Cache Rating

[+Davispak]

... 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).

 

I think this would work better and would actually make cachers add attributes than better describe the cache to get visitors to the cache. Let's face it, we place caches because we want people to hunt them, but we all want to hunt caches that would be fun. I believe we are taking a step in a positive direction.

 

This would even help if you were traveling in that you could narrow down the number of caches to pick from. We just now need to determine what attributes you can pick from. Not all should be moved over to the search or comments portion.

 

The first ones should be:

 

Kid Friendly

Pets allowed

Quick Grab

Hiking involved

Significant hike

Special equipment needed

handicap access

Some bushwacking

Significant bushwacking

 

Anything else?

[+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.

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!

Wow. I made a typo. Turns out I do make them pretty frequently. Often, I quickly edit them out, but sometimes I miss them. Oops.

 

How will you show positive ratings without negative ratings dragging them down?

 

How does this correct the other difficiencies?

[+Davispak]

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

because they are lazy (like me)

 

I find that hard to believe since you cache and spend so much time reading logs....or is it that you are lazy in that you Do all of this from the couch?

[+Davispak]

Sbell11

Wow. I made a typo. Turns out I do make them pretty frequently. Often, I quickly edit them out, but sometimes I miss them. Oops.

 

How will you show positive ratings without negative ratings dragging them down?

 

How does this correct the other difficiencies?

Or downt spel chek

Edited July 11, 2006 by Davispak

[+sbell111]

The first ones should be:

 

Kid Friendly

Pets allowed

Quick Grab

Hiking involved

Significant hike

Special equipment needed

handicap access

Some bushwacking

Significant bushwacking

 

Anything else?

Scenic view

Stealth required

Recommended for kids

Recommended at night

[+sbell111]

I thought there was a 'historical' attribute, but I don't see it.

[+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!

Wow. I made a typo. Turns out I do make them pretty frequently. Often, I quickly edit them out, but sometimes I miss them. Oops.

 

How will you show positive ratings without negative ratings dragging them down?

 

How does this correct the other difficiencies?

Relax! I was joking or was I disingenuous or was I deceptive?

 

There will be caches rated the highest no matter what you can think of!

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Relax! I was joking or was I disingenuous or was I deceptive?

 

There will be caches rated the highest no matter what you can think of!

In my opinion? You were trying to be a jerk.

 

You also didn't respond to my two questions.

Edited July 11, 2006 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Relax! I was joking or was I disingenuous or was I deceptive?

 

There will be caches rated the highest no matter what you can think of!

In my opinion? You were being a jerk.

 

You also didn't respond to my two questions.

Jerk huh? In that case, I think the "c" and the "k" on the keyboard are too far apart for the "typo" excuse to work!

 

How will you show positive ratings without negative ratings dragging them down?

There will be caches rated the highest no matter what you can think of!

How does this correct the other difficiencies?

I thought I understood the "deficiencies" (another typo?) were to stop people conspiring to give caches a bad rating. Removing the negative ratings would do this.

[+sbell111]

Jerk huh? In that case, I think the "c" and the "k" on the keyboard are too far apart for the "typo" excuse to work!

 

How will you show positive ratings without negative ratings dragging them down?

There will be caches rated the highest no matter what you can think of!

How does this correct the other difficiencies?

I thought I understood the "deficiencies" (another typo?) were to stop people conspiring to give caches a bad rating. Removing the negative ratings would do this.

I'm still going to go with my previous opinion. BTW:

Typo: abbrev, typographical error, typically an error in typeset, but now commonly used to denote observation of a spelling error.

 

Looks like 'typo' fits. From your last few posts and specifically how you didn't really answer my questions, just tring to obfuscate the issue instead, I'd say you are just about spent in this argument. At least the thread has moved on without you.

 

Edited to clean up some bad quotes.

Edited July 11, 2006 by sbell111

[+SG-MIN]

wow this has degenerated fast.

 

And to think at page 3, the thread was almost dead. Now we have 3 additional pages of name calling, argueing (yes that is misspelled - and no, I don't care if it techincally a typo or not), and ANGST.

 

So...Does anyone want to talk about abortion, or gun control, or religion?

[+sbell111]

because they are lazy (like me)

I find that hard to believe since you cache and spend so much time reading logs....or is it that you are lazy in that you Do all of this from the couch?

Lazy because I have considered adding attributes to my old caches on a number of occasions and haven't bothered to do it.

