to know which caches that many, unknown, geocachers liked, I only need to know what caches that Lep (and other cachers on his list) liked.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
What does not getting a valid sample size really mean? ...

Ummm....

 

You might want to read my entire post. :unsure: My comment was in refernce to your post way up on the first page (fifth post in the thread, I think). You were the one who mentioned that your idea would be effective once the sample size became large enough.

 

I actually kind of like the idea of favorites. For instance, If I'm caching in an area, and I like one that Lep has hidden, I probably would like to know what his favorite caches are. My theory being that he would hide the type of cache that he would enjoy finding. I realize that this logic is rather flawed, but its still the best I could go by to find caches that I would like and skip those that I didn't.

 

For this reason, I would favor larger 'favorites' lists. In my example, I don't need to know which caches that many, unknown, geocachers liked, I only need to know what caches that Lep (and other cachers on his list) liked.

But at that long ago time I was referring to the rating idea when I said that. So I guess I didn't realize that you were commenting on something we were trying to quit talking about because as Moose Mob wrote, it has caused nothing but Angst!

 

Anyhow, now we all basically agree and are on the same page! :)

 

I still think you could water down the favorites if you allow the list to be too large. If it was held to 5% of your finds then it would basically represent the favorite 5% of caches by all cachers. That implies that 1 in 20 caches out there are worthy of being tagged as a favorite. I think the number is less and is more like 1 in 50. But if you tighten number down it raises the bar on what it takes to be a favorite! It might be better to start tighter and relax it once more data is available.

Share this post


Link to post

Since this discussion started a long time ago and the lists feature has been implemented, I have been watching the way I add caches to my favorites list. I have gone back through the discussions and did my own version of a reality check.

 

The main thing that determines whether an individual cacher's favorites list, and thier opinion, is substantiated by thier experience. The other criteria, is how serious they are about the sport.

 

In an effort to keep it simple, I would think that once a cacher has say, 50 or 100 finds, they begin to have a good basic idea of what a "typical" cache is. From there, they can determine "better than typical".

 

Once a cacher has some determined amount of finds, they should be able to "tag" any cache find they so choose. I am thinking no limit. Since I believe this would be rare, it would not have a lot of effect on the overall average.

 

The Premium membership requirement would also help filter out sock puppets and shows seriousness of the sport (although the opinions of the finacially challenged should count also).

Edited by Moose Mob

Share this post


Link to post
Since this discussion started a long time ago and the lists feature has been implemented, I have been watching the way I add caches to my favorites list.  I have gone back through the discussions and did my own version of a reality check.

 

The main thing that determines whether an individual cacher's favorites list, and thier opinion, is substantiated by thier experience.  The other criteria, is how serious they are about the sport.

 

In an effort to keep it simple, I would think that once a cacher has say, 50 or 100 finds, they begin to have a good basic idea of what a "typical" cache is.  From there, they can determine "better than typical".

 

Once a cacher has some determined amount of finds, they should be able to "tag" any cache find they so choose.  I am thinking no limit.  Since I believe this would be rare, it would not have a lot of effect on the overall average.

 

The Premium membership requirement would also help filter out sock puppets and shows seriousness of the sport (although the opinions of the finacially challenged should count also).

I totally agree that you need experience to understand what the special caches are! So are you suggesting that you'd to have to have found ~100 caches to qualify for a favorites list?

 

I still think that we need to limit the number of favorites to the top 5%. The point of having favorites was to hightlight the cream of the crop!

 

Edit: Another idea would be to relax the individual limits and let the site highlight the top 5% of the favorites vote getters in each region!

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>Edit: Another idea would be to relax the individual limits and let the site highlight the top 5% of the favorites vote getters in each region!

I like that thought. Perhaps he cacher can detirmine the percentage. If a cacher will be in town for two days, they may want fewer (top 5%), whereas if they are in town for two weeks, they may want more (top 20%).

There's a lot to think about, but without actual statistical data for the different types of regions, it would very tough to determine the effects of a given method.

