Cache Rating System

[CoyoteRed]

Mushtang (and I) can't understand how there would be any value in a cache rating system which accepts enjoyability ratings from cachers who haven't even found the cache being rated. He has expressed this to you several times, and you keep missing the point.

 

What you're now talking about, on the other hand, is a way to pre-filter potential candidates for you cache hunt outing based on criteria that is already published for each cache. You're right, email spam filters are pretty awesome things. I love mine.

 

I've been talking about the same thing from all the way back to when I first mentioned Bayesian inference.

 

We're continual admonished to read the cache descriptions and logs to weed out the junk. This is a 100% proposition. If you are to determine if you might like the cache read the description.

 

However, one rating system, the one I've been talking about since Retcon mentioned the Netflix analogy is allowing other folks to "pre-read" that cache description for you. Those who agree with you most will provide you with a better chance of liking the cache descriptions of those caches that end up with a higher score. Now, depending on the score you would read just those caches that are more likely to get a thumbs up from you. That reduces the number of cache descriptions you need to read from 100% to something lower, maybe a lot lower. This will speed up the cache selection process.

 

Now, given that you're not likely to hunt a cache that you've pre-determined to not want to hunt, the system will likely be paralleling it's suggestions with those caches that you actually enjoy.

[CoyoteRed]

You're correct in that the rating by a person who says "This looks like a fun one" will not reach you. But if the "hey, cool quick find" attitude is typical of that cacher -- they rate those highly and you rate them poorly -- then their ratings aren't going to jive with yours overall, and their ratings won't be as much of a factor when the system makes your recommendations.

 

...and there wouldn't be much data for the system to work with in regards to it's ability to even make a recommendation.

[Mushtang]

You simply don't get it that the group most like you is not going to vote down a LPM if you've been voting up LPMs. They then, by definition, will not be the ones most like you. I'm sorry you can't wrap your brain around that simple concept.

You and I live close (one state away) but not close enough to share a lot of finds. I've been to your city on a business trip before, and was able to find a few caches, but that might be a perfect example of where I would use this hypothetical filter.

 

From what you've described in the past, you and I share similar tastes on what kinds of cache finds we enjoy most, and what we think are lame. The two big differences are 1) you say you'll skip a cache you suspect is lame and I'll go ahead and find it anyway if I'm there, and 2) you want to blame the hider for the lameness and I'm thankful he even put one out at all. However, we still enjoy the same clever hides, nice views, neat locations, etc.

 

Suppose I've got a business trip to your town, and the filter system recognizes that you and I have rated a lot of similar caches the same way, or caches that we've rated have both been rated by someone else the same way (TinSparrow?). However it works, it seems to think that your ratings would be a good indication of what i'd like.

 

I wouldn't want the filter system to take into account any caches you've rated without finding them, when telling me what I might like. Otherwise a false assumption on your part might keep me from seeing an available cache nearby in the few minutes I have to cache on the way to a meeting.

 

Of course, this is all acedemic anyway. I don't think TPTB are sitting in their office watching this thread looking for ideas. Even if we hash it all out and finally all agree what filter system would work best, there's very little chance it will be what they come up with. But it's still fun to discuss!

[Mushtang]

What about C?

 

C doesn't like lame micros, but loves caching, and is happy to find a LPC on the off chance it's fun. Cacher A rates a LPC poorly even though he didn't find it. A and C agree on almost every other cache they've rated, so C isn't told about the LPC. This LPC, however, is done in such a way that C would really be thrilled to find, but will now miss out on if he follows the recommendations.

A's rating doesn't affect what C sees, because he didn't find it. From C's perspective, it's as if A didn't rate it at all.

 

On the other hand, if C finds it and rates it a 5, while A has already rated it a 1, it may show up in A's recommendations as a 3 (in a two-cacher system). If there are more cachers like C, the rating will be even higher, and A can say, "Hey, maybe there's something to this one."

 

Edit: as sbell111 said

 

Edit more: This is exactly why non-found ratings should only apply to the cacher who gives them -- if A decides it stinks without finding it, then *both* cachers miss out.

Excellent!

[+sbell111]

You're correct in that the rating by a person who says "This looks like a fun one" will not reach you. But if the "hey, cool quick find" attitude is typical of that cacher -- they rate those highly and you rate them poorly -- then their ratings aren't going to jive with yours overall, and their ratings won't be as much of a factor when the system makes your recommendations.