Wow. I made a typo. Turns out I do make them pretty frequently. Often, I quickly edit them out, but sometimes I miss them. Oops.

Or downt spel chek

Another case of laziness, I'm afraid. I am so used to word processing and email programs that flag my typos for me that I very frequently submit my replies without looking them over for 'issues'.

 

Yup, laziness is what it is.

[+SG-MIN]

HONEST QUESTION:

 

sbell111, lets take this out of the hypothetical into the actual. I live in Bowling Green, KY (just 1.5 hours north of you). I have been wanting to cache in nashville, but have no idea what to target. The reason I am in favor of a cache rating system is so that I can narrow down the myriad caches in the area (which for those of you that do not know, are in the thousands).

 

I am asking you - a local - how do I know which caches are worth it in Nashville?

[+SG-MIN]

Of course even if I use attributes and ratings, I still am dealing with well over 1,000

[CoyoteRed]

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.

 

You want bias in a subjective rating system. Everyone is biased in one way or another. An "enjoyment" scale must take that into consideration.

 

The influence of ignorance on a rating system is a product of the rating system itself. You can engineer a rating system to reduce the negative effects.

 

The potential for malice is ever present in people's freedoms. The Freedom of Speech has great potential for malice yet is one of our most cherished rights. We see things all day, every day that has potential for malice, yet we continue on.

[+TrailGators]

wow this has degenerated fast.

 

And to think at page 3, the thread was almost dead. Now we have 3 additional pages of name calling, argueing (yes that is misspelled - and no, I don't care if it techincally a typo or not), and ANGST.

 

So...Does anyone want to talk about abortion, or gun control, or religion?

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

HONEST QUESTION:

 

sbell111, lets take this out of the hypothetical into the actual. I live in Bowling Green, KY (just 1.5 hours north of you). I have been wanting to cache in nashville, but have no idea what to target. The reason I am in favor of a cache rating system is so that I can narrow down the myriad caches in the area (which for those of you that do not know, are in the thousands).

 

I am asking you - a local - how do I know which caches are worth it in Nashville?

What kinds of caches do you like?

[+SG-MIN]

wow this has degenerated fast.

 

And to think at page 3, the thread was almost dead. Now we have 3 additional pages of name calling, argueing (yes that is misspelled - and no, I don't care if it techincally a typo or not), and ANGST.

 

So...Does anyone want to talk about abortion, or gun control, or religion?

You mean degenerated "quickly!" OK enuogh of that! You started this "angst" by implying that I was disingenuous or deceptive....

 

So let's move on. I'd like to hear your idea. An idea that can withstand even your criticism!

 

ouch trailgators - I belive your remark was intended for sbell111 - I have been a bystander the last 2 pages.

[+sbell111]

wow this has degenerated fast.

 

And to think at page 3, the thread was almost dead. Now we have 3 additional pages of name calling, argueing (yes that is misspelled - and no, I don't care if it techincally a typo or not), and ANGST.

 

So...Does anyone want to talk about abortion, or gun control, or religion?

You mean degenerated "quickly!" OK enuogh of that! You started this "angst" by implying that I was disingenuous or deceptive....

 

So let's move on. I'd like to hear your idea. An idea that can withstand even your criticism!

Ummm... That was me, not SG-MIN.

[+SG-MIN]

HONEST QUESTION:

 

sbell111, lets take this out of the hypothetical into the actual. I live in Bowling Green, KY (just 1.5 hours north of you). I have been wanting to cache in nashville, but have no idea what to target. The reason I am in favor of a cache rating system is so that I can narrow down the myriad caches in the area (which for those of you that do not know, are in the thousands).

 

I am asking you - a local - how do I know which caches are worth it in Nashville?

What kinds of caches do you like?

 

I am up for any. With my caching style I would probably make a day out of it. I am up for puzzles/multis - but wouldn't want to make a whole trip out of it. I like cool areas - areas I would not regularly go.

 

I would probably like to hit up about 20 caches in a day.

 

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it.

 

If I am doing a multi, and drive past another cache - I most likely will do that one too.

 

There are the basics. I really am interested in your reply, but I also want to throw this out, so you can see why I am in favor of rating system. If I didn't have you to talk to, and had a rating system, I would look for the highest rated in nashville, read those logs (knowing they are subjective, and many good caches would be left out) and then decided from there which to hit up, and also hit up higher ranked caches in that paticular area.

