Log Your Visit *AND* Review This Cache!

[+infiniteMPG]

Many topics have been bounced around the forums about the quality of hides, owner maintenance issues, logging issues, guardrail caches, micros, nanos and preferences as to what people want to seek, and other things that appear could be addressed with the addition of a method for cachers themselves to review or rate the caches they visited. For this example I considered five review topics that a cacher who found a cache could review the cache on : Hide Location, Creativity, Kid Friendly, Listing Accuracy and Overall Experience and all ranked from 1-Poor to 5-Outstanding.

 

If these were added to the log your visit page it could be accomplished with only a few additional mouse clicks. The page might look something like this :

 

 

Then the main cache listing page would show an average of the rankings that the cachers gave the cache. If someone didn't select a category it wouldn't average in a zero, it just wouldn't include it. This way you wouldn't just have the cache owner's description to decide if this is a cache you'd like to seek. And things like "kid friendly" wouldn't be based on just the owner's interpretation and attribute icon, which is a very important item to the ever growing number of families caching together.

 

These items could be included in the PQ page so someone could search for 100 caches they haven't found, within 50 miles of a certain zip code, that had a creativity average above 3 and a kid friendly average above 4 and where people had an overall experience average above 4. Whatever they wanted.

 

This would accomplish several things, one of which is it would entice a cache owner to try to make his hide as good an experience as possible. Caches that people praise about being great experiences could be searched for just as much as ones that people complain about being lame could be avoided. This might clear out some dead wood, too. The overall quality of hides would improve. People with kids could use that in their searches and make their kid's experience more fun.

 

Obviously the categories to rate a cache are totally open for debate but this would do a lot to make the geocaching experience a better one for newbies as well as the seasoned pros. And when people want to reward a cache for being best in a certain area or whatever, it could be determined from the ratings rather then on a small handful of people who nominate or vote at some separate site somewhere. And since a single cacher only has a single input the occasionally vindictive temper tantrum would get averaged out of the picture. And people could edit this as easily as editing their log so if they made an error or if conditions changed they could change their rating.

 

My 2-cents and I'm sticking to it.

[+admo1972]

I love the idea of a voluntary rating system. Personally, I like to get every cache I can. Even "bad" caches, if only for a conversation that goes like this:

 

cacher 1: "Hey, did you grab that junky cache called "Horrible nano in the sewage pile?"

cacher 2: "Yeah, that was the worst ever!"

Laughter all around.

 

So, I wouldn't use it too much for my local caches, but it could be very useful when traveling. I'd love to filter out the "normal" caches and go for those that are the "best" with my limited time. Of course, there will always be ones I'd love that get filtered out, and ones that others love more that I'd rather skip, but it would be on great resourse as a starting point when planning caches when traveling.

 

I guess I would also use the kids attribute if I plan on bringing my son out with me, so that could be useful. I hope to see a rating system in some way soon, I just worry that it may discourage new cache placers (of which I am placing my first now) from placing caches.

[+Kryten]

If you could guarantee an honest contribution from everybody then I would support it. Unfortunately when this has been tried before the results were quickly skewed as those with an agenda praised certain caches and defamed others irrespective of actial cache quality. Before claiming that we are all honest just consider how quickly the contents of a newly alced cache degrade to the norm after all the honest people have "traded even or up".

[+Beaverbeliever]

This has been brought up before, and never implememted to the Geocaching Website.

 

I would vote yes on this tool.

[+Prime Suspect]

First off, congrats on being the 100th person to suggest this in the forums. There may be a prize involved. Check into it.

 

And since a single cacher only has a single input the occasionally vindictive temper tantrum would get averaged out of the picture.

You're forgetting the owner would have no difficulty in determining exactly how the first few people voted. It's kind of hard to anonymize that "poor" vote, when only 1 person has logged it. And since you know exactly how the first person voted, it's elementary math to figure out #2, etc.

[+NetworkCacher]

First off, congrats on being the 100th person to suggest this in the forums. There may be a prize involved. Check into it.

 

And since a single cacher only has a single input the occasionally vindictive temper tantrum would get averaged out of the picture.

You're forgetting the owner would have no difficulty in determining exactly how the first few people voted. It's kind of hard to anonymize that "poor" vote, when only 1 person has logged it. And since you know exactly how the first person voted, it's elementary math to figure out #2, etc.

 

It could be programmed to only show a rating after five or ten rated finds. That would help mask some of the first ratings.

[+seldom|seen]

First off, congrats on being the 100th person to suggest this in the forums. There may be a prize involved. Check into it.

