Feature Request: Cache Rating System

[+seldom|seen]

I am quite sure that this has probably been discussed and if so I apologize beforehand.

 

What are the chances that a simple cache rating system could be implemented into the "visit" cache page when logging finds?

 

The reason I ask is that there is a cache recognition process in place called Cache of the Month (at least in Wisconsin there is) and this process is flawed in that it relies on regional word of mouth to solicit votes for favorite caches.

 

What is does is recognize halfway decent caches based on a single cachers ability to communicate to other cachers he/she knows that a certain cache has been nominated and should be voted for.

 

What is isn't is a system designed to highlight some of the most creative and unique caches in the State.

 

I would propose a simple ranking system, stars or similar icon, to rate caches in a few discernable categories like:

 

1. Location

2. Container

3. Creativity

4. Memorable

5. Recommend

 

At the end of the month, the top 20 caches could go into a list and be voted on by the geocaching community as a whole, a list derived not by nomination, but by objective evaluations of caches visited that month.

 

A really difficult Puzzle cache found by 5 people might get 1 star for location, 1 star for container (keyholder for example), 5 star for creativity, 4 star for memorable, and 5 star for recommend.

 

Another traditional cache on a high cliff found by 20 people might get a 5 star for location, 1 star for container, 1 star for creativity, 5 star for memorable and 4 star for recommend.

 

Both caches, depending on the weight assigned to the categories and frequency of visitation might come out to about the same rank and end up on the months top ranked caches, even though the puzzle cache would never get nominated under the current system which necessitates a high degree of visitation to get nominated, or it doesn't stand a chance.

 

Of course it would have the added benefit of giving cachers an idea if they should even attempt to go after a cache. A cache that is a mile down the trail that is not memorable, is in a poor location and isn't very creative might then be ignored by cachers who don't have much time to spend caching. At the same time, other that might seem like simple grab and go's and could get overlooked might not be if they had a high score.

 

I find that the difficulty and terrain are simply not an accurate representation of cache creativity, I've done plenty of 1/1's that are memorable and conversely, many higher designated caches that are wholly forgetable.

 

It seems like there is a little more room in the Geocaching world to recognize the effort and creativity of the best and brightest beyond the logs which are sometime copy/pasted by cachers who don't have the time or intrest in adding glowing marks when they have 30-50 caches to log and this could be a functional solution with any number of benefits.

 

There, I think I'm done....

[+StarBrand]

After the updated release of the website comes about - there are plans to implement what has been described as a "rewards" system for cache ratings. So something is in the works.

[+seldom|seen]

After the updated release of the website comes about - there are plans to implement what has been described as a "rewards" system for cache ratings. So something is in the works.

 

Can we dialouge further about what that system might look like without going into great detail here?

[+Lil Devil]

The search tool is your friend.

[+paleolith]

As long as it's based on voting, of any kind, your Cache of the Month is going to be a popularity contest, period. If you want to really highlight interesting and creative caches, you have to put the power into the hands of one person or a few, who take recommendations and then evaluate. Obviously this doesn't sit well with a lot of people, due to the parallels with government power. But you have a choice: make it democratic or make it outstanding. Remember what Churchill said about democracy.

 

Edward

[+seldom|seen]

It seems like there is a little more room in the Geocaching world to recognize the effort and creativity of the best and brightest beyond the logs which are sometime copy/pasted by cachers who don't have the time or intrest in adding glowing marks when they have 30-50 caches to log and this could be a functional solution with any number of benefits.

 

 

I found exactly what I had in mind:

 

http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Only, why would I want the list to be limited to the caches posted in that list? This features should be implemented system wide and available on all caches when logging a find..

[+baloo&bd]

I found exactly what I had in mind:

 

http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Only, why would I want the list to be limited to the caches posted in that list? This features should be implemented system wide and available on all caches when logging a find..

