Cache Rating

[+TrailGators]

there comes a point where you get tired of repeating your arguement. I am not there, but I am pretty close. One last time, in regards to the recent conversations:

 

The primary reason cache ratings would be useful would be to simplify searching in a cache saturated area that one is not familar. Agreed, favorites and logs are the best indicator, but there is something nice about being able to use a PQ to narrow down caches.

 

When you don't have the time to research, and all you have is a screen full of GC#'s, it is nice to be able to have at least some idea (even if it is subjective and flawed) of which caches might be worth it, and which might now.

 

I do belive that I have now reached the point where I am tired of repeating my argument. For the rest of you, feel free to continue the conversation!!

Have we gone around the circle again already?

[CoyoteRed]

I've got an idea. It's fairly complicated and is likely to not ever be considered, but here goes...

 

Create several terms that might describe a cache. These might include scenic, historic, quickie, and thought provoking. These terms should not have any subjective "feelings" terms. This is needed to better define the cache. You'd need 10 to 15 good terms to be effective for later.

 

Next, on the log page the logger to asked to pick 3 of the however many terms they think best describes the cache. Then they are asked if they enjoyed the cache.

 

These results are never revealed to the cache owner.

 

What is produced is a profile of sorts of what any particular cache likes. Kind of like a "geo" metric.

 

Now, back to the idea of collaborative lists. One problem of a collaborative list is when you go into a new area you have nothing to compare previous finds to. This is where the geo-metric comes in.

 

When you request a list of caches you can specify various criteria, but for simplicity's sake we'll keep it simple. The system will look at your geo-metric and find other cachers with similar geo-metrics and then spit out a list of caches they liked.

 

You can massage the filters myriad of ways; how tight the geo-metric is, T&D ratings of the caches, size and types, attributes, number of cacher lists to use, number of intersects to use, the list goes on and on.

 

Then to make it smarter for you, when you go to log the cache you are asked to rate the cache and whether you liked it. It adjusts its results by seeing how well it's done in the past. Kind of like how Bayesian filters work for filtering spam.

[+TrailGators]

I've got an idea. It's fairly complicated and is likely to not ever be considered, but here goes...

 

Create several terms that might describe a cache. These might include scenic, historic, quickie, and thought provoking. These terms should not have any subjective "feelings" terms. This is needed to better define the cache. You'd need 10 to 15 good terms to be effective for later.

 

Next, on the log page the logger to asked to pick 3 of the however many terms they think best describes the cache. Then they are asked if they enjoyed the cache.

 

These results are never revealed to the cache owner.

 

What is produced is a profile of sorts of what any particular cache likes. Kind of like a "geo" metric.

 

Now, back to the idea of collaborative lists. One problem of a collaborative list is when you go into a new area you have nothing to compare previous finds to. This is where the geo-metric comes in.

 

When you request a list of caches you can specify various criteria, but for simplicity's sake we'll keep it simple. The system will look at your geo-metric and find other cachers with similar geo-metrics and then spit out a list of caches they liked.

 

You can massage the filters myriad of ways; how tight the geo-metric is, T&D ratings of the caches, size and types, attributes, number of cacher lists to use, number of intersects to use, the list goes on and on.

 

Then to make it smarter for you, when you go to log the cache you are asked to rate the cache and whether you liked it. It adjusts its results by seeing how well it's done in the past. Kind of like how Bayesian filters work for filtering spam.

Sounds interesting! I had an idea sort of like that to create classifications for cachers like: the diehard hiker; the stroller, the park and grabber, the puzzler, etc. People could classify themselves or take some questionaire that would do it for them. But you would end up with something you could use to filter for caches they would prefer (like you said). That would add a dimension so you could find favorites of the group you are closet to! You could also find people to cache with! Anyhow, this is so complicated that nobody will get and they will never do it. But it's fun to "What if!"

[+olbluesguy]

When did this topic switch to a favorits list?

I thought it was about rating caches.

Simple, like did you like this cache?....Yes or no.

That's all you would have to answer when you log your find.

somewhere on the cache page would be the rating be it % or a letter A,B,C or what ever.

Nobody would know how each finder voted.

How complicated could that be?

[+TrailGators]

When did this topic switch to a favorits list?

I thought it was about rating caches.

Simple, like did you like this cache?....Yes or no.

That's all you would have to answer when you log your find.

somewhere on the cache page would be the rating be it % or a letter A,B,C or what ever.

Nobody would know how each finder voted.

How complicated could that be?

Read the circle. You have just attempted to start it at the beginning again. Quick synopsis: Favorites is a positive only rating idea. The negative ratings scares too many people.

[+olbluesguy]

When did this topic switch to a favorits list?

I thought it was about rating caches.

Simple, like did you like this cache?....Yes or no.

That's all you would have to answer when you log your find.

somewhere on the cache page would be the rating be it % or a letter A,B,C or what ever.

Nobody would know how each finder voted.

How complicated could that be?

Read the circle. You have just attempted to start it at the beginning again. Quick synopsis: Favorites is a positive only rating idea. The negative ratings scares too many people.

 

Thats why we have the problem. everybody is afraid to tell the truth.

Quick synopsis: this reminds me of schools where nobody fails because they dont want to hurt any ones feelings.

I look at it this way, a negative rating on one of my caches would either make me archive it,or improve it.

Either way the community benifits.

[+Davispak]

Or sports leagues that don't keep score.

