Cache Ratings

October 18, 2006

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.

I know this was stated early but I do agree with it.

Please, look me up when you get to Morgantown. My brother (wvhunter) and I will be more than happy to offer our services as a tour guide(s). Of course mine are the best in the area, but that's subjective.

Really, contact me prior and we'll find a few.

Sorry to wander OT

October 18, 2006

How about this for a system:

Premium members are allowed to recommend (N=5 or N=10% or whatever) caches. No rating, just "I liked this cache."
Either on page load, on request, or nightly, all the "recommend lists" that mention that particular cache are totaled, and the top 5 (or 3, or 10, or a random 3 of the top 10) are returned as "Cachers who liked this cache, also liked..." results.

The result would be that caches that are exceptional would get a *lot* of advertising, and caches that are interesting, but not yet well known would be flagged in the more well known caches.

Also, since someone who is likely to recommend a particular cache type is probably more likely to recommend others of that type, this gets around the "I hate puzzles, I don't want to see highly rated puzzle caches!" argument.

My 2 cents, anyway.

grnbrg.

14.3k · October 18, 2006

How about this for a system:
Premium members are allowed to recommend (N=5 or N=10% or whatever) caches. No rating, just "I liked this cache."

Either on page load, on request, or nightly, all the "recommend lists" that mention that particular cache are totaled, and the top 5 (or 3, or 10, or a random 3 of the top 10) are returned as "Cachers who liked this cache, also liked..." results.

The result would be that caches that are exceptional would get a *lot* of advertising, and caches that are interesting, but not yet well known would be flagged in the more well known caches.

Also, since someone who is likely to recommend a particular cache type is probably more likely to recommend others of that type, this gets around the "I hate puzzles, I don't want to see highly rated puzzle caches!" argument.

My 2 cents, anyway.

grnbrg.

Great idea but I'm going to have to Markwell that with a Markwell written by Markwell!

October 18, 2006

Okay, so I was thinking last night (Note: This is a new idea, not a continuation of a prior "discussion") Most people seem much more hospitable to the idea of compiled favorites list (i.e. Best of the Best.) and I think that would be an awesome idea.

Most of the ideas refer to being in the top 10%. A problem with that is that to enforce 10%, it would have to be linked to number of finds, which is something everyone is kind of skittish about. (I mean anyone could go add a bunch of finds to their lists just so they could vote. This does also tend to favor park and grabbers. I would hate to be an epic cacher that only does 5/5 and not be able to recommend all of them that are incredible). Some cachers would add more, some less, it would even out

So here is my thought. First, I think we have to do away with the percentage idea. It makes sense in theory, but I think a general compilation of favorites lists accomplishes the same goal.

Now here is the kicker... in order to facilitate ease of use, on the cache log page there is a check box labeled "Would you like to add this cache to your 'Recommended' list?" and every user (or PM only) would have a recommended cache list which they could edit as any other favorites list.

Everything else functions just the same, we just make it easier for people to create their lists. Thus encouraging input from the community.

Here is why I think I am on to something. It is all positive so no one gets their egos hurt. It makes the compiled favorites list (Best of the Best) easier to use and easier to manage. Basically, we just look at that check box as a easy way to add a cache to a favorites list.

Now there are some options here. We can leave it as a favorites list, so when you go the cache page you can see whose list the cache is on (Basically in this sense it just encourages people to use favorites). We could not show whose list the cache is on, but keep a running tally on the top ("Recommended by 15 Finders" or "10 of 40 Finders Recommend This Cache (25%)" or "Recommended by 5 Finders"). If you can see who recommends it, local cachers can follow the advice of cachers they trust.

At a minimum, there could be some search function. I am indifferent as to how specific it is. It could be something as simple as a box on the PQ form that says "Only caches that have been recommended" or something more specific "Caches that have are recommended by __% or better." You could even have a link to: "Most recommended caches in (insert state here)" Although I think would generally be a bad idea.

