Geocache Rating System

[Kirbert]

Geocaching.com is already so excellent that I hesitate to suggest additional features. However, a little geocaching over the T'Day holidays led me to an area where the locals had evidently been hiding geocaches simply everywhere with utter disregard of whether the hide would be enjoyable for finders, and that leads me to make this suggestion:

 

Each cache should be rated on scales of 1 to 5 according to four characteristics:

 

* QUICK AND EASY -- the Wal-Mart parking lot micro would rate a 5 here, while the 2-mile hike for a multi would rate low.

 

* INTERESTING LOCATION -- this meaning the place, not the hide; finding the cache brings you to some place worth seeing irrespective of the cache itself. The springs or waterfalls out in the middle of nowhere, the little-known historic site, the trail that isn't on any map, etc., would rate high here. The Wal-Mark parking lot micro would rate low. In fact, *all* geocaches that serve little other than to help cachers run up their counts should rate a 1 here.

 

* FUN OR CHALLENGING FIND -- the unusual hide, the puzzle, the clever deception would rate high here. The Wal-Mart parking lot micro rates low, unless somebody comes up with some really oddball way to hide a micro in a Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

* DESIRABLE TRADE ITEMS -- not necessarily expensive (although that usually helps), but rather that there are some neat things in there rather than common junk. Micros would usually rate low, although a few wheresgeorge dollars could bring a micro's rating right up.

 

Each geocacher that finds the cache is invited to rate the cache in these four areas. In the first three categories the ratings are averaged for all finders, but for the "desirable trade items" category they're averaged only among the last five finders. This is so the rating reflects what's been in the cache lately, not the stuff that's long gone.

 

For the "interesting location" category, those who log a DNF are also invited to post a rating. Presumably they got close enough to see the area, even if they didn't find the cache itself.

 

The placer of a geocache would be the first to rate it, but his is only one of many ratings after it's been found a bunch of times. He really has little reason to inflate a rating, but an unfounded opinion of his own cache would eventually be drowned out in the cumulative opinions of other finders.

 

What to do with the ratings? Well, the ratings for each cache should be clearly displayed on the cache listings. The premium members should have more options, including such things as "ignore all caches with an "interesting location" rating less than 2" or the like.

 

Option: It might be an idea to rate the four categories 0 through 5 instead of 1 through 5, with the 0 indicating absolute zilch in this category. The Wal-Mart parking lot micro might rate a 0 in "interesting location", for example. The cache that's been waterlogged and everything inside ruined might rate a 0 for "desirable trade items".

[+geognerd]

Well, for difficulty and terrain, we have this. As for rating the cache, I would never bother if it was an option. I'd rather put my opinion of the cache in my log. And to find out other opinions of the cache, I'd read the logs. The rating system proposed would allow me to quickly find "caches that suck," but then I'd read the logs to find out why it sucks. I think things are fine as they are. If a cache isn't any good, it'll show up in the logs, and if a cache violates the rules, the reviewers will hear about it.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Cache rating doesn't work on the other sites, why bring it here?

[+Indotguy]

Well, for difficulty and terrain, we have this.  As for rating the cache, I would never bother if it was an option.  I'd rather put my opinion of the cache in my log.  And to find out other opinions of the cache, I'd read the logs.  The rating system proposed would allow me to quickly find "caches that suck," but then I'd read the logs to find out why it sucks.  I think things are fine as they are.  If a cache isn't any good, it'll show up in the logs, and if a cache violates the rules, the reviewers will hear about it.

I would agree with geognerd. A cache rating system would be redundant. The cache log is where one should give his/her opinions and ratings about the cache. If Kirbert wants to rate caches he should consider doing so in the cache logs. It could become his "signature" log item. I know a local cacher who rates the difficulty of his finds according to shoe type, for example: Rated- Sandals, Tennis shoes, Hiking boots, Hip waders etc.

[+badlands]

We already have a cache rating system.

 

Look through the logs, if you see a lot of "found it" and nothing else you can bet it's pretty lame. When people find a great cache they tend to write longer and more interesting logs.

 

edit: Indotguy beat me to the Submit Button. I've seen some of the "Shoe" ratings....great stuff.

Edited December 4, 2005 by badlands

[+Lil Devil]

I know a local cacher who rates the difficulty of his finds according to shoe type, for example: Rated- Sandals, Tennis shoes, Hiking boots, Hip waders etc.

It would be interesting to see what kind of caches he rates "high heels"

[+Byron & Anne]

This topic get hashed over about every 3 or 4 months.

