Rating Caches

[Team CDCB]

I've seen a few threads lately about bad caches... poorly chosen locations, YAWM syndrome (Yet Another Walmart light pole Micro), rapid placement by inexperienced cachers, etc, etc, etc.

 

I've seen people propose rules as far as only being able to hide a limited number of caches, or only allowed to place a cache after x-number of finds. I've also seen a lot of objections to these rules (and I would agree with them... every hider is different, a one-size fits all rule just doesn't really apply).

 

An I idea that struck me last night would be to provide a way for seekers to rate caches. I'm not sure if this idea has been presented in the past, but I think having the ability to rate a cache would help future seekers who only want to visit 'higher quality' caches. It might also encourage hiders who's caches are rated poorly to try and step it up a little and create a better quality cache for the future.

 

There would, of course, need to be some guidelines. Here's just what I came up with off the top of my head. I imagine it would need further refinement:

1. Poor - This cache is some combination of more than one of the following: Bad location (Dangerous, Trash filled); Extremely uncreative (YAWM, etc); Poor choice of container (flimsy plastic and/or bad moisture seal). I would anticipate relatively few caches would get rated this way. This isn't just another "Meh, nothing interesting here" cache, it's a really piss poor cache that not only did the hider not put much effort, but it seems s/he specifically made a series of bad choices when placing this cache. Consider this a Grade: F
   
2. Okay - Nothing terrible interesting about this cache. Most YAWM would likely fit here, but so would a lot of other caches, both micro and regular, that are place in average locations. Not very creative or special, but not really bad caches either.Okay is not, in and of itself, a bad rating. It would just be for a cache that is nothing special. Not all caches can be in very interesting locations, and not all cache can, or necessarily should, involved a very interesting hunt... sometimes you just want a quick, easy, straight forward find. Consider this a Grade: C
   
3. Good - These caches are a step up from Okay. Either they are in nice wooded parks, involved a bit of extra work (multicaches or puzzles), or are hidden in semi-intersting spots. A little more creativity when into these, but they aren't necessarily caches that you would tell all your friends about. I would think that most caches would get an Okay or Good rating. It's also probably the hard two to distiguish between. I would say that hiders should strive for a Good rating at least. If my caches were all rated at least Good I would feel that I did a respectable job as a hider. Consider this a Grade: B
   
4. Very good - Caches that either involve very interesting location or a great hunt. These might be more challanging puzzle or multicaches, or involve a nice hike through some great terrain. By default, any cache rated this high should have a very good container and be hidden well.Very good should be relatively hard to achieve. Something should stand out about the cache to make you rate it a 4. These are definitely caches that you'd recommend to other geocachers. Consider this a Grade: A
   
5. Excellent - A cached rated 5 is really - exceptionally interesting, unique, challanging, breathe taking location. These are the caches that geocaching was made for. If you are ever in the area of a 5 and have the time, failure to do it is a virtual crime against geocaching. Very, very few caches should be rated 5. This would be a Grade A++. The hider really would have needed to go above and beyond the call of duty and created something really extrodinary to get a rating of 5.
   

Okay, that's the ratings, now the guidelines:

 

- Do not let the following color your rating:

• SWAG: A hider, after the first few finds, really has very little control over what swag is in a cache. A bunch of broken McToys isn't the fault of the hider. Bad Swag can't always be helped and shouldn't cause a bad rating. On the same end, great swag shouldn't bump up a rating either. Really great swag is a poor location in a non-water tight plastic container doesn't make it a good cache.
  
• DNF: This is a bit of a sticklish area... on one hand if the hider just used really bad coordinates and never double checked or verified the coords later, one could say s/he was a poor hider and the cache is therefore bad. But it isn't always easy to tell right away if the hider was off, or if the seeker was off. Plus, coordinates can be updated, so as a rule I would not allow your lack of ability to find the cache to cause it to be rated poorly.
  

So what should you rate the cache on?

• Location: A great location (nice park, great wilderness, nice view, interesting city area) would bump it up. Poor locations (near railroad tracks, private property without permission, trashy areas with broken glass) would bring the rating down.
  
• Creativity: Did the hider put some thought and work into this or was this just another drive by cache?
  
• Container: Was a nice water tight container used or did the hider just use any only box s/he could find?
  
• Other: Was there anything that stood out at really interesting? Was the cache description a poem that give clues? Did the find require you to do something special? Was actual hiding place really interesting or unique? Was the container really cool? These are all things that would push up a rating.
  

So, what do you think? It this something that you would use? Would you find it helpful seeing a cache rating when making your decision on whether to do a cache or not? Would you rate caches regularly? Do you see potential for abuse?

Edited September 22, 2006 by Team CDCB

[+Super_Nate]

There has been several threads like this already, and if I recall correctally they never had much good stuff to say about rating Geocaches.