In Sum: At a minimum, the above system encourages favorite lists and thus gives our community more input. At best, it gives people some sort of search function without hurting anyone's feelings. It would be easy to use, easy to ignore, provide helpful information even to those against rating systems (in fact, this is not a rating system, it is a recommendation system).

Any thoughts? I honestly think this idea could appease most people (with some tweaking). Oh and lets not play devil's advocate to the extreme here, yes I know people can set up sock puppet accounts, etc, etc, etc. Lets work under the general assumption that people are honest (after all, we do leave our possessions out in the open and tell people where they are and hope they do not steal them).

Edited October 18, 2006 by SG-MIN

October 18, 2006

being in the top 10%

A few remarks about such a rating system.

1. It is probably far less reliable than you might think. For those who know a bit statistics, have a look at the binomial distribution with p=0.1 and compare the size of the standard deviation to the mean for some n you deem reasonable. Even if this is an extremely simplified model, there is nothing thrilling about the accurateness of the outcome.

2. By using such a system, one is throwing away information. Any system that uses only binary information like here (yes=in the list, no=not in the list) is inferior to any system that uses more shades (like the 1 to 5 stars mentionned in this thread). What worsens the information content of this statistic is the fact that the yes'ses don't occur 1 in 2 times but only 1 in 10. An information measure (entropy) differs by a factor 5 in this case.

3. Have manually compiled such lists in my country (Belgium). Very interesting but what came on top in this list, were long hikes, multicaches requiring several hours or near a day.

The Dutch have started a similar system on their website. The table equally shows caches that people consider as memorable but again these are - looking at the cache descriptions - complicated well elaborated mysterycaches or long hikes.

It looks like such a system would not help much the traveller in a foreign city or country with limited time available.

Also, this example makes clear that quality (average as in a rating system or individual as in a cache recommendation system) is multidimensional and that time is an important dimension in this set.

October 18, 2006

I have one question or reply to this idea.

Why not have option to give not recommended mark?

I think caches have too sides and this suggested fantasy rating system gives an idea that no recommendations is a bad one.

And only positive system isn't real.

Edited October 18, 2006 by small oaks

October 18, 2006

I have one question or reply to this idea.

Why not have option to give not recommended mark?

I think caches have too sides and this suggested fantasy rating system gives an idea that no recommendations is a bad one.

And only positive system isn't real.

Personally, after rereading through this thread... we do not want to go there. From what I can tell, my last proposal seems to cover all the bases

1.5k · October 19, 2006

I'd rather see no rating system at all than one that is one sided.

October 19, 2006

I'd rather see no rating system at all than one that is one sided.

And you are calling a system that is based on positive recommendations 1 sided?

October 19, 2006

I have one question or reply to this idea.

Why not have option to give not recommended mark?

I think caches have too sides and this suggested fantasy rating system gives an idea that no recommendations is a bad one.

And only positive system isn't real.

Personally, after rereading through this thread... we do not want to go there. From what I can tell, my last proposal seems to cover all the bases

It's your thread. Thank you for putting this request here.

Few remaks again.

I agree now that its not all on sided and positive as I first wrote. There is negative side too. Caches with no recommendations. How positive are those?

Other point is that people will follow those recommendations if this choosing option is given.

Someday you are visiting a cache with many recommendations and you notice that it wasn't that amazing experience that some people recommends it would be. Maybe some friendly neigbour cachers have so good relations.. What you can Do? Write found it log and be happy . Only that you are not satisfy with the recommendations. So is there any place for argues why this and that cache is recommended? And place you can put your disagreement sometimes.

One more idea.

This is propably not well tought and many times discussed thrown away idea but I throw this here again.

How about you have option to give , , , , Smilies or similar logos in found it place where there is only nowadays.

