Cache Ratings

[+The Blue Quasar]

Personally I don't want to see any form of "other people's ratings of this cache" on my listings.

 

The way I see it, I am making an effort to contribute to the activity and I place caches based upon numerous factors including location, challenge, interest of the route to it, or creativity of the cache page itself.

 

People log their finds and include their feelings about it already. I don't want some indicator being front and centre to inflate or deflate my feelings about this activity everytime I look at my listings. This would be just like those people saying "Who is watching my cache?"

 

I prefer Geocaching.com to be like a library. Here are the listings, and read what you find interesting. No one is compiling a rating system for the books there. If I read a good book, I tell my friends about it.

 

However, when I'm travelling, I read the logs before I go look for it. That way I'm informed properly. Having a "out of 5 stars" like Internet Movie Database, is far too subjective and also makes it too easy to not read the listing properly.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+ReadyOrNot]

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.

 

[Removed post, started new thread]

Edited October 15, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

[+SG-MIN]

So any word from the official at Groundspeak where you all stand on a cache rating system? If you all have officially nixed the idea I would shut up and never bring it up again. If it is in the works then I would be unable to contain my excitement.

 

Just curious what the official stance is.

[+The4Syms]

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.

 

 

JUST WHAT I THOUGHT! ROFLMAO!

[+SG-MIN]

JUST WHAT I THOUGHT! ROFLMAO!

 

I don't get it.

[+baloo&bd]

JUST WHAT I THOUGHT! ROFLMAO!

 

I don't get it.

 

Nor I. What are we missing her T4S?

[+small oaks]

So any word from the official at Groundspeak where you all stand on a cache rating system? If you all have officially nixed the idea I would shut up and never bring it up again. If it is in the works then I would be unable to contain my excitement.

 

Just curious what the official stance is.

 

I would like to know too as this has asked so many times and will asked again.

 

As you propably know.There is rating systems in Waymarking so there might be some kind of rating system in geocaching too in a future or they test it in there. In Waymarking rating ability comes possible with premium membership. Not many ratings there..or are they invisible to basic members?

[+sbell111]

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. ...

The first time I read through your post, I felt the same as you. However, I later realized that I was lying to myself. You see, a few days ago, Lep made reference to his 'favorites' list. I was truly a little bummed that my Great Caesar's Ghost Cipher cache wasn't on it. The truth is, I didn't feel much better when I realized that he's never tried to find this cache. Feelings are funny things, I guess.

 

So, Lep didn't think my cache was good enough to even attempt to find. I guess I should archive it so it stops blocking these locations from more worthy caches from being placed.

 

Some will be quick to point out that if a ratings system is enacted, we will be able to rely on more than just Lep's faves. However with an increase in raters, the really good caches that get few finds will fall lower on the ratings. They would then be skipped by those people that use the ratings to target really good caches.

[+sbell111]

... 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. ...

I originally skimmed right over this point, but I think it deserves more attention.

 

I wonder if this will result in more 'vanilla' caches being rated highly because they have qualities that appeal to the most cachers even though they aren't really the greatest caches.

 

This point also reminds me of the 10% vote that is being tossed around. I suspect that there are more cachers who primarily go after park-and-grabs than there are hard-core guys who primarily hit higher rated caches. Since the park-and-grabbers are going to rack up thousands of finds in the time that it takes the hardcorers to find a few hundred, the data will be violently skewed toward park-and-grabs.

 

The last issue that I would like to respond to is the idea that we should 'give it a try'. I think that this is the worst idea ever. It is much harder to remove a 'feature' than it is to introduce it. We could end up being stuck with a tool that does more harm than good.

[+small oaks]

I think some categorizing should be done first before any Recommended lists from ratings are to be made. So there could be: Recommended multis...etc. Maybe this is too hard task to do.

[+Jhwk]

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

 

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.

 

yeah, so how's that working out for you?

[+sbell111]

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

 

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.

 

yeah, so how's that working out for you?

Ha!

 

The problem with not having the specifics of the system discussed in this thread is that no one really knows what is being asked for.

 

If TPTB have time, I would like a system that allows me to only download caches that I will really enjoy. The PQs come close, but I still end up with a few that I don't like and lots that I can't find. If they could work out the bugs to only give me caches that I would really enjoy and that I can find, that would be great. BTW, the system should not miss any caches that I would really like.

[+tozainamboku]

I didn't have him on my ignore list, I'm sure sbell111 would post a sarcastic comment about how any rating system should allow him to download only the caches that he likes.

 

I think that the problem with rating systems it that you first have to define what it is you are trying to accomplish. You can then look at solutions that might include having finders rate caches.

 

If the problem is finding the really exceptional caches in an area you might be visiting, something like showing which caches show up on lots of people's favorite lists might help. You know that these are caches that many people in the area would recommend.

 

If the problem is finding caches you like to do and eliminate ones you don't like doing, then some kind of affinity rating might help. "People who like this cache also like ..." If you find a cache you like, you might be able to find others in the area you might also like.

 

I you want to rank all caches from best to worst, you will get a lot of resistance to that idea. I don't think there is a good solution for this, since everyone's list will be different.

[+baloo&bd]

I you want to rank all caches from best to worst, you will get a lot of resistance to that idea. I don't think there is a good solution for this, since everyone's list will be different.

 

Yet still no one acknowledges the current rating system and how useful it has been to this point. Why break something that is working so well now?

 

In addition to the current rating system, make the bookmark lists searchable using similar criteria to the HIDE AND SEEK search page. If I like it, I will put it in a bookmark. Heck, if I don't like it I will put it in a bookmark. If it breaks policies or rules, they show up in lists like the TB Prison one which you can choose to ignore or find.

[+SG-MIN]

Yet still no one acknowledges the current rating system and how useful it has been to this point. Why break something that is working so well now?

 

 

 

I am going to Morgantown, WV for Thanksgiving. I want to find some caches, but I will only have time for 5-10. Now how do I know which ones make it on bookmark lists without individually looking at all of them.

 

Additionally, I will be driving there and will pass hundreds if not thousands of caches. I want to grab 1 or 2 along the way. How do I make sure the ones I take my time on are of a generally higher quality.

 

The current rating system works great if all you do is cache in your home area.

[+baloo&bd]

I am going to Morgantown, WV for Thanksgiving. I want to find some caches, but I will only have time for 5-10. Now how do I know which ones make it on bookmark lists without individually looking at all of them.

