Cache Rating

[+Davispak]

Again, I only hear one or two who are almost fanatically against any rating system, because............. well they just don't like it. They think it will not make it easier to find good caches. personally I would like to see a survey put to the whole GC community on a few of the things discussed here, and not just this topic. I understand that we are a VERY small minority of the people who GC. So I think putting it to the "masses" might be a good thing.

Find out does the distance between micros need to be increased to a half mile?

Do people want a rating system?

Do we need more stringent criteria for placing a cache?

 

I still firmly believe that a cache rating system will work and would benifit the community at large. I can tell that no matter what is said here Sbell will not think it can be done, but I still believe in it.

[+SG-MIN]

Just count the YES votes

 

It doesn't matter who is against it. I could be adamently against the new "cache along a route feature" but honestly it doesn't matter. I don't have to use it, and other people seem to love it.

[+sbell111]

Again, I only hear one or two who are almost fanatically against any rating system, because............. well they just don't like it.

I guess its easier to overlook peoples concerns than to deal with the issues. Whatever.

Find out does the distance between micros need to be increased to a half mile?

I doubt that you'll get any trtaction on this idea. Clearly, it would reduce the number of micros, which you clearly don't like. What would it do about lame regular caches?

Do people want a rating system?

Everyone would like a ratings system that would be easy to use, would be useful for all cachers, and would not be punitive. Do you have one that would fit this criteria?

Do we need more stringent criteria for placing a cache?

While you would love one that eliminates caches that you don't like, what about cachers that have different likes than you?

I still firmly believe that a cache rating system will work and would benifit the community at large. I can tell that no matter what is said here Sbell will not think it can be done, but I still believe in it.

I can only believe that you are not reading my posts.

[+sbell111]

Just count the YES votes

 

It doesn't matter who is against it. I could be adamently against the new "cache along a route feature" but honestly it doesn't matter. I don't have to use it, and other people seem to love it.

That's the best idea in this entire thread. If you ever have a question, only listen to the people who agree with you. Some live their entire lives this way.

[+SG-MIN]

Just count the YES votes

 

It doesn't matter who is against it. I could be adamently against the new "cache along a route feature" but honestly it doesn't matter. I don't have to use it, and other people seem to love it.

That's the best idea in this entire thread. If you ever have a question, only listen to the people who agree with you. Some live their entire lives this way.

 

If I may...

 

I belive you miss the point of my arguement. In most cases, it honestly does not matter who is against your idea, only people who are for it. This is especially true when it comes to services / products / features / etc. that do not infringe on another's experiace.

 

For instance:

I don't iceskate, nor do most of my friends. That does not mean that an ice rink would not do good here. It doesn't matter who wouldn't use it - only those who would.

Likewise, I hate eggs for breakfast - does that mean a resturant should not serve them? of course not, they only count the yes votes - those that are in favor of it.

 

From another side, this arguement does not apply when I am talking about a toxic waste dump in my home city. There are yes votes, and no votes, but obviously in that case, the no votes matter because if the yes votes get their way, it affects those in the no-votes camp.

 

Applying this to a cache rating system. If GC.com implements a cache rating system, it does not affect you at all. You do not need to use it. But if there are enough people that would use it to warrent its design and implementation, it would be worth pursueing.

[+Yamahammer]

My side of it is, I like the rating system the way it is now. Generally, I only look at the terrain difficulty ratings. If it's a 4 or 5, I usually skip those.

 

Peace!

[+KBI]

Applying this to a cache rating system. If GC.com implements a cache rating system, it does not affect you at all.

That's not entirely true. I believe the potential for abuse and resulting misinformation has been pointed out before. If you have a lot of caching friends, what's to stop them from running your cache rating well beyond what it might have otherwise merited from a (theoretically) purely objective series of votes? And alternately, what's to stop a few bullies from intentionally down-rating someone's cache just because they have some unrelated vendetta against the hider?

 

Inaccurate descriptions, inaccurate difficulty/terrain ratings and inaccurate logs are uncommon, thankfully, but there is enough bad info out there already. I don't necessarily oppose or support a rating system, but what I definitely DON'T want is even more misleading information about caches.

[+TrailGators]

Applying this to a cache rating system. If GC.com implements a cache rating system, it does not affect you at all.

That's not entirely true. I believe the potential for abuse and resulting misinformation has been pointed out before. If you have a lot of caching friends, what's to stop them from running your cache rating well beyond what it might have otherwise merited from a (theoretically) purely objective series of votes? And alternately, what's to stop a few bullies from intentionally down-rating someone's cache just because they have some unrelated vendetta against the hider?

 

Inaccurate descriptions, inaccurate difficulty/terrain ratings and inaccurate logs are uncommon, thankfully, but there is enough bad info out there already. I don't necessarily oppose or support a rating system, but what I definitely DON'T want is even more misleading information about caches.

I think some of you people like to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Let's just take a poll: Who would like to be able to pull a PQ of the local's favorite caches whenever they travel somewhere? I vote YES!

Edited July 10, 2006 by TrailGators

[+SG-MIN]

I think some of you people like to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Let's just take a poll: Who would like to be able to pull a PQ of the local's favorite caches whenever they travel somewhere? I vote YES!

 

I would rather pull a PQ based on a rating system (i.e. all caches recommended over 85% rated 3/3 or less....)