[+The Leprechauns]

This topic get hashed over about every 3 or 4 months.

Yep. And the long-running thread, in which a consensus between users and site developers was/is being reached, can be found here, just a little ways down the first page of this forum.

[Kirbert]

And to find out other opinions of the cache, I'd read the logs.

 

I suppose that makes sense. I have two problems with it, though: First, I try very hard not to READ the logs until AFTER I've made an attempt to find the cache. Second, most of the logs could be put into two categories: Loved the cache, or couldn't find it. The problem there is that some people love caches for different reasons. I have a few Wal-Mart parking lot micros out there, and I consider such things lame, would never want to hunt such things myself, yet invariably these are the most popular caches around judging from the quantity and enthusiasm of the logs.

[+The Leprechauns]

Those are both valid concerns. And they are addressed by the "Favorite Caches" solution being discussed in the other thread.

[+TotemLake]

... The problem there is that some people love caches for different reasons....

Which makes the rating system so completely useless as it is subjective to personal opinion of what makes a good or lame cache. Rating is very subjective and means nothing in the reality of the cache except to that person that rated it. The logs reflect that personal opinion much better. Not reading the logs is a personal choice. Rating a cache and making that known to a casual reader would not be a personal choice unless this was by default an Opt Out.

 

I think the Favorites list makes better sense than a cache rating system. This way, if there is a cacher of similar opinion as yours on certain caches, you can read the opinion of that cacher to gain a better perspective of the cache. That to me would carry more weight than an averaging rating system.

[Hugh Jazz]

Cache rating doesn't work on the other sites, why bring it here?

Without getting mired into a discussion of the relative merits of other sites, I feel the need to challenge this blanket statement. I know of at least one other site of which the Smurfy One is a member (not naming names but that site's initials are "T.C." where the cache rating system is working just fine. The system has required some tweaks like any new piece of software would, but according to the site owner, there haven't been any problems reported since then.

 

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled cache rating discussion...

[+YodaDoe]

I rarely find any useful statements in logs about how good a cache is. They all say something like, "great hunt, thanks!" For me, the end result is that I eliminate ALL micros from my to-do list, because I have no way to know which will be interesting and which will be the same old thing. And that sucks, because there are some fun micros out there that I would love to hunt! Further, few people are willing to put negative criticism in a cache log. I have only noticed obviously negative comments on the very worst caches.

 

For what it's worth, the "other site" does have a fairly functional quality score for caches, despite what GPSaxophone says. (The system there has been tweaked and certain problems addressed.) As far as I can tell, it works well. There will always be the chance for abuse, when you have anonymous voting. And opinions on different caches will always vary. But when you have enough people voting, those things go away. Once you realize that most people will vote highly on caches that are unique, or physically and mentally challanging, and vote low on cookie-cutter or pointless caches, you can figure out where YOU stand in all of that and use that information properly. I would rather have some sort of quality indicator than none at all, even if it isn't perfect.

 

(I do not intend to stir up the childish rivalry between this and Terracaching.com, by the way. I use both of them and like both of them. If you feel the need to dismiss the quality voting idea simply because it exists on another site that you perceive to be "the enemy," then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate what is important. Go watch some college football if you need to support a pointless rivalry. Go Cocks!)

 

YodaDoe

[+shunra]

I rarely find any useful statements in logs about how good a cache is. They all say something like, "great hunt, thanks!"  For me, the end result is that I eliminate ALL micros from my to-do list, because I have no way to know which will be interesting and which will be the same old thing. And that sucks, because there are some fun micros out there that I would love to hunt! Further, few people are willing to put negative criticism in a cache log. I have only noticed obviously negative comments on the very worst caches.

 

For what it's worth, the "other site" does have a fairly functional quality score for caches, despite what GPSaxophone says. (The system there has been tweaked and certain problems addressed.) As far as I can tell, it works well. There will always be the chance for abuse, when you have anonymous voting.  And opinions on different caches will always vary. But when you have enough people voting, those things go away. Once you realize that most people will vote highly on caches that are unique, or physically and mentally challanging, and vote low on cookie-cutter or pointless caches, you can figure out where YOU stand in all of that and use that information properly. I would rather have some sort of quality indicator than none at all, even if it isn't perfect. 

 

(I do not intend to stir up the childish rivalry between this and Terracaching.com, by the way. I use both of them and like both of them. If you feel the need to dismiss the quality voting idea simply because it exists on another site that you perceive to be "the enemy," then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate what is important. Go watch some college football if you need to support a pointless rivalry. Go Cocks!)

