Cache Ratings

[+SG-MIN]

This thread is to officially request that a cache rating system be implemented on Geocaching.com

 

I have read most of the previous threads concerning the issue and am aware of the shortcomings of such a system. I travel quite a bit, and often do not have time to browse logs or bookmark lists. A cache rating system would greatly enhance my experience.

 

There is no need to reply to thread, and I surely do not what to get into a lengthy discussion about a rating systems strengths and weaknesses - that dead horse is well beaten. I just want to make my request known officially in the appropriate forum.

 

Keep up the good work.

Edited October 12, 2006 by SG-MIN

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm not responding regarding the merits of the system. No system is ever going to be "PERFECT". I noticed a bunch of changes to the way the website "looks", but not many new actual features. I would request that TPTB quit being afraid of a few and implement some cool new features. The vast majority would appreciate it.

[+StarBrand]

You assume a rating system would prove useful in finding cache you like. I've never seen one that convinced me it could do that.

[+SG-MIN]

You assume a rating system would prove useful in finding cache you like. I've never seen one that convinced me it could do that.

 

 

I have expressed my views extensively concerning cache ratings in this thread. If you really want to know what I think go ahead and read those 7 pages.

 

 

This thread is my request, not my arguement.

[+The Leprechauns]

Congrats on having your very own thread.

[+SG-MIN]

Congrats on having your very own thread.

 

 

I feel honored to have THE Leprechauns join MY thread!!

[+sbell111]

Without getting into a long debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of a ratings system, I'd like to go on record in this illustrious thread that I think ratings are a bad idea and that I would personally prefer that TPTB use their valuable coding skills and limited resources to work on something else.

[+SG-MIN]

Without getting into a long debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of a ratings system, I'd like to go on record in this illustrious thread that I think ratings are a bad idea and that I would personally prefer that TPTB use their valuable coding skills and limited resources to work on something else.

 

 

Also seeking to avoid a debate which sbell111 and I have already had, I would like to assert that a cache rating system would only help those who use it, and would not harm those who think it is a bad idea.

 

If I think the google map feature is a bad idea because it occasionally shows roads that are not there, I just don't have to use. Its presence does not harm me, just as a cache rating system would not harm you.

[+Kryten]

I think a cache rating system wil be abused from the very first moment of it's inception and will never be able to the job it is intended for. Those wishing to subvert the ratings will vastly outnumber those who don't know or don care what it's for.

[+The Leprechauns]

Congrats on having your very own thread.

 

 

I feel honored to have THE Leprechauns join MY thread!!

Why thank you. Accept no substitute Leprechauns.

 

Out of all the different ideas that have been tossed around, my preferred solution is for each premium member to be able to designate up to 5% or 10% of their cache finds as "top caches." As more geocachers vote for the same cache, it gains a searchable "top cache" attribute and/or a star next to its name on the search results page, similar to how members only caches are easily distinguishable.

[+SG-MIN]

Here is my deal:

 

When I travel I often find myself in a cache dense area (Nashville for instance). I usually don't know exactly where I will be so that makes it impossible to load up all the caches, even those that meet the attributes I usually like. I want to be able to load up some great caches, so if I do get a chance to cache, the one I go after is of a bit high quality (yes I know this is subjective.)

 

Often bookmark lists work. That is how I have handled Nashville, there is a great list out there and I load of those up. Often however, I am covering such a large distance that bookmark lists do not work.

 

To answer the leprechauns, my only concern with your system is that I would think it would tend to favor epic caches - that is caches people go out of their way to get. With an amazon style cache rating system, if you like micros, but micros generally are not recommended, you could still find the higher rated micros.

[+The Leprechauns]

Well lots of people like micros, so they would presumably use their votes on the best micros. See my own favorites list below, which includes 9 micros (10 prior to the recent archival of the Maryland Bridge Mural micro, one of the coolest locations geocaching has ever brought me to). There are two or three Nashville caches on my list.

 

If the micros don't get the votes, then that ought to send a message as well. I would only vote for the really good ones, and they are a distinct minority.

[+baloo&bd]

Without getting into a long debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of a ratings system, I'd like to go on record in this illustrious thread that I think ratings are a bad idea and that I would personally prefer that TPTB use their valuable coding skills and limited resources to work on something else.

