norpan

Now I do know that you either just don't get it or are in fact trolling. Why is it so bad to let people voice their opinion by voting? If you don't think people can by concensus decide what is a good cache and what is a bad cache, then you are in fact saying that you think that the concept of a good cache does not exist. Or at least that it's impossible to objectively tell a well placed cache from a mass-produced unimaginative piece of litter.

So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing and we should all assume that everyone has equal skill in determining what a good cache is and that everyone, even total beginners, exercise that skill when placing a cache? I'm arrogantly assuming that my caches would get an above average rating, mostly because I will go to some trouble finding good spots, getting good containers etc. This is something that definitely can't be said of all the caches out there. That's also why I have only hidden three caches. But my assumptions may very well be wrong, and my caches will get a bad rating. So what. If they are bad, they deserve it.

Right on!! Thank you. Exactly. Right on. That's why I hate going to a geocache just to find out that the route there was boring paved road. The place was uninteresting, polluted and crowded, and the cache was in a trivial place.

If the cache is good, then hopefully more people will mark it good. That's all I hope for. If you for some reason suspect that the rating is flawed, then you don't need to use it. But if you think it's relevant, then you can. If this feature is implemented, you can still read all the logs if you have the time. And, what is stopping immature people from posting logs saying that a cache is bad? If people are out to do bad things, what's stopping them from seeking up caches and trashing them? Remember, my suggestion is that this should be a guiding tool. I don't want it to be a beauty contest.

I've read the thread. I think it's most important to filter out the bad caches, not filter in the really good ones. Going after a cache just to find it uninteresting and in a bad location always sucks. I want some rating to reflect that.

It would only be a rough estimate of course. When I've filtered out suitable caches I can read the logs for them. I don't know why someone clicked on well worth the visit, but I know more than nothing.

I think you missed my point. My point was that time is what is lacking. If I read through ten logs on average for a hundred caches, and it takes twenty seconds to read each log, then I will have spent almost six hours reading logs. Wheras if I can filter that one hundred caches out to ten caches, I will only have to spend half an hour. I posted a longer reply to the thread linked above.

I was redirected here from another thread. How hard would it be to implement and try out a very simple rating system like this: When entering a found log, you are asked to fill in this radio button: Was this cache worth the visit? [ ] Well worth the visit [ ] Worth the visit [ ] Not worth the visit or something like that. I'm not looking for a good rating system, I'm just looking for something that enables you to filter out the caches most likely to be of good quality when deciding among the hundreds of potential caches you can go visit. Because if a cache on average has ten logs and I have a hundred potential candidates that means reading through a thousand logs. THat means that by the time I'm finished I don't have any time to go out searching for them. Then the cache listing could just give +1 for well worth the visit and -1 for not worth the visit, and I could choose to filter by that score. Of course there are more elaborate rating systems, like on terracaching where the rating system seems to be a very big part of the sport. But this is not what I'm looking for. I don't think the average geocacher can be trusted to make that refined a judgement. But chosing among these three should be possible.

If you feel you can't objectively rate a cache as being good or bad, then I suppose that under this system you don't have to rate it. If you feel that you can give information that will help other geocachers pick among the hundreds or thousands of caches they could potentially visit, then you can give this information. This is no diffent than you posting a log saying something like "this cache sucks, don't go there". The system is warranted because there are a lot of low-quality caches out there, and many people don't go for quantity, but quality.

Well, I've been reading up on the other threads and I think a simple "Was this cache worth looking for? [Y/N]" would suffice. I don't want to make it a beauty contest, I just want to select good caches to look for since my time is unfortunatly very limited. So why am I wasting it here?

This topic must have been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the forums. I would very much appreciate a way for finders to score or grade a geocache. While I understand that this is a very subjective and random categorization, at least I would feel better going after a score 4.5 cache than a score 1.2 cache. What do people think about that?