Cache Rating System

[Lactodorum]

Following on from the current thread about rating found caches, what are peoples' thoughts on this relatively basic (but possibly effective?) scoring system...

 

etc.

Remember what this thread was set up to discuss?

 

I don't normally enforce the "keep it on topic" rule too rigidly but to be honest I'm getting a little peeved with the way the contents of this one have drifted into what almost amounts to a slanging match.

 

So if you want to discuss the merits of the way GAGB is run do so here.

 

If you want to argue about the merits of a particular cacher's approach to rating systems do so with him/her/them in private e-mails or PM's (this includes defending your own position).

 

Let's get this back to discussing rating systems in general terms without personalising it or I'll close the thread.

[+Happy Humphrey]

So where is the actual rule? Not seen anything on G:UK that sates this criteria!

(I think we're on topic here!)

 

The Cache Rating Sytem page explains it well enough;

 

"Registered users of the G:UK stats pages are encouraged to give each cache they have found a score (stars out of 5) based on enjoyment. It is hoped that the average of these subjective opinions for each cache will be a reasonable indication of how much other people are likely to enjoy finding it.".

 

HH

[+Teasel]

So where is the actual rule?  Not seen anything on G:UK that sates this criteria!

This ratings page says "Stars should be awarded according to how much you enjoyed the cache". The MyStats page says "Please consider rating these caches according to enjoyment factor".

 

I sometimes rate friends' caches higher than I otherwise would. There, I've said it (again!). I've already mentioned that I rated Jayne's cache higher than I otherwise would. I also now admit to rating Round Turn & Two Half Hitches Pass extra high because it was placed by Mark and that added to my caching experience in a way that it would not have if someone else had placed the cache. What's the problem with that?

 

[edit] HH obviously has faster fingers than me!

Edited December 1, 2005 by Teasel

[+Teasel]

Cool, it looks like another method of rating caches is going to appear to run alongside Teasel's and we will have another yardstick of enjoyment factor measurement. It will be interesting to see if there are differences.

Oooh goodie, lots of new stats! Then we could have extra stats such as "top 100 largest differences between Teasel's subjective scores and Dave's objective scores". So you could look for caches which have everything going for them, but which are somehow unfulfilling; or those which on paper should be dead boring, but for which the "x-factor" is actually so extraordinarily high that it overrides all the negatives. Sounds like fun!

 

(edit: those who think me sad should objectively consider the fact that they use a multi $Bn satelite navigation system to find McToys under piles of sticks, before commenting too loudly

Edited December 1, 2005 by Teasel

[+Happy Humphrey]

This ratings page says "Stars should be awarded according to how much you enjoyed the cache". The MyStats page says "Please consider rating these caches according to enjoyment factor".

 

...I don't think you see those comments if you've rated all caches that you've logged (like me) - perhaps this is where some of the confusion arose?

 

HH

[markandlynn]

Going to the OP first have a look at the official rate this cache thread over at Groundspeak to see how people can not agree on this.

Markwell 336 post and no agreements yet

 

Large comment about debasing the ratings system removed because everyone else has stated it allready.

Edit to add

 

eventually rogue ratings should become meaningless. Take these as actual ratings

5, 3 = a 4 star cache with baysean springs probably 3.5

 

5,3,3,3,3,3= 3.3 star rated cache with baysean springs probably 3.0.

 

If more than four people say you are wrong then generally you are wrong

Edited December 1, 2005 by markandlynn

[+Teasel]

336 post and no agreements yet 

And while they all go round in circles looking for a perfect solution, when it's quite clear from even the most casual glance that there isn't one, our simple "stars out of five" votes keep rolling in. Nearly one in four of all UK cache finds have been rated so far.

[+Kitty Hawk]

Wow, I just saw the stats tucked in at the bottom there - over 70000 votes by almost 800 cachers!

 

I had noticed the 5 votes and over indicator rising, just hadn't realised the popularity of it all.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Dave from Glanton]

Back at the PC today, and catching up on the forums. Reading through the replies to this I started to get a bit concerned about the territory it seemed to be veering towards (which was not the intention of my original post) and was glad to see the posting from Lactodorum to bring this back on track.

 

First off, I'd like to explain why I started this thread. Basically I'm a big fan of what GeocacheUK does to add value to what is already provided by the main geocaching.com site. In particular I think the ratings are good way of allowing cachers to assess the potential enjoyment factor of a cache that they may visit, and also as a means of allowing a cache setter to get a quick assessment of the general public reaction to a cache which they have set.

 

I - like very many people, by the sound of it - have always been happy to rate on a "gut instinct" level. I visited a cache and liked it = higher rating; I visited a cache and didn't particularly enjoy it = lower rating. This has always seemed to me to be an eminently sensible and straight-forward way of doing things.

 

Therefore, I - like some other people, by the sound of it - was a bit taken aback when Moote posted something recently which basically said he always rated caches a 5* (unless specifically requested not to by the cache owner). As I said in my reply to that thread, such a system seems to undermine the value of the rating system, as a truly mediocre cache will get rated as highly as a true humdinger of a cache, just because it's there.

 

I've re-re-read that original thread a few times and still can't quite get my head around why the OP has such a problem with forming an opinion as to whether they enjoyed a cache or not, and so translate this into a rating - seeming instead to require a rigid set of rules. As the late, great, Bill Hicks said, "at what point does common-sense have to be legislated?"

 

I wouldn't like to see the GC rating system get spoiled by unrealistically high ratings, and so I suggested that if people have such difficulty in forming an opinion as to what rating to give a cache, then a basic set of questions such as those I suggested, may assist them.