Jump to content

Suggestion: A 5 Star USER Rating System for Geocaches

CruiseWolf

By CruiseWolf
in Website

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

CruiseWolf

+CruiseWolf

Posted
Posted

We have a 5 star rating for the Terrain & Difficulty finding the geocache - This is quite useful.

 

What would also be useful is a 5 Star User Rating - When ever the geocacher goes on the website to log their find, they would be asked to give an overall rating for how much they enjoyed the search and the find.

 

If the cache was in an uninteresting / run-down / dangerous area, and the cache was in poor condition, then it would get 1 star. If the cache was in a wonderful / well-presented / safe area with beautiful picturesque views, full of excellent goodies, then it would get a 5 star rating.

 

The website would present a running total of the star ratings for each geocache on its intro page.

 

Why do this... I think there are too many geocaches which are there purely for the sake of 'having a cache'. The 5 star system would be a way of distinguishing those real top quality caches - the ones which you really want to go to.

 

So, what do you think?

Link to comment
Always & Forever 5

+Always & Forever 5

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think it would be too subjective. People who dislike micros would mark all micros a "1". People who hate long hikes would mark all long hike caches as "1". The value would be lost. I can get all the information about the cache from the cache page description and the logs. I don't need a star rating system to help me out.

 

In addition, I'm not into geocaching strictly for the "top quality, long hike" caches. We cache as a family, and more times than not the kids are plenty satisfied with a short walk down a park trail to get to the goodies.

 

I vote no.

Edited by Always & Forever 5
Link to comment
StarBrand

+StarBrand

Posted
Posted

If you find a really oustanding cache add it to a public bookmark list called - "my top 5% favorites" - then we can add up all the top lists on a page to know if it is a great cache. That way no one feels bad for getting a 1 or 2 and we have some small way of finding good ones.

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

A straight 5 star rating on geocaches won't work because everyone geocaches for different reasons. Someone who likes puzzles will rate puzzles high. Someone who likes hikes will rate hiking caches high. Someone who prefers going to a natural place will rate rural caches high while someone who likes the convenience of an urban park 'n grab will rate those higher. It's not even clear that there is such a thing an average cacher who might find such a system useful.

 

What has been discussed are two systems that might provide some useful information. One assumes that there are a few caches that really stand out. A recommended caches system would use the existing premium member bookmark system. Premium member could designate one of their bookmark lists to be their favorites list. This system would then designate caches that are on some threshold number of favorites lists as recommended caches. The other proposal is a "Netflix" style affinity system. Cachers would be able to rate caches (perhaps 1 to 5 stars). The ratings would not be known to the cache owner or anyone else. After rating a few caches, this system would look for other cachers that have rated the same caches the same way and would then recommend other caches that the other cacher also likes. Sort of "If you liked this cache you might also like..."

Link to comment
Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted

A straight 5 star rating on geocaches won't work because everyone geocaches for different reasons. Someone who likes puzzles will rate puzzles high. Someone who likes hikes will rate hiking caches high. Someone who prefers going to a natural place will rate rural caches high while someone who likes the convenience of an urban park 'n grab will rate those higher. It's not even clear that there is such a thing an average cacher who might find such a system useful.

 

<snip>

I still think it would be interesting if there was just one rating, for "5 Stars." Then a great hike to an awesome view might get a "5 Star," as would an awesome, tricky, devious puzzle that has the logbook in a film canister under an LPC. An incredible multi-cache that is a work of genius would also get the "5-Star" rating. A Multi/Puzzle that has the final container in a beautiful beach location only available at low tide would also get the "5-Star" rating.

 

It would sure be an interesting list to look at. :)

 

A bit OT: Yesterday I checked the cache page for my one-and-only LPC and noticed it is on three Bookmark Lists. :D^_^

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

A straight 5 star rating on geocaches won't work because everyone geocaches for different reasons. Someone who likes puzzles will rate puzzles high. Someone who likes hikes will rate hiking caches high. Someone who prefers going to a natural place will rate rural caches high while someone who likes the convenience of an urban park 'n grab will rate those higher. It's not even clear that there is such a thing an average cacher who might find such a system useful.

 

<snip>

I still think it would be interesting if there was just one rating, for "5 Stars." Then a great hike to an awesome view might get a "5 Star," as would an awesome, tricky, devious puzzle that has the logbook in a film canister under an LPC. An incredible multi-cache that is a work of genius would also get the "5-Star" rating. A Multi/Puzzle that has the final container in a beautiful beach location only available at low tide would also get the "5-Star" rating.

 

It would sure be an interesting list to look at. :)

 

A bit OT: Yesterday I checked the cache page for my one-and-only LPC and noticed it is on three Bookmark Lists. :D^_^

What was the GC number?
Link to comment
Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted

I still think it would be interesting if there was just one rating, for "5 Stars." Then a great hike to an awesome view might get a "5 Star," as would an awesome, tricky, devious puzzle that has the logbook in a film canister under an LPC. An incredible multi-cache that is a work of genius would also get the "5-Star" rating. A Multi/Puzzle that has the final container in a beautiful beach location only available at low tide would also get the "5-Star" rating.

 

It would sure be an interesting list to look at. :D

 

A bit OT: Yesterday I checked the cache page for my one-and-only LPC and noticed it is on three Bookmark Lists. :D^_^

What was the GC number?

GCNNGG

 

Actually, now that I thought to click on the "more" link, I see it is on six Bookmark Lists . . . :)

 

Doesn't that qualify it for the "San Diego Consensus Favorites" list . . . ? :D

Link to comment
wavector

+wavector

Posted
Posted

The ratings would not be known to the cache owner or anyone else. After rating a few caches, this system would look for other cachers that have rated the same caches the same way and would then recommend other caches that the other cacher also likes. Sort of "If you liked this cache you might also like..."

 

This really is a good idea, just like the Amazon website works now.

The blind system would eliminate competition for attention and using a correspondence approach would work for every type of cacher.

 

I would rate every cache I find.

 

There would have to be a "If you didn't like this cache then you might not like ...." for the system to truly shine, I am not sure Amazon has that feature. ^_^

Link to comment
CruiseWolf

+CruiseWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think it would be too subjective. People who dislike micros would mark all micros a "1". People who hate long hikes would mark all long hike caches as "1". The value would be lost. I can get all the information about the cache from the cache page description and the logs. I don't need a star rating system to help me out.

 

I disagree. I spent last week collecting 5 geocaches in & around the Fort Lauderdale area. One of them was next to a rubbish tip, so it was smelly and disgusting, and frankly after dark you would be afraid to walk there. Another was on the edge of a car park, with nothing to distinguish it from the hundreds of other roads in the area.

 

The week before, I was geocaching in the Bahamas & Tortola, with beautiful panoramic views of the bay, and collecting clues for a virtual geocache in a historic fortress.

 

Yes, people go geocaching for different reasons, but objectively most people would agree that the geocaches I found in Tortola & Bahamas were intrinsically better than those two in Fort Lauderdale.

 

I think there should be a system for rewarding those caches which really stand out above the rest, and showing those mediocre ones for what they really are, so you can avoid them.

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

Yes, people go geocaching for different reasons, but objectively most people would agree that the geocaches I found in Tortola & Bahamas were intrinsically better than those two in Fort Lauderdale.

 

Strangely enough that is not completely true. Most people might prefer caches in clean well kept parks with nice scenic views to ones next to smelly dumpsters in alleys behind strip malls. But there are a few weirdos who get a rush from being in some "secret" urban location. There are even cachers who specialize in these kinds of hides. Even when cachers prefer a "nice" location, they are still more likely to find the dumpster cache in Fort Lauderdale to the scenic cache in Tortola. Convenience is probably the number one attribute for making a cache worth doing. That said, a cache in an exotic location will probably be a more memorable cache. That is the reason why I wouldn't be a opposed to a system that displays those caches that really do stand out by be listed on several people lists of all time favorites caches. To do this you do not need to rank every cache you find. Simply add those that are truly outstanding to your favorites list.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

I still think it would be interesting if there was just one rating, for "5 Stars." Then a great hike to an awesome view might get a "5 Star," as would an awesome, tricky, devious puzzle that has the logbook in a film canister under an LPC. An incredible multi-cache that is a work of genius would also get the "5-Star" rating. A Multi/Puzzle that has the final container in a beautiful beach location only available at low tide would also get the "5-Star" rating.

