Cache Rating System

[Dave from Glanton]

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

 

Start with a 3* for each category and upgrade/downgrade according to personal rating. Average out all of the ratings to get an overall rating for the cache.

 

My initial thoughts on categories to be scored...

 

- General location around cache

- Cache contents/condition

- Walk to/from cache site (quality/scenery)

- Walk to/from cache site (distance/terrain)

- Nearby features (e.g. historic or natural site to visit)

- Muggle potential

- 'x' factor?

 

For example cache location starts as a 3*. If the location is a bit special (really pretty forest clearing) then it gets 4*. If it's somewhere truly outstanding (spectacular views for miles in all directions) it gets a 5*. Likewise, it's along a fairly unremarkable lane maybe it only gets 2*. If it's next to a municipal tip it only gets 1*.

 

I'd be interested in reading what people think. Viable? Needs more categories?

 

Provided the system doesn't get ridiculously complicated, then I'd be happy to knock together and host a web page/script to allow people to calculate ratings online.

[+Moote]

- Walk to/from cache site (distance/terrain)

I think this is already covered in the initial cache page and is often how some cachers choose a cache, maybe it could read

 

- Does the GC.com description \ difficulty \ terrain match the location?

 

Rest looks fine though, I can't fault this at all

 

Milton (aka Moote)

Edited November 27, 2005 by Moote

[+Haggis Hunter]

I personaly feel that we don't need guidelines on how to rate caches.

I rate a cache for many different reasons, but mainly on how I feel when I am at the site. There are an unmentionable amount of things that can persuade you one way or the other.

To categorise how you rate is wrong in my opinion, ratings should be on your personal feelings, and not because it meets a certain criteria, such as, well they went to the effort so I'll give them 5 stars.

 

I also think this makes 3 threads on the same topic on the front page of the forums.

[+Stuey]

what are peoples' thoughts on this relatively basic (but possibly effective?) scoring system...

Just like the recently announced "rules" for TB swaps at events.... I really wouldn't bother with these categories. Have you ever seen those questionnaires they include with irons and toasters from argos? They ask a million questions... you start off reading the detail and thinking about the answer, but before not too long you start going straight down the middle when you realise you just how long it is going to take.

 

All you really want to say is "Yep, it's a pretty good toaster, it's 3 out of 5"

[+Moote]

what are peoples' thoughts on this relatively basic (but possibly effective?) scoring system...

Just like the recently announced "rules" for TB swaps at events.... I really wouldn't bother with these categories. Have you ever seen those questionnaires they include with irons and toasters from argos? They ask a million questions... you start off reading the detail and thinking about the answer, but before not too long you start going straight down the middle when you realise you just how long it is going to take.

 

All you really want to say is "Yep, it's a pretty good toaster, it's 3 out of 5"

Just looks like 7 easy questions that would grade points on a scale, the events TB thing was far more complex than that.

[+Learned Gerbil]

There is another site, totally seperate from Geocaching for people obsessed with ratings. Currently there are only 8 caches in the UK listed there.

[+Moote]

There is another site, totally seperate from Geocaching for people obsessed with ratings. Currently there are only 8 caches in the UK listed there.

I think you would find another site called G:UK which has over 8000 rated caches on it; but lets Get Back On Topic and place constructive thoughts.

 

The Idea Dave has proposed is a rating calculator so that you can transpose your results onto G:UK

 

Milton (aka Moote)

Edited November 27, 2005 by Moote

[+Haggis Hunter]

Just looks like 7 easy questions that would grade points on a scale

This is more or less the same type of thing as my comment on this thread.

[+Moote]

Just looks like 7 easy questions that would grade points on a scale

This is more or less the same type of thing as my comment on this thread.

HH

 

I was thinking something like this ClayJar Quick and simple.

 

Below added in edit

 

obviously the questions would be similar to the ones published above and maybe fewer

 

Milton

Edited November 27, 2005 by Moote

[+Learned Gerbil]

I think you would find another site called G:UK which has over 8000 rated caches on it; but lets Get Back On Topic and place constructive thoughts.

Sorry - but if we are talking cache rating systems - why comment like that? It seems to me that your use of bold was to emphasise the patronising nature of your posting. If this wasn't the case I would be grateful for an explaination of what the emphasis means. All I did was point out that for those obsessed with ratings, there is somewhere else to go. I am not sure what the GCUK website has to do with my point.