 

Seems to me the mere fact that this has been brought up a hundred times, suggests a strong desire by the cache community and more specifically those that are committed enough to contribute ideas in the forums, to get a rating system in place. After my own long-winded thread about the concept and getting beat down by all of the Pirhanas who make snide comments like the one above, I let my own attempt to push the idea lie, content to see what comes of the "rewards" system. A rating process that's being worked on to accomplish some form of this query refinement tool.

 

Maybe by the time the topic is brought up the 200th or 300th time, somebody will start listening....

 

Now, all you naysayers, please add you snide remarks here...

Edited February 29, 2008 by seldom|seen

[+mtn-man]

Now, all you naysayers, please add you snide remarks here...

Or not. Thanks. There have been enough snide remarks already.

 

And, for what it's worth, someone is listening...

We're working on two things that aren't rating systems, per se:

 

1. A recommendations engine. You say what caches you like and it shows you other caches you might like based on the preferences of users similar to you. This rating is not shared.

2. A way to compliment geocachers when they hide good caches. It will allow individuals, most likely premium members, the ability to say "this hider hides very good caches" or "this cacher makes very good puzzles" or whatever. From there you can seek caches where the hiders have high compliements.

 

Addition to that is the idea where people can designate certain caches as their favorites. This has been a long discussed option but I've been partial to the two options above before adding this idea.

 

I do agree that a 1-5 rating system will do more harm than good. People do play this in different ways and have different definitions of "fun." Option #1 will try and make sure that you find the cache listings that would potentially interest you. You can then return and rate the ones you didn't like to make for better recommendations in the future.

[+infiniteMPG]

If you could guarantee an honest contribution from everybody then I would support it. Unfortunately when this has been tried before the results were quickly skewed as those with an agenda praised certain caches and defamed others irrespective of actial cache quality. Before claiming that we are all honest just consider how quickly the contents of a newly alced cache degrade to the norm after all the honest people have "traded even or up".

Was thinking about that as I have seen some vendictive actions by some cachers but since a single cacher only has a single say-so, it would be filtered into the mix and diluted. If you had 2 people visit a great cache and it was rated great "5" but one and "1" by the other for spite, the cache would have a rating of "2.5". But if it was truly a great cache and there were 20 people visiting and only that one person rated it a "1" then the cache would have a "4.8" rating. That occasionaly skewed vote would fade into the dust.

 

And just the same as the log entries, once they are entered they are the property of the cache owner and as the guidelines state, if it was out of line and done for spite, the owner can delete it (and the rating along with it). Then you might get owners that delete all logs with negative ratings but you will have some sour apples regardless of how much you plan and they will shake out in the wash.

 

I see the same thing on Ebay with the feedback. Like I had one guy refused to pay for something he bought and then he turned around and left ME negative feedback. All I could do is rebut it but the negative mark sticks. That's a risk you have but all in all it works, just like the feedback system on Ebay.

[+infiniteMPG]

It could be programmed to only show a rating after five or ten rated finds. That would help mask some of the first ratings.

You could also do things like they do for judges in the Olympics, toss out the highest and the lowest and average the rest. I like the thing about not showing a rating until after X amount of entries.

[+Renegade Knight]

The simple rating system (Yes I liked, No I didn't) and the Netflix Style system would both work. Others get to complex to allow useful information for the seeker. All would have to be implemented on the cache page.

[+infiniteMPG]

Seems to me the mere fact that this has been brought up a hundred times, suggests a strong desire by the cache community and more specifically those that are committed enough to contribute ideas in the forums, to get a rating system in place.

Agreed. If something is brought up enough then maybe it is worth investigating.

 

After my own long-winded thread about the concept and getting beat down by all of the Pirhanas who make snide comments like the one above, I let my own attempt to push the idea lie, content to see what comes of the "rewards" system. A rating process that's being worked on to accomplish some form of this query refinement tool.

I have seen posts about the reward system and although I like the idea, I don't think that would give your average Joe cacher an idea of how to find caches he wants to seek or if a cache on his radar is what he thinks. The review system is used in some form or another for Ebay sellers & buyers, for hotels, restaurants, cameras, TV's, repair shops, parks, trails, GPSr's and just about everything and there's a reason for that. In many cases people would like to hear what other people think of something rather then what the owner/seller/manufacturer says. You get the occasional whiner screaming sour grapes but those review/rating things are everywhere... because they work.

 

Maybe by the time the topic is brought up the 200th or 300th time, somebody will start listening....

I can start another thread

 

Now, all you naysayers, please add you snide remarks here...

