Quality Ratings By Finders?

[+baby jojo's playpen]

I haven't been caching for very long, but I guess long enough to start feeling frustrated by caches that are hidden in generally yucky areas! For example, this weekend we headed out to an area lake where there are 25+ caches hid. Tons of beautiful areas to hide a cache. But the majority were stuck in the dried up weeds along the side of a miserable road. I love geocaching when I'm taken to a place I wouldn't have known about or a beautiful place to enjoy. But of course, none of these cache logs had said much of anything except TFTC.

 

I would love to see a quality or enjoyability rating added to the log page. That way you can more easily skip the ones that are just not what you're looking for. I'm much more interested in enjoying the experience than in chalking up smilies. And I know, I know...opinions vary. But I'm pretty confident that most of us would rather find a cache on a nice hike or beautiful view than in the weeds or in a trash strewn area.

 

Has there been talk of adding a feature like this??

[+Learned Gerbil]

It is what we do in the UK and has proved very successful.

[Hillbilly-Rockstar]

enjoyability rating

 

Not a bad idea, but the owner would have to rate it, not other cachers.

[+Yellow ants]

enjoyability rating

 

Not a bad idea, but the owner would have to rate it, not other cachers.

 

What would that solve?

[+baby jojo's playpen]

Not a bad idea, but the owner would have to rate it, not other cachers.

 

That wouldn't solve anything. The idea would be for the finders to rate it (like you can do on Amazon, etc.) and the average of the ratings is what shows up. That would account for variety of opinions, etc. Plus, I've seen other threads complaining about lame caches. If caches can be rated by the finders then cache owners could get a good idea of what a "good" hide is.

[+SG-MIN]

when I first got into geocaching I thought of two features that would really add to my experiance: cache ratings, and the ability to cache along a route.

 

The second has come to fruition. I can only hope the cache ratings do as well.

 

There are serveral threads in the general geocaching forum that address just this. In fact just a few weeks ago there was an extensive debate on the issue.

 

Generally there are the people who are all for it, and those who poopoo the idea because it would never be perfect.

[+Crew 153]

One way of rating caches is to create a public Bookmark list of your most enjoyable caches.

 

If everyone did this then the cache page would have a list of all the bookmarks from people who enjoyed it.

 

The more bookmarks the more that have enjoyed it.

 

Better than nothing.....

[+Glenn]

One way of rating caches is to create a public Bookmark list of your most enjoyable caches.

 

If everyone did this then the cache page would have a list of all the bookmarks from people who enjoyed it.

 

The more bookmarks the more that have enjoyed it.

 

Better than nothing.....

 

I agree. There is no need for a rating system. All you have to do be honest in your logs and utilize the bookmark feature.

[+Markwell]

Here's a suggestion that was made, and Jeremy agreed.

 

The idea is for people to mark their "BEST" cache (top 10% of the account's finds), and the system would aggregate these. If there are enough people marking it "best" then it gets an attribute, searchable by pocket query.

 

Many people like the idea. Many people don't.

 

Read the whole thread to get the ideas of all.

[+tozainamboku]

Tons of beautiful areas to hide a cache. But the majority were stuck in the dried up weeds along the side of a miserable road.

 

So you're complaining because someone hid a bunch of caches in dried up weeds along the side of miserable road instead of where there was a view of the lake or on a popular hiking trail? People hide caches for various reasons. And I think the number one reason is that people hide caches where they like to find caches. Here were some people who prefer drive up caches along the road rather than ones hidden along a hiking trail or perhaps at scenic turnout where there might be lots of muggles. If you prefer some other kind of hide I suggest you hide the caches that you like.

 

The problem with ratings proposals are that people assume that everybody likes the same types of caches. It makes more sense to think in terms of systems that allow you to filter out the caches you do not like doing (or perhaps to find those caches that you shouldn't miss when you only have time to find a few caches in an area). There have been several proposals that might help:

1. Markwell's proposal that combines users favorites lists to find caches that are recommended by several cachers. It won't eliminate the cache you don't like but it will find the really execeptional caches that shouldn't be missed
   
2. A similar proposal that would create affinity groups - cachers who liked this cache also liked...
   
3. A rating system that instead of overall enjoyment rates several individual attributes: good camouflage, lots of trash in area, nice scenery, lots of muggles around, easy to get to, etc. You could then search for caches that fit a profile of what you are looking for.
   
