Caches With Little Merit

2.5k · November 23, 2005

I recently visited this cache Help The Poor Struggler, it has a GUK rating at 100%, do you know of any worse? Where would you not even tell your Mother in Law to go?

Milton (aka Moote)

November 23, 2005

Mmmmmmmmmm

41 visits, 41 Mother in Law's !!

Bassrock

2.2k · November 23, 2005

In my defence

nah

It was designed to be awfull

November 23, 2005

It's got to be this one.

November 23, 2005

It's got to be this one.

As Snosrap knows, I couldn't possibly concur with his nomination for these reasons!

3.1k · November 23, 2005

Hmmm Moote...

There's a cache of yours that just about everyone has wondered WHY!!!???

:rolleyes:

1.8k · November 23, 2005

Hmmm Moote...

There's a cache of yours that just about everyone has wondered WHY!!!???

You could mean this!

2.5k · November 23, 2005

Hmmm Moote...

There's a cache of yours that just about everyone has wondered WHY!!!???

Cos I was bored oneday at work ;-)

November 24, 2005

I nominate Two Lakes View as the worst cache I ever visited. It's a dump (in every sense of the word).

November 24, 2005

I recently visited this cache Help The Poor Struggler, it has a GUK rating at 100%, do you know of any worse? Where would you not even tell your Mother in Law to go?

Milton (aka Moote)

i have done this cache...................................did you take the time to read the memorial ...........................if you did you would not be posting this ........................geocaching is not just a bout the veiv but a education in life

2.2k · November 24, 2005

OK as fruity rightly points out there is a point to this cache.

Help the poor struggler was Albert Pierpoints pub and it was not too far from the location. running the pub was his full time job, hanging folk was part time and per person erm, no delicate way of putting this "hung". He even hung one of his own customers apparently.

Nearby is the memorial to a police officer killed in the line of duty.

The cache is in a horrible location and I make no apologies for that.

I would however like it to stay where it is at the bottom of the list and do request that anyone doing it gives it the worst possible rating on GUK.

Moote did this posting with my full knowledge so no issue there!

8.6k · November 24, 2005

I nominate Two Lakes View as the worst cache I ever visited. It's a dump (in every sense of the word).

:mad: Agreed! "The dead sheep and other assorted rubbish" cache. I feel that there must be a nicer spot nearby where you could enjoy the Two Lakes View without the rubbish tip Mrs B

2.5k · November 24, 2005

i have done this cache...................................did you take the time to read the memorial ...........................if you did you would not be posting this ........................geocaching is not just a bout the veiv but a education in life

Fruity

I know that you might be a little upset about the post, but Mongoose39UK is very proud of the 100% that it now has from GUK, in fact Mongoose39UK requested that I did not give the cache the usual 5 stars which I award every cache that I do. All we want to know is, is there other caches in Urban dereliction.

Milton (aka Moote)

November 24, 2005

...give the cache the usual 5 stars which I award every cache that I do. ...

What on earth is the point of giving every cache you do 5 stars?? :mad:

Seems to me to defeat the object of the ratings.

2.5k · November 24, 2005

...give the cache the usual 5 stars which I award every cache that I do. ...

What on earth is the point of giving every cache you do 5 stars??

Seems to me to defeat the object of the ratings.

Because some cachers do not place caches, so if you have been bothered to put a little effort into doing something for everyone then in my eyes that is a 5 star effort

Milton (aka Moote)

22k · November 24, 2005

...give the cache the usual 5 stars which I award every cache that I do. ...

What on earth is the point of giving every cache you do 5 stars??

Seems to me to defeat the object of the ratings.

Because some cachers do not place caches, so if you have been bothered to put a little effort into doing something for everyone then in my eyes that is a 5 star effort

Milton (aka Moote)

Excellent! I hope you don't mind if I use your position as an example whenever I pooh-pooh a cache rating system.

November 24, 2005

in fact Mongoose39UK requested that I did not give the cache the usual 5 stars which I award every cache that I do. .

