Ebay-like rating system

[+VerySmartGirl]

Near our home we know who does good work. Coordinates spot on, clever hide, interesting spot, challenging, ect.

 

Would a rating system, similar to E-bay's feedback stars, be helpful? Each hide would earn a positive, neutral or negative rating.

 

Positives & negatives of these systems is that there is no standard, it is determined by the community, and creates a peer environment.

 

Why burden the community with additional requirements and judgments? The last four logs on a cache don't always paint a complete picture. New cache hiders might model higher rated caches. We want a new GSAK column! When caching out of your home zip you have a rough idea of what others think of a hide.

 

Just a thought as we hesitantly stick our toe into the tank.....chomp away.

[CoyoteRed]

While the concept of rating is good on the surface, folks cache for different reasons.

 

Personally, I'd be disappointed if I visited a cache that was rated high if it had been rated only by folks who like fast and easy finds regardless of the quality of the hide. Conversely, someone might rate a cache low because it took them longer than their alloted thirty seconds to find it.

 

It's not that it can't be done, it can, but it's a much more complicated system than a simple count of thumbs up or down.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Google on "bayesian" if you're interested in a concept that would be a step in the right direction. A properly set up system would provide you a score based on previous votes by you and folks that vote similar to you.

Edited August 15, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

Welcome to one of the top three angstiest topics ever.

 

Here's a recent thread that discussed this issue. One of the first posts in that thread linked to other similar threads.

 

Personally, I'm not in favor of a ratings system because I don't believe that one would work. Unlike ebay's system which rates a purchase in quantifiable categories (as described, shipping time, communication, shipping charges), quality ratings for caches mostly boil down to 'did you like it'. Since caches and cachers are quite varied, it is impossible to ask such a broad question. If you try to get people to complete a survey with many questions to hit on the different qualities that people like about caches, you'll end up either with many people skipping it all together or clicking through it with 'fake' answers. Either way, the data becomes too skewed to be usable, in my opinion.

 

Also, you have the issue of whether resourses should be taken away from other areas to develop a ratings system. Would this delay improvements to other areas that would be desired by a greater number of cachers. Finally, if a ratings system were to be implemented, it would be difficult to take away if it didn't work as desired.

Edited August 15, 2007 by sbell111

[Ghengis Jon]

Having visited most of the (few) caches in my local area, most of my geo-caching is done on the road while travelling on biz. I look for caches that will be close to my path, ie not taking an hour to find. Lame or great, I'll visit what I can. A rating system wouldn't have much effect on my caching, as I scan the last 10-15 logs as part of the decision process ("To hunt or not to hunt...that is the question"). I think that a rating system like FleaBay's may be beneficial to some, but I think it would probably be as accurate as FleaBay's....as in not at all.

[+VerySmartGirl]

 

Here's a recent thread that discussed this issue. One of the first posts in that thread linked to other similar threads.

 

 

opps! thx sbell.

Edited August 15, 2007 by VerySmartGirl

[+sbell111]

Why does my post say VerySmartGirl?

[+The Leprechauns]

I'm in favor of a positive rating system based upon additions to a user's "favorites" list, which would be a bookmark list with special powers, similar to the ignore list at the other end of the spectrum. Apart from that, I don't think it would work well.

 

As a workaround, there are some customized "rating systems" already available when planning a trip to a different area:

 

1. Read the logs. Good caches get long, descriptive logs.

2. Look at the photo gallery link from the preview page for your pocket query. If you see a pretty picture, mark that cache as one to visit. People don't take pictures at caches that aren't hidden at cool locations.

3. Look for caches that are on bookmark lists, especially "favorites" lists. (I would like to see a way for bookmark lists to be searchable.) Identify a well-known cacher in the area you're visiting and check the bookmarks tab on their profile page to get started. Or, go to the cache pages for some of the oldest caches in the area; they are the ones most likely to be bookmarked as favorites.

4. Write an e-mail to a geocacher in that other area who has caching preferences similar to your own, and ask for recommendations.