[+Quiggle]

This topic comes up every month or so. Do a search for "cache ratings" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to read. Here is a recent thread (a fairly long one at 7 pages) in the Geocaching Topics forum, as well as this one, this one, and this one in the Geocaching.com Website Forum.

 

That should keep you busy for a bit.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Quiggle

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

This topic comes up every month or so. Do a search for "cache ratings" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to read. Here is a recent thread (a fairly long one at 7 pages) in the Geocaching Topics forum, as well as this one, this one, and this one in the Geocaching.com Website Forum.

 

That should keep you busy for a bit.

Oh no! Is Quiggle Markwell? Or, is Markwell Quiggle?

 

On a more serious note, I feel that the links which Quiggle provided are excellent...

 

However, the funny thing that strikes me when I read the description by many people of their pet cache rating system proposal is that over 70% of the time (and yes, our OP is included) their proposed rating system includes as key criteria some very personal and idiosyncratic preferences -- preferences which may vary wildly from person to person. In other words, just because the creator of a cache rating system may not like caches placed in dangerous, dirty or mud-filled locations does not mean that others may agree. In fact, some people -- myself included -- deliberately travel long distances to seek out caches with some of these features. What is poison to one person is a cup of tea to another, and vice versa.

[+The Jester]

...

However, the funny thing that strikes me when I read the description by many people of their pet cache rating system proposal is that over 70% of the time (and yes, our OP is included) their proposed rating system includes as key criteria some very personal and idiosyncratic preferences -- preferences which may vary wildly from person to person. In other words, just because the creator of a cache rating system may not like caches placed in dangerous, dirty or mud-filled locations does not mean that others may agree. In fact, some people -- myself included -- deliberately travel long distances to seek out caches with some of these features. What is poison to one person is a cup of tea to another, and vice versa.

I agree. What I consider dangerous is probably quite different than what you (generic) think is dangerous. As an example, I don't think caches at the edge of a cliff as particularly dangerous - in fact I think those guardrail caches are more dangerous (the chances of getting hit by a car are higher than falling off a cliff).

[Sadie]

I would put a big smiley face on every cache I find.

 

Some exist so that others look that much better.

Some are in stinky places, but that's OK. I haven't been there before.

Walmart carries my favorite trade item, tennis balls. Please put a cache in the parking lot for me.

 

I cache to get out and have fun. If I wanted to sit around and whine, I would hang out in the forums all the time.

[+wimseyguy]

I have a very simple rating system:

=found it

= didn't find it

 

See, sometimes I just want to find them anywhere any kind any how. Then I'm happy driving around for urban micros, and the occasional guard rail or lamppost micro. Sometimes I want to go for a long hike, and am happy if there is a cache to find at the end.

 

Now a recommendation system would be a different thing.

[+robert]

Now a recommendation system would be a different thing.

We have that already.

 

[+StarBrand]

Maybe Wimseyguy is on to something - we could just use the emoticons to rate a cache.

 

10 cachers rated this a

5 cachers rated this a

1 cacher rated this a

1 cacher rated this a

 

and 47 others did not rate the cache.

 

Absolutely no defintions of what each is trying to convey - just pick one.

 

 

JOKE - not serious

Edited September 22, 2006 by StarBrand

[+Glenn]

This topic comes up every month or so. Do a search for "cache ratings" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to read. Here is a recent thread (a fairly long one at 7 pages) in the Geocaching Topics forum, as well as this one, this one, and this one in the Geocaching.com Website Forum.

 

That should keep you busy for a bit.

What are you talking about? This is the third fourth time just this month this has come up.

[Team CDCB]

However, the funny thing that strikes me when I read the description by many people of their pet cache rating system proposal is that over 70% of the time (and yes, our OP is included) their proposed rating system includes as key criteria some very personal and idiosyncratic preferences -- preferences which may vary wildly from person to person. In other words, just because the creator of a cache rating system may not like caches placed in dangerous, dirty or mud-filled locations does not mean that others may agree. In fact, some people -- myself included -- deliberately travel long distances to seek out caches with some of these features. What is poison to one person is a cup of tea to another, and vice versa.

You have a point, and I suppose I should define the terms better. Which was part of the reason to start a thread... I wanted to refine how a rating system would be used. I probably didn't do such a good job of indicating that my idea was a starting point.

 

To that end: The idea of dangerous that I had in my head when I was writing was very close to railroads or right next to a transformer substation. Not dangerous in terms of terrain difficulty but dangerous in terms of man-made things in the area that people shouldn't be hunting around.

 

The idea of dirty and mud-filled are not a problem. Granted, not my cup of tea, but not a problem. What I was specifically refering to was areas that are filled with trash and/or broken glass.