[+The Golem]

 

Moote strikes again....

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm with HMcH on this one. Maybe we could go as far as explaining that you should just rate according to your personal "gut-feeling" experience of the cache, without any attempt to be particularly consistent or objective.

 

HH

[nobby.nobbs]

i have to say my gut feeling is that we ditch any star rating for caches.

spend a little more time and write a longer log.

any star rating is limited and doesn't explain why you liked the cache whereas the next person might for the same reasons hate it.

 

write about what you saw/did/ experienced then each following cacher can make their own mind up.

 

also makes it better for the owner as they get more feedback from the logs other than tnln!

 

it's not like we are limited to 10 word logs.

 

so get out the dictionaries and thesaurus' and get creative.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Nobby,

 

The main point of cache rating is so you can see a shortlist of worthwhile caches.

 

It might be nice if the logs are better-written but it doesn't help the visiting geocacher at all, as they'd have to read thousands of log entries to sort out the ones to pick.

 

HH

[+The Blorenges]

Just adding my 2p-worth:

 

When we want to go out for a cache we have never ,as yet, bothered to check its Star Listing. If it's there, not too far away, we read the last half dozen logs and if they seem OK, we'll go and try it. The only circumstances when we will be looking at the ratings in advance is when we will be considering which cache to try for our 100th.

 

Yes, we grade our finds using the present Star system - it's quick, easy - 2.5 is average - move up or down from that point.

 

I always try to put an informative, sometimes amusing log, which I hope will be of use to the cache owner.

 

If we had to complete a more detailed "assessment form" then, sorry, but I don't think we would bother.

 

IMO, this is a hobby,recreational sport, game - Life is already complicated enough - Just go out and look for little boxes!

 

MrsB

[+Happy Humphrey]

Mrs. B,

I'd recommend using the list of top-rated caches as a good starting point when deciding where to go for a caching day out - reading the cache logs to rate them yourself could take all week (if you're a fast reader). There's more than 8000 in the UK! Even if you limit yourself to 100 miles from home, there could easily be 1000 to look at.

 

HH

[+Sensei TSKC]

I tend to use the star rating chart as a guide to which cache I would like to do when reaching a landmark cache.

 

i.e. No way would I EVER want 'Kippers favourite Geocache' to be a landmark!!!

 

There is no disrespect to the cache, I know why it was placed - others may not.

 

I used it for Military Intelligence as my 100th cache and a great choice too.

 

SPAS

[nobby.nobbs]

Nobby,

 

The main point of cache rating is so you can see a shortlist of worthwhile caches.

 

It might be nice if the logs are better-written but it doesn't help the visiting geocacher at all, as they'd have to read thousands of log entries to sort out the ones to pick.

 

HH

and my whole point is that just because you or someone else reall yliked it and rated it at 4 there's no reason i'll like it. which is fine and is the reason that when i plan a trip i look at all the local caches to that area and choose the ones i'm going to visit from the logs.

 

star rating systems are purely subjective and offer no real insight into the quality of the cache.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Nobby,

when i plan a trip i look at all the local caches to that area and choose the ones i'm going to visit from the logs

Maybe I tend to look at a bigger area than you do! How long would it take you to read the logs for 1000 caches? That's what I'm often faced with...

 

The ratings are just one useful starting point for selecting potential caches, not necessarily the only one. Of course it's subjective, but so are the cache logs, but I'd venture that if it's 4* after 10 people have rated it it's going to be worth checking the description to see if you fancy it.

 

And the nice thing about having the rating system separate from the caches is that if you don't have any use for it, you can just ignore it.

 

HH

Edited November 29, 2005 by Happy Humphrey

[+Moote]

Maybe I tend to look at a bigger area than you do! How long would it take you to read the logs for 1000 caches? That's what I'm often faced with...

I would be careful saying that, someone might come in and claim you are obsessed!

 

Milton (aka Moote)

[markandlynn]

I would be careful saying that, someone might come in and claim you are obsessed!

Or live on an island with only 80 caches on it

 

We use the ratings as a guide for milestone caches and holiday planning we would not want to do a two star cache for number 300 and we would not want to miss out on a five star cache while on holiday. We still read the logs but only after narrowing it down in terms of distance , difficulty etc.