I think the caching community will survive if we have a cache rating system.

[+TrailGators]

Or sports leagues that don't keep score.

I think the caching community will survive if we have a cache rating system.

I agree with both you guys but some people out there don't like having their pants pulled down around their ankles. I really think a rating system would help improve the declining quality of the average cache out there. But if it gets the thumbs down from TPTB, I'll take the favorites idea!

[+boda]

I AM NOT AFRAID! But you would be if you saw my pants pulled down around my ankles. It is not a pretty sight.

 

Fear is not an issue. Nor are positive-only systems. Too much subjectivity and cacher preference seems to be the major issues.

 

Despite what my previous posts may imply, I'm not against the concept of helping folks select "good" caches when traveling, I just have a major problem seeing how a rating system will be effective. Just saying "It's just that simple" doesn't make it so.

[+TrailGators]

I AM NOT AFRAID! But you would be if you saw my pants pulled down around my ankles. It is not a pretty sight.

 

Fear is not an issue. Nor are positive-only systems. Too much subjectivity and cacher preference seems to be the major issues.

 

Despite what my previous posts may imply, I'm not against the concept of helping folks select "good" caches when traveling, I just have a major problem seeing how a rating system will be effective. Just saying "It's just that simple" doesn't make it so.

If there was a new restaurant in your town and all your friends told you it was awesome would you go try it? If they all said it was the worst food they had ever eaten would you try it? Be honest! It is that simple!

[+thedeadpirate]

If there was a new restaurant in your town and all your friends told you it was awesome would you go try it? If they all said it was the worst food they had ever eaten would you try it? Be honest! It is that simple!

 

But what if I don't realize that my friends have a personal beef against Joe's BBQ Shack. I might miss some of the best bbq on the planet. Or, what if I don't realize that my friends are real fans of Indian food and can't stand bbq period.

 

It's not as easy as Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down. You need something more like the last X number of cachers that liked this cache also liked X, Y, and Z caches. Now if you could do this truly anonymously, you might have something.

 

I would still like to be sure that someone that didn't like me couldn't skew the results. You know, like maybe I deleted some bogus finds from some popular cachers around my area. I don't want them ganging up and giving all my caches a thumbs down because I won't play ball with them.

[+TrailGators]

If there was a new restaurant in your town and all your friends told you it was awesome would you go try it? If they all said it was the worst food they had ever eaten would you try it? Be honest! It is that simple!

I would still like to be sure that someone that didn't like me couldn't skew the results. You know, like maybe I deleted some bogus finds from some popular cachers around my area. I don't want them ganging up and giving all my caches a thumbs down because I won't play ball with them.

No offense but that sounds a bit paranoid to me. It could say 11 of 15 caches recommend this cache. But I'd prefer to star rating based on the average score of all the finders. This is the same thing that Amazon uses to rate books!

[+thedeadpirate]

If there was a new restaurant in your town and all your friends told you it was awesome would you go try it? If they all said it was the worst food they had ever eaten would you try it? Be honest! It is that simple!

I would still like to be sure that someone that didn't like me couldn't skew the results. You know, like maybe I deleted some bogus finds from some popular cachers around my area. I don't want them ganging up and giving all my caches a thumbs down because I won't play ball with them.

No offense but that sounds a bit paranoid to me. It could say 11 of 15 caches recommend this cache. But I'd prefer to star rating based on the average score of all the finders. This is the same thing that Amazon uses to rate books!

 

It is paranoid. I haven't run into it yet, but I am one of those people who would delete bogus finds like some have commented on in some of the other threads. I have read of some bizarre reactions to bogus finds being deleted.

 

Fortunately we have some good folks around here. I'm not aware of any number hounds, with the exception on one FTF hound.

 

I don't know if anyone uses the StumbleUpon script for Firefox. This seems to work pretty well. You go in and choose a few categories that you are interested in. Then, as you surf the web, you give a page a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Then if you want to find something new, you can click on the Stumble! button. This will take you to another page which someone else who has similar interest has given a thumbs up. For me it works probably 2/3 of the time. 1/3 of the time what comes up is just not interesting. But, it is nice for when you just want to bum around the net and find something new.

 

I would just like some type of checks and balances to built into whatever system may be implemented in order to discourage abuses. I realize nothing is going to be fullfool-proof.

 

But then again, I'm happy with the way things are. I wish we had a cache saturation problem around here.

 

 

 

***Edited because full-proof isn't a word. Or is it?***

Edited July 7, 2006 by GeoBain

[+tozainamboku]

When did this topic switch to a favorits list?

I thought it was about rating caches.

Simple, like did you like this cache?....Yes or no.

That's all you would have to answer when you log your find.

somewhere on the cache page would be the rating be it % or a letter A,B,C or what ever.

Nobody would know how each finder voted.

How complicated could that be?

 

You must never have been FTF For that matter, if you vote when you log your find the % would go up or down and the owner would how each person voted. If you report A,B,C - you run the risk that your vote is the one that changes the letter and the owner would know how you voted.

