Cache Rating System

August 27, 2005

I've heard mention of a possible cache rating system.... Something where you could nominate your top 5-10% or something similar. Anything come of it?

24.7k · August 27, 2005

Not that I know of.

1.5k · August 27, 2005

Rumor has it that the rating system in place at Waymarking.com will eventually be adapted back to geocaching.com.

11.3k · August 27, 2005

I don't know how that would work since some caches deteriorate as people find them. :cry:

The person who placed it might have arranged the rocks just right so the cache location was barely visible. By the fifth finder, the pile of rocks is obvious from 15 feet away and all the good swag is reduced to broken McToys.

The only thing that doesn't change is the awesome view . . . if the cache happened to be placed where there was one. :laughing:

6.5k · August 27, 2005

You could bookmark a list of your favorites... Nice Example

7.2k · August 27, 2005

I don't know how that would work since some caches deteriorate as people find them.

Then that cache will fall in the score. Caches with owners who keep their cache maintained will keep their high scores. Caches that deteriorate into junk will get low scores. You're not just going to be looking at a cache's first score, but like the later logs, you'll be judging by those scores.

1.2k · August 27, 2005

Rumor has it that the rating system in place at Waymarking.com will eventually be adapted back to geocaching.com.

Well you know what they say about rumors. :laughing:

Don't believe everything you read/hear

2.7k · August 27, 2005

I've heard mention of a possible cache rating system.... Something where you could nominate your top 5-10% or something similar. Anything come of it?

No, but the Geocacher Rating System is up and working. I just gave you 5,000 points.

August 31, 2005

I was thinking that it would be really cool if geocachers could rate each geocache by several categories after they find them. The average scores for each category could then be posted for all caches. Then, a cacher, based on the category of their interest, could use the score to determine what caches to pursue. Some possible rating categories could be as follows:

quality of stash,

cleverness of the hide/container,

location's scenery,

location's interest/uniqueness,

location's historical importance,

location's other features,

overal quality,

etc.

What do you think of this idea, and what rating categories you would like to see?

medoug.

7.3k · August 31, 2005

I wouldn't mind a rating system on the cache pages, but not one that started to downgrade or upgrade the actuall cache. I think that sounds a little like big brother, and could be stressful to cache owners.

August 31, 2005

I've heard mention of a possible cache rating system.... Something where you could nominate your top 5-10% or something similar. Anything come of it?

Ya, I think we'll start with all that want a rating system. If the rating system rates caches from 1 to 10 where 10 is the best. Those that want the rating system will be rated at -100. That should get things started off on the right foot. Then all the rest of the caches have no place to go but up.

2.7k · August 31, 2005

Whatever happened to reading the cache logs?

August 31, 2005

Whatever happened to reading the cache logs?

Laziness

7.2k · August 31, 2005

Whatever happened to reading the cache logs?

You can't have a website filter on a logs and only 5 logs are included in PQs.

The "Read the Log" filter system means you have to actually open the cache page of every cache, even if the rest of the community thinks it's worthless junk that shouldn't even exist.

2.7k · August 31, 2005

Whatever happened to reading the cache logs?

You can't have a website filter on a logs and only 5 logs are included in PQs.

The "Read the Log" filter system means you have to actually open the cache page of every cache, even if the rest of the community thinks it's worthless junk that shouldn't even exist.

You will still need to read the cache logs to find out why the cache is rated the way it is. You can't tell why a cache is rated low just from it's rating. The may be an uninteresting, or it could a challanging cache that you would enjoy but others are rating low because they just don't challenges, or the cahce could have been placed by someone who in the past placed a couple of lousy caches and instead of giving them a chance a lot of cachers just automatically gives the cache a low score.

A current example of this the DNF log. If you skip a cache because it has a certian number (rating?) of DNF logs and do not read the DNF logs, you may be skipping a cache that isn't there or has other problems. On the other hand you may be skipping a challenging but very enjoyable cache.