[+Super_Nate]

I have a very simple rating system:

=found it

= didn't find it

 

See, sometimes I just want to find them anywhere any kind any how. Then I'm happy driving around for urban micros, and the occasional guard rail or lamppost micro. Sometimes I want to go for a long hike, and am happy if there is a cache to find at the end.

 

The points brought out here are excatally what I do Geocaching for. If I feel like finding micro caches I will find micro caches.....If I feel like finding terrain 5 caches, I'm gonna find terrain 5 caches. It all depends on what I am in the mood for.

 

If you want to see the overall feelings toward a cache, then look at the previous find logs. If you find an essay for a find log, and the essay includes the words "WA-HOOO" or "SWEET CACHE" then you are likely going to find a cache that will leave you smiling for a long time. Their are other caches, mainly Lamppost caches or week urban caches, that you will only find a "TFTC" or "Thanks for the smiliey" from the pros....A lot of times, if the cacher who found the lamppost cache is a newbie then you might find a lot more praise in their cache logs because they are thrilled that they found a container. But in the cases of not a lot to say, it is an easy smiliey that won't be creative.

 

I'm not saying that is the case in every cache you find, because the best cache I think I have ever hunted that is unique and none other like it in the world got a mere "found it TFTC" from some of them copy & paste cachers out there...but for the most part, it works!

 

That is the closest I will come to see a rating system on GC.com

[Team CDCB]

This topic comes up every month or so. Do a search for "cache ratings" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to read. Here is a recent thread (a fairly long one at 7 pages) in the Geocaching Topics forum, as well as this one, this one, and this one in the Geocaching.com Website Forum.

Sorry, I guess I need to do better research first.

[+Quiggle]

This topic comes up every month or so. Do a search for "cache ratings" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to read. Here is a recent thread (a fairly long one at 7 pages) in the Geocaching Topics forum, as well as this one, this one, and this one in the Geocaching.com Website Forum.

Sorry, I guess I need to do better research first.

No need to be sorry at all! There are some ideas or questions that come up quite frequently. It's faster to go back through old, and not-so-old, threads that discuss those ideas. The search tool works pretty well for finding those, but I'd be willing to bet not everyone knows about it.

 

[+GreyingJay]

Maybe Wimseyguy is on to something - we could just use the emoticons to rate a cache.

 

10 cachers rated this a

5 cachers rated this a

1 cacher rated this a

1 cacher rated this a

 

and 47 others did not rate the cache.

 

 

And the land owner rated this a

 

I like it!

[+tozainamboku]

This topic comes up every month or so. Do a search for "cache ratings" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to read. Here is a recent thread (a fairly long one at 7 pages) in the Geocaching Topics forum, as well as this one, this one, and this one in the Geocaching.com Website Forum.

Sorry, I guess I need to do better research first.

No need to be sorry at all! There are some ideas or questions that come up quite frequently. It's faster to go back through old, and not-so-old, threads that discuss those ideas. The search tool works pretty well for finding those, but I'd be willing to bet not everyone knows about it.

 

 

Not only that, but this is one of those topics that deserves a fresh look every so often (although perhaps not 4 times every month). While the general consensus is that different people cache for different reasons and like different caches there are good reasons for having ways to sort through caches to find ones you might like or you would like to avoid. I think some of the ideas could be used to help with these problems without turning geocaching into a popularity contest.

Edited September 22, 2006 by tozainamboku

[Team CDCB]

Not only that, but this is one of those topics that deserves a fresh look every so often (although perhaps not 4 times every month). While the general consensus is that different people cache for different reasons and like different caches there are good reasons for having ways to sort through caches to find ones you might like or you would like to avoid. I think some of the ideas could be used to help with these problems without turning geocaching into a popularity contest.

Hmm...

 

I wonder once... has this idea been discussed?

 

Pick 10 or so attribute... I'm not sure what those would be, and 10 is only a guideline, maybe less, probably not more. Attributes would be thinks like:

 

Location

Kid friendlyness

physical difficulty

'snatch and grab'-ness?

etc.

 

There would essentially be a slider bar for each attribute (or a simple 1 through 10 pick your number thingy). Seekers would rate each attribute according to how they felt the cache was. Getting a high or low ranking in either area would not, in and of itself, be a bad thing. A high physical difficulty rating does NOT make it a bad cache, just one that the average urban cachier will likely want to avoid. Getting a high snatch and grab rating might make it appealing to some, but seekers looking for an adventure would probably look elsewhere.

 

Having so many attribute would make it harder for someone to just look at one number and say to themselves yes or no, but it would get away from the idea that the rankings are good or bad. And I imagine if these were searchable fields in pocket query (such as: Include all caches with a kid friendlyness level above: 5) would make it easier to filter caches a little bit.

 

Or is this idea just way to complicated for a problem that just isn't that huge?

[+TotemLake]

It would still be very subjective. What I consider kid friendly, my wife frowns at and that's all based upon our own personal childhoods.

 

Speaking with members of other cache finding sites, the rating systems they have come up with are still subjective and the numbers can still be easily skewed based on any number of variables and those variables will be just as varied as the number of people involved.

[+Wander Lost]

As mentioned above the best cache rating system that could be designed is already in place. The cache logs. Simply by reading the logs I get a real good idea of the quality of a cache before I head out. If there are a lot of logs with nothing but initials I know not to expect much.

 

I try to write something personal with each of my cache logs, but sometimes it's hard. I find myself falling back on the 'Thanks for the cache.' type logs for caches that left me wondering 'Why am I here?'. I guess I actually listened to mom when she said if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Since I have to say something in the log in order for it to be accepted by the site thanks for the cache is better than "What on earth made you think this was a good spot to hide a cache?"

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Cache hunts, container size and type, location, application of guidelines and certainly enjoyment are all subjective. We each experience these things differently.

 

From wikipedia.org:

Subjective may refer to:

 

* Subject (philosophy), a being which has subjective experiences or a relationship with another entity (or "object")

o Subjectivity - refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and the language terms use to communicate such, as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity.

o Subjective experience, the sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind

* Subjective or nominative case, in grammar, a grammatical case for a noun, which generally marks the subject of a verb, as opposed to its object or other verb arguments

* Subjective or bayesian probability, the tenet that the mathematical theory of probability is applicable to the degree to which a person believes a proposition

* Subjective theory of value, an economic theory of value that holds that there is no intrinsic value of goods and services; rather, things become valuable solely by individuals' desiring to have them, and the magnitude of that value is measured by how much of any given thing one is willing to forgo in order to obtain them

Whereas

 

Objective

objective (comparative more objective, superlative most objective)

 

Positive - objective

 

Comparative - more objective

 

Superlative - most objective

 

1. Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality.

2. Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices.

3. Based on observed facts.

4. (grammar) Of, or relating to a noun or pronoun used as the object of a verb

So, except for some existentialists, we experience an object objectively - when we look at or pick up an ammo can it looks, feels and operates the same way for each of us.

 

Subjectively we may not LIKE the ammo can, but objectively we all experience it as an ammo can.

 

Since almost everything related to geocaching is subjective, there is not nor can there ever be a rating system that is objective (one which works for all of us).

 

Consider the difference between subjective and objective and you see why.

 

Ed

Edited September 23, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+cimawr]

 

The idea of dirty and mud-filled are not a problem. Granted, not my cup of tea, but not a problem. What I was specifically refering to was areas that are filled with trash and/or broken glass.

 

Me, I don't even think of woods/leaf mold/mud, etc. as "dirty".... and it's also to be EXPECTED when one goes hiking, especially bushwhacking, or off the beaten path.

 

However, I strongly dislike urban hides which are *filthy* - garbage, human excreta, broken glass, etc. For example, I've given cursory looks for, then walked away from, two local caches which are listed as being "near" stores, and are located right on or near dumpsters. One of them, behind a bowling alley, was surrounded by food trash and broken glass, and reeked of human urine; the other, which turned out to be behind a supermarket, had a big box of putrid, fly-covered chicken at GZ (e.g. sitting out, not in the dumpster).

 

Sorry, but to me those are REALLY inappropriate hide places- as are wooded urban/suburban bits which are clearly used by the homeless and/or the addicted.

[+cimawr]

I guess I actually listened to mom when she said if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Since I have to say something in the log in order for it to be accepted by the site thanks for the cache is better than "What on earth made you think this was a good spot to hide a cache?"

 

I thought that way at first, but after being to a couple of caches where I found serious concerns NOT mentioned in the logs, I've changed my mind on that.

While I don't want to insult anybody, when I find myself being scrutinized by an unmarked cop car because the hider failed to take into account the fact that the coordinates put seekers 30 feet from a homeowner's backyard pool, I'm going to say something in the log about it.

[+BlueDeuce]

Unfortunately what makes a good cache is somewhat subjective. Set aside beautiful locations and interesting cache hides for a moment. If I am traveling I have to consider several things: How much time do I have to cache, will I have kids with me, will I have a stroller, what's the weather predicted to be, are there caches near the places I will be visiting, do I have or need transportation. Will I be able to take any special equipment with me on the trip. Etc, etc.

 

I find it far easier to look for a local active cacher in that area, send them an email explaining my situation and the kind of caches I would like to find. I have always received a positive reply, recommending caches to look for.

 

I recently vacationed in San Francisco. I found a cacher with several hides, explained that I had the kids with me, we did have a car and would like caches that would take us to nearby tourist attractions. They sent me a list of about 15 caches I could do!

 

We are a community, enjoy the benefits.