Have been perusing the info available to find out how many "votes" it takes to put a blue diamond on a box. Can anyone help me? I got an outstanding box today, gave it a 5 and nothing seems to be showing up..thus the question.
Zoe

Quote

I got an outstanding box today, gave it a 5 and nothing seems to be showing up..thus the question.

Blue diamonds aren't calculated on the fly since that's too resource intensive on the server. They're usually only updated once a day, usually late at night or in the early morning hours when there's little traffic on the server so it has plenty of time to work on "other" stuff than serving up webpages. So when you put in a vote, it's not going to count towards blue diamonds for possibly as long as 24 hours.

Eventually, as more votes are entered into the system, I'll likely change it so they'll only be updated once per week or even once per month. There's not nearly enough votes to worry about that extreme just yet, though.

To answer your original question about how many votes it takes to get a blue diamond on a box--it depends on several factors, but it requires at least one vote before a box can get a blue diamond. For now, at least. As more votes are entered into the system, I'd like to increase the minimum total since one vote isn't nearly as useful (statistically speaking) as several votes would be. But since there are so few votes in the system per box, I'm leaving the bar pretty low.

Nor are all votes created equal. If you want to make sure your votes are making a maximum impact on the results, you can see an analysis of your voting patterns at http://www.atlasquest.com/lboxes/traditional/ratingstats.html

Happy trails!

-- Ryan

GT: "Not are all votes created equal. If you want to make sure your votes are making a maximum impact on the results, you can see an analysis of your voting patterns at http://www.atlasquest.com/lboxes/traditional/ratingstats.html "
And
"Atlas Quest tries to determine the quality of your votes when it comes time to calculate which letterboxes should get blue diamonds. The higher quality your votes are, the higher their weighting will be in the blue diamond calculations."

Now that'a an interesting link GT. If I understand the info correctly, to be a "quality voter" your voting must follow the bell curve pattern? If you are too generous, too even or too tight, your votes will count for less?
Norasta PhD

Arg. That's enough to keep me from ever voting again.

I've rated too many boxes high. Well, duh, I've been exposed to truly awesome boxes so far. The only ones I'd rate low are the ones I planted myself. Oh boy, talk about crude stamps.

I've rated too few boxes. I haven't rated all my finds. Not that I have copious quantities of finds.

I guess I'll leave the judgement values to more experienced folk.

Quote

I've rated too many boxes high. Well, duh, I've been exposed to truly awesome boxes so far. The only ones I'd rate low are the ones I planted myself. Oh boy, talk about crude stamps.

A great carve is only one thing I consider--I think it's the factor that a lot of finders can get caught up in--but I also consider location, placement, clues and quality of the hide. So, in my system, a really great carve and a really crude one might end up being "ranked" the same, if the other facets are different.

I still don't think it means all that much, it hasn't affected how I plant or how I find. We went out of town last weekend, and in picking the boxes to find, I never even looked at their BD status. And one of my favorite plants--good carve, fun clues, nice location--has been sitting unfound for more than four months, and that's okay. I do think when people get around to finding it, they'll be rewarded. And that's enough recognition.

Dewberry

I guess I rate all of my boxes to high also. I do not care if the boxes are easy or hard to find and it really does not bother me if the stamp is hand carved or not. I just love finding the boxes. Not all of us are artist or have a degree on the art of mapping...lol. Everyone of them to me is a great surprise, just because someone took the time out of there life to create (no matter on what scale) something that keeps us all going on to do what it is we love to do, LBing. Each and everyone is special in its own way. I would much rather just go out and find a box in a quite place or in a park or up a tree rather than wait on a master carve or the perfect logbook, 900 twist and turns, and a year of planing to to get one. One thing that should be kept in mind is this is a hobby and a pleasure to take part in, to undo stress not to create it. Or put unrealistic expectations and then turn out disappointed if it is not a master carve. All of us had a start date no one was born knowing all the rules or how to make a perfect carve there first time out. I seem to remember a motto to "Just Get Out And Box" not "Hide in the back till your Picasso" or "DO NOT TRY THIS unless YOUR PERFECT". Sorry to ramble. I love all boxes GREAT or SMALL, they all count to me.

This is with LBing love in my heart,
Kim aka purpleintexKim

Yes! I agree completely! I look for creativity in all aspects... the location, the CLUES -I really enjoy fun, imaginative clues... and finally the stamp. Some boxers are gifted strongly in some things... so I ask myself -Has their creativity -whatever it is -been allowed to really shine? It's not all about the stamp... which is a mere momento of the experience. I look at letterboxing as the placer is orchastrating an event for ME. The way they go about it may differ from my approach... and their strengths may differ from my strengths... but in the end... what kind of experience have they created counts for everything.

~Queen Beeloved

...As a side note... DEWBERRY!!!! You came all this way and DIDN'T go for any of my boxes... I am soooo disappointed! I read in a post once that you like to have a taste of several different boxers when your box hopping.... I just thought for sure you'd try to snag some of my UNFOUND AND LONELY boxes. Bummer =(

~Queen Beeloved... who has been known to whine from time to time ;-)

Quote

DEWBERRY!!!! You came all this way and DIDN'T go for any of my boxes... I am soooo disappointed! I read in a post once that you like to have a taste of several different boxers when your box hopping.... I just thought for sure you'd try to snag some of my UNFOUND AND LONELY boxes. Bummer =(

I do like to find boxes from different placers, and I discovered I like finding yours in particular! I think you plant with great flair, neat details and extra touches.

We did find Ocelot, and we want to come back and find more. We basically stuck to Grapevine & Flower Mound this trip, balancing out letterboxing with play and fun things for the kids. We're trying to figure out when we can come back, because there are so many (including all your endangered species ones and Tamate Bako) on my to-find list in the Metroplex!

Now, come back down here and find some of my lonely ones!

Dewberry

Quote

I've rated too few boxes. I haven't rated all my finds.

Obviously, rating *only* select boxes -- such as the ones you really liked -- would result in your ratings counting very little. I thought GT made that pretty clear when he introduced this system.

It does force one to be critical. We all enjoy letterboxing (I presume!) which means we enjoy finding an "average" box. So when rating, you have to remember that just because you enjoyed it doesn't mean it should rate HIGHER than a 3.

Perhaps the best way to think about it would be: if it's a perfectly good stamp in a perfectly good hiding place in a perfectly good location and was therefore an enjoyable letterboxing experience, it should get a 3. To get a 4, something must be extraordinary about it -- either the stamp was awesome, or the park it was in was amazing, or the hide was unusually challenging or clever. To get a 5, *everything* about the box must be extraordinary.

And to get a 2, something must be disappointing about the box. Store-bought stamp, hidden in a garbage dump, whatever. And to get a 1, it's got to be bad enough that you'd recommend that other boxers DO NOT SEEK THIS BOX for whatever reason.

Finally, I guess that we each should look at that link that GT just showed us and revise our ratings as required.

Quote

If I understand the info correctly, to be a "quality voter" your voting must follow the bell curve pattern? If you are too generous, too even or too tight, your votes will count for less?

To a degree. There is some variance expected, and that page tends to error on the side of caution by creating warnings even if it's not actually discounting any votes but might be close to doing so. (I did this deliberately so people know when they're getting "close to the line" and also to make the exact algorithm for calculating blue diamonds a bit more vague.)

I'm not sure why this comes as a surprise, though. I said as much in the post at http://www.atlasquest.com/boards/message.html?gMsgId=44870 a month ago. It's also mentioned in the help page for blue diamonds.

I figure people want their votes to count, so I created a page to help out with that. It's one thing to know that a 3 vote is average--it's a lot harder to know that your average is high or low after you've voted for dozens or even hundreds of boxes. My spot check shows only about 10% of voters have a "perfect" voting pattern. (Alas, I'm not even included in that illustrious group since I don't have enough 4 votes. Keep meaning to fix that, but it hasn't been a high priority for me.)

-- Ryan

Quote

A great carve is only one thing I consider--I think it's the factor that a lot of finders can get caught up in--but I also consider location, placement, clues and quality of the hide.

Agreed.

Quote

I still don't think it means all that much, it hasn't affected how I plant or how I find.

Agreed again. IMHO, my carves are pretty good -- the more recent ones, anyway. Also IMHO, my hiding locations vary a bit, some are better than others, I think we all deal with that because you can't always find an excellent place to hide. And IMHO, I think my clues s**k. For some reason I just can't get into doing a better job writing clues -- and the blue diamond system hasn't enticed me to do better.

Perhaps a new topic: after planting a box and listing it for a while, does anybody go back and rewrite the clues to the existing box to make it more entertaining? Or would that be a no-no?

I'm in a bit of a desert as far as letterboxing goes, there aren't that many boxes or finders around here. As a result, the ratings system isn't working all that well -- the people who find my boxes are likely to rate them all nearly the same, and if they don't travel to other areas and rate a lot of other people's boxes that are either better or worse than mine, then their ratings are going to be discounted by GT's system.

The one thing it has done for me is provide a little bit of feedback about what type boxes people seem to like. People seem to like my stamp-and-color boxes. People *don't* seem to like my night hunts. Of course, a couple of boxes that have attained blue diamond status simply confound me, I dunno why people like them any better than any others.

Kirbert

I have seen your stamps and I agree- they are awesome carvings!! Feel free to send a few more up to Massachusetts. I have also noted one "Blue Diamond" that was no better than adejecent boxes. It was in a pay area & that may have influenced people's thinking.

I have found some really superior placements that have no Blue Diamond.

Thanks,
Morgun

<quoteI guess I'll leave the judgement values to more experienced folk.

As you've probably gathered, many "more experienced folk" are not participating is this system at all. For me the Blue Diamond ratings add a competitive aspect to the hobby that I do not care to be a part of. I didn't like it when Aldous Huxley's character said, "Some pigs are more equal than others." I don't like it when it pertains to letterboxes either. Funhog

Boycott the blue diamond rating system.

Subjective and pointless.

I'm not familiar with Aldous Huxley (except for shelving his books for four years, so i know the name/titles) but this line sounds very George Orwellian to me (Animal Farm).
I'm always reminded of my friend Beth who rides a Harley and collects flying pigs, when I see your name, Funhog!

As for Blue Diamonds:
I thought I'd try the B.Ds for a while before I made a judgement... so, after a few months of rating the boxes, I can tell: I dont really see the "value" of it but if others like it, let them have it. I may see a box with a BD icon, and notice it (with some amusement), but it really doesnt mean a thing to me. So, I'll just take what i need and leave the rest, so to speak...

Quote

sounds very George Orwellian to me (Animal Farm).

Well, duh(!) you are so right. I dashed that last post off so quickly hoping my cocoa wasn't boiling over, that I scrambled both the quote and the author. It's definitely Orwell and it's "Some animals are more equal than others." Nonetheless, Pigs Rule... Funhog

I too have been playing along with the Blue Diamond thing, trying to NOT be so negative about it. But there are so many variables, so many manipulations that I still can't seem to get the hang of it. Now if we switched to paper ballots, one man one vote, and a good paper trail, I might be persuaded.
Nor PhD

Quote

It's definitely Orwell and it's "Some animals are more equal than others."

I'm probably over analyzing this, but I either don't get it or you don't really mean what you said. I've never read Animal Farm, but some googling brought up this analysis: A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.

Hypocrisy--claiming that all citizens are equal even though they really aren't.

Am I missing something here?

Cutting through the analogies and assuming that the citizens in the quote are actually letterboxes, you're saying that we're hypocrites for saying that all letterboxes are equal, but because of the blue diamonds, they really aren't?

I've never claimed all letterboxes are "equal"--a vague term at best anyhow. Equal in what way? Quality? Legality? Size? How often they're found? I've said for years that some boxes are better than others. I've written tutorials about how to create a better letterbox. Now some people may not like to admit some boxes are better than others. Other people may not like any system that tries to pick out which are the better ones and highlight them (unless, of course, it comes from a human--it's okay for us humans to provide recommendations, but heaven forbid if a computer tries to do so). Other people may not like the particular formula Atlas Quest uses to try to do this.

Some boxes are better than others, and I'm not going to sugarcoat that fact nor have I ever tried to say otherwise.

All letterboxes deserve to be treated with respect. Whether I find a terrible letterbox with a store-bought stamp or the world's best letterbox, I'll try to dry out its logbook, replace the ZipLocks, and do what I can to keep the box alive and well. All letterboxes have the same rights to exist and live long and happy lives, but that doesn't mean they're equal in terms of quality.

One can argue that the blue diamond system isn't perfect--it's not and never will be--but that doesn't make AQ's recommended boxes any worse than asking someone for recommendations. I've gotten some pretty lousy recommendations over the years from people too. =)

And consider this--those blue diamonds--they are given to letterboxes that people have ranked well. You might see a blue diamond on a box and think, "Why the heck does that box have a blue diamond?" But there is someone, somewhere out there--perhaps several someones--who liked that box enough to rank it highly and give it that blue diamond. If you walked up to them and asked for a list of recommendations, that box would probably have been included. Every one of those blue diamonds has a person behind it that voted to say, yes, that box is awesome.

Only an idiot would argue that all boxes are equal. If they were, I'd have quit after finding the first one. In fact, if they really were truly equal, there would only BE one letterbox, since equal letterboxes would have to be planted in the same place, with the same stamp, by the same person.....

Letterboxes are diverse, different, and wonderfully unequal. =)

-- Ryan

Quote

Perhaps a new topic: after planting a box and listing it for a while, does anybody go back and rewrite the clues to the existing box to make it more entertaining? Or would that be a no-no?

I have done this, sometimes I put in a "place holder clue" that leads someone directly to the box, from my notes that I took on the trail and to get the box name and info out there as quick as possible.

Then when I return home and have more time, i will go back and tweak the color scheme and add pictures and rewrite the clues to be more entertaining, sometimes more cryptic!

-Amanda from Seattle

Ryan, I know you are justifiably proud of your creation of the Blue Diamond system. You have put a lot of yourself into it, creating the algorithm and coding it. However, in the process you seem to have lost sight of the human element. This is what I was alluding to with my quote. Personally, I want to feel that I am equal to my fellow letterboxers. I don't want to be asking myself why I don't have any of the coveted Diamonds or why someone else has ten of them and I only have two. Those who have more are "more equal than others."

It may be insecurity on my part but I don't want to be in a contest when I make a letterbox. I have boxes that I know are crappy and some I think are pretty darned good. One of my best has had few visitors and has probably never been rated by anyone. One of my very average ones had a Blue Diamond on it before I opted out of the feature. If you are lucky enough to live in an area where the majority of boxes are hidden by Legerdemaine, Phyto and Isosceles all the boxes would probably be worthy of a 5 in my opinion but those ratings wouldn't count because you had too many 5s and no 1s. (Of course this is moot since I think there are few to none of any of their boxes listed on AQ.) There are great boxes with all the things I consider to make up an excellent letterbox up on Dog Mountain, WA that get few visitors because it's a difficult hike. Should these be devoid of Diamonds because there are so many boxers who prefer less difficult finds? The boxes that have the most visitors will receive the most ratings. If letterboxers use the Blue Diamond system to choose which boxes are worth finding, these boxes will be left to languish.

Newbies who are just arriving on the letterboxing scene will not know about all the controversy surrounding the Diamonds and assume it's an accepted tool to aid in making choices. They will not think to question its popularity or accuracy. If there were known reviewers, we could decide if our taste were similar to those making the ratings. As it is, it's a crapshoot. Every person's idea of what makes a 5 or a 2 is different.

There are so many great things about AQ I couldn't begin to list them all. This just isn't one of them. I do my best to ignore it but when it comes up in discussion I feel compelled to state my point of view. BTW give Animal Farm a read. It's defintely a classic. Funhog

SO, I checked my rating history via the link provided.

Seems I have to many 1s and 5s. Actually, I don't recall giving anything but 3+, so I think the 1s stem from confusion when this feature first appeared and I thought 1 was a high mark.(I didn't find the boards until around then).
Whoops.
Anywho, it appears my ratings are not wieghted very much via the BD formula. I simply don't follow the accepted number of 3s, 1s and 5s. But what if I really feel the boxes (I think I rated 45 or so?) really truly are 1s or 5s or all 5s or something? My opinion is wieghted less because of it?

How about you just plug in the number of boxes found (47 in my case), and assign them all ratings based on the formula? Saves me the trouble. Works according to the system. Problem solved! (tongue in cheek here)

I was unaware we could opt out of this program. Can anyone tell me how to do that, exactly?

Cami

Quote

Personally, I want to feel that I am equal to my fellow letterboxers. I don't want to be asking myself why I don't have any of the coveted Diamonds or why someone else has ten of them and I only have two. Those who have more are "more equal than others."

With all due respect to naysaying BD-critics, you are not your letterboxes. I would never ask anyone why he/she didn't have a BD; I certainly don't have any and I won't dwell on that fact. I look forward to the day I can hunt for a Funhog letterbox and it will not require a BD to do so. I think intelligent folks understand the fleeting recognition of BD's.

For an outstanding box at the end of a difficult hike to garner a BD, we need participation! With fewer letterboxing attempts, the time it takes to recognize the BD status is longer. If even fewer participate in the ratings, it will take longer. And if the personal ratings are not statistically honest (within expected ranges), even longer. As I understand statistics (long before GT was playing with his first computer), more data will smooth out the curves and give us better information. Those that participate and have the most objectively ratings naturally help smooth out the variances from less objectively rated boxes. That is not a negative thing.

I love the concept and I want to see the experiment WORK. What the outcome is depends upon is participation. Can we at least agree to participate for a period of time and reserve our judgements when enough data is gathered to assess the entire system? Can we trust Ryan to construct a statistical model that represents how we make decisions? Can we trust our own abilities to be critical and responsible decision makers? Will we be intimidated with the information our data produces? Can we be accepting of objective analysis?

speedsquare

speedsquare (I really need to learn how to quote!): You speak of "less objectively rated boxes". But, what is an objectively rated box? Just because the formula is three 5s given out per 50 boxes found, doesn't mean the finder (who's ratings are being weighted) is not objective, and really didn't find 45 boxes that were stellar.

This topic was hashed out so much, but I didn't really have an opinion either way until following the link in this thread today to my rating history. Now, I'm bugged. I feel bad for being annoyed, since Ryan did so much work on the rating system-I feel like a spoilsport. But truly, I am annoyed.

Cami

Quote

I was unaware we could opt out of this program. Can anyone tell me how to do that, exactly?

At the bottom of the preferences page there is an option to opt out of the BD's

T;)

Oh, boy! The blue diamonds are taking hits again!

Quote

Perhaps the best way to think about it would be: if it's a perfectly good stamp in a perfectly good hiding place in a perfectly good location and was therefore an enjoyable letterboxing experience, it should get a 3.

To get a 4, something must be extraordinary about it -- either the stamp was awesome, or the park it was in was amazing, or the hide was unusually challenging or clever.

To get a 5, *everything* about the box must be extraordinary.

And to get a 2, something must be disappointing about the box. Store-bought stamp, hidden in a garbage dump, whatever.

And to get a 1, it's got to be bad enough that you'd recommend that other boxers DO NOT SEEK THIS BOX for whatever reason.

This seems to be about how I gauge my experiences, though I must admit I'm more likely to give a higher rating to a box I've found if others have given it a blue diamond. In the SE, I think we've got a bunch of fair, honest people who are pretty accurate with their ratings.

And once again, I find myself replying to one of Kirbert's messages... how weird... we must think alike...

Now, in statistical analysis—which is basically what this is—without being a super-genius mathematician, factoring in the human element is very difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. Very. But the algorithms and the values that they work with are also plagued by one major thing that stymies researchers everywhere: the "quality" of the values.

Just so no one flies off the handle and thinks that the "quality" of their votes is in question, it has nothing to do with YOU. Or you or you or you. The easiest way to explain it is to quote the disclaimer that you see when CNN.com displays Quick Vote results:

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole.

So what am I getting at?

This is all just for FUN, people! :-D

SS

Quote

If you want to make sure your votes are making a maximum impact on the results, you can see an analysis of your voting patterns at http://www.atlasquest.com/lboxes/traditional/ratingstats.html

Okay, so, I checked mine. I must be one of the 10% who fit the bell curve...

But I'm even more intrigued to see ratings stats on my boxes... I don't want to know WHO voted, just how.

There... I've thrown down the gauntlet! :-D

SS

Thank you!

Cami

Quote

What the outcome is depends upon is participation. Can we at least agree to participate for a period of time and reserve our judgements when enough data is gathered to assess the entire system? Can we trust Ryan to construct a statistical model that represents how we make decisions? Can we trust our own abilities to be critical and responsible decision makers? Will we be intimidated with the information our data produces? Can we be accepting of objective analysis?

Well, that is a bunch of questions! I think it boils down to asking whether we can agree to give it a shot. My answer is no. There are too many problems some of which cannot be solved. There will always be the controversy on whether boxes should be judged. There will always be good boxes without votes at all. There will always be people who don't log their finds at all. There will always be people who have never even heard of AQ.

The thing that really gets me is the fact that folks on AQ like to talk about letterboxing. A lot. And yet some of these people who love the interaction of the message boards would prefer to have a computer program tell them which are the good boxes instead of asking on the message boards.

Quote

I simply don't follow the accepted number of 3s, 1s and 5s. But what if I really feel the boxes (I think I rated 45 or so?) really truly are 1s or 5s or all 5s or something?

Most boxes are average--that's the definition of average. It's extremely unlikely, if you've found 45 boxes, that none of them are average.

When someone walks up to you and asks for a recommendation about nearby boxes they should look for, do you pick and choose or do you tell them, "All of them." It's true--all of them might be worth finding--but if they're in town for one day only, which ones would you recommend? Telling someone to find all of them even when they only have a limited period of time isn't helpful.

AQ, when it asks for your vote, is looking for recommendations. It wants to know which boxes people must get, and which boxes you think should be avoided. A vote of 5 is a highly recommended box. A vote of 1 is a box they should avoid because other nearby boxes are more compelling. A vote of 3 is normal--don't go out of your way for it, but don't try to avoid it either. It's a typical box that you'd expect to find in the area.

Quote

But what if I really feel the boxes (I think I rated 45 or so?) really truly are 1s or 5s or all 5s or something? My opinion is wieghted less because of it?

No, your opinion is as valid as the next person's. =) But if you vote where everything is either a 1 or 5, it's very difficult to get statistical information out of it. Some of those 5s are going to be better than others, but AQ can't distinguish from the "really awesome" boxes from the "better than average" boxes. There's just not as much information AQ can pull from such a voting pattern. It's a hanging chad. ;o)

I guess I should point out--unless AQ displays an "action," your votes are getting their full weight. Anything else is just meant to be a helpful suggestion so you can see the biases in your voting patterns. Even if you do see an "action," it doesn't necessarily mean your votes are being discounted--it might be they're very close to that point. So as long as there are no actions, I wouldn't worry about going in to fix your voting patterns--just keep it in mind for future votes.

If there is an action code, it's probably best to tweak your votes until they go away. You'll know it's an action code because it says "ACTION:" with the suggested action coming immediately after it. If it's only complaining about not having enough votes (or too many) for a particular number, you can be certain your votes are getting their full weight.

-- Ryan

Quote

Nor are all votes created equal. If you want to make sure your votes are making a maximum impact on the results, you can see an analysis of your voting patterns at http://www.atlasquest.com/lboxes/traditional/ratingstats.html

Okay, so for s&g's, I hit the link. Apparently, I don't like many letterboxes! :-)

I don't really care one way or another about all this, and I'll admit to 'voting' rather conservatively.

However, I wonder how much the transition from a 1-10 scale to a 1-5 scale affected my ratings. Most of my found boxes were done so before the BD thingy, and were scaled thus. I've probably only had a chance to find 10 or so boxes (or less) since the migration to the 1-5 scale.

My point (and I do have one) is: is this what has happend to my 'quality' vote, and thus gets me the admonishment to "Be more generous with your ratings"?

By the way, I'm not griping or complaining or pitching a hissy fit. Just asking a question that occured to me when looking at my 'score'.

Thanks,

Jenni P McD