 

Agreed. This has been debated ad nausea and has simply to many negatives attached to it.

Edited October 12, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+sbell111]

Out of all the different ideas that have been tossed around, my preferred solution is for each premium member to be able to designate up to 5% or 10% of their cache finds as "top caches." As more geocachers vote for the same cache, it gains a searchable "top cache" attribute and/or a star next to its name on the search results page, similar to how members only caches are easily distinguishable.

I actually like this idea, but don't tell anybody. It still has faults, but at least it would be hard to use for pettiness.

Edited October 12, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Well lots of people like micros, so they would presumably use their votes on the best micros. See my own favorites list below, which includes 9 micros (10 prior to the recent archival of the Maryland Bridge Mural micro, one of the coolest locations geocaching has ever brought me to). There are two or three Nashville caches on my list.

 

If the micros don't get the votes, then that ought to send a message as well. I would only vote for the really good ones, and they are a distinct minority.

I'm a little bent that none of my caches made the list, but I'll get over it.

[+StarBrand]

Out of all the different ideas that have been tossed around, my preferred solution is for each premium member to be able to designate up to 5% or 10% of their cache finds as "top caches." As more geocachers vote for the same cache, it gains a searchable "top cache" attribute and/or a star next to its name on the search results page, similar to how members only caches are easily distinguishable.

I actually like this idea, but don't tell anybody. It still has faults, but at least it would be hard to use for pettiness.

Only system that has ever come close to being useable in my opinion too.

[+small oaks]

Congrats on having your very own thread.

 

 

I feel honored to have THE Leprechauns join MY thread!!

Why thank you. Accept no substitute Leprechauns.

 

Out of all the different ideas that have been tossed around, my preferred solution is for each premium member to be able to designate up to 5% or 10% of their cache finds as "top caches." As more geocachers vote for the same cache, it gains a searchable "top cache" attribute and/or a star next to its name on the search results page, similar to how members only caches are easily distinguishable.

 

This could be good solution if cacheowner can choose himself that his cache can be rated. This could be done when making the cache. Premiums still have power of rate caches but cacheowner (premium or regular) has a power to choose to be rated or not. Some just don't even like to have stars.

[+sbell111]

I don't see a downside to opting out.

 

I imagine that highle rated caches will get heavier traffic. Due to the location, a cache owner may wish not to get this kind of advertising.

[+Tharagleb]

Without getting into a long debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of a ratings system, I'd like to go on record in this illustrious thread that I think ratings are a bad idea and that I would personally prefer that TPTB use their valuable coding skills and limited resources to work on something else.

 

Me too. Please say "NO" to a cache rating system.

 

Thanks.

[+Renegade Knight]

There has been discussion on a simple rating system for "best of the best". While most caches are subject to so much personal taste for any rating system to be useful unless it's so specific and detailed that nobody would use it, the best of the best would work.

 

It works because some caches for whatever reason do rise above the rest and they break the mold on peoples own personal preferences. They would get logs like "normally I don't like this kind of cache but.."

 

For most people a best of the best rating would cause certain caches to jump head an shoulders above the others (when they start getting several votes) and those cache lists would be very useful to travelers.

 

There is also a worst of the worst but...odds are that side of the system would never get developed.

[+tozainamboku]

There has been discussion on a simple rating system for "best of the best". While most caches are subject to so much personal taste for any rating system to be useful unless it's so specific and detailed that nobody would use it, the best of the best would work.

 

It works because some caches for whatever reason do rise above the rest and they break the mold on peoples own personal preferences. They would get logs like "normally I don't like this kind of cache but.."

 

For most people a best of the best rating would cause certain caches to jump head an shoulders above the others (when they start getting several votes) and those cache lists would be very useful to travelers.

 

There is also a worst of the worst but...odds are that side of the system would never get developed.

 

If it works it will not be because it is a best of the best. It a list of highly recommended, or more accurately "recommended by n cachers". A really good cache that doesn't get a lot of visits may not get many recommendations.

[+baloo&bd]

For most people a best of the best rating would cause certain caches to jump head an shoulders above the others (when they start getting several votes) and those cache lists would be very useful to travelers.