Even blue not found smilies could have more variation, only in blue colour. As many times you are not sad if you didn't find the cache as the multi and micro and others were so fun to seek that you could give Blue happy smilie. This could give an idea what kind of feeling the find was...I know there can be smilies in a log already but it would be different. Found it cache with many would be quite special! Other people would notice these too.

Edited October 19, 2006 by small oaks

14.3k · October 19, 2006

Someday you are visiting a cache with many recommendations and you notice that it wasn't that amazing experience that some people recommends it would be. Maybe some friendly neigbour cachers have so good relations.. What you can Do?

This is no different than the situation we have now.

One more idea.
How about you have option to give , , , , Smilies or similar logos in found it place where there is only nowadays.

I like this idea!

3.2k · October 19, 2006

Someday you are visiting a cache with many recommendations and you notice that it wasn't that amazing experience that some people recommends it would be. Maybe some friendly neigbour cachers have so good relations.. What you can Do?
This is no different than the situation we have now.

One more idea.
How about you have option to give , , , , Smilies or similar logos in found it place where there is only nowadays.

I like this idea!

OK, I know I said I was done, but this begs a response.

I like this idea as well, however how does it solve the original problem as stated that people were to lazy to read the logs or desriptions? You still have to go in there to see these.

14.3k · October 19, 2006

Someday you are visiting a cache with many recommendations and you notice that it wasn't that amazing experience that some people recommends it would be. Maybe some friendly neigbour cachers have so good relations.. What you can Do?
This is no different than the situation we have now.

One more idea.
How about you have option to give , , , , Smilies or similar logos in found it place where there is only nowadays.

I like this idea!

OK, I know I said I was done, but this begs a response.

I like this idea as well, however how does it solve the original problem as stated that people were to lazy to read the logs or desriptions? You still have to go in there to see these.

I don't think people are lazy, I think they are very busy. People that aren't very busy don't understand this...If you are on a business trip and suddenly have a couple of free hours you don't want to spend that time reading all the caches to figure out which caches are the best ones.....

I think there would be a way to count vs to allow people to run PQs for caches that have a high percentage of vs. !

Edited October 19, 2006 by TrailGators

1.5k · October 19, 2006

I'd rather see no rating system at all than one that is one sided.
And you are calling a system that is based on positive recommendations 1 sided?

Yes, I am. Not all caches are positive, in fact some of them are down right aweful.

9.4k · October 19, 2006

I'd rather see no rating system at all than one that is one sided.
And you are calling a system that is based on positive recommendations 1 sided?

Yes, I am. Not all caches are positive, in fact some of them are down right aweful.

I'm guessing that the lack of compliments would be a good indicator.

October 19, 2006

Jeremy, Thanks for joining our conversation. We all have been waiting to hear your thoughts. Anything in the works with a ratings / Best of the Best system? Have you all decided against it? Should we just drop it?

14.3k · October 19, 2006

Jeremy, Thanks for joining our conversation. We all have been waiting to hear your thoughts. Anything in the works with a ratings / Best of the Best system? Have you all decided against it? Should we just drop it?

I would too like to know if the horse is dead or not! <_<

Edited October 19, 2006 by TrailGators

October 19, 2006

Jeremy, Thanks for joining our conversation. We all have been waiting to hear your thoughts. Anything in the works with a ratings / Best of the Best system? Have you all decided against it? Should we just drop it?
I would too like to know if the horse is dead or not!

That was quite an edit their trail gators. While I agree with your origninal point, I would much rather hear from Jeremy what his thoughts are. There has been so much speculation, and often passionate debate, I really think it would help to hear from TPTB

1.5k · October 19, 2006

It would all depend on how many people used the feature. If it became common practice, then absolutely yes, the lack of compliments would be a great indicator, and that would work just fine.