 

When you pull up the bookmark list, it will list them names of all the caches. You can create a PQ and do some browsing, you have plenty of advance notice. How will you know which are rated or opt out without looking at them? How will you know if they are the type of container you like? How will you know if they take an hour for a hike, which would reduce your 5 to 10 in all probability, without reading them? You will still have to browse to make sure the people in that area like what you like.

 

Additionally, I will be driving there and will pass hundreds if not thousands of caches. I want to grab 1 or 2 along the way. How do I make sure the ones I take my time on are of a generally higher quality.

 

Again, all the above applies. I do a lot of traveling. Prior to the advent of Cache along a Route, I did it with multiple PQ's and then did it in GSAK. Now with CaaR, it is much simpler. I am doing a trip this Saturday of about 150 miles one way. I set-up the Caar last Friday so I could look thru them in GSAK at my leisure, and set it up again for this Friday so I have the latest. If you only want to grab 1 or 2, use the Diff and Terrain and stick close to either your route or where you plan on stopping.

 

The current rating system works great if all you do is cache in your home area.

 

As shown above, this is not true. Not to mention the fact that most in their home area search most if not all unless they are picky about certain types.

 

There are many hardcore travelers, truckers and RVer's for instance, that work the current system very nicely. Rating systems are just too flawed and have too many downsides. If opt-out is offered, many if not most will choose that, making it less effective. If a certain area has a strong group that pushes it's likes and dislikes in caches on their membership (seen, but luckily none near me) certain type of caches will start to suffer. Also, the examples given above, while I am sure not your intent, make it sound like it is expected that quicker caches will be rated higher while the "45 minute hike up the hill for a fantastic find" will be excluded. In fact, the only pix's I have seen of Jeremy caching have been to these types of hides that may be excluded.

 

Some have mentioned an Amazon like rating system. There have been many books, CDs or DVDs where I have went to rate them only to find out I was in the 40% or less minority that felt the item was truly exceptional.

 

Between being able to use the Cache along a Route, Container Size, Cache Type and number of finds in conjuction with the logs, people can already filter to pretty much exactly THEIR tastes. Add in bookmarks and the system seems pretty complete.

 

The only version I have see that I think bears consideration is the "Other cachers who have found this cache also found X in the area", however that is even flawed in that it means someone who will hunt pretty much anything legal (us for instance) will impact the numbers.

 

I don't want to come accross like I am beating you down individually, which I fear is what it looks like, however remember Star Wars? I hear the story told again and again of how the critics panned the first one. Sure glad I was to busy with other things back then to read how the critics rated it. I just don't want to see people miss some of the hidden true gems, which is what GC is sort of all about.

Edited October 16, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+TeamHarrison]

Baloo

"See what happens when you don't vote?"

 

Baloo, you're slowly changing my mind about this subject with your well-thought-out posts. I do see how certain "types" of caches could quickly rank higher than others.

 

But, wouldn't some sort of system be better than none at all? I quote your signature line from the above post to illustrate this point (maybe. LOL!). If people don't "vote" then you get whatever. I'm having trouble articulating what I'm trying to reference here and hopefully you'll get where I'm coming from.

 

Essentially, it's that something would be better than nothing, I guess.

 

[+baloo&bd]

Baloo

"See what happens when you don't vote?"

 

Baloo, you're slowly changing my mind about this subject with your well-thought-out posts. I do see how certain "types" of caches could quickly rank higher than others.

 

But, wouldn't some sort of system be better than none at all? I quote your signature line from the above post to illustrate this point (maybe. LOL!). If people don't "vote" then you get whatever. I'm having trouble articulating what I'm trying to reference here and hopefully you'll get where I'm coming from.

 

Essentially, it's that something would be better than nothing, I guess.

 

 

Let me give an example that will probably only mean something to you. I looked at your profile. The cache you have listed as your all time favorite took weeks to complete and from the description, I am betting was not right next to the parking lot.

 

As much as you like that, do you think the owner would be disappointed if "quicker" finds continually were rated higher? Would you be disappointed? Because that is the type that would probably not make the list.

 

Those of us who will 1. Hunt everything and 2. Like the long hikes and or difficult caches/puzzles, are in the minority. That's why those caches tend to have fewer finds. The votes would just be overwhelmed with the casual cacher. You know, the sane people.

[+Cache Heads]

I am opposed to a rating system. However, I do think that this is an issue that could be aided by a feature allowing users to search bookmark lists by keyword. It has already been aknowledged by Jeremy as a 'great' idea. Bookmark lists will always be skewed and subjective-- but bookmark lists can be rated. So, if I had the ability to search all public bookmark lists for "west virginia best" and I come up with 10, 20 or even 50 lists, I could probably find the most respected/popular list fairly quickly and be off. Of course, I have no idea if those caches are really so great until I do them... but that's no different than any other hit-or-miss rating system. Fact is, past logs will always be the best way of judging a cache, aside from actually seeking it.

 

So, I say "no" to a cache rating system and "yes" to bookmark list keyword searches!

Edited October 16, 2006 by Cache Heads

[+SG-MIN]

When you pull up the bookmark list, it will list them names of all the caches. You can create a PQ and do some browsing, you have plenty of advance notice. How will you know which are rated or opt out without looking at them? How will you know if they are the type of container you like? How will you know if they take an hour for a hike, which would reduce your 5 to 10 in all probability, without reading them? You will still have to browse to make sure the people in that area like what you like.

This does not work. How do I automaticly know the bookmark lists for Morgantown. Right now all I have to do is pull up a PQ to get the caches, but to know which ones are on bookmark lists I have to look at each listing. Even if I find 1 bookmark list of caches in the area, this does not make that one deffinitive. So basically, I either go through all the cache pages (which is what I want to avoid) or trust 1 person and their book mark list.

Again, all the above applies. I do a lot of traveling. Prior to the advent of Cache along a Route, I did it with multiple PQ's and then did it in GSAK. Now with CaaR, it is much simpler. I am doing a trip this Saturday of about 150 miles one way. I set-up the Caar last Friday so I could look thru them in GSAK at my leisure, and set it up again for this Friday so I have the latest. If you only want to grab 1 or 2, use the Diff and Terrain and stick close to either your route or where you plan on stopping.

This does not help with knowing in general which caches may be better than others without going through the entire list again. Not too helpful if I am short on time.

