Who Rates Caches....

[+Haggis Hunter]

A nice simple question, Who rates the caches that they have done?

 

Not everyone who visits these forums rate the caches that they have done. I have two caches that haven't been rated, 1 just has the one find, so I can understand that, but the other is fairly new but has got 8 finds, a few of those people visit these forums, but they haven't rated the cache.

Which says to me that they don't rate caches, which is fine, each to their own way of playing the game. Or they don't know how to rate a cache?

[+Moote]

I always go to GUK and rate caches which I have completed

 

Milton (aka moote)

[+The Knights who say Ni]

Ditto. We have rated all Caches found in the UK (as GUK supports only UK based Caches)

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Always

[+walkergeoff and wife]

Same here. GUK makes it very easy. Pity they do not cover non-UK caches.

[+third-degree-witch]

I have rated all the caches ive done

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Chances are if visitors don't rate them, they don't use any of the stats on G:UK, so not only is the cache owner losing out they are also. I personally feel guilty until I've rated a cache I've found, as the placer put the effort in from which I've got enjoyment from, so it's the least I can do to show my appreciation.

 

Dave

[+HazelS]

yep... I rate our finds...always!

[+Stuey]

I enjoy rating them, and can appreciate the hard work and effort that went in to setting up the facility (thanks guys!). I like the way you can view your log direct from the ratings page too.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Amazing, you have a cache that hasn't been rated, you start a thread and it gets rated, only 65%, but I presume that is from one person and it is 2 1/2 stars.

 

Thankyou to whoever rated it.

[Alan White]

Who rates the caches that they have done?

We do. Always. We think it's a great way of giving feedback on caches, and helps us and others identify caches that they might find interesting.

 

For example, we've identified caches for our next few milestones based on nearby top-rated caches.

[Nediam]

I've rated all the ones I've visited

[+Kelsborrow Wayfinders]

I don't rate caches although I do look at the excellent UK stats site. However I would not look at the ratings to decide which cache to do as I prefer to rely on the comments in the log. I personally don't like to rate them because I feel that there are too many factors involved to simplify it into a mark out of 5.

[Helen in Mustardland]

It's taken me ages to find GeocacheUK. But now I have, I've rated all the caches I've done, and will do all future ones. Love the stats too, although I can't get the interactive map to work, I think my computers (work and home) are just too sluggish to cope with it.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I don't rate caches although I do look at the excellent UK stats site. However I would not look at the ratings to decide which cache to do as I prefer to rely on the comments in the log. I personally don't like to rate them because I feel that there are too many factors involved to simplify it into a mark out of 5.

I can agree with your point of view, but I rate them as I like to see how mine have been rated, I don't take the rating as gospel on how my cache is viewed. People like to see how their caches are viewed by others, whether you like it or not your caches have been rated. That doesn't mean you have to pay any attention to it, but it would be nice to rate caches so that others can get some enjoyment from it.

 

But as I said in my opening comment, each to their own how they want to play the game.

[Deego]

It's taken me ages to find GeocacheUK. But now I have, I've rated all the caches I've done, and will do all future ones. Love the stats too, although I can't get the interactive map to work, I think my computers (work and home) are just too sluggish to cope with it.

Try the GIS maps . They should work on most machines.

 

 

I Rate all mine and think GUK/TUK is Fantastic (Well I would wouldn't I)

[+Fangsy]

I only found out about being able to rate UK caches recently and decided to back-rate all the ones I had found in the UK. As a side note, how do I find out if anyone has rated my hidden caches and how they were rated?

[+Kelsborrow Wayfinders]

I would be lying if I said I hadn't looked at my own caches but it's a bit too much like all these 50 Greatest One Legged Drummer programmes that appear on Channel 4 on a Saturday night (without Stuart Maconie and Wayne Hemingway telling us what they think). A bit of fun but unreliable. Everyone has a different reason why they enjoy or don't enjoy a cache and it isn't reflected in a score out of 5.

 

For instance, how do people rate a cache with a brilliant walk where the container is obvious but contains rubbish? Do you mark it high because the walk is great or low because the cache was easy to find. Alternatively do you mark it low because you were trying to do 20 caches in a day and didn't fancy the walk or high because it was easy to find so you could move on to the next one.