 

Travelers are a good example of why it wouldn't work. A cache that is in an urban setting or closer to accomodations would get more visits and subsequently have more potential votes. Those that take some time to get to or are very well thought out but time consuming multi's, may be excluded even though in reality they would be rated higher if there were easier, often in the form of business attire friendly, access.

Edited October 12, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+SG-MIN]

 

Me too. Please say "NO" to a cache rating system.

 

Thanks.

I have yet to hear a good responce as to why someone would be outright against a rating system. I understand the arguements that it would be flawed, but why campaign against it. You would not have to use it. The arguement here seems to be very similar to that of micros - if you don't like them, don't hunt them.

In the same way, if a cache rating system were implemented and you did not like it, don't use it. Just don't tell me how to play that game - isnt that how the line goes?

Someone please tell me how a cache rating system could hurt the game. Even if only a few people find that it makes the game more enjoyable isn't it worth it.

[+StarBrand]

I don't think that a rating system would necessarily lead you to a good cache due to a number of factors.

• different tastes in what makes a cache good
  
• the degrading of a cache area over time and/or sloppy rehides
  
• If I've seen the type of hide a hundered times - nothing special - if it is the first time I might be thrilled
  
• fake ratings (up or down)
  
• the opt out - if only fans of ratings use the system - the ratings mayl be skewed
  
• etc
  

Therefore a waste of time and resources in the effort - (with the possible exception of the favorites list)

Edited October 12, 2006 by StarBrand

[+Cache Heads]

Someone please tell me how a cache rating system could hurt the game.

I don't know if it would hurt the game. I think what's being said is that it wouldn't help the game. Therefore, why implement it? It's like a feature that would allow cachers to change the "traditional cache" icon from green to red or blue. There's no harm... but there's no benefit either, so why do it?

 

If everyone agrees that there is no decent way to rate caches, then why have a rating system?

[+SG-MIN]

I don't think that a rating system would necessarily lead you to a good cache due to a number of factors.

• different tastes in what makes a cache good
  
• the degrading of a cache area over time and/or sloppy rehides
  
• If I've seen the type of hide a hundered times - nothing special - if it is the first time I might be thrilled
  
• fake ratings (up or down)
  
• the opt out - if only fans of ratings use the system - the ratings mayl be skewed
  
• etc
  

Therefore a waste of time and resources in the effort - (with the possible exception of the favorites list)

So all this annimosity against a rating system is because you all think it is a waste of time. Now tell me this, isn't that up to TPTB? Are you concerned if the programmers focus on a cache rating system you will not get a feature you want? At what point does live and let live come into the picture. I just requested the feature - if they have the time then let them do it. I for one would appreciate it.

 

Even if it was flawed, I know there are plenty of people who would use it. If a rating system sent me to an even mildly more enjoyable cache (by whoever's standards) even once, it would be worth it.

I don't know if it would hurt the game. I think what's being said is that it wouldn't help the game. Therefore, why implement it? It's like a feature that would allow cachers to change the "traditional cache" icon from green to red or blue. There's no harm... but there's no benefit either, so why do it?

 

If everyone agrees that there is no decent way to rate caches, then why have a rating system?

 

Here is where I disagree, I believe people just disagree on the specifics of the cache rating system. There are plenty of "decent" ways to rate a cache - the disagreement comes in which of the evils do you want to incorporate.

 

I have been shocked at how adamently people stand opposed to this idea, when the only reason I hear to stand against it is because it is a waste of time.

[+Renegade Knight]

For most people a best of the best rating would cause certain caches to jump head an shoulders above the others (when they start getting several votes) and those cache lists would be very useful to travelers.

 

Travelers are a good example of why it wouldn't work. A cache that is in an urban setting or closer to accomodations would get more visits and subsequently have more potential votes. Those that take some time to get to or are very well thought out but time consuming multi's, may be excluded even though in reality they would be rated higher if there were easier, often in the form of business attire friendly, access.

 

That's a fair point but for one thing. Urban caches have to stand out even more to stand out at all. I don't have all that many "best of the best" votes in me, nor does anyone else. So urbans would have their votes spread among more caches.

 

I suspect it would even out in the end. However you could be right and the only way to really know is to run the experiment.

[+StarBrand]

Even if it was flawed, I know there are plenty of people who would use it. If a rating system sent me to an even mildly more enjoyable cache (by whoever's standards) even once, it would be worth it.