There are many hardcore travelers, truckers and RVer's for instance, that work the current system very nicely. Rating systems are just too flawed and have too many downsides. If opt-out is offered, many if not most will choose that, making it less effective. If a certain area has a strong group that pushes it's likes and dislikes in caches on their membership (seen, but luckily none near me) certain type of caches will start to suffer. Also, the examples given above, while I am sure not your intent, make it sound like it is expected that quicker caches will be rated higher while the "45 minute hike up the hill for a fantastic find" will be excluded. In fact, the only pix's I have seen of Jeremy caching have been to these types of hides that may be excluded.

this is an arguement based on what it rather than on what is likely to happen.

Some have mentioned an Amazon like rating system. There have been many books, CDs or DVDs where I have went to rate them only to find out I was in the 40% or less minority that felt the item was truly exceptional.

All I am looking for is a general idea, not nesesarily the absolute. Of course ratings are not perfect, but they do give you a general idea.

Between being able to use the Cache along a Route, Container Size, Cache Type and number of finds in conjuction with the logs, people can already filter to pretty much exactly THEIR tastes. Add in bookmarks and the system seems pretty complete.

here is the big differance. All that works if you have the time to do it. I simply do not have the time to browse through thousands of cache pages. I became a PM because I didn't have the time to download all the individual LOC files. This works for hardcore cachers and they will deffinetly have better information, but in my microwave generation, I want a general idea, and I want to be able to access it quickly.

The only version I have see that I think bears consideration is the "Other cachers who have found this cache also found X in the area", however that is even flawed in that it means someone who will hunt pretty much anything legal (us for instance) will impact the numbers.

 

I don't want to come accross like I am beating you down individually, which I fear is what it looks like, however remember Star Wars? I hear the story told again and again of how the critics panned the first one. Sure glad I was to busy with other things back then to read how the critics rated it. I just don't want to see people miss some of the hidden true gems, which is what GC is sort of all about.

Here is my philosophy on this - I miss more gems without a rating system. Undoubtedly the highest rated cache will not nessecarily be the best cache, but you get an idea. When I am on the road and run a PQ, even one that severly narrows down the field, I usually end up at a cache that is most convientant and miss the really special one that is just .25 miles down the road.

 

We will never hit all the caches, a rating system lets us go to the ones that are generally considered better than others rather than waste our time on those that meet our PQ standards, but are mundane by most people standards.

 

To use your example of the movies - how many great movies did you see because they had good ratings that you would never have seen otherwise. My wife and I only go to a few movies a year. I want to know how people rate those movies so at least we see a decent movie. We may not see the best of year, but we are generally won't see a horrible one.

Edited October 16, 2006 by SG-MIN

[+The Blue Quasar]

SG-MIN Posted Today, 11:43 AM

 

(baloo&bd @ Oct 16 2006, 01:28 PM) *

 

Yet still no one acknowledges the current rating system and how useful it has been to this point. Why break something that is working so well now?

 

I am going to Morgantown, WV for Thanksgiving. I want to find some caches, but I will only have time for 5-10. Now how do I know which ones make it on bookmark lists without individually looking at all of them.

 

Totally agree with Baloo&bd on this one. You could ask a local or two for a short list of recommended caches near your destination. You could provide details of what interests you.

 

Additionally, I will be driving there and will pass hundreds if not thousands of caches. I want to grab 1 or 2 along the way. How do I make sure the ones I take my time on are of a generally higher quality.

 

Use the new "Caches along a Route" feature, and when you need to stop for a break you can pick one nearby. Not saying that caches adjacent to the highway aren't as good, but usually the point of those is to give you a break from the drive. Yes you won't know which ones are exceptional.

 

As a local to Niagara Falls, I have often made a list of 10 caches for people that have asked.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+SG-MIN]

Totally agree with Baloo&bd on this one. You could ask a local or two for a short list of recommended caches near your destination. You could provide details of what interests you.

 

Then you are down to one person's opinions rather than the opinions of the entire of community. If the arguement that cache ratings are too subjective, then that is exponentially more true for getting 1 person's advice.

 

Use the new "Caches along a Route" feature, and when you need to stop for a break you can pick one nearby. Not saying that caches adjacent to the highway aren't as good, but usually the point of those is to give you a break from the drive. Yes you won't know which ones are exceptional.

 

As a local to Niagara Falls, I have often made a list of 10 caches for people that have asked.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

 

Just to illustrate a point... I am just curious which caches you would go after if you came to Bowling Green Kentucky. Tell me what you come up with, either through other cachers, or through reading the logs.

[+The Blue Quasar]

All caches are enjoyable in one way or other. But give me a few days, and I'll see what I come up with. But your request is kinda backward of what I said. But I'll try if you like. I'm generally happy to find any cache.

 

As for subjective... well, yes one cacher would be. But I think you could figure out which cachers are the prolific ones of any given area.

 

The Blue Quasar

Edited October 17, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[+SG-MIN]

All caches are enjoyable in one way or other. But give me a few days, and I'll see what I come up with. But your request is kinda backward of what I said. But I'll try if you like. I'm generally happy to find any cache.

 

As for subjective... well, yes one cacher would be. But I think you could figure out which cachers are the prolific ones of any given area.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Go for it, I am curious what you will come up with. Feel free to ignore any of my caches or recommendations - I have only been in the game for about 10 months now.

[+TrailGators]

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.

Catching up with yet another thread pushing for what I would love to see happen someday. The best of the best doesn't step on anybody's toes. Plus it would helps motivate people to place better caches which makes caching more fun for all of us! I also like the idea of finding the best of the best caches when I travel!

[+Bambography]

I've been reading with interest as I was undecided, but my overall thinking is that a basic rating system would be a good idea. How it would work is debatable however if as many people are saying, that cache owners wouldn't want it as it would depress most of them (!?!) why do I see many caches in the UK with images linked from Geocache UK like the example below...???

 

[+SG-MIN]

I think the ego question is easily answered by allowing cachers to opt out of the rating system.

 

I think the "subjectivity" question is answered by saying "these ratings are subjective."

[+sbell111]

Since different cachers like different things, I wonder if this will result in more 'vanilla' caches being rated highly because they have qualities that appeal to the most cachers even though they aren't really the greatest caches.

 

This point also reminds me of the 10% vote that is being tossed around. I suspect that there are more cachers who primarily go after park-and-grabs than there are hard-core guys who primarily hit higher rated caches. Since the park-and-grabbers are going to rack up thousands of finds in the time that it takes the hardcorers to find a few hundred, the data will be violently skewed toward park-and-grabs.

