CACHE RATINGS

[dakotaduff]

Caches should be rated. I don't care what (*flame alert*) medieval and pathetic arguments are made against having ratings. The same arguments could be made for the movies on Netflix or IMDB and products on Amazon.com. However, the vast majority of people find ratings to be extremely helpful—which is why the topic keeps coming up on these boards.

 

When collecting any sort of information it is important to remember that you can never have too much relevant data. Every cache find that is logged without a rating is a lost opportunity to gather data. You can always modify how the data is used or displayed, but the collection of the data is the most important step.

 

The simple truth is that a rating system would encourage higher-quality caches and enhance the geocaching experience by providing cachers with better tailored results. It would even be fairly easy to chart a cache's average rating over time, as I'm sure that some caches and their locations tend to go up or down in quality over the course of a few years.

 

I'm a little shocked at many of the comments I've read from those who are worried about manipulation of a rating system. Manipulation is certainly possible—though preventative measures are easy to take—but manipulation of an cache's rating doesn't seem to be something to worry about in an even requiring as much trust as geocaching.

 

Putting a rating system in place would be fairly easy to do, and I would be willing to spend a little of my own time coding the PHP if needed—as I'm sure others would be, too.

 

For those veterans who notice that this is my first post and I'm pretty new at caching, I understand why you might feel that I have no authority on the matter. However, the number of caches grows daily and some are placed without much preparation, thought, or planning. New cachers might become discouraged or lose interest after making a half-dozen lengthy trips for poorly hidden caches that contain only items hastily pulled from gloveboxes and seatcushions.

[+StarBrand]

What you like - I might not. What I like - you may despise. With cache placements anyway.

 

Serious question - just what kind of system do you propose? Give details?

 

To me the best system would be to allow users to list up to 5% of caches they visited on a favorites list - you could then find out how many favorite lists a given cache appears on. A simple and fair system that doesn't allow anybody to slam a cache except via log entries. Also allows the truely good ones to stand out as an example for others.

[+ThePropers]

What you like - I might not. What I like - you may despise. With cache placements anyway.

 

Serious question - just what kind of system do you propose? Give details?

 

To me the best system would be to allow users to list up to 5% of caches they visited on a favorites list - you could then find out how many favorite lists a given cache appears on. A simple and fair system that doesn't allow anybody to slam a cache except via log entries. Also allows the truely good ones to stand out as an example for others.

 

I too like the idea of the favorites list (does this count as a dead horse topic) but I would settle for just being able to search for caches with more than X number of watchers. Not that a lot of people watching a cache is necessarily an indicator of it's greatness, but I think it would be a simple addition from a technical standpoint.

[+Monkeybrad]

I honestly think that this already exists. When planning a casual caching trip in an area I am unfamiliar with, I look for caches that are on positive bookmark lists and that have multiple watchers, that is usually a pretty good indicator that the cache is something special. When caching locally, I pretty much know what to expect based on the hider of the cache. This system has been working just fine and I have not noticed people messing with it yet.

 

If you start rating caches, then it becomes a competition and while some will raise the level of their caches, many will just work the system through friends and sockpuppets to increase the ratings. On top of that, differing tastes in caches will tend to make everything a 5 on a scale of 1-10. I like all kinds of caches, but many folks do not like hiking caches so they would rate them lower and other do not like super camouflaged micros, so they would lower the rating on those, people that loves those types would rate high leaving us with a nice 5, which is pretty much where we are today, knowing that any cache you hunt may either be great or unpleasant based on your own preferences.

 

One caveat, if this type of system were ever put in place, I would like to see the rating tied to found it logs, you should not be able to rate a cache you have not found. This would cut down on some of the misuse, but I still think it is a bad idea in the long run.

[+sbell111]

oy

[+Renegade Knight]

...Caches should be rated. I don't care what (*flame alert*) medieval and pathetic arguments are made against having ratings....Putting a rating system in place would be fairly easy to do, and I would be willing to spend a little of my own time coding the PHP if needed—as I'm sure others would be, too....[/font]

 

Useful ratings are not easy to implemenet. I don't care what elightened means and methods you care to use and even if you are 100% pro ratings.

 

A simplified rating system that would work (but not be as useful) has been discussed and even TPTB are on board for that though I don't get the feeling it's high on the priority list.

 

If you have PHP skills, Terracachers.org could use your help. Heck handicaching.com could probably use your help but that's a different kind of rating system (and just as hard to get it to work the way it's intended).

[+ReadyOrNot]

I recently created a thread in regards to a trip from Portland to Los Angeles this spring. I want to find only the top notch caches and try to avoid garbage. The only way that I can accomplish this is manually click through each cache on the route (and there are a lot of them) and note the following:

 

1) How many people are watching the cache? Although not a perfect indicator, it's a fairly good one

2) Read the last couple of logs to determine if the cache is still available and what kind of shape it is in

 

In addition, I've been trying to go to the local caching organizations to find out what good caches along my route are, but have not been getting responses to my inquiries.

 

Bottom line: A rating system NEEDS to be implemented. I'm not going to get into the whole discussion as to "how" because i've been through it too many times I agree with the OP though, start collecting the data NOW and decide what to do with it later.

 

Any rating system is subjective (that's just the nature of the beast).. There is a difference between asking, "Rate this cache from 0-10" (which would be VERY subjective) versus asking detailed questions such as "Rate the view, Rate the scenary, Rate the blah blah blah".. There's always going to be a certain variance in answers, but if it's got a crappy view, guarantee over a few ratings that the view # is going to be low. If it's got a great view, the number will be high.. If it's mediocre, it will be in the middle.