5. Check out the local forums for the area you're visiting, and see which caches and hiders are getting the positive buzz.

[+The Leprechauns]

Why does my post say VerySmartGirl?

Because a bunch of forum posters chipped in the remaining money needed for you to get the surgery? If so, that's wonderful news, I hope you are very happy.

[+Stargazer22]

I agree with SBell on this one.

 

Trying to get folks to accurately rate a cache and get a cache rating system to work properly would be like trying to herd cats.

[+sbell111]

Why does my post say VerySmartGirl?

Because a bunch of forum posters chipped in the remaining money needed for you to get the surgery? If so, that's wonderful news, I hope you are very happy.

You're still going to call me, right?

[+The Leprechauns]

Why does my post say VerySmartGirl?

Because a bunch of forum posters chipped in the remaining money needed for you to get the surgery? If so, that's wonderful news, I hope you are very happy.

You're still going to call me, right?

Yes. I'm going to call you "Stephanie."

[+VerySmartGirl]

Why does my post say VerySmartGirl?

 

A new forum tactic, putting words in your mouth! Sorry fixed it.

[+sbell111]

Why does my post say VerySmartGirl?

 

A new forum tactic, putting words in your mouth! Sorry fixed it.

Sorry. I sent you a PM to explain.

[+wimseyguy]

Be careful what you put in Stephanie's mouth. I hear she bites.

 

And once again I agree with the post of the funny little green manster.

In order to have a rating system that is effective, you have to have some way to quantify the subjective qualities that you like in a cache.

Then again, sometimes you just want to find a cache.

[CoyoteRed]

As a workaround, there are some customized "rating systems" already available when planning a trip to a different area:

You know, some of these suggestions are actually quantifiable.

 

The length of log is telling. When you average the characters in a find log, toss the outliers, and take into consideration the number of logs the resultant figure will be indicative of the how much the author had to say about that cache. The number of logs would be an important part of the figure to know how stable or mature the average is.

 

Pictures is also something you mentioned. The average number of pictures is another useful measure.

 

Also, the average time between finds would be indicative to the convenience of the cache. A 1/1 in a rural setting will not be found as often as a 1/1 in an urban setting or along a tourism corridor.

 

The above figures could be expressed via a series of numbers like "275/.82/12-31" Finding a listing with very high first two numbers and a low third number would be indicative of a "don't miss" cache. The last number is a measure of maturity.

 

This scheme has massive advantages over most other schemes because the information is already there just waiting to be massaged to the surface. Bookmark lists, star counts, and thumbs rating system would lag greatly behind the massive amounts of finds already out there. It would be a lot of work on the finders' part to go back to create lists or vote. Not so with brining the information you mention to the surface and distilling it into an easy to sort format.

 

Additionally, if you make it so detractors of any rating system can opt out with their caches then those who want to participate can and those who don't won't. Of course, allow the participators to filter out those who have opted out thus preventing someone to opt out in an effort to get their poorly conceived and received cache found.

[+VerySmartGirl]

I mostly agree with the nice idea but not practical and the "what is quality" issues that has been mentioned here and before. I don't want to fill out a 10 part questioner after every find.

 

I just wish all the positives "I really appreciated this hide" type of logs could some how be emblazoned on a cache page for all to see (like the scarlet letter, only opposite). This is not just for the hider’s ego, but to help guide new hiders to what the community generally likes and help guide seekers.

 

If you visit Baltimore (duck and cover) there are some caches I want you to go to and others, ehh.

[CoyoteRed]

Trying to get folks to accurately rate a cache and get a cache rating system to work properly would be like trying to herd cats.

A properly set up rating system would be nearly transparent. As you are logging a simple up or down vote would be all that is needed. Then the system could massage the figures, compare your previous votes with others, see how they voted on a cache you've not voted on and spit out an answer.

 

There are two primary complaints about most rating systems, getting a guaranteed answer and subjectivity.