 

YodaDoe

I think that rating systems are entirely useless if one wants to use them in order to decide whether one wants to go out and hunt it, because everybody has entirely different standards for rating. In that respect, the cache description and the logs provide much more useful information. The fact that logs are not anonymous also helps: There are some people of whom I know that when they speak highly of a cache, I'll probably like it too.

 

Therefore, I think that a rating system would serve no purpose whatsoever on this site.

 

However, since TC's rating system has been mentioned: that rating system serves an entirely different purpose. Over on TC, quality criteria are not enforced by approvers, but by the caching community, and caches which get mostly thumb-down signals are likely to get system-archived, eventually. There too, I would not recommend taking the rating as a guideline for "cache eminenence", as they call it, but after having undergone a few tweaks, the system appears to be working very well now.

 

The bottom line is: I disagree with Saxman's statement that the rating system does not work on TC - it works very well and serves the purpose it was designed for - but agree with him and all the others who say that such a system would be of no added value here on GC.

Edited December 4, 2005 by shunra

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Since this isn't a discussion about other caching sites, let me just say that I don't believe a rating system is good for caching. I happen to enjoy hunting cleverly camo'ed caches. Lamppost covers have not been very clever for some time, but too many people lump urban micros in the lamppost category. With a rating system, all urban micros would be rated low just because they are urban micros. There would not be any consideration for the actual style of hide, at least that has been my experience with the only cache rating system I've seen so far. (this last statement is not meant as an attack on any site, only my opinion of how the rating system is working for me)

[+OConnellz]

I don't agree that ratings are bad for caching. I have seen a lot of redundant, lame caches continue to pop up. I have also seen some good, creative caches. Unfortunately, there are people driven by smilies who place and hunt caches on a 1:1 basis. When I am taking potential 'recruits' caching, and we find the lame ones, their response is more often "and this is fun for you?" Likewise, I have placed some urban micros that consistantly get a positive response, regardless of what site I list them on.

 

I don't think that harder is always better, though. For me, the ideal rating system would allow each individual to rate a cache based on their experience, and for me to evaluate a cache that I am considering pursuing based both on its 'score', WHO rated it, and how they rated it. This transparency would be condusive to 'fluffy' ratings, and I don't really have a good solution to that problem. A bookmark list of favorite caches that the finder maintains seems cumbersome (I barely have time to log them!), at least for me. Maybe if the ratings were anonymous on the cache page, and the system maintained a list of the the top rated caches on each cachers profile, based on caches that they have rated highly...

 

Relying on logs doesn't cut it for me. I know how I log a cache I wasn't impressed by, but I don't know how to read into everyone else's log. I think it is fairly rude to cut down someone's cache (unless it was REALLY bad) in the logs. I prefer to email the owners directly if I took issue with their hide, and express my concerns privately.

[+YodaDoe]

Perhaps if certain categories were defined and voting was done relative to that category, the problem of comparing apples and oranges would be resolved. For example, there could be a category for micros, virtuals, locationless, small, and large.... maybe a category for puzzle caches or multis, or something, although there might be some overlap there. So as long as everyone undstands that you should vote for a cache only compared to others of that type, you wouldn't have micros get lots of crappy votes unless it was really a bad micro.

[+BigFurryMonster]

Cache rating doesn't work on the other sites, why bring it here?

Actually, it does. See: UK Geocache Database. It uses information from geocaching.com and adds a rating system (for UK/Ireland only). Works very nicely! I was able to check out the caches with the highest chance of a fun experience in no time.

[+Markwell]

OK - here it is from the other thread. Since some people don't want to take the time to click and read what I wrote there, I'll post it here as well.

 

My suggestion from MANY moons ago (Apr of 2002) was to allow cachers a percentage (Top 10%) of their finds to be able to log as favorites.  This would not slam any caches, just mark those you thought were the cream of the crop.  If you've found less than 10 caches, you don't get to vote (you have only found a few, let's make it meaningful).  10-19 caches = 1 favorite; 20-29 caches found = 2 favorites, etc., etc.  Someone finding 2,000 caches would be able to designate 200 favorites caches.

 

You can only list a cache as a favorite on one you've found, not one you own.

 

The cache page itself would only show that it's been marked as a favorite if a critical mass were to say so.  For example, it would have to have a minimum of 4 people saying it's in their top 10%.  That way caches with only 1 person saying it's in their Top 10% wouldn't show, and people wouldn't know if they got one vote, three votes or no votes.