 

I think we first need to decide what problem we are trying to solve with a rating system. If we just want a few recommendations (a 'Best of' list) so when visiting another area then Markwell's suggestion of combining favorites lists and awarding a blue ribbon or something to caches that get a certain number of recommendations would probably work. You will likely miss some caches that you as an individual would like but it certainly should return a small set of really exceptional caches. If we want recommendations based on what kinds of caches you like doing, then we need some more information. We could try an affinity filter - people who liked cache A also liked cache B. Or you could rate how much you liked certain aspects of the cache. If you just want to gong people who hide caches you think are lame you could have a gong this cache. Or you could allow people to rate caches 1 to 5 stars and hope that people who see alot of 1 star ratings get the message. I think some people are thinking a rating system would get rid of bad caches. I think that kind of system will just sour a lot of people's attitude to geocaching.

Edited July 7, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

Or you could allow people to rate caches 1 to 5 stars and hope that people who see alot of 1 star ratings get the message. I think some people are thinking a rating system would get rid of bad caches. I think that kind of system will just sour a lot of people's attitude to geocaching.

If you don't do anything you will sour the people's attitudes that don't like bad caches.

Edited July 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Or you could allow people to rate caches 1 to 5 stars and hope that people who see alot of 1 star ratings get the message. I think some people are thinking a rating system would get rid of bad caches. I think that kind of system will just sour a lot of people's attitude to geocaching.

If you don't do anything you will sour the people's attitudes that don't like bad caches.

I disagree with your premise. You don't like bad caches, yet you continue to play the game.

[+sbell111]

I would still like to be sure that someone that didn't like me couldn't skew the results. You know, like maybe I deleted some bogus finds from some popular cachers around my area. I don't want them ganging up and giving all my caches a thumbs down because I won't play ball with them.

No offense but that sounds a bit paranoid to me. ...

It is paranoid, but it is certainly not an unreasonable fear based on experiences I and my friends have had and what we have learned from these forums.

[+TrailGators]

Or you could allow people to rate caches 1 to 5 stars and hope that people who see alot of 1 star ratings get the message. I think some people are thinking a rating system would get rid of bad caches. I think that kind of system will just sour a lot of people's attitude to geocaching.

If you don't do anything you will sour the people's attitudes that don't like bad caches.

I disagree with your premise. You don't like bad caches, yet you continue to play the game.

It's not a premise. It's how I feel. Lame caches are straws on the camels back for me. I've started doing <um hum> caching because they seem to care about the quality of the caches. They think striving to make every cache an enjoyable experience is worth the effort. That makes sense to me and it's the way it should be.

[+sbell111]

Or you could allow people to rate caches 1 to 5 stars and hope that people who see alot of 1 star ratings get the message. I think some people are thinking a rating system would get rid of bad caches. I think that kind of system will just sour a lot of people's attitude to geocaching.

If you don't do anything you will sour the people's attitudes that don't like bad caches.

I disagree with your premise. You don't like bad caches, yet you continue to play the game.

It's not a premise. It's how I feel. Lame caches are straws on the camels back for me. I've started doing <um hum> caching because they seem to care about the quality of the caches. They think striving to make every cache an enjoyable experience is worth the effort. That makes sense to me and it's the way it should be.

You missed my point. You don't like bad caches. Bad caches are prevelant (in your opinion). However, you continue caching.

[+TrailGators]

Or you could allow people to rate caches 1 to 5 stars and hope that people who see alot of 1 star ratings get the message. I think some people are thinking a rating system would get rid of bad caches. I think that kind of system will just sour a lot of people's attitude to geocaching.

If you don't do anything you will sour the people's attitudes that don't like bad caches.

I disagree with your premise. You don't like bad caches, yet you continue to play the game.

It's not a premise. It's how I feel. Lame caches are straws on the camels back for me. I've started doing <um hum> caching because they seem to care about the quality of the caches. They think striving to make every cache an enjoyable experience is worth the effort. That makes sense to me and it's the way it should be.

You missed my point. You don't like bad caches. Bad caches are prevelant (in your opinion). However, you continue caching.

No you missed mine.... Everytime I find a lame cache, it is another straw on the camels back for me. I honestly think the straws are increasing rapidly and nobody cares. So I honestly don't how much longer I will continue.

 

All I hear are arguments favoring sticking our heads in the sand and allowing lame caches to become the majority. Why can't we have a system to allow some of us to quickly find the recommended caches out there AND ignore the lame ones? If you don't like the rating system then don't use it. But don't deprive others of having it. Don't tell me AGAIN to read all the logs to separate the wheat from the chaff because I don't have time! I'd rather spend my free time finding quality caches!

[CoyoteRed]

Unfortunately, those straws are largely coming in the form of micros. I see a future where more and more folks are simply ignoring micros to get a little relief.

 

That's a shame. That'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater and still have the junk in the other sizes left over.

[+TrailGators]

Unfortunately, those straws are largely coming in the form of micros. I see a future where more and more folks are simply ignoring micros to get a little relief.

 

That's a shame. That'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater and still have the junk in the other sizes left over.

I agree. There are some awesome micros out there. Lame (for me) is usually more related to location. Although there are some awesome cammo jobs I've seen where the cache is located in some banal location.