[CoyoteRed]

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.

 

I really don't understand what the issue is. If you don't like puzzles at all, then you'd filter out the puzzles regardless of the rating. If you like the "good" easy micros, then you'd filter in the 1/1 micros with a high rating. The categories are there. You just can't easily get to the good ones. If you don't like evil micros you can filter those regardless of ratings.

 

Don't look at just ratings without looking at the rest of the picture.

[CoyoteRed]

Just count the YES votes

 

It doesn't matter who is against it. I could be adamently against the new "cache along a route feature" but honestly it doesn't matter. I don't have to use it, and other people seem to love it.

That's the best idea in this entire thread. If you ever have a question, only listen to the people who agree with you. Some live their entire lives this way.

 

I was thinking the same thing, only for a different reason. If you don't like that a rating system doesn't give you winners each and every time, or even the fact they are rated, simply do like I do with the attributes, ignore it. You don't have to use every feature of the site.

[+TrailGators]

Just count the YES votes

 

It doesn't matter who is against it. I could be adamently against the new "cache along a route feature" but honestly it doesn't matter. I don't have to use it, and other people seem to love it.

That's the best idea in this entire thread. If you ever have a question, only listen to the people who agree with you. Some live their entire lives this way.

 

I was thinking the same thing, only for a different reason. If you don't like that a rating system doesn't give you winners each and every time, or even the fact they are rated, simply do like I do with the attributes, ignore it. You don't have to use every feature of the site.

Great idea! The naysayers can disable the feature and they won't have it!!

I'm back in the ratings camp! I would prefer to know which ones to avoid as well as which ones to target!

[+KBI]

Applying this to a cache rating system. If GC.com implements a cache rating system, it does not affect you at all.

That's not entirely true. I believe the potential for abuse and resulting misinformation has been pointed out before. If you have a lot of caching friends, what's to stop them from running your cache rating well beyond what it might have otherwise merited from a (theoretically) purely objective series of votes? And alternately, what's to stop a few bullies from intentionally down-rating someone's cache just because they have some unrelated vendetta against the hider?

 

Inaccurate descriptions, inaccurate difficulty/terrain ratings and inaccurate logs are uncommon, thankfully, but there is enough bad info out there already. I don't necessarily oppose or support a rating system, but what I definitely DON'T want is even more misleading information about caches.

I think some of you people like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Us people? Which people are "us?"

 

If you have something to say that counters what I posted, then say it! Certainly all valid and reasonable comments are welcome here, yes? Just because "us people" don't completely agree with you doesn't make "our" opinion any less valid, right?

 

Besides, I don't know that what I said even counts as an 'argument.' You DID notice the part where I said "I don't necessarily oppose or support a rating system," didn't you?

[+TrailGators]

Applying this to a cache rating system. If GC.com implements a cache rating system, it does not affect you at all.

That's not entirely true. I believe the potential for abuse and resulting misinformation has been pointed out before. If you have a lot of caching friends, what's to stop them from running your cache rating well beyond what it might have otherwise merited from a (theoretically) purely objective series of votes? And alternately, what's to stop a few bullies from intentionally down-rating someone's cache just because they have some unrelated vendetta against the hider?

 

Inaccurate descriptions, inaccurate difficulty/terrain ratings and inaccurate logs are uncommon, thankfully, but there is enough bad info out there already. I don't necessarily oppose or support a rating system, but what I definitely DON'T want is even more misleading information about caches.

I think some of you people like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Us people? Which people are "us?"

 

If you have something to say that counters what I posted, then say it! Certainly all valid and reasonable comments are welcome here, yes? Just because "us people" don't completely agree with you doesn't make "our" opinion any less valid, right?

 

Besides, I don't know that what I said even counts as an 'argument.' You DID notice the part where I said "I don't necessarily oppose or support a rating system," didn't you?

I'd hate to see the idea killed because people like you are worried about a few isolated incidents. I do think the ratings will be skewed towards the positive side because people won't want to hurt feelings. I can't imagine people giving out one star unless the voting was anonymous or the cache was horrendously bad. That is one advantage of favorites. You simply pick your favorites and nobody's feelings are involved.

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[CoyoteRed]

I do think the ratings will be skewed towards the positive side because people won't want to hurt feelings.

 

IIRC, and I'm not an expert on other site's rating system, but I think one other site uses a rating system that is not a straight star system. If you give someone, say, a 5 star rating, that doesn't necessarily translate to a actual 5 star rating. They look at how you trend when rating and adjust from there.

 

For instance, let's look at a system that has 5 stars. A person who rates all caches 5 stars will actually end up rating them as 3 stars which is about average. The system adjusts your average to equal 3 stars. Someone who always uses 5 stars could never rate a cache better so they are limiting themselves. The system pretty much forces folks to rate caches properly by giving average caches 3 stars.

 

You could also adjust a cache rating by the average of the area or all caches within a 100 mile radius. Yes, this would mean an average cache in one area could be much better or much worse than an average cache in another area. But it does allow for a broader ranges of ratings, too.

 

The point being a system could adjust and allow for caches being better in one place over another and for folks who consistently rate all caches high or low.

 

Combine this with a system of users picking 3 out of 10 or 20 descriptive terms and you can really start to refine a rating system that works well.

[+TrailGators]

I do think the ratings will be skewed towards the positive side because people won't want to hurt feelings.