 

The last issue that I would like to respond to is the idea that we should 'give it a try'. I think that this is the worst idea ever. It is much harder to remove a 'feature' than it is to introduce it. We could end up being stuck with a tool that does more harm than good.

 

(I stole most of this post from my previous post in this thread because it continues to be relevent to the discussion and because no one has really attempted to address why these concerns are unimportant.)

[+SG-MIN]

Since different cachers like different things, I wonder if this will result in more 'vanilla' caches being rated highly because they have qualities that appeal to the most cachers even though they aren't really the greatest caches.

There is a huge hole in this logic. Basicly what will happen is that a rating system will best serve the average cacher. So yes, caches MOST people find enjoyable will probably be highest rating. This may not be the BEST caches according to your elitist standard. In your words, caches that are highest rated will have qualities that appeal to MOST cachers. If you do not consider yourself a part of MOST, then that is your problem. A rating system would help MOST cachers.

 

This point also reminds me of the 10% vote that is being tossed around. I suspect that there are more cachers who primarily go after park-and-grabs than there are hard-core guys who primarily hit higher rated caches. Since the park-and-grabbers are going to rack up thousands of finds in the time that it takes the hardcorers to find a few hundred, the data will be violently skewed toward park-and-grabs.

But at the same time, the park and grabs that are highly rated will be better park and grabs. Again, if MOST of what is being pursued in park and grabs, then that is the data that is MOST useful to the MOST people.

 

The last issue that I would like to respond to is the idea that we should 'give it a try'. I think that this is the worst idea ever. It is much harder to remove a 'feature' than it is to introduce it. We could end up being stuck with a tool that does more harm than good.

I have yet to have my question answer as to how this could be harmful to caching. I understand it might not be useful, but there is no way it would be harmful, espeically if cache owners are given the opportunity to opt out of the ratings system.

 

Another point that I have made but noone has clearly addressed has to do with "learning the system" for lack of a better term. Lets say this gets launched and you happen to be a huge fan of micros. You do a search for caches rated 4+ in your area and no micros come up, but several multi-caches do and you hate multi-caches. Now rather than cry and complain about how the system sucks and it favors one group or another, why do you do a search for micros in your area and then look to see which are highest rank. So what the best micro only gets a 3.5. At least now when you are looking for a cache you know to look for micros rated 3+ and don't get all upset that people don't have the same tastes as you. You still end up with a general idea of the better caches no matter what your personal preference is.

 

Going back to my question about West Virginia. I know I want to find a smal/regular/large traditional cache that is rated 1.5-3.5/1.5-3.5. I may have just weeded out the BEST cache in the area, but at least among those 30-40 caches that came up, I have a general idea of which ones are prefered. All I am argueing for is a system that gives us a general idea of which caches MOST people prefer

[+Jhwk]

Why don't we just use the secret DPM method?

Read the logs before you go. More DPM"s? Don't go.

 

But,

One persons des palourdes mortes is another persons favorite.

[+baloo&bd]

Going back to my question about West Virginia. I know I want to find a smal/regular/large traditional cache that is rated 1.5-3.5/1.5-3.5. I may have just weeded out the BEST cache in the area, but at least among those 30-40 caches that came up, I have a general idea of which ones are prefered. All I am argueing for is a system that gives us a general idea of which caches MOST people prefer

 

And this is where it breaks down. It won't be what MOST people prefer, the current rating system does that, it will be the caches that most of those that VOTE will prefer. If you go through the current rating system, you will find that those that have fewer finds generally post more descriptive logs. Not always, but for the most part. My point is that those out finding caches often barely have time to do their logs (sometimes waiting months to do so) and will probably not be bothered for the most part with yet another logging chore, again severly skewing the numbers since the very people you want advice from will not be voting.

 

The other issue is that most cachers will opt out, especially the newer ones or those that just never seem to get rated. I can tell you that I believe I couldn't care less one way or another what my caches are rated, however the reality is that I probably will since I put effort in them, not only placing but maintaining. This may discourage some very prolific placers from bothering to place caches and while you may argue that we will get higher quality caches, that will just not be the case. Just less to rate.

 

You mentioned about it not meeting someones "elitist" standards. Aside from taking a personal shot at the poster, the understanding from the outset was your purpose was to find the highest rated caches which implied of greater quality. This last post indicates more that you are looking for the most commonly visited or highest find count, which would be more the lowest common denominator. Again, this is easily accomplished with the current rating system.

 

Take note: I did not accept your challenge for Kentucky caches because I will be using my criteria, not yours so if we have the same taste in caches, to you, the test would appear to prove my point. If my tastes differ from yours, again to you, it will appear to prove your point while proving neither.

 

Realize this is all forum fodder. GC appears to be comfortable with their current system for rating caches. Were I in their position it would take some overwhelming justification to risk breaking something that works.

[+baloo&bd]

I have yet to have my question answer as to how this could be harmful to caching.

I meant to respond to this in my last post. The simple answer is it won't, at least not much. We have survived other decisions by GC that many thought were not well thought out, we would do similar with this.

 

A better question is how will this benefit GC to justify the change? That has yet to be answered.

Edited October 17, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+SG-MIN]

And this is where it breaks down. It won't be what MOST people prefer, the current rating system does that, it will be the caches that most of those that VOTE will prefer. If you go through the current rating system, you will find that those that have fewer finds generally post more descriptive logs. Not always, but for the most part. My point is that those out finding caches often barely have time to do their logs (sometimes waiting months to do so) and will probably not be bothered for the most part with yet another logging chore, again severly skewing the numbers since the very people you want advice from will not be voting.

 

either way it is a general idea - which is better than what we have now. If an official rating system were implememented, it would not change the rating system you currently use. After rereading your post, I tend to think that you want to people to cache like you do. Not everyone has time to wade through cache logs and descriptions. If we did, then your method would work great. I see some elitism in your posts as well. Basicly I hear you saying, "If you aren't willing to spend the time to read all the logs, you deserve what you get." Am I wrong in that?

The other issue is that most cachers will opt out, especially the newer ones or those that just never seem to get rated. I can tell you that I believe I couldn't care less one way or another what my caches are rated, however the reality is that I probably will since I put effort in them, not only placing but maintaining. This may discourage some very prolific placers from bothering to place caches and while you may argue that we will get higher quality caches, that will just not be the case. Just less to rate.

 

First off, you have no backing to your claim that most cachers will opt out. I say most cachers will not opt out (see above post about caching in the UK). Of course the truth is that neither of us know. Let's both admit to that.

 

If you can choose whether or not to rate, and whether or not you want your cache rated, I see absolutely no problems. It will not affect things one way or the other. A rating system is like anything newly instituted, it takes time to develop. Think about sites like myspace.com. They were not good indicators of social networks untill people started regularly using them.

You mentioned about it not meeting someones "elitist" standards. Aside from taking a personal shot at the poster, the understanding from the outset was your purpose was to find the highest rated caches which implied of greater quality. This last post indicates more that you are looking for the most commonly visited or highest find count, which would be more the lowest common denominator. Again, this is easily accomplished with the current rating system.

 

It was not a shot at sbell. It was pointing out that he agreed the system would bring up caches that MOST people feel find enjoyable, even if they are not the absolute BEST caches. When it comes to the semantics here, I would love to be able to find either the BEST caches, or the caches that MOST people tend to enjoy.

Take note: I did not accept your challenge for Kentucky caches because I will be using my criteria, not yours so if we have the same taste in caches, to you, the test would appear to prove my point. If my tastes differ from yours, again to you, it will appear to prove your point while proving neither.

Honestly, I wanted to see what you came up more than anything. You can tell me what type of caches you generally like, and I will tell you if what you picked are good examples of those here in Bowling Green (42101). No points to prove, I am just curious.

Realize this is all forum fodder. GC appears to be comfortable with their current system for rating caches. Were I in their position it would take some overwhelming justification to risk breaking something that works.

 

Not nessecarily. I really want to hear the offical work from TPTB. As seen above, Jeremy is not opposed to instituting a cache rating / overall favorites list. In fact, he has called it a good idea. Additionally, I think we all agree that there is no real risk of "breaking something that works." There are risks that it might not be as effective as people would like, or that it might not be used, but I don't see anything breaking.

 

In Sum: What you call your rating system is great, and I will conceed that reading all the logs and viewing all the bookmark lists will be the most effective way to gauge how much you might enjoy a cache. You are more likely to find the hidden gems, and are more likely to find caches that meet your specific likes. However, not all of us have the luxury of time to do all this. In such cases, a cache rating system would emmensly help out while not damaging anyone elses caching experiance.

[+baloo&bd]

either way it is a general idea - which is better than what we have now. If an official rating system were implememented, it would not change the rating system you currently use. After rereading your post, I tend to think that you want to people to cache like you do. Not everyone has time to wade through cache logs and descriptions. If we did, then your method would work great. I see some elitism in your posts as well. Basicly I hear you saying, "If you aren't willing to spend the time to read all the logs, you deserve what you get." Am I wrong in that?

 

Yes, you are wrong. I do not have the time to sit and read every log. I, as stated previously, will seek out pretty much all the caches I can unless something else (previous knowledge of the hider, knowledge that the area is not suitable, etc) indicates I wouldn't like to, and those are very rare.

 

Saying I want to have people cache my way because I DON"T want a ysytem? Think about that a minute.

 

First off, you have no backing to your claim that most cachers will opt out. I say most cachers will not opt out (see above post about caching in the UK). Of course the truth is that neither of us know. Let's both admit to that.

 

If you can choose whether or not to rate, and whether or not you want your cache rated, I see absolutely no problems. It will not affect things one way or the other. A rating system is like anything newly instituted, it takes time to develop. Think about sites like myspace.com. They were not good indicators of social networks untill people started regularly using them.

 

I am simply going by knowledge of cachers in my area as well as post here as to whether or not they will opt out.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the only rating system on myspace is how many "friends" you have, i.e. logs.

 

It was not a shot at sbell. It was pointing out that he agreed the system would bring up caches that MOST people feel find enjoyable, even if they are not the absolute BEST caches. When it comes to the semantics here, I would love to be able to find either the BEST caches, or the caches that MOST people tend to enjoy.

 

The current rating system already accounts for the caches MOST people enjoy. It is the ones found by most, which is what you are proposing to duplicate.

 

Not nessecarily. I really want to hear the offical work from TPTB. As seen above, Jeremy is not opposed to instituting a cache rating / overall favorites list. In fact, he has called it a good idea. Additionally, I think we all agree that there is no real risk of "breaking something that works." There are risks that it might not be as effective as people would like, or that it might not be used, but I don't see anything breaking.

 

Not sure where Jeremy weighs in, since all I have seen is a comment about rating bookmark lists and neutral questions about what people ay want.

 

The risks are the problems the coding issues may cause as well as the possible alienating of some individuals. As I stated in another posts, overall harm would be minimal from any other standpoint.

 

In Sum: What you call your rating system is great, and I will conceed that reading all the logs and viewing all the bookmark lists will be the most effective way to gauge how much you might enjoy a cache. You are more likely to find the hidden gems, and are more likely to find caches that meet your specific likes. However, not all of us have the luxury of time to do all this. In such cases, a cache rating system would emmensly help out while not damaging anyone elses caching experiance.

 

Thanks for the credit, but GC's current rating system appears to be more by Jeremeys design than anyone elses.

 

Lets set the record straight. I currently have a full time job, am in the process of a new start-up, have three teenage boys, a new house, teach classes on weekends and do woodworking and Amateur radio as well as BSA. (Dang, after reading that I am WAY over extended, time to get rid of the kids ) Time is not a luxury I have which is why I usually cache in route to something else or on breaks. We cache to relax, which is why our find count is low, and to get out to see cool things we would not have otherwise seen.

 

I read logs when I am bored and/or doing maintenence on my GSAK DB or want to look back at a cache I just found. I rarely use bookmark lists, however have created a few. The most research I do when going into an area is to do a PQ of the destination and another of the route there and back. If I am limited on time, I look at the nearby caches and probably the terrain (especially if in business attire). I tried using bookmark lists, local forums, etc and found that the old saying of opinions are like noses applied and found I missed more than I would have found.

 

Based on the fact that I, and many active cachers, will seek out anything. Do you really want to go by criteria we set?

[+tozainamboku]

Since different cachers like different things, I wonder if this will result in more 'vanilla' caches being rated highly because they have qualities that appeal to the most cachers even though they aren't really the greatest caches.

There is a huge hole in this logic. Basicly what will happen is that a rating system will best serve the average cacher. So yes, caches MOST people find enjoyable will probably be highest rating. This may not be the BEST caches according to your elitist standard. In your words, caches that are highest rated will have qualities that appeal to MOST cachers. If you do not consider yourself a part of MOST, then that is your problem. A rating system would help MOST cachers.

