Cache Rating

[CoyoteRed]

That's not to mention the questionable legality of even semi-automating any such system.

Please explain further. While I am the first to admit that I am not up on the strange scribblings that pass for law in South Carolina, I know of no legal breaches with this plan.

 

Naw, I'm thinking more along the lines of the TOU of this site.

[+sbell111]

That's not to mention the questionable legality of even semi-automating any such system.

Please explain further. While I am the first to admit that I am not up on the strange scribblings that pass for law in South Carolina, I know of no legal breaches with this plan.

Naw, I'm thinking more along the lines of the TOU of this site.

I'm still not seeing the violation.

[CoyoteRed]

That's not to mention the questionable legality of even semi-automating any such system.

Please explain further. While I am the first to admit that I am not up on the strange scribblings that pass for law in South Carolina, I know of no legal breaches with this plan.

Naw, I'm thinking more along the lines of the TOU of this site.

I'm still not seeing the violation.

Well, I was with one of the ways I was thinking about approaching the idea.

 

I've come up with a better idea that side steps the issue.

 

The reason I was thinking about it is I might see if I could come up with something like MonkeyBrad was referring to and get it on the local site. Collecting emails of referrals could extremely tedious and time consuming, though. I was thinking of a more hands-off way to do it.

[+Monkeybrad]

It is time consuming and the list is only as good as the feedback you get from your community, but I think it is worth the effort to have a list that reflects the views of the local caching community.

[+TrailGators]

It is time consuming and the list is only as good as the feedback you get from your community, but I think it is worth the effort to have a list that reflects the views of the local caching community.

It is a lot of work. Automating the system would be great. I like the group idea. Maybe they could let each of us join local group in our profile. For example, I would join the San Diego Cachers group. Then GC could compile the favorites caches of everyone in that group. Then the group favorites could be published somewhere with all the other groups across the country for easy viewing. Maybe they could show a map of the US with icons to click on.... Edited July 21, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Byron & Anne]

All you folks that want to rate other peoples caches please stand up. I'll now rate your caches unseen. They're all rotten. There, now they've been rated. Do you like that?

[+Markwell]

I was wondering when you'd chime in.

[+Davispak]

It appears that GC has taken some of this to heart as when you run a cache along a route it now asks you to select attributes of the caches you want to hunt. Maybe we need to get the attributes edited to add Historical site and such. Also let posters, comment on attributes. After you log your find, it asks you to select up to 5 attributes you think best describes the cache, You don't have to, but they accumulate and if a cache recieves 3 or more of the same attributes it is added to the cache page. You still as the placer of the cache add yours first and they stand, but more can be added by people who log the cache.

 

We also need an attribute that says Park-n-Grab I think.

[+Clan X-Man]

NO!

Edited July 21, 2006 by Clan X-Man

[Trinity's Crew]

I'm with the X-Man. No.

[+thedeadpirate]

All you folks that want to rate other peoples caches please stand up. I'll now rate your caches unseen. They're all rotten. There, now they've been rated. Do you like that?

 

Hey, you said rated, not berated!

[+SG-MIN]

Just got back from a road trip across KY and TN. Hundreds (actually thousands, I was in nashville) of caches I could have stopped at, but only time for 2-3. Man it would have been nice to have a cache rating system - the 3 I hit were all soaking wet, micros in boring locations.

 

(I did find one good one as well that I had planned on hitting and loved that one!!

[+Davispak]

Check out the cache along a route or PQ. you can at least narrow down by attributes. That is close to what I was looking for.

[+TrailGators]

Just got back from a road trip across KY and TN. Hundreds (actually thousands, I was in nashville) of caches I could have stopped at, but only time for 2-3. Man it would have been nice to have a cache rating system - the 3 I hit were all soaking wet, micros in boring locations.

It's called equal opportunity caching. We can't give preference to the best ones because then we would be discriminating against the others.

