Talbot Tribe

I wasn't really offended. But I can see that it would be extremely difficult to come to a consensus. However, for the record, I like the options of being able to search by more tags (attributes), and I like the "you might like", and Markwell's suggestions as options. Markwell is right in that there is a divide between cachers in this world... There are those with star bellies and those without stars, some with two, and even some with three. So, after being beaten down, I won't bring it up again... (sigh)...

That was a little uncalled for I think. I'm not trying to pick a fight or be abused.

This may be true, but... If we had a system that could be enabled/disabled by user profile, those that don't like or want a rating system wouldn't need to use it or see it. So, that shouldn't prevent the rest of us from making a proposal. I realize I'm probably hoping in futility for something I think could be beneficial to many cachers out there. I guess I just get bored easily with "common" caches.

Although this whole discussion may be amusing to some and have others riled up, I would really like to find some common ground and find a solution to this ongoing issue. Is there anyone willing to discuss this issue in a collaborative way and work out a solution? I think the bashing on both sides should come to an end as it doesn't help the community. If we work together on this, we might be able to get Groundspeak to address this and prevent this from continually popping-up on the forum. My only objective to presenting the rating idea (yet again) is to make the geocaching community better and to encourage "better" cache placements. I didn't realize how heated everyone would get about this topic. So, is there anyone willing to work with me or whoever to work out a solution to this issue?

Terrain, difficulty, and basic cache types are already part of the search criteria. As Markwell's idea states, its about promoting the good and exceptional caches. Like I said previously, if you think the park-n-grab and dumpster diving caches are great, more power to you. However, I personally would like to avoid those types of caches, and I would like to be able to search for the exceptional caches that are intriguing. There are some really clever and surprisingly they could be a park-n-grab. But, not all caches are created equally. I would like to know which caches in my area are really exceptional and worth visiting. Perhaps the answer is having more attributes available to describe a cache, such as light pole, cemetery, etc. since these are available to include or exclude via pocket queries. Another thought on this is to allow you to enable or disable a rating system based on your personal profile. If you don't want to see or use the rating system, then you simply disable it. That way, all caches could be equally as good as the last for those that feel all caches are worth the effort. Likewise, those of us that would like to better utilize our caching time could use the rating system to direct our search efforts.

No, I haven't missed the point. Based on the comments here against a rating system, people are having difficulty bridging the gap between an overall rating that is based on a community concensus, and trying to determine how it will fit their personal interests. I congratulate the Australian geocaching society for creating a rating system with specific guidelines for the ratings. If you haven't read through it please don't bash a "simplistic" system. It can provide a great deal of information at a glance and is utilized in many aspects of our lives, from the products we buy and watch, and the experiences we can have. Its all about trying to have a system to allow users to make better decisions and better use of their time. If you are just in it for the numbers, by all means go-for-it, knock-yourself-out, have fun. But, a typical lightpost cache shouldn't ever be rated higher than a 1 because they are all too common and not very inventive. http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/Rating

I think that the Australian rating system would work really well. tozainamboku - A rating system isnt' about determining how well a cache would fit with your individual preference so much as it is about gaining a general concensus of how "good" a cache is. Yes, park and grabs are fun on occasion, but there usually isn't anything note worthy about them. Overall, I believe the general concensus about these typical types of caches would at most be average or less. Outstanding caches don't necessarily require that you hike in for days, as it could be a simple object that is in plain sight but hidden in a clever way; something that is note worthy or worth checking out. A rating system such as Flicker, Amazon, or your general four star ratings for movies don't reflect whether you will like something or not, but gives you a good idea if the majority of people liked it or would recommend it. It is still up to you to research the logs or comments left by other people. The point is that a rating system would be beneficial in determining how well a cache has been received by the majority and help in the decision process.

We maintain separate accounts so that when the kids leave the house, they will take all of the geocaching experiences with them. I like the idea.

I appreciate the comments. I believe there must be a way to rate the caches so that we aren't wasting time on caches that just aren't worth the effort. The reason I suggested the 5 star system is that it is easily recognizable and used in many systems. Amazon.com allows you to see how many users rated a product at each level. Overtime, if a cache isn't as good as it once was, the rating would reflect that. And yes, I truly believe that some caches suck. Who wants to sift through a landfill just to find a micro covered in who-knows-what?

Now that we have the GPS rating system, I would like to see a GeoCache rating system of 1 to 5 stars. This is something that could be added to the search criteria, logs, pocket queries, etc. How I see this working is that only Cachers that have found the cache could actually rate the cache, so as to avoid ratings made in frustration from DNFs. The rating would be based on how “good” the cache was, considering how cleaver the cache was, how well maintained, and its location. This would allow us to avoid wasting time on caches that are poorly placed, while providing feedback to the owner as to the general feeling about their cache and encourage better overall caches. I find it very frustrating to travel to a cache site only to find out the cache is in an abandoned dumpster or discarded beer bottle. I don’t view these types of caches as fun in any respect, as it isn’t about the numbers for me, but about the quality of the find and the time I get to spend with my family. So, my opinion is that it would be really nice to provide an overall rating for caches, to encourage a better caching experience from the placement through discovery. I don't believe the logs always provide enough information to base the value of a cache on since many logs are very short or simply TFTC. Does anyone have any thought on this? It is something that I personally think would be a great addition to Groundspeak and caching in general.