14.3k · October 19, 2006

Jeremy, Thanks for joining our conversation. We all have been waiting to hear your thoughts. Anything in the works with a ratings / Best of the Best system? Have you all decided against it? Should we just drop it?
I would too like to know if the horse is dead or not!
That was quite an edit their trail gators. While I agree with your origninal point, I would much rather hear from Jeremy what his thoughts are. There has been so much speculation, and often passionate debate, I really think it would help to hear from TPTB

I would really like to know where this stands too, and that's why I edited my post. I do think more and more people are starting to see the value in knowing which caches are most recommended. I myself would much rather find one really good cache than 50 *yawn* caches!

Edited October 19, 2006 by TrailGators

20.7k · October 19, 2006

It would all depend on how many people used the feature. If it became common practice, then absolutely yes, the lack of compliments would be a great indicator, and that would work just fine.

Isn't that the exact system that we have used since day one?

14.3k · October 19, 2006

I think the lack of response from TPTB means we will have to continue to read all the cache logs or ask others for recommendations. I find asking others that enjoy caches that I enjoy is the best way for me. Many of us make bookmarks with our favorites. I use those too! Most of the lame caches are urban caches so I have begun to avoid those. IMHO urbans are good for pumping up numbers and that is about it. I cache to escape the rat race so why would I turn caching into a rat race? <_<

Edited October 20, 2006 by TrailGators

October 31, 2006

There is a current rating system? What is it, reading the logs?

The number one thing to fix the problem is to allow more filter fields in the search. There are plenty of attributes that are attached to a cache, why can't I filter on those? Show me all caches in this area with "significant hike" and "scenic view" attributes. Is that a premium option? If it is, maybe that should be made more clear and I'll upgrade right now.

I live in Western Mass. I naturally want to snag all the local caches I can. Even the cheesy park and grab (great for rainy days). But if I get a week off of work, I can go into the New Hampshire mountains. Read the logs? How many caches do you suspect are in all of New Hampshire. What if I just want to go somewhere in New England? Reading the log files only works if I have a specific destination in mind. I'd like to pick my destination because of the cache, NOT pick the cache because of the destination. In fact I'm only guessing at the mountains because I -think- there are going to be great caches there. What if there are a bunch of highly rated caches in the city?

I'm not so interested so much in an actual rating system, but anything that will separate the ten minute parking lot cache from the epic hiking caches.

And to respond to "...just too lazy to read the log entries", I'm not going to read through 150 caches' log entries. I might get a half hour to an hour of computer time after taking care of children, putting them to bed, bills, cleaning and so on. I read what I can, but just because I don't read them all, does not mean that I am lazy. Having some way to get recommendations, ratings, favorites, whatever helps get me off the computer faster, and into the woods.

Hate to compare to site like slashdot, but as far as ratings, it doesn't have to be just 1-5 stars. Slashdot also has categories like "Informative" and "Funny". So that really neato kayak cache might be "+5 Unique". It's been said that ratings will only hurt geocaching. I tend to stay in the traditional caches, however I think there is also a chance people would break from their normal mode to check out that "+5 Puzzler" to see what all the fuss is about.

Anyway, to sum it up. I'd like to plan geocaching getaways and vacations. I'd like to pick the destination based on the caches. I've only been able to search for caches based on location. I might get lucky searching for keyword, but good luck. I'd really like to just pull up a map of New England, then start filtering out the caches based on the attributes. Then head off to the area with the most dense cluster. Three day weekend, here I come.

October 31, 2006

There is a current rating system? What is it, reading the logs?

The number one thing to fix the problem is to allow more filter fields in the search. There are plenty of attributes that are attached to a cache, why can't I filter on those? Show me all caches in this area with "significant hike" and "scenic view" attributes. Is that a premium option? If it is, maybe that should be made more clear and I'll upgrade right now.

Groundspeak will be expecting your subscription anytime now.

Yes it is possible. I just ran a pocketquery that gave me the closest 500 caches to your last find that were either a scenic view or involved a stenuous hike.

you can download the file and take a look at www.kickert.info/qteam.zip

October 31, 2006

Gah! From the description, it sounded like it was only for downloading waypoints.