 

IIRC, and I'm not an expert on other site's rating system, but I think one other site uses a rating system that is not a straight star system. If you give someone, say, a 5 star rating, that doesn't necessarily translate to a actual 5 star rating. They look at how you trend when rating and adjust from there.

 

For instance, let's look at a system that has 5 stars. A person who rates all caches 5 stars will actually end up rating them as 3 stars which is about average. The system adjusts your average to equal 3 stars. Someone who always uses 5 stars could never rate a cache better so they are limiting themselves. The system pretty much forces folks to rate caches properly by giving average caches 3 stars.

 

You could also adjust a cache rating by the average of the area or all caches within a 100 mile radius. Yes, this would mean an average cache in one area could be much better or much worse than an average cache in another area. But it does allow for a broader ranges of ratings, too.

 

The point being a system could adjust and allow for caches being better in one place over another and for folks who consistently rate all caches high or low.

 

Combine this with a system of users picking 3 out of 10 or 20 descriptive terms and you can really start to refine a rating system that works well.

Not sure what IIRC means....Anyhow I didn't know they could do that. That is pretty slick!

[CoyoteRed]

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly

[+TrailGators]

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly

TYVM!

[+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

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!"

...this is the problem with rating: the majority won't rate any micro under a lamp post cover with 5 stars: because they were after something different from what the hider intended. If I set one up that is right next to a car pull-in, which is well-devised so it's unlikely to be muggled but very easy for a geocacher to find, open and log - it should get a 5* rating, as it's targetted at the numbers-hounds and fits their requirements very well. A rating system wouldn't be much use if it only allowed you to filter for the most "fun" geocaches: it depends what kind of fun you're after!

 

HH

[CoyoteRed]

...this is the problem with rating: the majority won't rate any micro under a lamp post cover with 5 stars: because they were after something different from what the hider intended. If I set one up that is right next to a car pull-in, which is well-devised so it's unlikely to be muggled but very easy for a geocacher to find, open and log - it should get a 5* rating, as it's targetted at the numbers-hounds and fits their requirements very well. A rating system wouldn't be much use if it only allowed you to filter for the most "fun" geocaches: it depends what kind of fun you're after!

 

I disagree. Numbers hounds don't just go after micros. They go after easy caches (or caches they think are easy after they've solved a puzzle or some such) and the main criteria is being able to fit the cache into a schedule that gets the most caches per hour. I don't even think they care if it's a quality cache, just quick. Therefore, I doubt they would even pay attention to ratings.

 

I get your point, however, and still disagree with the premise. If a person specifically puts out a cache exactly the opposite of what folks want, that doesn't make it a good cache. The point of ratings systems to give the potential hunter an idea if he will like it or not. It's not a grading system of the hider's ability to accomplish a goal.

 

Enjoyable caches are going to get a higher rating regardless of the intended purpose of the cache. Heck, a cache might get a 5 star rating for something the hider never intended.

[+sbell111]

...this is the problem with rating: the majority won't rate any micro under a lamp post cover with 5 stars: because they were after something different from what the hider intended. If I set one up that is right next to a car pull-in, which is well-devised so it's unlikely to be muggled but very easy for a geocacher to find, open and log - it should get a 5* rating, as it's targetted at the numbers-hounds and fits their requirements very well. A rating system wouldn't be much use if it only allowed you to filter for the most "fun" geocaches: it depends what kind of fun you're after!

 

I disagree. Numbers hounds don't just go after micros. They go after easy caches (or caches they think are easy after they've solved a puzzle or some such) and the main criteria is being able to fit the cache into a schedule that gets the most caches per hour. I don't even think they care if it's a quality cache, just quick. Therefore, I doubt they would even pay attention to ratings.

 

I get your point, however, and still disagree with the premise. If a person specifically puts out a cache exactly the opposite of what folks want, that doesn't make it a good cache. The point of ratings systems to give the potential hunter an idea if he will like it or not. It's not a grading system of the hider's ability to accomplish a goal.

 

Enjoyable caches are going to get a higher rating regardless of the intended purpose of the cache. Heck, a cache might get a 5 star rating for something the hider never intended.

Ummm....

You completely discounted his point and than rambled on in such a way to prove his point.

 

If you and your local buddies hate easy caches, you will rate them poorly. It doesn't matter if you could have filtered them out. You didn't filter. You found them. You didn't like them. You rated them poorly. (This is actually pretty likely since you have stated your contempt for them in many threads.)

 

Since you and your best buds rated the caches poorly, they are unlikely to show up as high performers in the ratings. Therefore, people may skip them, even though they are precisely the caches that they may like the most.

 

Ratings without meaning will not work because everyone does not like the same kind of caches. (I think this is #1007.)

Edited July 11, 2006 by sbell111

[+Happy Humphrey]

Numbers hounds don't just go after micros. I don't even think they care if it's a quality cache, just quick. Therefore, I doubt they would even pay attention to ratings.

It was only one example: it could have been a roadside regular cache. Most would find it and rate it low because "what's the point of this cache"? But once you know its purpose, you might give it a high rating, because it only took one minute from leaving the car and was really well shielded from muggles - so a good cache OF THE TYPE.

