SG-MIN
-
Posts
393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SG-MIN
-
-
only caches rated 3.5 or higher along a specific route.
I was thinking more along the lines of "What does a 3.5 mean"? aka Good Camo? Good Container? Location? Placement? Swag? Dry? Unique? Good hike? Good Use of natural covering? etc.... etc....
That would all need to be well defined for the ratings to have any consistent meaning. Much like the Clayjar system for terrain and difficulty.
I respectfully disagree. What does a 3.5 mean on amazon.com? good author? good plot? easy read? original ideas?
-
ohhh... that is a good one. It took about 2 or 3 tecniques before I got it figured out.
The hint does give it away, but lonesumdove's altered post makes it even easier (if you go to the cache page)
-
Just curious......
What is your definition for this proposed 5 star scale?
*=
**=
***=
****=
*****= ??
I was thinking something similar to amazon.com or imdb.com etc.
Basiclly, if you have a variable rating system rather than simple yes/no system then you can have do various searches. i.e. you can search for: the highest rated micros in a 20 mile radius, the top 10 rated caches in the state, only caches rated 3.5 or higher along a specific route.
I do like Jeremy's idea that cache owners could opt out.
-
A couple thoughts guys.
that is qualitative and not just "recommended" is that there is a scale and not just a yes or no option (is this recommended or not). If in gneneral, puzzle caches are not rated high, the system is useless. But if is qualitative (i.e. based on a 5 star system) you could still find the better caches. The same goes for any type of cache that some like, but other do not like.
I still would like to hear what Groundspeaks official thoughts are on the matter.
-
I personally think it's a great idea, but it doesn't matter because TPTB will never implement something that is so controversial when it serves no purpose for them other than the grief it'll cause.
I have really appreciated your responces to this thread. It hasn't disintegrated into an arguement about the specifics, but rather is focusing on the overall merits of a system. It has helped me out a lot in my thinking. So here is my question:
There seems to be the general assumption that Groundspeak/GC.com will never implement a cache rating system. However, as illustrated in the above quotes from Jeremy, he does not seem to be oppsed to it. Where do TPTB officially stand on this? Absolutely never? We are considering/researching it? It is in the works?
-
Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.
That's probably why most people quit after only finding a few caches.
So you would agree that if this could be avoided, it woudl help the sport.
I didn't say it was bad for the sport. Perhaps people who quit because they didn't like the five caches closest to their home wouldn't enjoy geocaching anyhow. When I started, I spent a lot of time reading cache descriptions and logs to look for caches I might enjoy doing. I didn't run out and find everything near my house because I realized that other people might enjoy a different type of cache than I like. I'll admit that eventually, it became a challenge to find all the closest caches to where I live and I started looking for these. I even got a few FTFs as I tried to keep my nearest cache page clear. Because of weather or time or just caching with friends, I will still sometimes just go and find all the caches in some area. But most of the time I plan my caching by looking at the cache pages and logs to find caches that look interesting to me. Sure from time to time, I'll hunt a cache based on the recommendation of another cacher. Usually it's someone who knows me and what kind of caches I like.
I would venture to say that you are unique in this. I too am a researcher, but that is just the way I think on everything - I want to know what I am getting into. If I were brand new to the game, I would probably go to the nearest.
When my friend altmizzle first got into caching, he loaded up gc.com and found the closest one, loaded it into his GPS and went and found it, then came back home and loaded another and found it, then came back home loaded another and found it....
You have to remember that people first getting into geocaching don't do things the way we do. They have to learn. It is much like the first time someone finds a lampskirt hide... they are like "wow, this is original." Of course after a while most people lose their facination with lampskirt hides.
-
Here are the last few posts on the topic from Jeremy himself:
Here's my thought of the matter (or rethink, if you will). In my opinion creating a bunch of different ratings is nice but isn't really necessary. What I would propose instead is a way for users to rate individual caches for their overall experience and use an algorithm to compare your opinion to other users instead of just averaging the rating out. Once we get enough ratings we can say that based on your ratings of caches you found you would probably be interested in x cache that someone else with similar interests found.
We had a similar discussion on the Waymarking site to see what categories you may like.
The rating system would be linked to waymarks, waymark categories, geocaches, and possibly even photos you like to see if there are any ways to compare your ratings of say, a geocache, to ratings of individual waymarks (or even an entire category). Make sense?
and
QUOTE (sbell111 @ May 24 2005, 01:28 PM) The problem is, your sample size will not be large enough. If caches got hundreds of visits, you might have interesting data. Unfortunately, difficult, but awesome, caches get few visits while drive-up micros get loads. You won't help but get horribly skewed data.
I do agree with your argument. This is just one of many possible solutions - and who knows? - I expect to try out more than one option for finding out the real gems.