 

The guaranteed answer will never happen, I firmly believe it's a red herring, because even if a friend personally raved about [insert whatever] there is no guarantee you'll like it. I mean who universally likes everything their own best friend or significant other likes?

 

The next thing is the subjectivity. A lot of rating systems will not take into account folks' tastes, but there are systems that do. Using bayesian filtering you can filter the rating to give much more weight to those who have voted similar to you in the past thereby giving a result that is based on your tastes and not the community in general. It would require one to have very uncommon tastes for it to not work for you. If it doesn't, then ignore it and caching would be like it is now. The beauty is your votes, or not voting at all, would only affect those who vote like you and not the community in general.

 

I think my major point here is to not dismiss an idea in general simply because you can't see a viable solution directly in your face. Some form of rating system is an excellent idea. In fact, as this site gets even more massive and the numbers of caches in one's area get so unwieldy that something will have to happen. Otherwise one would be spending more time perusing logs than actually caching.

Edited August 15, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

I just wish all the positives "I really appreciated this hide" type of logs could some how be emblazoned on a cache page for all to see (like the scarlet letter, only opposite). This is not just for the hider’s ego, but to help guide new hiders to what the community generally likes and help guide seekers.

Something similar is the "favorites" bookmarks lists Lep mentioned.

[Mushtang]

I'll give this thread a rating of 1 Star.

[+The Leprechauns]

I got to take a cheap shot at sbell, and I'm having a constructive dialogue with Coyote Red, who has also done a lot of thinking about this issue.

 

I give this thread a rating of three stars. It would be higher, but I've seen the same thread many times before.

 

And therein lies the problem with rating systems... perception and personal preference.

[+wimseyguy]

I've often said that if enough people are saying the same thing, the chances are pretty good that a few of them are right. I never knew this thought process had an actual name. Thanks CR-I've learned something new today; my day is now complete and it's only 10:30 in the morning.

 

Are we rating the thread on a 1-5 or 1-10 scale? I'd give it a 3.5 on the lower and a 7.5 on the latter. This slight statistical inaccuracy also points out another slight fallibility of using a numerical rating system.

[+JohnnyVegas]

It would never work, Not all cachers like the same types of caches. It is kind of like

food, people tend to have different ideas as to what they like to eat.

Cachers have different ideas as to what kind of hides they like.

[CoyoteRed]

It would never work, Not all cachers like the same types of caches. It is kind of like food, people tend to have different ideas as to what they like to eat. Cachers have different ideas as to what kind of hides they like.

This is true. However, if you take into account what folks with similar tastes like then it's more likely the result will more accurate.

 

For instance, folks have widely differing tastes in hobbies, yet here we are. We all like this hobby. If you look at the other hobbies we like you'll start to see a strong pattern. Then when you work it from the opposite end, someone who likes the majority of hobbies we see in that pattern when introduced to geocaching they will more likely like geocaching as well. Conversely, if they don't like the majority of hobbies in that pattern, they'll less likely like geocaching. While there are no absolutes the odds are much greater than mere chance.

[+VerySmartGirl]

It would never work, Not all cachers like the same types of caches. It is kind of like food, people tend to have different ideas as to what they like to eat. Cachers have different ideas as to what kind of hides they like.

This is true. However, if you take into account what folks with similar tastes like then it's more likely the result will more accurate.

 

For instance, folks have widely differing tastes in hobbies, yet here we are. We all like this hobby. If you look at the other hobbies we like you'll start to see a strong pattern. Then when you work it from the opposite end, someone who likes the majority of hobbies we see in that pattern when introduced to geocaching they will more likely like geocaching as well. Conversely, if they don't like the majority of hobbies in that pattern, they'll less likely like geocaching. While there are no absolutes the odds are much greater than mere chance.

 

Yes! I like this idea better than a simple quality star rating. Sort of "if you liked this cache then you would probably like this cache" or "other members who liked this cache also liked this cache"

[+wimseyguy]

And yet there are dozens of restaurant rating websites and books out there, as well as text based sites like tripadvisor.com too.