 

Because, as you have already discovered, rating systems do not work. If you search teh forums, you will see that some have even pulled their caches of the site you found due to the numbers being greatly skewed without merit, much less the fact that individuals generally have taste that vary to s significant degree.

[+Glenn]

I found exactly what I had in mind:

 

http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Only, why would I want the list to be limited to the caches posted in that list? This features should be implemented system wide and available on all caches when logging a find..

 

Because, as you have already discovered, rating systems do not work. If you search teh forums, you will see that some have even pulled their caches of the site you found due to the numbers being greatly skewed without merit, much less the fact that individuals generally have taste that vary to s significant degree.

 

I just took a quick look at that site. I don't understand the point in listing caches rated less than a 2. I saw one listing with one voter and the rating is 1.00. How rude is that? One voter can give a cache the lowest rating possible and it is publicly viewable.

[+seldom|seen]

I found exactly what I had in mind:

 

http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Only, why would I want the list to be limited to the caches posted in that list? This features should be implemented system wide and available on all caches when logging a find..

 

Because, as you have already discovered, rating systems do not work. If you search teh forums, you will see that some have even pulled their caches of the site you found due to the numbers being greatly skewed without merit, much less the fact that individuals generally have taste that vary to s significant degree.

 

While I take the point, I think your statement about rating systems not working well is perhaps too generalized. I agree that a cache with a few users who got burned or had a difficult time finding it posting poor marks may not reflect the quality of the cache which could be really good. Maybe the view was spectacular and the cacher was too busy hunting to notice or it was a foggy day. But, inevitably, that poor mark will be tempered by a handful of other cachers who DID have a great experience and DID enjoy the challenge and DID take in the scenic view.

 

For example, it is almost futile to look at a review or rating of a major appliance since you get either REALLY poor reviews from a few people who got shafted by the manufacturer or the retailer and then get a handful of people who chine in to defend the product even though it might actually be a piece of crap. But then, just by looking at that review page, I know right off the bat that I don't want the product. On the other hand, when I go to Epicurious and look up a recipie, a majority of the respondents are genuinely interested in taking the time to review the recipie so others in the community don't end up making a dish that sucks! Those reviews I trust. If I see a 3.5 or 4 star out of 4, I know it's going to be pretty darn good.

 

I think it depends on the product and the target audience. As a whole, I think the Geocaching community is a pretty fair group of individuals and would not unfairly add poor reviews to an undeserving cache. Not that I'm saying that it wouldn't happen, but that it would be the exception, not the rule as you suggest.

[+TotemLake]

Ugh. Rating systems are so easily abused. Reading the logs of finders of an established reputation will give you a better idea of how good the cache is.

[+bargle]

Absolute rating systems are a waste of time. A recommender system would be much better -- basically, the idea is that you make your own ratings. The system then uses ratings from people who share opinions similar to yours to recommend caches. This is how Netflix and other similar sites work. The hard part is judging how similar two people's opinions are. The hard part after that is gathering enough data to make the system useful.

[+bblhed]

Are you looking for something like I have on this cache page http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e5-3e1f0532bfbf ?

[+UncleJimbo]

I would propose a simple ranking system, stars or similar icon, to rate caches in a few discernable categories like:

 

1. Location

2. Container

3. Creativity

4. Memorable

5. Recommend

 

At the end of the month, the top 20 caches could go into a list and be voted on by the geocaching community as a whole, a list derived not by nomination, but by objective evaluations of caches visited that month.

I don't understand the need for something like this. Who would benefit from it? I don't think most geocachers are going to worry about these ratings when planning their caching day. Not to mention that it is so subjective and cachers have a wide variety of preferences. Someone might think that an evil parking lot cache was very creative and "memorable", while someone else might think that any parking lot cache is an abomination.

 

Just my two cents.

[+Markwell]

When I suggested this back in 2004, I saw two possibilities for users (please read that post to understand what I suggested).

 

First were the out-of-towners that are passing through.