Uhhhh, does this mean there's no prize? I was hoping they'd throw that in with my "Stepped On Most Snakes While Staring At GPSr While Hiking" award...

[+infiniteMPG]

The simple rating system (Yes I liked, No I didn't) and the Netflix Style system would both work. Others get to complex to allow useful information for the seeker. All would have to be implemented on the cache page.

Anything beats nothing so even that would work... simple is good, but if you can squeeze a little more out of it, that would be nice, too. I just don't want a system that points to 3 caches out of 3,000 in an area and says "These are Award Winners"... that doesn't help you with the other 2,997 caches...

[+Renegade Knight]

The simple rating system (Yes I liked, No I didn't) and the Netflix Style system would both work. Others get to complex to allow useful information for the seeker. All would have to be implemented on the cache page.

Anything beats nothing so even that would work... simple is good, but if you can squeeze a little more out of it, that would be nice, too. I just don't want a system that points to 3 caches out of 3,000 in an area and says "These are Award Winners"... that doesn't help you with the other 2,997 caches...

The problem with middle ground is the differing tastes. If I'm in the mood for a Park N Bag cache, then I'd want to look up a good one. Park N Bag Specialists won't rate "Technical Hides" well. Those who like hikes won't rate the Park N Bag's well and so on. By the time you split out all the info to make all the info useful for all the different kinds of cachers and interests it's too cumbersome of a system to get anyone to actually use it.

[+tozainamboku]

Seems to me the mere fact that this has been brought up a hundred times, suggests a strong desire by the cache community and more specifically those that are committed enough to contribute ideas in the forums, to get a rating system in place.

Agreed. If something is brought up enough then maybe it is worth investigating.

The idea has been brought up so many time because the current capabilities to search for caches you might enjoy more are woeful. If you like finding big caches on hikes you can search for regular and large caches with a certain terrain. But other than that you'd be hard pressed to get a list of caches you would find a bit better. A simple overall rating system is of use to no one. What the OP has proposed here is marginally better because it rates on several attributes individually. If you could pick a set of attributes that were useful to a large number of people you might get something useful. But it would be hard to determine what the attributes are. If you have too many attribute people would not take the time to rate the cache, or they might only rate the attributes that are important to them. The OP has talked a lot about the kid friendly attribute. For some who doesn't cache with kids the attribute will not be worth filling in (or they may not feel qualified). This means you'll have ratings base on a very small sample. That certainly would leave them open to being skewed. I don't find the list of attributes the OP gives as particularly a useful set. I would personally prefer a rating that was more neutral than attributes that can be given a rank from poor to outstanding. For example I might have

location: 1 = most urban to 5 = most natural

distance: 1 = park and grab to 5 = strenuous hike or or physical effort

muggles: 1 = no muggles to 5 = many muggles

 

But I think there are better systems that have been proposed that are simpler to use than having rate a bunch of attributes.

 

If you are simply looking for a few recommended caches, some kind of awards system can point these out. We already have something like this with bookmark lists. Some cachers keep a list of their favorite caches. These are often public so they show up on the cache page. If you find a cache you enjoyed and its on someone else's public favorites list you can look at the other caches on the list. In one (or more) of the 100 times a rating system has been suggested, Markwell proposed a system that would look for caches that appear on the favorites list of several cachers. These would be "highly recommended" caches. Markwell proposed displaying a blue ribbon or other symbol on the search pages to show the "highly recommended" caches. Perhaps premium members could run a PQ to find nearby highly recommended caches. I suspect that the awards system that Jeremy is planning would work something like this. Something like this could also be used to award attributes to caches based on the community input. For example cachers could keep bookmark lists of "Kid Friendly" caches. The system could award a Kid Friendly attribute to caches that appear on several kid friendly lists independent from the owner Kid Friendly attribute.

 

If you are looking for recommendations for caches that is customize particularly for you and perhaps even to hide caches you would like to avoid, a Netflix type recommendation would not be hard to implement. Because some caches get very few visits this might not work as well as Netflix (even those esoteric documentaries and art films still get rated by hundreds of people). This would involve rating each cache with a single overall rating of how much you enjoyed it. The system would look for other cachers that have similar ratings as you for the caches you've found in common and then create a list of other caches these cachers liked.

[+seldom|seen]

A couple more personal thoughts as I agree with the anything would help mentality.

 

I like creative hides and that attribute would be nice to rank. For seasoned cachers who find themselves ranging far and wide this attribute would certainly be a plus. If you are hundreds of miles from home and have a day to do some caching in a place you will likely never visit again, (I am sure this happens more often than not), you might like to know where there are 50 caches with a 4 star or better ranking in a 60 mile radius rather than look for the nearest 50 caches, 75% of which might be forgettable.