 

But honestly, I really do want to know how you would narrow down the nashville caches for me

 

edited: to=you

Edited July 11, 2006 by SG-MIN

[+TrailGators]

wow this has degenerated fast.

 

And to think at page 3, the thread was almost dead. Now we have 3 additional pages of name calling, argueing (yes that is misspelled - and no, I don't care if it techincally a typo or not), and ANGST.

 

So...Does anyone want to talk about abortion, or gun control, or religion?

You mean degenerated "quickly!" OK enuogh of that! You started this "angst" by implying that I was disingenuous or deceptive....

 

So let's move on. I'd like to hear your idea. An idea that can withstand even your criticism!

 

ouch trailgators - I belive your remark was intended for sbell111 - I have been a bystander the last 2 pages.

OOPS!! I'M SORRY! Sorry for the friendly fire! You are on my side!

[+TrailGators]

nevermind....

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it. ...

Here's the simple answer. MonkeyBrad has some great caches, both regular and puzzles. (The puzzle issue is second hand as I can't really find them.) JoGPS has a good mix of really good caches; from evil micros to interesting locations with great historical background to short hikes in the woods.

 

Take a look at their caches.

[+TrailGators]

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it. ...

Here's the simple answer. MonkeyBrad has some great caches, both regular and puzzles. (The puzzle issue is second hand as I can't really find them.) JoGPS has a good mix of really good caches; from evil micros to interesting locations with great historical background to short hikes in the woods.

 

Take a look at their caches.

Now what would happen if we asked the same question to 50 other people in the Nashville area and then combined all their answers to form one list?

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[+SG-MIN]

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it. ...

Here's the simple answer. MonkeyBrad has some great caches, both regular and puzzles. (The puzzle issue is second hand as I can't really find them.) JoGPS has a good mix of really good caches; from evil micros to interesting locations with great historical background to short hikes in the woods.

 

Take a look at their caches.

 

not at all into evil micros - will his cache page inform me which are "evil"?

[+Monkeybrad]

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it. ...

Here's the simple answer. MonkeyBrad has some great caches, both regular and puzzles. (The puzzle issue is second hand as I can't really find them.) JoGPS has a good mix of really good caches; from evil micros to interesting locations with great historical background to short hikes in the woods.

 

Take a look at their caches.

Now what would happen if we asked the same question to 50 other people in the Nashville area and then combined all their answers to form one list?

 

If you asked all those other people you would get theNashville's Greatest Hits list from the Middle Tennessee Geocachers Club website. An easy way to see the favorite caches in middle Tennessee as voted on by local cachers. It focuses on the positives while providing feedback for hiders and hunters alike, it is quick, easy to use and angst free, plus it lists the caches by category, so if evil is not your thing you can avoid those.

 

I think that having local organizations handle this kind of thing is the best way.

 

PS: Thanks to SBell for mentioning my caches, I try to make them entertaining.

[+Monkeybrad]

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it. ...

Here's the simple answer. MonkeyBrad has some great caches, both regular and puzzles. (The puzzle issue is second hand as I can't really find them.) JoGPS has a good mix of really good caches; from evil micros to interesting locations with great historical background to short hikes in the woods.

 

Take a look at their caches.

 

not at all into evil micros - will his cache page inform me which are "evil"?

 

Yes, if it is not clear from the description you can check the difficulty, if it has more than 3 stars, it is probably evil.

[+SG-MIN]

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it. ...

Here's the simple answer. MonkeyBrad has some great caches, both regular and puzzles. (The puzzle issue is second hand as I can't really find them.) JoGPS has a good mix of really good caches; from evil micros to interesting locations with great historical background to short hikes in the woods.

 

Take a look at their caches.

Now what would happen if we asked the same question to 50 other people in the Nashville area and then combined all their answers to form one list?

 

thanks for that link - I will be in your area soon.

 

on a simplicity note - wouldn't it be nice to have this as a favorites list to facilitate easy download?

 

If you asked all those other people you would get theNashville's Greatest Hits list from the Middle Tennessee Geocachers Club website. An easy way to see the favorite caches in middle Tennessee as voted on by local cachers. It focuses on the positives while providing feedback for hiders and hunters alike, it is quick, easy to use and angst free, plus it lists the caches by category, so if evil is not your thing you can avoid those.

 

I think that having local organizations handle this kind of thing is the best way.

