Cyber Monday is Here!

Okay, I have to admit, it seems that I ordered a few too many AQ calendars, and I still have about 30 of them sitting here at AQ headquarters collecting dust. As things are going, this might be the first year I've actually lost money on these things. Bummer. But what should I do with them?

And with the so-called "Cyber Monday" here, I figured I'd join the trend. I've marked everything in the AQ Marketplace as 30% off. Yes, the calendars are now 30% off--down to just $9.80. The AQ patches are 30% off--down to $1.40 each. And even Wassa's Patented Eye Bleach is 30% off--now down to the bargain price of just $3,500!

This is a limited time offer, however, only available today, and only while supplies last. (I doubt I'll run out of patches or eye bleach, but I only have about 30 calendars--those could realistically sell out.)

If you wanted a calendar for yourself or as a Christmas gift, this is your best chance!

AND--premium members still get another 10% off during the checkout process, which means you can score AQ calendars for $8.82 each.

Happy trails!

-- Ryan

Trying to Contact a Member?

Atlas Quest is largely a closed community--closed in the sense that communication is meant to happen between members. If you don't have an account on Atlas Quest, you were out of the loop.

This is great for keeping out spam, but makes it difficult when someone who finds your letterbox by accident wants to contact you. Some would go through the effort of creating an account just to contact a member, which works, but is a bit overkill. Others would contact an admin and we'd forward the message on to the owner of the box in question, assuming we could figure out who it was meant for.

Now, however, there's a special Contact Member page that non-members can use to contact members. If you're logged into Atlas Quest, it'll just kick you to the normal page that allows you to send an AQ mail. If you want to try out the page, you'll have to log out and be a "non-member" to see it in action.

Non-members can contact you either by specifying your trail name, your member number, or the letterbox number. In the case of the box number, AQ will look up the owner of the specified box and send the message to that person.

The main home page on Atlas Quest now has a prominent link to this page at the top of the third column. (If you don't see three columns, scroll down the second column. It means your browser isn't wide enough to support three columns and the third one "collapsed" below the second one.) If you want to give muggles an easy way to contact you about your box through Atlas Quest, be sure to include either your trail name, member number, or box number in the box.

Or leave your e-mail address, which has always worked as well. =)

The "rude" button

There's a new button on the message boards of Atlas Quest, that I affectionately call the "rude" button. Basically, it's to be clicked whenever you think someone's post has crossed a line--it's inappropriate, unnecessarily harsh, or just plain rude. I expect everyone to be civil to each other, and while disagreements are fine, being just plain mean is not.

Unlike the other buttons, you will not see how many people have clicked the rude button--this button is basically for the moderators to keep an eye on potentially problem areas. There's a special widget available only to them that allows them to see which posts are considered the most rude or might require more attention than usual. If you've clicked on it, it'll show a 1 in parenthesis so you can see your own vote--but that's as high as you should ever see the number.

It doesn't show the real counts since there are people on the boards who may think it's funny to click the rude button on posts by people they don't like even if there's nothing at all rude about it. I don't want someone who's abusing the button to be able to hurt the feelings of such people, so only moderators can see the real rude counts. It's really for their use anyhow.

On a related note, AQ does do some extra processing with these clicks. If you do think it's funny to abuse the button by clicking it all over the place, AQ will stop reporting the clicks to moderators. Essentially, if you cry wolf too often, we start ignoring you. =) So if you want your clicks to count for something, it's best not to abuse the feature.

Right now, the rude simply helps keep moderators informed of potentially problems that are brewing. I've thought about adding auto-timeouts for those who regularly cause problems on the message boards, and it may still happen at some point, but for now, it's purely a moderator tool. Regardless of your opinion about a subject or person, however, you are expected to act in a civil manner. Remember that--you don't want to draw the attention of moderators to your posts, and such posts are considerably more likely to do so now.

If you haven't read it yet or it's been awhile, you might want to review the message board's Best Practices. There's always a link for it under the 'Boards' menubar option, and there's good advice in it. Use it. Believe in it.

Let's Review Some Basics

I got an e-mail this morning about a box that was listed more than a dozen times. It's one of those boxes that gets planted by one person, who then invites everyone who finds it to add a stamp to the box. Which is all fine and good--no problem with that. In fact, it's a lot of fun to see all the additions people add to such a box over time.

The problem happens when everyone who contributes a stamp to the box decides it needs to be listed on Atlas Quest. The thing is--it's still just one box. It doesn't matter how many stamps are in it--it's just one box.