I don't see how a rating system can replace log enties and be usefull as log entries.

7.2k · August 31, 2005

I don't see how a rating system can replace log enties and be usefull as log entries.

I'm not going to repeat several hundred words worth of discussion of rating systems. Do a search to get more about how an effective rating system could be set up and be much more effective than mere logs. Then you could see how it could work.

8.9k · August 31, 2005

Pertinent post in a long thread

Jeremy's response further in the thread.

Note that his respose is dated Nov 22 2004

September 1, 2005

a rating system would be wonderful, but not likely to happen.

geocaching.com is a for profit business, they don't want to alienate

the 90% of the customers who place crappy caches.

7.2k · September 1, 2005

...alienate the 90% of the customers who place crappy caches.

This probably has more truth to it than most folks realize.

3k · September 1, 2005

...alienate the 90% of the customers who place crappy caches.

This probably has more truth to it than most folks realize.

Or less truth to it than some folks realize.

7.2k · September 1, 2005

...alienate the 90% of the customers who place crappy caches.

This probably has more truth to it than most folks realize.

Or less truth to it than some folks realize.

Really? Care to explain some reasons why someone would not want their cache to have a number next to it that corresponds to how well the community likes it?

3k · September 1, 2005

Really? Care to explain some reasons why someone would not want their cache to have a number next to it that corresponds to how well the community likes it?

I wasn't arguing in favor of, or against, a rating system. I don't believe that that would be on topic anyway.

I was taking exception to a statement that I interpreted as meaning:

1) 90% of GC.com's customers place bad caches, and that

2) GC.com's basic business model is to support those who would place bad caches over those that would place good caches (whatever those are), and therefore GC.com won't implement a rating system.

I think neither of these two things is true.

7.2k · September 1, 2005

Really? Care to explain some reasons why someone would not want their cache to have a number next to it that corresponds to how well the community likes it?

I wasn't arguing in favor of, or against, a rating system. I don't believe that that would be on topic anyway.

I was taking exception to a statement that I interpreted as meaning:

1) 90% of GC.com's customers place bad caches, and that

2) GC.com's basic business model is to support those who would place bad caches over those that would place good caches (whatever those are), and therefore GC.com won't implement a rating system.

I think neither of these two things is true.

Oh. In that case I agree.

I don't think that 90% of cacher place crappy caches. Nor do I think gc.com's business model is specifically to encourage that.

The reason I quoted the part I did was to take out the involvement of gc.com. I was trying to convey that most likely the reason folks don't want a rating system is the fear their caches would be rated low. A straight forward system would probably get a few folks' dander up because the finders, in simply being honest, rated those caches low. Thus the reason I agreed with the part I quoted, it probably would upset a few folks who receive low scores overall.

Me, I'd welcome honest, subjective feedback. Of course, just about anyone's first reaction would have a bit of hurt feelings, but if the cache doesn't appeal to them then so be it.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing competitions in, instead of the number of caches found, the highest rated caches and the highest rated cache hiders. The trick is coming up with a system that is fair, self regulating, and hard to manipulate. Then instead of folks getting upset with low scores, they can take that information and learn to create better caches.

The trick is creating such a system.

September 1, 2005

Cache ratings.... Is that something like rating the ladies at Mustang Ranch?

Byron

1.5k · September 1, 2005

Cache ratings.... Is that something like rating the ladies at Mustang Ranch?

Byron

No, it would be more like rating waymarks.

From their FAQ (try substituting the word cache for waymark as you read this):

Ratings

Occasionally you may wish to view waymarks that other people have found to be exceptional. Waymark ratings provide a way for you to quickly see how other people feel about a particular waymark. It’s usually a good idea to read the log paired with the rating to get the proper context.

Who gets to rate waymarks?

You must be a Premium Member to rate waymarks.

How many times can I rate a waymark?

You can rate each waymark once.

Can I change my rating?