 

...and there wouldn't be much data for the system to work with in regards to it's ability to even make a recommendation.

This leaves us with a small set of good data or a larger set of suspect data. I'll take the good data every time.

[Dinoprophet]

You're correct in that the rating by a person who says "This looks like a fun one" will not reach you. But if the "hey, cool quick find" attitude is typical of that cacher -- they rate those highly and you rate them poorly -- then their ratings aren't going to jive with yours overall, and their ratings won't be as much of a factor when the system makes your recommendations.

 

...and there wouldn't be much data for the system to work with in regards to it's ability to even make a recommendation.

Why not? It has the data of every rating from a Found It, plus what you personally think you'll like or dislike.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[Dinoprophet]

Edit more: This is exactly why non-found ratings should only apply to the cacher who gives them -- if A decides it stinks without finding it, then *both* cachers miss out.

Excellent!

By the bold part, I meant "if the Non-Found ratings applied to everyone". And when I said "three cachers" in my original example, I meant two but had started with a different idea. Sorry, I'm thinking faster than I'm typing. Or something. I'll edit it.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[CoyoteRed]

*Throws hands up*

 

If you guys aren't going to even read what I'm saying it's no use to even post.

[Dinoprophet]

*Throws hands up*

 

If you guys aren't going to even read what I'm saying it's no use to even post.

I read it, I just want something different from this system. If you're talking about removing the need to pre-read everything, then there's no data because everyone is relying on everyone else to pre-read it. What I'm talking about is a list of caches you probably will want to look at.

 

What do you trust more, someone who reads it and decide it stinks, or someone who finds it and decides it stinks?

[Mushtang]

*Throws hands up*

 

If you guys aren't going to even read what I'm saying it's no use to even post.

We've been doing that for years. It's just now bothering you?

 

(just kidding)

[+KBI]

*Throws hands up*

 

If you guys aren't going to even read what I'm saying it's no use to even post.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. Trust me, that conclusion has already been reached from this end.

 

You've done a beautiful job of illustrating one fact: Rating a cache you haven't found makes about as much sense as responding to a post you haven't read.

[+KBI]

What about C?

 

C doesn't like lame micros, but loves caching, and is happy to find a LPC on the off chance it's fun. Cacher A rates a LPC poorly even though he didn't find it. A and C agree on almost every other cache they've rated, so C isn't told about the LPC. This LPC, however, is done in such a way that C would really be thrilled to find, but will now miss out on if he follows the recommendations.

A's rating doesn't affect what C sees, because he didn't find it. From C's perspective, it's as if A didn't rate it at all.

 

On the other hand, if C finds it and rates it a 5, while A has already rated it a 1, it may show up in A's recommendations as a 3 (in a two-cacher system). If there are more cachers like C, the rating will be even higher, and A can say, "Hey, maybe there's something to this one."

Now I see what you're after. That does sound like a good idea. If it works well for a lot of people, and it makes their caching experience more pleasant without spreading invalid information submitted by those who try to rate what they haven't actually seen, then why not?

 

The next practical problem would be to make it simple enough that you could explain it in a way that 80 or 90 percent of cachers would understand what's going on. I wouldn't be too optimistic. The relatively simple process of tracking Travel Bugs consistently gets fumbled by a disappointingly high percentage of cachers. Something like this rating system is bound to confuse the lesser minds -- like mine. See how long it took me to get it?

[Dinoprophet]

The next practical problem would be to make it simple enough that you could explain it in a way that 80 or 90 percent of cachers would understand what's going on. I wouldn't be too optimistic. The relatively simple process of tracking Travel Bugs consistently gets fumbled by a disappointingly high percentage of cachers. Something like this rating system is bound to confuse the lesser minds -- like mine. See how long it took me to get it?

Well, you'd start by having someone other than me explain it.

 

Really, though, I don't think you need to explain it, any more than any of the other features here. You just tell the users that they can now rate caches and get recommendations based on those ratings.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+KBI]

Really, though, I don't think you need to explain it, any more than any of the other features here. You just tell the users that they can now rate caches and get recommendations based on those ratings.

I myself would only depend on such a system after it had proved to me that it would never cause me to miss out on any good fun. As Mushtang pointed out: when your time is limited, it would be a shame to miss out on an enjoyable cache just because something you would have liked didn't make it through your own arbitrary filter, and you never knew it was right there next to your work or errand appointment.