 

It can work, but it isn't simple.

 

that reminds me that I never entered my opinions at tripadvisor for the stops I made on the way to MWGB

Edited August 15, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+sbell111]

I give this thread three stars, but I give the forum software only one star because I should not be able to see Lep's posts. The plonker appears to be broken.

[+ncfinn]

I would not like a rating system. I know people for whom a perfect day is to leave the car running while lifting a lamp post skirt and doing this 100+ times in one day. For me a perfect day is hiking ten miles and getting 3+ caches in one day. Some people like a micro tied to a random tree in the middle of the woods, for me a cache like that is torture.

[+admo1972]

I think some kind of rating system would be fine. Sure, not all caches are for all people, but a rating system will help to filter out some of the "less interesting" caches. If I am travelling far, and I want to just hit a few of some of the best caches, caches with lots of high ratings would be the first one's I'd look at, and go from there. Sure, I may miss a lower rated cache that I would have liked, but at least the ones I do do are more likely to meet my fancy. It would just be another tool one can use to determine what caches to go after.

[+VerySmartGirl]

I would not like a rating system. I know people for whom a perfect day is to leave the car running while lifting a lamp post skirt and doing this 100+ times in one day. For me a perfect day is hiking ten miles and getting 3+ caches in one day. Some people like a micro tied to a random tree in the middle of the woods, for me a cache like that is torture.

 

That is the beauty of a rating system aimed at matching caches you like to other caches you might like.

 

I know it is possible to look through logs, pictures and terrain rating but that is different than an integrated "if you like this cache you will probably like this cache"

[+Renegade Knight]

...Just a thought as we hesitantly stick our toe into the tank.....chomp away.

 

Rating the hider...That's a new angle to the whole ongoing rating debate. Now I'm going to have to think about it...

[+the pooks]

My first thought was - no rating. Having said that, I have asked fellow cachers to recommend caches in the area as I have only started and there are so many to choose from. So in a way I am using a form of rating system.

 

If one has limited time in an area it would be useful to be able to hone in on the caches which you would maximise pleasure.

Edited August 15, 2007 by the pooks

[+geomann1]

My first thought was - no rating. Having said that, I have asked fellow cachers to recommend caches in the area as I have only started and there are so many to choose from. So in a way I am using a form of rating system.

 

If one has limited time in an area it would be useful to be able to hone in on the caches which you would maximise pleasure.

 

The E-bay system is a joke because if one posts a neutral or bad rating, one is open to retaliation, so one either posts a good rating or no rating. I seldom buy on E-bay, but when I do, I never respond.

 

How about a system where every cacher/member gets to award a finite number of "stars" or whatever to caches, so that they have to single out their 20 or so favorites. In this manner, you reward the outstanding caches, but people don't get out of shape if someone does not give them a "star"?

[+BlueDeuce]

My first thought was - no rating. Having said that, I have asked fellow cachers to recommend caches in the area as I have only started and there are so many to choose from. So in a way I am using a form of rating system.

 

If one has limited time in an area it would be useful to be able to hone in on the caches which you would maximise pleasure.

 

The E-bay system is a joke because if one posts a neutral or bad rating, one is open to retaliation, so one either posts a good rating or no rating. I seldom buy on E-bay, but when I do, I never respond.

 

How about a system where every cacher/member gets to award a finite number of "stars" or whatever to caches, so that they have to single out their 20 or so favorites. In this manner, you reward the outstanding caches, but people don't get out of shape if someone does not give them a "star"?

 

Yeah, I buy and sell on Ebay. It's a common practice that if you do everything as you should and address issues when they occur then the rating is GREAT AAAAAAAAA++++++.

 

I don't have a problem with that. I don't want to know that you sold something in a better way then somebody else. Either you met the basic requirements or you didn't. I'm buying a pig in a poke when buying on line. A++++! tells me you always had the pig ready to go.

 

In regards to geocache ratings, I'd hate to see people do the same thing.