 

PS: Thanks to SBell for mentioning my caches, I try to make them entertaining.

 

thanks for the link

 

on a simplicity note - wouldn't it be nice to have a way to download these with a favorites list, or PQ??

Edited July 11, 2006 by SG-MIN

[+Monkeybrad]

Good Idea. I will set about creating that shared bookmark list this afternoon.

[+SG-MIN]

ask... and you shal receive.

 

maybe this is the solution instead of a cache rating system...everyone announce their caching trips they have planned in the forums, and have individuals create a custom list for each person.

 

I for one am in favor of eveyone scrambling to meet my personal needs.

 

For real, thanks monkeybrad

[+TrailGators]

Attributes wise, I honestly have liked everything from micros to multis - I wouldn't filter any out. I probably wouldn't do anything over a 3.5/3.5 if I was going to make a day out of it. ...

Here's the simple answer. MonkeyBrad has some great caches, both regular and puzzles. (The puzzle issue is second hand as I can't really find them.) JoGPS has a good mix of really good caches; from evil micros to interesting locations with great historical background to short hikes in the woods.

 

Take a look at their caches.

Now what would happen if we asked the same question to 50 other people in the Nashville area and then combined all their answers to form one list?

If you asked all those other people you would get theNashville's Greatest Hits list from the Middle Tennessee Geocachers Club website. An easy way to see the favorite caches in middle Tennessee as voted on by local cachers. It focuses on the positives while providing feedback for hiders and hunters alike, it is quick, easy to use and angst free, plus it lists the caches by category, so if evil is not your thing you can avoid those. I think that having local organizations handle this kind of thing is the best way. PS: Thanks to SBell for mentioning my caches, I try to make them entertaining.

Thanks Monkeybrad! I posted the San Diego favorites earlier. We don't have a formal website. Anyhow, "some" of us would love to see lists like that for every spot in the country!

 

Edit: I can't believe that Sbell was holding out on us that whole time! But then again he said he's against having lists like that because they are flawed....

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Adventure.AS]

... 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).

 

I think this would work better and would actually make cachers add attributes than better describe the cache to get visitors to the cache. Let's face it, we place caches because we want people to hunt them, but we all want to hunt caches that would be fun. I believe we are taking a step in a positive direction.

 

This would even help if you were traveling in that you could narrow down the number of caches to pick from. We just now need to determine what attributes you can pick from. Not all should be moved over to the search or comments portion.

 

The first ones should be:

 

Kid Friendly

Pets allowed

Quick Grab

Hiking involved

Significant hike

Special equipment needed

handicap access

Some bushwacking

Significant bushwacking

 

Anything else?

 

I must be missing something as it appears to me that you are assuming a consensus where none seems to exist.

[+TrailGators]

ask... and you shal receive.

 

maybe this is the solution instead of a cache rating system...everyone announce their caching trips they have planned in the forums, and have individuals create a custom list for each person.

 

I for one am in favor of eveyone scrambling to meet my personal needs.

 

For real, thanks monkeybrad

I'm heading to Wisconsin tomorrow for my wife's folks 50th. I can't wait to see my Mother-in-law! Anyhow, I wonder if I can get someone to post a list of favorite caches along the 94 from Oconomowoc to Eau Claire?

Edited July 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Monkeybrad]

As I have been working on the bookmark list based on our greatest hits list, I am already seeing some problems, the main one is, things change.

 

I have found a couple of caches that I really loved when I found them and either nominated them or voted for them at the time, but looking at the logs they have degraded and are probably no longer worhty of "Greatest Hits status. In one case, the cache has a short hike to a great view in a hidden treasure of a place with great civil war historical signifigance, however, the cache owner has apparently not kept up with maintenance and the last finders have reported a rusty ammo can full of soggy junk. So what should we do? Check every cache monthly to make sure that it is still as good as it was in the beginning? In another case, urban sprawl has encroached on a beautiful little cemetery, so the neat walk in the woods to the hidden cemetery that I nominated is now a cemetery just off the parking lot behind a Home Depot.

