The last few days I've been trying to tweak the blue diamond calculations to make them better, but finally decided I had two things working against me for a better algorithm: (1) Not enough data, and (2) the wide variety of voting patterns exhibited.

I can't do much about that first one except wait for more time to pass, but in the hopes of standardizing the votes a bit more, I've narrowed the voting range from 1-10 to 1-5. All votes that have already been cast were scaled into the new range accordingly. (9 and 10 votes became 5, 7 and 8 votes became 4, etc...)

But you might want to double check your votes and make sure everything is how you like it. =)

Ideally, this is how I see the various numbers:

1: Best to avoid this box--might be dangerous, illegal, and you'll regret ever looking for it (Maybe 5% of boxes fall into this category)

2: Get this box if time permits, but don't go out of your way for it (Maybe 20% of boxes?)

3: Your average, typical, everyday box. (I figure about 50% of the boxes should fall in this category)

4: Better than average. Something about this box is especailly noteworthy. (20% or so of boxes?)

5: Drive a hundred miles out of your way if you have to--this box is not to be missed! (Perhaps about 5% of boxes fall into this category)

And remember, you do have to use the whole scale if you want your votes to count. I was spot-checking some patterns and noticed some people have listed over 95% of their finds as "above average." I can assure you, AQ will NOT include these votes in the blue diamond calculations. If you want your votes to count, spread them out a bit and use the whole scale. =)

-- Ryan

Quote

But you might want to double check your votes and make sure everything is how you like it. =)

I'm sorry, GT, but how do I do that again?

~SHH :-)

Quote

If you want your votes to count, spread them out a bit and use the whole scale. =)

My problem was that that very worst boxes I've found weren't listed on AQ! I had planned on using the full scale and had decided which boxes exemplified the best and the worst and therefore the 1's and the 10's, and none of the 1's were listed. Aaaargh!

Quote

1: Best to avoid this box--might be dangerous, illegal, and you'll regret ever looking for it (Maybe 5% of boxes fall into this category)

what exactly have people run into as far as "illegal" goes?
I have not come into any contact with anything could be considered illegal and am not really sure what examples of this would be????? are there alot of illegal places where people put boxes? do they post that in the clues. Is that against atlasquest policy or is it ok as long as people are warned? more of a approach at your own risk?


thanks
Chadams

Quote

I'm sorry, GT, but how do I do that again?

Go here:
http://www.atlasquest.com/help/bluediamond.html

And click on "Record Ratings" under the "kinks" section.

Quote

what exactly have people run into as far as "illegal" goes?

Planting in national parks is "illegal".
But it still didn't stop me from giving a really awesome mystery box a "10"...

Ugh.
I just went to my ratings page...I already figured i wouldn't like a 5 point scale as good as a 10...
and it's true...I don't.
In my opinion 5 isn't enough.
6 is better than 5.

there are boxes I have found that are a touch above the run of the mill box but is
still not good enough to be just one tiny step below the "incredibly flippin awesome"
that the highest number should represent. Some of the ones that I had scored a 6 or 7 are now a 3 (average) and obviously I thought they werte a touch above a mediocre or middle line.
The ones I had as 8...if it is now a 4 then it's just dang near the same as the 3...????

yep...
if 10 is isn't acceptable because it prevents the system from working well
then that's just too bad cause 10 is defiantely better than 5
BUT...even a scale of 6 is better than 5
IMHO

dixie

The problem is that most of the boxes I have found (60 +) have been above average in that the carved stamps have been tremendous. Can I help it that Kirbert does a great job with his stamps? They are worth traveling for and in our area of Florida, we have to travel a distance to find a stamp. In spite of the distance, I'm not sure I'd give any of the boxes I've found a 1, especially with your definition.

It will be interesting to see how it all falls out.

Quote

My problem was that that very worst boxes I've found weren't listed on AQ

I'm having a similar problem. The best boxes I've found have not been listed on AQ.

FG

Is there a way to search for Blue Diamond boxes? This Blue Diamond thing is new for me.

Thanks!

Keegan The Airedale Terrier
aka
Danny

My problem was that that very worst boxes I've found weren't listed on AQ!</qutoe>

That's not a problem. AQ isn't going to avoid counting your votes because you have no 1's (or 5's, as another person said). It's stuff like 95% of all votes being a 4 or 5 that AQ will ignore. Which is kind of a shame--for people to take the time to vote but then not have their votes count because the votes aren't being spread out. It's the total distribution of vote that counts, and if the rest of the numbered options are used well, people with no 1 votes (or 5 votes) will still have their votes counted.

what exactly have people run into as far as "illegal" goes?