 

Funnily enough the reason some people have given for rating a cache (to show their appreciation) is one of the reasons why I avoid doing it. I would hate to give someone a low mark when they have obviously set up a cache with the best of intentions just because it's pouring with rain, I got covered in mud and trod in something unpleasant.

 

Having said that I appreciate the effort that has gone into it and can see why people like it but at the moment it doesn't play a part for me.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I only found out about being able to rate UK caches recently and decided to back-rate all the ones I had found in the UK. As a side note, how do I find out if anyone has rated my hidden caches and how they were rated?

You can use this option to add to your cache page, that way you won't need to keep looking up where yours is placed?

[+jochta]

I only found out about being able to rate UK caches recently and decided to back-rate all the ones I had found in the UK. As a side note, how do I find out if anyone has rated my hidden caches and how they were rated?

You can use this option to add to your cache page, that way you won't need to keep looking up where yours is placed?

Or do what I did and knock up a webpage with all your caches listed with the ratings...

 

My Cache Ratings

 

Still not convinced about the rating system though. The huge majority are knocking around the 2.5 to 3.5 mark.

 

If you do take the time to look at mine you'll see that all of them score (on average) between 2 and 3.5, yet this is the difference between top 98% and top 19%.

 

It's the chalk and cheese syndrome. Yes, there will be a few right at the top which are universally loved and a few at the bottom which are universally hated. All the rest will score a mixture of scores between 2 and 4 (roughly).

 

Is there really that much difference between a 2.5 cache and a 3.5 cache? Of course there isn't.

 

Maybe a score based upon number of scores above 3 and below 3. e.g. a cache has scored

 

1.5, 2.5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 4

 

4 of 10 of vistors would recommend this cache

2 of 10 of visitors wouldn't recommed this cache

 

And in this example 4 of 10 are ambivalent

[+KiwiGary]

Yes I always rate the caches we visit.

 

I also do use it to find caches, if I am going somewhere that we have never cached in before.

 

But I agree the rating does depend on your mood and the area.

 

It is a indication of peoples love of a cache, so we are keen to visit any five star caches.

 

See ya...Gary

[+Pieman]

I find it useful when caching out of the area, but it would be even more useful if you could select caches in an area based on the difficulty. Why? Well a 1 difficulty cache is going to have to be pretty exceptional to rate 3.5 and above whereas a 5 star cache that had a 3 and below rating is probably disappointing.

 

Although I am occasionally baffled by the scores that other people have given caches I've done, in general I find they give a pretty good indication of how interesting a cache is. I'm also very impressed with the statistical manipulation whcih takes into account the number of people who have rated a cache.

[SlytherinAlex]

How do you find out what ratings other people have given your caches?

 

-

[+Moote]

How do you find out what ratings other people have given your caches?

 

-

I better go and up-rate the 2 Slytherin caches I have done too 5 Just in case there is a way

 

Milton (aka moote)

[+Teuchters]

....the statistical manipulation whcih takes into account the number of people who have rated a cache.....

I you are the only person who has rated a cache, then the actual rating isn't what you have scored it. For instance (I think) if you rate a cache with 5 stars, but are the only person to have rated the cache so far, it actually appears as 3.9 stars. Presumably the rating changes with the number of folk who have voted. But quite how, perhaps someone could explain??

[+Stuey]

perhaps someone could explain??

The Rank calculation used is this page is taken from Freshmeat.

 

weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

 

where:

R = average for the cache (mean) = (average score)

v = number of votes for the cache = (scores)

m = minimum votes required to be listed in the top 10(currently 1)

C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 2.8071691502136)

 

It prevents a few extreme opinions on a cache pulling the average right up or right down.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

But quite how, perhaps someone could explain??

Simply put, I think it's an average of the scores given and the average score for all caches (altho I'm not sure what weighting the database average gets). More ratings of 5 stars would then pull the score up further.

 

It's done that way so that a one off 5 or 0.5 star rating doesn't affect the overall rating too much.

 

The more times a cache is rated, the more meaningful the rating becomes, because more actual ratings will pull the cache towards it's 'real' score.

 

T

[+The Blorenges]

This thread was giving me a guilt complex... ...Never rated a cache....never visited GUK! How remiss of me.

OK now! Been there ! Visited ! Rated caches !

Conscience now clear ...for the moment, anyway

 

Will I be censured for use of too many smilies now?