[+Team Grumblecakes]

I would love to see a cache rating system implemented, but I think it would be more useful if it asked you to rate individual aspects of the hunt (Is there a reason for this cache to be here? Was it a challenging hunt? Is there a nice hike or viewpoint? Is there and engaging puzzle of some kind? Is the camouflage of unusal quality? Is the cache container well stocked and maintained?) and then generated a cumulative score based on those.

 

Also, it would be a good thing if a the ratings for a new cache didn't get posted until 5 or 10 visitors had rated it, to protect the anonymity of the rater - otherwise I might feel compelled to give a higher score than I feel the cache deserved, just so the owner doesn't look and say, "Geez, the FTF rated my cache a '1', what a tool!"

[The Vargman]

O.k. perhaps this is dumb, but I actually think it may resolve part of the "rating without seeing it" debate in this hypothetical system...

 

Add a category "I skipped it" and just leave a counter on it.

 

Just a thought...

[+KBI]

Add a category "I skipped it" and just leave a counter on it.

 

Just a thought...

Not a bad thought, but I can guarantee you that an "I skipped it" category would immediately be abused, and used as an attack on certain types of hides. It would therefore quickly become meaningless, and only serve to flag each such cache with the fact that lots of people think this particular one is an example type of hide they've come to hate -- whether it truly is or not.

[Clan Riffster]

Rating a cache you haven't found makes about as much sense as responding to a post you haven't read.

Bingo. Any cache judging system must have credibility at its core to have any value. If I discovered that my favorite literature critic was posting opinions on books without reading more than the cover, that critic's opinion would suddenly cease to have relevance. Finding a cache would, (to me), seem like a critical component in deciding if I like it. Although a rating system based on incomplete data might help to narrow down my search, I think the system would be far more accurate if it was limited to those who actually located the cache.

[The Vargman]

Add a category "I skipped it" and just leave a counter on it.

 

Just a thought...

Not a bad thought, but I can guarantee you that an "I skipped it" category would immediately be abused, and used as an attack on certain types of hides. It would therefore quickly become meaningless, and only serve to flag each such cache with the fact that lots of people think this particular one is an example type of hide they've come to hate -- whether it truly is or not.

 

Perhaps...And I can see your point, but I guess what I'm saying is this could add to your "profile". If you skip a lot of caches, you'd be grouped with those like you...etc. Also If you skipped cache X but not cache Y you are like cacher A. Perhaps I'm naive about the affinity system being proposed, but that would seem to fit in. Also, personally I can't see a feature like this being abused any less than if a system was put into place without an option like this.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Suppose I've got a business trip to your town, and the filter system recognizes that you and I have rated a lot of similar caches the same way, or caches that we've rated have both been rated by someone else the same way (TinSparrow?). However it works, it seems to think that your ratings would be a good indication of what i'd like.

 

I wouldn't want the filter system to take into account any caches you've rated without finding them, when telling me what I might like. Otherwise a false assumption on your part might keep me from seeing an available cache nearby in the few minutes I have to cache on the way to a meeting....

 

The system would factor in the other 200 people with similar tastes. CR would not unduly influence your results. However even assuming he did, the reality is that it's going to reccomend more good caches that you would enjoy than you can possible do. Yes you may miss out on one or two because someone rated a cache based on a criteria you don't like. The other 200 though should keep you busy.

 

Of course that's if you used the system to pick out which caches to do next. You would be free to find them all anyway, or read the logs.

 

It seems like you and CR agree on the bigger idea but not a nuance that won't matter all that much.

[+Renegade Knight]

Rating a cache you haven't found makes about as much sense as responding to a post you haven't read.

Bingo. Any cache judging system must have credibility at its core to have any value. If I discovered that my favorite literature critic was posting opinions on books without reading more than the cover, that critic's opinion would suddenly cease to have relevance. Finding a cache would, (to me), seem like a critical component in deciding if I like it. Although a rating system based on incomplete data might help to narrow down my search, I think the system would be far more accurate if it was limited to those who actually located the cache.

 

Maybe the soluion is to use the already existing "Ignore" rather than rating. You can pre-judge some caches based on logs, knowing the area ect. Just like some people hate any movie with Keanu Reeves (sp?) in it.

 

Some people will never get past a lamp post micro. Others may enjoy that this lamp post is the only hiding spot within a mile of a beautiful pond surrounded by a strip mall wonderland. One of those found spots in a start cityscape that make you smile.