Yes. You can either update your rating from the original log, or you can post a new log with a new rating. Posting a new log with a new rating will overwrite your original rating.

How do I rate waymarks?

When you submit your log you will be given the option of rating the waymark on a scale of one to five (a score of five as the highest).

Can I filter waymarks by rating?

No, but we have designed the site to be improved upon and this will likely be one of the first additions in the future.

<edit> Sorry, adding a bit more info:

I’m only interested in viewing the most popular categories. Is that possible?

Yes! Premium Members can filter the directory using the Popularity Filter. Found at the lower right of any directory page, there is a slider bar that allows you to limit the viewable categories to a percentage of the directory which you define. The slider bar is broken into 10 increments, each representing 10% of the entire directory. For example, if you set your slider bar to the center, your filter results will contain only those categories rated in the top 50% of the directory.

Why would I want to use the Popularity Filter?

While developing the Waymarking.com website we realized that there would eventually be hundreds of thousands of categories. A new user to the Waymarking.com website would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume available. The Popularity Filter is a way to reduce information overload. Premium Members like to use the Popularity Filter to avoid wading through niche categories that appeal only to a small audience. However, Premium Members that are interested in categories with less activity can view them by lowering the Popularity Filter. You can also link directly to any Waymarking category no matter what the popularity level is.

Edited September 1, 2005 by KoosKoos

September 6, 2005

Some recap.

1. Markwell's summary

2. An answer (by me)

. . . .

Rather than showing the best caches, I'd prefer a system which highlights the worst. In my opinion, people are much more likely to agree on what the worst caches are, than the best.

It's here

I agree with that !

The very best caches are often long hikes or time-consuming, not typical the type of cache one would do week on.

Second : word spreads quickly about the very best caches, the proposed system would be redundant for these at some degree.

But ...

a rating system would be wonderful, but not likely to happen.
geocaching.com is a for profit business, they don't want to alienate

the 90% of the customers who place crappy caches.

It's here

Now 90% is a matter of appreciation ... :lol:

But I fear we will go into a Yahoo-games scenario with lots of players coming and as many leaving disgusted

A rating system is part of something broader.

Geocaching.com's role is that of the middleman trying to match offer and demand.

(Other) Information and the ability of selecting quickly among lots of information is important too.

I think some of the cache-attributes could have been more precise (instead of "long hike" it could have been the distance).

What to think to force cache-owners to describe very shortly what the hike is about : "a walk mainly in the streets and the community park of ...", "a walk in the forest and along the lakes of ...".

When having to write down option (1), one can hope that some cache-owners will think a second time about their cache (at least some... )

Before deciding on any system, I would suggest to try it out small-scale with paper and pencil (or spreadsheet ) say at the level of a county or so with the help of volunteers.

Some folks (not me) don't like their caches being rated. Here is a possibility : An option in the profile : I don't want to see ratings of my/any caches. In addition, I personally would welcome the option : "I don't want to see any found statistics" too.

Here's another argument for a cache rating system. In a few cases logs are deleted by the owner. Geocaching.com takes a very simple view "the cache is the owner's property". I.m.o. the balance of power is too much in favor of the owner, a rating system would somewhat restore that. ( ... a statistic of deleted logs per owner would tell something too )

Finally, another few words about the proposed methods.

Any 0-1 answer is the most imprecise (take any statistics course about the binomial distribution, experiment with various values of p and calculate the standard deviation). It requires LOTS of data before one can decide which of two options is definitely better.

A ranking on scale is somewhat better, rather than 1 ... 10 I would advise A, B, C ... F as a scale given some misunderstandings about the scale 1-10 (see via link on second line of this page).

Allowing people to allocate a freely chosen number to a cache is i.m.o. the richest in information content

September 11, 2005

I recently took a trip to the Jacksonville Florida area and did some cache seeking. During my experience here I began to see a need for perhaps a method that would allow cache seekers to "inform" on other cachers who simply place "trash caches". Trash caches are those that violate laws, geocaching guidelines or common sense. I believe allowing cachers to "rate" a cache would be a valuable feature and think this would be a great "Premium Member" feature.