 

Mrs B

[+Messe]

Did not start rating caches until over 200 finds as i did not understand...i guess other cachers have found that problem as well.....i have rated all caches visited and it is nice to have your cache rated to see if it was enjoyable.......just an afterthought...when logging the cache on the found page,how hard would it be to have something like..please rate this cache on that page?...might encourage more cachers to do it.....

[+2202]

I rate caches.

I rate them critically.

Of the 300 odd that I have done I have given 90% a mark no higher than 2.

The remaining 8% will be 3-3.5 and the last 2% either a 4 or a 4.5

As Jochta has said, there is too much blandness in the ratings, I have come across too many mediocre caches that have a 2.5-3 rating.

A majority of people are not critical enough (in all subjects, not just this one) and cannot distinguish between what is quality and what is not.

 

Most cachers dont know about the forums let alone GUK.

[+Sensei TSKC]

I rate caches. Mind you, on an errattic basis - when I remember or get gently reminded.

 

Oss!

[+Pharisee]

Did not start rating caches until over 200 finds as i did not understand...i guess other cachers have found that problem as well.....i have rated all caches visited and it is nice to have your cache rated to see if it was enjoyable.......just an afterthought...when logging the cache on the found page,how hard would it be to have something like..please rate this cache on that page?...might encourage more cachers to do it.....

A simple request at the bottom of your cache page might work

 

If you enjoyed this cache, or even if you didn't, please consider logging on to GeocacheUK and giving it a rating

Edited September 19, 2005 by Pharisee

[+The Blorenges]

I have come across too many mediocre caches that have a 2.5-3 rating.

If you have a rating of 5 stars, and you feel that a particular cache is "of average quality" then surely it would be correct to give it 2.5 as a score because that's what mediocre means. I've rated the majority of my cache finds as 2.5. If they have a particularly enjoyable view, or a good puzzle attached to them then I feel they may merit a 3 or 3.5. I've given a 4 to very few that we've visited - awarded to caches that were particularly unusual or had a unique feature. So far I haven't given any 5 star ratings ... but that's because I'm waiting for that very exceptional cache! Perhaps we'll do one for our 100th!

Mrs B

[+MarcB]

I always do - I've also noticed that only 9 of the 149 caches I've done have been in the top 2000! In some ways I'm not at all surprised, I've always been kind of let down by the vast majority of caches I've done, the best still probably being Fisherman's Walk in North Wales.

Perhaps it's time I went for quality rather than... er... ones near to me.

MarcB

[+MarcB]

...I've also had the sheer pleasure of doing the UK's second worst cache. I'll leave it to the curious to find out.

[+Hi-Tek]

I haven't yet and have no desire to do so.

 

It's purely subjective and writing a log be it glowing, indifferent or sparse in my view is sufficient for the way I play the game.

 

For me cache rating is an irrelevant issue.

[markandlynn]

All ratings become subjective at some point. The total score out of 10 seems the best way to me. It helps filter out the great and the poor as stated before the ones in the middle are the ones in the middle and scores from 2 - 4 will probably be considered the norm. As a planning tool when out of your immediate area it does help however unless one of caches comes out really low on the ratings we won't be archiving them.

Our lowest rated cache (Fly By) is a fairly ordinary location but on certain days ie flying or racing days it can be an interesting walk.

[+Pharisee]

All ratings become subjective at some point. The total score out of 10 seems the best way to me.

I sorta figured that giving a cache a rating of 0 to 5 stars in 1/2 star increments was very similar to giving it a score out of 10

[markandlynn]

All ratings become subjective at some point. The total score out of 10 seems the best way to me.

I sorta figured that giving a cache a rating of 0 to 5 stars in 1/2 star increments was very similar to giving it a score out of 10

Thats why i said 10

I think 1/2 a star says a lot about the quality of a cache

[+Pharisee]

All ratings become subjective at some point. The total score out of 10 seems the best way to me.

I sorta figured that giving a cache a rating of 0 to 5 stars in 1/2 star increments was very similar to giving it a score out of 10

Thats why i said 10

I think 1/2 a star says a lot about the quality of a cache

Sorry.... mis-read you post.... must remember to engage brain at some point before posting

[+Pharisee]

On the whole, I’m very pleased with the ratings that my caches have been given although I’m a little surprised in a couple of cases.

My highest rated cache is in the top 1%, currently number 7. I’m very chuffed about that as it took over four months of planning and construction, to say nothing of the distance I drove and walked sorting out locations.