 

It would sure be an interesting list to look at. ^_^

 

A bit OT: Yesterday I checked the cache page for my one-and-only LPC and noticed it is on three Bookmark Lists. :D:D

What was the GC number?

GCNNGG

 

Actually, now that I thought to click on the "more" link, I see it is on six Bookmark Lists . . . :)

 

Doesn't that qualify it for the "San Diego Consensus Favorites" list . . . ? :D

It has to be on 3 people's "favorites" or "must-do" lists to qualify. That cache is only on one list like that. Other bookmark lists don't count. :)
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

Yes, people go geocaching for different reasons, but objectively most people would agree that the geocaches I found in Tortola & Bahamas were intrinsically better than those two in Fort Lauderdale.

 

Strangely enough that is not completely true. Most people might prefer caches in clean well kept parks with nice scenic views to ones next to smelly dumpsters in alleys behind strip malls. But there are a few weirdos who get a rush from being in some "secret" urban location. There are even cachers who specialize in these kinds of hides. Even when cachers prefer a "nice" location, they are still more likely to find the dumpster cache in Fort Lauderdale to the scenic cache in Tortola. Convenience is probably the number one attribute for making a cache worth doing. That said, a cache in an exotic location will probably be a more memorable cache. That is the reason why I wouldn't be a opposed to a system that displays those caches that really do stand out by be listed on several people lists of all time favorites caches. To do this you do not need to rank every cache you find. Simply add those that are truly outstanding to your favorites list.

I wish they would do this too! ^_^
Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

Yes, people go geocaching for different reasons, but objectively most people would agree that the geocaches I found in Tortola & Bahamas were intrinsically better than those two in Fort Lauderdale.

 

Strangely enough that is not completely true. Most people might prefer caches in clean well kept parks with nice scenic views to ones next to smelly dumpsters in alleys behind strip malls. But there are a few weirdos who get a rush from being in some "secret" urban location. There are even cachers who specialize in these kinds of hides. Even when cachers prefer a "nice" location, they are still more likely to find the dumpster cache in Fort Lauderdale to the scenic cache in Tortola. Convenience is probably the number one attribute for making a cache worth doing. That said, a cache in an exotic location will probably be a more memorable cache. That is the reason why I wouldn't be a opposed to a system that displays those caches that really do stand out by be listed on several people lists of all time favorites caches. To do this you do not need to rank every cache you find. Simply add those that are truly outstanding to your favorites list.

I wish they would do this too! :)

I heard that someone is already doing this on their own for San Diego area caches ^_^

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

Yes, people go geocaching for different reasons, but objectively most people would agree that the geocaches I found in Tortola & Bahamas were intrinsically better than those two in Fort Lauderdale.

 

Strangely enough that is not completely true. Most people might prefer caches in clean well kept parks with nice scenic views to ones next to smelly dumpsters in alleys behind strip malls. But there are a few weirdos who get a rush from being in some "secret" urban location. There are even cachers who specialize in these kinds of hides. Even when cachers prefer a "nice" location, they are still more likely to find the dumpster cache in Fort Lauderdale to the scenic cache in Tortola. Convenience is probably the number one attribute for making a cache worth doing. That said, a cache in an exotic location will probably be a more memorable cache. That is the reason why I wouldn't be a opposed to a system that displays those caches that really do stand out by be listed on several people lists of all time favorites caches. To do this you do not need to rank every cache you find. Simply add those that are truly outstanding to your favorites list.

I wish they would do this too! :)

I heard that someone is already doing this on their own for San Diego area caches :D

I heard the same thing too. :D^_^
Link to comment
programmer64

+programmer64

Posted
Posted

The absolute cure that would work-- not an overall this cache is icky this cache rocks system just a this cache rocks function. when you log a cache have an option for adding a 5 star rating, when you click it there would be a small multiple choice area with 4 or 5 reasons why and the results could render on the pages just like finds, dnfs, and notes do. this way when when we go to a page if it has 50 5 stars, then a breakdown of the reasons.

1) Great hike with a quality cache

2)Great family,Kid friendly cache

3) easy c&d

4)Scenery, beauty

5)Historical signifigance

 

Or anything we as a community think would work. I put alot of thought into this, I have cached with many people and definitely see people like different caches for different reasons. This way no cache gets a bad rating just a way for people to see what others thought w/o having to read 200 logs.

Link to comment
programmer64

+programmer64

Posted
Posted

The absolute cure that would work-- not an overall this cache is icky this cache rocks system just a this cache rocks function. when you log a cache have an option for adding a 5 star rating, when you click it there would be a small multiple choice area with 4 or 5 reasons why and the results could render on the pages just like finds, dnfs, and notes do. this way when when we go to a page if it has 50 5 stars, then a breakdown of the reasons.

1) Great hike with a quality cache

2)Great family,Kid friendly cache

3) easy c&d

4)Scenery, beauty

5)Historical signifigance

 

Or anything we as a community think would work. I put alot of thought into this, I have cached with many people and definitely see people like different caches for different reasons. This way no cache gets a bad rating just a way for people to see what others thought w/o having to read 200 logs.

Link to comment
programmer64

+programmer64

Posted
Posted

The absolute cure that would work-- not an overall this cache is icky this cache rocks system just a this cache rocks function. when you log a cache have an option for adding a 5 star rating, when you click it there would be a small multiple choice area with 4 or 5 reasons why and the results could render on the pages just like finds, dnfs, and notes do. this way when when we go to a page if it has 50 5 stars, then a breakdown of the reasons.

1) Great hike with a quality cache

2)Great family,Kid friendly cache

3) easy c&d

4)Scenery, beauty

5)Historical signifigance

 

Or anything we as a community think would work. I put alot of thought into this, I have cached with many people and definitely see people like different caches for different reasons. This way no cache gets a bad rating just a way for people to see what others thought w/o having to read 200 logs.

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

The absolute cure that would work-- not an overall this cache is icky this cache rocks system just a this cache rocks function. when you log a cache have an option for adding a 5 star rating, when you click it there would be a small multiple choice area with 4 or 5 reasons why and the results could render on the pages just like finds, dnfs, and notes do. this way when when we go to a page if it has 50 5 stars, then a breakdown of the reasons.

1) Great hike with a quality cache

2)Great family,Kid friendly cache

3) easy c&d

4)Scenery, beauty

5)Historical signifigance

 

Or anything we as a community think would work. I put alot of thought into this, I have cached with many people and definitely see people like different caches for different reasons. This way no cache gets a bad rating just a way for people to see what others thought w/o having to read 200 logs.

This idea has been suggested as well. Instead of one rating ask finders to rate as cache on each several attributes or even just indicate if each attribute applies or doesn't apply to the cache. The problem that is most often given with this approach is that ranking a cache now requires a complex operation of going down a list of attributes and deciding how to rate each one. If you have just gone power caching and found 50 caches you're not going to want to decide on 5 or 10 attributes for each cache. That is just too much work. People would either not rate the caches or if forced to, they would take the path of least effort and hit the submit button with the default values. Any ranking system must be very easy for cachers to use or it won't be used.

Link to comment
JeremyR

+JeremyR

Posted
Posted

The thing is, caches are so varied that asking for a simple sliding-scale rating system is almost like asking other people, the vast majority of whom you've never met, to know what you like and to recommend particular caches based on those unique preferences.

 

Why don't people who want to find caches they'll really enjoy make a PQ designed to find caches similar to ones they've enjoyed previously by using the attribute selectors? For example, people who like caches at the end of a long trek to the top of a hill, run a PQ for caches in your target area that have the "substantial hike" and "scenic view" attribs set. You'll still have to do some work to fine tune the results but by looking at the logs, photos, etc, you'll find the good ones.

Link to comment
Glenn

+Glenn

Posted
Posted

The thing is, caches are so varied that asking for a simple sliding-scale rating system is almost like asking other people, the vast majority of whom you've never met, to know what you like and to recommend particular caches based on those unique preferences.

 

Also the cache location changes throughout the year. Around here during the winter it can very muddy, spring and early summer can bring high california grass and late summer tends to be very arid in some places. We don't get snow here but in other states caches can be hidden under snow for portions of the year.

 

I'm sure one person finding a cache surrounded in mud and another person finding the same cache surrounded by hard ground will rate the same cache very differently.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...