Milton (aka Moote)

Difficult to identify caches with little merit if everyone took this approach- or gave every cache 0.5 stars for that matter. Perhaps it would be better if we just listed them in this thread instead. Kinda voting without the guilt of putting a number to it, I guess. :mad:

3.8k · November 24, 2005

Because some cachers do not place caches, so if you have been bothered to put a little effort into doing something for everyone then in my eyes that is a 5 star effort

I'm sorry but that is a total pointless reason for rating all caches 5.

What about the effort that has been put into the rating system?

Everyone that you rate has placed a cache, you can't rate if they haven't been bothered to place one, so your reason defeats the object of it.

Mad :mad: and I think you may have just said this to stir the pot up a little bit

2.5k · November 24, 2005

The interesting thing to me about this topic is how honest all the logs on these assorted caches seem to have been. I have visited one or two truly dreadful caches and all the logs just say "Found cache easily, TNLN". I wonder if people are just 'not bovvered (look at my face)' round here or are trying to be polite?

November 24, 2005

Where would you not even tell your Mother in Law to go?

In answer to this part of the question, anywhere where I might be! :mad:

2.5k · November 24, 2005

Because some cachers do not place caches, so if you have been bothered to put a little effort into doing something for everyone then in my eyes that is a 5 star effort

I'm sorry but that is a total pointless reason for rating all caches 5.

What about the effort that has been put into the rating system?

Everyone that you rate has placed a cache, you can't rate if they haven't been bothered to place one, so your reason defeats the object of it.

Mad and I think you may have just said this to stir the pot up a little bit

Anyone can say what they want, it still will not change my mind about the way I rate caches!

1.8k · November 24, 2005

You did start this thread didn't you? If you don't believe the rating system should help identify poor caches, why should his thread? Sorry, I just don't understand where you are coming from.

Edited November 24, 2005 by Learned Gerbil

2.5k · November 24, 2005

You did start this thread didn't you? If you don't believe the rating system should help identify poor caches, why should his thread? Sorry, I just don't understand where you are coming from.

Cos my mate wants to know if there are any worse ones so I said I'd start a thread, People should be happy that I rate there caches 5 stars, it's just like telling a minger that they are stunningly good looking, It makes their day!

3.8k · November 24, 2005

Because some cachers do not place caches, so if you have been bothered to put a little effort into doing something for everyone then in my eyes that is a 5 star effort

I'm sorry but that is a total pointless reason for rating all caches 5.

What about the effort that has been put into the rating system?

Everyone that you rate has placed a cache, you can't rate if they haven't been bothered to place one, so your reason defeats the object of it.

Mad and I think you may have just said this to stir the pot up a little bit

Anyone can say what they want, it still will not change my mind about the way I rate caches!

Looking at the map on your profile page, it's unlikely that you'll be doing any of my caches (thankfully) but if you do, I'd appreciate it if you didn't give them a rating at all rather than give them all a 'five'. They're good but they're not all THAT good. Thank you.

Please note that the omission of emoticons is purely intentional.

3.3k · November 24, 2005

I nominate Two Lakes View as the worst cache I ever visited. It's a dump (in every sense of the word).

Nice view though Klaus, if I recall :mad:

3.3k · November 24, 2005

People should be happy that I rate there caches 5 stars, it's just like telling a minger that they are stunningly good looking, It makes their day!

changed my mind, lol

Edited November 24, 2005 by Stuey

November 25, 2005

I all ways start my ratings at 2 stars for setting them, and award extra 1/2 stars accordingly. I know the effort involved in setting up a cache!

November 25, 2005

I nominate Two Lakes View as the worst cache I ever visited. It's a dump (in every sense of the word).

Nice view though Klaus, if I recall

LOL... not on the day I was there

But I believe it is nice!

2.2k · November 25, 2005

Ok, the point is to find the caches that you really wish you hadnt done.

Not the scoring system

November 25, 2005

Mad and I think you may have just said this to stir the pot up a little bit

Well, I'm certainly glad that he did because it prompted me to have a look at the scores in more detail. As would be expected, the vast majority of geocachers who use the feature do so constructively, and the vast majority of people who disagree with the concept of a single-figure rating system simply do not enter ratings. A big "thank you" to both groups!

There are a small but significant number of people whose scoring is very skewed towards very high or very low ratings. A very few may indeed be due to deliberate vandalism, but I think most are due to individual scoring strategies people may have (eg most people give an average cache a middling score, but some seem to give half a star for being average then award extra stars for extra wow-factor, whereas others may give 5 stars for setting the cache then dock marks for any annoyances).

For example, this is the score breakdown (in half stars) of one cacher, whose average score is higher than 99% of us usually give:

1 10

2 2

7 1

8 1

9 74

10 128

Clearly they are giving thought to the ratings they give, and are acting in good faith. However they do seem to gain far more enjoyment from geocaching than the average person does!

I'll look into some sort of normalisation system to bring everyone's effective average score into the same range. It won't stop the odd vandal out there - who will just change tactics and maybe just award random, or inverted scores - but it will make more use of the figures from well-meaning people with unusual scoring habits.

2.9k · November 25, 2005

For example, this is the score breakdown (in half stars) of one cacher, whose average score is higher than 99% of us usually give:
1 10

2 2

7 1

8 1

9 74

10 128

Interesting stuff Teasel.

I would guess that there are routines out there for identifying and eliminating non normal or skewed distributions and eventually a large enough data set would eliminate these issues.

Moote please dont rate my caches either.

November 25, 2005

Anyone can say what they want, it still will not change my mind about the way I rate caches!

Actually, you appear to have two accounts on GeocacheUK. The first gives useful, considered scores to caches found; the second behaves as you describe above.

Maybe you're already in two minds about the guidance you offer to the geocaching community? :lol:

November 25, 2005

Perhaps it would be better if we just listed them in this thread instead. Kinda voting without the guilt of putting a number to it, I guess.

Often it works the other way around - people feel guilty about putting their thoughts in writing, but are more honest with an "anonymous" score. Eg take a look at all the short "TFTC" comments, and many "great cache" comments (usually from newbies!) on this cache. Yet based on no less than 24 different teams' ratings, this cache is in the least enjoyable 1% of caches in the country!

2.5k · November 25, 2005

I think that the words "It's only a game", comes into my head here.

I have 2 caches which are in great locations considering that they are around Salford which are Sleeping Station Rated 82%, 1 Star and Hazelhurst woods (Wardley) Rated 69%, 1.5 Stars, both which I personally do not think gives them any credit.

I have subsequently been told that this was probably due to the fact I knew no cachers when I started caching. So it appears that you get lower marks for being an unknown entity! Now I feel that both these caches are in no way 5 Star caches but are certainly worthy of at least 2 stars, based on other peoples caches which I have visited. So is it me that votes unfairly or do we all? Maybe we all should go back to GUK and rate our caches in a greater honest way and don't let friendships cloud our thoughts.

So If everyone else agrees to be none emotive about their way of rating then I will do the same, but until I see that happening I will still rate every cache I do and rate them as 5 Stars.

Milton (aka Moote)

Edited November 25, 2005 by Moote

2.9k · November 25, 2005

are certainly worthy of at least 2 stars, based on other peoples caches which I have visited.

Thats YOUR opinion of your own cache the idea is to get other peoples opinions of caches if you dont want the opinion on your cache page remove the link.

How do we vote ?

We vote by consensus on our way home from the caches 5 opinions one score.

Edit to add link to another ratings comment by moote

link

Edited November 25, 2005 by markandlynn

November 25, 2005

I have 2 caches which are in great locations considering that they are around Salford which are Sleeping Station Rated 82%, 1 Star and Hazelhurst woods (Wardley) Rated 69%, 1.5 Stars, both which I personally do not think gives them any credit.

Ah, well at least we now know the motivation...

It is only a game. Some people like the stats, others don't- both positions being perfectly valid. Messing up the stats deliberately just seems bizarre to me.

2.5k · November 25, 2005

Well I'm not hiding behind a screen I'm honest how I have rated a cache / caches, how many of you would come out and say what score you gave a cache / caches? Not many as you would be afraid of the barrage of criticism levelled toward you.

Guess it's that some don't like my self opinionated stance in the forums, OK I think lots of posts are fruitless, many of mine also, but at least I can hold my head up high, and I don't get a mardy head on.

Get back on Topic

Milton (aka Moote)

3.9k · November 25, 2005

Well I've visited two caches worse than this, but I'm not going to mention them as they were placed by inexperienced cachers who at least made the effort.

November 25, 2005

Hazelhurst woods (Wardley) Rated 69%, 1.5 Stars, both which I personally do not think gives them any credit.

A 69% rating roughly translates to "pick any three caches at random and this cache will probably be more enjoyable than at least one of them". Remember, half the caches in the UK are below average! (So are half of all school children, though you'd never guess it to look at their GCSE results! ) Maybe the problem is we live in a world where "6 out of 10" often means "I'll be polite but it was actually pretty dire", rather than "better than most"; whereas the G:UK ratings spread caches evenly across the full range of scores?

But, at the end of the day, Hazelhurst woods is an easy cache, less than 500' from the car and right next to a motorway. Does it really come as a surprise that people gained far more enjoyment from some of your other caches, such as the multicache and puzzle cache? My guess, also, is that the high scores some of your caches achieve reflects the greater thought and effort which you put into their placement, compared to those placed "Cos I was bored"!

I can't get my head around the contradictions here... You obviously feel that the ratings system gives a useful indication of cache quality, or you'd not have referred to it in the first sentence of this thread. And you're actively encouraging other cachers to contribute their scores to G:UK by placing "please rate this cache" links on all your caches -- even the less enjoyable ones. Yet at the same time you're trying to dilute the utility of that very system by refusing to differentiate between any of the caches that you've found, even though you clearly do hold opinions as to what makes a good cache. If you have a point to make, then I'm afraid I've missed it! :lol:

3.8k · November 25, 2005

If you have a point to make, then I'm afraid I've missed it!

That makes two of us!!

Well I'm not hiding behind a screen I'm honest how I have rated a cache / caches, how many of you would come out and say what score you gave a cache / caches? Not many as you would be afraid of the barrage of criticism levelled toward you.

I can only conclude from this that you don't want to be criticised for rating what you actually think?

I have rated all caches that I have done, anyone wants to know how I have rated them, then send me an email, I will tell you. Be warned though, there are a few 1/2 stars.

1.2k · November 25, 2005

It makes me think that far beyond giving new cache placers a pat on the head, rating all caches as 5* could skew a youngish cache's score a fair bit, even with the safeguards Teasel's stats system use.

What if a couple of cachers agreed with Moote's principle and did the same

A newcomer to the sport could spot an apparently fantastic cache to do and end up thinking "Oh, is this the best the sport has to offer" and not bother any more.

Far beyond being a bit of a pain, or an eccentricity, this could be potentially damaging to the game.

Moote - consider how your arguments would flow if you were on the other side of the fence.

Edited November 25, 2005 by Kitty Hawk

2.5k · November 25, 2005

I feel that I have been slightly misunderstood on my faultless reasoning for cache grading. Here is what I feel IMHO

There are cachers (Who I shall not name and shame) who take, take, take, and have never given a cache to the community. If we all decided that we would do this the sport will dry up! (Not good)

Also, a bad remark or rating can upset and that can lead to people being less likely to want to place more caches. (The Oh sod! it factor)

So, Moote, the Pavlov "conditioned reflex" cacher rates people highly, so as they think "Oh look my cache went from 79% on G:UK to 34%, hey it was not a bad cache after all, I must place more soon"

Can this be a bad thing, giving encouragement (albeit in a conditioning reflex)?