I have 4 more in the top 5%. All of these are multis or ‘unknown’ caches which involve a considerable expenditure of energy on the part of the cacher to complete (and I thought cachers were a lazy lot!!! ).

Of the remaining 11, eight of them are range from 8% down to 47% and they’re a motley collection on various types and sizes (but NO micros) with what I consider the more difficult or time consuming ones being rated above the easier ones.

What I did find a little surprising was the scores the remaining three had received. One of them, rated 77% probably deserves it as it really doesn’t have a lot going for it, apart from the smell of the adjacent sewerage works . It’s the other two that surprised me the most. They are straight forward, traditionals with probably the best views of any of my caches. One, rated 84% has a splendid view that spans 3 counties and the other, rated 70% is high on a ridge overlooking a huge chunk of Bedfordshire and on a clear day you can see for miles.

Ok… they’re both easy caches with the only effort expended being the (pleasant) walk to and from them so why am I surprised…? Well there have been a lot of forum threads over the past couple of years asking folk what they like best about geocaching and I’ll bet that 90% of the cachers that contributed have said… “Oh, it’s the locations that do it for me”. The ratings would seem to indicate that they’re telling little ‘porkies’

[markandlynn]

It does appear that the caches with extra effort get the higher ratings.

It would be interesting (teasel ?) to see a breakdown of which type of cache is mort likely to be highly rated

It cant all be about location this cache is 310 feet from this cache yet over a 1000 caches are between them ratings wise.

Apparently one of our caches either scores very high or very low with no middle ground.

[+Haggis Hunter]

It does appear that the caches with extra effort get the higher ratings.

It would be interesting (teasel ?) to see a breakdown of which type of cache is mort likely to be highly rated

It cant all be about location this cache is 310 feet from this cache yet over a 1000 caches are between them ratings wise.

Apparently one of our caches either scores very high or very low with no middle ground.

I think you can safely say, that although both of these caches are close to each other, they are completely different types of caches, one is adventurous the other is one that you can walk by with the kids. I would expect this is the main reason for a difference.

 

However I have two caches that are placed on the same hill, this one with fabulous views over Edinburgh and to the east, gets 70%, but only 0.1mile away is this one with more great views but to the west gets 36%.

 

The main difference between these two is that one is a micro and the other is a large container. So I reckon that the container or type of challenge has more to do with rating than location.

[+walkergeoff and wife]

I have rated all the caches that I have found, but, having followed this thread, I am even more of the opinion that the value of cache rating is questionable. After all, people put their comments in the log, and these are sent to the owners of the cache. Rating could be considered a redundant extra, as it is only a number, whereas logging comments contain much more info - although I agree that some of them are pretty sparse.

 

When I go caching I take more notice of previous logs, and have never used cache ratings as a guideline precisely because, as has been observed by several contributors, they are so subjective.

 

In fact the main criterion when I am caching is whether the cache is do-able in the time that I have available. As has also been said, someone has gone to the trouble of placing a cache, and some have gone to more trouble than others. I just enjoy the search, I enjoy going to places, even very local to me, which I did not know exist. I enjoy the feeling of success when I find the cache. None of these things are anything to do with how 'good' the cache is. They are all about how I feel about this great hobby of ours!

 

PS - I also enjoy the numbers game!

Edited September 20, 2005 by walkergeoff

[+Moote]

I have rated all the caches that I have found, but, having followed this thread, I am even more of the opinion that the value of cache rating is questionable. After all, people put their comments in the log, and these are sent to the owners of the cache. Rating could be considered a redundant extra, as it is only a number, whereas logging comments contain much more info - although I agree that some of them are pretty sparse.

 

When I go caching I take more notice of previous logs, and have never used cache ratings as a guideline precisely because, as has been observed by several contributors, they are so subjective.

 

In fact the main criterion when I am caching is whether the cache is do-able in the time that I have available. As has also been said, someone has gone to the trouble of placing a cache, and some have gone to more trouble than others. I just enjoy the search, I enjoy going to places, even very local to me, which I did not know exist. I enjoy the feeling of success when I find the cache. None of these things are anything to do with how 'good' the cache is. They are all about how I feel about this great hobby of ours!

 

PS - I also enjoy the numbers game!