[+geomann1]

 

Yeah, I buy and sell on Ebay. It's a common practice that if you do everything as you should and address issues when they occur then the rating is GREAT AAAAAAAAA++++++.

 

I don't have a problem with that. I don't want to know that you sold something in a better way then somebody else. Either you met the basic requirements or you didn't. I'm buying a pig in a poke when buying on line. A++++! tells me you always had the pig ready to go.

 

In regards to geocache ratings, I'd hate to see people do the same thing.

 

Problem is that E-Bay system is designed to maintain the facade of a happy market, so there is a great bias toward good ratings. Because the system allows for retaliation, negative ratings are supressed. If they wanted an honest rating, seller must respond first (after all, once payment in made, the buyer has fulfilled his part of the transaction and can be rated). Also, you have no idea of how many good ratings (A+++++'s) versus total sales.

 

Basic problem with any rating system is that if it is honest, some people's feelings get hurt when they get a honest negative rating and then they resort to retaliation or other nastiness/pettiness. Why introduce that into geocaching? Current system seems to be working in that people tend to make noted of particularly good caches.

[+BlueDeuce]

Problem is that E-Bay system is designed to maintain the facade of a happy market, so there is a great bias toward good ratings. Because the system allows for retaliation, negative ratings are supressed. If they wanted an honest rating, seller must respond first (after all, once payment in made, the buyer has fulfilled his part of the transaction and can be rated). Also, you have no idea of how many good ratings (A+++++'s) versus total sales.

 

Basic problem with any rating system is that if it is honest, some people's feelings get hurt when they get a honest negative rating and then they resort to retaliation or other nastiness/pettiness. Why introduce that into geocaching? Current system seems to be working in that people tend to make noted of particularly good caches.

 

Oh, I completely agree with your assessment on the Ebay system. To go off topic for a sec, Ebay is completely a Sellers Market. The only rating system I can use with them (in addition to my common sense) is either Good or Not Good. Stay away from Not Good.

 

That doesn't work here. I don't want to just know if people liked a cache because that doesn't help me to pick the caches I want to find. If I am traveling I have to consider several things: How much time do I have to cache, will I have kids with me, will I have a stroller, what's the weather predicted to be, are there caches near the places I will be visiting, do I have or need transportation. Will I be able to take any special equipment with me on the trip. Etc, etc.

 

I find it far easier to look for a local active cacher in that area, send them an email explaining my situation and the kind of caches I would like to find. I have always received a positive reply, recommending caches to look for.

 

If I can first get all the caches that I can go for, then give me the subjective data, beautiful locations and interesting cache hides.

Edited August 16, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+Isonzo Karst]

The length of log is telling. When you average the characters in a find log, toss the outliers, and take into consideration the number of logs the resultant figure will be indicative of the how much the author had to say about that cache. .... series of numbers like "275/.82/12-31" Finding a listing with very high first two numbers and a low third number would be indicative of a "don't miss" cache. The last number is a measure of maturity.

 

Interesting idea. I can see this working. I hope I get to see something work, someday.

[+edscott]

I think allowing cache ratings is a good thing. Yes, the data must be taken for what it is.. a representation of the likes of an "average" geocacher... whatever that is.. But what's to fear from that.. that you won't be "average" and the caches you like are not those that are liked by others? Let's try it and see what happens. Make "View Ratings" an option so if you don't want to see them you don't have to.

[+crookedcastle7]

I like the idea of putting a simple rating on a find, like a color coded smilie. 4 color choices to signify one cachers opinon without making it too personal. Just a subtle way to add informed choices to GSAK filters and such. Something like:

 

Violet = outstanding

Blue = great

Green = good

Yellow = found it

 

Nothing negative here and nothing too complicated, just a way to share one's viewpoint and remain PC within the hypersensitive GC community

Edited August 16, 2007 by crookedcastle7

[yatesDELTA]

how about instead of a rating system in stars we have questions with options to answer

 

eg how long did it take you to find?