 

Time passes, things change, and even the best laid plans become flawed. Another really great example is a cache that I recently adopted. When I first found it, I thought it was one of the best caches in the area, and that it was one of the most innovative hides I had ever seen. Over the last 2.5 years one of the stages changed and the hollowed out log that was created to hold the final cache literally disintergrated, leaving a much different experience for todays hunters. I even noticed some logs on the page that commented on why so many people had put such good logs on a cache that is very plain. On that one I watched a great cache become a lame cache just because time passed. Now that I have adopted it, I am restoring it to it's original incarnation. Anyway, the point is that any attempt to create a ranking for caches is and will be flawed. If you can figure out a way to get around rank manipulation by small groups, then you still have to deal with the natural deterioration of caches over time. Sounds like a lot of work, when you consider the benefits.

[+TrailGators]

As I have been working on the bookmark list based on our greatest hits list, I am already seeing some problems, the main one is, things change.

 

I have found a couple of caches that I really loved when I found them and either nominated them or voted for them at the time, but looking at the logs they have degraded and are probably no longer worhty of "Greatest Hits status. In one case, the cache has a short hike to a great view in a hidden treasure of a place with great civil war historical signifigance, however, the cache owner has apparently not kept up with maintenance and the last finders have reported a rusty ammo can full of soggy junk. So what should we do? Check every cache monthly to make sure that it is still as good as it was in the beginning? In another case, urban sprawl has encroached on a beautiful little cemetery, so the neat walk in the woods to the hidden cemetery that I nominated is now a cemetery just off the parking lot behind a Home Depot.

 

Time passes, things change, and even the best laid plans become flawed. Another really great example is a cache that I recently adopted. When I first found it, I thought it was one of the best caches in the area, and that it was one of the most innovative hides I had ever seen. Over the last 2.5 years one of the stages changed and the hollowed out log that was created to hold the final cache literally disintergrated, leaving a much different experience for todays hunters. I even noticed some logs on the page that commented on why so many people had put such good logs on a cache that is very plain. On that one I watched a great cache become a lame cache just because time passed. Now that I have adopted it, I am restoring it to it's original incarnation. Anyway, the point is that any attempt to create a ranking for caches is and will be flawed. If you can figure out a way to get around rank manipulation by small groups, then you still have to deal with the natural deterioration of caches over time. Sounds like a lot of work, when you consider the benefits.

You bring up some good points. But if GC could link all of our favorites they could tally votes over a set period of time. This would help the newer caches have a better shot at being recognized as favorites over the older caches. It would also help if a older cache was not maintained as you mentioned. But I think we all agree that it would be great to have a list of favorites if we were traveling across the country. I think it's impossible to create a perfect list. But I do think it's possible to generate something that is useful! We have one and you guys have one. Maybe GC could create a spot for us to post regional consensus favorites as bookmark list?!

[+Davispak]

 

I must be missing something as it appears to me that you are assuming a consensus where none seems to exist.

 

Well as the creator of the topic I feel I have an obligation to monitor and steer the thread in a positive direction. the thread had been getting bogged down in the minutia of the rating system. There was alot of resistance to a straight up rating system where a cache was rated based soley on if it was a good cache or not. The feeling has been that there would be to much retaliation and or padding by friends to make a straight up rating work.

 

The next rating system proffered was a reccomendation system, but the feeling was that if it showed how many reccomended out of total visitors, it would still cause problems and rating would not be objective. Again showing some flaws, but moving in a positive direction.

 

Then there was a PQ argument that went on that was a little off topic and I felt also not the true purpose of the thread. There was alot of contacting other cachers and things like that involved with this portion of the thread. The thread wandered for a few posts, but was still somewhat on track.

 

The thread wandered away for a bit, but I pushed it back on topic, saying I believed we could get some kind of rating system that would help filter caches could be possible.

 

The most vocal, but not the only poster, has been Sbell111. His, and the other posters arguments have been that peole have different tastes and a rating system that only bases the cache off of generalizations would not get a person to a "great" cache of the kind of cache they like. Then someone suggested that using the attributes to filter caches would help people get to the good caches. I took this and posted it for Sbell to get his reaction. It was a positive one so moving the thread forward instead of letting it stay bogged in the same old argument. Now if you had been following along, you would know this. It was not about getting a consensus, but about moving the thread forward.

 

So, for those following, but not wanting to read six pages of posts, can read and be up to speed. The current discussion is, would using attributes make finding caches while traveling easier? The idea is people would hunt caches and after they post a find it log, they are asked to assign attributes, such as:

kid friendly

quick grab

scienic view..etc

 

Then on the search(hide or seek a cache screen) you could check the attributes that most appeal to you, and the filter would go get the ones with those attributes attatched to them. Ok..continue discussion.........