[+SG-MIN]

Just got back from a road trip across KY and TN. Hundreds (actually thousands, I was in nashville) of caches I could have stopped at, but only time for 2-3. Man it would have been nice to have a cache rating system - the 3 I hit were all soaking wet, micros in boring locations.

It's called equal opportunity caching. We can't give preference to the best ones because then we would be discriminating against the others.

 

 

I sure hope that smiley face indicates sarcasm.

 

 

Regardless of how you rate good, or bad, or anything in between, we all know there are some really horrible caches out there by anyone's standard. We also know there are some great ones. Those with the extra work and thought in them, should be rewarded. The problem is there is quick, easy, way to distiguish. (I am sorry, but the favorite list is not quick and easy when you are covering thousands of miles)

[+Markwell]

The problem is there is quick, easy, way to distiguish. (I am sorry, but the favorite list is not quick and easy when you are covering thousands of miles)

 

Read back to the thread and my suggestion from back about 4 years ago. If the "favorites" list were incorporated into an attribute, it would assist you in that search.

 

But, obviously, some people don't like my suggestion. And some people do.

[+SG-MIN]

The problem is there is quick, easy, way to distiguish. (I am sorry, but the favorite list is not quick and easy when you are covering thousands of miles)

 

Read back to the thread and my suggestion from back about 4 years ago. If the "favorites" list were incorporated into an attribute, it would assist you in that search.

 

But, obviously, some people don't like my suggestion. And some people do.

 

 

A thought about your suggestion: What if I am traveling in an area that doesn't have any really good caches, so none of them end up on a favorite list. I still would prefer to see caches that are better than average. There is no sliding scale with a favorites list.

 

 

What about when you have visited all the favorites in the area... you are then down to wading through the average.

[+tozainamboku]

The problem is there is quick, easy, way to distiguish. (I am sorry, but the favorite list is not quick and easy when you are covering thousands of miles)

 

Read back to the thread and my suggestion from back about 4 years ago. If the "favorites" list were incorporated into an attribute, it would assist you in that search.

 

But, obviously, some people don't like my suggestion. And some people do.

 

The value of any rating system depends on what you want to use it for. Markwell's system would work very well if you just want to find caches that other people recommend. It doesn't tell you you if you will like the cache or not. Only that some number of people have recommended this cache. Other systems try to find groups who like similar things and then will look for recommendations within your affinity group. This is harder to implement and might not work well for finding caches outside your home territory. Another idea is to allow finders to rate certain attributes of a cache (not did they like the cache but rather: was it in a scenic locale, did it involve a hike, was it well camouflaged, etc.) If you could search on these rankings you might be able to find caches that fit the profile of caches you like. It will take a while to calibrate the rankings - not everyone has the same idea about what constitutes a hike. And you may miss some suprises because they rank low on one or more attributes. I think and ranking system will fail if it doesn't recognize that different people have different tastes. Ranking every cache as to whether you liked or not, doesn't help me.

 

There are cleary more caches around than there were a few years ago. That means more of the caches you like and more of the caches other people like. There are are more caches you think are lame, but there are probably also more of the gems out there. Before it might not have been an issue to find 10 lame caches if you also found 20 good caches and 5 great caches. But now you may need to find 100 lame caches to find 200 good caches and 50 great caches. Probablity says you will likely have streaks of lame caches with very few good or great cache. So it makes some sense to try to provide filtering mechanism to improve the odds of find good caches and great caches.

[+TrailGators]

Just got back from a road trip across KY and TN. Hundreds (actually thousands, I was in nashville) of caches I could have stopped at, but only time for 2-3. Man it would have been nice to have a cache rating system - the 3 I hit were all soaking wet, micros in boring locations.

It's called equal opportunity caching. We can't give preference to the best ones because then we would be discriminating against the others.

I sure hope that smiley face indicates sarcasm.