 

So if a flawed system worked at say a 20% rate, that would make you happy??!!??

 

80% of the time it would lead you to a so-so or bad cache (in your eyes)?

 

That is what I would call a waste of time/effort.

 

Obviously you think that would be a worthwhile exercise. - Ok - with those kind of expectations as parameters - I guess I would have to withdraw my objections.

[+SG-MIN]

So if a flawed system worked at say a 20% rate, that would make you happy??!!??

 

80% of the time it would lead you to a so-so or bad cache (in your eyes)?

 

That is what I would call a waste of time/effort.

 

Obviously you think that would be a worthwhile exercise. - Ok - with those kind of expectations as parameters - I guess I would have to withdraw my objections.

Give me a break buddy. I am just asking that we give it a try. Who is to say it would not be 80% sucessful. If 80% of the time you could determine the better caches in an area, I would guess that most of the community would use it.

 

Every objection I have heard is based solely on conjecture. People are so worried about the "what if's" that they are unwilling to give it a shot.

[+Byron & Anne]

 

Here is where I disagree, I believe people just disagree on the specifics of the cache rating system. There are plenty of "decent" ways to rate a cache - the disagreement comes in which of the evils do you want to incorporate.

 

I have been shocked at how adamently people stand opposed to this idea, when the only reason I hear to stand against it is because it is a waste of time.

 

Some of us simply think any kind of cache rating system is a bad idea. Here's why I do.

1. When compared to goods or movies, etc. there's a purchase involved. There's competition for your money, rating is probably a good thing in those cases.

2. Caches are placed by volunteers and have nothing to gain or loose except ego by a rating system.

3. Too much damaged ego will result in lose of interest or worse. In many cases anger will take front and center.

 

All of you that keep wanting cache ratings think about this. You place what you consider the best cache in the world. Everythings perfect in you mind. Another cacher comes along and down rates your cache. How do you feel. Stop really think about how you would feel.

 

Remember a cache placer is a volunteer. Volunteering his time and funds for you to enjoy. Now you want to tell him his efforts weren't good enough. I don't think that's very nice. That's what I think a cache rating system would do.

[+SG-MIN]

Some of us simply think any kind of cache rating system is a bad idea. Here's why I do.

1. When compared to goods or movies, etc. there's a purchase involved. There's competition for your money, rating is probably a good thing in those cases.

2. Caches are placed by volunteers and have nothing to gain or loose except ego by a rating system.

3. Too much damaged ego will result in lose of interest or worse. In many cases anger will take front and center.

 

All of you that keep wanting cache ratings think about this. You place what you consider the best cache in the world. Everythings perfect in you mind. Another cacher comes along and down rates your cache. How do you feel. Stop really think about how you would feel.

 

Remember a cache placer is a volunteer. Volunteering his time and funds for you to enjoy. Now you want to tell him his efforts weren't good enough. I don't think that's very nice. That's what I think a cache rating system would do.

I understand your point, but I think you are missing something. If one person downrates my cache, you are right, I will probably be miffed for a bit, and my ego might be hurt. If it happened over and over from differant people, I would probably start to think that maybe my cache wasn't the best after all. Would that not motivate you to put out better caches.

 

Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.

 

Now think if that same cacher went to the 5 highest rated caches in a city first instead of the 5 closest. Would that improve their perception of geocaching in general?

 

Additionally, as geocachers learn what tends to get rated higher, they can improve their own hides. As geocaching continues to grow, it only makes sence to try and improve the quality of the caches - I am convinced a rating system would do just that.

 

I would tend to guess - and this is my opinion - that geocaches that would generally be rated lower did not cost the volunteer placer a whole lot of money. I mean come on, how much does a film canister under a light skirt cost?

[+tozainamboku]

Some of us simply think any kind of cache rating system is a bad idea. Here's why I do.

1. When compared to goods or movies, etc. there's a purchase involved. There's competition for your money, rating is probably a good thing in those cases.

2. Caches are placed by volunteers and have nothing to gain or loose except ego by a rating system.

3. Too much damaged ego will result in lose of interest or worse. In many cases anger will take front and center.

 

All of you that keep wanting cache ratings think about this. You place what you consider the best cache in the world. Everythings perfect in you mind. Another cacher comes along and down rates your cache. How do you feel. Stop really think about how you would feel.