Rating caches would also allow enthusiasts to search on a minimum rating value and avoid "trash caches" and lead to a more enjoyable experience as a whole. Let me give you some examples of caches that exist on or near Amelia Island Florida. Micro's were everywhere.

* Caches clearly on private property without the consent of the

owners. For example caches on the security gates of private residential communities.

* A micro cache located at the top of a ladder on a billboard, with

the post of the billboard clearly marked no trespassing.

* A cache located on the back of a guard rail on a very busy highway

with cars passing by at 70 MPH.

* A micro container, located where a traditional cache would have made

much more sense. In a heavily forested park under heavy canopy a quarter mile from the nearest roadway.

* A micro located on the underside of a gas pump at a public gas

station.

* A micro hidden in litter, in this case an aluminum can where lots of

other trash was found. The cache was accidentally discovered during CITO.

When the owner was contacted about placing a cache in litter, he deleted all the logs of the cacher who made the complaint.

Clearly there need to be better guidelines for Micro placement, but in the case of the Amelia Island area it would not matter because the area is saturated with caches of a micro nature placed by individuals who do not maintain caches, verify the integrity of their cache and fail to follow the guidelines set up by Groundspeak.

But complaining without a solution is pointless. I believe a system by which premium users could identify a cache value, one through five (stars) as a caching experience would be very valuable. Cachers could only rate a cache if they had logged their activity associated with it, and even if the cache owner archives the log of the geocacher, they could not delete the rating of the cache and could not rate their own caches.

Attributes of a good cache might include:

* A spectacular find location: Beautiful, historically valuable,

educational or especially significant to bringing to light an area that would have been overlooked.

* Well placed cache, the proper container for the proper location.

* Adheres to the guidelines of Groundspeak for placing caches.

* Well maintained by the cache owner or other geocachers.

* The cache presented opportunity to improve the cache location

through CITO.

* And lastly how enjoyable the search for the cache was to the cacher.

If by my example each of the above was rated on a one through five and then the computer gave a cumulative score for the cache. "You rated "hidden Cache Five a total score of 1.4, the average rating for this cache to date is 1.3." Cachers would have a pretty good idea that this cache might be a waste of time unless you are just hunting numbers.

I am a family cacher. This means I enjoy the sport with my brother, my son, daughter and wife. My cache hunting enjoyment depends heavily on the overall experience of my family as a whole. We have met several cachers of the same sort while out on the trail. We even met a Boy Scout Troop that caches for a weekend hobby. I think if it is possible, a rating system by the seekers, and not the hiders, would be a great addition to Groundspeaks website.

Mark Mettler, Ph.D.

An avid fan

September 11, 2005

<big snippage>
Me, I'd welcome honest, subjective feedback. Of course, just about anyone's first reaction would have a bit of hurt feelings, but if the cache doesn't appeal to them then so be it.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing competitions in, instead of the number of caches found, the highest rated caches and the highest rated cache hiders. The trick is coming up with a system that is fair, self regulating, and hard to manipulate. Then instead of folks getting upset with low scores, they can take that information and learn to create better caches.

The trick is creating such a system.

Sissy-n-CR of the South Carolina Geocachers makes a good point! Especially when you consider because of poor cache placement the legislature in S.C. is considering a law to prevent the placement of caches in S.C.. It was because some caches found their way into places where caches probably should not have been in the first place, graveyards, federally protected game preserves and on private property without the consent of property owners.

I agree that by allowing cachers to rate the caches they are seeking, some cache placements would recieve very poor feedback or bad ratings. This is GOOD. It would as she stated, promote better cache placement. Geocachers could learn from others what makes a good rated cache placement. And in turn serious cachers who do it for the enjoyment, not numbers, could have a search criteria that filters out the "crappy" caches.