[+TrailGators]

How about user assigned "Thumbs up and "Thumbs down" attributes?!

Edited July 12, 2006 by TrailGators

[+thedeadpirate]

How about user assigned "Thumbs up and "Thumbs down" attributes?!

 

For the user interface, I think this makes the most sense. I agree with an earlier statement that the interface needs to be as simple as possible. I don't know if the people would actually take the time to click on additional attributes. You would probably have a good chance of getting them to give a thumbs up or thumbs down.

 

Now, on the backend, how should the thumbs up be interpreted?

 

I agree with SBell that you need to know why someone rated the cache the way they did. For this, you could have everyone fill out a short profile where you get an idea of the kinds of caches the particular cacher likes. Then, when they click on thumbs up or down, you could have an algorithm that weights that vote against their profile.

 

Anyone not filling out the profile (this should be optional) could still give a cache a thumbs up or down, but their vote would not count as strongly in the algorithm.

 

We getting closer to a consensus?

[+sbell111]

maybe this is the solution instead of a cache rating system...everyone announce their caching trips they have planned in the forums, and have individuals create a custom list for each person.

 

I for one am in favor of eveyone scrambling to meet my personal needs.

 

For real, thanks monkeybrad

I've actually done that once or twice in the regional forums. It worked very well.

 

Thanks Monkeybrad! I posted the San Diego favorites earlier. We don't have a formal website. Anyhow, "some" of us would love to see lists like that for every spot in the country!

It would be helpful to others if you broke bown your lists by category. This would allow people to target what they like.

Edit: I can't believe that Sbell was holding out on us that whole time! But then again he said he's against having lists like that because they are flawed....

Two things: First, I'm not set against lists as long as they are targeted to the individual things that cachers enjoy (like MonkeyBrad mentioned). Second, I didn't mention MTGC's list because I'm not a member of that organization and had totally forgotten that they were doing that.

[+sbell111]

What if each regional organization submitted lists based on given criterion and then TPTB allowed for a simple method to search on these specific lists when creating a PQ?

 

I hadn't thought of MonkeyBrad's point that caches sometimes change and should be removed from the 'Best' lists, but it seems to me that the local groups could review these quarterly to add new ones or remove those that have 'turned'.

 

Is this something that everyone can buy into?

Edited July 12, 2006 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

It would be helpful to others if you broke bown your lists by category. This would allow people to target what they like.

The terrain, difficulty, cache type and cache container are already listed. So you can sort using those and then do what you said earlier: read the cache pages! It is lot of work manually combining all the favorites lists without having to try to categorize them. Plus, I would have no idea what categories many of these would fit under. The number one cache is a night hunt in the woods. You have to use flashlights and it involves about a mile hike. Not much of a hike to me but to others it might be. You also have to solve a puzzle at one stage. I like puzzles but many don't. Some people this cache is OK for kids and others wouldn't. I would think it would be OK for older kids but it might be scary for younger kids. Anyhow, to me just flagging it as a great cache is good enough!

Edited July 12, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Markwell]

What if each regional organization submitted lists based on given criterion and then TPTB allowed for a simple method to search on these specific lists when creating a PQ?

 

I hadn't thought of MonkeyBrad's point that caches sometimes change and should be removed from the 'Best' lists, but it seems to me that the local groups could review these quarterly to add new ones or remove those that have 'turned'.

 

Is this something that everyone can buy into?

 

How does GC.com get verification that a group is a 'regional group'. Hey - let's start up a regional group of me and my dog and submit our favorites list. What if the regional groups overlap? I see more problems with this than individual cachers rating whether they liked the cache and then some consensus being created.

[+TrailGators]

What if each regional organization submitted lists based on given criterion and then TPTB allowed for a simple method to search on these specific lists when creating a PQ?

 

I hadn't thought of MonkeyBrad's point that caches sometimes change and should be removed from the 'Best' lists, but it seems to me that the local groups could review these quarterly to add new ones or remove those that have 'turned'.

 

Is this something that everyone can buy into?

We would submit our favorites. But it seems like if TPTB are going to use these lists they could just flag everyone's favorites lists and let their servers do all the work.

Edited July 12, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

It would be helpful to others if you broke bown your lists by category. This would allow people to target what they like.