[+tozainamboku]

I first started caching as something to do while hiking. I avoided all urban hides for a long time. Then I started doing one or two because they were in the neighborhood and I could stop and get these without spending too much time. Soon I began noticing that a lot of these were not in the greatest locations. Why hide one near the dumster behind the supermarket when there was a nice park a block away? But every once and a while - I would find something near the dumpster where the hider had found a new clever way of hiding or had done a great job with the camouflage. I remember one of these where the hider had just left an Altoids tin under a lamppost skirt. I had never seen that before and thought it was cool []. I also went to look for the caches in the nice park. The coords took me in the bushes where I found broken bottles, beer cans, and used condoms yuk!. I can understand the frustration that, other than avoiding all urban caches, there is no way to tell whether one is "worth" doing or not. I have some friends who think all caches are worth doing. They all give you one smiley. I realized that there are good caches and bad caches but that part of what makes a cache good or bad is the attitude I take to it. I've DNF'd on "bad" cache where I logged that I would not even bother going back, and then one a different day when I'm in a different mood have gone back and wound up not just finding the cache but adding it to my watchlist just to see the comments others would leave. Ok, so there are lame caches. If you really think that there are too many lame caches - perhaps you should take a break from caching or only go looking for caches on <um hum>.com. I try to do those hiking caches as often as I can to prevent burnout on lame urban caches. If there is an exceptionally good cache, I'll probably hear about it a caching event or someone will recommend it on the local geocaching site. When I'm feeling lazy, I will drive around and pick up park and grabs. So what if I find 25 lame caches and one good one that day. I can have a good time anyway. And when I decide I'm not having fun - I stop for the day.

[+TrailGators]

I first started caching as something to do while hiking. I avoided all urban hides for a long time. Then I started doing one or two because they were in the neighborhood and I could stop and get these without spending too much time. Soon I began noticing that a lot of these were not in the greatest locations. Why hide one near the dumster behind the supermarket when there was a nice park a block away? But every once and a while - I would find something near the dumpster where the hider had found a new clever way of hiding or had done a great job with the camouflage. I remember one of these where the hider had just left an Altoids tin under a lamppost skirt. I had never seen that before and thought it was cool [ ]. I also went to look for the caches in the nice park. The coords took me in the bushes where I found broken bottles, beer cans, and used condoms yuk!. I can understand the frustration that, other than avoiding all urban caches, there is no way to tell whether one is "worth" doing or not. I have some friends who think all caches are worth doing. They all give you one smiley. I realized that there are good caches and bad caches but that part of what makes a cache good or bad is the attitude I take to it. I've DNF'd on "bad" cache where I logged that I would not even bother going back, and then one a different day when I'm in a different mood have gone back and wound up not just finding the cache but adding it to my watchlist just to see the comments others would leave. Ok, so there are lame caches. If you really think that there are too many lame caches - perhaps you should take a break from caching or only go looking for caches on <um hum>.com. I try to do those hiking caches as often as I can to prevent burnout on lame urban caches. If there is an exceptionally good cache, I'll probably hear about it a caching event or someone will recommend it on the local geocaching site. When I'm feeling lazy, I will drive around and pick up park and grabs. So what if I find 25 lame caches and one good one that day. I can have a good time anyway. And when I decide I'm not having fun - I stop for the day.

 

1) Why not let people rate caches (Amazon method)?

or

2) Why not take everyone's favorites and combine them and share them on a global list?

 

What if it does improve the quality of all caches? I think it will have a positive influence!

Edited July 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Happy Humphrey]

A simple rating system would be useless. Why? the restaurant analogy is a good one: we once tried a restaurant that someone had recommended (the owner of the B&B where we were staying). It was rubbish - we were in and out in half an hour. We were hoping for somewhere pleasant to spend the evening (yes, we should have explained that). Unfortunately, the B&B owner thought that cheap fast food was the best type: although the food was OK for that type of place, it wasn't what we were after at the time.

 

So they would rate the restaurant (/cache) as great, we would rate it poor.

 

My point is that you have to know the intention of the cache before you can rate it. Why do so many assume that all lamppost micros are inherently inferior to a mountainside epic? They aren't aimed to give the same experience: they are pieces in two different games. Coyote Red has the right idea - classify the caches objectively before trying to rate them - but I'd say that this should be done by the cache owner as he/she is the only person who really knows the intention of the hide.

 

HH

[+TrailGators]

A simple rating system would be useless. Why? the restaurant analogy is a good one: we once tried a restaurant that someone had recommended (the owner of the B&B where we were staying). It was rubbish - we were in and out in half an hour. We were hoping for somewhere pleasant to spend the evening (yes, we should have explained that). Unfortunately, the B&B owner thought that cheap fast food was the best type: although the food was OK for that type of place, it wasn't what we were after at the time.

 

So they would rate the restaurant (/cache) as great, we would rate it poor.

 

My point is that you have to know the intention of the cache before you can rate it. Why do so many assume that all lamppost micros are inherently inferior to a mountainside epic? They aren't aimed to give the same experience: they are pieces in two different games. Coyote Red has the right idea - classify the caches objectively before trying to rate them - but I'd say that this should be done by the cache owner as he/she is the only person who really knows the intention of the hide.

 

HH

Do you really think that someone will think that the majority of people will rate a micro under a lamp post cover with 5 stars?

 

We have over 3000 caches out here and we have collected data from 12-15 people and half of them all picked the same 5-6 caches as being the most fun to do! Feel free to calculate the odds of that happening! The rest of the people didn't vote for those caches yet because they have not done them yet. But they will do them now that they know those caches are "exceptional!"

[+SG-MIN]

A simple rating system would be useless. Why? the restaurant analogy is a good one: we once tried a restaurant that someone had recommended (the owner of the B&B where we were staying). It was rubbish - we were in and out in half an hour. We were hoping for somewhere pleasant to spend the evening (yes, we should have explained that). Unfortunately, the B&B owner thought that cheap fast food was the best type: although the food was OK for that type of place, it wasn't what we were after at the time.

 

So they would rate the restaurant (/cache) as great, we would rate it poor.

 

My point is that you have to know the intention of the cache before you can rate it. Why do so many assume that all lamppost micros are inherently inferior to a mountainside epic? They aren't aimed to give the same experience: they are pieces in two different games. Coyote Red has the right idea - classify the caches objectively before trying to rate them - but I'd say that this should be done by the cache owner as he/she is the only person who really knows the intention of the hide.

 

HH

 

Easy answer...

 

They are already rated. Surely you are savvy enough to be able to find the caches you like to find on the geocaching website. If you like puzzles, you can find puzzles. If you like micros, you know how to find micros. If you like 5/5 challenges you know where to find them. Now that you know what you like, if you had a rating system, you can compare those you like.

 

Most micros in urban settings have similar intentions. If I like that intention, I would still rather find the best micro in an urban setting.

 

Same for puzzles, if I am traveling to a new area, I want to try the best puzzle cache.

 

We automatically catagorize (and rate) our searches informally in our minds - this just shares that rating.

[+sbell111]

Do you really think that someone will think that the majority of people will rate a micro under a lamp post cover with 5 stars?

 

We have over 3000 caches out here and we have collected data from 12-15 people and half of them all picked the same 5-6 caches as being the most fun to do! Feel free to calculate the odds of that happening! The rest of the people didn't vote for those caches yet because they have not done them yet. But they will do them now that they know those caches are "exceptional!"

It sounds like you already have a mechanism to identify great caches. Problem solved.

[+TrailGators]

I just found out another long-term cacher has stopped caching! That makes two that I know of out here in the past two months. They are both very dissappointed in the degrading quality of caches.

 

We really need some easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff!!!

Edited July 10, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

We automatically catagorize (and rate) our searches informally in our minds - this just shares that rating.

I realize that this has been brought up 1000 times in this thread alone, but if I don't know why you think a cache is great, your opinion means nothing to me. Since it has been established that there are regional caching differences, the problem is multiplied if one tries to use a rating system while traveling.

[+sbell111]

I just found out another long-term cacher has stopped caching! That makes two that I know of out here in the past two months. They are both very dissappointed in the degrading quality of caches.

 

We really need some easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff!!!

Sorry. I still don't see the emergancy. Just because some unknown cacher stopped playing for some unknown reason doesn't make me want to implement a flawed rating system.

 

Sorry.

[+TeamRJMK]

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I would like to see a local individual/organization establish one (or more) bookmarks of good caches for the area. For example: GGA-best visitor caches, GGA-best hiking caches, GGA-best kids caches ... etc.

 

Put a link to the bookmarks in the regional forums (like the links to the local organizations).

 

It isn't a perfect answer but it is a way to accomplish the goal within the current system... I know there will be politics over the choosing but there will be similar politics in any system.

 

J

[+sbell111]

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I would like to see a local individual/organization establish one (or more) bookmarks of good caches for the area. For example: GGA-best visitor caches, GGA-best hiking caches, GGA-best kids caches ... etc.

 

Put a link to the bookmarks in the regional forums (like the links to the local organizations).

 

It isn't a perfect answer but it is a way to accomplish the goal within the current system... I know there will be politics over the choosing but there will be similar politics in any system.

I think that this is a great idea. It not only allows one to find great caches in an area, but it allows one to identify the kind of great caches that appeals to him/her.

[+TrailGators]

I just found out another long-term cacher has stopped caching! That makes two that I know of out here in the past two months. They are both very dissappointed in the degrading quality of caches.

 

We really need some easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff!!!

Sorry. I still don't see the emergancy. Just because some unknown cacher stopped playing for some unknown reason doesn't make me want to implement a flawed rating system.

 

Sorry.

Seems like everything is flawed to you and you never offer any solutions/ideas. Anybody can sit there and criticize. Anyhow, you missed my point which is that there are lot of cachers that are sick of banal caches and want to find the cream of the crop. So a few of us are in the process of combining all of our local favorite cache lists into one master list ordered by the ones with the most votes. The list will be awesome and everyone is very appreciative that we are doing it!

[+sbell111]

I just found out another long-term cacher has stopped caching! That makes two that I know of out here in the past two months. They are both very dissappointed in the degrading quality of caches.

 

We really need some easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff!!!

Sorry. I still don't see the emergancy. Just because some unknown cacher stopped playing for some unknown reason doesn't make me want to implement a flawed rating system.

 

Sorry.

Seems like everything is flawed to you and you never offer any solutions/ideas. Anybody can sit there and criticize. Anyhow, you missed my point which is that there are lot of cachers that are sick of banal caches and want to find the cream of the crop. So a few of us are in the process of combining all of our local favorite cache lists into one master list ordered by the ones with the most votes. The list will be awesome and everyone is very appreciative that we are doing it!

I guess you missed my comments throughout this thread and immediately prior to your last post.

A master list doesn't cut it because no one will know why those caches are good. For instance, in my area some of the most evil caches will make that list. If I don't like evil caches, the list will drag me from one cache to another until I abandon it. It would only be fun for those that like those caches.

 

This is in contrast to the idea that was floated just above which is for each area to have a number of lists. Each tailored to different caching desires.

[+wzd]

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I would like to see a local individual/organization establish one (or more) bookmarks of good caches for the area. For example: GGA-best visitor caches, GGA-best hiking caches, GGA-best kids caches ... etc.

 

Put a link to the bookmarks in the regional forums (like the links to the local organizations).

 

It isn't a perfect answer but it is a way to accomplish the goal within the current system... I know there will be politics over the choosing but there will be similar politics in any system.

 

J

 

Or just do it. Any cacher can create a list of their favorites and make it public. If enough do it, then there is an adhoc rating system in place. If almost nobody does it, then I guess that is a vote for not doing ratings.... The bookmark lists show up on the cache page today.

 

I have followed a favorites bookmark list of an extreme cacher...and probably would follow a list from a local cacher if I liked one that was on their list.

[+KBI]

I just found out another long-term cacher has stopped caching! That makes two that I know of out here in the past two months. They are both very disappointed in the degrading quality of caches.

 

We really need some easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff!!!

Sorry. I still don't see the emergency. Just because some unknown cacher stopped playing for some unknown reason doesn't make me want to implement a flawed rating system.

 

Sorry.

Seems like everything is flawed to you and you never offer any solutions/ideas. Anybody can sit there and criticize. Anyhow, you missed my point which is that there are lot of cachers that are sick of banal caches and want to find the cream of the crop. So a few of us are in the process of combining all of our local favorite cache lists into one master list ordered by the ones with the most votes. The list will be awesome and everyone is very appreciative that we are doing it!

Sbell111 is right. If someone quits the game after finding a few too many [insert your favorite issue-adjective, e.g.: "lame," "easy," "boring," "lampost-ey," "micro," etc.] caches, then that's their problem. Why should any cacher expect to be 'protected' from unpleasant caches -- especially when everyone's definition of unpleasant is different? How can I, as a cacher, reasonably demand that every single geocache in existence either (1) be custom designed to entertain ME, or (2) display red flags to indicate that it is NOT custom designed to entertain me?

 

It's like what Forrest Gump's mom said about chocolates -- part of the enjoyment of the game, in my opinion, is never knowing for sure what you're going to find. Sometimes my expectations are low and I'm pleasantly surprised; sometimes my expectations are high and I'm UNpleasantly surprised. So what? Personally, I would never want to give anyone else the job of deciding which ones are ["too lame," "too easy," "too boring," "too lampost-ey," "too small," "too large," "too medium," etc.] for me. Let me see the whole list, and I'll decide for myself, thank you very much.

 

Like sbell111, I don't see the emergency either. And it's not true that sbell111 never offers any solutions/ideas. You are proposing a privately constructed list of cache recommendations -- in the post immediately before yours sbell111 seems to agree with you. Sounds like a solution/idea to me!

[+TrailGators]

I just found out another long-term cacher has stopped caching! That makes two that I know of out here in the past two months. They are both very disappointed in the degrading quality of caches.

 

We really need some easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff!!!

Sorry. I still don't see the emergency. Just because some unknown cacher stopped playing for some unknown reason doesn't make me want to implement a flawed rating system.

 

Sorry.

Seems like everything is flawed to you and you never offer any solutions/ideas. Anybody can sit there and criticize. Anyhow, you missed my point which is that there are lot of cachers that are sick of banal caches and want to find the cream of the crop. So a few of us are in the process of combining all of our local favorite cache lists into one master list ordered by the ones with the most votes. The list will be awesome and everyone is very appreciative that we are doing it!

Sbell111 is right. If someone quits the game after finding a few too many [insert your favorite issue-adjective, e.g.: "lame," "easy," "boring," "lampost-ey," "micro," etc.] caches, then that's their problem. Why should any cacher expect to be 'protected' from unpleasant caches -- especially when everyone's definition of unpleasant is different? How can I, as a cacher, reasonably demand that every single geocache in existence either (1) be custom designed to entertain ME, or (2) display red flags to indicate that it is NOT custom designed to entertain me?

 

It's like what Forrest Gump's mom said about chocolates -- part of the enjoyment of the game, in my opinion, is never knowing for sure what you're going to find. Sometimes my expectations are low and I'm pleasantly surprised; sometimes my expectations are high and I'm UNpleasantly surprised. So what? Personally, I would never want to give anyone else the job of deciding which ones are ["too lame," "too easy," "too boring," "too lampost-ey," "too small," "too large," "too medium," etc.] for me. Let me see the whole list, and I'll decide for myself, thank you very much.

 

Like sbell111, I don't see the emergency either. And it's not true that sbell111 never offers any solutions/ideas. You are proposing a privately constructed list of cache recommendations -- in the post immediately before yours sbell111 seems to agree with you. Sounds like a solution/idea to me!

I've mentioned the favorites idea several times and he thinks it's flawed too...

[+wzd]

...

 

Seems like everything is flawed to you and you never offer any solutions/ideas. Anybody can sit there and criticize. Anyhow, you missed my point which is that there are lot of cachers that are sick of banal caches and want to find the cream of the crop. So a few of us are in the process of combining all of our local favorite cache lists into one master list ordered by the ones with the most votes. The list will be awesome and everyone is very appreciative that we are doing it!

 

So why not make the favorites lists public as bookmarks to start with? It's a start at least! I created mine today.

 

And, note that I had missed the point of the post first time I read it - Till I read KBI quote it. First time I read the first sentance and skipped the rest, so just a suggestion to put useful info before negative comments as I expect there are a number like me that stop reading after an opening like that.

Edited July 10, 2006 by wzd

[+bunthorne]

I just found out another long-term cacher has stopped caching! That makes two that I know of out here in the past two months. They are both very dissappointed in the degrading quality of caches.

 

We really need some easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff!!!

Sorry. I still don't see the emergancy. Just because some unknown cacher stopped playing for some unknown reason doesn't make me want to implement a flawed rating system.

 

Sorry.

 

I'm the unknown cacher that TrailGators was referring to. I stopped geocaching a few months ago because it simply wasn't fun anymore. Our area is so oversaturated that it is rare to find an interesting, new place, a creative hide, or a well-designed puzzle. Would a rating system help? It might, if the system could actually measure 'quality'. But, as I told TrailGators, I fear that any user-based-averaging system could simply result in every cache getting 'three and a half stars' the way movies do on Netflix. I applaud the effort of those on this forum who want to find a solution. sbell111 is right that one cacher quiting is not an emergency. But understand that I WAS fanatical about the game and a huge supporter of it. Now, I've moved on to other interests. If others experience the same ennui, the number of players (and new caches) could drop. Any effort to improve the game, particularly in crowded areas, will help.

[+sbell111]

I've mentioned the favorites idea several times and he thinks it's flawed too...

That is because your idea is to merge everybody's favorites into one file instead of having categories of favorites. Please read my posts. I think this is 1004 times in this thread that I have stated this. The key is making it useable to people. If you think puzzles are the best thing since sliced bread, you are going to rate them highly. If I don't like puzzles, your list is useless to me at best. At worst, it wastes my time and gives me a bad caching experience.

[+TrailGators]

Miragee and I have just manually combining all the favorites lists of the folks in San Diego that have taken the time to make a favorites list. It was a lot of work so it will be nice when the site can do this!

 

Anyhow if you come to San Diego....enjoy these!

 

The Forbidden Forest = 12

Triwizard Tournament - The Goblet of Fire = 9

Black Beard's Grotto = 8

Fear Factor: Up the Rat Hole = 8

Zis Is KAOS, Ve Don't Bush-vaak Here! = 8

Greta Garbo's Phone = 7

Local Treasure = 7

Mad Eye Moody = 7

Pants on Fire = 7

TT's MTRP Nuisance Cache #3: Partnership = 7

Chud = 6

Hi Point Lookout Tower = 6

High Fruit, Better Than Ever! = 6

Indiana Jones: The Lost Relic of Rapa Nui = 6

League of Extraordinary Geocachers = 6

Snakes and Ladders = 6

3 Sister Photo Cache = 5

Black Mountain Looko = 5

Indiana Ed's Subterranean Cache = 5

Lawson 4 = 5

The Mountain Of Moonlit Rocks = 5

The Postcard Cache = 5

The Proctor Valley Monster Project = 5

 

* Only included those with 5 or more votes.

Edited July 10, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I'm the unknown cacher that TrailGators was referring to. I stopped geocaching a few months ago because it simply wasn't fun anymore. Our area is so oversaturated that it is rare to find an interesting, new place, a creative hide, or a well-designed puzzle. Would a rating system help? It might, if the system could actually measure 'quality'. But, as I told TrailGators, I fear that any user-based-averaging system could simply result in every cache getting 'three and a half stars' the way movies do on Netflix. I applaud the effort of those on this forum who want to find a solution. sbell111 is right that one cacher quiting is not an emergency. But understand that I WAS fanatical about the game and a huge supporter of it. Now, I've moved on to other interests. If others experience the same ennui, the number of players (and new caches) could drop. Any effort to improve the game, particularly in crowded areas, will help.

The game gets stale to all of us on occasion (generally every summer, for me.) There are threads on this very issue.

 

For me, the secret is ensuring that my priorities are set correctly. Sometimes, I have to step back and make sure my real life is not calling me to go in a different direction. Once these needs are satisfied, I have to decide what I want caching to be. Do I want to hit it hard or just go after a few occasionally? Do I want to look for everything or drill down to specific kinds of caches? The tools are available to me to get need out of this game. It doesn't make every find into a little bit of heaven, but my expectations are lower than some. I really just use this game to get a little bit of 'me' time. The caches themselves are a side benefit.

[+sbell111]

Miragee and I have just manually combining all the favorites lists of the folks in San Diego that have taken the time to make a favorites list. It was a lot of work so it will be nice when the site can do this!

 

Anyhow if you come to San Diego....enjoy these!

 

The Forbidden Forest = 12

Triwizard Tournament - The Goblet of Fire = 9 ...

Without knowing why these caches are 'special', this list means nothing to me.

 

(Is this thing on? )

Edited July 10, 2006 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Miragee and I have just manually combining all the favorites lists of the folks in San Diego that have taken the time to make a favorites list. It was a lot of work so it will be nice when the site can do this!

 

Anyhow if you come to San Diego....enjoy these!

 

The Forbidden Forest = 12

Triwizard Tournament - The Goblet of Fire = 9 ...

Without knowing why these caches are 'special', this list means nothing to me.

You can sort these by terrain rating to see which ones are hikes. You can sort by cache type to see which ones are puzzles. You can sort by difficulty to see which ones are a challenge to find. But you have to get up and go find them to find out which are your favorites!

[+wzd]

...