 

I think it's all about getting good quality caches in the field and keeping the simple forgettable ones to a minimum. Now, you say, what is a quality cache if all I like to do is find park and grabs to get numbers? Well, if that's what trips your trigger, you just ignore the cache ranking and do your nearest 50 caches.

 

The second point. The reason I got into and am following this discussion is the whole Cache of the Month, Cache of the Year nomination system which, at least in this state, does not draw out the best and the brightest caches. Certainly, some great caches get nominated and win, but others that are run-of-the-mill do as well. The biggest problem is that the system relies on many finds on a cache to be popular enough to be voted on.

 

If you think about it, what caches get the most visits and finds? Simple ones. And what caches get very few visits and finds? Complex and very well hidden ones. There are many fantastic puzzles out there that only have a few visits and may never get more than a dozen finds. Does that mean they don't deserve recognition because they are, by their very nature, not going to get enough visits to win a nomination?

 

If a ranking system were in place and the top 20 ranked caches, say with at least 5 find logs, were pulled and voted on every month, more recognition would get bestowed on the best and brightest ones out there. This in turn leads others to create better caches and (I think) the quality of caches placed increases.

[+Glenn]

The comment box can be used for anything you like. I've never seen anyone use that spot to give cache ratings even tho it would an excellent place to do so. I'm sure if someone would dig hard enough they could up with some example of someone rating caches but it is far from a common practice.

 

It isn't all hard to log something like...

 

The family and I really enjoyed this caches and the view was great.

Hide Location: 5

Creativity: 2

Kid Friendly: 3

Listing Accuracy: 5

Overall Experiance : 5

 

I just don't see it happening because there is little or no demand for it. However if Groundspeak did start seeing ratings in a majority of logs I am sure they would implement a rating system. So why not develop a rating system and encourage other geocachers to use it in their logs.

[+The Leprechauns]

I don't like the five rating factors suggested in the OP, nor the idea of making ratings mandatory.

 

"Kid Friendly" -- not everyone caches with kids. I do, sometimes. Why is this more important than "Dog Friendly?" Both of those are attributes. The issue could be handled under "Accuracy of Listing."

 

"Creativity" -- a cache in a spectacular location, or at the end of a long hike, doesn't need to be creative in order to make my "Favorites" list. An example is a lamp post cache, placed in the only logical hiding spot near a historic memorial of national significance. It took that lamp post cache to get me to visit that spot, despite living just an hour away from it since the 1980's.

 

I do like "Accuracy of Listing" and "Overall Experience" and "Hide Location." But even then, I've found some spectacular caches with minimal cache descriptions full of typos, and I've been on some evil, entertaining cache hunts that took me to boring locations. It really comes down to "Overall Experience."

 

When a cache provides one of the best "Overall Experiences" I've had, for whatever reason or combination of reasons, then it makes my Top 5% list (see link in forum signature). There are long hikes, evil micros, challenging multi's and puzzles. All there for different reasons.

 

Therefore, I would like a rating system to be based upon how many Favorites Lists a cache appears on. Geocachers would be allowed to place up to 5%, or 10%, of all their finds onto their Favorites List. This would be specially coded to factor into the rating system, or even just a line that displays "This cache appears on 8 Favorites Lists." The Favorites List total should be a filter in pocket queries.

[+DanOCan]

"Kid Friendly" -- not everyone caches with kids. I do, sometimes. Why is this more important than "Dog Friendly?" Both of those are attributes. The issue could be handled under "Accuracy of Listing."

 

"Creativity" -- a cache in a spectacular location, or at the end of a long hike, doesn't need to be creative in order to make my "Favorites" list. An example is a lamp post cache, placed in the only logical hiding spot near a historic memorial of national significance. It took that lamp post cache to get me to visit that spot, despite living just an hour away from it since the 1980's.

 

I agree with both of these points. My first thought when I saw the proposed rating system in the OP was "I have no idea how to rate a kid-friendly cache because I don't cache with kids." Do kids appreciate a good location or are they just about the swag? Is a cache that is enjoyed by a ten year-old going to be the same experience for a 5 year-old? I have no clue.

 

I also concur on the Creativity thing. Many of the caches on my personal "Best caches" list are not creative, just a cache container under some sticks but the location makes them memorable to me. Should they be rated poorly because creativity is lacking?

 

I think stick with the overall experience rating and go from there.

[+Trucker Lee]

 

Seems to me the mere fact that this has been brought up a hundred times, suggests a strong desire by the cache community and more specifically those that are committed enough to contribute ideas in the forums, to get a rating system in place. ........