Pocket Queries

Hand-entering geocache coordinates is tedious, and you run the risk of developing repetitive motion injuries if you hunt more than a few caches in a day. With a Pocket Query you can download up to 500 specifically defined geocache waypoints directly to your GPS in a flash!

October 31, 2006

that "specificly defined" is what you are paying the big buck ($3/month) for!!

It really is worth it.

8.9k · October 31, 2006

Gah! From the description, it sounded like it was only for downloading waypoints.

Pocket Queries

Hand-entering geocache coordinates is tedious, and you run the risk of developing repetitive motion injuries if you hunt more than a few caches in a day. With a Pocket Query you can download up to 500 specifically defined geocache waypoints directly to your GPS in a flash!

Well there is my FAQ

20.7k · October 31, 2006

Well there is my FAQ

Something tells me that most people don't use your FAQ.

October 31, 2006

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

To me that's the biggest issue of the lot. And, that varies from region to region on top of that. We do travel, and its interesting to see from logs what people in each area consider good. Some areas are puzzle mad, some like longer hikes, others like dash and grab and so on. So what makes a good cache. I haven't read anywhere a consistent definition of that and any rating system to be useful would require agreement on that. We won't get it.

So, at least from the logs I can get information about what kind of hide it is, (long walk, under lamp post, dash and grab, muddy, rail trail, etc.). From any rating system I'm just going to get a number. To figure out what that number means I'm going to have to read the logs. So, its no time saver and of very limited usefulness.

Lets stop beating this horse.

JD

14.3k · October 31, 2006

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

To me that's the biggest issue of the lot. And, that varies from region to region on top of that. We do travel, and its interesting to see from logs what people in each area consider good. Some areas are puzzle mad, some like longer hikes, others like dash and grab and so on. So what makes a good cache. I haven't read anywhere a consistent definition of that and any rating system to be useful would require agreement on that. We won't get it.

So, at least from the logs I can get information about what kind of hide it is, (long walk, under lamp post, dash and grab, muddy, rail trail, etc.). From any rating system I'm just going to get a number. To figure out what that number means I'm going to have to read the logs. So, its no time saver and of very limited usefulness.

Lets stop beating this horse.

JD

I don't think this is a problem at all. I'll use a restaurant analogy to make my point. There are many different restaurants that serve many types of food. In the same way there are many cache types. However, knowing the type of restaurant doesn't tell you if the food is any good. But if you could see which of the restaurants (that's serves the kind of food you like) had the most recommendations then that would be useful information. The same is true of a cache. Restaurants that serve crappy food go out of business and restaurants that serve excellent food thrive! But this is not true for a cache.

November 1, 2006

Or if I may, if you are going to a specific area, lets say Nashville for sbell's sake, and you really like puzzle caches, a rating system could help you. If there are 200 puzzle caches in nashville and you can only do 3, would you not want to do the 3 that people in the community generally prefer.

JD - I have a real simply solution for you... DON"T USE IT IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED. In the mean time, if it would help me, let me have my fun. The horse isn't dead yet.

1.6k · November 1, 2006

The concept of "If you don't like it, don't use it" doesn't really apply. You cannot ignore certain aspects that exist ON a cache page, you can just choose to overlook them.

Things you can overlook are Type of Cache, Size of Cache, Difficulty of Cache, Terrain of Location.

Strangely enough, to me this IS a Rating System. I can look at those 4 variables and know pretty much if I will enjoy the cache or not.

For even more details from a cache page, referring to the owner provided Attribute Icons will further enhance my expectations.

:blink: The Blue Quasar

8k · November 1, 2006

Or if I may, if you are going to a specific area, lets say Nashville for sbell's sake, and you really like puzzle caches, a rating system could help you. If there are 200 puzzle caches in nashville and you can only do 3, would you not want to do the 3 that people in the community generally prefer.