 

Hard to say. Over all I think the idea would work. There are nits in any rating system. That we are debating a single aspect of this system is a lot of progress from the days of old.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[The Vargman]

Rating a cache you haven't found makes about as much sense as responding to a post you haven't read.

Bingo. Any cache judging system must have credibility at its core to have any value. If I discovered that my favorite literature critic was posting opinions on books without reading more than the cover, that critic's opinion would suddenly cease to have relevance. Finding a cache would, (to me), seem like a critical component in deciding if I like it. Although a rating system based on incomplete data might help to narrow down my search, I think the system would be far more accurate if it was limited to those who actually located the cache.

 

Maybe the soluion is to use the already existing "Ignore" rather than rating. You can pre-judge some caches based on logs, knowing the area ect. Just like some people hate any movie with Keanu Reeves (sp?) in it.

 

Some people will never get past a lamp post micro. Others may enjoy that this lamp post is the only hiding spot within a mile of a beautiful pond surrounded by a strip mall wonderland. One of those found spots in a start cityscape that make you smile.

 

Hard to say. Over all I think the idea would work. There are nits in any rating system. That we are debating a single aspect of this system is a lot of progress from the days of old.

 

I see what you're saying and perhaps I'm missing something, but I think using the function as it exists wouldn't be of much assistance to the "out of towner" if they were trying to eliminate certain types of caches.

[+TrailGators]

Of course, this is all acedemic anyway. I don't think TPTB are sitting in their office watching this thread looking for ideas. Even if we hash it all out and finally all agree what filter system would work best, there's very little chance it will be what they come up with. But it's still fun to discuss!

I agree with this. It is fun to "what if." That's how some great ideas are born and refined. Also, once TPTB implement what they are actually planning on implementing; I think we will have a lot more happy campers out there.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I see what you're saying and perhaps I'm missing something, but I think using the function as it exists wouldn't be of much assistance to the "out of towner" if they were trying to eliminate certain types of caches.

 

Since it's an affinity system it would be handy for finding caches you might like. That's different from pointing out which caches you won't like. You would actually have to reverse the system to have it help you rule out caches. As long as the out of towner is interested in finding what they like, it can work.

[The Vargman]

...I see what you're saying and perhaps I'm missing something, but I think using the function as it exists wouldn't be of much assistance to the "out of towner" if they were trying to eliminate certain types of caches.

 

Since it's an affinity system it would be handy for finding caches you might like. That's different from pointing out which caches you won't like. You would actually have to reverse the system to have it help you rule out caches. As long as the out of towner is interested in finding what they like, it can work.

 

O.k. I got lost...

 

I get that the affinity system works much better as a "Help me find good ones" So, allow me to revise that part, but I'm confused on the whole "Ignore" funtion being able to be used in place of the "I skipped it" for profiling. If I understand this well enough, you should be "paired" with people that have similar taste and ignoring wouldn't allow me to know what you ignore. Just tryin' to make sure I understand.

[+sbell111]

...I see what you're saying and perhaps I'm missing something, but I think using the function as it exists wouldn't be of much assistance to the "out of towner" if they were trying to eliminate certain types of caches.

Since it's an affinity system it would be handy for finding caches you might like. That's different from pointing out which caches you won't like. You would actually have to reverse the system to have it help you rule out caches. As long as the out of towner is interested in finding what they like, it can work.

O.k. I got lost...

 

I get that the affinity system works much better as a "Help me find good ones" So, allow me to revise that part, but I'm confused on the whole "Ignore" funtion being able to be used in place of the "I skipped it" for profiling. If I understand this well enough, you should be "paired" with people that have similar taste and ignoring wouldn't allow me to know what you ignore. Just tryin' to make sure I understand.

Since the other person ignored the cache, it wouldn't show as 'liked'. Therefore, it won't be recommended to you.

[The Vargman]

...I see what you're saying and perhaps I'm missing something, but I think using the function as it exists wouldn't be of much assistance to the "out of towner" if they were trying to eliminate certain types of caches.

Since it's an affinity system it would be handy for finding caches you might like. That's different from pointing out which caches you won't like. You would actually have to reverse the system to have it help you rule out caches. As long as the out of towner is interested in finding what they like, it can work.

O.k. I got lost...

 

I get that the affinity system works much better as a "Help me find good ones" So, allow me to revise that part, but I'm confused on the whole "Ignore" funtion being able to be used in place of the "I skipped it" for profiling. If I understand this well enough, you should be "paired" with people that have similar taste and ignoring wouldn't allow me to know what you ignore. Just tryin' to make sure I understand.

Since the other person ignored the cache, it wouldn't show as 'liked'. Therefore, it won't be recommended to you.

 

I see. So, then I guess the somewhat confusing part to me about this (again, hypothetical) system is that, if it only takes into account other "likes" like mine how can it accurately compare my likes to others similar to me if it doesn't account for the dislikes/ignores/skipped it?

 

I would think that, in the Netflix system a dislike rating is factored into comparing me to "other users". This may be where I'm wrong. It just makes sense to me. So, assuming they take into account my dislikes, if you skipped it, or ignored it, it's similar to a dislike and I would think that data would be useful in comparing me to others.

 

Gotta go for now, but interested to hear where/if I'm going wrong.

[+Retcon]

So, as someone who would like all parking lot caches filtered out, I only get ratings based on people who went to (and therefore disproportionally enjoyed) all the caches in parking lots? That doesn't seem fair to me.

No. The ratings are compared to the ratings you've assigned. If you rate parking lot micros low, your ratings will not be compared to the ratings of someone who rates them high. You don't have similar interests with that cacher, so the system won't bother telling you what they like.

 

But the system WON'T COUNT the ratings of people who hate parking lot caches so much they don't go after them at all. My demographic IS NOT BEING COUNTED in your proposed system. So or me, parking lot caches are a blind spot of random noise. The system has no idea if I'd like them or not and, IMO, a good system would suggest caches it doesn't have enough information on. Therefore, I'd be suggested them, which is the exact opposite of what I want.

 

Furthermore, you can rate parking lot micros low without finding them, and the system will take that into account when it makes recommendations to you. What it will not do is take your non-find ratings and use that to determine whether someone with tastes similar to yours will like it or not.

 

I think people are thinking the ratings are assigned to the caches. This is more about finding cachers who taste is similar to yours, based on what you and they thought of caches.

 

I don't want "ratings assigned to the caches", I want a simple system that shows me a decently accurate probability that I will like a cache. If the vast majority of people who are similar to me are not allowed to tell me their opinion via the system, the system is useless to me. Period.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I see. So, then I guess the somewhat confusing part to me about this (again, hypothetical) system is that, if it only takes into account other "likes" like mine how can it accurately compare my likes to others similar to me if it doesn't account for the dislikes/ignores/skipped it?

 

I would think that, in the Netflix system a dislike rating is factored into comparing me to "other users". This may be where I'm wrong. It just makes sense to me. So, assuming they take into account my dislikes, if you skipped it, or ignored it, it's similar to a dislike and I would think that data would be useful in comparing me to others.

 

Gotta go for now, but interested to hear where/if I'm going wrong.

 

You are right. Netflix predicts what I will think of the movie. Then I can ask it for reccomendations. However It also shows me what it thinks I"ll think of the movie even if it's bad if the movie happens to be one I'm looking at. My earlier post was in error. To work it has to estimate what I'd think of caches I have not visited so it does have be able to estimate when I'd hate the cache.

 

Ignore was about getting rid of caches you won't visit, rather than rating it bad without a visit. Using ignore instead of the rating to deal with caches you pre-judge would keep the system working better.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[Dinoprophet]

So, as someone who would like all parking lot caches filtered out, I only get ratings based on people who went to (and therefore disproportionally enjoyed) all the caches in parking lots? That doesn't seem fair to me.

No. The ratings are compared to the ratings you've assigned. If you rate parking lot micros low, your ratings will not be compared to the ratings of someone who rates them high. You don't have similar interests with that cacher, so the system won't bother telling you what they like.

 

But the system WON'T COUNT the ratings of people who hate parking lot caches so much they don't go after them at all. My demographic IS NOT BEING COUNTED in your proposed system. So or me, parking lot caches are a blind spot of random noise. The system has no idea if I'd like them or not and, IMO, a good system would suggest caches it doesn't have enough information on. Therefore, I'd be suggested them, which is the exact opposite of what I want.

I don't understand why you think a good system would recommend caches it doesn't have enough info on. As I see it, that's exactly as good as a system that recommends caches randomly. I think a good system would tell me about caches I would like. Those are the caches I want to know about first. Is that different than what you want?

I don't want "ratings assigned to the caches", I want a simple system that shows me a decently accurate probability that I will like a cache. If the vast majority of people who are similar to me are not allowed to tell me their opinion via the system, the system is useless to me. Period.

They only can't tell you about caches they haven't found. If people in your demographic don't rate a particular cache, it will never get recommended to you. The caches they never rate will be ones they and you don't even want to pursue. Those will therefore not be recommended to you.

 

Maybe you're looking for something that tells you what web pages people in your demographic have read and like the sound of, what happens if everyone relies on that? No one reads any cache pages, and no ratings get assigned.

[+Retcon]

If you've never rated anything, the system has no information about what to recommend. Therefore, it would have to recommend all.

 

This, to me, means it should at least mention caches it can't figure out are garbage or not.

 

I don't want it to even mention the parking lot micros.

[Dinoprophet]

If you've never rated anything, the system has no information about what to recommend. Therefore, it would have to recommend all.

 

This, to me, means it should at least mention caches it can't figure out are garbage or not.

 

I don't want it to even mention the parking lot micros.

The system we're talking about is about affinity. If you don't tell it what you like, then it can't know what to recommend, so it would recommend nothing. I still don't see why you would want it to reommend something in that case.

 

It *will* take your non-find ratings into account when it's recommending things to *you*. If the day this were implemented, you went through and gave 1s to every parking lot micro you could, it would liken you to other people who have done the same on caches they have found, and it would recommend caches that those people have found and rated highly.

 

The reason for doing it this way is, while you can get a reasonable clue by reading the page, in fact you can't know whether you'd like a cache or not unless someone who has found it tells you it's good.

[+Retcon]

And that's where we disagree. And that is why further discussion along these lines is fruitless. I think that knowing both likes and dislikes is of value. You think that only likes are of value.

[Dinoprophet]

And that's where we disagree. And that is why further discussion along these lines is fruitless. I think that knowing both likes and dislikes is of value. You think that only likes are of value.

I'm sorry you think disagreement negates discussion. I'll respond anyway in the hopes the discussion will continue, because I like the whole idea.

 

Likes or dislikes, the system works the same either way. If it can deliver a list of recommended caches, it can reverse the scoring and deliver unwanted caches just as easily. What I'm confused about is why you want it to score things that it can't determine like or dislike on. Or do you mean it literally lets you know that the rating is neutral for that cache? I agree with that. But if all the caches in my area come up as neutral and I ask for my Most/Least Likely To Like, it should tell me "None" rather than give me a random set. As soon as I rate one cache, it has something to work with.

 

The other point of contention still seems to be how ratings on unfound caches are handled. Some people want to know what people's actual experience was, some want to reduce the cache pages they have to read. Okay, what if it were an option when the query or whatever is run. "Include unfound ratings, yes or no?"

 

Here's an unrelated thought I've had since this started: TiVO uses a polar rating system. You can rate a show as neutral, 1-4 thumbs up, or 1-4 thumbs down. It amounts to the same as a star rating system, but I find it a little more intuitive, with neutral being between like and dislike. Also, a positive or negative score more accurately reflects one's attitude toward what's being rated. It might even make programming easier.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+Retcon]

You can only discuss a thing so long. I believe that there is value in negative ratings of unvisited caches from other people who rate things similar to me. You believe that there is no value in it, so much so that you believe that that value could even be negative. I can personally think of no other way to state my opinion so you will understand what I mean, and I can also see no way for what you say to sway me. We are at an impasse, and anything else said will just rehash old arguements. Period.

 

I find it vaguely amusing that we can't even agree to disagree

Edited February 17, 2007 by Retcon

[+sbell111]

You can only discuss a thing so long. I believe that there is value in negative ratings of unvisited caches from other people who rate things similar to me. You believe that there is no value in it, so much so that you believe that that value could even be negative. I can personally think of no other way to state my opinion so you will understand what I mean, and I can also see no way for what you say to sway me. We are at an impasse, and anything else said will just rehash old arguements. Period.

 

I find it vaguely amusing that we can't even agree to disagree

How can you think that when he allowed for your desires right here:

... Okay, what if it were an option when the query or whatever is run. "Include unfound ratings, yes or no?" ...

[+Retcon]

I find it vaguely amusing that we can't even agree to disagree

How can you think that when he allowed for your desires right here:

... Okay, what if it were an option when the query or whatever is run. "Include unfound ratings, yes or no?" ...

 

Very easily. I missed it.

 

I would be totally happy with that. Especially if you could set it to be the default or not (So I don't have to keep remembering to check it, and you/he don't have to keep remembering to uncheck it)