I don't object to other rating systems but, IMO, it would have to be opt-on for the cache lister. So if a cache owner doesn't want their cache listing to be rated for whatever reason, they can switch it off. That also means their listing may be avoided by folks that like the rating system but at least they have that option.
As a favorites list goes I see no downside, so that would not have an opt out.
The rest from February 2005 or earlier.
-
I would think there are a lot of people out there that don't like the same kinds of caches that I do.
You are probably right, but this is one of those "what ifs." You may find that "your kind of caches" get rated particularly high. You never know untill we try a system.
Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.That's probably why most people quit after only finding a few caches.
So you would agree that if this could be avoided, it woudl help the sport.
There could also be a lot fewer of the kinds of cache I like to find and more of the kinds that appeal to the lowest common denominator.
another case of "what if." I would argue that with a well designed system would alliviate that problem. For instance, on amazon.com I often look for books on the "emerging church." Generally these books are not top sellers, and often are rated low because some people love them, but others despise them. What I end up doing is looking at the highest rated caches IN MY CATAGORY. I still generally find the better books about the emerging church even if the overall site does not rate these highly.
But I know that there will be some people who like what others don't like or hate what others like.
See above posts
-
Some of us simply think any kind of cache rating system is a bad idea. Here's why I do.
1. When compared to goods or movies, etc. there's a purchase involved. There's competition for your money, rating is probably a good thing in those cases.
2. Caches are placed by volunteers and have nothing to gain or loose except ego by a rating system.
3. Too much damaged ego will result in lose of interest or worse. In many cases anger will take front and center.
All of you that keep wanting cache ratings think about this. You place what you consider the best cache in the world. Everythings perfect in you mind. Another cacher comes along and down rates your cache. How do you feel. Stop really think about how you would feel.
Remember a cache placer is a volunteer. Volunteering his time and funds for you to enjoy. Now you want to tell him his efforts weren't good enough. I don't think that's very nice. That's what I think a cache rating system would do.
I understand your point, but I think you are missing something. If one person downrates my cache, you are right, I will probably be miffed for a bit, and my ego might be hurt. If it happened over and over from differant people, I would probably start to think that maybe my cache wasn't the best after all. Would that not motivate you to put out better caches.
Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.
Now think if that same cacher went to the 5 highest rated caches in a city first instead of the 5 closest. Would that improve their perception of geocaching in general?
Additionally, as geocachers learn what tends to get rated higher, they can improve their own hides. As geocaching continues to grow, it only makes sence to try and improve the quality of the caches - I am convinced a rating system would do just that.
I would tend to guess - and this is my opinion - that geocaches that would generally be rated lower did not cost the volunteer placer a whole lot of money. I mean come on, how much does a film canister under a light skirt cost?
-
So if a flawed system worked at say a 20% rate, that would make you happy??!!??
80% of the time it would lead you to a so-so or bad cache (in your eyes)?
That is what I would call a waste of time/effort.
Obviously you think that would be a worthwhile exercise. - Ok - with those kind of expectations as parameters - I guess I would have to withdraw my objections.
Give me a break buddy. I am just asking that we give it a try. Who is to say it would not be 80% sucessful. If 80% of the time you could determine the better caches in an area, I would guess that most of the community would use it.
Every objection I have heard is based solely on conjecture. People are so worried about the "what if's" that they are unwilling to give it a shot.
-
I don't think that a rating system would necessarily lead you to a good cache due to a number of factors.
- different tastes in what makes a cache good
- the degrading of a cache area over time and/or sloppy rehides
- If I've seen the type of hide a hundered times - nothing special - if it is the first time I might be thrilled
- fake ratings (up or down)
- the opt out - if only fans of ratings use the system - the ratings mayl be skewed
- etc
Therefore a waste of time and resources in the effort - (with the possible exception of the favorites list)
So all this annimosity against a rating system is because you all think it is a waste of time. Now tell me this, isn't that up to TPTB? Are you concerned if the programmers focus on a cache rating system you will not get a feature you want? At what point does live and let live come into the picture. I just requested the feature - if they have the time then let them do it. I for one would appreciate it.
Even if it was flawed, I know there are plenty of people who would use it. If a rating system sent me to an even mildly more enjoyable cache (by whoever's standards) even once, it would be worth it.
I don't know if it would hurt the game. I think what's being said is that it wouldn't help the game. Therefore, why implement it? It's like a feature that would allow cachers to change the "traditional cache" icon from green to red or blue. There's no harm... but there's no benefit either, so why do it?If everyone agrees that there is no decent way to rate caches, then why have a rating system?
Here is where I disagree, I believe people just disagree on the specifics of the cache rating system. There are plenty of "decent" ways to rate a cache - the disagreement comes in which of the evils do you want to incorporate.
I have been shocked at how adamently people stand opposed to this idea, when the only reason I hear to stand against it is because it is a waste of time.
- different tastes in what makes a cache good
-
Me too. Please say "NO" to a cache rating system.
Thanks.
I have yet to hear a good responce as to why someone would be outright against a rating system. I understand the arguements that it would be flawed, but why campaign against it. You would not have to use it. The arguement here seems to be very similar to that of micros - if you don't like them, don't hunt them.
In the same way, if a cache rating system were implemented and you did not like it, don't use it. Just don't tell me how to play that game - isnt that how the line goes?
Someone please tell me how a cache rating system could hurt the game. Even if only a few people find that it makes the game more enjoyable isn't it worth it.
-
Here is my deal:
When I travel I often find myself in a cache dense area (Nashville for instance). I usually don't know exactly where I will be so that makes it impossible to load up all the caches, even those that meet the attributes I usually like. I want to be able to load up some great caches, so if I do get a chance to cache, the one I go after is of a bit high quality (yes I know this is subjective.)
Often bookmark lists work. That is how I have handled Nashville, there is a great list out there and I load of those up. Often however, I am covering such a large distance that bookmark lists do not work.
To answer the leprechauns, my only concern with your system is that I would think it would tend to favor epic caches - that is caches people go out of their way to get. With an amazon style cache rating system, if you like micros, but micros generally are not recommended, you could still find the higher rated micros.
-
Without getting into a long debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of a ratings system, I'd like to go on record in this illustrious thread that I think ratings are a bad idea and that I would personally prefer that TPTB use their valuable coding skills and limited resources to work on something else.
Also seeking to avoid a debate which sbell111 and I have already had, I would like to assert that a cache rating system would only help those who use it, and would not harm those who think it is a bad idea.
If I think the google map feature is a bad idea because it occasionally shows roads that are not there, I just don't have to use. Its presence does not harm me, just as a cache rating system would not harm you.
-
Congrats on having your very own thread.
I feel honored to have THE Leprechauns join MY thread!!
-
You assume a rating system would prove useful in finding cache you like. I've never seen one that convinced me it could do that.
I have expressed my views extensively concerning cache ratings in this thread. If you really want to know what I think go ahead and read those 7 pages.
This thread is my request, not my arguement.
-
This thread is to officially request that a cache rating system be implemented on Geocaching.com
I have read most of the previous threads concerning the issue and am aware of the shortcomings of such a system. I travel quite a bit, and often do not have time to browse logs or bookmark lists. A cache rating system would greatly enhance my experience.
There is no need to reply to thread, and I surely do not what to get into a lengthy discussion about a rating systems strengths and weaknesses - that dead horse is well beaten. I just want to make my request known officially in the appropriate forum.
Keep up the good work.
-
Some of our dates have come and gone. Anyone know where we stand?
I am sticking with December 17th at 8:15pm MST
-
Thanks for this link. The cheapest I can find regular dog tags is $7 for two.
Here is that link http://www.dogtagsonline.com/
You have to order in multiples of two, but each can be differant. This is pefect for a multi I have coming up.
-
I got this log entry the other day from Show Me The Cache, a very well respected area cacher. I figure anytime someone with over 7400 caches found and 130 caches placed tells me that it is the first time they have seen a particular hiding technique then I must be doing something right.
-
Sometimes people dredge up the oldest threads they can find, sometimes they don't.
I was searching the forums for all the threads started about junk in caches and this one came up. Don't tell me that now you are against using the search function. I just find it intersting that 5 years ago the arguements were the same.
The age of the thread only has to do with the age of the arguement. Interesting that AOL DVD cases were a worthwhile find.
-
Oh, and as for AOL discs, I'd personally think they're tacky (since you can grab them at Sears, your mailbox, or your local whatever), but if it's one of the ones in the nice DVD-style cases, throw it in there! (The cases are definitely worthwhile.)
Somethings change, other things never do.
-
Excellent. So what does that leave? Alaska, Hawii, Montana, Idaho, Florida, Illinois, North Dakota.... What I am missing?
-
That is crazy. I usually don't know the stories of TB's when I pick them up, this one would be a surprise for sure.
It seems like people are getting into it based on the photos.
Overall, I think it a cool idea, if not a bit odd.
I would participate in it.
Cache Ratings
in Website
Posted · Edited by SG-MIN
Oh, I gotcha. My bad, I didn't understand what you were asking. It really doesn't matter, I assume people would determin for themselves what each rating means. I would suggest something like:
***** = Absolutely amazing cache. A must find for anyone. Among the best ever.
**** = Above average cache. Worthing going out of your way for.
*** = Average cache. Fun grab, but typical.
** = Slightly below average. I've seen better
* = Below average.
I tend to shy away from any specific naming of attributes just because it gets so subjective. Of course with a good algrithim, regardless of a person's standard, you would end up with a fair score.