 

Remember a cache placer is a volunteer. Volunteering his time and funds for you to enjoy. Now you want to tell him his efforts weren't good enough. I don't think that's very nice. That's what I think a cache rating system would do.

I understand your point, but I think you are missing something. If one person downrates my cache, you are right, I will probably be miffed for a bit, and my ego might be hurt. If it happened over and over from differant people, I would probably start to think that maybe my cache wasn't the best after all. Would that not motivate you to put out better caches.

I would think there are a lot of people out there that don't like the same kinds of caches that I do.

Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.

That's probably why most people quit after only finding a few caches.

 

Now think if that same cacher went to the 5 highest rated caches in a city first instead of the 5 closest. Would that improve their perception of geocaching in general?

Maybe, until they found out that not all cache were that good or until they found found some type of cache they like but were unaware of because most people would not rate these high. (Puzzle caches comes to mind).

 

Additionally, as geocachers learn what tends to get rated higher, they can improve their own hides. As geocaching continues to grow, it only makes sence to try and improve the quality of the caches - I am convinced a rating system would do just that.

There could also be a lot fewer of the kinds of cache I like to find and more of the kinds that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

I would tend to guess - and this is my opinion - that geocaches that would generally be rated lower did not cost the volunteer placer a whole lot of money. I mean come on, how much does a film canister under a light skirt cost?

This might be true. But then again it may be that most people would rate caches where there are a lot of muggles low, or caches that require long hikes low, or caches that are in a certain part of town low. You're right that without a rating system we don't know what cache most people like or don't like. But I know that there will be some people who like what others don't like or hate what others like.

 

I would prefer a system where a finder could rate the cache on several attributes instead of just good or bad. For example:

1. Are there a lot of muggles around?
   
2. Is the camouflage or hiding technique exceptional?
   
3. Is this a quick park 'n grab?
   
4. Is the location appealing?
   

These, along with the hider assigned attributes, cache size, and D/T rating would be more useful to find or eliminate caches.

[+SG-MIN]

I would think there are a lot of people out there that don't like the same kinds of caches that I do.

You are probably right, but this is one of those "what ifs." You may find that "your kind of caches" get rated particularly high. You never know untill we try a system.

Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.

That's probably why most people quit after only finding a few caches.

So you would agree that if this could be avoided, it woudl help the sport.

There could also be a lot fewer of the kinds of cache I like to find and more of the kinds that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

another case of "what if." I would argue that with a well designed system would alliviate that problem. For instance, on amazon.com I often look for books on the "emerging church." Generally these books are not top sellers, and often are rated low because some people love them, but others despise them. What I end up doing is looking at the highest rated caches IN MY CATAGORY. I still generally find the better books about the emerging church even if the overall site does not rate these highly.

 

But I know that there will be some people who like what others don't like or hate what others like.

See above posts

[+SG-MIN]

Here are the last few posts on the topic from Jeremy himself:

 

 

Here's my thought of the matter (or rethink, if you will). In my opinion creating a bunch of different ratings is nice but isn't really necessary. What I would propose instead is a way for users to rate individual caches for their overall experience and use an algorithm to compare your opinion to other users instead of just averaging the rating out. Once we get enough ratings we can say that based on your ratings of caches you found you would probably be interested in x cache that someone else with similar interests found.

 

We had a similar discussion on the Waymarking site to see what categories you may like.

 

The rating system would be linked to waymarks, waymark categories, geocaches, and possibly even photos you like to see if there are any ways to compare your ratings of say, a geocache, to ratings of individual waymarks (or even an entire category). Make sense?

and

QUOTE (sbell111 @ May 24 2005, 01:28 PM) The problem is, your sample size will not be large enough. If caches got hundreds of visits, you might have interesting data. Unfortunately, difficult, but awesome, caches get few visits while drive-up micros get loads. You won't help but get horribly skewed data.

I do agree with your argument. This is just one of many possible solutions - and who knows? - I expect to try out more than one option for finding out the real gems.

 

I don't object to other rating systems but, IMO, it would have to be opt-on for the cache lister. So if a cache owner doesn't want their cache listing to be rated for whatever reason, they can switch it off. That also means their listing may be avoided by folks that like the rating system but at least they have that option.

 

As a favorites list goes I see no downside, so that would not have an opt out.