If you are asking for finders to rate each cache on a scale of 1 to 5 and the rating is the average of all votes you may not see much difference between caches. The ratings will likely be skewed high on all caches because people already tend to hunt the kinds of caches they like and avoid the types they don't like. People also tend to vote only if they have something good to say and this tendancy will be higher still if the voter feels that his vote isn't really annonymous. Since people are different, on average caches will get average ranking. Sure there will be exceptional cache that will stand out with higher or lower rankings but I guessthat 95% of caches will rank betweenn 2 and 4 and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 2 and 4. You assume there is such a thing as an average cacher. I'm not so sure there is.

 

This point also reminds me of the 10% vote that is being tossed around. I suspect that there are more cachers who primarily go after park-and-grabs than there are hard-core guys who primarily hit higher rated caches. Since the park-and-grabbers are going to rack up thousands of finds in the time that it takes the hardcorers to find a few hundred, the data will be violently skewed toward park-and-grabs.

But at the same time, the park and grabs that are highly rated will be better park and grabs. Again, if MOST of what is being pursued in park and grabs, then that is the data that is MOST useful to the MOST people.

Since there are a lot more park and grabs, by limiting the list to the each person's top 10% means that these votes will be split among more caches while the difficult caches that get only a few visits will like show up on a higher percentage of their finders top 10% lists. If there is a ranking based on the number of top 10% lists the cache shows up on, sbell may be right that the highest ranking caches will be park and grabs, but SG-MIN is also right that these will be the best park and grabs. (By best, I mean most often recommended) On the other hand if the ranking were based on the percentage of visitors that had this cache on their top 10% list, the highest ranked caches would probably be the most difficult ones with few visitors and the list would probably not be as useful for people looking for park and grabs. It may be that providing the raw number of top 10% lists the cache is on will allow people to find which caches among those that meet other criteria have the most recommendations. This method still has a problems, since newer caches would have had fewer visits and thus be on fewer top 10% lists.

 

The last issue that I would like to respond to is the idea that we should 'give it a try'. I think that this is the worst idea ever. It is much harder to remove a 'feature' than it is to introduce it. We could end up being stuck with a tool that does more harm than good.

I have yet to have my question answer as to how this could be harmful to caching. I understand it might not be useful, but there is no way it would be harmful, espeically if cache owners are given the opportunity to opt out of the ratings system.

 

Another point that I have made but noone has clearly addressed has to do with "learning the system" for lack of a better term. Lets say this gets launched and you happen to be a huge fan of micros. You do a search for caches rated 4+ in your area and no micros come up, but several multi-caches do and you hate multi-caches. Now rather than cry and complain about how the system sucks and it favors one group or another, why do you do a search for micros in your area and then look to see which are highest rank. So what the best micro only gets a 3.5. At least now when you are looking for a cache you know to look for micros rated 3+ and don't get all upset that people don't have the same tastes as you. You still end up with a general idea of the better caches no matter what your personal preference is.

 

Going back to my question about West Virginia. I know I want to find a smal/regular/large traditional cache that is rated 1.5-3.5/1.5-3.5. I may have just weeded out the BEST cache in the area, but at least among those 30-40 caches that came up, I have a general idea of which ones are prefered. All I am argueing for is a system that gives us a general idea of which caches MOST people prefer

As I stated above, averaging the rating of many cachers does not tell us what most people prefer, only what the average rating of the cache is. I still don't know what an average cacher is. So I doubt that system will be as useful as SG-MIN thinks it would be. However, from experience, I suspect that there are exceptional caches that people like and recommend as "don't miss this cache if you are ever in ...." That's why, in spite of its problems, I wouldn't object to a system that consolidates top 10% lists to find caches that get recommended.

[+SG-MIN]

 

I am simply going by knowledge of cachers in my area as well as post here as to whether or not they will opt out.

To the best of my knowledge, the only rating system on myspace is how many "friends" you have, i.e. logs.

To the best of my knowledge, most cachers in my area would use a rating system, they just might not rely on it. The MySpace comment had nothing to do with ratings - I was illustrating that Web 2.0 features require time to be honed. They will not be perfect upon inception, user ratings and input improve them (wikipedia is another example).

 

The current rating system already accounts for the caches MOST people enjoy. It is the ones found by most, which is what you are proposing to duplicate.

 

I would not in anyway equate cache that are found MOST with caches that are enjoyed by MOST people. In Bowling Green, the most popular (based on hits) has nothing to do with quality, it has everything to do with accessibility.

Not sure where Jeremy weighs in, since all I have seen is a comment about rating bookmark lists and neutral questions about what people ay want.

The risks are the problems the coding issues may cause as well as the possible alienating of some individuals. As I stated in another posts, overall harm would be minimal from any other standpoint.

 

Sorry, but I can't buy this point unless I hear it from the powers that be. I see too much assumption in these statements.

Based on the fact that I, and many active cachers, will seek out anything. Do you really want to go by criteria we set?

 

My point about what you are calling gc.com's current rating system is this: it requires a lot of time and is not easily searchable, even though in the end you probably end up with a cache you will like better.

 

I do in fact want cachers like you to give input. It is exactly the people who go after everything that have the best idea of what is good.

 

Here is how I view it. I want to know what caches you think are best in your area. I also want to know what other area cachers think about cachers in your area. I want to know what visitors to your area think about caches. You are right, I can read all those logs, and send out a whole lot of PM's for each caching trip I go on, but in the end, I end up with a subjective list... just as if I had used a rating system. Think about it this way. I want to be able to compile what everyone thinks is a good cache. When you put it that way, it seems much more pallateable.

[+SG-MIN]

If you are asking for finders to rate each cache on a scale of 1 to 5 and the rating is the average of all votes you may not see much difference between caches. The ratings will likely be skewed high on all caches because people already tend to hunt the kinds of caches they like and avoid the types they don't like. People also tend to vote only if they have something good to say and this tendancy will be higher still if the voter feels that his vote isn't really annonymous. Since people are different, on average caches will get average ranking. Sure there will be exceptional cache that will stand out with higher or lower rankings but I guessthat 95% of caches will rank betweenn 2 and 4 and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 2 and 4. You assume there is such a thing as an average cacher. I'm not so sure there is.

 

This issue has been resolved long ago with the use of algorithms. Jeremy himself made reference to this.

