CACHE RATINGS

[+kdv]

The Dutch geocaching site (geocaching.nl) has recently set up a ratings system, or actually it's more like an awards system: when you have 60 finds you have the right to assign an award to a cache of your choice. Thereafter you can assign another award after each additional set of 20 finds.

So 60 finds=1 award, 80 finds= 2 awards, 100 finds=3 awards, etc.

The cache owners can mention in their cache description that the cache is an award winner (a special graphic has been made for this). And there is also a list of caches with the number of awards attributed to them. The system has been up and running for a short while, but I already see people mentioning in their logs that they decided to go for a certain cache because it has won a lot of awards.

I guess the system is a bit like someone else suggested (5% of finds listed as favorites - 1 in 20 being exactly 5 %).

[+BlueDeuce]

just...nevermind.

Edited January 6, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+Mopar]

[insert Harrald's sig line here]

[+baloo&bd]

Let's assume for a moment that ratings are implemented 06-JAN-07. Here are the posts you will start to see around Feb 2007;

 

"Went to a cache after seeing the high rating and reading the posts. Do cachers in this area really believe that a cache, hidden in an large tupperware {famous person birthplace/battle/etc} is that interesting? Ratings this high should be reserved for a area with a significant hike where nature is at it's best. Please learn to use these rating , as well as the attributes"

 

--------

 

"Son and I went to visit a cache I 'thought' was nearby the hotel because the rating was so high. Didn't have printouts with me but it popped up on my GPS as I got into the area, what a mistake. The path was crushed limestone, however the nearest parking was almost 3 miles from the cache. Decide to try it anyway since the terrain showed as a 1.5. 700 feet from the cache, we left the main trail onto a smaller one that got progressively worse and very muddy. All this for a bunch of broken McToys and landscaper business cards. 12 year olds are looking for better quality swag and aren't much into these hikes. Why wasn't the mud attribute used? Wife had a fit when we got back covered in mud. Why wasn't the nearest parking listed? If people would use these functions properly, things would work a lot better."

 

--------

 

"Cache popped up when I was in town but when I saw the rating was low, I passed having learned the hard way to pay attention to the ratings. One of my group, ever being the smiley hound, decided to go for it, so we separated for the day. When I saw his log that night he posted these pictures of the overlook of the beautiful waterfall and all the wildlife there. People, I realize this is a significant hike and most in the area lean toward the 'closer' caches, but this really should be rated higher"

 

-------

 

"I put a puzzle cache out, spent a lot of time and effort on not only the puzzle, but the container and some quality swag to put in it. Found a great location near a creek not far from where I live. I understand that not all like puzzles, however rather than stick it out, they spend a few minutes, post a DNF and rate it low. I am archiving this and not going to this much trouble any more. It's just not worth it. With the low rating, not justified in my opinion, no one is looking for it. The few that have really spent the time have praised it, but they do not outnumber all the lazy ones. Might as well stick to lampposts. Easier, less expensive and time consuming to hide and lots of finders no matter what the ranking is"

 

--------

 

"Has anyone else noticed that the FTF's, as well as the first few finds after that are taking forever? Are less people hunting caches? Are our numbers down" (REPLY) No, with the rating system, people are hesitant, especially those not from the are, to hunt a cache until it has enough people to make the rating useful. be patient, they will come. Get a couple of your friends or locals to find or rate it, it helps to give it a kick start."

 

--------

 

The current rating system, the logs coupled with number of finds, is by far the best way to "rate" a cache. Beyond that, the only change that may need to take place is making the bookmarks search capable or possibly a feature that show all the bookmarks that have a cache listed within "x" miles.

 

Otherwise, it's not broke, why fix (read break) it?

[+ThePropers]

I wonder if we'll be able to pull a PQ of recommendations for us. I assume so of course.

[dakotaduff]

Let's assume for a moment that ratings are implemented 06-JAN-07. Here are the posts you will start to see around Feb 2007;

 

Blah blah blah.

 

--------

 

Blah blah blah.

 

--------

 

etc.

 

You old-timers crack me up. You're like an old dog dragging around a nasty bone you've got to show to everyone.

 

Here's my version:

Let's assume for a moment that ratings thread is started 05-JAN-07 and some real discussion happens and an authoritative post is made that brings hope to those hoping for rating while avoiding the hypothetical "issues" of a few. Here are the replies you'll still see being made around 06-JAN-07;

 

The current rating system, the logs coupled with number of finds, is by far the best way to "rate" a cache. Beyond that, the only change that may need to take place is making the bookmarks search capable or possibly a feature that show all the bookmarks that have a cache listed within "x" miles.

 

Otherwise, it's not broke, why fix (read break) it?

 

Unless you're trying to be the thread troll, please read through the replies before going on a rant about something no that's already been buried.

[+flask]

 

You old-timers crack me up. You're like an old dog dragging around a nasty bone you've got to show to everyone.

 

Unless you're trying to be the thread troll, please read through the replies before going on a rant about something no that's already been buried.

 

nobody was dragging the bone around until you dug it up. and apparently since this was subtitled partly "yet another thread" you are aware that it has been brought up a number of times. since many of us have very thoughtfully engaged in this exact conversation we may be excused reiterating our original and still current ideas. if the opening of this thread may be used as evidence, nothing is ever really buried.

 

if the real question is "there are lots of threads about it and here's yet another one so why has this not been implemented" (paraphrase) it should be fairly obvious why multiple threads about it does not necessarily lead to implementation.

 

short answer: Groundspeak does not want to do it, and there are many view on the topic, including those who do not want this "feature".

 

i could start a ton of threads asking for Groundspeak to declare me final arbiter of all things, but even if all my friends supported the cause, it probably wouldn't happen. even if i framed all my opinions as if they were established fact.

[dakotaduff]

nobody was dragging the bone around until you dug it up. and apparently since this was subtitled partly "yet another thread" you are aware that it has been brought up a number of times. since many of us have very thoughtfully engaged in this exact conversation we may be excused reiterating our original and still current ideas. if the opening of this thread may be used as evidence, nothing is ever really buried.

 

Well, you may view it as "we've already had this discussion" but in my view, the large number of threads is an indication that a number of people—myself included—want some sort of a suggestion system in place to pair them with the caches they are more likely to enjoy.

 

I felt that a new thread was warranted because I felt it was important to start collecting data as soon as possible and then decide what to do with it. And I also wanted customized or weighted results, making a rating not as much of a competition as a suggestion.

 

Now, a few posts back, Jeremy stated that they're working on a recommendations engine and an awards system. Joy was felt throughout the land... except from a few crumudgeons who still insist on flaming the mere suggestion of a star-rated system.

 

The thread has changed. So unless you're interested in discussing the workings of a recommendations engine or awards system... you're dragging around an old bone.

[CoyoteRed]

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.

 

And if it works it would be the best upgrade to this site since PQs.

[+baloo&bd]

Well, you may view it as "we've already had this discussion" but in my view, the large number of threads is an indication that a number of people—myself included—want some sort of a suggestion system in place to pair them with the caches they are more likely to enjoy.

 

Read the threads. There is a vocal minority that keeps bringing it up and the majority of replies seem to find that implementation would not be in the best interest of the site nor majority.

 

The thread has changed. So unless you're interested in discussing the workings of a recommendations engine or awards system... you're dragging around an old bone.

 

You asked why, then when it is responded to you start making snide comments to others because they simply do not share your views. I am sure you will find far less responses, not due to the fact that it has already been discussed to death, however due to your poor attitude about conversation than possibly you had intended.

[+2Dee2Dee]

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.

 

How would you judge what users are SIMILAR to me?

Would this be based on number of finds, finds to hide ratios, average number of finds per day, or on something else entirely?

[+2Dee2Dee]

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.

 

You have received a lot of courteous response to your not unreasonable idea that has however already been discussed in the past. Your opinion has been heard at length and you have seen the reasonable and patient responses of others. It sounds like you feel that you expect this sport to fit your newbie ideas exactly or at least very quickly. No offense intended.

 

This sport will continue to mature as it has already. There are lots of things about it I wish were done differently. You say you wanted to hide a cache without any experience and finding one. I strongly advise people to first find 100 caches BEFORE they place their first cache or at a minimum have an experienced cacher beta test before publishing so they can learn what makes a generally accepted idea of a GOOD cache. There are a number of white papers at Geocaching.com and posts in the foums that help define what many consider a good cache.

 

You have seen what Jeremy posted that Groundspeak is considering working on concerning a type of rating system. The forums provides a place to voice an opinion but there is no way to force or guarantee any result. Groundspeak will do whatever Groundspeak determines they wish to do. We have the choice to participate or not.

 

You said that you were DISAPPOINTED that some caches you choose to search for didn't live up to your limited expectations. Regardless of whether any further rating system may be used I know you will be disappointed from time to time especially if you expect cache perfection from every cacher. You failed to even notice the best post here by familyDNA where they described getting involved with other cachers at events and meetings to discuss which caches they liked best as a reasonable approach.

 

Let me offer an opinion about caching that we have learned in the last couple of years and knowledge that only occurs over time. We feel we are going to continue to gain a lot of wonderful experiences through the great sport of Geocaching.

 

We have found that running out to find a cache is the very smallest portion of the richness of experiences that caching offers. For us at least, caching has been more about the overall experience, spending time together and with others on the quest rather than finding the perfect cache everytime. Though like you we thought we would prefer perfect caches when actually the most memorable experiences and the ones we talk about the most are frequently not because of the perfect cache.

 

Learning through the investment of time, talking to others and reading logs have improved our abilities to better identify caches that we might enjoy. (Tells you that logs are important. What do you write to an owner who thought they were creating something for your personal enjoyment?) Some caches are still real duds and others are an unexpected joy. The exploration, travels, sights, experiences both good and not so good, meeting interesting and fun people are all a part of the overall caching fun we have been rewarded with through the short couple of years we have been members.

 

We do personally guarantee that if you relax, lower your expectations of ever determining the perfect cache to search for next, meet and talk to others, gain some insight over time you will be more richly rewarded with fun experiences as no other sport can possibly do. And more importantly does every day for thousands of people around the globe.

[Neos2]

You old-timers crack me up. You're like an old dog dragging around a nasty bone you've got to show to everyone.

 

Unless you're trying to be the thread troll, please read through the replies before going on a rant about something no that's already been buried.

On the other hand, those of us with some experience often have much to offer about ideas novice cachers have not yet had time to consider.

 

For instance, it's a bad idea to put food items in caches and most people prefer the cache owner to encrypt the hint, they will decrypt it in the field if they need to--otherwise, hint-type information really belongs in the body of the cache page.

 

Being rude to people who chime in on a thread isn't a great way to get people to join in helpful dialog, either. This has all been dicussed a few times, and no matter how many times the same people say they want a rating system, it doesn't mean the majority of cachers want one. The majority of cachers don't come to the forums at all, they are too busy out there enjoying caching! Some folks don't care one way or the other about a rating system, and even some people hwo think it's an OK idea tend to feel there are many other things that take priority over a rating system.

 

I have no need of any additional "rating" system. I use PQs, GSAK, and a quick glance at a few cache pages to look for a few caches that I particularly want to find for that outing, and I'm happy with the caches I find for the most part, even thrilled with some.

 

I've found a few caches, and can't find more than five in my list of found caches that I thought were a true waste of my time and energy. Looking at the logs on those five, three of them have wonderful things said about them on the cache page by people. Just coincidentally, those logs include people I have gone caching with and with whom I would typically agree with their opinion on the quality of a cache.

 

I don't read movie reviews any longer, either. Back when I did, I found that I sometimes agreed with the reviewer, sometimes disagreed, and there was no pattern I could discern about why that was so. I did not consistently disagree with a movie reviewer, so I would know to always view movies they dissed, for example. Even if we both agreed on whether a movie was "good" or "bad", chances were we disagreed on what made it that way. Amazon book reviews are even worse. Looking at the reviews done by people who like a book that I liked and then looking at others they recommend has never taken me to another book that I enjoyed~or vice versa!

 

The bottom line is, there is no other cacher "like" me--so no rating system will ever take me only to caches I want to find.

[dakotaduff]

You failed to even notice the best post here by familyDNA where they described getting involved with other cachers at events and meetings to discuss which caches they liked best as a reasonable approach.

 

I think that was a good suggestion, but it's not really an option for me right now. It may be something that I'll do in the future, though. I have found a few of the other suggestions helpful—at least in theory—and tend to put them to work soon. And I'll continue to look forward to the recommendations engine.

[+Mopar]

You old-timers crack me up. You're like an old dog dragging around a nasty bone you've got to show to everyone.

 

Unless you're trying to be the thread troll, please read through the replies before going on a rant about something no that's already been buried.

On the other hand, those of us with some experience often have much to offer about ideas novice cachers have not yet had time to consider.

 

For instance, it's a bad idea to put food items in caches and most people prefer the cache owner to encrypt the hint, they will decrypt it in the field if they need to--otherwise, hint-type information really belongs in the body of the cache page.

You forgot one: Us old timers know it's impossible to properly maintain a cache that's placed 600-700 miles round trip from home.

[dakotaduff]

On the other hand, those of us with some experience often have much to offer about ideas novice cachers have not yet had time to consider.

 

For instance, it's a bad idea to put food items in caches and most people prefer the cache owner to encrypt the hint, they will decrypt it in the field if they need to--otherwise, hint-type information really belongs in the body of the cache page.

You forgot one: Us old timers know it's impossible to properly maintain a cache that's placed 600-700 miles round trip from home.

 

Yes. Thanks for the suggestions. All of this info is also available in the documentation on the site.

 

Can't wait for the recommendations engine.

[+Mopar]

On the other hand, those of us with some experience often have much to offer about ideas novice cachers have not yet had time to consider.

 

For instance, it's a bad idea to put food items in caches and most people prefer the cache owner to encrypt the hint, they will decrypt it in the field if they need to--otherwise, hint-type information really belongs in the body of the cache page.

You forgot one: Us old timers know it's impossible to properly maintain a cache that's placed 600-700 miles round trip from home.

 

Yes. Thanks for the suggestions. All of this info is also available in the documentation on the site.

 

Can't wait for the recommendations engine.

Thanks for that comment. You just proved the main reason ratings won't work. You proved that even when people *know* the right thing to do, they go ahead and do the wrong thing anyway because they feel like it.

The type of people who know not to leave food in caches so they get ruined by animals, or hide them too far from home to be able to maintain them and turn into junk yet do it anyway are also the type of people who will rate good caches bad and bad caches good just to spoil it for other people. Human nature, it seems.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Mopar

[+ReadyOrNot]

Let's assume for a moment that ratings are implemented 06-JAN-07. Here are the posts you will start to see around Feb 2007;

 

The numbers hounds will always go after the garbage caches and lamppost hides, so you don't have to worry. People still visit the caches located in garbage dumps, even knowing that it's in a garbage dump. The rating system will only help those cachers wanting a better experience. There will always be cachers that don't worry about the experience, but only about the numbers.

[+ReadyOrNot]

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.

 

And if it works it would be the best upgrade to this site since PQs.

 

I agree! So Flask, will you commit geocide if the above changes are made?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Thanks for that comment. You just proved the main reason ratings won't work. You proved that even when people *know* the right thing to do, they go ahead and do the wrong thing anyway because they feel like it.

The type of people who know not to leave food in caches so they get ruined by animals, or hide them too far from home to be able to maintain them and turn into junk yet do it anyway are also the type of people who will rate good caches bad and bad caches good just to spoil it for other people. Human nature, it seems.

 

Ok, so your thinking is "Because a small percentage will do the wrong thing, we must not implement".. Using that thinking and your example of food in a cache, how can we punish the vast majority because of the small percentage who put food in caches? Perhaps we should only allow caches small enough that food won't fit in them? Or perhaps we should require cache owners to visit a cache after each find to ensure that there is no food in the cache?

 

OR - perhaps there are always going to be naughty people and we must proceed and make progress regardless of what they do.

[dakotaduff]

So Flask, will you commit geocide if the above changes are made?

Hehehe. Geocide. I like it.

[+flask]

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.

 

And if it works it would be the best upgrade to this site since PQs.

 

I agree! So Flask, will you commit geocide if the above changes are made?

 

no.

 

and pulling all my caches is not the same as geocide. i'll still hunt caches. i just won't place any.

[+Jhwk]

I like caches.

I like regular ones,

I like 5/5's after a 20 mile hike, and will repair it if you need me to.

I like puzzles and fakers, and pictures and scenery.

Heck, I even like those rotten dirty stinking micro's hidden in a dumpster behind that questionable Mexican restaurant.

I like them all.

Ratings are in the eye of the beholder. If you place it near me, I will come and get it.

 

that's just the way I am.

 

'we don't need no stinking ratings'

 

...