The terrain, difficulty, cache type and cache container are already listed. So you can sort using those and then do what you said earlier: read the cache pages! It is lot of work manually combining all the favorites lists without having to try to categorize them. Plus, I would have no idea what categories many of these would fit under. The number one cache is a night hunt in the woods. You have to use flashlights and it involves about a mile hike. Not much of a hike to me but to others it might be. You also have to solve a puzzle at one stage. I like puzzles but many don't. Some people this cache is OK for kids and others wouldn't. I would think it would be OK for older kids but it might be scary for younger kids. Anyhow, to me just flagging it as a great cache is good enough!

And here I thought we were close to agreement.

 

Take a look at what MTGC did to categorize theirs. All you really have to do is give the membership (or a committee) the categories and let them nominate and vote on the caches within each one.

[+sbell111]

We would submit our favorites. But it seems like if TPTB are going to use these lists they could just flag everyone's favorites lists and let their servers do all the work.

There are two problems with that. First, everyone's lists would not be categorized so you have the problem of not knowing whether you would like the 'best' cache. Second, it brings us back to individuals skewing the data through retaliation or padding.

[CoyoteRed]

We getting closer to a consensus?

 

Nope.

 

You don't need to know why someone liked a cache, only that they did.

 

You want something that is easy to use for the user. It's hard enough as it is to get some folks to not issue copy-n-paste logs, much less fill out some sort of questionnaire. Even if they did say why they liked the cache, it might not hold true for you.

 

A straight forward thumbs up or thumbs down won't be any good as some folks would simply always vote thumbs up. While you don't want something too complicated, you don't want something that doesn't require anyone to think.

 

Rating something on a 1 to 10 scale allows a system to slide the "every cache is a 10" voters to mean the caches are average. An up or down vote can't easily do that, if at all.

 

While the "anointed list" has merit I'm willing to wager there would be grumbling about who made the list. That's not to mention it is difficult to maintain and manage said list as already outlined above. That's not to mention the questionable legality of even semi-automating any such system.

 

Allowing everyone to vote on a scale of 1 to 10 with certain weightings and scale sliding to take care of some issues would have a side benefit. It would greatly reduce the strong-arm tactics of some owners because they couldn't dictate how a person could vote. That one vote, nor all of the votes on that cache, is not the only thing that is looked at when determining the score for that individual cache.

 

Optional descriptives would certainly help filter the "genre" of cache, but it really shouldn't play into the cache's score.

[+sbell111]

How does GC.com get verification that a group is a 'regional group'. Hey - let's start up a regional group of me and my dog and submit our favorites list. What if the regional groups overlap? I see more problems with this than individual cachers rating whether they liked the cache and then some consensus being created.

That is a very good point and one that I had assumed was already resolved by TPTB. I had assumed that someone somewhere had a list of the major geocaching clubs. TPTB could start with this list and then vet new ones as those groups decide that they would like to submit their lists.

 

Of course, they would have to decide what constitutes a valid club; membership, region, ???

[CoyoteRed]

We would submit our favorites. But it seems like if TPTB are going to use these lists they could just flag everyone's favorites lists and let their servers do all the work.

There are two problems with that. First, everyone's lists would not be categorized so you have the problem of not knowing whether you would like the 'best' cache. Second, it brings us back to individuals skewing the data through retaliation or padding.

 

I somewhat agree, but those issues would be easily fixed. Allow for proximity searches on bookmarks and then display the users who have caches on their favorites. The user clicks the users that best align with their tastes and the system returns a list of caches.

 

Optionally, the system could allow for all caches on all of the chosen bookmarks, or two or more intersects.

 

Either way, the result is another bookmark list under your account.

[+sbell111]

... What if the regional groups overlap? ...

I don't think this would matter. If both clubs submitted the same cache as 'great' in the same category, it obviously isn't going to appear twice in a PQ.

 

I suspect that this would happen fairly frequently. Let's say we have two clubs; Central Whereovia Geocachers and Northern Wherovia Geocachers. In the area between these two groups, members from both clubs will cache. It is certainly possible that both CWG and NWG will submit some caches from this area.

 

Sorry, I missed this question the first time through.

Edited July 12, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... While the "anointed list" has merit I'm willing to wager there would be grumbling about who made the list.

The grumbling would be limited to the local group. If group members don't like how things are going, they can vote for change. You might also note that MonkeyBrad stated that their process has been angst-free.

That's not to mention it is difficult to maintain and manage said list as already outlined above.

As explained above, this could also be easily resolved on a local level.

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. Edited July 12, 2006 by sbell111