I think really the rating give you a quick over view of what other thought of a cache the cache, so I would say it is not redundant, as some users include the rating on thr GC.com cache page. similar to the cache page Williams Canalside

 

Milton (aka moote)

[+The Forester]

I've always thought that the star rating on the cachepage really ought to be determined by the cachefinders, not the cache creator.

 

If I create a cache, I know exactly where the thing is, so I'm somewhat biassed in assessing the ease/difficulty of the find. If it's terrain which I find easy to traverse, then I'm biassed as to the ease of the terrain.

 

I think that it ought to be the finders who indicate the star rating of a cache, in exactly the same way that they can upload their own derived co-ords for a trad cache. It should be a normal, if optional, part of logging a find on the cachepage. The listed star rating should be a simple arithmetical average of the reported star ratings by the finders with the cache creator simply being the first to log a rating.

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+Munkeh]

I have tried to rate caches that I've found but G:UK always say I aint found them yet, I can try rating the first cache I found now and it tells me I have not yet found it, yet it counts it in my stats

[+jochta]

I have rated all the caches that I have found, but, having followed this thread, I am even more of the opinion that the value of cache rating is questionable.  After all, people put their comments in the log, and these are sent to the owners of the cache.  Rating could be considered a redundant extra, as it is only a number, whereas logging comments contain much more info - although I agree that some of them are pretty sparse.

 

When I go caching I take more notice of previous logs, and have never used cache ratings as a guideline precisely because, as has been observed by several contributors, they are so subjective.

 

In fact the main criterion when I am caching is whether the cache is do-able in the time that I have available.  As has also been said, someone has gone to the trouble of placing a cache, and some have gone to more trouble than others.  I just enjoy the search, I enjoy going to places, even very local to me, which I did not know exist.  I enjoy the feeling of success when I find the cache.  None of these things are anything to do with how 'good' the cache is.  They are all about how I feel about this great hobby of ours!

 

PS - I also enjoy the numbers game!

I think really the rating give you a quick over view of what other thought of a cache the cache, so I would say it is not redundant, as some users include the rating on thr GC.com cache page. similar to the cache page Williams Canalside

 

Milton (aka moote)

But logs are rarely brutally honest are they? It's like ebay feedback, it's skewed positive because buyers/sellers are scared of receiving retalitory negative feedback. I've seen threads on here where cache owners are not happy with a negative log they've received

 

I'm suprised by some of the scores mine have got if I judge them by the logs, i.e. top 90% but never a bad word spoken about it in the logs. But now there is the chance to give an honest anonymous star rating without the threat of come back.

 

I do like the fact that my ironic cache 'What A Load Of Rubbish' is only top 98%!

 

The rating alone doesn't tell you the whole story. What type of cache are you interested in today? A cache n dash which seem to score low, a micro (also seem to score low). Or something that requires some brainpower (scores highly). Many of the top rated caches are complex, time consuming multis or puzzles (I believe) - not something you might consider doing on a brief visit to an area.

 

I try and create caches that I would be interested in doing myself because I assume there must be other geocachers out there like me, and that's fine for me as those cachers will be satisfied.

 

You can't please everyone all of the time. Hence my reticence in saying the ratings are really that much use.

 

Has anyone used the ratings when caching in a new area? Where do you start to dismiss doing caches? Ratings of under 4? Under 3? One of my all time favourite caches scores a mediocre, run of the mill 3.1 - what I consider to be one of my best caches (fantastic location, superb walk, good hide with decent contents IMHO) is only 2.9

[+Happy Humphrey]

Has anyone used the ratings when caching in a new area?

Yep, I've looked through the top 200 or so to see if there are any in the area I'm visiting. It's a useful list as a starting point to spot really good caches: have a look through the list, read the cache description then bookmark any you fancy doing. Reading through the logs of every cache in a new area is a non-starter. I know it's all subjective, but if there are 100 caches and you'll only have time to do 3 it's a useful starting point.

 

HH

[+Rocky Balboa]

I've rated all the caches I’ve visited, I like the page a lot and I would definitely use it to find a good cache if I was visiting another part of the country. I see what some people mean when they say that different people look for different things in caches though, thus making the results un-helpful if you’re looking for something in particular.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to be able to score caches in categories as well as overall. That way we could see the top hundred views, the top hundred walks and the top 100 hundred scary caches (ok that ones just for me ) I know this would probably involve lots more work!

 

Thanks for setting it up guys, much appreciated!