 

In my vision of this idea, the list is not static, but completely dynamic.  When a person goes into the "favorites" area, they can see the ones they've listed as favorites, and see how many they can still add (if they've got 43 found caches and only 2 listed as favorites, then it will say that they can add 2 more).

 

Ideally, the list would also disregard archived caches.  Once a cache is archived, it would drop off of the favorites list for those cachers marking it - and therefore make an extra slot available.

 

End result:

*You can query caches that multiple people think is a good cache (not asking for a 1-10 rating, or how good, or why it's good - just that it's "good") - possibly as a feature in a PQ - which would make finding caches along a route MUCH more precise.

*People will not get their feelings in a snit if their cache isn't rated as a Top 10%.  It could have been found by a lot of newbies that don't have many votes, or it may have 3 people that really liked it and it's just waiting for a fourth.

*You might even be able to see an individual cacher's Top 10% (similar to what I have on my profile).

 

But as many have said, this has been hashed over

 

Later in the thread, Jeremy indicated that this could be implemented with a special bookmark and an attribute, and that he is indeed considering it strongly.

[+geognerd]

By George, I think Markwell's solution is perfect. No subjective ratings values, and it takes numerous users' favorite lists for a new "favored" attribute to be assigned. By assigning values, you will always have highs and lows. Thus the "caches that suck" query would be possible. But Markwell's solution will only show the highs, as determined by many cachers with many finds under their belt. I like basing voting rights on # of caches found. The first micro I found under the lightpost was cool and would've made it onto my favorites list, but after the 3rd one I found like that, it wasn't so cool.

[+Markwell]

...and

 

Adding categories just mires down the results and makes it muddy. If someone thinks micros under the skirt of the lamppost at Walmart are the cat's meow, then in my suggestion above, those cachers will rate those caches higher. But they are the only ones (or one of a very few) that like them, then people won't see them as favorites.

 

Let's look at a flawed but applicable analogy: clothing fashions. Let's say that people can rate your fashion taste on a website, and that you would be able to determine what to shop for based on these ratings.

 

When I was growing up, Rainbow colored suspenders were very fashionable. I still think they're kinda cool. If I had a pair of Rainbow suspenders, I might think they are OUTSTANDING and wear them every day, and think I'm quite the fashionable person. But others wouldn't. Sure there may be one or too other people that think they're cool 'cause they're retro, but the majority of the community would not.

 

If I looked at the rating system and saw that a majority of the people didn't like the suspenders, and I started looking at what to buy based on those ratings, I would probably come up with something much more in line with the majority. If I've got only $20 to spend on clothing, I might choose not to spend that $20 on rainbow suspenders. But - if I had plenty of money to spend, I'd still buy them.

 

If however, I started judging fashion JUST by rating suspenders (are they good or not), you would get a much smaller sampling, and less agreement. Besides, you'd get NO responses from the people that don't wear suspenders. Pretty soon the ratings on your fashion are meaniningless.

 

It's the same thing with caches. I think what the majority of the community would find entertaining in a cache hunt would also be enjoyable to me. The biggest problem with the caches as they are now is that if someone is going in to an unknown area for a limited time (for example, passing through on a vacation road trip) - how can they POSSIBLY know which caches to hit? Reading logs? What about the Chicago area that has over 1800 active caches. What about the Los Angeles area that has over 13,000 caches within 100 miles?

 

It's not about judging your cache. It's not about trying to make people feel bad because they placed a lame cache.

 

It's about trying to point out which caches the community thinks are the ones that they would recommend for other people to find - either those that are just starting out, or those that are coming in to an area on a limited time budget.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Markwell

[+nfa]

For what it's worth, I think Markwell's idea is a great way to help cachers without ending up with a "Stinky Caches" list.

 

Over the past year I spent a couple of days in Burlington, Albany, and Syracuse, and got some caching in during each stay; I would have loved to have had a way to see which caches people rated as their favorites.

 

jamie

[+budd-rdc]

I'm neutral on the rating system. My opinion is that at this stage, it's a needless refinement to the game.

 

It won't help me personally, since I'd never use it. I often pick a destination or a goal when I go caching, and make snap judgements on caches located in-between. Micros in urban areas often get skipped, not because of rating, but because driving around city blocks looking for parking is time consuming. They do get visited if it's within walking distance from a nearby destination. I often visit virtuals in cities after I read the description. I enjoy regular or larger size containers in cities, to see how clever the cacher was in hiding it.