I get your point, however, and still disagree with the premise. If a person specifically puts out a cache exactly the opposite of what folks want, that doesn't make it a good cache. The point of ratings systems to give the potential hunter an idea if he will like it or not. It's not a grading system of the hider's ability to accomplish a goal.

If it's the opposite of what EVERYONE wants, then of course it's no good and deserves a poor rating. But if people keep on rating it low because they aren't after that type of experience, it's a communication problem rather than a quality issue.

Enjoyable caches are going to get a higher rating regardless of the intended purpose of the cache.

Yes - but what's "enjoyable"? I can enjoy almost any cache on the right day.

I prefer to think of rating as a grading of "is this cache a good example of the type?". Less subjective, and surely what we really want a rating system to tell us. On my first visit to a new area, if I just had a shortlist of the best examples of various types of cache, I'd be fully equipped to plan whatever type of geocache experience I fancied. If it was just based on the "enjoyment" factor of any cache type, I'd have to investigate further, so that I didn't just keep on picking simple regular-sized caches with historic interest and a nice approach walk (or whatever has proved most enjoyable in the area in question).

Heck, a cache might get a 5 star rating for something the hider never intended.

Defining the purpose of the cache won't stop this: it might still be only a "quickie" cache but if there's something unintentional about it that makes everyone smile, it may work its way to the top of the "quickie" shortlist and attract people who normally avoid that type of cache.

 

HH

[+Adventure.AS]

Please forgive me for jumping in late to this thread (and doubly if it has been mentioned before!), but I would like a simple PQ option to get a list of cache placements by a specific member ( or a short list of members.)

 

If I read a book by an author that I like, then I will often like to read more by that same author. Likewise with caches. If I find one that I like, then the chances are good that the other caches by this member will be similar in style, quality, accuracy with coordinates, terrain and difficulty ratings.

 

I realize that I could go to the member's profile and bookmark all of their caches and run a PQ that way, but it would be simpler to be able to run right from the PQ page. This would also be useful to have has a negative option as well, so that I could filter out caches from members whose style of hide did not appeal to me.

 

This method would also work well when travelling. If you look at a few cache pages in your prospective caching area, and from reading the previous logs you like what you see, then you could run the PQ for that member's hides and likely have a pleasant seeking experience.

 

This proposed enhancement to the PQ feature would benefit Premium Members only (as opposed to other universal rating systems) and put the onus on the seeker (where, IMHO it belongs) to do some homework before heading out to look for caches.

 

edit: typo

Edited July 11, 2006 by Maxima

[CoyoteRed]

(This is actually pretty likely since you have stated your contempt for them in many threads.)

 

Since you and your best buds rated the caches poorly, they are unlikely to show up as high performers in the ratings. Therefore, people may skip them, even though they are precisely the caches that they may like the most.

 

Believe that lie if you wish, but I've not said any such thing.

 

Secondly, you assume "me and my best buds" are the only cachers to find and rate any paricular cache. "Me and my best buds" do have opinions and they count. If we don't like something our opinion is as valid as anyone's. If you don't like our opinions disregard it.

 

Thirdly, for almost as many times as you've stated your own contempt for anything less than the "perfect" rating system, you need to realize no ratings system will ever always give you hits you enjoy. YMMV I think most people keep that in mind when they're reading the latest figures on a movie they might want to see.

[CoyoteRed]

Yes - but what's "enjoyable"? I can enjoy almost any cache on the right day.

 

Just like just about any movie could be enjoyable on the right day. That doesn't mean it's still a good movie.

 

Ratings isn't just about what you think, but what you and several other folks think. So what you had a bad day on a certain cache hunt and rated the cache a 1. Other folks come along and rate it a 5. Does that mean it's still a bad cache? Am I going to have the same bad experience as you did? I think I'd be playing the odds of having an enjoyable experience like all the other folks who rated it high.

[+SG-MIN]

The whole arguement about "what if people like park and grabs" is null and void. If you are looking for easy park and grabs you don't care what the rating is, you will run a PQ in an urban area, and filter out everything that is tougher then a 1.5/1.5

 

Now on the other hand, if you like park and grabs, but don't plan on hitting them all, it is my guess you would still want to hit up the the better park and grabs. In that case, you could target the 1.5/1.5 in urban settings that have a rating of at least 2 stars. Even if the average for urban park and grab type caches is 1.5, you could still find the best ones. If that is what you are looking for, it doesn't matter that the over all average may be 3 stars, you grab the best within your defined search.

[+sbell111]

Secondly, you assume "me and my best buds" are the only cachers to find and rate any paricular cache. "Me and my best buds" do have opinions and they count. If we don't like something our opinion is as valid as anyone's. If you don't like our opinions disregard it.

Actually, the assumptions that I make is that when a group of cachers give a cache a bad rating, that it will lower that caches overall rating. Since implementation of ratings could not possibly force people to search more efficiently (and by your own admission will not stop you from going to caches that you don't enjoy), people will give caches bad ratings when they should have know prior to leaving home that they would not enjoy the cache. This along with more petty behaviors and the fact that the proposed ratings systems are merely a factor of 'how much you enjoy a cache', rather than tracking why particular caches are good, will cause the ratings system to not work.

[+sbell111]

Ratings isn't just about what you think, but what you and several other folks think. So what you had a bad day on a certain cache hunt and rated the cache a 1. Other folks come along and rate it a 5. Does that mean it's still a bad cache? Am I going to have the same bad experience as you did? I think I'd be playing the odds of having an enjoyable experience like all the other folks who rated it high.