Share this post


Link to post
I actually kind of like the idea of favorites. For instance, If I'm caching in an area, and I like one that Lep has hidden, I probably would like to know what his favorite caches are. My theory being that he would hide the type of cache that he would enjoy finding. I realize that this logic is rather flawed, but its still the best I could go by to find caches that I would like and skip those that I didn't.

 

For this reason, I would favor larger 'favorites' lists. In my example, I don't need to know which caches that many, unknown, geocachers liked, I only need to know what caches that Lep (and other cachers on his list) liked.

This got me thinking. Why not do something like Amazon. If a cache has been recommended by at least one cacher, have a link on the cache page: ... caches recommended by cachers who liked this cache.

 

This would display the union of all the favorite lists that include this cache, sorted by the number of cachers who recommend each cache and the original cache.

 

If I find a cache that I liked I could use this to find others I may like. If I were travelling outside my home area, I could read the cache pages for a few caches and find one or two I might want to try, then use the link to find others (since recommenders would likely be in the same area)

 

Other than knowing if a cache got a least one recommendation, a user wouldn't know how many recommendations a cache got. Nor would they be able to see who recommended the cache unless the recommender shares their favorites list and provides a link to it in the cache log or in their profile. This scheme would probably better with larger favorites list, since it is meant to find "similar" caches rather than the "best" caches.

Share this post


Link to post
This got me thinking. Why not do something like Amazon. If a cache has been recommended by at least one cacher, have a link on the cache page: ... caches recommended by cachers who liked this cache.

This will happen and I think is in the FAQ. Any public list will be referenced on a cache listing. The difference with a special favorites list is that the list will be based on % of finds and will be calculated as a number to be used by folks to do custom queries.

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>Edit: Another idea would be to relax the individual limits and let the site highlight the top 5% of the favorites vote getters in each region!

I like that thought. Perhaps he cacher can detirmine the percentage. If a cacher will be in town for two days, they may want fewer (top 5%), whereas if they are in town for two weeks, they may want more (top 20%).

There's a lot to think about, but without actual statistical data for the different types of regions, it would very tough to determine the effects of a given method.

If you ran a PQ the site would have data to show the current favorites (top 5%) for that area. I would think that would be fairly easy to implement!

Share this post


Link to post
If I were travelling outside my home area, I could read the cache pages for a few caches and find one or two I might want to try, then use the link to find others (since recommenders would likely be in the same area)

This is a great idea because it could provide a subset of favorites based on similarity!!! :anibad:

 

Edit: You could even add an option to view only nearby caches with similar "key" attributes. I know my favorites list is pretty diverse.

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The current proposal on the table is...

 

    * Cachers would be able to use a special bookmark list designated as "favorites" - similar to the ignore list

    * The maximum number of caches any account would be able to mark as a favorite cache would be a percentage to the number of total finds the account has (current thought is 10%)

    * Caches that have a minimum number ("X*") of cachers listing the cache as a favorite would be designated with some small recognition on the cache page - similar to the attributes - indicating that some people thought that the cache was a worthy one (maybe a Gold Star/Smily (user posted image)

    * Caches below the critical mass of X accounts would not be differentiated from any other average or sub-par caches. There would be two categories - the ones one which there's a consensus this cache is "good", and all of the others.

    * Once the Favorites bookmark (currently proposed by Jeremy) would go into place, eventually cachers would be able to set up a pocket query to only show these caches. This is similar to the idea of only showing caches that match a certain attribute (something promised on the site already). The would also see "favorite" caches designated on a standard proximity or zip code search.

    * Jeremy has also proposed that if a cacher DOES list a cache as a favorite in this specialized list, their log would be dynamic in that their found it logs (and notes, DNFs maybe) would also show that same not-over-the-top icon (user posted image) that would mean that this is one of the cachers' logs that thought enough of this cache to list it as a favorite.

    * Some thought has also been given to making X a variable number in the PQ, thus allowing the potential seeker to choose how many accounts think this cache is a good one.

 

Things this is NOT:

 

    * People will NOT be giving caches a grade, or rating them 1-10.