 

Before people rush to invalidate my opinion, I have cached in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, British Columbia, Japan, and of course, California.

[+Stuey]

Actually, it does. See: UK Geocache Database. It uses information from geocaching.com and adds a rating system (for UK/Ireland only). Works very nicely! I was able to check out the caches with the highest chance of a fun experience in no time.

I've rated all 800+ UK caches that I have found. Here are some stats from the UK cache rating page:

 

Many thanks to the 791 cachers who have entered 71447 ratings, covering 9546 caches!

 

As BigFurryMonster says, it works really really well.

[+Criminal]

Geocaching.com is already so excellent that I hesitate to suggest additional features.

I should have stopped reading there. Man that's a lot of words...

[Sadie]

Geocaching.com is already so excellent that I hesitate to suggest additional features.

I should have stopped reading there. Man that's a lot of words...

There aren't THAT many words. It's just that they are too close together and gives the impression of being over staturated. They need to be further apart so they can each be appreciated on thier own individual merit..

[+The Leprechauns]

Geocaching.com is already so excellent that I hesitate to suggest additional features.

I should have stopped reading there. Man that's a lot of words...

There aren't THAT many words. It's just that they are too close together and gives the impression of being over staturated. They need to be further apart so they can each be appreciated on thier own individual merit..

It's

 

 

 

the

 

 

528

 

 

pixel

 

 

guideline!

[Kirbert]

I think that rating systems are entirely useless if one wants to use them in order to decide whether one wants to go out and hunt it, because everybody has entirely different standards for rating.

 

Gee, did anyone actually READ my proposal? I didn't propose rating caches as "good" or "bad" -- that would be worthless for the reasons given. I proposed rating caches in four different criteria, precisely because people have different preferences in what they like in a cache. The idea is, if you like quick and easy, select the caches that rate high in the quick and easy criteria. If you like caches that take you to interesting places, select the caches that rate high in that criteria.

 

And I agree: almost nobody says anything critical of a cache in the log, so the best you can hope to accomplish by reading the logs is to discern the difference between mild praise and enthusiastic praise. Judging whether or not the cache is the TYPE of cache you prefer to hunt is almost impossible. But I believe, faced with the opportunity to rate each cache in four separate criteria, most cachers would provide realistic ratings -- including the owner of the cache, who is the first to rate it.

 

I would hope that the ratings in these four criteria would prove similar to the terrain and difficulty ratings. That is, it's not "good" or "bad", it is what it is. Some caches are quick and easy, some are at interesting locations, etc. Just about the only way you'd get a low rating in all four categories would be to hide a micro under a lamp post skirt in the middle of a garbage dump that requires a 2 mile hike through the swamp to get to. Actually, come to think of it, somebody would probably rate that good in the fun challenge category.

[+The Leprechauns]

I read your proposal, but I far prefer the one being discussed in the other thread that I linked to, and which Markwell kindly summarized above. Sorry, and thanks for giving some careful thought to the issue and contributing to the discussion.

[CoyoteRed]

Let's look at a flawed but applicable analogy: clothing fashions.

Actually, I think your analogy is more applicable than you think.

 

I have a, let's say, uncommon interest in a few caches locally. I'm paying attention to who has found them and who seems to be ignoring them. I can tell the style of cache some folks prefer, especially the locals, by what they hunt.

 

It boils down to people hunt what they prefer and it only makes sense they would rate those higher. It would also make sense that they wouldn't hunt those they don't prefer and wouldn't even have the opportunity to rate those at all.

 

Where am I going with this? Lame park-n-grabs would rule. Even if the majority of the locals didn't prefer that type of hide! What would this tell the newbie? Add to the chaff!

 

Additionally, if the trend elsewhere is anything like what I've seen here, groups of folks looking to pad their score have to travel greate distances after they exhuast their local area. To maximize their time they only attempt those that don't take a long time and don't take them too far out of route. They wouldn't attempt a puzzle cache unless they've figured it out before hand. They will abandon the hunt on a hard-to-find cache sooner than most.

 

Now, if this trend is duplicated in other places and even if the locals will hunt every cache placed, the visitors will be the ones who are padding the ratings.

 

...and those will be for the quick and easy caches.

 

That's not to mention that the quickies will reach "critical mass" a lot sooner than harder or more time consuming ones. Any rating system that relies on the number of visitors will by default bias it towards the quicker, easier cache.

 

I don't think I want a rating system at all--at least, not until you can get a handle on this phenomena--because I think it would greatly accelerate the growth of the lame urban quickie.