I think not, I'd rather think that people smile at their ratings than sulk!

As for the 2 caches I mentioned one might be alongside the M60, but the fact that you would not be aware of that fact and you can hear birdsong and rustling of leaves, it is after all a lovely urban setting; Yes a view in the lakes or dales is far better but in context with it's situation it's a great place.

I do have a cache that gets slated, but G:UK can't rate that as it is members only :lol: So I would think that only I see the statistics on a regular basis when I read the logs.

Here is an interesting point that we Brits should look across the Big pond at, In America people pay compliments to each other, but if things are wrong they stand back a while before running in so as to see if a person can help themselves out of a rut. In the UK we rush in and criticise, but are a lot less free with compliments. Strangely enough in the US workplace they have a lower absenteeism rate from the workplace than the UK, and this is put down partly to their complimentary nature.

So why not give people something to smile about, it's not hurting anyone is it!?

Milton (aka Moote)

November 25, 2005

I can't get my head around the contradictions here... You obviously feel that the ratings system gives a useful indication of cache quality, or you'd not have referred to it in the first sentence of this thread. And you're actively encouraging other cachers to contribute their scores to G:UK by placing "please rate this cache" links on all your caches -- even the less enjoyable ones. Yet at the same time you're trying to dilute the utility of that very system by refusing to differentiate between any of the caches that you've found, even though you clearly do hold opinions as to what makes a good cache.

Elegantly put, Teasel, I don't think anyone could argue with the logic.

2.5k · November 25, 2005

Elegantly put, Teasel, I don't think anyone could argue with the logic.

But what Logic is giving a cache a high rating just because a "mate" placed it?

I know that this happens, so I rate the way I want to, lets get on the backs of the cachers that give their mate higher scores! I can tell you of some really futile caches that have a score way in excess of what they should have purely because their mates followed behind them placing!

November 25, 2005

I can tell you of some really futile caches that have a score way in excess of what they should have purely because their mates followed behind them placing!

I can tell you of rubbish caches that have high scores because some plonker gave them a five. :lol:

2.5k · November 25, 2005

I can tell you of rubbish caches that have high scores because some plonker gave them a five.

Well I guess that someone has there reason for that. I certainly have my reasons and it is hurting no one, so I will continue to rate every cache I do and rate it the way I choose.

If someone is in real pain or having sleepless nights through my rating method then feel free to email and I will alter your rating!

Milton (aka Moote)

2.9k · November 25, 2005

Lighten up Moote. Some people disagree with you.

Live with it. :lol:

Im glad Teasel has fitted baysean springs to the ratings to cope with "anomalies"

November 25, 2005

But what Logic is giving a cache a high rating just because a "mate" placed it?

None. I think this is the case of two wrongs..

2.2k · November 26, 2005

oh the angst!

trouble is like everything it's all subjective.

the chances are you and your mates like the same sort of things so a mate is likely to rate one of your caches highly as it appeals to them. they may also increase the rate as they know you but both apply.

without really strict criteria any rating system is purely a guidance and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

the only fair and safe way is to not have a rating system at all and just rely on peoples comments in the logs. again you're going to get a wide variety but you'll atleast see some of the reasoning behind the judgements.

just my 5p worth

3.8k · November 26, 2005

so I will continue to rate every cache I do and rate it the way I choose.

As Pharisee has already requested, if you ever find yourself in Edinburgh caching, the chances of you doing one of my caches is something like 1 in 3, so please don't rate my caches, if you are not going to give them an honest rating. I am seriously thinking about moving a cache because it has such a low rating. If two people came along and gave it 5 stars, I would think wrongly that the cache was great, when really it's the final location that is Naff.

If someone is in real pain or having sleepless nights through my rating method then feel free to email and I will alter your rating!

Didn't know you could do that? If you can, can someone tell me how?

Caches With Little Merit

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

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