 

Now, all you naysayers, please add you snide remarks here...

 

There is already a rating system in place, it is called "THE LOG". Perhaps only a new concept to the "cut and paste" crowd, a few words describing the experience of finding the cache and the enjoyment of doing so is the purpose. When writing a log, you may wish to totally take the honest approach and tell of the joy in finding an ammo can filled with ice cream after a ten mile hike in 100 degree heat, or the snide approach in describing the joy of finally locating a nano attached to the back of a dumpster in the 'hood in the same 100 degree heat. And don't forget to describe the relief you felt when the soccer mom on the phone missed your tushy while you were bent over the guardrail in the sleet.

 

Sharing your experience is the best rating system there is. Being creative can sometimes be a bigger challenge than finding the cache, and can be more rewarding than filling in buttons on the log page. We have a perfect rating system in place, perhaps it should be taken advantage of more often.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't like the five rating factors suggested in the OP, nor the idea of making ratings mandatory.

 

"Kid Friendly" -- not everyone caches with kids. I do, sometimes. Why is this more important than "Dog Friendly?" Both of those are attributes. The issue could be handled under "Accuracy of Listing."

 

"Creativity" -- a cache in a spectacular location, or at the end of a long hike, doesn't need to be creative in order to make my "Favorites" list. An example is a lamp post cache, placed in the only logical hiding spot near a historic memorial of national significance. It took that lamp post cache to get me to visit that spot, despite living just an hour away from it since the 1980's.

 

I do like "Accuracy of Listing" and "Overall Experience" and "Hide Location." But even then, I've found some spectacular caches with minimal cache descriptions full of typos, and I've been on some evil, entertaining cache hunts that took me to boring locations. It really comes down to "Overall Experience."

 

When a cache provides one of the best "Overall Experiences" I've had, for whatever reason or combination of reasons, then it makes my Top 5% list (see link in forum signature). There are long hikes, evil micros, challenging multi's and puzzles. All there for different reasons.

 

Therefore, I would like a rating system to be based upon how many Favorites Lists a cache appears on. Geocachers would be allowed to place up to 5%, or 10%, of all their finds onto their Favorites List. This would be specially coded to factor into the rating system, or even just a line that displays "This cache appears on 8 Favorites Lists." The Favorites List total should be a filter in pocket queries.

Kid Friendly wouldn't be too bad an attribute to rate so long as I was told what this really means. I suspect that kid friendly is really a combination of attributes:

 

How safe would your kids be at the caches? Dangers include things like muggles (though muggles at a playground or similar location may actually mean more eyes to watch that your kid doesn't get hurt), traffic, dangerous terrain, etc.

 

How difficult is it to get to? May only apply to younger children who would be unable to walk to a cache on difficult or distant hike.

 

How good is the swag? Some people who cache with kids say that the trading is important. It may be hard to rate swag, since overtime we all know that swag may degrade.

 

How difficult is the cache to find? Would the child get bored or frustrated if it took too long to find the cache?

 

Are there other things to interests children near the cache?

 

So a good/bad kid friendly rating could mean very different things depending on the cache.

 

Creativity would likewise be OK to rate if I was told what creative means.

 

Is the cache an unusual hide? Of course once upon a time a lamppost cache was unusual; a new technique may soon become common, especially if it works well at protecting the cache from being muggled. Sometimes "unusual" hides are pushing the envelop on the guidelines - buried caches or ones that have modified existing objects to provide a hiding space. I like to find these but should we really promote techniques that Groundspeak has explicitly called out as ones to avoid in the guidelines?

 

Is it an unusual container? Most people make a comment the first time they find a nano cache of some sort that they never though a cache would be that small. Many unusual containers don't hold up well, contents are often wet. On the other had usual containers like ammo cans and better quality plastic storage containers work well.

 

Did the person spend a lot of time on the camouflage? I actually would give points to people that did a lousy camo job just for effort. Only because I see so much where the person didn't even bother to cover up the military marking on a ammo can or leave a plain container. For me, any effort is better than none. Other people may prefer to rate a cache higher because the cammo was effective. Caches that are hidden (like under a lamppost skirt) may not need any camo. How are these rated?

 

I don't much care for using a rating for accuracy of listing. Would this be used because someone thinks the cache owner left out parking coordinates or some attribute? Would it be used to indicate you didn't agree with the terrain or difficulty ratings? What happens to 'liars' caches where the owner is being intentionally deceptive about the cache for one reason or the other? Perhaps we need a way to report real problems with the listing. In many cases you simply need to drop a note to the cache owner mentioning the terrain/difficulty need to be adjusted or coordinates corrected. Usually I will mention problems in my log. Sometimes the cache owner will fix them. I suppose a few cache owners might delete your log if you point out that his Kid Friendly cache isn't really Kid Friendly. I'm not sure the best way to handle this. One suggestion (for premium members) is to create a public bookmark list of "Wrong attributes" caches. If the person fixes the attribute you can remove the cache from the list. A more friendly way would to have a public bookmark list of Kid Friendly caches. If someone agrees with your definition they would find caches from your list.

 

Rating of hide location is meaningless. For some people location means convenience, for others a nice hike, and other want to visit places with historic significance. This is like asking to rate the "Wow" of a cache. Other attributes - urban vs. nature, crowded vs. solitude, easy to get to vs. difficult - would be more useful.

 

Overall Experience is also like Wow. However if you look for caches that have many people saying this was one of their favorite caches, I would guess that you would greatly increase the odds that you you will like this and that it won't be the same as all the other caches around.

Edited March 1, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

Now, all you naysayers, please add you snide remarks here...

Or not. Thanks. There have been enough snide remarks already.

 

And, for what it's worth, someone is listening...

We're working on two things that aren't rating systems, per se:

 

1. A recommendations engine. You say what caches you like and it shows you other caches you might like based on the preferences of users similar to you. This rating is not shared.

2. A way to compliment geocachers when they hide good caches. It will allow individuals, most likely premium members, the ability to say "this hider hides very good caches" or "this cacher makes very good puzzles" or whatever. From there you can seek caches where the hiders have high compliements.

 

Addition to that is the idea where people can designate certain caches as their favorites. This has been a long discussed option but I've been partial to the two options above before adding this idea.

 

I do agree that a 1-5 rating system will do more harm than good. People do play this in different ways and have different definitions of "fun." Option #1 will try and make sure that you find the cache listings that would potentially interest you. You can then return and rate the ones you didn't like to make for better recommendations in the future.

Thanks for sharing that again. I'm happy to see that they will be adding some ways to allow us to sift through thousands of caches to find the ones that we prefer. I really like the first idea but the second idea has some cons IMHO. I like acknowledging cachers but I am thinking that someone that has had an epiphany and is now hiding some awesome caches will get overlooked because of their past caches. Either that or their earlier caches that weren't so hot will get recommended because of a few great ones they have recently hidden. One other possibility is that people will vote for their friends no matter what they have hidden. That's I prefer acknowledging the cache, which also acknowledges the cacher that hid it.

[+sTeamTraen]

In the Netherlands (on their local site, geocaching.nl) they have an awards system. You get three votes when you've found 60 caches and another for each cache after that. You can give your vote to any cache you like.

 

For any system to work, it has to be "positive only". Unfortunately, people who want to vote that a cache is terrible because they don't like the owner, go round in packs in some areas. And it's easy to create sock puppets for extra votes (unless this is to be a PM feature).

Edited March 2, 2008 by sTeamTraen

[+StarBrand]

Because of the wide variety of what we like and don't like and how we would all bias the rating with our own opinions of what they mean - I tend to think virtually all caches would be rated between 3 or 4 average. Thus we would have no more information then we do currently. Not such a good system.

[+baloo&bd]

Current rating system seems to still be working. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

[+sbell111]

First off, congrats on being the 100th person to suggest this in the forums. There may be a prize involved. Check into it.

 

And since a single cacher only has a single input the occasionally vindictive temper tantrum would get averaged out of the picture.

You're forgetting the owner would have no difficulty in determining exactly how the first few people voted. It's kind of hard to anonymize that "poor" vote, when only 1 person has logged it. And since you know exactly how the first person voted, it's elementary math to figure out #2, etc.

That's a very good point. Even if it's finder #50, if the rating dropped, the owner will know who rated it low.

[WashoeZephyr]

Please don't throw stuff at me if this has been brought up before . Yesterday I scored a cache and it was the first time I had seen this. On the cache page there is this link I thought it was pretty cool.

On the other hand, I think an overall rating system for each cache would cause a lot of grief. There are too many trolls, micro haters, and some animocity between certain cachers out there where I think it would create more problems than it's worth.

[+infiniteMPG]

The problem with middle ground is the differing tastes. If I'm in the mood for a Park N Bag cache, then I'd want to look up a good one. Park N Bag Specialists won't rate "Technical Hides" well. Those who like hikes won't rate the Park N Bag's well and so on. By the time you split out all the info to make all the info useful for all the different kinds of cachers and interests it's too cumbersome of a system to get anyone to actually use it.

I would hope that people who rate the caches on their merits for what is being asked. But I think that skewing facet would and does occur with all rating systems but any rating system beats no rating system still...

[+whistler & co.]

I am consistently amazed that so many cachers live in areas where they have the luxury of picking and choosing caches to visit simply based on the quality of the hide. Where I live, if someone tosses a keyholder on a guardrail and it's less than a 30 mile drive from my home coordinates, then I'm thrilled because I got to find a new cache.

 

Edit for spelling.

Edited March 3, 2008 by whistler & co.

[+infiniteMPG]

If you like finding big caches on hikes you can search for regular and large caches with a certain terrain.

One of the problems with this is that the only info you have for difficulty or terrain are what the cache owner thought it should be. An able bodied cacher might look at a trek across rough terrain with lots of footing spots and no need for special gear as a 2 while a couch spud who decided to put down the remote and pick up a GPSr might look at it as a 5. The attributes and ratings we have available have no input but the owner's. We have cached in an area and had similar caches rated massively different because of that single input fact. Having a way that cachers can provide input could help tremendously.

 

The OP has talked a lot about the kid friendly attribute. For some who doesn't cache with kids the attribute will not be worth filling in (or they may not feel qualified). This means you'll have ratings base on a very small sample. That certainly would leave them open to being skewed.

Without any cacher's input the sampling is as small as it could get... the owner by themselves. I think anyone who has kids could make a pretty fair assuption if a cache is kid friendly. But how can we ever expect valid data on that from a cache owner who doesn't have kids?

 

I don't find the list of attributes the OP gives as particularly a useful set.

Totally open for debate.

 

I would personally prefer a rating that was more neutral than attributes that can be given a rank from poor to outstanding. For example I might have location: 1 = most urban to 5 = most natural, distance: 1 = park and grab to 5 = strenuous hike or or physical effort, muggles: 1 = no muggles to 5 = many muggles

Kind of funny you bring up muggles, I did maintenace on a stage of a multi yesterday that required 5 miles of rough mountain biking (one way) and while I was there, an SUV comes pulling up. Land maintenance guy... who'd of thunk I'd worry about muggles out there

 

If you are simply looking for a few recommended caches, some kind of awards system can point these out.

I'd be looking as much for avoiding lame caches as finding great ones.

 

We already have something like this with bookmark lists.

But unless I missed something you can't run a PQ on a bookmark list.

 

Some cachers keep a list of their favorite caches. These are often public so they show up on the cache page. If you find a cache you enjoyed and its on someone else's public favorites list you can look at the other caches on the list. In one (or more) of the 100 times a rating system has been suggested, Markwell proposed a system that would look for caches that appear on the favorites list of several cachers. These would be "highly recommended" caches. Markwell proposed displaying a blue ribbon or other symbol on the search pages to show the "highly recommended" caches. Perhaps premium members could run a PQ to find nearby highly recommended caches.

That sounds promising... but it's just as vulnerable to the skewing we spoke about. Someone who likes PAG's might put the quickest snags they can do without getting out of their car as their fav's. Several people like that would give those blue ribbons. When I visited the cache page I'd just see a blue ribbon and go "AWARD WINNER!" and hunt it even though I don't care too much for PAG's. Unless I took the time to investigate what other caches are on their list then I wouldn't know anything. And living in Florida we have a big vacationing population so people dropping into the area would have no use from a system that required them to visit some caches before they found something they liked so they could start checking bookmark lists.

 

If you are looking for recommendations for caches that is customize particularly for you and perhaps even to hide caches you would like to avoid, a Netflix type recommendation would not be hard to implement. Because some caches get very few visits this might not work as well as Netflix (even those esoteric documentaries and art films still get rated by hundreds of people). This would involve rating each cache with a single overall rating of how much you enjoyed it. The system would look for other cachers that have similar ratings as you for the caches you've found in common and then create a list of other caches these cachers liked.

Gotta start somewhere and if that's easy to impliment it's got my vote! I think cachers would accept a rating system with open arms as everyone would benifit from it. It could be added to the visit page so anyone who wanted to could re-edit some previous logs and rate the caches. Everyone wins!

[+infiniteMPG]

If a ranking system were in place and the top 20 ranked caches, say with at least 5 find logs, were pulled and voted on every month, more recognition would get bestowed on the best and brightest ones out there. This in turn leads others to create better caches and (I think) the quality of caches placed increases.

If I could stand and applaud in here I would... good statements. We have the FGA in Floirda and there were award winners for each region given last year. I do agree that the cache that won in my area is in my opinion the best. But other areas it was noted, didn't even get enough votes to grant a winner. If you're trying to pick winners on votes outside of the GC website then you get very skewed results (if any). A rating system incorporated INTO the GC site would be great and allow cacher input to the rating of each cache rather then the single source of cache info we have, the owner. Not knocking owners as I are one but what I think and what the first dozen or so finding it think might be night and day, and I would have no problem having the averaged opinion of the masses listed rather then just my own...

[+infiniteMPG]

Sharing your experience is the best rating system there is. Being creative can sometimes be a bigger challenge than finding the cache, and can be more rewarding than filling in buttons on the log page. We have a perfect rating system in place, perhaps it should be taken advantage of more often.

The logs are good but you can't PQ on log's contents and if you're visiting an area and have a day to spare, how long would it take to run thru the logs on the closest 300 caches to figure out what you might want to search for? You might spend the whole day only to find out the ones you really would of liked only had TFTH! listed in the last 20 logs.

[+infiniteMPG]

Kid Friendly wouldn't be too bad an attribute to rate so long as I was told what this really means.

I think a full explaination for each would be included with the help pages. Some things like overall rating would be subjective, but specific things like kid friendly could be pretty much defined as you mentioned.

[+infiniteMPG]

1. A recommendations engine. You say what caches you like and it shows you other caches you might like based on the preferences of users similar to you. This rating is not shared.

Just curious how you'd determine what other cachers would have preferences similar to one another? Would each cacher have to fill out some survey and add in their fav's? Sounds neat, just curious how this would happen. Sounds a little like GeoMatch.com

 

2. A way to compliment geocachers when they hide good caches. It will allow individuals, most likely premium members, the ability to say "this hider hides very good caches" or "this cacher makes very good puzzles" or whatever. From there you can seek caches where the hiders have high compliements.

I like this....!!!!

 

Addition to that is the idea where people can designate certain caches as their favorites. This has been a long discussed option but I've been partial to the two options above before adding this idea.

Other then having a bookmark list as your fav's, is there another way of doing this?

 

I do agree that a 1-5 rating system will do more harm than good. People do play this in different ways and have different definitions of "fun." Option #1 will try and make sure that you find the cache listings that would potentially interest you. You can then return and rate the ones you didn't like to make for better recommendations in the future.

I think you'd have just as tough a nut to crack trying to come up with a system to find similarities between cachers and getting valid favorites lists. If a cacher just moved to Florida from Minnesota, they might match my tastes in caches 100% but their favorites would be caches thousands of miles away. And if no one in my area with my tastes filled out the survey (or however the data would be collected) then I'd have absolutely no help refining the list of caches I'd want to seek.

[+infiniteMPG]

Because of the wide variety of what we like and don't like and how we would all bias the rating with our own opinions of what they mean - I tend to think virtually all caches would be rated between 3 or 4 average. Thus we would have no more information then we do currently. Not such a good system.

If the only thing we were rating was "how good was the cache?". I doubt all caches would fall in the medium range when you asked about things like creativity or kid friendly. I think you'd find just on those two counts a wide seperation between caches. You'd probably find more rated 1-2 or 4-5 and less rated in the 3 area.

[+infiniteMPG]

I like the rating system of the link shown http://www.ratethiscache.com, really professional and nicely scaled, but it's outside the GC website meaning it probably won't get used much. In fact the list is pretty short on there when you consider there's over half a million caches. And none on the list from Florida.... ::sigh:: The ratings they use are :

 

Overall Rating

Container Rating

Location Rating

Hide Rating

 

And all based on the 1-5 system. Works good enough for them to have an entire website based on it with caches from US, and other countries listed. Would be nice to have something like this tied inside the GC website.

 

Also a weighed system might be better such as this (and just using the creativity scale as an example) :

 

CREATIVITY RATING :

If a cacher has 1,000 finds and they rate a cache's creativity a 4, and another cacher has 10 finds and they rate it a 2, the rating would be set by weighing the experience with the vote.

1000 FINDS X 4 = 4000

10 FINDS X 2 = 20

----------------------------

RATING SUM TTL = 4020

DIVIDE BY WEIGHTED COUNT (1000 + 10) = 3.98

 

So even though someone rated the cache a 2, their lower find count only brought the rating of the cache down 0.02 points. You could tie into this experience level something like TTL FINDS + TTL HIDES or whatever you want to rank a cacher's experience level. But that way a cacher's experience would give them greater say so in the rating of a cache. Just an idea (I've got a million of 'em)