[Fledermaus]

Cache rating doesn't work on the other sites, why bring it here?

IMHO, you are Absotively & Posilutly correct! When someone has the power to rate a cache, without having "Been There, Done That", he might as well have the power to determine the color of your house and/or the brand of your car.

 

If you live in NYC or Miami, you haven't a clue about what caches are like in Seattle or any other area in which you have not visited. Keep this in mind the next time you read a cache page description. There are things that you can and will encounter, when hunting for any cache, that cannot be accounted for in words alone.

 

Sure, the cache comments may give you a clue of what to expect when at a cache or cache site, but you still are only guessing when you judge it from afar. To K.I.S.S., if you don't like it, don't do it. If no one goes there for long periods of time, that should tell you that it either sucks or it's very hard to get there!

 

Judge not, lest ye be judged!

 

Don't worry about me, for I'm just batty and I hang upside down.

 

/\/oo\/\

[markandlynn]

Actually, it does. See: UK Geocache Database. It uses information from geocaching.com and adds a rating system (for UK/Ireland only). Works very nicely! I was able to check out the caches with the highest chance of a fun experience in no time.

I've rated all 800+ UK caches that I have found. Here are some stats from the UK cache rating page:

 

Many thanks to the 791 cachers who have entered 71447 ratings, covering 9546 caches!

 

As BigFurryMonster says, it works really really well.

This works really well.

You can ONLY RATE CACHES YOU HAVE FOUND.

The caches at the top are better than the ones at the bottom.

The ones we have found in the top 100 are all amongst our favourite caches.

 

We are planning our 300th cache based on this list and subsequent reading of the logs.

When we go on holiday next year we will plan to do caches in the top 10% first before heading off for the other caches.

 

All in all come to the UK and do some of our top rated caches to see how effective this system is.

[SAWKS]

Waymarking.com has a rating system. I think that if something like this is developed then there should be a link to a "voting booth"

[+Witters Critters]

Of all I have read, Markwell's solution seems the best. It would be nice to be able to sort for caches which have achieved the min 4 votes, or at least highlight them in some way on the cache listings.

 

It would also be nice to reward members that have put out these good caches (like a months free premium membership for achieving 4+ votes).

 

Seems to me not too difficult to implement. The "voting booth" could simply be a list of all caches you have visited (and that are still active) with a checkbox next to them. You check all those you want to vote for and click a "Vote" button. Before your votes are cast, the system would check that you haven't marked too many.

 

That's my two cents.

[Hugh Jazz]

A much simpler system would be to only allow rating of caches that you have PLACED, not those you have found.

 

Heck even I could write the code for that one.

 

Not sure what the results would mean, but they would be non controversial, that's for sure.

 

[Sadie]

<...> but they would be non controversial, that's for sure.

 

Yes they would be. That's for sure.

 

OK, reading the OP, I like them better as attributes, not as an implication of quality.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Sadie

[+AB4N]

I like Markwell's proposal for the most part, and hope that something like it will eventually be implimented. The one thing that I would tweek is the absolute 10% qualification. I think that there should be a cap on the most that any user could vote for, something between 50-100 caches tops.

 

People already abuse the system (IMHO) by logging caches that they have never found, the so called "pocket caches", archived caches, armchair caches, and the list goes on.

[+jon & miki]

I have no idea how it's implemented, but I like the netflix and amazon style of ratings. Ignoring the features of user reviews and the rest, the part I think would be useful here is the kind that uses the ratings to identify caches that you individually would probably like based on your and other's ratings of caches (whoops, I mean movies and books) that you both have found (watched, read).

 

A typical list of recommendations might look something like this:

People who liked caches kml and xyz also enjoyed cache abc.

 

The nice feature is that you would self-classify yourself as to similarity with others. If you like walmart parking lot micros and rate them highly, the system will flag caches for you that you haven't found, but were liked by others who also liked the walmart caches. And if you hated them, the recommendations of others who liked 'em wouldn't influence the recommendations you get.

 

The downsides are that new caches would take a while to appear on your "recommendations" radar, the recommendations would either be bad or not appear at all if you didn't rate caches, and it would take a while to build enough critical mass for there to be substantial numbers of ratings to compare.

 

I have no idea how hard it would be to implement, but if we're just making a wish, we should probably look at how Amazon and Netflix are doing it. Both have been doing a pretty good job of highlighting items that really are of interest to me.

Edited December 20, 2005 by ikim & noj