You and your five friend hate a particular cache owner and give his caches a rating of zero. The next five cachers to find one of these gives it 3 threes, a four, a five. The cache ends up with a rating of 1.8, instead of its deserved 3.6. Other caches don't bother looking for it because it is 'obviously' lame; or maybe it's just you.

 

This doesn't even take into account the fact that different people look for different things in a cache that the rating system doesn't take into account. One person might like historical locations while another like caches in high muggle zones. Another likes micros hidden in cemetaries.

Edited July 11, 2006 by sbell111

[+TeamRJMK]

Just throwing something out here...

 

Is the real issue related to "rating" or is it related to "identifying"?

 

In other words, if there was a good/reliable way to choose caches that were your favorite type (kid friendly, nice walk/hike, quick find, muggle-free, challenging urban, cool container, whatever...) would it be ok if they weren't "rated" per se?

 

I looked at the attributes & they are a good start but they have a couple of problems: they aren't used on all caches & they aren't complete enough to allow people to identify their favorite type of cache.

 

The distance/terrain/container/type ratings are great but they too don't always provide enough information to help pick your favorite type of cache.

 

How about a system that allowed the person logging the geocache to click boxes to identify whether it is a good choice for particular types of hunts? It wouldn't REALLY be a rating system but it would be a way to let the community offer advice about particular geocaches....

 

Some possibilities for checkboxes:

* kid friendly

* quick find

* nice walk/hike (paired with terrain rating for sorting particular types)

* recommended for visitors

 

etc (see thread for more suggestions about favorite different types...)

 

If you go one step further & allow loggers (not just owners) the chance to recommend attributes, that might help as well.

 

An alternative solution that should not require major software changes would be to review the current attributes & add the missing ones followed by a public relations campaign by forum members and local geocaching groups to get owners to update their attributes accurately/completely. (This may require changing the current 10 attribute maximum.) (If people like this option, the next step would be a thread to help identify the missing attributes & urge Groundspeak to make updates.)

 

 

So, if a cache were recommended as a "quick find" or "nice walk" or "kid friendlY", would you care if it didn't have an alternative rating system?

 

J

[CoyoteRed]

...people will give caches bad ratings when they should have know prior to leaving home that they would not enjoy the cache.

 

Of course, folks giving a cache lower ratings than what it's already averaging will lower the rating. That's the point. They found it, they didn't like it, on average fewer people liked the cache. Seemed like it works like it should.

 

As for the quoted portion above, how do you suppose folks are supposed to know if they are going to like the cache? There is no guarantee from the description or the logs, or any other factor for that matter, that you're going to like the cache. You won't know until you get there.

 

This is were ratings come in. A highly rated cache will tell you that you are more likely to enjoy this cache more than one with an average rating. A low rated cache will tell you that you more likely to not enjoy the cache as much as one with an average rating. There is no guarantee, but you're greatly increasing the odds.

[+Yamahammer]

The whole topic is null and void. Some people can't find water if they fell out of a boat. They hunt and DNF when they can't find the cache. This could cause a poor cache rating. Others come along and find the cache easily . Those cachers add these caches to their Bookmarks. Happens all of the time. This would indicate a good cache rating.

 

Peace!

[CoyoteRed]

You and your five friend hate a particular cache owner and give his caches a rating of zero. The next five cachers to find one of these gives it 3 threes, a four, a five. The cache ends up with a rating of 1.8, instead of its deserved 3.6. Other caches don't bother looking for it because it is 'obviously' lame; or maybe it's just you.

 

This doesn't even take into account the fact that different people look for different things in a cache that the rating system doesn't take into account. One person might like historical locations while another like caches in high muggle zones. Another likes micros hidden in cemetaries.

 

Well, for your scenario to work me and my fellow "haters" would have to find the cache first or within the first few finds. Then I'd have to have the rest of my fellow geocachers in the area to follow suit or have them under my control somehow and make them not rate the cache. Assuming my group is just a bunch of trouble makers and haters, I'd think the local community would stand against us and rate the caches appropriately thus thwarting our efforts. So, for your fearful scenario to work I'd have to belong to a bunch of bullies and I think that would pose a much larger problem than simply screwing with a rating system.

 

You next paragraph should indicate that folks will rate caches by what influences them. If a cacher finds a historical cache and he doesn't care about historical elements of cache then I don't think he's going to rate it low because of that. He's going to rate it by what influences him. Those who like historical caches will allow the historical factors influence their rating. Given that, if the historical factor is really low on a historical cache, the cacher who enjoys good historical cache will rate the cache low. Still the person who doesn't care about the historical factor won't let it influence their ratings.

 

Again, their opinion matters on how much or whether they enjoyed the cache.

[CoyoteRed]

Some people can't find water if they fell out of a boat.

 

ROFL!

[+sbell111]

Of course, folks giving a cache lower ratings than what it's already averaging will lower the rating. That's the point. They found it, they didn't like it, on average fewer people liked the cache. Seemed like it works like it should.

Actually, it doesn't work for the very reasons I've explained 1008 times. Since no one else knows the reasons that specific caches are rated high (or low), the ratings become meaningless. "I liked it." is too subjective on its own.