If I'm driving from Chicago to Nashville and I'd like some caches along the way, I can set up a route PQ to grab the style of caches I like etc. If I choose D/T <= 3.5 and traditional caches, either large or regular size, I get about 110 caches within 5 miles of the route for the ones that are active that I haven't found or own. But 110 caches is still a good number from which to choose. I'd probably look at the logs in GSAK and weed down the number by about 10-15 of the caches that have multiple recent DNFs, leaving me with around 95 caches.

 

Any of those caches will probably be a good one to find. Is there one that would be recommended by the area cachers? Is there one that if I have a limited time to travel through the area that would be the best one for me to find?

 

Currently, there's no way to tell. But if that cache had the recommendation that I had suggested in that 2004 post I might be more inclined to make that recommended cache one of my stops along the way.

 

Second is the new cacher just starting out.

When I started caching in March of 2001, there were a total of 9 caches within 25 miles of my home. That's not a whole lot to choose from, so I tried to hit them all. I missed out on 2 of them. By the end of 2003, after the new caches placed and the archival of some, that number within 25 miles had risen to 347. The end of 2005 saw 712 and the end of 2007 it was 1,158. Currently, there are approximately 1,231 unarchived caches within 25 miles from my home.

 

I think that's great - what wonderful choices I have. I can still weed that 1,231 caches to those that match my preferred criteria - leaving about 250 caches that I would most likely enjoy (based on my personal experience).

 

But if I'm a brand new cacher and I want to hit the best first before trying to find all of them - how do I choose? Most newbie cachers won't be able to whittle that list down from 1,231 to 250 and not all local organizations have recommended caches (some areas don't have local organizations). This brand new cacher could look specifically at those recommended caches first to get a good idea of what the people in the area think are the really neat caches.

 

Now in retrospect, I also see a third application for this type of recommendation: "The caches I've missed".

I've been caching for a while, and I've been in quite a slump due to other obligations pulling me in various directions. I'd love to get back out there and cache. Is there a cache that others are talking about that would be a good one for me to hit to get back into the swing of things?

-OR-

I've covered the area of caches and I'm ready to branch out a little. Is there one that's beyond that 25 mile radius that would be a great one to hit?

 

Both of these questions could be answered by a "recommended" notation.

 

That's the need that stemmed my original post back in 2004 (and a suggestion dating all the way back to April of 2002). I'm not arguing that this should be implemented now or what other methods or benefits or detriments may be involved. That other thread did it back in 2004 - so no need to rehash it.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Markwell

[+seldom|seen]

Ugh. Rating systems are so easily abused.

 

...as are Cache of the Month Systems which is what I was trying to address by casting a wider net and getting some kind of generalized cache community input. The current system is simple cronyism. Get your friends to vote for it, and you'll get it. My extended thought as detailed above was that the best caches would get the most marks. Even if someone wasn't in the habit of ranking finds they might stop to do it on one that was especially memorable, for whatever reason that particular person found it so. Evil urban hide - Very memorable. Great view - Very memorable. Super-cool puzzle - Very memorable. If you go through your finds once a year and try to remember the caches you've done, I wonder how many caches most could without reading the logs.

 

Reading the logs of finders of an established reputation will give you a better idea of how good the cache is.

 

I am sure there are a substantial number of cachers who don't take the time to investigate and plan their "caching day." I, like many, find small windows of opportunity to make runs for a handfull. If I'm traveling I will run a queue and upload to my GPS and I'm out the door. With that information in hand, I have nothing more to go on that the basics. Name/Difficulty/Terrain/Type/Size. That's it, and that's my caching style and I'm not alone. I am not a hard core, investigate every cache and read all the cache logs beforehand kind of guy. Maybe I just have to live with the consequences of my approach to the sport.

 

But, if I could also get a sense of Reward for my intended hunt, I might go for some I wouldn't consider and skip some I would. Maybe it's just another set of attributes instead of a ranking system so I could use the current query tools. I don't know. If I'm going through a town with 30 caches and have time for 5, I would certainly like to do the most creative and memorable ones in that town, especially if I don't think I'll ever get back there.

