Is It Time For A Geocaching Rating System?

[Iwuzere]

It still seems to me that the general usefulness would far outweigh the occasional abuse.

 

Sock puppets : the cache owner would have to set up loads of them to properly skew the average of an active cache - if they were THAT prepared to put in the effort they'd have probably hidden a decent cache anyway. Besides, if you end up disagreeing about a cache's rating and suspect foul play, surely you'd just ignore any other caches from the same user? No massive harm done, at the end of the day.

 

Groups of friends over-rating each others' caches : again, it will be obvious what's going on if really lame caches are getting high ratings, so once again you'd make a mental note to ignore the ratings for the users involved. They'll only be cheating themselves in the long run.

 

As each rating would be there to see, it would be so obvious if you were routinely rating caches too high or low without good explanations in your logs. The incentive just wouldn't be there to abuse it too much. Yes, maybe some small number of people would possibly abuse it, but in the long run they'll just be making fools of themselves and it would all work out fine in the end. Or am I too optimistic?!

[+dkwolf]

people have thought of it before, and we've gone around so much that the regulars know ahead of time who will respond and what they will say.

 

so i'll just check in and say no. i don't like it. i don't like it one bit.

What flask said.

 

No.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

people have thought of it before, and we've gone around so much that the regulars know ahead of time who will respond and what they will say.

 

so i'll just check in and say no. i don't like it. i don't like it one bit.

What flask said.

 

No.

 

Ditto what Flask & DKWolf said. I'll go further and say that if one was ever implemented I wouldn't participate in it.

[+flask]

ooh, ooh! i have an idea! i can leave a note in the cache that i will delete the log of anybody who does not give my cache the lowest possible rating.

 

and then i'll do it.

 

excellent.

[+"we two want to play too"]

I'm not sure you could implement this and not have it affect everyone. Say it is set up with the five stars, next to the D/T. Are you not going to look? And then, later in the field, would the averaged opinion keep niggling the back side of your thoughts? Your caching experience would have already begun to be swayed, and you didn't even find the cache yet!

On the other hand, when we finally went to Grand Rapids, we found a disconcerting number of (IOHO) lackluster, boring hides. We won't be going to that section of town again. The rating system would be a help here in that I would go for something cool.

Edited June 7, 2007 by "we two want to play too"

[+Too Tall John]

ooh, ooh! i have an idea! i can leave a note in the cache that i will delete the log of anybody who does not give my cache the lowest possible rating.

 

and then i'll do it.

 

excellent.

Hmm... would that make it an Unknown Cache because of the ALR?

 

The thing that keeps popping into my head (I think someone has mentioned it in one of the other threads) is a system similar to what Netflix has (actually, lots of sites use it...) "Cachers who enjoyed this cache also liked GC123ABC."

 

I think having such a rating system would help encourage good hides. A lot of the people who are throwing a cache into every guardrail they can find do so because they are stat-happy. Having a rating system is the ultimate stat, it relies on the respect & enjoyment of your fellow cachers!

[+PJPeters]

I'm not sure you could implement this and not have it affect everyone. Say it is set up with the five stars, next to the D/T. Are you not going to look? And then, later in the field, would the averaged opinion keep niggling the back side of your thoughts? Your caching experience would have already begun to be swayed, and you didn't even find the cache yet!

On the other hand, when we finally went to Grand Rapids, we found a disconcerting number of (IOHO) lackluster, boring hides. We won't be going to that section of town again. The rating system would be a help here in that I would go for something cool.

You must be talking about the 28th St. series! The four or five (or so) I found weren't all that thrilling. Kinda puts you off LPCs.

Ya know, I live in the Grand Rapids area. I'd tend to agree with you. There's some great caches. Unfortunately, there's altogether too many not-so-great ones. I read in here about the beautiful scenery people find, the great hikes, and the cool stuff they see. I want to find some of those!

If I want to find some nicer caches, I tend to go west a bit (not too much, the lake's still too cold). There are quite a few really nice caches out there.

Not that I don't mind going caching around town; there's a bunch, and you can find non-LPC caches if you want. But quantity is not necessarily better than quality.

But I'm not sure how a rating system would work out here. People have differing opinions on what makes a cache great; was it a great view/place? Was it an easy on/off the expressway while passing through? Does the area intrigue me? Maybe I just have time to get a PnG one day to get my fix. I'll find one that I'd pass by otherwise.

It's too subjective to run, and probably would end up being a popularity contest. While I like the concept, I just don't see it working.

[+"we two want to play too"]

I'm not sure you could implement this and not have it affect everyone. Say it is set up with the five stars, next to the D/T. Are you not going to look? And then, later in the field, would the averaged opinion keep niggling the back side of your thoughts? Your caching experience would have already begun to be swayed, and you didn't even find the cache yet!

On the other hand, when we finally went to Grand Rapids, we found a disconcerting number of (IOHO) lackluster, boring hides. We won't be going to that section of town again. The rating system would be a help here in that I would go for something cool.

You must be talking about the 28th St. series! The four or five (or so) I found weren't all that thrilling. Kinda puts you off LPCs.

Ya know, I live in the Grand Rapids area. I'd tend to agree with you. There's some great caches. Unfortunately, there's altogether too many not-so-great ones. I read in here about the beautiful scenery people find, the great hikes, and the cool stuff they see. I want to find some of those!

If I want to find some nicer caches, I tend to go west a bit (not too much, the lake's still too cold). There are quite a few really nice caches out there.

Not that I don't mind going caching around town; there's a bunch, and you can find non-LPC caches if you want. But quantity is not necessarily better than quality.

But I'm not sure how a rating system would work out here. People have differing opinions on what makes a cache great; was it a great view/place? Was it an easy on/off the expressway while passing through? Does the area intrigue me? Maybe I just have time to get a PnG one day to get my fix. I'll find one that I'd pass by otherwise.

It's too subjective to run, and probably would end up being a popularity contest. While I like the concept, I just don't see it working.

Actually, I was at work when hubby ran out ot try for a couple of FTFs on the series. Series in general tend to impress me just because of the amount of work it takes to make it go. I heard there was some play on words that made sections interesting....I also heard there was more than one that was placed w/o permission. So, even with a good rating, I wouldn't go out myself.

 

WOW, look at that, subject to opinion at work...

 

off topic: if you're coming west, I'm still harrassing hubby about finally publishing his series!!

[+Sono/Rad]

The cache description and comments from the logs are enough for me. Since cache "quality" is highly subjective and largely based on opinion, I don't see where a rating would worth the time and the space on the cache page.