JD - I have a real simply solution for you... DON"T USE IT IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED. In the mean time, if it would help me, let me have my fun. The horse isn't dead yet.

That's a bad example. If I were to do puzzle caches and only had time to do 3 of them, I would do the three that I have solved :blink: . Generally, when I travel and have limited time to geocache I just grab what is nearby. Actually the lame urban hides are perfect for getting in some geocaching while on a business trip. If I was planning a vacation around geocaching, I would take the time to read logs and choose caches more carefully. Local cachers' favorite lists might help me and maybe even a system that helps find caches that show up on multiple favorites list. I don't see how I would use the rating since, until I find a few caches, I wouldn't have a way to calibrate how the community views caches. There are bound to be regional differences. One region may rank micros higher if they are in scenic areas while another region may rank micros higher if they have a unique hiding technique (which I may have see 100 times in L.A.) I understand that some people choose to go to a movie because it was the most popular or choose to only listen to music that is in the top 40. I perfer to get a little more information before making my choices. I also accept the fact that sometimes I will be disappointed, but that makes the times when I find an unexpected gem that much better.

14.3k · November 1, 2006

The concept of "If you don't like it, don't use it" doesn't really apply. You cannot ignore certain aspects that exist ON a cache page, you can just choose to overlook them.

Things you can overlook are Type of Cache, Size of Cache, Difficulty of Cache, Terrain of Location.

Strangely enough, to me this IS a Rating System. I can look at those 4 variables and know pretty much if I will enjoy the cache or not.

For even more details from a cache page, referring to the owner provided Attribute Icons will further enhance my expectations.

The Blue Quasar

I am totally in agreement with SG-MIN and Markwell and others on this concept. So much so that I manually created a Favorites list for San Diego. It is a concensus of "I like" and "he likes" and "she likes" and etc.....It also works very well because it has captured the caches that everyone should do whenever they visit San Diego! Of course you can filter these favorites based on terrain, difficulty and attributes.... :blink:

Edited November 1, 2006 by TrailGators

November 1, 2006

Things you can overlook are Type of Cache, Size of Cache, Difficulty of Cache, Terrain of Location.

Strangely enough, to me this IS a Rating System. I can look at those 4 variables and know pretty much if I will enjoy the cache or not.

For even more details from a cache page, referring to the owner provided Attribute Icons will further enhance my expectations.

I am going to call your bluff on this one. Looking at your profile I would say you generally like multi's more than most people. Also, you tend you go after slightly harder caches than average and prefer them to regular sized caches, but you will tolerate smalls.

So all that being said, if we were to go find all the regular sized, 2.5 / 2.5 multi-caches, even with those distinctions, some of those are always going to be better than the others. In fact they will run the gamat between awsome and awful. All you have addressed is specific types of caches. Within those types there will always be some that stand out. I am advocating for an easy way to find those that stand out.

1.6k · November 3, 2006

FOLD. I had 6 of spades and 3 of hearts.

Okay, just kidding... You are totally correct in your assessment of my preferrences.

That might be based upon what is around me, but I do prefer caches that are more involved. Multi's are by far my favourite.

And I do maintain a list of what I consider to be good caches locally, both my taste, as well as from a "If I was a tourist, what would I think was worth seeing".

My Favourites Locally

Recommended for Tourists

I still want to make that list you requested about Bowling Green caches. But when it comes to local caching, I find everything within 30 miles / 50 kilometers and when I go outside of that radius, it is with a specific cache in mind.

The rating thing might be nice, I don't think I'd use it much. A local bookmark list is good enough for me.

:tired: The Blue Quasar

November 3, 2006

Things you can overlook are Type of Cache, Size of Cache, Difficulty of Cache, Terrain of Location.

Strangely enough, to me this IS a Rating System. I can look at those 4 variables and know pretty much if I will enjoy the cache or not.

For even more details from a cache page, referring to the owner provided Attribute Icons will further enhance my expectations.