 

Looking at the current top rated caches there are 93 caches which have only recieved 5 stars some have low number of votes but thats still quite a shortlist of cache logs to read.

 

If the cache is close to home we will do it no matter what at some point.

 

love stats

[+Sensei TSKC]

Nobby,

 

The main point of cache rating is so you can see a shortlist of worthwhile caches.

 

It might be nice if the logs are better-written but it doesn't help the visiting geocacher at all, as they'd have to read thousands of log entries to sort out the ones to pick.

 

HH

and my whole point is that just because you or someone else reall yliked it and rated it at 4 there's no reason i'll like it. which is fine and is the reason that when i plan a trip i look at all the local caches to that area and choose the ones i'm going to visit from the logs.

 

star rating systems are purely subjective and offer no real insight into the quality of the cache.

Nobby,

 

That's a little bit short sighted on your behalf, don't you think? If 10 people enjoy something and 10 people didn't enjoy something else - in their subjective view - then there is an indication that the probability that you will like the 1st and not the 2nd (as much) is pretty high and therefore does

offer (not) real insight into the quality of the cache.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know it doesn't guarantee anything but it's a pointer. Nobby, I believe you are in the same employment as me and if we didn't believe in pointers and circumstancial events, we'd never get our job done!

 

Oss!

Edited November 29, 2005 by Sensei TSKC

[nobby.nobbs]

ok again point taken. and we do have to go along with the theory that if it waddles and quacks we do have to atleast give some time to the idea it's a duck

 

i was just concerned/worried that people would use the rating system instead of penning a good log entry. more needs to be done to encourage more descriptive logs and less one line tnlnsl entries.

 

1000 caches!!!!! thats one heck of a day trip! if i'm lucky i'll manage 10 in a really busy day.

 

i'd point out i'm not agaianst the idea of a seperate rating system as i always rate on the geocacheuk site.

 

used to be in that employment...not since someone took a dislike to me and expressed it using a stanley knife! makes you re-evaluate things.

[+Teasel]

I'd be interested in reading what people think.  Viable?  Needs more categories?

 

Provided the system doesn't get ridiculously complicated, then I'd be happy to knock together and host a web page/script to allow people to calculate ratings online.

The trade-off is of course between quality and quantity. For G:UK, I went for lots of low-quality ratings because there are lots of caches and lots of cachers in the UK and I wanted opinions from a broad cross-section of both.

 

If you go for a questionnaire approach, you will have better data, but less of it. One problem of this is that "outliers" (scores from vandals, or people who haven't followed your scoring guidelines) may start to have more effect. Another problem is that a large proportion of caches may well not have any ratings. So, with that in mind, who is your target audience?

 

I have a couple of specific issues with your proposed list of criteria:

Firstly a high muggleability is bad, so for your "muggle potential" score, you'll need to make it abundantly clear whether lots of stars means a good chance of being muggled, or good protection against being muggled. I would strongly suggest that you word all your categories in such a way that more stars indicates a "better" cache. (Sure, you could always flip the scores in the averaging calculation, but it'd confuse the hell out of everyone!)

 

Secondly, I don't much like the "distance/terrain" category. All your other scores have a definite good end and bad end of the scale. But a high distance just makes a cache different, not better or worse. Having said that, I do like the idea of getting people to rate distance / terrain, in order to provide an independent confirmation of the cache placer's ratings. I just don't think they should be averaged in to an overall score.

 

Don't be discouraged by the replies above which criticise the usefulness of any/all scoring systems. If you build it, they will come, and if you enjoy building it, that's surely good enough!

[+Moote]

people who haven't followed your scoring guidelines

Because there are no guidelines is the reason why the scores could be considered wholly inaccurate, as it is all based on individual particular method which no one except that person has knowledge of. Therefore how can I know if someone who votes an absolutely brilliant cache a low score because say of a long hike. Or even that their mate placed it so rated higher than it really deserved. By providing criteria on which to rate, gives a balanced status, which would make it a lot less error prone and give better data.

 

All surveys which are conducted by Professional organisations, always guide you even if you think that the questions they ask are nothing to do with the subject.

 

Milton (aka Moote)

[+Flyfishermanbob]

The dangerous ground that you are about to enter is that you are predefining the qualities of a "good" cache ...

 

"One mans' meat is another's poison" and all that ...

 

A 3 mile hike may be a turn off to some and an attraction to others;

 

A cunningly sited micro in an urban area may be the challenge that some cachers enjoy.....

 

A standard cache in an area of outstanding beauty which you would never have visited may be a big factor for some....

 

A puzzle which requires cryptological / web search could be a challenge to some, and a turn off to others....

 

ETC. ETC. ETC.

 

The rating system as it stands is a very subjective measure of how much YOU enjoyed finding the cache ...no more no less ! ...it can never be an objective tool for measuring the "quality" of a cache ......

 

Any attempt to quantify "quality" will always be subjective on the questions asked ....

 

Leave it alone... all it indicates is how much the people who found it ( and took the time to click the stars ) enjoyed the day ...

[+t.a.folk]

Or even that their mate placed it so rated higher than it really deserved.

 

Shouldn't be too hard to find out .

By reading the logs on cache details one can see the name above comments .

"Thanks mate" or similar fairly good indication that finder knows the owner .

[+Teasel]

Because there are no guidelines is the reason why the scores could be considered wholly inaccurate

Ummm, since he hasn't actually written the site yet, how can you say there are no guidelines?!

 

Off topic: there are rules for the G:UK scoring system! Users are instructed that Stars should be awarded according to how much you enjoyed the cache. Unless you can honestly say that you have enjoyed equally every cache you have ever found, that makes you the only person I'm aware of who is deliberately breaking the rules!

 

If you can honestly say that you have gained exactly the same enjoyment out of each cache you have ever found, then I'm afraid that's not a scenario which I considered when designing the G:UK system. From the sound of it, a more varied and objective rating system, like the one Dave is proposing, is more your cup of tea.

[+Teasel]

Or even that their mate placed it so rated higher than it really deserved.

The only "rule" is that people award a score based on how much they enjoyed the cache. For example this cache was placed by my wife. The fact that I was searching for a cache placed by Jayne made the cache genuinely more enjoyable for me, and that was reflected in my score. Sorry, but I don't see that as a problem. Similarly, I've noticed a tendancy in myself to rate more highly when the weather is either extremely good or extremely foul, whereas caches found on anonymous damp, grey days often score a little lower. But that's fine too because I'm not trying to predict how much another, average cacher would enjoy the cache on another, average day; I'm saying how much I enjoyed myself on my caching trip.

 

As Flyfishermanbob points out, all the scoring system tells you is how much other people enjoyed themselves. Not even that, but only the people who found the cache - those who couldn't find it because it was a cr*p cache and the coordinates were 50m out don't even get the chance to have their say! Given all that, if you still find the relative scores interesting, then G:UK is the site for you. If you don't think a scoring system has any merit unless it's objective, then how about replying to Dave's original question, rather than re-stating the same complaints about the existing system which prompted this thread in the first place?!

[+Moote]

Because there are no guidelines is the reason why the scores could be considered wholly inaccurate

Ummm, since he hasn't actually written the site yet, how can you say there are no guidelines?!

 

Maybe I was not clear but the reference was to the present system

[+Moote]

The only "rule" is that people award a score based on how much they enjoyed the cache.

So this prove the data could just become a mass of subjective opinions. each has their own judgement; so no balanced opinion could be formed, as there is no objective criteria to base the data on. This kind of data has to be objective for it to be meaningful.

 

Milton (aka Moote)

[+Flyfishermanbob]

The only "rule" is that people award a score based on how much they enjoyed the cache.

So this prove the data could just become a mass of subjective opinions. each has their own judgement; so no balanced opinion could be formed, as there is no objective criteria to base the data on. This kind of data has to be objective for it to be meaningful.

 

Milton (aka Moote)

Well done laddie , did you hear the clatter as the penny dropped ?

 

Yes Yes Yes ...its just an indicator of how much you enjoyed the visit ,...... Ta Da !

 

No magical formulae ...no head scratching .... its relatively simple ...did I like it ?

 

or...... was it as bad as visiting the dentist ? if so by how much ....

[+Kitty Hawk]

The only "rule" is that people award a score based on how much they enjoyed the cache.

So this prove the data could just become a mass of subjective opinions. each has their own judgement; so no balanced opinion could be formed, as there is no objective criteria to base the data on. This kind of data has to be objective for it to be meaningful.

 

Milton (aka Moote)

After a few days I finally see your perspective.