 

Maybe let the cache placer select the criteria that the cache will be rated on? Or allow the owner to not allow the cache to be rated ??? Right now TPTB are probably pretty busy trying to tackle the "Server too busy" to worry about a cache rating system.. Maybe when things calm down?

Edited January 5, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[dakotaduff]

What you like - I might not. What I like - you may despise. With cache placements anyway.

 

That's fair. But generally, good caches are good caches and poor caches are poor caches. The wisdom of the masses usually wins out, though, in my opinion. As far as placement goes, I'm of the opinion that this information is (for the most part) already available in the cache description. If I hate hiking through dense brush, I might not want to find a four-star cache that requires me to trek through a half-mile of undergrowth. But I might be willing to do it for a five-star cache.

 

Serious question - just what kind of system do you propose? Give details?

A simple average (which, I believe, is what Amazon uses) would be very easy to implement, and would be a nice starting point.

 

I feel that a Netflix-type system would be best. For those not familiar, Netflix gives two ratings. It might say "Average of all users: 4.5 stars; Users like you: 2.3 stars". I think this is great, as it not only gives me an idea of what movie-snobs like myself think, but also an idea of what the general public thinks.

 

Of course, "users like you" is very open to interpretation. The more data that is known about a user, the better. If a user is wheelchair-bound they may favor the opinions of others who reached the cache via wheelchair. With an advanced enough algorithm, it would be possible to allow the user to control the weight of other users ratings based on profile information (which probably doesn't exist yet). For instance users may be most interested in challenging terrain, interesting cache contents, scenic locations, etc. Anyone who's familiar with Facebook has probably seen the sliders which help determine what kind of information gets reported to them, and a similar feature could allow a cacher to help specify what parameters they most desire in a cache find.

 

An entirely different model would weight a user's rating on their experience. A rating from a cacher who's only found two or three caches would have a miniscule effect on the cache's overall rating, while someone who's found a few hundred would have a heavier weight in determining the overall score.

 

However, for any of these methods to work, the most essential thing that needs to take place is data collection. I think that a 1-5 star rating is adequate. It may be nice to rate on a few different qualities. The ones I can think of might be:

 

* Overall (obvious)

* Location (How enjoyable was discovering this place? Was it a beautiful overlook or or did the "enjoyable hike" mean you had to walk two miles down a dirt path with nothing to look at but corn stalks?)

* Contents (Did the cache contain interesting log entries and items, or just some pocket lint and gum wrappers?)

 

Obviously these are very subjective things to judge a cache on, but that's the point! There's already plenty of objective information available on the site (approximate number of visitors, date placed, last find, trackable items, etc).

 

To me the best system would be to allow users to list up to 5% of caches they visited on a favorites list - you could then find out how many favorite lists a given cache appears on. A simple and fair system that doesn't allow anybody to slam a cache except via log entries. Also allows the truely good ones to stand out as an example for others.

 

This makes some sense, but why stop short. I'm sure many of the "favorite" caches would be in beautiful locations, and some would probably be very close together. A rating system would allow caches in less populated and less traveled areas to receive some recognition. If someone's driving through western Kansas and has time to grab a cache or two, it's not too likely that there are going to be many "favorites" in the area, and if there were then they would only be favorited by tiny number of people—which just leads us back to the problem of "What you like - I might not. What I like - you may despise."

 

In my opinion, it's much more useful for someone to look up an area they'll be in and be able to roughly tell "these two caches are okay, but the others probably aren't worth your time if you're just passing through". Just because a cache isn't anyone's favorite doesn't mean it's on par with other caches in the area.

 

I still do like the idea of favorites, but in conjunction with ratings, not as a substitute for them.

 

Sorry for the long reply, but I'm really feel quite strongly about this. I've only found 5 caches so far, and my wife has been with me for each one. She was really excited when we were going to find the first one, but recently told me, "I don't really like Geocaching as much as I thought I would." I can confidently tell you that the reason is because I've drug her along to find caches that weren't that great. One that we found was fantastic, and we both had a great time finding it. The next time I drag my wife along on a cache find, I want to have a good idea it's an experience we will both enjoy, and the logs simply don't adequately provide a snapshot of that.

[dakotaduff]

Useful ratings are not easy to implemenet. I don't care what elightened means and methods you care to use and even if you are 100% pro ratings.

 

Maybe not useful to you, but they'd be useful to others. Even if rating were totally random and nonsensical it would provide a quick and dirty way to pick a specified number of caches from a large list.

[+sbell111]

Don't take this as an attack, but long posts in non-standard fonts are difficult to read.

 

That's fair. But generally, good caches are good caches and poor caches are poor caches. The wisdom of the masses usually wins out, though, in my opinion.

Recent threads would suggest that you might not get what you are looking for.

 

As far as placement goes, I'm of the opinion that this information is (for the most part) already available in the cache description. If I hate hiking through dense brush, I might not want to find a four-star cache that requires me to trek through a half-mile of undergrowth. But I might be willing to do it for a five-star cache.

What if the majority of people who came before liked the cache regardless of it's terrain rating? What if the majority of those that came before you disliked it, even though it was a five terrain? What if the terrain rating should be a 4, but the cache owner called it a 5? What if a big chunk of the players think ratings are stupid, confusing, or hard and don't use them?

[+sbell111]

Useful ratings are not easy to implemenet. I don't care what elightened means and methods you care to use and even if you are 100% pro ratings.

 

Maybe not useful to you, but they'd be useful to others. Even if rating were totally random and nonsensical it would provide a quick and dirty way to pick a specified number of caches from a large list.

Ummm, if they were totally random and nonsensical they wouldn't be useful for anybody.

 

I disagree that we should implement a ratings system that we know will not work well just for the sake of implementing a ratings system.

[dakotaduff]

I honestly think that this already exists. When planning a casual caching trip in an area I am unfamiliar with, I look for caches that are on positive bookmark lists and that have multiple watchers, that is usually a pretty good indicator that the cache is something special.

 

And we still created ignitions even though a car could be started with a hand crank.

 

If you start rating caches, then it becomes a competition and while some will raise the level of their caches, many will just work the system through friends and sockpuppets to increase the ratings.

 

And how could this same assessment not be made about positive bookmark lists and multiple watchers? I'm sure that some people already consider that a competition, but there's no way to easily weight it or customize it to suit an individual user.

 

One caveat, if this type of system were ever put in place, I would like to see the rating tied to found it logs, you should not be able to rate a cache you have not found.

 

Absolutely agree with this, 100%. I think you should only have the option of rating a cache when logging a visit, and if you log two visits to the same cache then only your most recent rating is reflected in the total.

[+StarBrand]

One of the biggest risks of a 5 star system would be that upset cachers (those rating it a 1) and overly satisfied cachers (those rating it a 5) would tend to be the only ones actually using the rating system and skewing the results. Surely you don't expect to "force" all users into adding a rating to a log. The other big risk is the change in things over time - views get blocked, trees get planted and removed, cache contents improve or degrade, new roads and trails make things harder/easier. How do you suggest handleing the ebb and tide of our changing world in a rating system. What was a 5* cache 4 years ago may only deserve a 2 these days but the "old" ratings would skew it.

 

An ever shifting top 5% isn't perfect but would tend to handle things a bit better.

 

Better to think this out carefully rather than rush into something that yeilds bad or non-sensical results.

[dakotaduff]

Don't take this as an attack, but long posts in non-standard fonts are difficult to read.

Sorry about that. Trebuchet is supposed to be a very readible web font, which is the only reason I used it. I'll revert to the default.

 

Recent threads would suggest that you might not get what you are looking for.

I don't know what threads you're mentioning, but the goal here is not to match you with a cache you will love every time. The goal is to give you an idea of what others—particularly others with either authority or interests similar to your own—think of the cache. Anyone who's ever looked at movie, book, or music reviews knows that sometimes you like stuff that everyone else hates and sometimes you hate stuff everyone else likes. But—in general—ratings are one of many helpful indicators you can use when making selections.

 

What if the majority of people who came before liked the cache regardless of it's terrain rating? What if the majority of those that came before you disliked it, even though it was a five terrain? What if the terrain rating should be a 4, but the cache owner called it a 5? What if a big chunk of the players think ratings are stupid, confusing, or hard and don't use them?

Umm.... I'm afraid I don't understand the first few questions. The last one is clear enough, however.

 

A player would never be forced to leave a rating. But there are a lot of cachers out there who would find them useful. I don't recall suggesting that caches would ever be eliminated from searches because they had a low rating, so those who feel that a rating system is stupid, confusing, or hard could just ignore them. Is this such a problem?

Edited January 5, 2007 by dakotaduff

[+sbell111]

What if the majority of people who came before liked the cache regardless of it's terrain rating? What if the majority of those that came before you disliked it, even though it was a five terrain? What if the terrain rating should be a 4, but the cache owner called it a 5? What if a big chunk of the players think ratings are stupid, confusing, or hard and don't use them?

Umm.... I'm afraid I don't understand the first few questions. ...

Those questions were specifically related to your prior post. You suggested that you might enjoy a specific cache if it was rated a five, but not a four. I could have been clearer, but I was trying to make the point that the ratings wouldn't matter, since it was the same cache.

Edited January 5, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... What if a big chunk of the players think ratings are stupid, confusing, or hard and don't use them?

... I don't recall suggesting that caches would ever be eliminated from searches because they had a low rating, so those who feel that a rating system is stupid, confusing, or hard could just ignore them. Is this such a problem?

It could be. The more people who failed to use the ratings or misused them, the more the ratings would be meaningless.

[+Alice Band]

Deleted due to repeated post.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Alice Band

[dakotaduff]

Surely you don't expect to "force" all users into adding a rating to a log.

No. A player could always give a "no opinion" response.

The other big risk is the change in things over time - views get blocked, trees get planted and removed, cache contents improve or degrade, new roads and trails make things harder/easier. How do you suggest handleing the ebb and tide of our changing world in a rating system. What was a 5* cache 4 years ago may only deserve a 2 these days but the "old" ratings would skew it.

 

An ever shifting top 5% isn't perfect but would tend to handle things a bit better.

Of course things change. The same is true for anything which people can have an opinion on. A politically charged book or album from decades past may not bear as much relevance now. Or perhaps it's now more relevant than ever. This could be accounted for in a few ways. The two that I can think of right off the bat are that newer ratings could have a heavier weight, which fades over time. Another would be to simply show a line graph of the rating over time (as I suggested earlier).

Better to think this out carefully rather than rush into something that yeilds bad or non-sensical results.

You couldn't be more right. The real concern, though, is data collection. As long as you have the user, their rating, and the date they logged the visit associated with the rating, you have most everything you need. The rest is merely choosing how that data will be output or displayed. Manipulations and tinkerings to what rating this data actually produces can be done behind the scenes without risk of harm. But before real data is entered, it's all just a series of "what ifs". So the question then becomes, "What data is needed." Honestly, I could almost set up something like this myself on a seperate site, but the ease with which it could be connected with the existing data at geocaching.com, and the richness that could be added to that data, make any other hosting of the rating information quite silly.

 

Here's the deal, though... I'm new to caching and more experienced cachers probably have a better idea of what things should be rated or how those ratings should be calculated—if they're not too stuck in their ways already.

 

I really appreciate those like StarBrand who are taking this issue seriously and trying to reach a conclusion how best to give it wings.

[+Alice Band]

In the UK we already have a system in place to rate caches, and the cache owner can cut and paste a special link to display the current rating of the cache if they so desire. The majority of UK caches have been rated and the results change continuously The system works via a separate website linked to Groundspeak. The site also offers other useful tools to UK cachers. Caches with lots of thought having gone into them tend to get the higher ratings, and drive-by's tend to get the poor ratings. But overall people still enjoy the cache regardless of what its rating is.

 

High and low rating don't make a difference overall as to an increase or decrease in cache visitors. I find the log entries usually do that instead

[+ThePropers]

1) How many people are watching the cache? Although not a perfect indicator, it's a fairly good one

2) Read the last couple of logs to determine if the cache is still available and what kind of shape it is in

 

I already have #2 in the pocket query results, so in GSAK I can quickly look to see what the last 4 logs were (at least if it was found or not using the little red/green squares thing).

 

I would really like to see #1 included as a pocket query option:

• only return those caches with watchers
  
• only return those caches with more than X watchers
  

I think I like the second one more, since there are many co-owned caches with one watcher, so I'd probably only want caches with 2 or more.

 

As you've said, it's not a perfect indicator, but it's not bad. There's more likely to be 5 watchers on a good cache, as opposed to 5 watchers on a lame (or what I would consider lame) one.

Edited January 5, 2007 by ThePropers

[+sbell111]

The other big risk is the change in things over time - views get blocked, trees get planted and removed, cache contents improve or degrade, new roads and trails make things harder/easier. How do you suggest handleing the ebb and tide of our changing world in a rating system. What was a 5* cache 4 years ago may only deserve a 2 these days but the "old" ratings would skew it.

 

An ever shifting top 5% isn't perfect but would tend to handle things a bit better.

Of course things change. The same is true for anything which people can have an opinion on. A politically charged book or album from decades past may not bear as much relevance now. Or perhaps it's now more relevant than ever. This could be accounted for in a few ways. The two that I can think of right off the bat are that newer ratings could have a heavier weight, which fades over time. Another would be to simply show a line graph of the rating over time (as I suggested earlier).

I believe that StarBrand's point was that the condition of a cache and the surrounding area generally changes negatively over time. Therefore, older positive ratings would no longer be an indicator of the quality of a cache.

 

The problem with weighting caches over time is that many (most?) really good caches get fewer and fewer visitors over time. The suggested weighting could skew the system even further.

 

A line graph would just confuse and clutter things more, in my opinion.

Edited January 5, 2007 by sbell111

[dakotaduff]

What if the majority of people who came before liked the cache regardless of it's terrain rating? What if the majority of those that came before you disliked it, even though it was a five terrain? What if the terrain rating should be a 4, but the cache owner called it a 5? What if a big chunk of the players think ratings are stupid, confusing, or hard and don't use them?

Umm.... I'm afraid I don't understand the first few questions. ...

Those questions were specifically related to your prior post. You suggested that you might enjoy a specific cache if it was rated a five, but not a four. I could have been clearer, but I was trying to make the point that the ratings wouldn't matter, since it was the same cache.

 

What I was trying to illustrate if a cache's description is unappealing to my personal tastes, I'd be more likely to visit it if it had a very high rating than if I have nothing but a long list of log entries to base my visit on.

[+sbell111]

I really appreciate those like StarBrand who are taking this issue seriously and trying to reach a conclusion how best to give it wings.

It's not that the rest of us don't take this issue seriously. It's just that this is the 94th thread related to it and no consensus has been reached.

[+StarBrand]

I really appreciate those like StarBrand who are taking this issue seriously and trying to reach a conclusion how best to give it wings.

It's not that the rest of us don't take this issue seriously. It's just that this is the 94th thread related to it and no consensus has been reached.

Sort of my point too but I am willing to re-hash some of the details from time to time.

Edited January 5, 2007 by StarBrand

[dakotaduff]

I believe that StarBrand's point was that the condition of a cache and the surrounding area generally changes negatively over time. Therefore, older positive ratings would no longer be an indicator of the quality of a cache.

 

The problem with weighting caches over time is that many (most?) really good caches get fewer and fewer visitors over time. The suggested weighting could skew the system even further.

 

That's understandable. However, I'm not suggesting that a cache only be judged on it's newest ratings. Just that the receive a higher weight.

 

So let's say that you, I, and one other person all visited a cache two years ago and all gave it 5 star ratings. StarBrand finds the cache, but the area and cache have aged poorly and are now kind of junky. StarBrand gives it a 2 star rating. With no other factors considered, the true average would be 4.25. Because StarBrand's rating is the only rating within the past two years, the adjusted rating might be 3.75 or 4.00 as a result.

 

It's important not to get hung up on the specifics of this case, as this "data" is all completely fabricated, but I think that this takes into account that possibility that a cache and it's location could become much less attractive over time.

 

A line graph would just confuse and clutter things more, in my opinion.

 

You're probably right. I was imagining the line graph be available via a link or something, but the necessity of even having a graph at all is questionable. However, please remember that all of the issues with the calculation and presentation of the data are independent from the gathering of the data. Once the data is collected, line graphs, pie graphs, and timelines could all be created. And if they're clutter or not useful, they can be disposed of with no ill consequences.

 

In regard to your other post about the 94th post on the topic... I can understand how this might feel a little tired, but I'd like to see some sort of action taken and I welcome anyone who's willing to submit their opinions on how this should be done.

 

Unfortunately, this is kind of a cart before the horse issue. It's difficult to determine how best to calculate fair or useful ratings without any data—and that's exactly where we are right now. We can speculate about people hosing a cache to bring down it's rating, but until we have data we can look at, how could we possibly correct for it. I feel that collection of data—and more importantly, what data to collect—is the most important first phase.

[+Allen_L]

To directly answer the OP question "Why the heck isn't it implemented yet???"

 

Well Jeremy said in this message

We haven't had one so far because most rating systems online are crap.

He also said

What I'd hate to do is create a system that would punish harshly folks that place caches, but I would like to see a way to award quality caches through positive reinforcement. As long as we keep it friendly I'm not sure why someone wouldn't want it to happen.

 

A later message says

none of these concepts are particularly "simple" to implement

and

don't create something unless you intend to support it. So lets make this a good solution, not a quick one.

 

That appears to be why it isn't implemented yet

[+mudsneaker]

this is one of those topics that really needs a poll so the powers that be can see just what we the people want.

 

Im for a rating system. even if a few choose to try and mess with it, the majority would use it as a tool to be sure what we are hunting for is worth the time/effort.

[+Markwell]

I like this post better...

 

I don't enter into this this lightly, which is why we'll be going into our 5th year without such a system in place.

 

All features on this site are implemented slowly. So yes, you'll have to "wade" through them for a period of time - but you're doing that now, yes?

 

And that was over 773 days ago.

[+sbell111]

this is one of those topics that really needs a poll so the powers that be can see just what we the people want.

 

Im for a rating system. even if a few choose to try and mess with it, the majority would use it as a tool to be sure what we are hunting for is worth the time/effort.

I think that, given the number of threads on this subject, TPTB have a fairly good idea of how we feel about this issue.

Edited January 5, 2007 by sbell111

[dakotaduff]

Okay, okay.

 

Enough debate on whether or not it should be done already. There seems to be a general feeling that it's something more than a few users would like to use and even those with concerns are willing to discuss them—which seems to indicate that they aren't opposed to the idea. As for the small few who are totally opposed—they don't have to use it, and I can see no way that it would harm their caching experiences.

 

But I think it's becoming obvious WHY it hasn't been done yet. Let's start talking about how to get it done. Can anyone think of anything a cache should be rated on the three I previously mentioned (overall, location, and cache contents)? Is a 1-5 star rating system they way to go? (With options like "Hated", "Didn't Like", "Liked", "Really Liked", "Loved", and "No Opinion")

[+tozainamboku]

People in favor of a ratings system believe that there is such a thing as an average cacher. Not only that; they believe that they are the average cacher.

[+flask]

when we have a ratings system, i'm pulling all of my caches, many of which are considered classics.

 

when we have a ratings system i will do everything in my power to subvert it.

 

the OP's declaration that it is not possible to collect too much data and other absolutes are not actually facts, but opinions.

 

i am happy, happy, happy that there is no ratings system. i hope to continue to be happy until i die.

[dakotaduff]

when we have a ratings system, i'm pulling all of my caches, many of which are considered classics.

 

when we have a ratings system i will do everything in my power to subvert it.

 

Why the violent opposition?

[+FamilyDNA]

Here's the "rating system" I use:

 

Attend a local event. Hang out and chat with local cachers. Listen for the "Did you find the one..." types of conversations.

The opinions and reccomendations of these people mean a lot more than a 1 - 5 scale on a ramdom cache.

[+StarBrand]

At this point, I feel obligated to point out that there is a system of sorts in place and gathering data - if you think about it in a new way. The cache attributes, they "tag" a cache listing with some fairly critical info so that I can help determine if it is a cache I want to go to. I can even use the attributes as criteria when using a PQ. These include things like scenic, length of hike, takes less than 1hour etc. Gives me some filter ability without readin through the logs. I know they are owner tags and may not be accurate but they do indeed give me a few pieces of the info discussed in this thread. Also in place on the listing page is the inclusion of the cache in any public bookmark lists - not used as a criteria but there on the page nonetheless. Many of the Bookmark lists are indeed favorites lists.

Edited January 5, 2007 by StarBrand

[dakotaduff]

Here's the "rating system" I use:

 

Attend a local event. Hang out and chat with local cachers. Listen for the "Did you find the one..." types of conversations.

The opinions and reccomendations of these people mean a lot more than a 1 - 5 scale on a ramdom cache.

 

Sounds like a great idea. And someday when I have the time/money, I might do just that. In the meantime, I'd like some other way to prioritize my finds. I'm sure there are some really cool caches in some really cool places and I can read all about them, but at this point I only have the financial means to access a few hundred in areas I frequent.

[+adjensen]

But I think it's becoming obvious WHY it hasn't been done yet. Let's start talking about how to get it done. Can anyone think of anything a cache should be rated on the three I previously mentioned (overall, location, and cache contents)? Is a 1-5 star rating system they way to go? (With options like "Hated", "Didn't Like", "Liked", "Really Liked", "Loved", and "No Opinion")

 

Okay:

 

Location -- you can figure this out by yourself. Just look at the maps and/or satellite photos. Read the description. Check the terrain ratings. If it's a flippin lampskirt hide and you don't like them, skip it.

 

Cache Contents -- rating is completely irrelevant, as the contents will change over time, pretty much always to the worse. Natural entropy will result in every cache containing mostly broken McToys and expired coupons, given enough time. I might give a cache filled with iPods a five star "Contents" rating, which is pointless to everyone after me, as I've removed the iPods and replaced them with pencils and business card "sig items."

 

Overall -- my wife likes urban micro caches I can never find, I like climbing snake infested cliffs to find caches while she does Sudokus in the car. We both have the same vote, but we'll rarely agree. Ditto for the rest of the caching community.

 

I don't expect every cache to lead me to a waterfall never before witnessed by man, nor a massive crate filled with valuable booty. The sooner one realizes this, accepts hides for what they are, and uses the existing tools to plan their hunt, the sooner one will be happy with caching.

[+sbell111]

Here's the "rating system" I use:

 

Attend a local event. Hang out and chat with local cachers. Listen for the "Did you find the one..." types of conversations.

The opinions and reccomendations of these people mean a lot more than a 1 - 5 scale on a ramdom cache.

Sounds like a great idea. And someday when I have the time/money, I might do just that. In the meantime, I'd like some other way to prioritize my finds. I'm sure there are some really cool caches in some really cool places and I can read all about them, but at this point I only have the financial means to access a few hundred in areas I frequent.

You realize that if a ratings system were implemented, it might only be available to PMs, right?

[+flask]

when we have a ratings system, i'm pulling all of my caches, many of which are considered classics.

 

when we have a ratings system i will do everything in my power to subvert it.

 

Why the violent opposition?

 

i am very much opposed to ratings systems for either players or caches. if i want to be in a contest, i'll enter a race. i do not wish for any aspect of my geocaching life to be available as a competitive sport. i do not accurately report the number of finds i have. some people track their first finds. i don't. i was counting one day and i got as far as forty before i decided it wasn't a stat i even wanted to know.

 

the logs themselves (if you care to read them) will tell you a lot about the quality of a cache.

[dakotaduff]

**Experience removed to protect the innocent.**

Edited January 5, 2007 by dakotaduff

[dakotaduff]

You realize that if a ratings system were implemented, it might only be available to PMs, right?

 

I didn't realize that, but I don't see why the "general rating" couldn't be available for everyone to see while the personalized rating and details tied to log entries be available to PMs. And honestly, that might be a feature I would actually pay for.

 

i am very much opposed to ratings systems for either players or caches. if i want to be in a contest, i'll enter a race. i do not wish for any aspect of my geocaching life to be available as a competitive sport. i do not accurately report the number of finds i have. some people track their first finds. i don't. i was counting one day and i got as far as forty before i decided it wasn't a stat i even wanted to know.

 

It's not a contest or competition unless you choose make it one.

 

And here's the deal... I'm not even looking for a way to say "Ooooo! That cache is 5-star it's worth visiting, and that cache is 2-star, it must not be worth checking out."

 

I'm just looking for a way to more easily determine which caches, out of a long list, would most suit my tastes and preferences based on the opinions of others.

 

the logs themselves (if you care to read them) will tell you a lot about the quality of a cache.

 

I've read the logs. I'm sure some of the great caches have detailed logs with great stories on them (I've read a few of yours), but many of the log entries essentially one of the following: "Thanks for the cache." "Found it." "Watch for snakes/plants/etc." I'm sorry, but those kinds of log entries don't do much to help me, and I don't expect someone to leave a log entry like, "This cache was okay, but was really easy to find. I was hoping there would be some relevant information on the nearby historic marker, but there wasn't. We brought a cool item to trade, but just left it without taking anything because we've already got a rusty paperclip and a wadded up Sudoku in the car." That would be a little rude to the cache owner. But a "Thanks for the cache on my way to Texas. 3 of 5 stars." gives me a lot more insight into what I might expect from the cache, and if I do choose to hunt it out, I'll be a lot less disappointed if the experience isn't everything I'd dreamed up from the cache owner's description.

[Jeremy]

Now I'd like to have the option to determine in advance if I'm likely to enjoy a cache. I would hope that there are other on-and-off cachers who still appreciate a well thought-out cache, and I am confident that even a poor rating system would greatly enhance my caching experience.

 

We're working on two things that aren't rating systems, per se:

 

1. A recommendations engine. You say what caches you like and it shows you other caches you might like based on the preferences of users similar to you. This rating is not shared.

2. A way to compliment geocachers when they hide good caches. It will allow individuals, most likely premium members, the ability to say "this hider hides very good caches" or "this cacher makes very good puzzles" or whatever. From there you can seek caches where the hiders have high compliements.

 

Addition to that is the idea where people can designate certain caches as their favorites. This has been a long discussed option but I've been partial to the two options above before adding this idea.

 

I do agree that a 1-5 rating system will do more harm than good. People do play this in different ways and have different definitions of "fun." Option #1 will try and make sure that you find the cache listings that would potentially interest you. You can then return and rate the ones you didn't like to make for better recommendations in the future.

[+adjensen]

My disappointments have been based only on the expectations created from the information available on geocaching.com. Why weren't the locations of the caches relevant to something...anything. Even if it's just an attractive location. Why were the cache contents mostly junk (and I do mean junk). Didn't the people who participate in caching CARE about it?

 

There are two separate thoughts there -- the quality of the cache, and the quality of the stuff in the cache. Most people (myself included) grow out of an interest in the stuff in the cache pretty quickly, both because it's mostly junk (which is in inevitable, and not the fault of either the cache, or the owner, both of which are penalized by a bad "rating" for contents) and because the hunt is the joy, not the knick-a-brick you find in the box. I expect to find garbage in a cache with more than 20 visits, and I'm rarely disappointed, but I also rarely take anything.

 

And, as for the quality of the cache location, this is almost entirely in the view of the hunter. If I'm a numbers person (which I'm clearly not ) a park and grab micro under a lampskirt at Walmart is a five star cache, as I was able to get a find without much effort, and I'm that much closer to the top. If I'm a climber, a rock ledge cache is tip-top. Historian? How about a virtual at Bull Run?

 

I've been caching for about five years, and I've found 99 caches. Of those, there were only a few that I wasn't all that keen on in the first place, based on the description, and of the ones that I was, only a few have made it onto my favourite list. If you like a cache that's on my faves list, you may like the others, but you may not. It's all subjective.

 

The attacks brought against even the idea of a rating system—and against those who want one—don't seem to align with what I though Geocaching was all about. Can someone please point me toward some other sport or activity that better serves someone with limited money and time for caching, but still enjoys the idea and has really enjoyed the experience of the one quality cache he's found?

 

I applaud your passion, and your belief that in a week of caching you've solved a "problem" we've had since the beginning, but if you can't sort out what made that one cache good and the others bad, and make future hunts predicated on that, or if finding a cache filled with junk really spoils your day that much, then you may indeed want to find something else to do.

 

I don't know what that would be though... disappointment is pretty widespread.

Edited January 5, 2007 by adjensen

[+mudsneaker]

anything resembling a time frame we might see those implimented Jeremy? Sounds great and looking forward to it!

 

[dakotaduff]

We're working on two things that aren't rating systems, per se:

 

1. A recommendations engine. You say what caches you like and it shows you other caches you might like based on the preferences of users similar to you. This rating is not shared.

2. A way to compliment geocachers when they hide good caches. It will allow individuals, most likely premium members, the ability to say "this hider hides very good caches" or "this cacher makes very good puzzles" or whatever. From there you can seek caches where the hiders have high compliements.

This is the first great news I've seen in this thread. Is there anything I can do to help? I have limited time, but a lot of passion, and I'm good with HTML/PHP/MySQL.

 

I do agree that a 1-5 rating system will do more harm than good. People do play this in different ways and have different definitions of "fun."

Very understandable. I think the proposed solution could accomplish exactly what I was hoping for, especially if it was multi-tiered (i.e. We think you'll like, really like, or love this cache). The 1 to 5-star rating system would be easier to implement and have more scalability, IMHO, but there may be some validity to all of the mentioned worries and complaints.

 

I hope this comes to fruition in the not-too-distant future.

[+tozainamboku]

Okay... Apparently my "problem" is that I expect to much of Geocaching—or perhaps just of those who post to geocaching.com.

Perhaps you do expect too much. One problem is this forum. Ratings have been suggested and debated many times. Many people don't want to take the time to explain to a newbie why ratings (especially just a general rate this cache) will probably not give the results you expect. It is more helpful to say why you want the ratings and then perhaps expect some suggestions on how you can find the caches you like better without a rating system.

 

I work in education, and happened to run across an assignment that dealt with geocaching.com. As soon as I visited the site, I was hooked. It seemed like an amazing concept and a great hobby. I decided to consult my family and create a cache in memory of my recently passed grandmother, and I talked my wife into letting me get an eTrex because they were having a great promotion at Target.

 

Before we had even found a cache, we put together the cache for my grandmother. We put quite a bit of time and thought into the cache contents cared a lot about its location.

I don't know what information you found and why you thought it would be interesting. You would probably get some in these forum who would complain that you shouldn't have hidden a cache before finding one. On the other hand, some here will salute you since what you hid will probably be different than the average cache.

 

Then we started finding caches. For the most part, the caches we've found have been incredibly easy to locate, in locations that didn't seem to be anything special, and had a hodgepodge of lackluster contents. And I don't need to find an iPod to be happy. My disappointments have been based only on the expectations created from the information available on geocaching.com. Why weren't the locations of the caches relevant to something...anything. Even if it's just an attractive location. Why were the cache contents mostly junk (and I do mean junk). Didn't the people who participate in caching CARE about it?

 

I'm sure some do, but so far I've had a lot of trouble finding evidence. Now I'd like to have the option to determine in advance if I'm likely to enjoy a cache. I would hope that there are other on-and-off cachers who still appreciate a well thought-out cache, and I am confident that even a poor rating system would greatly enhance my caching experience.

Here you hid a cache before finding some to see if you really would like geocaching. You seem to be somewhat disappointed in what you have found. Particularly in the quality of trade items in the cache. If you had researched in the forums you would find lots of thread discussing the quality of swag. In most caches the quality of swag deteriorates over time. It is just human nature to take something and leave something not as nice. Some cachers will restock their caches once and a while but most do not. In addition, for many the trading is not so important so they just put items from their junk drawer in the cache. Your imagination of what is in the cache has resulted in disappointment with the reality.

 

As far a location, for some cachers, this is just a simple hide-and-seek game. The location is not important and caches are hidden in not the best locations. Many others however agree with you, that cache should be hidden in an interesting location. Again this is often a topic of discussion in the forums here and a little research would have told you what to expect.

 

The attacks brought against even the idea of a rating system—and against those who want one—don't seem to align with what I though Geocaching was all about. Can someone please point me toward some other sport or activity that better serves someone with limited money and time for caching, but still enjoys the idea and has really enjoyed the experience of the one quality cache he's found?

For the most part, geocachers are friendly people. Internet forums however can be dangerous places for newbies. As I said above, rating systems have been debated many times. Your expectations of what a rating system would do would probably lead to the same disappointment you had when you went to find caches. People cache for different reasons. People like different kinds of caches. There is no average cacher. Given what you have posted I can suggest looking for regular and large sized caches with higher terrain and difficulty. Also use the geocaching.com google maps to find areas where you want to cache. Read the cache pages and logs to see what others thought of the caches. Accept that not everyone is caching for the same reasons you cache.

[dakotaduff]

There are two separate thoughts there -- the quality of the cache, and the quality of the stuff in the cache. Most people (myself included) grow out of an interest in the stuff in the cache pretty quickly, both because it's mostly junk (which is in inevitable, and not the fault of either the cache, or the owner, both of which are penalized by a bad "rating" for contents) and because the hunt is the joy, not the knick-a-brick you find in the box.

I like it best when both the hunt and the knick-a-brick are fun. I realize that this isn't going to happen every time, but when the hunt sucks and you pull open the cache and the contents suck, too... Well, it's pretty disappointing. Especially if you went out of your way to get to it.

 

Which bring me to another idea. Why not list the "Found/Not Found" numbers in the search results? That would be very helpful for me, and would be a cinch to implement. Or is this something that's only available to Premiums? Perhaps I should start a new thread about this.

 

I expect to find garbage in a cache with more than 20 visits, and I'm rarely disappointed, but I also rarely take anything.

So... you're disappointed if the cache doesn't contain junk? j/k

[+Renegade Knight]

...We're working on two things that aren't rating systems, per se:

 

1. A recommendations engine. You say what caches you like and it shows you other caches you might like based on the preferences of users similar to you. This rating is not shared....

 

That's workable, viable, and actually solves a lot of the problems with a what we normally discuss in the forums for a rating system.

[dakotaduff]

Hey! I removed that post for a reason, and now you're quoting it!

 

Perhaps you do expect too much. One problem is this forum. Ratings have been suggested and debated many times. Many people don't want to take the time to explain to a newbie why ratings (especially just a general rate this cache) will probably not give the results you expect. It is more helpful to say why you want the ratings and then perhaps expect some suggestions on how you can find the caches you like better without a rating system.

I see what you mean, but I still must disagree. I think that if ratings were implemented (and I'm not even saying the should be, if something like the "suggested cache" above is implemented) and if they were implemented by allowing a user to rate specific attributes of a cache I think everyone would find that the results would be surprisingly helpful. But enough of that... I'm not trying to reinvigorate all of the old arguments about cache slamming, etc. However the replies on helpful way to find relevant caches have, in many cases, been completely unhelpful.

 

I understand and appreciate why some old-timers (sorry, couldn't resist) would be reluctant to change and would insist that a newbie visit the forums and use features only available to premium members or members with plenty of time on their hands. However, I feel my opinion should be heard and even listened to. There will be a lot of opportunity for the growth of Geocaching in the coming years as GPS becomes cheaper and more widespread. I approached this as someone very interested in an enriching, fun experience, and so far have been disappointed with the quality of caches and cache locations—even after mulling over cache listings.

 

Now, I'm sure that there are certain searches and certain tags that help one discern which caches might be the most interesting, but I've now looked for six caches and have only experiences what I'd hoped for in one. ("Sorry", if the other 5 cache owners see this.)

 

In my estimation, this is a problem. Sure, you may feel like you're weeding out those who wouldn't really be interested, but I'll bet you're also weeding out a lot of people like me. People who are certainly interested, but don't have a lot of resources to spend on caching (be they money, time, or the ability to travel). These people could still be valuable contributors to the community, but if the experience of their first half-dozen cache finds doesn't match the billing on the cache listing (which could be a few years old), what reason do they have to stick with it? It should be easier to get a gauging on a cache before you hunt it down—especially for those who are relatively new.

 

I don't know what information you found and why you thought it would be interesting. You would probably get some in these forum who would complain that you shouldn't have hidden a cache before finding one. On the other hand, some here will salute you since what you hid will probably be different than the average cache.

The information I found was in all of the "about" links on geocaching.com and on Wikipedia. And just for the record... I didn't actually hide the cache until I'd found two. We'd just already put it together.

 

Here you hid a cache before finding some to see if you really would like geocaching. You seem to be somewhat disappointed in what you have found. Particularly in the quality of trade items in the cache. If you had researched in the forums you would find lots of thread discussing the quality of swag. In most caches the quality of swag deteriorates over time. It is just human nature to take something and leave something not as nice. Some cachers will restock their caches once and a while but most do not. In addition, for many the trading is not so important so they just put items from their junk drawer in the cache. Your imagination of what is in the cache has resulted in disappointment with the reality.

As far a location, for some cachers, this is just a simple hide-and-seek game. The location is not important and caches are hidden in not the best locations. Many others however agree with you, that cache should be hidden in an interesting location. Again this is often a topic of discussion in the forums here and a little research would have told you what to expect.

Those playing "hide-and-seek" should find a new game, as the GPS tends to put you right on top of a cache.

 

Sorry if the owner is reading this, but...

My first two cache finds were in places I'm very familiar with. Both are historical markers. One would guess—from the geocaching.com listings, that there might be some additional homage or explanation of the location inside the cache containers. There was nothing of the sort. Not even a log entry. Both were barely hidden, and probably are consistently found on accident. One had a disposable camera that has apparently been out of film for quite some time. I'm reluctant to place all of the blame on the cache owner—I'm just happy there were a few caches in the area so I knew what to expect before placing my own—but it's a huge shame that more wasn't done with these caches, even if only a piece of paper explaining the significance of the location. If I go back, maybe I'll add this myself.

 

But the real issue seems to be with uninteresting/poorly hidden caches in seemingly great locations. What's a cacher to do? You are even discouraged from hiding your own cache nearby. The remedy for this seems to be some sort of a rating (or recommendation) system to not only help those searching for caches they'll like, but encourage cache owners to make a cache worth finding.

 

Just my opinions.

Edited January 5, 2007 by dakotaduff

[+BlueDeuce]

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

 

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

 

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

 

We are a community, enjoy the benefits.