    * This will NOT create a system that will say that a cache is "bad." The only time this system "trashes" a cache is if a cache has been found a large number times, and it can't seem to get X number of cachers to say that it's in their top 10%. That silence would be very telling.

    * This is NOT a proposal to have finders rate terrain and difficulty

 

Recap from Markwell's post Apr 13 2005, 10:11 AM in this thread

 

I.m.o :

Any system based on a (rather small) proportion (say 10% of caches may be nominated as good) is more imprecise (has relatively a large standard deviation) than a system based on a direct quote/number.

Suppose 10%

1) A newbee cannot quote it correctly, he/she needs to visit 10, 20 or more caches to know what is in the upper 10%

2) Many caches (because they are relatively new or in distant secluded areas) don't receive many logs (yet), number of nominations in toplist even less, that means an imprecise statistic.

By the way : It is not the nummber of positive nominations that counts but the number of positive nominations divided by the number of found logs. Otherwise a well visited but average cache near a large metropolitan area would be ranked higher than the excellent but less visited cache far away.

 

Ranking say from 1 to 10

Has the same problem 1)

geocaching.nu uses such a system, 5 is supposed to be the average (good) cache.

What happened is, that some (most) users see it as a school-grade, they feel that less than 5 means failed. We have then a group that quotes from 5 to 10 and another group that quotes from 1 to 10.

They have several quotes (route, cache, ....). Unfortunately and subsequently they average the scores equally in some sort of total score. Some caches don't have (much) route (virtual, take away caches, ...), that's a problem with them.

Anyway, my feeling is that 2 or more quotes will be felt too cumbersome (and that is also my experience with this system)

But fundamentally, the person who wrote about "principal components" is right.

 

In theory, allowing finders to rank caches they found in a chain (example GCHJ87 > GCN6RS > GCM45H > ...) could work.

That information could result in one large ranking of all caches (with ties), of course and unfortunately ... heavy for realtime computers, heavy price tag too...

 

What remains, is a free score (one that is not limited from 1 to 10 or so).

But what should that be? Something thet represents a price or value and that a finder could link with a cache.

Money (if you had to pay for that cachedescription, how much would you be willing ..). Don't like the idea, there are rich people and others.

Time to travel, time has some value to us : maybe...

Some distance : Now that you have found this cache, how long (miles/kilomters) would you be willing to travel from your home, to search and find this cache.

This distance-measure (I call DWTT : distance willing to travel) involves a cost (gasoline, train..) and also time (which finally is also a cost).

It is a measure of appreciation that even a beginner can use : just imagine yourself how much driving this was worth to you !

So far, it is the best measure I could come up with but if someone has other suggestions, that would be fine.

Also important : these scores need to be averaged. I wouldn't recommend the usual average (just imagine what will happen with the average when a cache that has scores 8, 10, 12, 14 receives an additional score 1000 !!)

Instead, there what is called robust statistics, the median is such a robust statistic.

With the new score 1000 the median would shift from 11 to 12, the average from 11 to 209.

Keep that in mind, please !

There is also another feature thinkable with (such) scores : are cachers unanimous about this cache or not...? The standard deviation is such a (non-robust) measure of dispersion, very robust : the median of the absolute values of the scores minus the (here above) median (of the given scores). Haah, difficult to write with words, very simple with a formula.

 

Also, i.m.o. caches should be quoted in an anonimous way (as a consequence : quotes could only be displayed after 2 or more visits).

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than showing the best caches, I'd prefer a system which highlights the worst. In my opinion, people are much more likely to agree on what the worst caches are, than the best.

MarcB

Share this post


Link to post
Rather than showing the best caches, I'd prefer a system which highlights the worst. In my opinion, people are much more likely to agree on what the worst caches are, than the best.

MarcB

You're a riot, Alice!

767bf62e-e0b1-46a9-b664-b8436b9dab4a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that the number of people watching a cache is usually a good indicator of the quality of the cache.

 

I would like to see this as a field in the GPX files.

Share this post


Link to post
I noticed that the number of people watching a cache is usually a good indicator of the quality of the cache.

 

I would like to see this as a field in the GPX files.