The problem lies with irresponsible placement. Imagine what a negative image Geocaching gets in the law enforcement and public news eye when cachers are found climbing billboards along busy highways in North Florida trying to find a magnetic key hider. Twenty or so motorists call 911 to report suspicious activity on a billboard on a busy highway, the police respond and find it was just some innocent geocachers trying to recover a hidden cache, which they believed to be placed legitimately. Unfortunately, the placer did not get permission, violated the private property clause, disregarded the no tresspassing sign, and placed a cache where it could have endangered the life of the cache seeker. (Imagine falling 50 feet to your death at age 15 while trying to recover a micro cache on a billboard ladder and the following attempts of the family to sue someone for wrongful death.)

The point here is the sport needs some self regualtion. Guidelines posted on the website are often ignored in the haste to place just one more micro. Heavens knows when the saturation of Micro Caches climbs abve 70% in a rural vacation setting something is wrong. Too many players have become consumed with "numbers" and forgotten all about quality.

I all for a rating system. I'd pay for the feature!

Edited September 11, 2005 by Newmarch

1.5k · September 11, 2005

* Caches clearly on private property without the consent of the
owners. For example caches on the security gates of private residential communities.

* A micro cache located at the top of a ladder on a billboard, with

the post of the billboard clearly marked no trespassing.

* A micro located on the underside of a gas pump at a public gas

station.

I'm all for rating caches and letting people sort out what appeals to them in the hopes of increasing the community's ideas of what are "good" caches.

On these examples, though, if they CLEARLY violate the site guidelines, wouldn't an SBA log trigger the reviewer checking into the status? I mean, if they violate the guidelines, they should be archived...not simply rate poorly.

September 12, 2005

Well one of the "features" of the cache post is that cache owners can delete any log they choose. So, if you report it via a find or did not find, chances are the cache owner, in the defensive mode, just deletes your log. In this case the Jacksonville Sheriff office will file a official complaint with Groundspeak. GCMNVH was the cache mentioned in this case.

2.7k · September 12, 2005

* Caches clearly on private property without the consent of the
owners. For example caches on the security gates of private residential communities.

* A micro cache located at the top of a ladder on a billboard, with

the post of the billboard clearly marked no trespassing.

* A micro located on the underside of a gas pump at a public gas

station.

I'm all for rating caches and letting people sort out what appeals to them in the hopes of increasing the community's ideas of what are "good" caches.

On these examples, though, if they CLEARLY violate the site guidelines, wouldn't an SBA log trigger the reviewer checking into the status? I mean, if they violate the guidelines, they should be archived...not simply rate poorly.

Isn't that what a rating system is all about. Getting rid of the opinion of one or a very small group of people, not from that area, that currently have full control over the geocache listings and give that control over to the geocaching community, that actually cache in that area.

September 12, 2005

Here is an idea for a cache rating system...

As a new cacher, you are awarded say.... 20 points. Then, with each time you choose to rate a cache, you are awarded 5 more points that you "spend" on the rating of the cache you visited. You can rate the cache on a scale of 1-10. On average, the caches would average out to 5... which is average. You could save the points for the really good caches, and let people know which are lame. This would also avoid a situation where cachers rated every cache with the highest rating. To avoid hurting feelings, only the highest rated caches would be displayed, avoiding alienating those with really really low ratings...

September 13, 2005

Then, with each time you choose to rate a cache, you are awarded 5 more points that you "spend" on the rating of the cache you visited. You can rate the cache on a scale of 1-10

This approves upon a fixed range, in that it garantuees in the long run that every cacher rates other caches with the same average.

On the other hand, it preassumes that any cacher visits "average" caches which is not necessarily true (even only restricted to his own opinion about caches).

September 26, 2005

a rating system would be wonderful, but not likely to happen.
geocaching.com is a for profit business, they don't want to alienate

the 90% of the customers who place crappy caches.