As for the quoted portion above, how do you suppose folks are supposed to know if they are going to like the cache? There is no guarantee from the description or the logs, or any other factor for that matter, that you're going to like the cache. You won't know until you get there.

There is also no way of knowing whether a specific cacher will like a specific cache even if its highly rated using your plan.

This is were ratings come in. A highly rated cache will tell you that you are more likely to enjoy this cache more than one with an average rating. A low rated cache will tell you that you more likely to not enjoy the cache as much as one with an average rating. There is no guarantee, but you're greatly increasing the odds.

I disagree. Your plan would only tell you that some people may have liked the cache for some unknown reason.

 

Well, for your scenario to work me and my fellow "haters" would have to find the cache first or within the first few finds. Then I'd have to have the rest of my fellow geocachers in the area to follow suit or have them under my control somehow and make them not rate the cache. Assuming my group is just a bunch of trouble makers and haters, I'd think the local community would stand against us and rate the caches appropriately thus thwarting our efforts. So, for your fearful scenario to work I'd have to belong to a bunch of bullies and I think that would pose a much larger problem than simply screwing with a rating system.

First of all, I admit that I made some assumptions about you based on your posting history. That being said, I don't believe that we can discount the possibility of this scenario playing out based on known history (whether or not you and your buds are the culprits).

You next paragraph should indicate that folks will rate caches by what influences them. If a cacher finds a historical cache and he doesn't care about historical elements of cache then I don't think he's going to rate it low because of that. He's going to rate it by what influences him. Those who like historical caches will allow the historical factors influence their rating. Given that, if the historical factor is really low on a historical cache, the cacher who enjoys good historical cache will rate the cache low. Still the person who doesn't care about the historical factor won't let it influence their ratings.

I disagree with your premise that people will consider the hider's motives when rating a cache. It is much more likely that they will rate it based on their own motives and desires. Unfortunately, these motives are not identified to the end user. Therefore, the ratings become meaningless.

Again, their opinion matters on how much or whether they enjoyed the cache.

Sure there opinion matters. That's why we have logs; both online and off. Your plan to have an 'I liked it' factor, will not work for the simple reason that we all have different reasons for liking a cache. (I think that this is #1013, but I'm not sure.) Edited July 11, 2006 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Sure there opinion matters. That's why we have logs; both online and off. Your plan to have an 'I liked it' factor, will not work for the simple reason that we all have different reasons for liking a cache. (I think that this is #1013, but I'm not sure.)

 

No, it will not work for the person whose tastes simply do not align with the majority. It would work very well for the person whose tastes align perfectly with the majority. It will work to varying degrees for those whose taste align with the majority in varying degrees.

 

Given that few have tastes that align perfectly with another, there will be few run-away hits. Those that are will certainly be worth the attention. There won't be a guarantee you'll like it, but the likelihood will be high you would--again, unless your tastes simply don't mesh with the rest of the community. If that's so, then maybe you should re-examine whether this is the hobby for you.

[+sbell111]

Sure there opinion matters. That's why we have logs; both online and off. Your plan to have an 'I liked it' factor, will not work for the simple reason that we all have different reasons for liking a cache. (I think that this is #1013, but I'm not sure.)

No, it will not work for the person whose tastes simply do not align with the majority. It would work very well for the person whose tastes align perfectly with the majority. It will work to varying degrees for those whose taste align with the majority in varying degrees.

Sounds like it won't work, then. Let's come up with something that will.

[+ZSandmann]

I'm not to hot on a rating system but I will still offer an opinion... because I can

 

I would suggest a slide scale where either higher found count, or just length of time you've been a member would give a person more/less weight. That way someone couldn't create a bunch of sockpuppets to blast someone they dislike.

 

Also, you would have to have a valid find on the specific cache to be able to vote on it which would give the poster some control.

 

Opinions? Additions?

[CoyoteRed]

Sure there opinion matters. That's why we have logs; both online and off. Your plan to have an 'I liked it' factor, will not work for the simple reason that we all have different reasons for liking a cache. (I think that this is #1013, but I'm not sure.)

No, it will not work for the person whose tastes simply do not align with the majority. It would work very well for the person whose tastes align perfectly with the majority. It will work to varying degrees for those whose taste align with the majority in varying degrees.

Sounds like it won't work, then. Let's come up with something that will.

 

 

Sounds like it would work the majority of the time for the majority of the people. That's pretty good to me.

[+sbell111]

Sure there opinion matters. That's why we have logs; both online and off. Your plan to have an 'I liked it' factor, will not work for the simple reason that we all have different reasons for liking a cache. (I think that this is #1013, but I'm not sure.)

No, it will not work for the person whose tastes simply do not align with the majority. It would work very well for the person whose tastes align perfectly with the majority. It will work to varying degrees for those whose taste align with the majority in varying degrees.

Sounds like it won't work, then. Let's come up with something that will.

Sounds like it would work the majority of the time for the majority of the people. That's pretty good to me.

It won't work for the majority of people the majority of time unless most people like exactly the same things. We all know that this isn't true. Beyond that, take a statistics class. It's not my job to teach you.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm not to hot on a rating system but I will still offer an opinion... because I can

 

I would suggest a slide scale where either higher found count, or just length of time you've been a member would give a person more/less weight. That way someone couldn't create a bunch of sockpuppets to blast someone they dislike.