 

Just as "One mans... (can't remember the phrase) is it "One mans feast is another mans famine" here we have "One mans mass of subjective opinions is another mans useful rating of general enjoyment"

 

It's probably a left brain/right brain thing.

 

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.

 

EDIT - is it One Mans meat is another mans gravy?

Edited November 30, 2005 by Kitty Hawk

[+Moote]

Well  done laddie ,  did you hear the clatter as the penny dropped ?

 

Yes Yes Yes ...its just an indicator of  how much you enjoyed the visit ,...... Ta Da !

 

 

No magical formulae  ...no head scratching .... its relatively simple ...did I like it ?

 

or...... was it as bad as visiting the dentist ?  if so by how much ....

So as I thought then my system of if you place a cache it gets 5 critera is as good as any!

 

Catch 22 I guess, I enjoy caches cos people place them

Edited November 30, 2005 by Moote

[+Flyfishermanbob]

Give up ... .......

 

Good luck Moote , I can see now everyone is wrong and you are correct..

 

Clearly all of the UK (bar you) seem to understand the principle, so guess we desperately need a new set of rules ....

 

( Please, dont anyone ever quote GAGB and expect it to be taken seriously)

[+Moote]

Give up ... .......

 

Good luck Moote , I can see now everyone is wrong and you are correct..

 

Clearly all of the UK (bar you) seem to understand the principle, so guess we desperately need a new set of rules ....

 

( Please, dont anyone ever quote GAGB and expect it to be taken seriously)

You don't know me so don't try and pass a judgement.

 

The thread is about setting a coherent set of criteria, so that a rating is unbiased.

 

After all why should someone rate higher just because it's their mates cache? That is why I started voting the way I do; because it is a worthless statistic, the writeups are far more informative!

Edited November 30, 2005 by Moote

[+Kitty Hawk]

Silly me, I am a berk.

[barryhunter]

That is why I started voting the way I do; because it is a worthless statistic,

becuase it's worthless, you want to make it more so? (not that I think its worthless) Surly a better idea would be just to ignore it and cache...

[+Kitty Hawk]

Barry, there's no point. He must know exactly what he is doing, there is only one other explanation.

[+Moote]

That is why I started voting the way I do; because it is a worthless statistic,

becuase it's worthless, you want to make it more so? (not that I think its worthless) Surly a better idea would be just to ignore it and cache...

Please if you quote, quote in complete context, what i said was "After all why should someone rate higher just because it's their mates cache? That is why I started voting the way I do; because it is a worthless statistic.

[+Moote]

becuase it's worthless, you want to make it more so?

Others have already done so, no one has yet dared to admit that they rate Friends caches higher; yet I know it is happening, so what value is that on a cache rating!

Edited November 30, 2005 by Moote

[+Sensei TSKC]

This is probably the last thing I will say on this subject, as Flyfishermanbob the builder said rings a bit of truth.

 

Moote's idea that he believes his system is not wrong is absolutely ludicrous! How can you stick by what you've said? You must see everybody else's point of view and make a logical judgement by what's being said and admit you're wrong.

 

In fact, this is exactly the same circumstances as the star rating system we're discussing.

 

I will not be looking at GAGB without taking the proverbial pinch of salt!

 

 

[+Stuey]

Others have already done so, no one has yet dared to admit that they rate Friends caches higher yet I know it is happening, so what value is that on a cache rating!

I have never seen that done. I don't do it. If anyone does it, they are breaking the guidelines which do state (now that it has been pointed out) that you should rate the cache according to how much you enjoyed it.

 

Now, unless you enjoyed every single cache you have ever done and think that you will never ever enjoy another cache more than you enjoyed the ones you have already rated, then you are rating them wrongly.

[+The Blorenges]

Others have already done so, no one has yet dared to admit that they rate Friends caches higher; yet I know it is happening, so what value is that on a cache rating!

I was just thinking that if the above statement is true then, surely, some other folks may be rating their "enemies" caches lower and thus cancelling out this perceived anomaly.

 

A serious comment from me, hence no smilies added.

 

Mrs B ( trying hard not to click mouse on any little faces over to my left.)

[+Kitty Hawk]

That is why I started voting the way I do; because it is a worthless statistic,

becuase it's worthless, you want to make it more so? (not that I think its worthless) Surly a better idea would be just to ignore it and cache...

Please if you quote, quote in complete context, what i said was "After all why should someone rate higher just because it's their mates cache? That is why I started voting the way I do; because it is a worthless statistic.

Moote

 

Voting higher ratings for mates caches is not right but is standard human nature and will apply to absolutely all ratings methods, no matter how regulated you try to make it, you've spotted a flaw, well done.

 

However, you are now quite conciously trying to skew the figures to make them worthless and that is just vandalism. Nothing more. It also shows an exceptional lack of respect and consideration towards Teasel who put a great deal of hard work into setting this up and the rest of us cachers who use the statistics that it creates.

 

I don't understand your motivation, except to spoil the system for all cachers who like using it.

 

And that is all I see, just a vandal who wants to spoil a great resource for UK geocachers.

 

If you want to do something about it there are two ways - constructively and destructively, you choose the destructive method and that is NOT a standard of behaviour that I admire.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Kitty Hawk

[barryhunter]

becuase it's worthless, you want to make it more so?

Others have already done so, no one has yet dared to admit that they rate Friends caches higher; yet I know it is happening, so what value is that on a cache rating!

If they are giving it 5* JUST because a friend placed it then its not very helpful (and I serioussly doubt than many do that), however rating a bit higher is not really a problem, beucase you knew the cacher you probably did enjoy it more.

 

[Edit: Kitty Hawk, much better worded reply than I just tried and scrapped!], also we seemed to have highjacked this thread (sorry Dave)! wasnt there another thread for discussing this...

Edited November 30, 2005 by barryhunter

[+Haggis Hunter]

Because there are no guidelines is the reason why the scores could be considered wholly inaccurate

Ummm, since he hasn't actually written the site yet, how can you say there are no guidelines?!

 

Off topic: there are rules for the G:UK scoring system! Users are instructed that Stars should be awarded according to how much you enjoyed the cache. Unless you can honestly say that you have enjoyed equally every cache you have ever found, that makes you the only person I'm aware of who is deliberately breaking the rules!

 

If you can honestly say that you have gained exactly the same enjoyment out of each cache you have ever found, then I'm afraid that's not a scenario which I considered when designing the G:UK system. From the sound of it, a more varied and objective rating system, like the one Dave is proposing, is more your cup of tea.

I can't find where moote said that if he was shown that there was rules for rating then he would go and rate the caches correctly, but I do believe he did say it.

 

So the above quote looks to me as though you have been shown the very basic rule for rating on G:UK. But no you want to twist it and change it, like you appear to do with most of your opinions.

 

I am afraid that with a committee member of GAGB being this obstinate, then I too will take what is on that site with a pinch of salts

 

I won't apologise for continuing with the hijack of this thread, as I said at the beginning I think this is the third thread on the same subject.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Apologies to Dave from Glanton, but I think Teasel has covered the guidelines perfectly.

 

HH,

I enjoyed the Haggis Hunting on Channel 4 (River Cottage Road Trip) last night - obviously you did too as you were asking a question in the Channel 4 chat room afterwards! Nice to see that they actually caught two Hagii as well!

 

(haggishunter: what is the most awful food you have tasted)

Channel 4

 

HH

[+Haggis Hunter]

HH,

I enjoyed the Haggis Hunting on Channel 4 (River Cottage Road Trip) last night - obviously you did too as you were asking a question in the Channel 4 chat room afterwards! Nice to see that they actually caught two Hagii as well!

 

(haggishunter: what is the most awful food you have tasted)

Channel 4

 

HH

HH (no relation honest) I can assure you that was not me, in fact I was not the first Haggis Hunter on GC.com, just do a search of my name to see.

 

I wouldn't have asked such a question, just in case he said Haggis!!

 

HH (different HH to the one I am answering too!)

 

Edit: P.S. Bit cheesed off that I actually missed it though, I do hope that it was a live broadcast or had been taped earlier in the day, as the Hunting Season only started yesterday?

Edited December 1, 2005 by Haggis Hunter

[+Moote]

Apologies to Dave from Glanton, but I think Teasel has covered the guidelines perfectly.

 

HH,

I enjoyed the Haggis Hunting on Channel 4 (River Cottage Road Trip) last night - obviously you did too as you were asking a question in the Channel 4 chat room afterwards! Nice to see that they actually caught two Hagii as well!

 

(haggishunter: what is the most awful food you have tasted)

Channel 4

 

HH

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

Edited December 1, 2005 by Moote