So I fixed the listings by changing the "traditional" boxes into "other" boxes. This has two distinct advantages. One, everyone's P and F-counts stay accurate. (Or at least more accurate than they otherwise would be.) And two, it keeps the search results from getting cluttered up with multiple listings of the same box over and over and over again.

I posted about the change to the state board it was applicable figuring everyone in that area should know what was going on and, in the future, to list mere stamp listings as "other" boxes rather than full-fledged "traditional" boxes.

Wow--throughout the rest of the day, I've been getting a blizzard of messages pointing out other boxes that were similarly listed incorrectly, and have been fixing them as fast as the reports come in. Boxes in Texas, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, yadda, yadda, yadda. Who knows how many more reports I'll get before the dust settles.

One thing I've learned, however, is that this problem is much more widespread than I thought! It's happening all over the country!

So I'd like to set the record straight. It doesn't matter how many stamps are in a box--it should be listed as just ONE traditional box. If you feel that it's absolutely necessary to list the individual stamp contributions, you can do so either in the clue itself or by listing the stamps as "other" boxes, which is actually the most accurate listing for such boxes.

To make it easier for people to record finds on all of the "other" boxes, you have two options. One is to create a massive series of "other" boxes, though technically it'll throw off the "other" P and F-counts. Seeing as there are no standards for what counts as an "other," it's not like counting "others" has much meaning anyhow, however. It is more work for the person who created the original box, however, having to add new listings every time a new contribution is added.

The other option is to create an "other tracker" that's open to everyone, then in the clues for your box link to the tracker with the instructions that they can join the tracker and add their "other" box to the list. That'll make it much easier for people to find a single list of all stamp contributions, and each person is responsible for adding their own contributions to the list if they choose to.

It doesn't really much matter to me, but the one thing that DOES matter to me is that anytime multiple stamps are tucked away into the same box, it should be listed as a single traditional box.

If you've planted or found such boxes, you might notice that your official P and F counts may have gone down--in some cases, by as many as 40 or more. Sorry about that, but be honest with yourselves. You didn't really find that many boxes in the first place--you found one box with that many stamps, and now your counts will reflect that.

So please, in the future, let's be more careful about distinguishing between planting a real, honest-to-goodness letterbox and merely adding a stamp to an already existing box. If you've planted such a box, it might be a good idea to explicitly state in the clues that anyone who adds a contribution to the box should list their stamp as an "other" to make sure anyone who adds to the box knows how to list it correctly. There's obviously been a lot of confusion over the matter, so as a planter, help your finders by explaining how to add their contributions correctly.

Thanks!

The West Coast Trail and Juan de Fuca Trail

It's official! I've booked a ride on the Victoria Clipper from Seattle to Victoria for 3:15 PM tomorrow afternoon. =) My plan is to find a place to spend the night in Victoria tomorrow night (so far, I don't actually have any reservations anywhere, but I have all my backpacking gear--I can stealth camp if I really have to! Ha!)

Then I'm off to Bamfield and the trailhead for the northern terminus of the West Coast Trail. I have to take an "orientation class" before they'll give me my permit--you know a trail is tough when you're required to take a class about the trail before they'll let you on it! Then I get to hike the next 50 miles through knee-deep mud, up and down 30 stories worth of ladders, cross two rivers on boats, and numerous serge channels on hand-drawn cable cars, all the while timing my hike on the beach to make sure that a high tide doesn't drown me. If the rain doesn't drown me first--this is a rain forest where precipitation is measured in feet rather inches. (Actually, being Canada, it's probably measured in meters rather than centimeters, but you get the point.) The area regularly gets more than ten FEET of rain per year. What's in it for me? It should be fun! And it's allegedly the most scenic trail in the entire North American continent. =)

Once I claw my way off the trail, I'll end up in the bustling little town of Port Renfrew. Rather than go home, I've decided to extend my hike by doing the Juan de Fuca Trail, another 30 miles along the Vancouver Island coast before getting a ride back to Victoria. The Juan de Fuca Trail conveniently starts right by Port Renfrew, so I don't even need a ride to that trailhead. It's also supposed to be a tough hike, and is allegedly the second-most scenic trail in the entire North American continent.

I'm not exactly sure when I'll finish, but I'll get a ride into Victoria once I finsh both trails. I'll stay in Victoria and play the tourist until October 1st when I'm booked to return to Seattle again on the Victoria Clipper. Hopefully that night I'll be online and post that I survived the hike. Until then, if you wonder what happened to me, that's it! =)

-- Ryan

A Death in the Family

It is a sad day in our little letterboxing family today--Janet, better known as Blooming Flowers to most of us--passed away. She had been diagnosed with Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) earlier this year, which would ultimately cut her life way too early.

I've gotten a few people e-mailing me thanking me for the Blooming Flowers theme up right now, but I would like to make sure that everyone knows that that was Wassamatta_u's creation. He created it for her shortly after she was first diagnosed with AML, before *I* even found out she had been diagnosed with the cancer, and put it up again first when she was rushed to the hospital and today when she passed away. He jokes a lot, but he's actually a pretty thoughtful guy. =) But he really deserves all the credit for the theme. I just let him put it up.

On another note, there is a tributes page set up on Atlas Quest in honor of Blooming Flowers. If you have a fond memory of her or incident to tell, please share it with the rest of us. Or even just to offer your sympathies and prayers for her and her family.

While reading her profile today--strange that I'm compelled to do things like that after someone dies, as if trying to get to know them better after the fact, but I particularly enjoyed her answer to the question about what animal she would be and why, writing, "A cat. I like to lay in the sun and be pampered."

Here's to laying in the sun and being pampered. =)

But our little community will still miss you.

Calendars!

The official Atlas Quest 2010 Letterboxing Calendars are here! I have two calendars this year--the usual, run-of-the-mill original style calendar with photos taken by letterboxers from all over the place.

Then there's what I call the Tortuga Edition because it has only photos that I took. While looking through my own pictures for the year, it seemed like I took an unusually large number of photos that I liked and turned them into a calendar. I don't really expect that calendar to be especially popular, but I figured my own family members would probably like it better when the holidays come rolling around. ;o)

But I've made it available for anyone who would like it--the photos are pretty good, I think!

I'm also doing things a bit differently this year than in past years. In years past, I would collect a bunch of calendar orders then order them in bulk, exactly the number of calendars I need. This time, I'm still ordering calendars in bulk--but I've already ordered them. Ordered them this morning, in fact. So rather than taking an unlimited number of calendar orders, the number of calendars this year are limited in quantity. Just 100 of the "original style" calendar, and just 10 of the "Tortuga edition."

When they run out, I won't be taking anymore calendar orders. Eventually, I'll get them online so you can order them directly from lulu.com, but they'll cost more there and probably not until October at the earliest.

I should also point out--you can order the calendars now, but I only put in the order for them this morning, so I won't be shipping them out immediately. It should take an expected "3 to 6 days" for the calendars to be printed, and probably another good week or so for the calendars to be shipped via ground across the country. Then I need to repack them and ship them on to you. At the very earliest, you probably won't have a copy in your hands for at least two weeks from today, but they should arrive by the end of the month. =)

If I used one of your photos in the calendar, I'll be sending you a free calendar. Don't include the free one in your order if you wish to order additional calendars. I'll contact each of you personally about how to get your free calendar.

And remember--Atlas Quest is always ready to take more photo submissions for the 2011 letterboxing calendar. Just go to the Project X page for rules and the submission form.

Calendar Photo Deadline Approaching!

For those of you interested in submitting photos for the 2010 letterboxing calendar, be sure to upload them by the end of the month! Full details about the project can be read on the Project X page. (I moved the link so it's now under the 'Marketplace' menubar option rather than the 'Toolbox' option where it used to be--in case you're having trouble finding it.) It has some descriptions for what I'm looking for in photos along with previous calendars of photos that had been selected as winners.

I included my favorite photo of last year's calendar in this post. Isn't that photos absolutely awesome! Seems like every year I get at least one photo that when I see it, my eyes pop out and I immediately know that I'll use it. Not that many of the other photos are absolutely stunning, but certain photos are just hard to get. A bright red cardinal sitting in a tree during a snowstorm? That's not the kind of picture you can plan for! The bright red against that cold, white background--what an amazing photo! A nice scene of a sunset can be beautiful, but finding a pretty sunset isn't actually all that hard to do. (Probably why I get so many sunset submissions!) But this photo..... wow. It's the one that really grabbed my attention last year. I'd never be able to get a photo like that in a hundred years!

Which one will grab my attention this year? =)

-- Ryan

Results of the Great Blue Diamond Experiment

The second poll is now officially closed. The official winner, by a whisker, is the original blue diamond algorithm I had been using all along. Before I started this whole voting process, I actually saved a list of exactly which boxes had a blue diamond, and during this vote, I simply put them back. So despite all these other algorithms I tried, the original blue diamond algorithm is actually still the favorite. =)

A close runner up was the green algorithm, which is close enough where I feel the two colors really were a tie from a statistical standpoint. That doesn't surprise me much--the core algorithm for the two is exactly the same. The difference between the two is that the blue algorithm had additional "tweaks" I added after the core algorithm ran. The core ranked boxes based purely on the votes, adjusting for the voter's average vote and the standard deviation of their votes. The green algorithm is the "pure" results. The blue algorithm included a few additional tweaks after the fact by rearrange the "borderline" results.

Boxes that ranked near the cutoff for a diamond usually ended up there more-or-less by chance. From a statistical standpoint, the boxes immediately above and below the cutoff are actually ties. The difference in ranking for #2223 or #2252 might depend on what a voter had for breakfast that morning. So I added a couple of tweaks to make the rankings more consistent and (I hoped) fair. If a box already had a blue diamond the previous month, it would still keep the diamond even if it technically fell below the cutoff (but was still a borderline case). If two new boxes fell close to the border line, one on each side of it, I would give a slight edge to the one with a planter's choice listed as an attribute. Basically, in the event of a tie, then the planters would cast a tie-breaking vote. (Don't think putting a planter's choice icon next to ALL of your boxes will help either--how discerning one is in applying them to your boxes is also taken into account.) There were about a half-dozen various tweaks I made to those borderline boxes in an attempt to break the statistical ties, and those were applied to the blue algorithm but not the green.

The tweaks only affected the results of the borderline boxes, and apparently it didn't make a significant difference in the results.

The purple and white diamonds I didn't expect to do well since they didn't do especially well in the last vote. The white diamond used the algorithm where it removed the best and worst vote for a box, then took the average of the remaining votes. The purple diamond took the ratio of high votes (5s and 4s) to the number of low votes (1s and 2s) and sorted accordingly. It actually did surprising well in the last vote, but still nowhere close to the original core algorithm that adjusted votes based on the average and standard deviation of an individual's voting patterns. While the first vote had the high-low ratio score nearly double the rate of the straight-average of votes, this time they scored almost identically. I'm a bit puzzled about that, but they both did significantly worse than other options, so it doesn't make much of a difference.

The red and yellow algorithms were the "combined" algorithms, where I ran three different ranking algorithms, then combined the results to generate the red and yellow diamonds. Intuitively, I thought these would do very well--perhaps even beating out the original blue diamond algorithm--and was stunned to see them go down in flames like they did. I guess in my head, I thought a combined algorithm would pick up on the best of all the algorithms. It seems actual results were more skewed towards "the weakest link." It took the results of the green, purple, and white diamonds, and combined them. The red is the "pure" combined algorithm, while the yellow is the "tweaked" version using many of the same tweaks I did for the green/blue variations.

The end results of the combined algorithms, as I see it, is that the most popular core algorithm (the green), was pulled down by the poorer results of the purple and white algorithms. Or you could view it as the green algorithm "pulling up" the results of the purple and white algorithms. The combined algorithms did score better than the two least favorites, but it scored worse than the most popular algorithm. An average of algorithms thus resulted in average results.

And that was the biggest surprise for me. I really expected the combined algorithm to get much better results than that.

The different between the tweaked and non-tweaked version of the combined algorithm 31-29, a statistical tie in my book. Again, there doesn't seem to be much preference one way or another based on the tweaks.

So, the core algorithm using the average and standard deviations of a person's voting patterns is hands down the winner and will continue to be used. The tweaked version shows a *slight* preference, but it may not be outside the range of a statistical tie. I also never broke down the multiple tweaks that could be voted on to see which ones might be preferred--it was an all-or-nothing type of deal.

The two "tweaked" algorithms also didn't all have the same tweaks, so I can't really compare those two very well. I literally applied the blue diamonds on exactly the same boxes that had blue diamonds before the votes were counted, which meant that tweaked version did allow boxes with just two votes to get a diamond, but the yellow diamond was limited to boxes that had a minimum of three votes. The blue diamond included the tweak that gave preference to boxes that already had a blue diamond if it now falls just under the cutoff, but the yellow version had no previous diamonds that it could be compared to and thus did not use that tweak.

So I'm left trying to decide exactly which tweaks to keep and which ones to throw away, but based on the results of the poll, I'm not sure such decisions will make a big impact anyhow. They're little decisions that ultimately have little impact. I'll definitely continue favoring boxes that already have blue diamonds just for the consistency factor--one of the biggest complaints about blue diamonds was their fleeting nature for borderline boxes. It would appear one month, disappear the next, and return the month after that, and so on. Giving a slight edge to those with the blue diamond already got rid of most of that inconsistency (and the subsequent complaints about "losing" diamonds).

But in a nutshell, after all this voting and discussion, pretty much nothing will change. =) Was it a waste of time? I think not. There were several very good things that came out of these proceedings:

1. You no longer have to take my word that I'm using the best algorithms possible.

2. I also don't have to trust that my biases had been playing a roll in the selection of algorithms.

3. I hope that anyone who intuitively felt that a simple average of all votes really is NOT the best ranking algorithm available will finally be able to let it go. Yes, there are some people who actually liked that result the best, but there were also nine people who each voted for the "completely random" results as well. The results were pretty overwhelming, however, that a simple average is NOT the best ranking algorithm available, and it's time to simply agree to disagree.

4. And I hope to gave many of you a sense of empowerment. Not the "cram it down your throat whether you like it or not" feeling that some people seemed to have, but a sense that you're in control of how the boxes are ranked. The end results may not have changed, but this time it was you all who chose the algorithm--not me. =)

On another note, I'm seriously considering giving boxes with different status different colored diamonds. Not because it has any significance, but rather because there continues to be that persistent myth that retired boxes are "taking" diamonds away from active boxes. It's not true, and even after I explain mathematically why that's not happening, it's a myth that continues to persist. And maybe a simple change of colors can finally put the nail in that myth once and for all. It's an intriguing idea to me, and it would be pretty easy to implement given the fact I already have lots of colors available now. =)

Thanks to everyone who participated. I'll be putting everything back to normal shortly. I'll leave the original blue diamonds up this months, but I might make a couple of minor tweaks when it comes to next month's ranking of the boxes. For the most part, however, expect the same algorithm.

Happy trails!

Diamonds, Diamonds, Everywhere.....

For those following along in the message boards, IrishRef suggested a different algorithm for calculating blue diamonds. His idea was to throw the highest rated vote and lowest rated vote for each box out (those pesky "outliers") then average the rest and sort accordingly. It's an interesting algorithm, and not one I had considered before. I was intrigued--how would blue diamonds if I sorted it out that way?

And what about those people who think every vote should be counted "as is," no normalization of the votes allowed. How would that shake out? Sure, there would likely be a lot of overlap, but how much? Would one of these other algorithms provide better results? Ultimately, I'm not attached to any one particular algorithm. I'm more than happy to go with the one I think works best.

So I'm having an algorithm face-off. I have created seven, yes, count 'em SEVEN colors of diamonds: red, yellow, green, blue, purple, white, and brown. Each one uses a different algorithm to determine the 5% of boxes that will have that color.

I'm not going to tell you which algorithm goes to which color, or even what all the algorithms are. I will say, however, that one of them does use IrishRef's suggestion. Additionally, one of them is a "flat average"--it takes the votes as is and averages picking those with the highest averages. I'd like your opinions on which color you feel best represents the real "blue diamond letterboxes." I'd also like to point out the the color blue is NOT using the old algorithm--I've actually tweaked the old algorithm and given it a different color to disguise it a bit. =) None of the colors actually represent what the old algorithm used.

If one of the algorithms is a particular clear-cut favorite, I might update the code to use the new algorithm instead of the old one. =)

But please, be honest. Don't pick the color that gives your plants the most diamonds. Pick the one that you feel provides the most accurate results. These are supposed to be the best boxes out there--those that a visitor "can't miss" if they're passing through. Be honest with yourself, and select the algorithm you feel accomplishes this goal.

You can cast your vote in this post.

Red = funny
Yellow = interesting
green = educational
blue = agree
purple = disagree
white = huh?
brown = hug

I'm very curious to see how you all think the different algorithms stack up against each other. =) Also keep in mind, anyone who has opted out of the blue diamonds will not have ANY color on their boxes, so don't fault an algorithm for not putting a diamond on a boxer if you know they've opted out. The problem might not be the algorithm.

I also want to point out--all these colors are temporary. Eventually, I will be selecting ONE algorithm, and that's what'll be used for blue diamonds. The rest of the colors will go away.

Happy trails!

-- Ryan