 

Also, you would have to have a valid find on the specific cache to be able to vote on it which would give the poster some control.

 

Opinions? Additions?

 

A fatal flaw in this would be numbers ho's would be able to rate caches that take over 5 seconds to find very low and have more weight.

 

The idea has merit though if you have a certain cut off, say, a 100 caches. At first the weight a rater has would be very low and maxes out when they reach 100. This would discourage sock puppets and new cachers who haven't yet had a very broad experience.

 

Personally, I like the idea of non-finders being able to rate a cache, as well. If you use the "favorites model" the caches found that you enjoyed would be there. Additionally, if you had a "Wish List" then the caches you'd like to find would be on there. The fact you'd like to find that cache says something about it even if you've not found it yet. (Not to mention the ease of organizing your "to do" list.)

 

I'm sure other "non-finding" models would work well, too, just like some won't.

[+sbell111]

What would be a positive of allowing non-finders to rate a cache?

[CoyoteRed]

Sure there opinion matters. That's why we have logs; both online and off. Your plan to have an 'I liked it' factor, will not work for the simple reason that we all have different reasons for liking a cache. (I think that this is #1013, but I'm not sure.)

No, it will not work for the person whose tastes simply do not align with the majority. It would work very well for the person whose tastes align perfectly with the majority. It will work to varying degrees for those whose taste align with the majority in varying degrees.

Sounds like it won't work, then. Let's come up with something that will.

Sounds like it would work the majority of the time for the majority of the people. That's pretty good to me.

It won't work for the majority of people the majority of time unless most people like exactly the same things. We all know that this isn't true. Beyond that, take a statistics class. It's not my job to teach you.

 

Naw. Maybe every website out there should take some classes because if they have a rating system then they're doing it wrong. Movies, books, music, games. They're all wrong. Yep.

 

But, I don't know. By looking at this list, the movies I've seen, and are on this list, I liked. I know there is no guarantee I'll like every one of them, some genres I don't care for. I don't really care why the folks liked or didn't like these movies, I simply know I liked the ones I've seen and are on the list.

 

How can that be if everyone's tastes are so varied?

 

Granted, if I used that list alone to judge whether to watch a movie I'd miss out on a couple of favorites, but I didn't. On the other hand, if I had never watched a movie before, I don't think I could go wrong watching the majority of those on that list!

[+tozainamboku]

Just throwing something out here...

 

Is the real issue related to "rating" or is it related to "identifying"?

I think this is reason why it's hard to get agreement on any rating system. What is the reason you want to rate caches?

 

If you want a way to share recommended caches, something along the line of the combined favorites list could work. People would recommend caches they liked and caches that get a certain threshold number of recommendations would show up as recommended. Caches that get fewer visits may not get recommended as often unless the threshold is based on a percentage of finds. The number of cache on a favorites list needs to be limited to ensure these are really caches that people found exceptional and are not just voting to recommend their own or a friend's cache.

 

If you want find cache you like based on other caches you like, you could use a system that allows users to rate caches and use some algorithm to give a list of other caches you might also like (like amazon.com listing other books you may like) People who like easy caches will probably like other similar caches. People who like hikes will probably like other caches you have to hike to. Of course you may get recommendations for something you don't like if other cachers are more eclectic .

 

If you want to find or avoid a certain type of cache (and don't want to trust the cache owner's description or choice of attributes), a system that allows finders to rank attributes of caches and provides a way to sort on these might help.

 

It's when you want to sort caches into "lame", "Ok", or "great" you begin to have problems. No two cachers have the same idea of what is lame and what is great. You might think that a democratic system of majority rule would be helpful, but the majority could still be unhappy with the results. The same cache could get 3 lame votes, 4 ok votes, and 2 great votes. The lame voters might complain that the system doesn't work because a lame cache didn't get filtered out and the great voters might complain because people will miss what they think is an exceptional cache. Even if you had a cache that the majority thinks is lame, this could backfire with hiders that will just hide more of the same to show what they think of this system. It also doesn't reflect the cachers who vote by not even looking for certain kinds of caches. Non-puzzle solvers may be dismayed that such a solution will give puzzle caches a much higher than average rating. In some areas lamppost micros may get better than average ratings - if the people that hate these hides decide to avoid them. Or we could be like that other site and let people who haven't found the cache rate it

[+briansnat]

Just count the YES votes

 

It doesn't matter who is against it. I could be adamently against the new "cache along a route feature" but honestly it doesn't matter. I don't have to use it, and other people seem to love it.

 

 

If I may...

 

I belive you miss the point of my arguement. In most cases, it honestly does not matter who is against your idea, only people who are for it. This is especially true when it comes to services / products / features / etc. that do not infringe on another's experiace.

 

You assume that a rating system will not infringe on another's experience. What about the potential for abuse? If you're a cache owner who winds up on the wrong end of a group of spiteful finders, you won't appreciate the rating system.

 

Also some ratings may suffer because some people don't understand or use the rating system properly. Like the rating system on Amazon.com and similar sites where you see people rating products poorly for reasons unrelated to the product itself. I've seen products rated poorly because the package arrived damaged, or because the salesperson was rude, etc... Similarly some people are going to rate caches poorly because there was a snake near the cache, or they attempted a 5 mile hike on a 95 degree day without water, or they sprained their ankle, or kids were whining, et. al.