The most odios box I've ever run into--I won't mention the name of it or who planted it (mostly because I forget, but it's not around anymore and I don't think the letterboxer who planted it is around either--which is a good thing)--but it was planted in a national park, WAY off of a well-labeled trail that said you should not leave the trail since it can cause damage to sensitive plants or algea or something that can take hundreds of years to come back. And they make you walk over a tenth of a mile over this fragile area for a stupid store-bought stamp that I'd already found in two previous letterboxes already! I was so flippin' mad and so wanted to permanently remove the box myself but didn't since I was afraid it would cause even more damage from other letterboxes who tore up the area trying to find a box that wasn't there anymore.

I'd have given it a negative 10 if I could. So utterly irresponsible.

Fortunately, such extremes don't apply to most boxes. =) But they do exist.

Does it appear that mystery boxes have a much higher likelihood of getting a blue diamond?

Yes and no. Yes, I think mystery boxes tend to have more blue diamonds than non-mysteries. But it's hard to tell why this is the case. It might be that when people plant really, really good letterboxes, they're more likely to make it a mystery box to help preserve it against vandilism. Thus, the really awesome letterboxes are more likely to be mysteries. Or it might be that people to enjoy mystery boxes tend to rate them higher. Or maybe a little of both. *shurg*

most of the boxes I have found (60 +) have been above average in that the carved stamps have been tremendous.

If you read this sentence very carefully, you'll find it makes no sense. You can't have "most" boxes be "above average" since, by definition, "average" means about half of the boxes will be worse and half will be better. If awesome stamps are normal in your neck of the woods (which is great!), that makes them average.

Like I said, "blue diamonds", might mislead you to go to a box that is rated as such, but in your eyes it is not.....so the whole thing doesnt benefit me at all.

That's all right. That's why the feature is optional. =) Some people might find it useful. Some people might not. But just because I don't find the 'kid friendly' attribute useful doesn't mean I'm not going to allow other people to make use of it. Use if it works for you, and don't use it if it doesn't. All is good. =)

-- Ryan

Quote

Is there a way to search for Blue Diamond boxes?

At the moment, no. Some people think it's going to cause people to avoid boxes without blue diamonds (I don't really believe that for a minute, but some people do and it's that perception that counts), so I'm not making it easy for people to get a list of *just* blue diamond boxes. =)

Perhaps in the future I might, but for now, it's not going to happen.

-- Ryan

Quote

My problem was that that very worst boxes I've found weren't listed on AQ!</qutoe>

Ryan,
There is a very good tutorial on how to create "quote" boxes on the message boards:
http://www.atlasquest.com/boards/bestpractices.html#limitQuotes
It was written by a guy named Green Tortuga. You could probably pick up a few pointers from him!
-wassamatta_u
:)

LOL! Yeah, Ryan, go and learn. ;)

TG

Quote

There is a very good tutorial on how to create "quote" boxes on the message boards:

Woo-who! I figured it out! =)

-- Ryan

At the moment, no. Some people think it's going to cause people to avoid boxes without blue diamonds (I don't really believe that for a minute, but some people do and it's that perception that counts), so I'm not making it easy for people to get a list of *just* blue diamond boxes. =)


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

Well, Ryan, at least I know now why I couldn't figure out how to search for just the Blue Diamonds! Whew...

Thanks for the reply.

Keegan the Airedale Terrier
aka
Danny

Quote

http://www.atlasquest.com/boards/bestpractices.html#limitQuotes

I keep trying, but there is something I don't see. Let's see if I get it this time?? I think it's funny. It's not complex, just some little thing I'm missing.

You got it! :) Way to go.

TG

Quote

You got it! :) Way to go.

TG

Woohoo!! I learned two impressive little tricks tonight. I will have to e-mail my sister tomorrow and just dazzle her with my new skills. She will be green with envy----oh, no, that is just her Halloween make-up.

Eaglewatcher who is not a nudge. No,not a nudge.♥

Thanks for the new guidelines. I've checked out how my ratings looked, and downgraded a couple of boxes. If a box is placed illegally or dangerously--how will we know? We have blue diamonds, but no black marks? I don't want to hurt people's feelings, but I also don't want to go trekking across someone's private property and get in trouble.
Chickadee

Quote

It was written by a guy named Green Tortuga. You could probably pick up a few pointers from him!

ROFLAO

I was already laughing at Ryan's post, even before I saw yours, now I am bent double.

I know what Dixie would say if she wasn't so quiet at the moment.

Did you notice Ryan's *shurg* in the same post? If you ask me he has had one too many tonight :-)

YT

I know of one dangerous box. The only warning was: "Don't look for this box by yourself." It wasn't in a dark alley or anything but it was on the side of a cliff where one false move would send you hurtling toward death or at least injury. It is just below a spot that people have used to attempt suicide, and one well known boxer found themselves trapped while attempting to get it.

I went to find it before I knew the particular danger, and when my group saw where it was actually planted, I made the decision to go back. No chunk of rubber is worth that. Another person in my group REALLY wanted to see who had stamped into the box so retrieved it anyway. I grudgingly took the image and stamped in but later I had a change of heart. I didn't want people to see my name listed as a finder and think I condone such irresponsible planting so I didn't log my find. If I had enough guts I would go back and rip my page out of the book. Maybe the planter will do it for me? I am sure you know who you are....

LW

Quote

If a box is placed illegally or dangerously--how will we know? We have blue diamonds, but no black marks?

You won't know--but it'll help make sure some bozo who gets a thrill out of stuff like that doesn't come along and give it a high score and thus a blue diamond. =) (Well, I suppose if a lot of bozos give it a high score it could still get a blue diamond, but it'll be a lot more difficult to get one on a box where people are giving it ones.

-- Ryan

Quote

irresponsible planting

do you not condone this type of box at all or just cause it wasn't stated in the clues that it was "extreme" and required climbing?
chadams

Quote

do you not condone this type of box at all or just cause it wasn't stated in the clues that it was "extreme" and required climbing?

It didn't require "climbing" nor was the box "extreme." It was just incredibily insensitive to the surrounding environment that required people to go off trail in such a fragile location. It's the kind of box that gives letterboxers a bad name and would cause authorities to ban letterboxing in their jurisdiction. There's nothing they could have changed in the clues that could have fixed the problems this box had.

-- Ryan

Quote

It didn't require "climbing" nor was the box "extreme." It was just incredibily insensitive to the surrounding environment that required people to go off trail in such a fragile location. It's the kind of box that gives letterboxers a bad name and would cause authorities to ban letterboxing in their jurisdiction. There's nothing they could have changed in the clues that could have fixed the problems this box had.

-- Ryan

I am sorry Ryan I was refering to lockwench's post dealing with the box she was so upset by. I guess I should have grabbed more of the quote :-)
chadams

I don't condone this type of box because it puts someone in danger of losing their life or getting extremely hurt. Stating that it should not be done alone in the clues is MOOT...because I have learned after planting 200+ boxes that there are some people who just won't read the clues thoroughly or will "skip ahead." The box in question was in a place not familiar to me ( it was out of state) so I rely on the planter to give me accurate information....at least regarding my safety and well being. Telling me "don't do this one alone" is of no use to me. I brought friends and I STILL wouldn't do it.

From what I recall, Ryan set up the "extreme" feature to mean you needed special equipment/and or training to do the box in question. For instance, you would need to bring snorkeling gear and have that kind of training as the box was in an old shipwreak. Or have headlamps, ropes and other gear because it was deep in a cave and you needed to have THAT kind of training. Or bring a canoe because it was on an island...that kind of thing.

The box would actually have been fun to get by rappelling to it, but none of this info was given. You didn't find out about what equipment you would need until you were already on top of the mountain. And the planter didn't offer this info... you were expected to just take your chances.

Extreme shouldn't mean, PUT YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES IN DANGER TO GET MY RUBBER STAMP. The fact that it was a mystery box doesn't change anything.

LW

So . . . what's the highest that you would rate a box that contained a hand-carved stamp?

Once we found out that store-bought stamps were "frowned upon" we insisted that everyone in our group hand-carve.
Now we engage in what we call "the Ceremonial Frown." When we find a stamp that is store-bought, we encircle the box and frown in unison. This avoids hurting the feelings of the placer, you see; but it gives us a playful satisfaction.

So . . . what's the highest that you would rate a box that contained a hand-carved stamp?

Quote

So . . . what's the highest that you would rate a box that contained a hand-carved stamp?

it depends on the box of course.
the highest we can score anything at this point is a 5.
the carving doesn't have to be tremendously detailed etc for me to score a high five but it would have to be hand carved. but to me...the box is all about the image and the location or the image and how it ties into a location. I like the ones that relate a local legend or story etc.

Quote

So . . . what's the highest that you would rate a box that contained a hand-carved stamp?

Were you really trying to ask how high we would rate a store-bought stamp? I don't think I'd ever give a box with a store-bought stamp a 5.
Chickadee
(hiding her store-bought signature stamp--hey, I could never carve a cute little chickadee like that!)