 

Since there are a lot more park and grabs, by limiting the list to the each person's top 10% means that these votes will be split among more caches while the difficult caches that get only a few visits will like show up on a higher percentage of their finders top 10% lists. If there is a ranking based on the number of top 10% lists the cache shows up on, sbell may be right that the highest ranking caches will be park and grabs, but SG-MIN is also right that these will be the best park and grabs. (By best, I mean most often recommended) On the other hand if the ranking were based on the percentage of visitors that had this cache on their top 10% list, the highest ranked caches would probably be the most difficult ones with few visitors and the list would probably not be as useful for people looking for park and grabs. It may be that providing the raw number of top 10% lists the cache is on will allow people to find which caches among those that meet other criteria have the most recommendations. This method still has a problems, since newer caches would have had fewer visits and thus be on fewer top 10% lists.

or you could use a rating system that gave you a general idea of cache quality no matter what you prefer. You get more information with a rating system.

 

As I stated above, averaging the rating of many cachers does not tell us what most people prefer, only what the average rating of the cache is. I still don't know what an average cacher is. So I doubt that system will be as useful as SG-MIN thinks it would be. However, from experience, I suspect that there are exceptional caches that people like and recommend as "don't miss this cache if you are ever in ...." That's why, in spite of its problems, I wouldn't object to a system that consolidates top 10% lists to find caches that get recommended.

Lets look at it this way. Lets say there are 3 caches right off an exit that is along a route that I am caching. Each are equidistance away. One is a rusted altoids tin behind a convienant story that is attached to a dumpster. The other is a film canister under a lamp skirt at Walmart, and the last is a magnet key holder under a park bench overlooking the city in a historic location.

 

Now each of these are micros, each are along my route, each are park and grabs that get found very frequently. I think that all of us can distiguish the better cache here regardless of our personal taste. I am looking for a system that lets me know that in general, the cache on the park bench is probably a better find that the other. I don't care what the system is - I just want a general idea.

 

as it stands now, the only way I have to tell which is more worth my time is read all the cache logs, and for the sake of arguement, lets say I don't have the time. Now the park bench is obviosly the better of the 3 caches. It probably would not make it on my top 10% list, but it is deffinetly more worth my time then the dumpster cache.

 

Does this help you all understand what I am thinking through. I think all of us would appreciate a system that tends to bring us to caches that most people consider to be more worth your time than others.

[+baloo&bd]

Not sure where Jeremy weighs in, since all I have seen is a comment about rating bookmark lists and neutral questions about what people say want.

The risks are the problems the coding issues may cause as well as the possible alienating of some individuals. As I stated in another posts, overall harm would be minimal from any other standpoint.

 

Sorry, but I can't buy this point unless I hear it from the powers that be. I see too much assumption in these statements.

 

OK, I'm done. First, the above statement was a direct response to you saying that "Jeremy thinks this is a good idea" to imply an endorsement. I responded with the FACT that we don't know that since that is not what he said in what you were quoting and you come back with I am making too many "assumptions in these statements".

 

Final example (using a real world cache): There is a TB Hotel near O'Hare airport. Started as a prison, but changed to a hotel. I have noticed at this, other hotels and caches in general people stating in their logs that they happened to see a bug with a mission going to where they were headed and grabbed it. The only way to do this is find the cache or read the log and TB descriptions which is what we are trying to eliminate the need to do by rating caches. Because this cache is relatively "vanilla" and there is nothing exceptional about it, locals and others will most likely not rate this very high if at all. As a result, travelers who would have otherwise most likely have just done a search based on proximity will not stop by and possibly move a TB along on it's mission. Guess that is the possible harmful effect.

 

Assumption? Yes as is almost everything you are proposing. I guess for me it comes to this: You want some caches to be excluded from being search by some because it either did not make the list for some arbitrary reason or opted to not participate. There are few, if any examples, where rating systems work unless done with extensive analysis of verifiable stats (not what is being proposed here).

 

If a rating system is imposed, the sun will still come up tomorrow, taxes will still be owed, the earth will continue to revolve around the sun, the oceans won't dry up and caching will go on, however effort will have been wasted on a flawed system that will be more of a hindrance than a blessing to the majority of those using the system and eventually amount to nothing more than cyber clutter on the site.

 

Y'all have fun debating this further, my number of posts on the subject far exceed my interest in it.

Edited October 17, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+BalkanSabranje]

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.

 

No.

[+tozainamboku]

If you are asking for finders to rate each cache on a scale of 1 to 5 and the rating is the average of all votes you may not see much difference between caches. The ratings will likely be skewed high on all caches because people already tend to hunt the kinds of caches they like and avoid the types they don't like. People also tend to vote only if they have something good to say and this tendancy will be higher still if the voter feels that his vote isn't really annonymous. Since people are different, on average caches will get average ranking. Sure there will be exceptional cache that will stand out with higher or lower rankings but I guessthat 95% of caches will rank betweenn 2 and 4 and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 2 and 4. You assume there is such a thing as an average cacher. I'm not so sure there is.

 

This issue has been resolved long ago with the use of algorithms. Jeremy himself made reference to this.

I believe Jeremy was refering to algorithms for an affinity grouping - "People who liked this cache also liked ..." I'm not sure how well this would work, but if Jeremy has some methodology in mind to implement this it would be much better than a cache ranking system like you are suggesting. At least once I find a cache I like or think I might like I could get other recommendations based on knowing that they came from people that liked the first cache.

 

Since there are a lot more park and grabs, by limiting the list to the each person's top 10% means that these votes will be split among more caches while the difficult caches that get only a few visits will like show up on a higher percentage of their finders top 10% lists. If there is a ranking based on the number of top 10% lists the cache shows up on, sbell may be right that the highest ranking caches will be park and grabs, but SG-MIN is also right that these will be the best park and grabs. (By best, I mean most often recommended) On the other hand if the ranking were based on the percentage of visitors that had this cache on their top 10% list, the highest ranked caches would probably be the most difficult ones with few visitors and the list would probably not be as useful for people looking for park and grabs. It may be that providing the raw number of top 10% lists the cache is on will allow people to find which caches among those that meet other criteria have the most recommendations. This method still has a problems, since newer caches would have had fewer visits and thus be on fewer top 10% lists.

or you could use a rating system that gave you a general idea of cache quality no matter what you prefer. You get more information with a rating system.

Please define cache quality. Oh, you try in the next paragraph. See my response there.

 

As I stated above, averaging the rating of many cachers does not tell us what most people prefer, only what the average rating of the cache is. I still don't know what an average cacher is. So I doubt that system will be as useful as SG-MIN thinks it would be. However, from experience, I suspect that there are exceptional caches that people like and recommend as "don't miss this cache if you are ever in ...." That's why, in spite of its problems, I wouldn't object to a system that consolidates top 10% lists to find caches that get recommended.

Lets look at it this way. Lets say there are 3 caches right off an exit that is along a route that I am caching. Each are equidistance away. One is a rusted altoids tin behind a convienant story that is attached to a dumpster. The other is a film canister under a lamp skirt at Walmart, and the last is a magnet key holder under a park bench overlooking the city in a historic location.

 

Now each of these are micros, each are along my route, each are park and grabs that get found very frequently. I think that all of us can distiguish the better cache here regardless of our personal taste. I am looking for a system that lets me know that in general, the cache on the park bench is probably a better find that the other. I don't care what the system is - I just want a general idea.

 

as it stands now, the only way I have to tell which is more worth my time is read all the cache logs, and for the sake of arguement, lets say I don't have the time. Now the park bench is obviosly the better of the 3 caches. It probably would not make it on my top 10% list, but it is deffinetly more worth my time then the dumpster cache.

 

Does this help you all understand what I am thinking through. I think all of us would appreciate a system that tends to bring us to caches that most people consider to be more worth your time than others.

From the information you give I cannot respond which of the 3 caches I would prefer. I see you like caches on park benches overlooking the city in a historic location. (Maybe you should be looking for Cityscape waymarks ) Perhaps when I went, some muggles were sitting on the bench and I could not retrieve the cache, or perhaps when I got down to look under the bench I found where someone didn't scoop up the poop from their dog. Perhaps that day, I just happened to have to stop to grab something at Walmart. That cache in the lamp skirt was just what I needed for a quick find while doing errands. Maybe that rusted altoids tin, even though the hider could have found a better place than attached to a dumpster, happened to be camouflaged in some unique way that made it stand out. Or perhaps I had to work a really fun puzzle to get its coordinates. I can understand when you say you want a way to find the best caches when you visit an area outside your normal caching area. I can understand why you may want to avoid certain caches that you don't like when caching outside your area (although it may be harder to define these as the person who hides a light skirt hide or an altoids tin on a dumpster may think that their cache is really great - and it might be for certain cachers) . I find you are certainly not the average cacher if you think that for the vast majority of caches that lie in between it makes any difference that you found one and skipped another. Instead of worrying that you missed something that would have been marginally more fun to you, just enjoy the caches you found.

[+sbell111]

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.

 

No.

I agree. I'd be more likely to decide not to do anyone else any favors and stop placing any new caches.

[+BalkanSabranje]

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.

 

No.

I agree. I'd be more likely to decide not to do anyone else any favors and stop placing any new caches.

 

Exactly my thoughts.

[+TrailGators]

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.

No.

I agree. I'd be more likely to decide not to do anyone else any favors and stop placing any new caches.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

I think the point to let let everyone know where they can find the most enjoyable caches. This doesn't hurt anybody's feelings and it does provide an incentive to many. But we all know that there are some people that just can't be motivated.

 

I also think a significant percentage of the people actually enjoy finding an Altoids tin hidden under a lamp post cover. Yes, I know it's hard to believe.... But these people could not possibly expect that these caches would ever be selected by the majority of their peers as being "the best of the best"?

Edited October 17, 2006 by TrailGators

[+baloo&bd]

[+Tharagleb]

Toz said:

I believe Jeremy was refering to algorithms for an affinity grouping - "People who liked this cache also liked ..." I'm not sure how well this would work, but if Jeremy has some methodology in mind to implement this it would be much better than a cache ranking system like you are suggesting. At least once I find a cache I like or think I might like I could get other recommendations based on knowing that they came from people that liked the first cache.

 

Okay, this idea is the only one I have seen that I can support. Even though Amazon uses it to sell me all kinds of stuff.

[+TrailGators]

Toz said:

I believe Jeremy was refering to algorithms for an affinity grouping - "People who liked this cache also liked ..." I'm not sure how well this would work, but if Jeremy has some methodology in mind to implement this it would be much better than a cache ranking system like you are suggesting. At least once I find a cache I like or think I might like I could get other recommendations based on knowing that they came from people that liked the first cache.

 

Okay, this idea is the only one I have seen that I can support. Even though Amazon uses it to sell me all kinds of stuff.

 

I like that idea too! Of course I like any idea that saves me from reading through every cache description and the logs to try to figure which ones are the really good ones because there are so many banal ones these days. We all have so much free time to do this......

 

I am also still amazed that so many people argue about which caches are the best. The best ones seem so obvious to me. I could name 5-10 in a heartbeat...Perhaps if they imagined that a TV crew was filming a special about Geocaching and that they were asked to be the guide. Which caches would they take the TV crew to film? Would they take them behind the Wal-Mart to find a cache next to a smelly trash dumpster? The reality is that all these people would know where to take the TV crew. They just enjoy being argumentative in this thread.

Edited October 17, 2006 by TrailGators

[+SG-MIN]

I too am done debating. Here is where I stand:

 

A vast majority of geocachers would prefer the parkbench to the dumpster in the above example (if all other things were equal). Playing devil's advocate is a waste of time and doesn't prove your point any more.

 

Any system, whether rating or best of the best, or other that helps me determine quickly which is more worth the time in the above situation is worth it in my opinion.

 

I am sick of squabling. I really want to know what GC.com thinks about it. As stated before, if they really are against it for all the reason you stated, I am willing to never bring this up again. I just want to know official stances, and not assumptions and speculations.

 

I have heard all the arguements. Unless we hear from GC.com, I think we are at an impass.

Edited October 17, 2006 by SG-MIN

[+StarBrand]

If you are asking for finders to rate each cache on a scale of 1 to 5 and the rating is the average of all votes you may not see much difference between caches. The ratings will likely be skewed high on all caches because people already tend to hunt the kinds of caches they like and avoid the types they don't like. People also tend to vote only if they have something good to say and this tendancy will be higher still if the voter feels that his vote isn't really annonymous. Since people are different, on average caches will get average ranking. Sure there will be exceptional cache that will stand out with higher or lower rankings but I guessthat 95% of caches will rank betweenn 2 and 4 and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 2 and 4. You assume there is such a thing as an average cacher. I'm not so sure there is.

 

Totally agreed - I have often argued along these lines myself.

[+Cache Heads]

What I'd really love is a feature to rate forum topics....

[+TrailGators]

I really want to know what GC.com thinks about it.

So do I!