Cache Rating System

[+SkyRattlers]

I'm new to geocaching but I did a search and couldn't find a thread about this. Has anyone considered or tried to implement a rating system for caches?

 

ie. the cache that has a gorgeous mountain valley view might get 5 stars but the one located under the high voltage lines would only get 1 star?

[+BlueDeuce]

I happen to like cache under high voltage lines. Are you trying to take something away from my fun?

 

Yes, it's been discussed before. Wait for the Markwell.

 

Try this: rate caches

 

This is a good one Feature Request: Cache Rating, one to five stars

Edited August 9, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Did someone order this?

Edited August 9, 2005 by Corp Of Discovery

[+jimmyreno]

It'll never happen, too many people like a multitude of crappy caches that boost their numbers

[+webscouter.]

Although it probably won't happen on the site if you are a premium member you can create a bookmark list and rate every cache you like. Then folks who know you and have similar likes can look at your bookmark list to see what caches they may like.

[+Criminal]

Didn't work

Edited August 9, 2005 by Criminal

[+mtn-man]

Although it probably won't happen on the site if you are a premium member you can create a bookmark list and rate every cache you like. Then folks who know you and have similar likes can look at your bookmark list to see what caches they may like.

I have that in my signature line. You can see traditional and virtual caches I liked.

EDIT: Looking at it, I need to add a few recent ones!

Edited August 9, 2005 by mtn-man

[+Joypa]

My avatar says it all.

[+Markwell]

It'll never happen, too many people like a multitude of  crappy caches that boost their numbers

Although it probably won't happen on the site...

 

Here's a thread where I made a possible suggestion, and here's Jeremy's response in the same thread...

 

We haven't had one so far because most rating systems online are crap. Most of them average scores (bad) or can be easily circumvented (also bad). For example, Bob doesn't like Sally so rates a cache 0 while everyone rates it a 5, but the average is diminished. Or Bob rates his own cache and Sally helps him give it a high score. Statistical averages are preferred but still faulty if you don't have a large enough sample to work from. So you'd have to supply ratings after, say, 10 users rate a cache. And most caches aren't found *that* often enough to warrant this kind of rating.

 

Markwell's suggestion is the most attractive kind of rating system. You still may have to worry about users upping their find count in order to have as many ratings as they can. I know of some sites that allow you to rate the rater which builds or reduces their ability to score. But now it starts to get complicated.

 

A non-rating system but something I like (and have been developing) is the ability to create lists, like "todo list" and "favorite cache" list. There will be an option to publish your list which will make it so others can see your list on cache listings that are on people's lists. If you're familiar with how Amazon lists work, this would be similar.

 

The final idea was my old post that referenced how Slashdot moderates their commentary on articles. Folks can moderate each post with scores like +1 Funny and you can filter out the comments that aren't rated (or rated as Flamebait -1).

 

What I'd hate to do is create a system that would punish harshly folks that place caches, but I would like to see a way to award quality caches through positive reinforcement. As long as we keep it friendly I'm not sure why someone wouldn't want it to happen.

 

Edit: Byron & Anne responded when I was posting the message so I removed the first paragraph asking for a better explanation.

[+Renegade Knight]

It'll never happen, too many people like a multitude of crappy caches that boost their numbers

If they like them how can they be crappy?

[+Markwell]

Ah, there's a fine distinction. They can like the numbers that are added to their find count, without actually liking the caches.

 

 

I'll say no more.

[+Tidalflame]

I think TerraCaching has some sort of cache rating system...

[+BlueDeuce]

I think TerraCaching has some sort of cache rating system...

You can rate my gc.com caches on their site?

 

[+treasure_hunter]

Ah, there's a fine distinction. They can like the numbers that are added to their find count, without actually liking the caches.

 

 

I'll say no more.

LoL Youve said enough.

[+jimmyreno]

It'll never happen, too many people like a multitude of  crappy caches that boost their numbers

If they like them how can they be crappy?

They don't care about quality, only about numbers.

 

They may not think there crappy, but as someone who only wants to do a few caches here and there, I only want to spend my time on the good ones.

 

Ducking under branches while tip toeing around poison oak with no view and traffic noise is crappy.

[+Tidalflame]

I think TerraCaching has some sort of cache rating system...

You can rate my gc.com caches on their site?

 

You answered your own question:

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

It'll never happen, too many people like a multitude of  crappy caches that boost their numbers

well who's the kinda of person who doesn't think that his cache is really good for example if I had never been out of Ohio I would probaly rate my cache a 2.5 or 3 now I would rate my cache a .2. also what about that person who has never climbed a fourteener (which is gorgeous)(pike's peak is not a fourteener because there is a stinkin road to the top climb something real)and lives in Ohio like me ,sniff, and thinks wow this is one of the best places around here i'll rate it a five. and since everybody can't climb a "real" fourteener they'll never have anything to compare to and remeber a picture isn't 1/1000 as good trust me.

Edited August 10, 2005 by Shoobie & the Sand Crabs

[+Renegade Knight]

Ah, there's a fine distinction. They can like the numbers that are added to their find count, without actually liking the caches...

That's one of the few intelligent comments on the numbers thing I've seen. I have not enjoyed every cache, but I have claimed every find.

 

jimmyreno in a post just above describes a cache hunt they would not like. However it sounds like some of my best. I like finding homeless camps and the ugly industrial slag zones every town has. I like finding areas where the abandoned factory has collapsed and nature has started to reclaim it. They make far more interesting urban hikes than the 2000th big lawn with a picnic table I've seen that some towns call a park. Most parks are not bad hides to me, but they are not as interesting as some of the ‘crap’ that gets pointed out in the forums.

 

This goes back to the point I was making. Crappy caches are in the eye of the beholder. So is fun. There truly are few universally great caches and there truly are few universally bad caches because cachers are a diverse bunch. Thats true with or without the numbers.