 

I would just like to understand what's coming down the pike with this new release and be able to provide some Beta feedback before it goes live. So far, I have no idea what this new feature will be...

[+Rattlebars]

At the end of the month, the top 20 caches could go into a list and be voted on by the geocaching community as a whole, a list derived not by nomination, but by objective evaluations of caches visited that month.

 

I don't see the value of getting a rating on a cache that might be hundreds to thousands of miles away from my current location. How could I vote on it? Unless I'm completely lost on the meaning of "the geocaching community as a whole."

 

It seems like there is a little more room in the Geocaching world to recognize the effort and creativity of the best and brightest beyond the logs which are sometime copy/pasted by cachers who don't have the time or interest in adding glowing marks when they have 30-50 caches to log and this could be a functional solution with any number of benefits.

 

Seems that these "pasters" would not take the time to adequately rate or even rate at all, would ya think?

 

Something like eBay's new " star rating" system might be useful, but just looking at the bookmark list and finding a "My Favorites" seems a good indication right now, though those won't get passed to a PQ nor would your rating I would say.

[+seldom|seen]

At the end of the month, the top 20 caches could go into a list and be voted on by the geocaching community as a whole, a list derived not by nomination, but by objective evaluations of caches visited that month.

 

I don't see the value of getting a rating on a cache that might be hundreds to thousands of miles away from my current location. How could I vote on it? Unless I'm completely lost on the meaning of "the geocaching community as a whole."

 

I'd expect you'd only add the various attribute ranks to caches you have found, when you log the find. You wouldn't be voting any more as the ranking process would happen behind the scenes. The resulting numbers would get tallied for the State and instead of the Nominated caches for the month, you'd see the top ranked caches for the month. Not sure how you'd handle it month by month or year by year for top ranked caches.

 

 

Seems that these "pasters" would not take the time to adequately rate or even rate at all, would ya think?

 

Something like eBay's new " star rating" system might be useful, but just looking at the bookmark list and finding a "My Favorites" seems a good indication right now, though those won't get passed to a PQ nor would your rating I would say.

 

Actually I think "pasters", if you want to assign them a name, would take a second or two to click 5 buttons if it meant they could provide input without having to detail their experience with 5 lines of copy which is what they are avoiding so they can get through logging their 60 cache finds of the day.

[+TotemLake]

Ugh. Rating systems are so easily abused.

 

...as are Cache of the Month Systems which is what I was trying to address by casting a wider net and getting some kind of generalized cache community input. The current system is simple cronyism. Get your friends to vote for it, and you'll get it. My extended thought as detailed above was that the best caches would get the most marks. Even if someone wasn't in the habit of ranking finds they might stop to do it on one that was especially memorable, for whatever reason that particular person found it so. Evil urban hide - Very memorable. Great view - Very memorable. Super-cool puzzle - Very memorable. If you go through your finds once a year and try to remember the caches you've done, I wonder how many caches most could without reading the logs.

 

Reading the logs of finders of an established reputation will give you a better idea of how good the cache is.

 

I am sure there are a substantial number of cachers who don't take the time to investigate and plan their "caching day." I, like many, find small windows of opportunity to make runs for a handfull. If I'm traveling I will run a queue and upload to my GPS and I'm out the door. With that information in hand, I have nothing more to go on that the basics. Name/Difficulty/Terrain/Type/Size. That's it, and that's my caching style and I'm not alone. I am not a hard core, investigate every cache and read all the cache logs beforehand kind of guy. Maybe I just have to live with the consequences of my approach to the sport.

 

But, if I could also get a sense of Reward for my intended hunt, I might go for some I wouldn't consider and skip some I would. Maybe it's just another set of attributes instead of a ranking system so I could use the current query tools. I don't know. If I'm going through a town with 30 caches and have time for 5, I would certainly like to do the most creative and memorable ones in that town, especially if I don't think I'll ever get back there.

 

I would just like to understand what's coming down the pike with this new release and be able to provide some Beta feedback before it goes live. So far, I have no idea what this new feature will be...

Unfortunately, I view most rating systems as cronyism as well. Add to that, there are people if when rubbed the wrong way, will go out of their way to trash talk you, and with a rating system, can then anonymously trash review the cache and knock down the stats. Somebody else can go in and up talk the review to up the stats. As said before, a submission is going to be very subjective. What I like, my wife currently hates because she can't hike as well or as far. The caches she would go after would leave me going ho hum. It's happend on other rating systems, and it can easily happen here. A cache rating system will give you a false sense of reliability and you will quickly learn to ignore it.

 

As a fer instance... When I research a product, I don't ever go by the rating alone. I go and read the reviews of the people that rated the product. I found that easily 10% of the reviews were pure carp and uninformative. I also found I tend to disagree with another 10% on their version of convenience , ease of use, and reliability or were simply unrealistic in expectations. So now a full 20% of that rating system has just gone down the drain and can easily change from a bad rating to a good rating in a simple click of the mouse.

 

I have seen products and services receive a blisteringly bad review, followed by a half dozen 5 star one liner reviews to negate the bad one. I call these review wars and it made the rating system completely useless.

 

It's just too easy to abuse and disinform. Logs are more informative to the personality of the finder as well as to the quality of the find. If you can, go paperless and at least download the logs to your PDA with the cache description. More intelligent decisions can quickly be made on the spot than a rating system can provide.

Edited February 6, 2008 by TotemLake

[+proimion]

Why not do a simple rating like Amazon does, where someone can rate a cache 1-5 stars when they are logging their find? Sure, there are lots of problems with this and it is never statistically accurate (due to self-selection). But I can tell you that if I am travelling and have time for 1 or 2 caches on a break, I would pay attention to a cache that had high ratings. The high rating doesn't mean it will be my favorite cache, but it would help. People who don't like this could simply ignore rating when building their PQs.

[+TotemLake]

Why not do a simple rating like Amazon does, where someone can rate a cache 1-5 stars when they are logging their find? Sure, there are lots of problems with this and it is never statistically accurate (due to self-selection). But I can tell you that if I am travelling and have time for 1 or 2 caches on a break, I would pay attention to a cache that had high ratings. The high rating doesn't mean it will be my favorite cache, but it would help. People who don't like this could simply ignore rating when building their PQs.

So let me present this to you... Let's assume you don't like LPCs. There are several parking lot LPCs that have 5 stars because the half dozen finders like looking for that kind of cache and posted it as a great cache to find and they come up first in the area local to where you are at. You still get a cloudy picture of what is there, getting in the way of the types of caches you might actually like and you will still end up reading the logs as reviews; or at the very least, will end up reading the cache description. I guarantaee within the first 6-12 months of implementation, it will be a useless and used less feature because of that subjectivity.

 

You would be better off with a system that said if this cache interests you, these other caches were viewed by people that also viewed this cache and give a list of the top 5 viewed.

[+proimion]

You still get a cloudy picture of what is there, getting in the way of the types of caches you might actually like and you will still end up reading the logs as reviews; or at the very least, will end up reading the cache description.

 

No, it would be much less cloudy. It seems to work well for amazon, in part becuase I also get more specific with the query. I don't ask to see all the books and then pick those that have 5 stars. I would use more PQ features and narrow the list through the myriad of choices. Then I could sort them by rating in GSAK. Yes, I'm still going to read a few logs and look at the Google satellite view in GSAK (where I'll notice it is in a parking lot). The rating, however, will simply mean I won't have to kiss as many frogs to get to my prince. No offense, signal. ( --> none taken)

 

I know it won't be perfect, but it does HELP. That's why it is done for books, movies, restaurants, hotels, and just about every other plentiful commodity. A rating does't tell you where to go, but it certainly does help you organize your research.

[+baloo&bd]

Is something wrong with our current rating system?

[+Markwell]

Currently, there's no way to tell.

how do I choose?

Is there a cache that others are talking about that would be a good one for me to hit

Is there one that's beyond that 25 mile radius that would be a great one to hit?

Edited February 6, 2008 by Markwell

[+seldom|seen]

I think everyone is missing my point to one degree or another.

 

Cache of the Month Systems already exist. They are not as impartial as they could be because of the nomination process. Very few cachers take the time to post nominations and those who subsequently vote on them, I think, are motivated by more that just the fact that they remember them being great caches.

 

Certainly a rating system will be open to all the forms of trickery and deciet out there. I also get the potential for abuse. I think, however, that the volume of cachers with honest and positive reviews, even if it's 80%, would be sufficient to withstand a poor rankings by the other questionable 20%

 

Also, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about the reliability of ranking systems as some of it must surely depend on the subject matter. For my part, I have met and corresponded with a hundred cachers plus and don't know of a single one that would post a maliceous ranking. Apparently, I should recognize 20 of them that would. Perhaps I'm naiive.

 

As I said previously, maybe its' not a ranking system but another set of attributes that defines some new catagories like, "urban camo", "unique container", "super-hard hide", but then these too are subject to abuse just as the current attributes are.

 

I'm going to be quiet now and patiently wait for the new rewards system to come out and hope that a few of the things I have said here have been heard.

[+SriSoKoSu]

I really like the idea of having a rating system. Is this going to be a perfect system ? definitely not ! Could it be abused ? Sure can ! But is it better to have one than not ? Absolutely !

 

Just like any rating system, if someone depends on the rating alone to decide which caches to go after, they will get what they deserve. But for others, who will use the rating system as just a guidance, and read logs, description and other things to make a final decision - it could be immensely helpful.

[+Kit Fox]

I think everyone is missing my point to one degree or another.

 

Cache of the Month Systems already exist. They are not as impartial as they could be because of the nomination process. Very few cachers take the time to post nominations and those who subsequently vote on them, I think, are motivated by more that just the fact that they remember them being great caches.

 

Certainly a rating system will be open to all the forms of trickery and deciet out there. I also get the potential for abuse. I think, however, that the volume of cachers with honest and positive reviews, even if it's 80%, would be sufficient to withstand a poor rankings by the other questionable 20%

 

Also, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about the reliability of ranking systems as some of it must surely depend on the subject matter. For my part, I have met and corresponded with a hundred cachers plus and don't know of a single one that would post a maliceous ranking. Apparently, I should recognize 20 of them that would. Perhaps I'm naiive.

 

As I said previously, maybe its' not a ranking system but another set of attributes that defines some new catagories like, "urban camo", "unique container", "super-hard hide", but then these too are subject to abuse just as the current attributes are.

 

I'm going to be quiet now and patiently wait for the new rewards system to come out and hope that a few of the things I have said here have been heard.

 

You can always start by reading the Prior 3 pages worth of Cache rating threads. Every aspect of this system has been discussed ad naseum.

 

A better system is to look for caches that have bookmarks like (geocacher A's favorite finds) You'll notice that the best caches have multiple positive bookmarks.

[+Team Black-Cat]

Sure there are reams of previous threads on this subject, but posting in a four year old dead thread is often considered bad form.

 

My opinion on any cache rateing system is that it needs to be OPT IN. That would be the only way I could ignore it. Otherwise, the local cliques will skew the numbers and make the whole system nearly useless.

I would find it hard to rate a friends newest hide less than a 3 even on a lame hide. I wouldn't have a problem giveing a 1 to a cache from someone I don't know (probably a new cacher). Since the majority tends to keep the statis quo, after the locals set the initial rating, that's what that cache will be for quite a while.