1-10 mins

1-20 mins

 

etc. the results are averaged

 

same for hike from the cache mobile

accuracy of GPS

Condition of cache

 

then users can view the data and decide which is best for them

[CoyoteRed]

Another thing a rating system that adjusts to each user has over a straight star or similar system is it is (should be) invisible to the cache owner. No one vote should be visible to anyone else--it doesn't need to be.

 

A major problem with making votes visible is cache owner retaliation or hurt feelings. A straight star system could see owners holding a log hostage to a positive vote. You have to somehow make the individual votes obscure while showing the total. If when someone votes and the score immediately goes up or down, then the owner knows what happened without knowing the actual vote. The voter is then subject to the whims of the owner.

 

This has same problem of the method I mentioned earlier that is based on Lep's suggestion. A short log could be interpreted as a slight as would not posting photos. It still holds the major advantage of the data already being there, though.

[+sbell111]

My first thought was - no rating. Having said that, I have asked fellow cachers to recommend caches in the area as I have only started and there are so many to choose from. So in a way I am using a form of rating system.

 

If one has limited time in an area it would be useful to be able to hone in on the caches which you would maximise pleasure.

 

The E-bay system is a joke because if one posts a neutral or bad rating, one is open to retaliation, so one either posts a good rating or no rating. I seldom buy on E-bay, but when I do, I never respond.

 

How about a system where every cacher/member gets to award a finite number of "stars" or whatever to caches, so that they have to single out their 20 or so favorites. In this manner, you reward the outstanding caches, but people don't get out of shape if someone does not give them a "star"?

Since you don't use ebay very often, you likely don't know that they changed their rating system. In addition to the old good-neutral-bad rating, buyers rate sellers on four criteria. These ratings are averaged and shown for the seller, but not identified by buyer.

[+Jhwk]

just what I need, more crap to fill out and buttons to push when I just want to log the caches and go interact with my family. I said it once, twice, thrice, ...

 

NO!

 

people have a hard enough time now when someone puts a negative comment on their cache page and tells them their micro-dumpster hide sucks. Wait until they start getting half a star for their support of the sport.

 

I thank all of my hiders - regardless of quality, because they allow me to play an adult version of hide-and-seek.

 

It's like knowing a big secret that Marvins (I don't use the mug term bcus it's lame) are clueless to. Kind of like being able to see the aliens among us...

[+wimseyguy]

Did someone call for me?

[+J-Way]

just what I need, more crap to fill out and buttons to push when I just want to log the caches and go interact with my family. I said it once, twice, thrice, ...

I agree with NO QUESTIONAIRE! But a simple "Outstanding", "Good", "Below Average" system would be a no-brainer. Note the positive skew of the options... this is to try and help stop the eBay mentality that average = bad. A "Good" cache is average, and the vast majority of your caches should be rated as such. It should be the default answer, and if you don't want to participate then all your finds are rated automatically. No extra clicking required. All past finds should be automatically logged as "Good" by the system. A vote of "Outstanding" means the cache really stands out and is above average. A vote of "Below Average" means the cache is really bad, and is basically polite speak for "This cache really sucketh and the owner should be pummelled by AA batteries".

 

You only get to vote after you find the cache.

 

people have a hard enough time now when someone puts a negative comment on their cache page and tells them their micro-dumpster hide sucks. Wait until they start getting half a star for their support of the sport.

Agreed... and because the cache owner has a little power, a "Below Average" rating might open the finder up to a deleted log by an overly sensitive owner.

 

For an example of a cache rating system in progress, go to terracaching.com and search the forums for threads on MCE (Measure of Cache Excellence). It's a rather angsty topic even over there. Everyone rates caches they find from 0 (Should Be Archived) to 10 (Outstanding). Any rating below 4.0 causes the owner to lose UCR (User Contribution Rating) points, and any rating above 5.0 gains points. Unfortunately, in an effort to eliminate skewed voting, specifically to prevent people from voting ALL caches as 10, the system uses secret statistical calculations to "average" every person's ratings.