I was recently given a request to appear before a legislative committee in South Carolina that is considering a law to make geocache placement illegal in South Carolina. What is strange about this is I live in Georgia. I was issued this document by request of a park ranger who found me seeking a cache in a federal park. I was honest and explained what I was doing. He was angered because he had explicitly asked for no caches to be placed on the property.

Now this opens a big can of worms because I think geocaching is great sport, and I hate to see everyone in my neighboring state punished because a few geocachers purposely violate the policies and guidelines of Geocaching.com. Cache approvers can only be so vigilant and all knowing. Part of the problem is the number of cache approvers per geographic area. How would a cache approver in Atlanta know what cache location might be inappropriate 300 miles away? I believe that there should be more reviewers with more limited approval range to help increase the likelihood of an inappropriate cache being placed, but then it would also help if we all considered ourselves a team and remembered our actions could adversely effect the sport as we know it.

September 26, 2005

...alienate the 90% of the customers who place crappy caches.

This probably has more truth to it than most folks realize.

Or less truth to it than some folks realize.

Really? Care to explain some reasons why someone would not want their cache to have a number next to it that corresponds to how well the community likes it?

Oh I can explain it! Let's say I am a "number's freak" and I want to have a LARGE number of caches placed by my name. I would NOT want the community to know that others believe that my efforts to get my numbers up represent a bad mark on the geocaching community as a whole. Thousands of new comers to the sport are coming! Hey if they knew that I was wrecking the sport, they might not visit my caches. They also might be forced to take some personal responsibility for the quality and maintenance of my cache.

7.2k · September 26, 2005

I was recently given a request to appear before a legislative committee in South Carolina that is considering a law to make geocache placement illegal in South Carolina. What is strange about this is I live in Georgia. I was issued this document by request of a park ranger who found me seeking a cache in a federal park. I was honest and explained what I was doing. He was angered because he had explicitly asked for no caches to be placed on the property.

Which cache was this?

Additionally, I fail to understand why the State would want to know anything about what happens on Federal land. They have nothing to do with it and has no control over it.

Quite frankly, I find it hard to comprehend a cache would be on NPS land without permission in South Carolina after the fine-toothed comb we took to every single cache here.

September 27, 2005

Any cache rating system would have to be very simple - for example related to a question like "how much did you enjoy hunting for this cache?". A scale of 1 - 10 would probably be best.

You might build in a feature to keep people from only giving high grades to all the caches they find, but even without that, I think such a system will actually work.

BoardGameGeek.com has such a system (for rating board games). See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/top50.htm . It's working quite well. Of course, here, the public does not "own" the game like people own a cache.

8.9k · September 27, 2005

The system that I've currently been suggesting is fairly simple. Here it is in as few words as I can boil it down to...

For every 10 caches a cacher finds, s/he gets to rate one of them as your favorite. The favorites can change over time. No explanation is needed or qualifications. If a certain minimum number* of people think that the cache is worthy of being in their top 10%, it is given an attribute of "favorite cache".

There are nuances discussed at lenght in this thread about when a cache gets archived, etc., etc. But that's the bare bones version.

That's on the seeker's side. Pretty easy.

On the person trying to find "Favorite" caches...

When the attributes are then searchable in Pocket Queries (as Jeremy has indicated they will be), seekers could limit as they would with a pocket query (regionally, by type/size) AND limit it to caches with the attribute of "Favorite" to find those best in a region.

*The discussion is still open ended as to what the minimum number of cachers thinking a cache is worthy would trip the attribute of a favorite. There are two possibilities:

1) Set some arbitrary minimum number like 10 that would trip the attribute, or

2) leave it as a variable on the PQ page - "Show me X caches that at least 10 geocachers have recommended" where 10 is a variable number of anything equal to or higher than 10. These two methods can co-exist.

Of course, there are nay-sayers to this idea. Jeremy has indicated that he sees merit in this system, and some ways to utilize existing functionality on the site to implement.

Cache Rating System

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment