SgtKlaos

Bad idea! Groundspeak thought that ratings for bookmark lists were a good idea too! It only provides disgruntled geocachers a way to vent their spleens without owner control. You're way behind in the discussion, Konnarock Kid. You can't read the first post of 98 posts and expect to say anything that hasn't already been said 20 times. I've learned a lot since my first post and it seems there are a few clearly opposing, well numbered sides. What I'd like to hear now, is Groundspeak's ideas and intentions. Do they respond in the forums or is there another place we can see their plans?

Maybe, but I'm excited to hear OpinioNate's news and I note that an awards or badges would serve as descriptors of (hopefully) popular cache qualities. Also, there are many more elements of the cache that people enjoy and therefore deserve descriptors. The experience can be broken down into the cache details page, the trip to the cache, and the cache site. And the site itself has many more enjoyable qualities besides location.

So are we talking about reviews, or are we talking about a 5-star rating system? I find reviews useful. I find "you may also like" recommendations useful. I find personal recommendations useful. It's simplistic 5-star (or n-star) rating systems that I find useless. I'd like to point out that the cache logs are a review system, they're just time consuming to use compared to short, concise indicators. The logs are great and have their purpose, but for quick reference, nothing beats short descriptors - like the information already provided on the search page (distance, cache type, difficulty and terrain). But us particular types are looking for particular qualities. We're asking for more quick descriptors so we can find the types we like. Listen to the arguments on each side: the no ratings people argue against the n-star system people because it'll cheapen and discourage, the n-star system people argue against the no ratings people because they just want a better way to narrow down the "good" caches, and the more searchable people won't settle for an error prone n-star system that doesn't help them find their different preferences. Notice no-one has made an argument against a system that provides more ways to search or more descriptors to search by.

Right, this is the error I referred to in my other post that is inherent in star rating systems. Like others have said, people enjoy very different aspects of caching. While the general quality of a cache can be generally rated on a general 5 star scale and therefore be moderately useful, a rating system can be much more useful if it focuses on those different aspects of caching. Enter the award/badge system. All you have to do is decide what awards you would give a cache (e.g. an award for scenery, creative site setup, overall cache design (which includes the details page), the hike/trek/trip/drive to the site, and/or the container camouflage). The cache is awarded bronze, silver, or gold medals in each of the categories if the recommendations vs. no recommendations are of a high enough percentage (e.g. bronze for 70%+, silver for 80%+, gold for 90%+). That way people can find what they are looking for.

Flask, sorry about my comment before. You do question the status quo, quite often apparently. I now fully agree a 5 star type rating system could cheapen the sport and cause people to abandon their low-rated caches, creating geo-trash (besides, it's already available at GCVote). However, I do believe a user award type system would provide many benefits. And I don't think it would conflict with Markwell's proposed system. Yes. All of the above. I think some suggestion engines are based on text such as descriptions of products. That might work using cache details, but may not be very useful due to distance limitations. Another type I remember is Amazon's "after viewing this product, people ultimately bought these:". I don't see that being feasible. If Groundspeak wants intelligent discussion and feedback from the community, it might be prudent to sticky (pin) this topic in order to keep the intelligent discussion going in one, concerted, progressive, flow. Otherwise, any temporarily low readership will drop the topic off the radar, and uninformed noobs like myself will bring it up again with all the bad ideas. And if Groundspeak is settled on the award/badge system, maybe you could start a new pinned thread and frame the situation like you did in your last post. Can you help the community develop this dialog to an actual conclusion?

Right. As many point out, there is error in a generic 5 star rating system. People rate in different ways (excitably handing out 5 stars to every decent cache vs. spoiled grumpy complainer). AND it's already been done; enter GCVote. That site shows you how to add 5 star ratings to your view of geocaching.com. I think it's safe to say Groundspeak won't be adding a 5 star rating system. What they can do is break down the popular qualities people admire about certain caches with a simple user input (e.g. , (no input), or ). People may like caches with nice scenery, challenging camouflage, witty setups producing "Aha!" moments, maybe even a great overall cache design such as a well planned theme cache or a details page with a great setup or story that makes that caching that much better. With a few categories, it is unlikely a cache would get all 's in all categories; this scheme prevents caches from turning into geo-trash and encourages better cache design. They could display pertinent ratios such as to , or to no inputs. A count comparing thumbs to no input would need to ignore all the finds before the rating system was installed. The ratios could be displayed as a percentage or on a 5 or 10 star scale. If the rating system leaves the possiblilty of any cache's "rating" being very low (or perceived to be of low quality) then I believe we would be creating a lot of geotrash out there - I continue to vote "no". The goal needs to be allowing users to find caches they would enjoy - not punishing any caches. Alright. I was hoping some thumbs down would push cache maintainers to correct flaws or make it better but you're right, it could just as easily discourage them. Awards only is responsible. But descriptive awards, OK...for specific accomplishments. Your wisdom is true, and a million thanks for making the site possible. Peace.

Right. As many point out, there is error in a generic 5 star rating system. People rate in different ways (excitably handing out 5 stars to every decent cache vs. spoiled grumpy complainer). AND it's already been done; enter GCVote. That site shows you how to add 5 star ratings to your view of geocaching.com. I think it's safe to say Groundspeak won't be adding a 5 star rating system. What they can do is break down the popular qualities people admire about certain caches with a simple user input (e.g. , (no input), or ). People may like caches with nice scenery, challenging camouflage, witty setups producing "Aha!" moments, maybe even a great overall cache design such as a well planned theme cache or a details page with a great setup or story that makes that caching that much better. With a few categories, it is unlikely a cache would get all 's in all categories; this scheme prevents caches from turning into geo-trash and encourages better cache design. They could display pertinent ratios such as to , or to no inputs. A count comparing thumbs to no input would need to ignore all the finds before the rating system was installed. The ratios could be displayed as a percentage or on a 5 or 10 star scale.

there already IS a consensus. it's "no". the only reason it's an ongoing discussion is because every week somebody who just got their foot in the door decides it would be a swell idea and they start a new thread about it. this was your week. next week it will be someone else who just joined, didn't search the topic, and starts a new thread. It's great you don't question the status quo. If there were no followers in this world, no movement would gain enough momentum to accomplish anything. For example, if my bowels didn't follow their urges to push, I would never relieve myself. The only reason it's an ongoing discussion every week is because there's something there. And I guarantee I could keep this up 'til next week. My initial cookie cutter idea (a single 5 star rating system) has much against it. As people pointed out its problems, my ideas changed. As I said, I would change the thread topic if I could. Do I need to start a new thread to get away from the "WOW factor", single rating idea I started with? Could you comment on my revised ideas?

First, thank you for your support of the site when the sport was fledgling. That idea has some functionality, but I'm talking about more specific user descriptions. (Like the highlights of the logs but condensed and searchable.) Right, even a 5 star system might not be very accurate. And as you all have pointed out, and as I have admitted, a single rating is too ambiguous. So I would simplify it a little more. For each cache find, the visitor logging it could give the cache a single thumbs up or thumbs down in a few categories. That way, a clear consensus would start to form; or even visitors could be polarized on a category which would be interesting. I'm talking a simple system of user feedback for people looking for certain cache qualities. Again, some categories rated on could be the qualities you all have mentioned: Creative "Aha!" moment (for puzzles) Camouflage Scenery And these rated attributes would need a little standardized description. Camouflage: The quality of camouflage originally intended, not an unfortunate condition caused by a recent, lazy cacher. Scenery: The quality of location and atmosphere. (A smelly, bland hide under a loud highway deserves a thumbs down. It's opposite of what people look for in a scenic spot.) Haha. But your analogy doesn't compare to what I'm proposing. People are looking for chocolate ice cream, so they need a list of places to get chocolate ice cream, ranked in order of chocolaty goodness.

There seems to be a sound number of reasons to warrant the option of having an "On or near playground" attribute. And yes, the attributes could use some guidelines to somewhat standardize expectations and understanding. Make the attributes more useful.

I appreciate your extensive explanation and patience with my "obnoxious topic". I may not know the whole background, but I learn quick. Your responses that people bring this type of thing up every week or so confirms the legitimacy of this thread. Apparently, it is apparent to new, energetic cachers that caches could really use a little more characterization. And they are right it's the cache visitors that should be rating them. This seems to be an ongoing discussion, so let's figure it out - get a consensus going. Help Groundspeak decide what and how. Understood. The topic should be worded something more like "What kind of user ratings should be available?". Moderator? No. I agree no one should be denied their cache from being listed due to any kind of ratings. Great, if these are common preferences, then it would improve the site by making this information readily available, would it not? Some preferences are straightforward and objective, such as a wilderness location vs. urban. No need for user ratings on that - just add the optional "attributes for quick assessment" for the cache submitter. So, objective preference - might justify an attribute. Subjective qualities are suited to be rated by the community - of course, as you all have pointed out, a single rating is too ambiguous. However, a couple specific qualities may be worth rating. Some possible categories my include creative/original, suspenseful, or scenic. What are the most common qualities that people are looking for that the current system does not address?

Like I said, a rating by stars doesn't even need a name. It could just be a general pleasure gauge - a simplified user input to compliment the logs. For quick reference! No! No! A Thousand Times No!! That which we call a rating, by any other name would smell as sour. How is a rating sour? Are the logs sour? Why not make the tone of the logs quickly referenceable and searchable? Are you against competition? Against awarding creativity?

Like I said, a rating by stars doesn't even need a name. It could just be a general pleasure gauge - a simplified user input to compliment the logs. For quick reference!

That would be defined as anything that provides an additional level of wonder, satisfaction or enjoyment. It doesn't even have to be called the "WOW Factor" - it would be just as useful to not name the stars. The common understanding of rating with stars could apply here; just show your appreciation or lack thereof. I'm simply calling for quick reference of all visitors' thoughts on a cache. Instead of reading all the logs, you count the stars!

For all you geocachers that are also looking for an extra-ordinary experience while you are caching, there is a simple answer: WOW Factor ratings! When a cacher logs a find, he has the option to give a 1-5 star rating (with half stars), concisely characterizing the positive feelings or experience the cache provided. The WOW Factor should be a column on the search results page and shown on the cache details page. It seems like it would be relatively simple to institute and would prove useful to many users. I count the following as benefits that don't take away from any other aspect of the game. User ratings would encourage cache placers to develop their skills. And many would also enjoy the competition and recognition! So consider this a poll. Would you like to see, search by, and rate the WOW Factor of your local caches?

There are many people who are not necessarily interested in find counts. They are interested in being taken to interesting places that other geocachers/waymarkers have provided coordinates for. The forums are full of people who want all physical geocaches to be be in "Wow" places. It is clear that for some people the point of geocaching/Waymarking should be to share the coordinates of "Wow" places. The problem may be that because nobody can come up with a definition of a "Wow" place. Geocaching is about hiding physical caches that others can find. These may or may not be in "Wow" places, though many people may prefer caches in "Wow" places. What is needed for those who want to visit "Wow" locations is a separate website. YES! and NO! For all the geocachers that are also looking for an extra-ordinary experience while they are caching, there is a simple answer: WOW Factor ratings! When a cacher logs a find, he has the option to give a 1-5 star rating (with half stars) concisely characterizing the positive feelings/experience the cache provided. The WOW Factor should be a column on the search results page and shown on the cache details page. It seems like it would be relatively simple to institute and would prove useful to many users. I count the following as benefits that don't take away from any other aspect of the game. User ratings would encourage cache placers to develop their skills. And many would also enjoy the competition and recognition! Please forgive the size, I got excited. I'm starting a thread about this to take a poll.