The rest from February 2005 or earlier.

[+tozainamboku]

Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.

That's probably why most people quit after only finding a few caches.

So you would agree that if this could be avoided, it woudl help the sport.

I didn't say it was bad for the sport. Perhaps people who quit because they didn't like the five caches closest to their home wouldn't enjoy geocaching anyhow. When I started, I spent a lot of time reading cache descriptions and logs to look for caches I might enjoy doing. I didn't run out and find everything near my house because I realized that other people might enjoy a different type of cache than I like. I'll admit that eventually, it became a challenge to find all the closest caches to where I live and I started looking for these. I even got a few FTFs as I tried to keep my nearest cache page clear. Because of weather or time or just caching with friends, I will still sometimes just go and find all the caches in some area. But most of the time I plan my caching by looking at the cache pages and logs to find caches that look interesting to me. Sure from time to time, I'll hunt a cache based on the recommendation of another cacher. Usually it's someone who knows me and what kind of caches I like.

Edited October 13, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+Hula Bum]

I personally think it's a great idea, but it doesn't matter because TPTB will never implement something that is so controversial when it serves no purpose for them other than the grief it'll cause.

 

The best I can suggest is to look for bookmarks and start using them yourself, they are a rating system in their own way.

[+Markwell]

All of you that keep wanting cache ratings think about this. You place what you consider the best cache in the world. Everythings perfect in you mind. Another cacher comes along and down rates your cache. How do you feel. Stop really think about how you would feel.

My self-image does not hinge upon the thoughts of whether someone likes my cache or not. If I were to get enough "bad" ratings, I may actually take a look at my hiding practices and see if there's ways that I can improve. But that's me.

 

Also, as has been said many times before, in the "Top x%" method that I've placed in other threads, no one can give a "bad rating" - there would only be a lack of a "best-of-the-best" rating. Again - my ego has even LESS of a chance of being hurt due to something like this.

 

But, you disagree, and so we're at a stalemate.

 

edited because I can't type so well at 1:00 in the morning

Edited October 13, 2006 by Markwell

[+small oaks]

One good option of rating systems would be where you write your logs. So each logger can choose the value of what kind of experiece cache was by writing a number from 1 - 5 mayby pointing your opinion in writing too. (You can still write that nice cache log). Reading logs would the be even more informative. Better this would be if there is made up slider /selection possibility of this like there is now for terrain and difficulty settings when you make a cache. Not very hard and time consuming effort. There is no point to put average value in aside of cache because cachers are so many types of people. Same thing is that different cache types can't be rated as their are the same.

This would suite me because I tend to be very positive when i'm geocaching.

I guess when reading people against any ratings they think people are negative when geocaching. What kind of hobby is that!

Edited October 13, 2006 by small oaks

[+SG-MIN]

Now on the other hand. Lets say that someone is new to the sport and wants to try it out. The go and visit the 5 closest caches in their area and they all are average to below average. If that were me, I would probably loose interest pretty quick if the first several caches were in mundane locations with typical hiding teqniques.

That's probably why most people quit after only finding a few caches.

So you would agree that if this could be avoided, it woudl help the sport.

I didn't say it was bad for the sport. Perhaps people who quit because they didn't like the five caches closest to their home wouldn't enjoy geocaching anyhow. When I started, I spent a lot of time reading cache descriptions and logs to look for caches I might enjoy doing. I didn't run out and find everything near my house because I realized that other people might enjoy a different type of cache than I like. I'll admit that eventually, it became a challenge to find all the closest caches to where I live and I started looking for these. I even got a few FTFs as I tried to keep my nearest cache page clear. Because of weather or time or just caching with friends, I will still sometimes just go and find all the caches in some area. But most of the time I plan my caching by looking at the cache pages and logs to find caches that look interesting to me. Sure from time to time, I'll hunt a cache based on the recommendation of another cacher. Usually it's someone who knows me and what kind of caches I like.

 

I would venture to say that you are unique in this. I too am a researcher, but that is just the way I think on everything - I want to know what I am getting into. If I were brand new to the game, I would probably go to the nearest.

 

When my friend altmizzle first got into caching, he loaded up gc.com and found the closest one, loaded it into his GPS and went and found it, then came back home and loaded another and found it, then came back home loaded another and found it....