I am going to call your bluff on this one. Looking at your profile I would say you generally like multi's more than most people. Also, you tend you go after slightly harder caches than average and prefer them to regular sized caches, but you will tolerate smalls.

So all that being said, if we were to go find all the regular sized, 2.5 / 2.5 multi-caches, even with those distinctions, some of those are always going to be better than the others. In fact they will run the gamat between awsome and awful. All you have addressed is specific types of caches. Within those types there will always be some that stand out. I am advocating for an easy way to find those that stand out.

I agree with Quazar, there is a rating system to guide one to a cache of their liking. Yet I also agree there should be a rating system. I believe if the cache is found it is rated by the finder in their "Found Cache" post on a scale of 1 to 10. The data base can then average that rating with the others posted. Hence, an averaged rating above 7 would say that this cache is higher then average with average being a 5. My guess would be that the majority of caches found would be around 5 or 6.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Tahoe1849er

3.9k · November 3, 2006

We already have a rating system of sorts, in that lots of people have "my top 20" bookmark lists.

When I scan those lists which belong to my friends, I'm surprised at how disappointed I am by the fact that this or that cache of mine - which I think is pretty cool, and certainly a lot better than *this* or *that* one which did make it onto their list - isn't in there.

So I've gone from being in favour of a rating system, to preferring to let sleeping dogs lie.

Of course, it could just be that I need to put out better caches (I'm trying!). But mechanically, 50% of caches are going to score below the median, just as 50% of us are worse drivers/lovers/programmers than the average (nobody here, of course, obviously).

November 3, 2006

Just remember... half the people you meet are below average.

Additionally, half the caches you visit are below average.

18.9k · November 3, 2006

Yes but a recent survey found that 80% of all drivers on the road believe they are above average with driving skills.

All in the eye of the beholder.

3.9k · November 3, 2006

And 50% of doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class... so always get a second opinion. :laughing:

8k · November 3, 2006

Just remember... half the people you meet are below average.

Additionally, half the caches you visit are below average.

I cache in Lake Wobegon :mad:

November 5, 2006

Ratings are an interesting way to get some subjective feedback. I think it would be far more interesting to add a tagging system to better categorize the caches. Del.ico.us does a good job of bring context to random stuff, wouldn't a similar concept work here. The biggest shortcoming I experience results from the inefficient attribute system, adding a social element would better classify things. Ratings are so one dimentional in presentation but subjective in assignment.

14.3k · November 5, 2006

Ratings are an interesting way to get some subjective feedback. I think it would be far more interesting to add a tagging system to better categorize the caches. Del.ico.us does a good job of bring context to random stuff, wouldn't a similar concept work here. The biggest shortcoming I experience results from the inefficient attribute system, adding a social element would better classify things. Ratings are so one dimentional in presentation but subjective in assignment.

I think you mean http://del.icio.us/ . But that is an interesting idea! At this point anything that helps us separate the wheat from the chaff would be a breath of fresh air!

1.6k · November 6, 2006

I still advocate DPM... But who's to say what is lame and what isn't. One man's treasure is another man's WM lamp post hide. I think we all know "generally" what we could consider lame, but part of the beauty of this sport is that you never know what you are going to find in the end.

And if you insist on instituting a cache rating system then you need to prepare for:

"The Great Cache Suicide of 2006®"

I'm sure a lot of insecure hiders will pull their caches when:

They don't get enough of your "cool" points

They don't get any "cool" points

They start getting your "lame" points

They don't want to be judged

and I once had a boss that said "You can't beat a dead horse enough"

14.3k · November 6, 2006

I still think that caches that most people enjoy should qualify for a select status (of some sort) and be tagged so we can PQ them. I really don't think that someone that hides a film cannister behind the Wal-Mart would expect to be chosen for that. So there would be no hurt feelings.

Edited November 6, 2006 by TrailGators

Cache Ratings

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment