Jump to content

Cache Rating System


CoyoteRed
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Properly managed competition would increase the quality of the caches. What we REALLY need to do is implement an *EFFECTIVE* rating system on the site.

No one has come up with even a remotely effective solution.

 

Additionally, if you are voting on criteria that matters to you, then some folks will be voting on how convenient and easy it was to find the cache. The less time it takes on a cache run the better. To them, that's quality.

 

That's not to mention ad hominem voting, a problem that would be extremely hard to get around. How are you going to prevent someone getting some friends together and attacking someone else's cache simply to knock it down versus actually creating better caches to beat the other guy fairly? It becomes more of a popularity contest, not a cache quality contest.

Link to comment

I would implement a netflix-style rating system for each cache. If you give it 1 star that means you hated it. 5 means you loved it. Each cache you have not found shows you a personal set of stars based on caches you've rated in the past, based on what other people have rated. If you hate micros, all micros will get 1 star for you. If you love 'em, they'll get 5 stars.

 

It could solve most of the problems we have with urbans and micros. Rate enough of them poorly and you won't even see them (Except new ones that haven't been rated yet, of course)

Link to comment

I would implement a netflix-style rating system for each cache. If you give it 1 star that means you hated it. 5 means you loved it. Each cache you have not found shows you a personal set of stars based on caches you've rated in the past, based on what other people have rated. If you hate micros, all micros will get 1 star for you. If you love 'em, they'll get 5 stars.

 

It could solve most of the problems we have with urbans and micros. Rate enough of them poorly and you won't even see them (Except new ones that haven't been rated yet, of course)

 

this is the first interesting rating system i've seen. do i understand correctly that the ratings might not be visible to others but the system would make recommendations based on what you liked? as in "users who liked this cache also liked this one"?

 

by golly, i'd be in favor of that.

Link to comment
I would implement a netflix-style rating system for each cache. ...
I'd take the premise one step further.

 

Each of us could maintain a list of caches that we are interested in. A Groundspeak volunteer would go check on the top cache on each of our lists. They would then have this top cache delivered to us. We'd sign the log book and return it in the self-addressed, postage paid package. Upon reciept, the volunteer would go check on the next cache on our list and send it to us...

Link to comment
this is the first interesting rating system i've seen. do i understand correctly that the ratings might not be visible to others but the system would make recommendations based on what you liked? as in "users who liked this cache also liked this one"?
If I'm not mistaken, this is the system that TPTB are 'workin' on'. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I think a public viewed rating system would cause more trouble than it's worth. If you think there angst now, just wait. Perhaps, a netflix system might work out, if it's on a individual basis and not mandatory for every cacher that finds a given cache.

 

What happens when a cache gets consistent low marks. Is it automatically archived and becomes geo-junk? Can we really expect an owner of a low graded cache to retrieve their lame cache and remove it. How soon until an angry cache decides to populate and area with as many lame caches as possible just to be a gurk?

What next, if you have a low rating number you're banned from placing new caches?

 

Personally, I've found that using bookmarks is a good way to find good caches. In the Northeast forums, NJ and PA have setup bookmark list to identify the "finest caches". It seems that this has also spawned list of peoples favorites and recommended caches.

 

Now, if someone only had the guts to create a lame LPC list we'd be set.

Link to comment
I think a public viewed rating system would cause more trouble than it's worth. If you think there angst now, just wait. Perhaps, a netflix system might work out, if it's on a individual basis and not mandatory for every cacher that finds a given cache.

 

What happens when a cache gets consistent low marks. Is it automatically archived and becomes geo-junk? Can we really expect an owner of a low graded cache to retrieve their lame cache and remove it. How soon until an angry cache decides to populate and area with as many lame caches as possible just to be a gurk?

What next, if you have a low rating number you're banned from placing new caches? ...

Either you or I have missed the point of this ratings system. As I understand it, it's not actually a ratings sytem, at all. It is an 'affinity system'. Once you 'rate' a few caches, it will then be able to guess which other caches that you might prefer and offer them to you.

 

With this system, no caches end up rated high or low. The system only works to identify caches that are similar to other caches that you enjoyed (or more exactly, caches that are rated highly by other cachers that rate caches similarly to how you rate caches).

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I would implement a netflix-style rating system for each cache. ...
I'd take the premise one step further.

 

Each of us could maintain a list of caches that we are interested in. A Groundspeak volunteer would go check on the top cache on each of our lists. They would then have this top cache delivered to us. We'd sign the log book and return it in the self-addressed, postage paid package. Upon reciept, the volunteer would go check on the next cache on our list and send it to us...

No late fees!

Link to comment

I would implement a netflix-style rating system for each cache. If you give it 1 star that means you hated it. 5 means you loved it. Each cache you have not found shows you a personal set of stars based on caches you've rated in the past, based on what other people have rated. If you hate micros, all micros will get 1 star for you. If you love 'em, they'll get 5 stars....

 

It's been mentioned that something like that is in the works. Easy to use, does the job, solves most of the problems with ratings. Probably not so easy to implement. Oh and I've only used the netflix system for the first time yesterday. It actually seems to be working fairly good in it's reccomendations and I'm ecletic in my taste.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I would implement a netflix-style rating system for each cache.

 

this is the first interesting rating system i've seen. do i understand correctly that the ratings might not be visible to others but the system would make recommendations based on what you liked? as in "users who liked this cache also liked this one"?

 

by golly, i'd be in favor of that.

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about. My wife and I have seperate queues in Netflix. I log in, netflix suggests I might like Snakes on a Plane or Saw (I liked the former, have the latter in my queue). She logs in, it suggests City of Angels and Queen (Former, latter). it would never suggest either of these two movies for the other, and that's a good thing. My listing for queen may have 3 stars, hers 4.5. My listing for Snakes on a Plane was 5 stars, hers is 2.5. Neither of us know (or care) what the "general" popularity of each is. Why should we? We just get a good indicator of if we'd like it or not.

 

As a bonus, it'd give people a reason to log a DNF (That could be the only way to rate it, if you log a find/dnf)

Edited by Retcon
Link to comment
As a bonus, it'd give people a reason to log a DNF (That could be the only way to rate it, if you log a find/dnf)

 

How do you honestly rate a cache you did not find?

 

Because other people may have rated it. And you may like what someone else likes.

 

Someone mentioned that TPTB are already working on this??? Can you provide a link or some other info to verify. Thanks!

Link to comment
As a bonus, it'd give people a reason to log a DNF (That could be the only way to rate it, if you log a find/dnf)

 

How do you honestly rate a cache you did not find?

 

You don't have to rate a cache to log a find/dnf, but (in my utopia, remember this is the one thing *I* would change) you have to log a find/dnf to rate a cache. If I drive up to the cache location and see it's a lamp post, I'll drive away and later log a DNF rating it a 1. If I search for a while in a serene wooded park and can't find the cache, but *loved* the area, I will log a DNF and rate it a 5. Or, maybe I'll log it a DNF and not rate it, pending that judgement for when I come back and actually find it.

 

You're not rating the *cache*. My, what a lovely ammo can. You're rating the entire caching experience.

Edited by Retcon
Link to comment

If I drive up to the cache location and see it's a lamp post, I'll drive away and later log a DNF rating it a 1.

And might miss out on the really cool cache that was hidden in a fake (something) nearby, and you only thought it was the lamp post. A well known moderator in these forums has a WAY cool cache similar to this! It's one of my favorite finds, and is on my watchlist so I can read other people's reactions. I've also found a cache that was very close to a guardrail, that I just knew had to be on the guardrail... and was so surprised to find that it was hidden in a clever unexpected way. Neither one of these would deserve a 1 rating that you'd likely give it.

 

If I search for a while in a serene wooded park and can't find the cache, but *loved* the area, I will log a DNF and rate it a 5.
And I'll come along after your rating of a 5, and find yet another leaky tupperware container covered with sticks with a soggy log book that I can't write on even if I did have a pen, because there's not one in the cache. Glad I got a nice view out of it though.

 

Or, maybe I'll log it a DNF and not rate it, pending that judgement for when I come back and actually find it.
That sounds like the best idea. If there ever is a rating system, I sure hope you can only rate it if you've found it first.

 

You're not rating the *cache*. My, what a lovely ammo can. You're rating the entire caching experience.
You're also not rating the *view*. My, what a lovely park (that I can see at any other county park). You're rating the entire caching experience. And if you didn't make a find, you didn't experience the entire thing.

 

So... if it weren't possible to get the one thing I wanted to change from my earlier post in this thread, I think another one thing I'd like to change is that I'd have more time to go geocaching.

Link to comment

If I drive up to the cache location and see it's a lamp post, I'll drive away and later log a DNF rating it a 1.

And might miss out on the really cool cache that was hidden in a fake (something) nearby, and you only thought it was the lamp post. A well known moderator in these forums has a WAY cool cache similar to this! It's one of my favorite finds, and is on my watchlist so I can read other people's reactions. I've also found a cache that was very close to a guardrail, that I just knew had to be on the guardrail... and was so surprised to find that it was hidden in a clever unexpected way. Neither one of these would deserve a 1 rating that you'd likely give it.

 

If I search for a while in a serene wooded park and can't find the cache, but *loved* the area, I will log a DNF and rate it a 5.
And I'll come along after your rating of a 5, and find yet another leaky tupperware container covered with sticks with a soggy log book that I can't write on even if I did have a pen, because there's not one in the cache. Glad I got a nice view out of it though.

 

Or, maybe I'll log it a DNF and not rate it, pending that judgement for when I come back and actually find it.
That sounds like the best idea. If there ever is a rating system, I sure hope you can only rate it if you've found it first.

 

You're not rating the *cache*. My, what a lovely ammo can. You're rating the entire caching experience.
You're also not rating the *view*. My, what a lovely park (that I can see at any other county park). You're rating the entire caching experience. And if you didn't make a find, you didn't experience the entire thing.

 

So... if it weren't possible to get the one thing I wanted to change from my earlier post in this thread, I think another one thing I'd like to change is that I'd have more time to go geocaching.

 

The whole idea is that NO ONE SEES WHAT YOU OR I RATE THE CACHE AT.

The system comes back and say that others who like the caches that I said I like also like cache GCXXXXX that I have not found yet. Could be that only 1% of cachers rate a cache the way I do, but that 1% like the same kind of caching experience I do. At the same time the system is returning a list to you based on those who rate a cache in the same manor you do.

Makes no difference if you get 153.5 of your buds to rate your new leaky micro in the holding take of the porta-john as 100 because they don't like the same kind of caches as I do, and the system knows that.

 

So, on topic, I would go for the net flix type rating system.

Link to comment

The whole idea is that NO ONE SEES WHAT YOU OR I RATE THE CACHE AT.

So if you DNF a cache, rate it low, but you and I similarly rate other caches, won't this reduce the likelyhood that this cache will get suggested to me?

 

It doesn't matter if I see what you rated it or not. If you DON'T find the cache, how can your opinion of it possibly help??

 

Oh, and to keep this on topic... I agree with Ambrosia.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

If I drive up to the cache location and see it's a lamp post, I'll drive away and later log a DNF rating it a 1.

And might miss out on the really cool cache that was hidden in a fake (something) nearby, and you only thought it was the lamp post. A well known moderator in these forums has a WAY cool cache similar to this! It's one of my favorite finds, and is on my watchlist so I can read other people's reactions. I've also found a cache that was very close to a guardrail, that I just knew had to be on the guardrail... and was so surprised to find that it was hidden in a clever unexpected way. Neither one of these would deserve a 1 rating that you'd likely give it.
If it's in a parking lot, unless the cache container contained $100 bills I'd likely give it a 1. I have no desire to look in a parking lot for a micro, no matter how interesting it is. And remember, it doesn't *deserve* a 1. In my opinion, it *is* a 1. And others who are likely to share my opinion will see it as so.
If I search for a while in a serene wooded park and can't find the cache, but *loved* the area, I will log a DNF and rate it a 5.
And I'll come along after your rating of a 5, and find yet another leaky tupperware container covered with sticks with a soggy log book that I can't write on even if I did have a pen, because there's not one in the cache. Glad I got a nice view out of it though.
While I do agree with this in part, I don't know how to reconcile it with the above. I *do* think you should be able to rate caches you didn't find, else I'd never be able to rate a parking lot cache and I think that's important. However, recall that you're not going out to hunt caches based on my opinion alone, but on everybody's opinion. If it's a coffee can in a swamp and I gave it a 5 but 10 other people who otherwise share my interests gave it a 2, you're (assuming you share our interests othewise) going to see it as a 2, not a 5.

 

Also, there are people who are in this for the nice views and hikes in the woods. When it all comes down to it, I'm one of those people. I'm trying to shrink and then maintain my gut, and geocaching is one of the few exercise programs that I've been able to stick with. I'd rather, ANY DAY find a busted open peanut butter jar on a mile hike around a lake than a wonderfully constructed puzzle behind a Wal*Mart. And I don't think I'm alone.

Or, maybe I'll log it a DNF and not rate it, pending that judgement for when I come back and actually find it.
That sounds like the best idea. If there ever is a rating system, I sure hope you can only rate it if you've found it first.
Perhaps a checkbox [] Exclude DNFs
So... if it weren't possible to get the one thing I wanted to change from my earlier post in this thread, I think another one thing I'd like to change is that I'd have more time to go geocaching.
This we agree on :rolleyes: Edited by Retcon
Link to comment
If I drive up to the cache location and see it's a lamp post, I'll drive away and later log a DNF rating it a 1.
And might miss out on the really cool cache that was hidden in a fake (something) nearby, and you only thought it was the lamp post. A well known moderator in these forums has a WAY cool cache similar to this! It's one of my favorite finds, and is on my watchlist so I can read other people's reactions. I've also found a cache that was very close to a guardrail, that I just knew had to be on the guardrail... and was so surprised to find that it was hidden in a clever unexpected way. Neither one of these would deserve a 1 rating that you'd likely give it.
If it's in a parking lot, unless the cache container contained $100 bills I'd likely give it a 1. I have no desire to look in a parking lot for a micro, no matter how interesting it is. And remember, it doesn't *deserve* a 1. In my opinion, it *is* a 1. And others who are likely to share my opinion will see it as so.
The problem with submitting a rating for the hypothetical cache that you didn't find is that not only do you have no idea whether the cache is in the light pole base, you don't even know if it's in the parking lot. If you somehow biffed the coords, you could be some distance from the actual park-like location.

 

If you then rate the cache poorly based on your unknown error, this cache will not be offered to other cachers who tend to like caches similar to those that you like.

 

This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.

 

BTW, I also am in general agreement with Ambrosia, even though it tends to disagree with my previous 'wish'.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.

 

Getting back to the movie metaphor, your premise would then be you couldn't decide if a movie is something you might like to watch or not until you watch it. This something we know is not the case. What should it be different in the geocaching world?

Link to comment
This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.
Getting back to the movie metaphor, your premise would then be you couldn't decide if a movie is something you might like to watch or not until you watch it. This something we know is not the case. What should it be different in the geocaching world?
Ummm, for the reason that I explained in the post that you snipped my comment out of. :rolleyes:
Link to comment

Let's not dwell too deep into the merits of rating systems, cache sizes, or any other detail. There are other threads for that. Let's keep this generic as is implied by the OP. - Thanks

If I could change just one thing, it would be that everyone would listen to forum moderators the first time, and we would never have to close any threads. :rolleyes:

 

Looks like some folks need to go start another thread about cache ratings.

Link to comment
As a bonus, it'd give people a reason to log a DNF (That could be the only way to rate it, if you log a find/dnf)

 

How do you honestly rate a cache you did not find?

 

 

That is the MAIN reason Terracaching's growth is stunted. Some folks are too proud of their code and are blind to the fact that it turns people like me off.

 

 

I only use Terracaching to get around some of the more arbitrary gc.com rules.

Link to comment
This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.
Getting back to the movie metaphor, your premise would then be you couldn't decide if a movie is something you might like to watch or not until you watch it. This something we know is not the case. What should it be different in the geocaching world?
Ummm, for the reason that I explained in the post that you snipped my comment out of. :rolleyes:

 

So someone misjudges a cache. It's no different than misjudging a movie.

 

No one person's opinion would radically change a cache's score. In fact, the more people vote on it (read: not just the finders) the more accurate the recommendation will become and less any one person's choice will affect the score.

 

You know, maybe you're right. This could very well be a rating system that would not do any good. If folks can't grasp the concept, then what good is it?

Link to comment
Neither one of these would deserve a 1 rating that you'd likely give it.
:blink:
:rolleyes:

I just find it ironic that you're telling folks what opinion they should have.

If you're talking about the text you quoted, it's me giving my opinion that the caches wouldn't deserve a low rating, not that the poster shouldn't have that opinion.

 

I also say, elsewhere in this thread, that his opinion shouldn't be used for a rating system if he didn't find the cache, not that he should have a specific opinion.

 

So, I guess those aren't what you were referring to. Can you link to where I told someone what opinion they should have?

 

Back on topic... what I would change about geocaching, apart from the first two things I've already said... is to have less thorns and mosquitoes in the south. Ouchy.

Link to comment
This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.
Getting back to the movie metaphor, your premise would then be you couldn't decide if a movie is something you might like to watch or not until you watch it. This something we know is not the case. What should it be different in the geocaching world?
Ummm, for the reason that I explained in the post that you snipped my comment out of. :rolleyes:
So someone misjudges a cache. It's no different than misjudging a movie.

 

No one person's opinion would radically change a cache's score. In fact, the more people vote on it (read: not just the finders) the more accurate the recommendation will become and less any one person's choice will affect the score.

 

You know, maybe you're right. This could very well be a rating system that would not do any good. If folks can't grasp the concept, then what good is it?

The irony is that you appear to not be grasping the concept. You see, the caches won't have 'scores'. They will have ratings that are tied to individual members. If you tend to rate caches similarly to other members, caches that you liked will be 'offered' to them and caches they liked will be 'offered' to you. If you misrate a cache, it might stop a cache that the other people would like from being offered to them.

 

<Snipped some not-ratings blather and sent it back to the other thread.>

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
The irony is that you appear to not be grasping the concept.

 

Maybe you're right. Maybe you have some inside knowledge of how TPTB are going to implement this scheme and I'm thinking of something completely different. Could very well be so.

 

The thing is, have you ever seen a rating system you didn't dislike?

Link to comment
Neither one of these would deserve a 1 rating that you'd likely give it.
If you're talking about the text you quoted, it's me giving my opinion that the caches wouldn't deserve a low rating, not that the poster shouldn't have that opinion.

 

You're right, you didn't say they shouldn't have an opinion and I didn't say you did. You said their opinion was wrong. I suppose somehow they should have the same opinion as you do on everything and not hold one different than yours.

 

I certainly hope you were simply saying their opinion was wrong and not they should have a different one. If it was the former, I humbly apologize and we can move on. Still, not wanting someone to express an opinion, whether right, wrong, or simply different, until some arbitrary standard is meet is what I'm finding ironic in your post.

Link to comment

I like the Netflix rating system, on Netflix. It does bring up a movie or two that I may not have know of before.

 

But to tell the truth it brings a lot of garbage too.

 

There are some big flaws in the system. I like the "Hornblower" and the "Sharpe's" BBC mini-series. Because I rated them high, the system dumped a lot of BBC series I had no interest at all in. Also I love war movies, but because a rated a couple of war/romance movies low, it cleared most of the war movies out of my recommendations.

 

I can see the same thing happening with a similar system on GC. If I rate one micro high, because it a quality cache, I would get many more micros. How many of those would be of interest to me? Yet if I a rate a few micros low, I may never see the good ones in my recommendations.

 

Also in a cache light area like I live in now, I would never use it because it would limit my choices. That's one reason I haven't comment for or against this idea till now.

Link to comment

I agree with a netflix or even amazon type rating where it is based on your personal prefences. I think there are too many types of caches and too many different ways people cache to make this very realistic in a public type rating.. if you like only ammo boxes those you rate high and if you hate micros you rate low but someone else has a totally different outlook so that rating would be useless to them. Now a personal preference type rating shows what you personally like .. that is useful I think though that the attributes would have to be expanded alot to make it useful. But dosen't pocket querys really already address this somewhat?

Link to comment
This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.

 

Getting back to the movie metaphor, your premise would then be you couldn't decide if a movie is something you might like to watch or not until you watch it. This something we know is not the case. What should it be different in the geocaching world?

 

Movies are market towards certain groups people that have certain interest. It's pretty easy to tell if a movie is a comedy, drama, action, or horror. I'm not a fan of "chick-flick" I avoid all of them. I do miss out on some good movies, but it's pretty easy to tell one from the marketing of the movie.

Can you tell what every cache is by looking at the cache page?

Can you tell what type of hide ever cache is by looking at google maps?

 

FWIW, although Net-Flix recommends many movies that I've seen already and enjoyed, it has recommended some serious turkeys that I wouldn't watch Clockwork Orange style. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I agree with a netflix or even amazon type rating where it is based on your personal prefences. I think there are too many types of caches and too many different ways people cache to make this very realistic in a public type rating.. if you like only ammo boxes those you rate high and if you hate micros you rate low but someone else has a totally different outlook so that rating would be useless to them. Now a personal preference type rating shows what you personally like .. that is useful I think though that the attributes would have to be expanded alot to make it useful. But dosen't pocket querys really already address this somewhat?

Ding, ding, ding, ding

 

We have a winner. But don't worry no one will listen to you anyway. It takes away from their ability to argue.

Link to comment

 

The thing is, have you ever seen a rating system you didn't dislike?

 

 

Yes, but NOT in the geocaching context.

 

 

The best example we have of a rating system in play is Terracaching where it's also possible to rate caches anywhere in the world just from reading or not reading but just clicking on the cache page.

 

 

I challenged this from the beginning, but was assured that there was a method to the madness and also that my stand against this participation would cause the system to not work properly if people followed me down that road, so I played along. I rated every single terracache in the world as average since I had nothing more than the cache page to go on. I noticed some interesting things happening to my ucr stats because of it, but it still didn't float me.

 

 

I kept a daily track by writing down the number of ratings on all of my caches and their actual rating score and a pattern stood right out plain as day.

 

 

Roughly 25 people were rating every cache on the site as I was since just about every new cache instantly got about 26 individual ratings. From that I became aware that there was ANOTHER GAME going on under the table since most of the newly rated caches dipped below average unless actual finders were rating the cache higher than average. One of my locationless caches system archived for what I suspect to be my choice of a title which was "Shizz-nitt!," since folks who actually logged it told me they loved getting a find for having a bad geocaching experience that cost them money outta pocket. Sorry, not my idea of fun to have folks judge my caches without actually finding them. I opted out of the terracaching competition as well as financial support to the site and began hiding mainly gc.com caches again.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I still support terracaching by hiding and finding terracaches, but for me, it's just a special tool to place caches that wouldn't get published here.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.

 

Getting back to the movie metaphor, your premise would then be you couldn't decide if a movie is something you might like to watch or not until you watch it. This something we know is not the case. What should it be different in the geocaching world?

 

Movies are market towards certain groups people that have certain interest. It's pretty easy to tell if a movie is a comedy, drama, action, or horror. I'm not a fan of "chick-flick" I avoid all of them. I do miss out on some good movies, but it's pretty easy to tell one from the marketing of the movie.

Can you tell what every cache is by looking at the cache page?

Can you tell what type of hide ever cache is by looking at google maps?

 

FWIW, although Net-Flix recommends many movies that I've seen already and enjoyed, it has recommended some serious turkeys that I wouldn't watch Clockwork Orange style. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Take a little time and a few a brain cells and thing will be just fine.

 

And therein lies the rub with any recommendation system.

Link to comment
As a bonus, it'd give people a reason to log a DNF (That could be the only way to rate it, if you log a find/dnf)

 

How do you honestly rate a cache you did not find?

 

You don't have to rate a cache to log a find/dnf, but (in my utopia, remember this is the one thing *I* would change) you have to log a find/dnf to rate a cache. If I drive up to the cache location and see it's a lamp post, I'll drive away and later log a DNF rating it a 1. If I search for a while in a serene wooded park and can't find the cache, but *loved* the area, I will log a DNF and rate it a 5. Or, maybe I'll log it a DNF and not rate it, pending that judgement for when I come back and actually find it.

 

You're not rating the *cache*. My, what a lovely ammo can. You're rating the entire caching experience.

 

What if you entered the coords wrong and your DNF is 50 miles away?

Link to comment

What better rating system can you ask for than the exisitng logs? I can usually tell pretty quickly from the logs, if I will enjoy a cache or not.

I agree totally
People that say this have way too much time on their hands and also have no empathy for those with busy schedules. I can't wait until Groundspeak launches the new awards system! :rolleyes:
Link to comment
This is why the hypothetical ratings system should only be offered to those cachers who actually find the cache.

 

Getting back to the movie metaphor, your premise would then be you couldn't decide if a movie is something you might like to watch or not until you watch it. This something we know is not the case. What should it be different in the geocaching world?

I've found that some of the best movies that I've seen were ones that I previously had thought looked horrible from its preview or cover. I just had completely misjudged them. Just goes to show that you can't judge a book by its cover. Oh, wait. Wrong metaphor. :rolleyes:

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment
Neither one of these would deserve a 1 rating that you'd likely give it.
If you're talking about the text you quoted, it's me giving my opinion that the caches wouldn't deserve a low rating, not that the poster shouldn't have that opinion.

 

You're right, you didn't say they shouldn't have an opinion and I didn't say you did. You said their opinion was wrong. I suppose somehow they should have the same opinion as you do on everything and not hold one different than yours.

 

I certainly hope you were simply saying their opinion was wrong and not they should have a different one. If it was the former, I humbly apologize and we can move on. Still, not wanting someone to express an opinion, whether right, wrong, or simply different, until some arbitrary standard is meet is what I'm finding ironic in your post.

Nowhere in the quote did I say he was wrong. I never said he was wrong to have the opinion or wrong to express it. Is there some reason you keep coming after me with this?

 

I was expressing my opinion that the cache was better than the rating that I expected them to give it, based on their previous comments. He seems to think all caches in parking lots would be a 1. I think there are some parking lot caches that should rate higher. Therefore, I said that the cache wouldn't deserve the low rating that someone who didn't find the cache would give it. I'm giving my opinion. You seem to think me giving my opinion is, for some reason, ironic.

 

The thing that I DID say would be wrong, is to have a rating system take into account someone's opinion of a cache that they've never found. If you want to attack me for saying something is wrong, go after that since it's something I actually did say.

Link to comment

What better rating system can you ask for than the exisitng logs? I can usually tell pretty quickly from the logs, if I will enjoy a cache or not.

I agree totally
People that say this have way too much time on their hands and also have no empathy for those with busy schedules. I can't wait until Groundspeak launches the new awards system! :rolleyes:

What, you don't do any planning before you head out to go caching? :blink:

 

No wonder some of you folks complain about your caching experience.

 

BTW, it only take a few seconds to read a few logs. If you're that pressed for time why do you cache and why are you wasting your valuable time on the forums?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...