 

You have to remember that people first getting into geocaching don't do things the way we do. They have to learn. It is much like the first time someone finds a lampskirt hide... they are like "wow, this is original." Of course after a while most people lose their facination with lampskirt hides.

[+SG-MIN]

I personally think it's a great idea, but it doesn't matter because TPTB will never implement something that is so controversial when it serves no purpose for them other than the grief it'll cause.

 

I have really appreciated your responces to this thread. It hasn't disintegrated into an arguement about the specifics, but rather is focusing on the overall merits of a system. It has helped me out a lot in my thinking. So here is my question:

 

There seems to be the general assumption that Groundspeak/GC.com will never implement a cache rating system. However, as illustrated in the above quotes from Jeremy, he does not seem to be oppsed to it. Where do TPTB officially stand on this? Absolutely never? We are considering/researching it? It is in the works?

[+TeamHarrison]

Here's what I see that are possible keys to the success of this proposal:

 

A. Keep it positive. (Have the "rating system" only rate caches with some kind of "Best of the Best" rating. After all, this system SHOULD help with what to hunt, NOT identify what not to hunt?! With a lengthy enough list of "Best of the Best" caches, I could care less about the "others".)

 

B. Limit each member's influence. (I really like the idea of each registered member being able to "mark" some percentage (10%?) as "Best of the Best".)

 

C. Protect egos. (Egos are something to be dealt with. The above two items really address this by having the system be positive in identifying GREAT caches and not giving any members undeserved influence.)

 

I'm new enough to this activity, but like the idea and points above. Take it for what it's worth, friends. Enjoy the hunt!

[+baloo&bd]

Here's what I see that are possible keys to the success of this proposal:

 

A. Keep it positive. (Have the "rating system" only rate caches with some kind of "Best of the Best" rating. After all, this system SHOULD help with what to hunt, NOT identify what not to hunt?! With a lengthy enough list of "Best of the Best" caches, I could care less about the "others".)

 

I like keeping it positive, however i believe this would be an implied "Recommended" cache, in otherwords this would direct people to a cache that a percentage of finders liked but not neccesarily for a common criteria. Also see next point.

 

B. Limit each member's influence. (I really like the idea of each registered member being able to "mark" some percentage (10%?) as "Best of the Best".)

 

This has some merit, but what happens when a mega-cacher (2000 + finds) has already reached their quota and comes across what they feel is an unbelieveable cache. If allowed, will they go to the trouble to remove another one to put on the list?

 

C. Protect egos. (Egos are something to be dealt with. The above two items really address this by having the system be positive in identifying GREAT caches and not giving any members undeserved influence.)

 

Like it or not, no matter how this is imposed, this would be a factor. This really comes into play if a very prolific hider starts to dominate the recommended list, it will have the affect of discouraging some from hiding caches, especially in light of the fact that some think every cache they place is inspired.

 

I also have a puzzle cahe that each of the peopl who have found has praised, but it as a low find count because many people do not like puzzle caches combined with this one has considerable bushwacking involved, two strikes against it however for those that have found it, they may consider it a recommended cache.

 

I still think the current rating system is working excellent and not sure a change is needed. Logs and finds are more than enough indicator for most. Someone just passing through also may look at the difficulty and terrain ratings, not sure why anything more would be needed.

[+TeamHarrison]

Thanks for the reply, Baloo&bd. Some good points you've made. I would like to respond to a couple of them, though.

 

I like keeping it positive, however i believe this would be an implied "Recommended" cache, in otherwords this would direct people to a cache that a percentage of finders liked but not neccesarily for a common criteria. Also see next point.

 

In my travels, I've seen websites of every imaginable genre that belong to the "Top 5% of XXXXX Websites" type recognition sites. Those were selected by visitors of the sites in question and void of any established guidelines other than someone taking the trouble to click the "Vote" button. None of those I've encountered had any implied standards and I accepted that. I have to say that the majority of those bestowed that honor seemed to be above their peers in quality. I don't make blanket statements when I can avoid it, so I won't say they "all" were, but most were.

 

This has some merit, but what happens when a mega-cacher (2000 + finds) has already reached their quota and comes across what they feel is an unbelieveable cache. If allowed, will they go to the trouble to remove another one to put on the list?

 

Absolutely! That is the beauty of the system. If I want more say, I need to find more caches OR remove one of the less liked caches to add the new one that caught my eye. But with your example, I'm sure the mega-cacher will be willing to sacrifice one of his 200 options for the latest whiz-bang cache.

 

Like it or not, no matter how this is imposed, this would be a factor. This really comes into play if a very prolific hider starts to dominate the recommended list, it will have the affect of discouraging some from hiding caches, especially in light of the fact that some think every cache they place is inspired.

 

I also have a puzzle cahe that each of the peopl who have found has praised, but it as a low find count because many people do not like puzzle caches combined with this one has considerable bushwacking involved, two strikes against it however for those that have found it, they may consider it a recommended cache.

 

I still think the current rating system is working excellent and not sure a change is needed. Logs and finds are more than enough indicator for most. Someone just passing through also may look at the difficulty and terrain ratings, not sure why anything more would be needed.

 

I have to disagree with one key thing here. I think I would save MY 10% to bring light to those caches that are unique and not just a park-and-grab. I do that now on my profile page. I choose to highlight caches that brought me the most fun. Often they're puzzle caches, boat-only (kayak!) reachable, or some off-the-beaten-trail type caches. They've legitimately been my top 10% so I rank them as such.

 

Again, thanks for sharing your ideas. I think the general idea definitely holds enough merit to establish SOME kind of pilot program for "cache ratings" to get the great minds here working on a usable and generally-accepted solution.

[+SG-MIN]

A couple thoughts guys.

 

that is qualitative and not just "recommended" is that there is a scale and not just a yes or no option (is this recommended or not). If in gneneral, puzzle caches are not rated high, the system is useless. But if is qualitative (i.e. based on a 5 star system) you could still find the better caches. The same goes for any type of cache that some like, but other do not like.

 

I still would like to hear what Groundspeaks official thoughts are on the matter.

[+StarBrand]

Just curious......

 

What is your definition for this proposed 5 star scale?

 

*=

**=

***=

****=

*****= ??

[+SG-MIN]

Just curious......

 

What is your definition for this proposed 5 star scale?

 

*=

**=

***=

****=

*****= ??

 

I was thinking something similar to amazon.com or imdb.com etc.

 

Basiclly, if you have a variable rating system rather than simple yes/no system then you can have do various searches. i.e. you can search for: the highest rated micros in a 20 mile radius, the top 10 rated caches in the state, only caches rated 3.5 or higher along a specific route.

 

I do like Jeremy's idea that cache owners could opt out.

[+StarBrand]

only caches rated 3.5 or higher along a specific route.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of "What does a 3.5 mean"? aka Good Camo? Good Container? Location? Placement? Swag? Dry? Unique? Good hike? Good Use of natural covering? etc.... etc....

 

That would all need to be well defined for the ratings to have any consistent meaning. Much like the Clayjar system for terrain and difficulty.

[+SG-MIN]

only caches rated 3.5 or higher along a specific route.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of "What does a 3.5 mean"? aka Good Camo? Good Container? Location? Placement? Swag? Dry? Unique? Good hike? Good Use of natural covering? etc.... etc....

 

That would all need to be well defined for the ratings to have any consistent meaning. Much like the Clayjar system for terrain and difficulty.

 

 

I respectfully disagree. What does a 3.5 mean on amazon.com? good author? good plot? easy read? original ideas?

[+StarBrand]

So like...

 

***** = recommended

**** = slight preference

*** = neutral

** = ok but not my cup of tea

* = not recomended

 

????

For at least a rough starting point?

[+SG-MIN]

So like...

 

***** = recommended

**** = slight preference

*** = neutral

** = ok but not my cup of tea

* = not recomended

 

????

For at least a rough starting point?

 

Oh, I gotcha. My bad, I didn't understand what you were asking. It really doesn't matter, I assume people would determin for themselves what each rating means. I would suggest something like:

 

***** = Absolutely amazing cache. A must find for anyone. Among the best ever.

**** = Above average cache. Worthing going out of your way for.

*** = Average cache. Fun grab, but typical.

** = Slightly below average. I've seen better

* = Below average.

 

I tend to shy away from any specific naming of attributes just because it gets so subjective. Of course with a good algrithim, regardless of a person's standard, you would end up with a fair score.

Edited October 13, 2006 by SG-MIN