A fair cache rating system that takes in nearly all preferences

[+Sparrowhawk]

I skimmed the cache rating thread, and decided just to toss this idea. Apologies if it repeats anything:

 

Multifacted Cache Rating System:

Please rate this cache from 1-10 based on how interesting it was in these categories:

 

- "Wouldn't have known this cool location was here" factor [1-10]

- Fast cache grab for those who love high stats [1-10]

- Uniqueness of puzzle to solve [1-10]

- Good for those who love wilderness [1-10]

- Good for those who love urban locations [1-10]

 

(This is all I can think of in short notice)

 

Just add and refine the list of positives which would appeal to some people and not others. That way you have a cache rating system that works for all. If it is a favorite, you know WHY it is a favorite to some cachers and not others... then you can refine your search for caches that really appeal to your taste.

 

Does anyone have some interesting positive categories to add?

 

How would this be fair or not fair?

How to make it more fair to those who like one kind of cache experience over another?

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Sparrowhawk

[+sbell111]

Interesting.

 

I wonder if it would be understood by all and not abused. For instance, let's say that I hate quickie caches. If I find one, might I confuse the ratings and score it a 1 (because I didn't like that facet of the cache) rather than a 10 (which would merely identify it as a quickie cache).

[+Arndtwe]

i think that it would be a waste of time. personally i think the way that the caches are rated is pretty well done. if you really want to do that than just add it to the cache desription. thats just 2 cents worth.

[Neos2]

Why is this one selection the only duel-natured offering?

 

- Fast cache grab for those who love high stats [1-10]

Seems to me this phrase needs work, as it implies something that may not be true --it may even imply that all the others are for "people who dislike high stats" After all, some cachers never log their finds (Who knows how they feel about stats?) and others love high stats, but dislike quick finds.

 

How about a more neutral "Good for those who love quick grabs"

 

P.S. Just for the record, I don't think we need a cache rating at all. The cache page and the logs is all the rating anyone should need.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Neos2

[+GRANPA ALEX]

There IS a site that offers cache ratings . . . I would say to go there if that is what is desired.

 

That site allows seekers to pick & choose among caches that they would likely want to hunt based upon criteria (not of their choosing) and ratings by people who, most of which, never visited the caches. The result is, too few caches to bother to segregate in an area AND too few players hiding too few caches.

 

GC.com does not need this, it is doing fine. There is no need to stifle growth, fun and maximum participation by each individual member on the site. There is already enough data to allow cache segregation for an area hunt, espeically when one employs GSAK . . . we do it all the time.

Edited February 18, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[+Prime Suspect]

- Uniqueness of puzzle to solve [1-10]

"Uniqueness"? Those who paid attention in school may recall that something is either unique, or it is not. There are not levels of "uniqueness".

[+KBI]

"Good for those who love quick grabs"

Are we still talking about geocaching?

[Neos2]

"Good for those who love quick grabs"

Are we still talking about geocaching?

Well, I was!

 

Although the rating experience might be much more appreciated otherwise!

[+ReadyOrNot]

I skimmed the cache rating thread, and decided just to toss this idea. Apologies if it repeats anything:

 

Multifacted Cache Rating System:

Please rate this cache from 1-10 based on how interesting it was in these categories:

 

- "Wouldn't have known this cool location was here" factor [1-10]

- Fast cache grab for those who love high stats [1-10]

- Uniqueness of puzzle to solve [1-10]

- Good for those who love wilderness [1-10]

- Good for those who love urban locations [1-10]

 

(This is all I can think of in short notice)

 

Just add and refine the list of positives which would appeal to some people and not others. That way you have a cache rating system that works for all. If it is a favorite, you know WHY it is a favorite to some cachers and not others... then you can refine your search for caches that really appeal to your taste.

 

Does anyone have some interesting positive categories to add?

 

How would this be fair or not fair?

How to make it more fair to those who like one kind of cache experience over another?

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

Well, you are definitely barking up the correct tree Maybe instead of 1-10 rating, a simple YES/NO would work... It was either scenic or not, a fast grab or not, urban or not, great hike or not... You get the idea. I like the general idea though!

[CoyoteRed]

- Fast cache grab...

For this to have any meaning it would have to have a criteria that would distinguish it from a 1/1. Otherwise it is redundant. Even then I'm not so sure of the usefulness of it. Most folks on cache runs simply limit the difficulty to below, say, 2 stars and go with that.

 

Other than that, I think the basic concept it a worthy one. It just needs a set of criteria that is not merely duplicating something else.

[CoyoteRed]

There IS a site that offers cache ratings . . . I would say to go there if that is what is desired.

 

That site allows seekers to pick & choose among caches that they would likely want to hunt based upon criteria (not of their choosing) and ratings by people who, most of which, never visited the caches. The result is, too few caches to bother to segregate in an area AND too few players hiding too few caches.

And yet you still have a cache listed there--TC7AY. Curious.

 

I always have to wonder if the folks who don't like cache ratings are the ones who are afraid of getting low scores.

[+sbell111]

- Fast cache grab...

For this to have any meaning it would have to have a criteria that would distinguish it from a 1/1. Otherwise it is redundant. Even then I'm not so sure of the usefulness of it. Most folks on cache runs simply limit the difficulty to below, say, 2 stars and go with that.

 

Other than that, I think the basic concept it a worthy one. It just needs a set of criteria that is not merely duplicating something else.

I think TrailGators did a good job in the other thread of pointing out that using difficulty/terrain ratings alone is not handy in weeding out qucky caches. Also, this system would allow finders to report that the cache was a quicky.

[+sbell111]

There IS a site that offers cache ratings . . . I would say to go there if that is what is desired.

 

That site allows seekers to pick & choose among caches that they would likely want to hunt based upon criteria (not of their choosing) and ratings by people who, most of which, never visited the caches. The result is, too few caches to bother to segregate in an area AND too few players hiding too few caches.

And yet you still have a cache listed there--TC7AY. Curious.

 

I always have to wonder if the folks who don't like cache ratings are the ones who are afraid of getting low scores.

Why must you personalize issues???

[+sbell111]

Well, you are definitely barking up the correct tree Maybe instead of 1-10 rating, a simple YES/NO would work... It was either scenic or not, a fast grab or not, urban or not, great hike or not... You get the idea. I like the general idea though!

I think you are on to something.

[CoyoteRed]

Also, this system would allow finders to report that the cache was a quicky.

This is probably the element that has the most merit.

[CoyoteRed]

There IS a site that offers cache ratings . . . I would say to go there if that is what is desired.

 

That site allows seekers to pick & choose among caches that they would likely want to hunt based upon criteria (not of their choosing) and ratings by people who, most of which, never visited the caches. The result is, too few caches to bother to segregate in an area AND too few players hiding too few caches.

And yet you still have a cache listed there--TC7AY. Curious.

 

I always have to wonder if the folks who don't like cache ratings are the ones who are afraid of getting low scores.

Why must you personalize issues???

Why must you follow me around nipping at my ankles?

[+beezerb]

There IS a site that offers cache ratings . . . I would say to go there if that is what is desired.

 

That site allows seekers to pick & choose among caches that they would likely want to hunt based upon criteria (not of their choosing) and ratings by people who, most of which, never visited the caches. The result is, too few caches to bother to segregate in an area AND too few players hiding too few caches.

 

GC.com does not need this, it is doing fine. There is no need to stifle growth, fun and maximum participation by each individual member on the site. There is already enough data to allow cache segregation for an area hunt, espeically when one employs GSAK . . . we do it all the time.

 

What he said.

[+Renegade Knight]

The quick problem is this.

 

The more catagories you add to the cache to make it more useful to more people the less likely anyone is to take the time to rate the cache and make the system work.

 

The advantage of the affinity system is that it's easy to rate a cache and it doesn't actually care about attributes etc. It instead matches you up with people of similar taste. It has it's own probems but it's easy to use.

[+StarBrand]

If you use 1- 10 - I think many caches will settle at/near the middle and thus be near useless. A simple yes no in some categories might be workable. Maybe.

 

I do think the system that TPTB are working on has some good idea and merit. My personal favorite is the Markwell Favorite list idea. It would have to be a part of the PQs to be useful.

[+tozainamboku]

If you use 1- 10 - I think many caches will settle at/near the middle and thus be near useless. A simple yes no in some categories might be workable. Maybe.

 

I do think the system that TPTB are working on has some good idea and merit. My personal favorite is the Markwell Favorite list idea. It would have to be a part of the PQs to be useful.

If the attributes are clearly defined, caches will not settle at/near the middle. Caches that fit the attribute will have higher scores, caches that don't fit the attribute will have lower scores, caches that are neutral with respect to the attribute will average out close to the middle. I probably wouldn't go with 1-10 but with a scale of

• strongly disagree,
  
• somewhat disagree,
  
• neither agree or disagree,
  
• somewhat argee, and
  
• strongly agree.
  

And instead of averaging I would use a median score.

 

If you understand what you want the rating system to do you can select one that accomplishes that. A general overall rating of caches is not useful because people enjoy caches for different reason. This proposal allows finders to assign attributes to the cache so you could find caches the have (or don't have) certain attributes. The affinity proposal allows you to find cache you might like (and perhaps avoid caches you might not like) based on how you have rated other caches. Markwell's system allows users to recommend caches and will point out caches that are highly recommended (recommended by at least a certain number of people). That won't help you find all the caches you like - by combining it with looking at the cache page, it may help you find really good caches especially when travelling to areas where you don't have time to look at a lot of caches. These are all three good proposals, but which one you choose would depend on what you want to get from the ratings.

[+Sparrowhawk]

If you use 1- 10 - I think many caches will settle at/near the middle and thus be near useless. A simple yes no in some categories might be workable. Maybe.

 

I do think the system that TPTB are working on has some good idea and merit. My personal favorite is the Markwell Favorite list idea. It would have to be a part of the PQs to be useful.

If the attributes are clearly defined, caches will not settle at/near the middle. Caches that fit the attribute will have higher scores, caches that don't fit the attribute will have lower scores, caches that are neutral with respect to the attribute will average out close to the middle. I probably wouldn't go with 1-10 but with a scale of

• strongly disagree,
  
• somewhat disagree,
  
• neither agree or disagree,
  
• somewhat argee, and
  
• strongly agree.
  

And instead of averaging I would use a median score.

 

 

Hmmmm... Y'know, I kinda like this MUCH better than the original 1-10 idea. That's what I wanted... a chance to refine it with other people's good ideas.

 

So modifying my original list:

 

- This is a speedy cache grab

- This cache location makes you feel "wow, didn't know THIS was here!"

- Trying to figure out how to find this cache was a great brain challenge

- This was a great wild area to enjoy

- This was a an enjoyable long hike

- This was a great way urban area to enjoy

- This cache is for those who enjoy CITO

- This cache would be greatly accessible for those who are physically challenged

 

(more ideas here... and/or modify the current list.)

 

The key here would be to phrase each aspect in a positive way, so the agree-disagree would be consistent.

 

Basically, look at all the main aspects that people like about geocaching, and boil it down to a few good main aspects that folks are free to like and not like, and be able to search accordingly.

 

I for one, would go for caches rated best for the "wow, didn't know THIS was here!" aspect.

Speedy cache grabs bore me to tears.

 

But because I have these tastes, it does not mean that others should have the same tastes. I want to be able to search for "my" type of cache and have a better cache experience that way.

 

It could also put a damper to the lame posts on these forms saying "I hate X type of caches! Thus they should be banned!" Everybody could answer: "Then just use the agree-disagree cache rating system to find the kind of cache you like and ignore the X type of caches you hate!"

 

I like the fact that this kind of system, implemented well, would really help folks visit just the kind of caches they like. It respects everyone's tastes, if implimented well. There just can't be anything wrong with that.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Sparrowhawk

[CoyoteRed]

It could also put a damper to the lame posts on these forms saying "I hate X type of caches! Thus they should be banned!" Everybody could answer: "Then just use the agree-disagree cache rating system to find the kind of cache you like and ignore the X type of caches you hate!"

 

Well, if this is the goal then I'm not sure--no, let me change that--I doubt it would eliminate complaint threads. It would only change them from one thing to another.

 

You've been around long enough to have been caching when virts were wide open for approval. The problem there was folks would rather be lazy and post a virt than actually create a viable geocache. You could easily filter out virts if you're wanting to visit real caches. The problem came when you wanted to place a cache. There were plenty of complaint threads about virt hogging areas where a real cache could go. Unlike a physical cache a virt could last a long time with little to no maintenance. They couldn't be muggled and rarely did confirmation criteria change.

 

Forget suggestions of asking the virt owner to archive his listings. Some would. Others would be ... less than enthusiastic. It's the same with less than satisfying real caches.

 

The main issue I have is the accommodation of the widespread striving for mere mediocrity.

[+wandererrob]

Not sure how well it could be implemented here, but I liked the idea of a personalized ratings system. Something similar to LaunchCast where you rate songs and over time it learns from your ratings and tailors future selections to your particular tastes.

 

At first you'd get a lot of fluff, but over time as you rate more, you'd get caches more suited to your particular criteria for what's good and not.

 

Any sort of generalized rating system is too subjective (e.g. some people actually enjoy parking lot micros). And the possibilty of abuse is there. If it's personalized and applies only to your account, you can only abuse yourself. And what you do in the privacy of your own account is none of my business.

 

That being said, this idea has been rehashed countless times and hasn't gone anywhere and isn't likely too. and honestly, if I'm in the right mood and happen to be nearby, I'll probably go find it anyway. But there's my $.02 regardless.

Edited February 20, 2007 by wandererrob

[+JimmyEv]

I like these categories. Maybe it would be simpler if the cache placer just answered the question of why he/she placed the cache here. For a quick grab? Just to place one? Scenic location? Humor? CITO? They thought it was an interesting place?

[+sbell111]

I like these categories. Maybe it would be simpler if the cache placer just answered the question of why he/she placed the cache here. For a quick grab? Just to place one? Scenic location? Humor? CITO? They thought it was an interesting place?

I suspect that there is two problems with this. First, some people may have several different reasons to hide a cache. Second, the reason the person had to hide the cache may be quite different than the reason a person has to find it.

[+sbell111]

There IS a site that offers cache ratings . . . I would say to go there if that is what is desired.

 

That site allows seekers to pick & choose among caches that they would likely want to hunt based upon criteria (not of their choosing) and ratings by people who, most of which, never visited the caches. The result is, too few caches to bother to segregate in an area AND too few players hiding too few caches.

And yet you still have a cache listed there--TC7AY. Curious.

 

I always have to wonder if the folks who don't like cache ratings are the ones who are afraid of getting low scores.

Why must you personalize issues???

Why must you follow me around nipping at my ankles?

A quick read of your response would suggest that you are vain enough to think that a person would single you out and desperately read every one of your posts, praying that you used reasoned arguments instead of merely attacking individuals. Having been around for a wjile, I don't believe that you are that vain. That being the case, I'm not sure what you were going for with that post.