Since Groundspeak came up with the bookmark feature, I seldom put caches on my watchlist anymore. Instead, I create bookmarks for the new caches I plan to do someday. That way I can still "watch" a cache but I don't get all the emails everytime somebody logs the cache.

Finally, I really don't think that "favorites" should be based on caches that are planning on doing anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post

Trailgators... I admire your tenacity. I wasn't aware of this thread (careless of me to not check first) and started one yesterday with essentially the same concept that you started with here. Needless to say, I got pummelled for even suggesting it, so I'm glad to see you sticking with this and trying to work something out.

Share this post


Link to post
Trailgators... I admire your tenacity. I wasn't aware of this thread (careless of me to not check first) and started one yesterday with essentially the same concept that you started with here. Needless to say, I got pummelled for even suggesting it, so I'm glad to see you sticking with this and trying to work something out.

Thanks Knowschad! I think the idea has evolved into something that is palettable to most! I just went on a trip up Highway 395 in CA and really wished that I could have access to the Favorite caches of my fellow cachers along the way. I did tap into my forums to find out a few but I'm sure I missed several awesome ones along the way. B)

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry guys, I did not read the full thread, so maybe something is already discussed in detail. I am in the US since January and travel a lot. Therefore I would like to see a feature which gives me the best caches in an area of x miles.

 

Knowing that many people have different opinions of the quality of a cache, the ranking should be divided into different categories, like

 

- scenic view

- quality of the hide

- quality of walking area

- overall result

 

I would also like to see the average experience of the quoters, i.e. if somebody is celebrating the quality of the cache and has 5 founds in total on his account I don't care that much of his opinion.

 

Currently I am really a little bit tired of that long lasting preparation for a new city.

 

What is the latest development of establishing such a feature?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

All this is only thinking as far as the first iteration. What happens when, as a result of poor feedback or lack of accamation, a cache owner upgrades the quality without changing the location, e.g., by adding better quality swag, better camo, better weatherproofing? To answer my own question, perhaps it should then be resubmitted to a reviwer to petition for resetting of the poor ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
All this is only thinking as far as the first iteration. What happens when, as a result of poor feedback or lack of accamation, a cache owner upgrades the quality without changing the location, e.g., by adding better quality swag, better camo, better weatherproofing? To answer my own question, perhaps it should then be resubmitted to a reviwer to petition for resetting of the poor ratings.

Seems that the real problem is just the opposite. A cache may start out getting a lot of recommendations. It starts off with great swag. Its the only cache in an neat area. Its a clever original hiding techinque. After awhile new finder will find a cache full of junk, one of twenty found today in this park, another lightpole hide <_<

 

Would it still get a blue ribbon because of the early recommendations?

Share this post


Link to post
All this is only thinking as far as the first iteration. What happens when, as a result of poor feedback or lack of accamation, a  cache owner upgrades the quality without changing the location, e.g., by adding better quality swag, better camo, better weatherproofing? To answer my own question, perhaps it should then be resubmitted to a reviwer to petition for resetting of the poor ratings.

Seems that the real problem is just the opposite. A cache may start out getting a lot of recommendations. It starts off with great swag. Its the only cache in an neat area. Its a clever original hiding techinque. After awhile new finder will find a cache full of junk, one of twenty found today in this park, another lightpole hide <_<

 

Would it still get a blue ribbon because of the early recommendations?

I think you guys are getting a little side-tracked on a minor issue. I honestly don't know any local cachers that have added a cache to their favorites list because of what was inside the cache. A cache favorite would typically become a favorite because it was very fun to find or it took you to some incredible location.

Share this post


Link to post

...and the contents or log book or problems with any of that would be best fixed with a Needs Maintenance log.

 

Some of my favorite caches needed maintenance on them at the time I found them. It didn't lessen my opinion of the cache in general.

Share this post


Link to post
An official appearing opinion would be a very negative thing. The poor cacher that never gets the nice looking icon is bound to feel insulted.

There is an apparent demand for a way to filter the wheat from the chaff, so how would you address this need? In my eyes it isn't a particularly competitive reason that raised these questions but a practical one. If there are 1,000 caches in the area and you only have a limited amount of time to go caching, how do you determine whether a cache is a drive-by or a well-placed cache.

 

On the same note, why wouldn't other geocachers want to recognize folks who take a lot more time and energy to make their cache something to remember?

Well said! "Wheat from chaff." There are some areas, like Jacksonville, FL for example that have so many caches. Here I am on vacation 100 miles from my home and I'd like to do some high quality family caching. It would be wonderful to filter out the crap! So I start by simply choosing "no micros” Well the number of caches just was cut in a third, but still, the number is so large. How can I get a quality list?

 

Hey, I would PAY for this feature. Maybe it should only be available to Premium Members? I’d even pay more for a premium membership if valuable features like this were available. Heck, I might even sponsor such a search through the opportunity for advertising revenue for the geocaching.com.. It would be great to have my company associated with QUALITY caching!

 

I travel a great deal. Part of the reason I do not cache when away from home is I consider it a family sport and I don’t go it alone too often. But then a major cause of my disenchantment with travel caching has been the proliferation of crap caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Creating lists is fun since you can make tours out of them, and cache listings would have something that says "10 lists have this cache listing" which would indicate popularity (much like watchlists do). In fact, lists are an improvement over watchlists.

So who made a list for Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Portland, Salem, etc going south to San Diego???

How/where do you find/search for these lists? :D

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Jeremy,

Is there any status on getting a solution for group favorites lists implemented? I've been on a few trips this year and wished there was a list for those areas!

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, I am just a meager newbie to geocaching, but I gota say it is a pain sorting through all of the crappy caches out there to find the gems. This is one of those times where I side with Darwin. Let the strong survive! Implement a simple 10 point rating system. If you get a "one" on your first cache placement then you know to improve it or try to make your next one better. It will add an incentive for better cache placements. It will also encourage those new to the sport by giving them positive experiences on their first caching trips. Lets face it, its not the newbies doing the placing of new caches. Its the hard core junkies who arent going to be phased if they get a bad rating.

My two cents as a newbie.

Edited by ramraj

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Markwell's idea (see proposal).

 

A "favorites" system IMHO should be:

  • simple, both for people naming their favorites as for people wanting to know about the most favorite caches;
  • informative;
  • fool-proof;
  • binary (favorite or not);
  • customizable;

There is a possible problem with skewed data, but these kinds of problems can be dealt with by carefully designing the system. For example, if cachers with 1000+ finds turn out to have too big an influence, make the system non-linear, that is, don't use a % of found caches as favorites, but make categories:

  • people with less than 10 finds: no favorite;
  • people with 10-20 finds: 1 favorite;
  • people with 20-50 finds: 3 favorites;
  • etc.

To keep the number of caches marked as "favorite" limited, a possible solution is to use the percentile approach:

The top-10% of all caches per area receive a "favorite" icon. A criterium for this could be the absolute number of people having rated the cache as a favorite, or the percentage of people who have found it.

An area can be defined as a country or a province/state. It can also be user-defined (e.g. "within 100 km from my house"). This would apply different classifications depending on the point of origin.

 

Last month, I went to the UK. They have a "local" (that is: UK+Ireland) system to rate caches. It works great -- I was able to select the best rated caches for the area I went caching.

Check out UK Geocache Database.

Edited by BigFurryMonster

Share this post


Link to post

It is exciting to see "phase one" of a workable favorite cache system implemented on the website. Since the October 17th site update, I've enjoyed looking at the caches on my "favorite caches" list, and seeing that other geocachers are also listing the same cache on their list. (This is through the feature of making bookmark lists both "shared" and "public.") When you see a cache whose list of bookmark lists spills over onto a separate page, and all the lists seem to be titled "favorite caches" or "caches I want to do," then you can be pretty confident you've found a winner.

 

The next step would seem to be adding some special programming so that the favorites list is treated differently than other bookmark lists. The extra programming would include whatever the selection criteria were (5% of all finds, 10%, etc.). Then, there would need to be a way to flag caches that were mentioned on people's favorites list, and the ability to query for these as a pocket query search parameter.

Share this post


Link to post
It is exciting to see "phase one" of a workable favorite cache system implemented on the website. Since the October 17th site update, I've enjoyed looking at the caches on my "favorite caches" list, and seeing that other geocachers are also listing the same cache on their list. (This is through the feature of making bookmark lists both "shared" and "public.") When you see a cache whose list of bookmark lists spills over onto a separate page, and all the lists seem to be titled "favorite caches" or "caches I want to do," then you can be pretty confident you've found a winner.

 

The next step would seem to be adding some special programming so that the favorites list is treated differently than other bookmark lists. The extra programming would include whatever the selection criteria were (5% of all finds, 10%, etc.). Then, there would need to be a way to flag caches that were mentioned on people's favorites list, and the ability to query for these as a pocket query search parameter.

That's awesome! It's been there for a month and I didn't even notice it. But that's because not many in San Diego have created their favorites lists....yet! So I just posted a request on the local thread to urge the SD bunch to start creating their favorite lists! :D

Share this post


Link to post

OK so let's do this!!

 

My only request is that this somehow show up in cache lists as well as PQs. Any time I end up with a list of caches the number of "favorites" votes should be shown along with distance and Diff/Terr/size.

 

I really don't think it matters how you limit number of favorites (10% is simplest) or even if you do. There is no point in worrying about any possible chance of abuse if you paralyze yourself out of a useful feature. That reminds me...

 

[semi-troll. I'm sincere but I know the response I'll get]

I still favor a basic rating system. 1 to 5 stars. It solves all the problems discussed above about how many "favorites" you get. Right now you can trash anyones cache in the log. You can even get something like "Worst Caches Ever" put right near the top of their cache page if you want. This isn't happening. If we qualify the stars as:

 

* Didn't care for it

** Good

*** Really liked it

**** Loved it

***** One of the best ever

 

and allowed people not to vote I bet we'd have very few one star ratings because people just wouldn't score caches they didn't like. We'd have mostly 2 and 3 star ratings and the 4s and 5s would really be the best caches. If you want to know stuff about scenery/hiking/view check the top caches and RTFL (read the logs). I think this would work beautifully but I know it's been shouted down so hard it will never happen.

 

So, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do the favorites thing!!!!!!!!

If you announce it on the front page people will do it and it will probably get them into the bookmark list feature too.

Share this post


Link to post

i've been following the favorites concept with some interest those of you who have been paying attention know that i am in general opposed to rankings and ratings, but i'm startign to thing the favorites thing might be good...

 

...BUT i would want to pick my favorites anonymously. since i can't say a cache sucks, there's no danger of sniping. i don't want to know WHO voted a cache as a favorite, but if a large enough sample of cachers mark it as favorite, there's a nice stable piece of useful information that leaves out personal stuff.

 

i would not rate caches if my name went on the rating. i'm like that.

 

i don't maintain a list of my top 5%; i have a short list of caches that for some reason or other are notable to me. i do not explain any of my choices in the short list. if you ask me i'll tell you. maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
i've been following the favorites concept with some interest those of you who have been paying attention know that i am in general opposed to rankings and ratings, but i'm startign to thing the favorites thing might be good...

 

...BUT i would want to pick my favorites anonymously. since i can't say a cache sucks, there's no danger of sniping. i don't want to know WHO voted a cache as a favorite, but if a large enough sample of cachers mark it as favorite, there's a nice stable piece of useful information that leaves out personal stuff.

 

i would not rate caches if my name went on the rating. i'm like that.

 

i don't maintain a list of my top 5%; i have a short list of caches that for some reason or other are notable to me. i do not explain any of my choices in the short list. if you ask me i'll tell you. maybe.

We are trying to come up with a way to compile eveyone's favorites lists in the San Diego area. There are many new cachers and out-of-town visitors that would find this list very useful! This idea would also help GC sell geocaching to newcomers! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

So I hope this idea has not died, and it continues to be worked on. The ideas on the table have my support as well. My head's just reeling after reading the thread and all the suggestions over the last year+. So many of the ideas sound both plausible and well-designed.]

 

I just caution, however, that we also look into opportunites to abuse the system, and not just assume people would use it responsily showing good taste and sportsmanship. 7 of our caches have been added to someone's "Boycott" bookmark list. We can do nothing to get them off our listing's page and since they were early to "boycott" them, the other "favorites" lists on which our caches also appear don't show up on the main page--you have to click the "More..." link to see that some people actually love our caches. Yes, people have reviewed the Boycott bookmark list as "unhelpful" (since the list owner provides no details), but the fact remains that the front page displays Boycott in bold type.

 

From what I can tell, the proposed system will happily avoid such abuse.

But is there something we're not thinking of? Let's just be sure to look at how it might be abusable too.

 

i.e. you don't want to be find your cache in the top 10% of a crappy cache list--especially if it indeed is not crappy.

 

-The Seven G's

(edited for readability & a couple spelling errors)

Edited by The Seven G's

Share this post


Link to post
So I hope this idea has not died, and it continues to be worked on. The ideas on the table have my support as well. My head's just reeling after reading the thread and all the suggestions over the last year+. So many of the ideas sound both plausible and well-designed.]

 

I just caution, however, that we also look into opportunites to abuse the system, and not just assume people would use it responsily showing good taste and sportsmanship. 7 of our caches have been added to someone's "Boycott" bookmark list. We can do nothing to get them off our listing's page and since they were early to "boycott" them, the other "favorites" lists on which our caches also appear don't show up on the main page--you have to click the "More..." link to see that some people actually love our caches. Yes, people have reviewed the Boycott bookmark list as "unhelpful" (since the list owner provides no details), but the fact remains that the front page displays Boycott in bold type.

 

From what I can tell, the proposed system will happily avoid such abuse.

But is there something we're not thinking of? Let's just be sure to look at how it might be abusable too.

 

i.e. you don't want to be find your cache in the top 10% of a crappy cache list--especially if it indeed is not crappy.

 

-The Seven G's

(edited for readability & a couple spelling errors)

I can't believe that someone did that to you. Unfortunately a free country also means that people are also free to be rude jerks. As we all know there are plenty of those around. Anyhow, you have a good point. Offhand the only thing I can think of is that some people would team up to vote for each others caches. But that hasn't really happened out here with many people making their own favorites lists. I can't wait until they do this (if they do)! It will make traveling to other areas of the country and finding the "must-do" caches in those areas much much easier! :)

Share this post


Link to post

There seem to be a bunch of different threads relating to ratings. Where are you at with this concept Jeremy? Is there some place we can go to see what you are working on or what's on the docket for new functionality. Might slim down some of these forum posts a bit.

 

Thanks!

ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post

It is exciting to see "phase one" of a workable favorite cache system implemented on the website.

[snip]

The next step would seem to be adding some special programming so that the favorites list is treated differently than other bookmark lists. The extra programming would include whatever the selection criteria were (5% of all finds, 10%, etc.). Then, there would need to be a way to flag caches that were mentioned on people's favorites list, and the ability to query for these as a pocket query search parameter.

 

Yes, the public bookmark feature is a very good first step towards a very helpful Favorite Cache System as it has been proposed and refined by Markwell and others :rolleyes: . Hence, after "phase one" is now happily in place for some time (about half a year) now, it would be more than interesting to hear how plans are for the next phase... :unsure:

 

Best regards,

HoPri

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the public bookmark feature is a very good first step towards a very helpful Favorite Cache System

 

True, but only as a first step. A really good cache rating system would take into account the combined opinions of a bunch of cachers - not just one person's bookmark lists.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the public bookmark feature is a very good first step towards a very helpful Favorite Cache System

 

True, but only as a first step. A really good cache rating system would take into account the combined opinions of a bunch of cachers - not just one person's bookmark lists.

The bookmark I just created and posted above your post does exactly this! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

That's great, and I'm sure the San Diego cachers will love it, but it's still a manual process, and only suitable for your local area. Now ... if we would have a feature that automatically does what your bookmark does...

Share this post


Link to post

And I think that's what this proposes, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...