 

Regardless of how you rate good, or bad, or anything in between, we all know there are some really horrible caches out there by anyone's standard. We also know there are some great ones. Those with the extra work and thought in them, should be rewarded. The problem is there is quick, easy, way to distiguish. (I am sorry, but the favorite list is not quick and easy when you are covering thousands of miles)

 

Trust me, it was sarcasm. There are some horrible caches out there and they seem to be increasing much faster than the good ones. I did one today that needs an award for being so aromatic. Nothing like putting a cache near a garbage dumpster. But I think anything goes these days and many think that is OK.

 

 

The favorite idea is the minimum of what we should do. I just don't think you'll get a rating system will fly because there will be so much crying and whining about it. But if there was a rating system and someone got a poor rating then either archive the cache and put out a better one or do nothing and let people decide if they still want to do it. I would really like to see at least one redeeming quality with each cache. Why is that so much to ask?

[+TrailGators]

Another idea is to allow finders to rate certain attributes of a cache (not did they like the cache but rather: was it in a scenic locale, did it involve a hike, was it well camouflaged, etc.) If you could search on these rankings you might be able to find caches that fit the profile of caches you like.

You may have something here Mr. T! As I stated before I would like to see one redeeming quality with each cache. Redeeming qualities could be attributes like:

1) Nice location

2) Nice cammo

3) Nice hiding spot

4) Nice hike

5) Etc.

So if none of these attributes were selected by most cachers then you would have an inkling that a cache might be lame.

Edited July 23, 2006 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

Another idea is to allow finders to rate certain attributes of a cache (not did they like the cache but rather: was it in a scenic locale, did it involve a hike, was it well camouflaged, etc.) If you could search on these rankings you might be able to find caches that fit the profile of caches you like.

You may have something here Mr. T! As I stated before I would like to see one redeeming quality with each cache. Redeeming qualities could be attributes like:

1) Nice location

2) Nice cammo

3) Nice hiding spot

4) Nice hike

5) Etc.

So if none of these attributes were selected by most cachers then you would have an inkling that a cache might be lame.

 

What is this redeeming quality you speak of? What is redeeming to you may make no difference to me (or might even be something I want to avoid). Nice ?? sounds nice, but I have no idea if what you think is nice is what I think is nice. Perhaps the cache should be rated on:

1) muggles are around

2) needle-in-haystack hide

3) park and grab

4) really tough hike (bushwhacking required)

5) dogs allowed

[+TrailGators]

Another idea is to allow finders to rate certain attributes of a cache (not did they like the cache but rather: was it in a scenic locale, did it involve a hike, was it well camouflaged, etc.) If you could search on these rankings you might be able to find caches that fit the profile of caches you like.

You may have something here Mr. T! As I stated before I would like to see one redeeming quality with each cache. Redeeming qualities could be attributes like:

1) Nice location

2) Nice cammo

3) Nice hiding spot

4) Nice hike

5) Etc.

So if none of these attributes were selected by most cachers then you would have an inkling that a cache might be lame.

 

What is this redeeming quality you speak of? What is redeeming to you may make no difference to me (or might even be something I want to avoid). Nice ?? sounds nice, but I have no idea if what you think is nice is what I think is nice. Perhaps the cache should be rated on:

1) muggles are around

2) needle-in-haystack hide

3) park and grab

4) really tough hike (bushwhacking required)

5) dogs allowed

 

We already have attributes for some of those. Plus none of those help discern the quality of the cache. I do think that a scenic location is a good quality. Good cammo is also a good quality. A clever hide is a good quality as well. Anyhow, my point was that we could define some good qualities that people could select to help define the overall view of the quality of the cache. Then you could sort caches by the qualities that are important to you.

Edited July 23, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Byron & Anne]

All you folks that want to rate other peoples caches please stand up. I'll now rate your caches unseen. They're all rotten. There, now they've been rated. Do you like that?

 

Hey, you said rated, not berated!

 

I don't see that there's a difference, unless you rate every cache excellant.

[+TrailGators]

All you folks that want to rate other peoples caches please stand up. I'll now rate your caches unseen. They're all rotten. There, now they've been rated. Do you like that?

 

Hey, you said rated, not berated!

I don't see that there's a difference, unless you rate every cache excellant.

How about if the rating system used these for ratings: Fantastic, Outstanding, Very good and Good! That way the worst someone could get is "Good." Is that berating them? I think not! Edited July 25, 2006 by TrailGators

[+SG-MIN]

All you folks that want to rate other peoples caches please stand up. I'll now rate your caches unseen. They're all rotten. There, now they've been rated. Do you like that?

 

Hey, you said rated, not berated!

 

I don't see that there's a difference, unless you rate every cache excellant.

 

 

Even if you think all my caches stink, if anyone is accurate in their rating (and doesn't assign the same rating to everything) then as things average out, you will still have an idea.

 

 

I loved the weighted average idea that someone brought up earlier.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

So how do movie reviews work for ya?

 

Do you enjoy a movie because somebody told you that it is good? Or do you enjoy them because they fulfill your personal interests at the moment?

 

I rarely agree with movie reviewers, and caches are just as subjective! I loved the movie Moulin Rouge, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster - do I want the folks that didn't like it recommending my next movie?

 

Ed

[+TrailGators]

So how do movie reviews work for ya?

 

Do you enjoy a movie because somebody told you that it is good? Or do you enjoy them because they fulfill your personal interests at the moment?

 

I rarely agree with movie reviewers, and caches are just as subjective! I loved the movie Moulin Rouge, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster - do I want the folks that didn't like it recommending my next movie?

 

Ed

 

The exception doesn't make the rule. It's a Bell Curve. There are caches that most of us would recommend and there are caches that none of us would recommend.

Edited July 26, 2006 by TrailGators

[+SG-MIN]

So how do movie reviews work for ya?

 

Do you enjoy a movie because somebody told you that it is good? Or do you enjoy them because they fulfill your personal interests at the moment?

 

I rarely agree with movie reviewers, and caches are just as subjective! I loved the movie Moulin Rouge, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster - do I want the folks that didn't like it recommending my next movie?

 

Ed

 

 

obviously you don't listen to the movie reviewers; noone would force you to listen to cache ratings.

[+TrailGators]

So how do movie reviews work for ya?

 

Do you enjoy a movie because somebody told you that it is good? Or do you enjoy them because they fulfill your personal interests at the moment?

 

I rarely agree with movie reviewers, and caches are just as subjective! I loved the movie Moulin Rouge, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster - do I want the folks that didn't like it recommending my next movie?

 

Ed

 

 

obviously you don't listen to the movie reviewers; noone would force you to listen to cache ratings.

 

 

Exactly! It's only a guide!

 

I wonder how many lamp post caches would win an Academy award? Actually that gives me another idea! If we had a "Caching Academy" formed with trusted and seasoned caching veterans to rate local caches, it would alleviate the abuse and conspiracy concerns!

Edited July 26, 2006 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

If you just want to have a system that recommends a few exceptional caches, Markwell's suggestion of combining favorite list would work well. It would likely award really exceptional caches - except for those that are so difficult that they get too few finds (and therefore recommendations) to qualify. But it sounds like you want to rank the caches from best to worst. That reminds me of the place I worked where they ranked the employees. Each manager ranked his employees, then the got together and combined the list. If you had a manager that fought for his employees you got a good overall ranking. Otherwise you were pretty much screwed.

 

If you just counted positive votes, I wonder if all the people who only find urban micros and get blamed for only placing lame caches would vote for these type of cache and that in fact lamppost hides would do a lot better than you think. Big blockbuster summer movies seldom win Academy awards. Call your scheme the "People's Choice Awards" and you'll have a better idea how well it will work

Edited July 26, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

If you just want to have a system that recommends a few exceptional caches, Markwell's suggestion of combining favorite list would work well. It would likely award really exceptional caches - except for those that are so difficult that they get too few finds (and therefore recommendations) to qualify.

I like Markwell's idea! In fact, here is a bookmark list that I made using that basic concept: San Diego's Consensus Favorites!

Edited July 26, 2006 by TrailGators