Without knowing why these caches are 'special', this list means nothing to me.

 

(Is this thing on? )

 

That's exactly why I am advocating personal lists made public. You will quickly see if a persons idea of favorite matches yours. The list TrailGator posted has entries on the caches for some of the favorite lists. Look at GCME1Z and GCM5XJ for a couple examples. Unfortunately, the first was rated 12 and the second 7, and there is no way to see that from the cache page (maybe the bookmark list could have the number of votes, but that is higher maintenance...). But those caches are on a couple of personal favorite lists that show up so if I were to like a couple on someones list I would use their list to hunt from.

 

I'm not in San Diego or close so I won't be doing them, but I think it is a good start. I still think the number of favorites that show up on a cache page is a good indication. Now if more poeple will make public favorites lists, especially near me....

[+TrailGators]

...

Without knowing why these caches are 'special', this list means nothing to me.

 

(Is this thing on? )

 

That's exactly why I am advocating personal lists made public. You will quickly see if a persons idea of favorite matches yours. The list TrailGator posted has entries on the caches for some of the favorite lists. Look at GCME1Z and GCM5XJ for a couple examples. Unfortunately, the first was rated 12 and the second 7, and there is no way to see that from the cache page (maybe the bookmark list could have the number of votes, but that is higher maintenance...). But those caches are on a couple of personal favorite lists that show up so if I were to like a couple on someones list I would use their list to hunt from.

 

I'm not in San Diego or close so I won't be doing them, but I think it is a good start. I still think the number of favorites that show up on a cache page is a good indication. Now if more poeple will make public favorites lists, especially near me....

"12" meant that 12 people had that cache on their favorites list! It wasn't a "rating."

 

* You can see the number of votes by clicking on the bookmark list on the right. It is high maintenance for a human to open all these up and tally them but nothing for a computer! That is why I would like to see GC to do this for us!

Edited July 10, 2006 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm the unknown cacher that TrailGators was referring to. I stopped geocaching a few months ago because it simply wasn't fun anymore. Our area is so oversaturated that it is rare to find an interesting, new place, a creative hide, or a well-designed puzzle. Would a rating system help? It might, if the system could actually measure 'quality'. But, as I told TrailGators, I fear that any user-based-averaging system could simply result in every cache getting 'three and a half stars' the way movies do on Netflix. I applaud the effort of those on this forum who want to find a solution. sbell111 is right that one cacher quiting is not an emergency. But understand that I WAS fanatical about the game and a huge supporter of it. Now, I've moved on to other interests. If others experience the same ennui, the number of players (and new caches) could drop. Any effort to improve the game, particularly in crowded areas, will help.

The game gets stale to all of us on occasion (generally every summer, for me.) There are threads on this very issue.

 

For me, the secret is ensuring that my priorities are set correctly. Sometimes, I have to step back and make sure my real life is not calling me to go in a different direction. Once these needs are satisfied, I have to decide what I want caching to be. Do I want to hit it hard or just go after a few occasionally? Do I want to look for everything or drill down to specific kinds of caches? The tools are available to me to get need out of this game. It doesn't make every find into a little bit of heaven, but my expectations are lower than some. I really just use this game to get a little bit of 'me' time. The caches themselves are a side benefit.

 

That's why majority rules and features are made for the majority, not a small segment of crack-pots (not in any way referring to you in a literal sense)

[+TrailGators]

I'm the unknown cacher that TrailGators was referring to. I stopped geocaching a few months ago because it simply wasn't fun anymore. Our area is so oversaturated that it is rare to find an interesting, new place, a creative hide, or a well-designed puzzle. Would a rating system help? It might, if the system could actually measure 'quality'. But, as I told TrailGators, I fear that any user-based-averaging system could simply result in every cache getting 'three and a half stars' the way movies do on Netflix. I applaud the effort of those on this forum who want to find a solution. sbell111 is right that one cacher quiting is not an emergency. But understand that I WAS fanatical about the game and a huge supporter of it. Now, I've moved on to other interests. If others experience the same ennui, the number of players (and new caches) could drop. Any effort to improve the game, particularly in crowded areas, will help.

The game gets stale to all of us on occasion (generally every summer, for me.) There are threads on this very issue.

 

For me, the secret is ensuring that my priorities are set correctly. Sometimes, I have to step back and make sure my real life is not calling me to go in a different direction. Once these needs are satisfied, I have to decide what I want caching to be. Do I want to hit it hard or just go after a few occasionally? Do I want to look for everything or drill down to specific kinds of caches? The tools are available to me to get need out of this game. It doesn't make every find into a little bit of heaven, but my expectations are lower than some. I really just use this game to get a little bit of 'me' time. The caches themselves are a side benefit.

 

That's why majority rules and features are made for the majority, not a small segment of crack-pots (not in any way referring to you in a literal sense)

I think the majority would love to see a list like this! Anyhow, I will find out how many in San Diego appreciate that list. I think more people will start making favorites lists. Then I will have to manually update the list!

Edited July 10, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

You can sort these by terrain rating to see which ones are hikes. You can sort by cache type to see which ones are puzzles. You can sort by difficulty to see which ones are a challenge to find. But you have to get up and go find them to find out which are your favorites!

What about all the non-searchable qualities that people like to bemoan?

That's why majority rules and features are made for the majority, not a small segment of crack-pots (not in any way referring to you in a literal sense)

Ha! That was to be my next reply to TG!