 

If you're a cache owner who gets poor ratings for a quality cache for whatever reasons you won't be thrilled with the rating system.

 

For instance:

I don't iceskate, nor do most of my friends. That does not mean that an ice rink would not do good here. It doesn't matter who wouldn't use it - only those who would.

 

There are always unintended consenquences that affect others. For instance the town builds the ice rink and you don't ice skate. No skin off your back, right? But suddenly there is increased traffic on your street and the accompanying noise and litter you have to deal with.

 

I'm not saying that the idea of a rating system is totally without merit, but don't assume that any rating system can only be beneficial.

Edited July 11, 2006 by briansnat

[+Davispak]

 

I looked at the attributes & they are a good start but they have a couple of problems: they aren't used on all caches & they aren't complete enough to allow people to identify their favorite type of cache.

 

The distance/terrain/container/type ratings are great but they too don't always provide enough information to help pick your favorite type of cache.

 

How about a system that allowed the person logging the geocache to click boxes to identify whether it is a good choice for particular types of hunts? It wouldn't REALLY be a rating system but it would be a way to let the community offer advice about particular geocaches....

 

Some possibilities for checkboxes:

* kid friendly

* quick find

* nice walk/hike (paired with terrain rating for sorting particular types)

* recommended for visitors

 

etc (see thread for more suggestions about favorite different types...)

 

If you go one step further & allow loggers (not just owners) the chance to recommend attributes, that might help as well.

 

An alternative solution that should not require major software changes would be to review the current attributes & add the missing ones followed by a public relations campaign by forum members and local geocaching groups to get owners to update their attributes accurately/completely. (This may require changing the current 10 attribute maximum.) (If people like this option, the next step would be a thread to help identify the missing attributes & urge Groundspeak to make updates.)

 

 

So, if a cache were recommended as a "quick find" or "nice walk" or "kid friendlY", would you care if it didn't have an alternative rating system?

 

J

I say this is one of the better ideas I have heard on this subject. Have an attributes checklist on the bottom after you write your find it log. You just click the appropriate boxes.

Kid friendly

quick find

heavy terrain

all the regular attributes,

Then add some check boxes to the search screen that you click to narrow the search for the type of cache you are looking for.

Say I'm looking for a cache that is in a park with a little hike and allows dogs. I click those attributes and it looks for caches with those attributes.

Or I'm looking to do some lunch caching, click on the quick grab attribute, and it gives me a list of those.

 

I think this idea removes any chance of retaliation since the only thing you are doing is saying what attributes you would put to the cache and it would narrow down searches for cachers looking for particular caches.

 

Does this sound more of what you are talking about Bell?

Sorry, props to Team RJMK for the quote, I messed up in the log.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Davispak

[+TrailGators]

Sure there opinion matters. That's why we have logs; both online and off. Your plan to have an 'I liked it' factor, will not work for the simple reason that we all have different reasons for liking a cache. (I think that this is #1013, but I'm not sure.)

No, it will not work for the person whose tastes simply do not align with the majority. It would work very well for the person whose tastes align perfectly with the majority. It will work to varying degrees for those whose taste align with the majority in varying degrees.

Sounds like it won't work, then. Let's come up with something that will.

Sounds like it would work the majority of the time for the majority of the people. That's pretty good to me.

It won't work for the majority of people the majority of time unless most people like exactly the same things. We all know that this isn't true. Beyond that, take a statistics class. It's not my job to teach you.

The first lesson in stats is to get data. We have no data. But your premise assumes that a significant portion of cachers will conspire to give certain caches bad ratings. Let's get real! Anyhow, instead of arguing about that, there's a simple solution. Like I said before if you show negative ratings then everyone that hides micros in boring places will be offended when they find out that the majority doesn't agree with them. So only show the positive ratings! This will give some basis to show that there is a higher "likelihood" that you may enjoy these caches more.

[+sbell111]

... But, I don't know. By looking at this list, the movies I've seen, and are on this list, I liked. I know there is no guarantee I'll like every one of them, some genres I don't care for. I don't really care why the folks liked or didn't like these movies, I simply know I liked the ones I've seen and are on the list.

My all-time favorite movie is in the top twenty, but seven of the top twenty were lousy, in my opinion.

 

Yup, that rating system worked really well.

[+sbell111]

... Does this sound more of what you are talking about Bell?

It does. Your suggestion allows people to look for the qualities that they like. It also is a solution to those cache owners who don't use the attributes either because they are lazy (like me) or own caches that are pre-attribute (like me).

[+sbell111]

.... But your premise assumes that a significant portion of cachers will conspire to give certain caches bad ratings. Let's get real! ...

That is not my premise. My premise is that one problem with the suggested system is that it can be scewed by those with malice, bias, or ignorance.

 

To dismiss these concerns as unlikely is either disingenuous or deceptive.

Edited July 11, 2006 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

.... But your premise assumes that a significant portion of cachers will conspire to give certain caches bad ratings. Let's get real! ...

That is not my premise. My premise is that one problem with the suggested system is that it can be scewed by those with malice, bias, or ignorance.

 

To dismiss these concerns as unlikely is either disingenuous or deceptive.

Or dismissed by all people that can spell "skewed!"

 

Anyhow, I suggested this: "So only show the positive ratings!" I'm pretty sure even the pessimists might have a harder time knocking that one!

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators