jasper

Clear. I can see the technical and logical problems. But from a logical perspective I don't see any advantage of have two lists of lists with caches.

I would assume that this means that weighted avg cannot be used for filtering as that is done by the API. But isn't sorting done client side? If that is the case, I would expect that this score can be added as a sort order. Furthermore, it can be added to the cache detail page, right? Adding weighted avg for sorting and cache detail page would already help me a lot!

Very interesting. This is indeed exactly what I mean. Would be great to have that in cach.ly filter and sort!

Interesting. Is that a limit that many people reach or is it more a theoretical limit? If it is a theoretical limit, I wouldn't worry about that too much. If it is a relatively small number (like max 10 lists) maybe a solution would be to make the bookmark lists a subset of the offline bookmark lists: All bookmark lists in geacoaching.com will become cach.ly offline bookmark lists. But once the limit is reached, you can still add offline bookmark lists they will not be synced to geocaching.com anymore.

That doesn't matter to me. In my app, the (theoretical) offline bookmark list would store all the content that the current offline lists store. But the GC code is synced with the bookmark lists on geocaching.com. That way, I have a unified set of lists, but I still have all the advantages of the cach.ly offline lists.

First of all: thanks for making this great app. It always makes me happy using it. One question: do you think it would make sense to combine the bookmark lists and the offline lists that you have? I know it is possible to make an offline list from a bookmark list. But currently the offline lists are not stored at geocaching.com, so I do not have access to these lists on web or on other apps. And second, when I look at a cache details, I cannot add that cache to a bookmark list. Third, I think it can be confusing to support two lists of cache lists in the app. I would guess that combining it to an offline bookmark list would be simpler to use and would provide more functionality. I can imagine that a drawback could be that you will have to store more information about the bookmarks lists locally. But if you default to "Lite cache data", I don't think that will be too much data.

First of all: thanks for the great app! Highly appreciated. When I search for caches, I sometimes want to see "nice" caches. So with a lot of favorite points. When I order or filter, I am not completely satisfied by the result. A cache that is viewed by thousands of people and got 30 favo's so far is weighted higher then a new cache that is seen by 25 (premium) people and all of them gave it a favorite point. A solution might be to order by the percentage favorites so the percentage of people that gave the cache a favo. The problem with that approach is that a cache that is only found once and got a favo, will have a score of 100% and will be on the top of the list. In my opinion, a weighted rating for both filtering and sorting would be ideal. A good formulae could be: weighted rating = ( cache_favo_percentage * nr_premium_finds + avg_favo_percentage * 30 ) / ( nr_premium_finds + 30 ) or simplified: weighted rating = ( nr_favos + 3 ) / ( nr_premium_finds + 30 ) (as avg_favo_percentage doesn't have to be very accurate and we know that the maximum of this number is 10%) The idea is that with no finds, the weighting rating is the average favo percentage of all the caches in the world. This is a good starting point as we don't have any other information for this cache. The more finds this cache gets, the more accurate we can determine the actual favo percentage, so the global average will be weighted less and less. IMDB.com uses something similar for scoring their movies. See the attachment. Note that this formula might seem complex, but it is trivial to compute. And I think it is relatively easy for users to understand. Maybe you can call it the cachly weighted favo score in the filter and sort screens. (or the jasper favo score if you like that better ;-) ) Here are some examples on the differences. The third column shows the favo percentage. The last column is the score based on the weighted percentage. finds favos percentage weighted percentage 0 0 NaN 10% 1 0 0% 10% 1 1 100% 13% 3 0 0% 9% 3 1 33% 12% 3 3 100% 18% 10 1 10% 10% 10 3 30% 15% 10 5 50% 20% 100 0 0% 2% 100 3 3% 5% 100 20 20% 18% 1000 0 0% 0% 1000 8 1% 1% 1000 20 2% 2% Ordered by favos (which is common now): finds favos percentage weighted percentage 100 20 20% 18% 1000 20 2% 2% 1000 8 1% 1% 10 5 50% 20% 3 3 100% 18% 10 3 30% 15% 100 3 3% 5% 1 1 100% 13% 3 1 33% 12% 10 1 10% 10% 0 0 NaN 10% 1 0 0% 10% 3 0 0% 9% 100 0 0% 2% 1000 0 0% 0% Ordered by favo percentage (This is already better as is gives less eight on the cache with 1000 finds and 8 favos.): finds favos percentage weighted percentage 0 0 NaN 10% 3 3 100% 18% 1 1 100% 13% 10 5 50% 20% 3 1 33% 12% 10 3 30% 15% 100 20 20% 18% 10 1 10% 10% 100 3 3% 5% 1000 20 2% 2% 1000 8 1% 1% 1 0 0% 10% 3 0 0% 9% 100 0 0% 2% 1000 0 0% 0% Ordered by cachly weighted favo score: finds favos percentage weighted percentage 10 5 50% 20% 3 3 100% 18% 100 20 20% 18% 10 3 30% 15% 1 1 100% 13% 3 1 33% 12% 0 0 NaN 10% 10 1 10% 10% 1 0 0% 10% 3 0 0% 9% 100 3 3% 5% 100 0 0% 2% 1000 20 2% 2% 1000 8 1% 1% 1000 0 0% 0%