4. The already exisiting capability for premium members to create bookmark list. Don't just list your favorites caches - make several bookmark list with different attributes (good and bad) - best camo, toughest hikes, trashy area, need to use stealth, etc.
   

[+baby jojo's playpen]

Thanks for lots of good suggestions here. The bookmark lists sound great. My point, though, is in order to make it truly user-friendly (thus, accumulating alot of ratings --quantity of ratings=higher validity of group consensus) it would be much easier to have an quick 1-5 star rating to click on when logging the cache.

 

I believe in being courteous and truthful in logging finds, but many people (including myself) don't always have time to go through and read tons of logs. If more people than not aren't writing detailed information in their log then that method is not effective.

 

The idea of bookmarking favorites (especially by category) is great. I just wonder how many people will actually take the time to do that. Again, the more info you have on the quality of a cache location, then the more representative that rating becomes. Obviously, opinions vary. But if 50 different raters rate a cache, then it is much easier to assume a 3 star cache is more enjoyable than a 1 star. But if only 5 raters have rated a cache, I might give more leeway to "weeding" out that cache out of my itinerary.

 

Essentially, for me in the day of $3 a gallon gas, I would love to see a user-friendly, frequently used method of rating caches by the finders. That would certainly help me use my limited geocaching time to the best advantage and I suspect it would become a relied upon feature by many other cachers.

 

Thanks!

Kelley from Baby Jojo's Playpen

[+baloo&bd]

Well, I will be the lone voice here. This has been brought up several time and I am one who hopes it never comes to be.

 

I have been to several caches where either someone in the log said it was not worth it or someone I spoke with did however still I found them worthwhile.

 

A rating system, even one such as markwell suggests, is just too subjective. If you don't like micros, a mark against. If you don't like hikes, a mark against. If you don't like ammo cans, a strike against. Too many thorn bushes, too much bushwacking, too damp, too dry, etc. all marks against to someone.

 

I think the rating system that is already in place works great. Terrain and Difficuly are there and the past logs pretty much tell they story, however if it is positive or negative, the past logs will tell a whole lot more than a rating system.

 

For instance, I like micros because I find them to be more of a challenge that a ammo box you can see from 20 yards. I like them in the woods. If someone left a log complaining about it and I could gather from the log it was because he thought micros in the woods were wrong, it would not prevent me from going out to get it.

 

Even the Top Ten method tends to lend itself to this. Some of the best caches I have done have been urban micro hidden so creatively that it takes most 2 or 3 times to find them. It would be in my top ten, however I suspect not enough to make the list.

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

[+sbell111]

I'm with the bear.

[+baby jojo's playpen]

A rating system, even one such as markwell suggests, is just too subjective. If you don't like micros, a mark against. If you don't like hikes, a mark against. If you don't like ammo cans, a strike against. Too many thorn bushes, too much bushwacking, too damp, too dry, etc. all marks against to someone.

 

A rating system is subjective. But if you don't want to look at the ratings and/or use them to guide the choices of the hides you seek, then don't use it. But for those of us that it would benefit, what is the harm in adding it as a feature that can be used if you choose to?

[+Markwell]

In the system that I suggest, there are no marks "against" only marks "for" the best.

[+caderoux]

In a Netflix or Amazon-style system, you would see what people like you liked.

[+baloo&bd]

In the system that I suggest, there are no marks "against" only marks "for" the best.

 

I understand that is what it looks like on the surface, however in reality "not" being on "the list" is the same as a mark against. Some areas would be gnored or someone traaveling to a given area may only look at the list and miss many fine caches.

 

Not to mentioned there are cachers in some areas that may put out fine caches but are shuned by locals for other reason, possibly poor placements in the beginning of their ventures or a "rough" nature here on the forums. On the flip side, some may just get the nod because they are recognized by their sheer numbers. <arkwell, your near me, you know there are some cachers that name pops in your head simply because they have a large number of caches in the area.

Edited August 8, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+baloo&bd]

A rating system is subjective. But if you don't want to look at the ratings and/or use them to guide the choices of the hides you seek, then don't use it. But for those of us that it would benefit, what is the harm in adding it as a feature that can be used if you choose to?

 

However adding a feature that is already present is redundant. The logs already offer an overview of those who have found it with much more detail than any rating system could do.

[+Teach2Learn]

A rating system is subjective. But if you don't want to look at the ratings and/or use them to guide the choices of the hides you seek, then don't use it. But for those of us that it would benefit, what is the harm in adding it as a feature that can be used if you choose to?

 

However adding a feature that is already present is redundant. The logs already offer an overview of those who have found it with much more detail than any rating system could do.

 

Yes, the logs work, and I enjoy reading them, but I may have to spend many hours (and have done so) to read logs for caches located in travel destinations when I'd rather be caching/making other trip plans.

 

The bookmark lists definitely have been helpful (when/where they exist), quite useful to me on a recent trip to Canada even though I still ran out of time.

 

I think Markwell's ribbon-award system (not a ratings system) would be helpful as well. If there's a limit similar to the one he proposes (a percentage you can list as a favorite), I don't see a major problem developing, nor do I consider it redundant. Jeremy liked Markwell's proposal, if you read his posts in the November 2004 linked thread, though admittedly with a bookmark list approach first--that's good enough for me.

[+Markwell]

I understand that is what it looks like on the surface, however in reality "not" being on "the list" is the same as a mark against. Some areas would be gnored or someone traaveling to a given area may only look at the list and miss many fine caches.

 

However adding a feature that is already present is redundant. The logs already offer an overview of those who have found it with much more detail than any rating system could do.

 

I still believe that the cost/benefit analysis, the benefits win. People on a limited time budget - passing through an area on the way to some other destination - may be overwhelmed with having to read the logs on the 2500 caches in our greater Chicagoland area. Highlighting the cream of the crop doesn't mean that the others won't get found.

 

If one of mine isn't nominated for someone's Top 10% list, I won't take it as a personal assault. Instead, I would use my resources to try to make a better hide and maybe that will improve my placing of caches. Since there is no "goal" for someone to shoot for now, people take the path of least resistance and produce a whole lot of mediocre caches*. These mediocre caches* then glut the system, making it very difficult to find these gems.

 

I just think it would be nice to have a way to tell people passing through an area "Hey, if you can only find one or two caches as your travelling by, you might want to try these," instead of them reading through 2500 pages of cache logs.

 

*By mediocre caches, I mean ones that I personally find average or below average in their placement or style of hide. Others may find different opinions of these caches, and they are fully with in their rights to have these opinions and express them, as am I.

[+sbell111]

I understand that is what it looks like on the surface, however in reality "not" being on "the list" is the same as a mark against. Some areas would be gnored or someone traaveling to a given area may only look at the list and miss many fine caches.

However adding a feature that is already present is redundant. The logs already offer an overview of those who have found it with much more detail than any rating system could do.

I still believe that the cost/benefit analysis, the benefits win. People on a limited time budget - passing through an area on the way to some other destination - may be overwhelmed with having to read the logs on the 2500 caches in our greater Chicagoland area. Highlighting the cream of the crop doesn't mean that the others won't get found.

This is where we disagree, I think.

 

The costs of having skewed data and the uncertainty that others like the same caches as I do is not worth the benefit of having 'some type of rating system'.

[+baby jojo's playpen]

I understand that is what it looks like on the surface, however in reality "not" being on "the list" is the same as a mark against. Some areas would be gnored or someone traaveling to a given area may only look at the list and miss many fine caches.

However adding a feature that is already present is redundant. The logs already offer an overview of those who have found it with much more detail than any rating system could do.

I still believe that the cost/benefit analysis, the benefits win. People on a limited time budget - passing through an area on the way to some other destination - may be overwhelmed with having to read the logs on the 2500 caches in our greater Chicagoland area. Highlighting the cream of the crop doesn't mean that the others won't get found.

This is where we disagree, I think.

 

The costs of having skewed data and the uncertainty that others like the same caches as I do is not worth the benefit of having 'some type of rating system'.

 

In Austin we have the "Austin Cache Awards" for various categories of caches. I enjoy seeking these out b/c I know I will tend to have a caching experience that will be above average. But for all the other hundreds of caches in my area, there is no way of having a clue as to the "quality" of the cache unless I read many, many logs. Now, I have my methods. There are certain prolific cache hiders in my area that I know place lousy caches. I either avoid them or expect little when I hunt theirs. There are other cache hiders in my area that I know I will generally have great hides. I search for all of theirs. But from the original example at the beginning of the thread, when you are caching in an unfamiliar area with unfamiliar hiders, you have nothing to go by unless you spend a considerable amount of time reading logs. Sometimes this is practical, other times not. So, whether Groundspeak added a system like Markwell is talking about or a system like Amazon/Netflix, it would help those of us that want to use it. I truly believe that the more user-friendly a quality rating system is, the more representative the ratings will be. If the system is set up in a way that is not easily understood or clear to use, then people will ignore it; therefore, the rating is not representative of the finders. Think of it this way -- if 25 people have rated a cache a 3 star, but after a year 125 people have rated it, it would either stay the same, rise, or fall. But the more raters= the higher reliability of the rating. If I go on Amazon to buy a toaster, I will probably trust the choice of one that has a higher rating based on a larger number of customers. I could be wrong and miss out on the greatest toaster of my life b/c it had a low rating, but overall I think my chances of spending my toaster money wisely will be greater.

 

Dedicated area cachers are not going to ignore caches based on ratings unless they choose to do so. But folks caching in an unfamiliar area would at least have some guideline to use when deciding what to do with their limited time &/or gas money.

 

Bookmarking is a great idea, but I really have doubts that a good number of people will use this option. It would be easier to get an overall opinion of a cache if on the 'log the find' page, you clicked "found it", "finder rating 1-5 stars", then wrote your log. Click and it's done.

 

Anyway, just my thoughts. I really do appreciate the give and take of ideas on this thread...

Kelley of BJPP

[+tozainamboku]

I understand that is what it looks like on the surface, however in reality "not" being on "the list" is the same as a mark against. Some areas would be gnored or someone traaveling to a given area may only look at the list and miss many fine caches.

However adding a feature that is already present is redundant. The logs already offer an overview of those who have found it with much more detail than any rating system could do.

I still believe that the cost/benefit analysis, the benefits win. People on a limited time budget - passing through an area on the way to some other destination - may be overwhelmed with having to read the logs on the 2500 caches in our greater Chicagoland area. Highlighting the cream of the crop doesn't mean that the others won't get found.

This is where we disagree, I think.

 

The costs of having skewed data and the uncertainty that others like the same caches as I do is not worth the benefit of having 'some type of rating system'.

 

Markwell's system says nothing about finding the best cache or the most enjoyable caches. It is a system for recommending caches. While it may be more helpful to tailor recommendation base on an individuals preference, something is still gained by just having a general "this cache is recommended" by some threshold number of cachers. To go back to the movie review analogy, people find movie reviews valueable as another input to deciding which movies to see. The recommended cache proposal would work the same way. If I'm visiting some place I could get a PQ of the recommended caches. I would then look at the cache descriptions and logs to see which of these I would be interested in doing. I could then look at other caches hidden by the same hiders because they might also be good caches. Or maybe some local will have bookmarked one of the caches and if the bookmark list title and description indicate that I might like these caches, I would look at other caches on the bookmark list. A list of recommended caches would serve as a starting place for finding some "good" caches. It would be better than just blindly searching cache listing.